Talk:Maximilien Robespierre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

1

this does read as a bit of a misch-masch, in places too leneint to Robespierre, in other places too critical. One way and nother, not much balance. I have made a few changes to rry and even things out.--Dee-Dee 16:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• (cur) (last) . . 11:14, 3 Jan 2004 . . Jmabel (revert to last edit by Slawojarek; I will explain in talk page)
• (cur) (last) . . 11:09, 3 Jan 2004 . . 4.3.88.106
• (cur) (last) . . 02:40, 2 Jan 2004 . . Slawojarek (+pl)

The material deleted by 4.3.88.106 is arguably POV, but it's strong material and shouldn't just be deleted. I happen to think it's pretty good as it stands (it's from Britannica; this article hasn't been heavily reworked). If someone wants to dispute it as POV, I think that would be a discussion worth having, but anonymously deleting it seems to me to be way out of line.

-- Jmabel 19:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I think it is POV. But I also agree that there is some decent material in there to be worked with and it should not be deleted wholesale, especially since I believe it comes from an old Encyclopedia and not some TFP edit war fanatic. I have done some NPOV work like removing the adjective "notorious" to describe him and so forth. -- Lancemurdoch 19:38, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this article is seriously soft on Robespierre imo, and borders on historical revisionism. It seeks to exculpate him on a number of counts for which there is strong primary historical evidence to support and sustain his culpability. I will be giving it my due attention :) user:sjc

---

sjc: I agree with a lot of what you are doing in your edits, but I hope you won't mind my calling out a few things where I disagree. You deleted:

"Robespierre's private life was always respectable: he was always emphatically a gentleman and man of culture, and even a little bit of a dandy, scrupulously honest, truthful and charitable."

We might want to reword this, but his reputation as a bit of a dandy seems worth mentioning. I suppose there is enough elsewhere about his reputation as incorruptible, assuming you don't plan to diminish that.

Another edit strikes me as odd: "Danton and the men of action had throughout the last two years of the crisis, as Mirabeau had in the first two years, seen that the one great need of France..." Given that Mirabeau was the unquestioned spokesperson for a consensus view that started to break apart roughly with his death in April '91, the invocation of his name here seems appropriate to me. -- Jmabel 06:16, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Starting with your edit of 21:59, Jun 19, 2004, I begin to have more of an issue. It begins to look like you are presenting the case for the prosecution rather than writing an NPOV article. You seem to be removing all material that suggests that anyone other than Robespierre may be mainly responsible for the terror. I agree that much of this should not be in the narrative voice of the article, but it should be in the article. Lacking a better source to cite, it's perfectly OK to say, "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on Robespierre says/remarks/argues...", but this material should not simply be thrown away. -- Jmabel 06:20, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Also, if you are shortening a quotation (as you do with the speech on the condemnation of Louis XVI), you should insert ellipses to indicate the omissions. I assume this is uncontroversial. I take it you are still editing, & I don't want to try to edit while you edit, but please let me know whether you've gone back and done this one yourself or whether I should. -- Jmabel 06:25, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Points duly noted; (1.) the dandyism is something I intend to revisit later which is why I removed it since I am going to deal with under the subsidiary topic of Robespierre's self-image. This article is still undergoing surgery and there is a physical limit to the amount I can do or get my head around in one day :) (2) I will have a look at the tone of the article again; it is not my intention to propose the case that Robespierre was the author of the entirety of the Terror, nevertheless I would strongly contend that he carefully manouevred the inculpation of the Hebertists and the Dantonists, and that as his star rose in the Committee of Public Safety so inexorably did the death toll, no coincidence in my opinion, given my reading of supporting documentation, both primary and secondary. The 1911 Britannica article is a deeply flawed apology for Robespierre and should be handled with tongs. It contains a number of factual inexactitudes, and seeks to mitigate Robespierre's role within the Committee; the simple plain fact is that after Danton's execution it was his puppet, and the reason that Danton was removed was for Robespierre to model France in his personally warped vision. (3) The Mirabeau excision was made on the grounds that it was a reflective and somewhat digressionary comment; it might be important in an article on Mirabeau in 1791, but doesn't really lend a great deal to an understanding of Robespierre in 1793. user:sjc

1. I agree on inculpation of the Hebertists and the Dantonists.
2. Some defender of Robespierre should be quoted in the article, though not necessarily the EB. Maybe a separate section on how various historians have viewed him & try to get POV out of the rest of the article?
3. The Mirabeau thing was, what, about 6 words, adding a useful piece of information... - Jmabel 16:31, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally a propos the shortening of the quote, I merely split out and italicised the 1911 paragraph so that the quote was visible. Frankly, any quote by Robespierre would need ellipses since he had this marked propensity for elaborating 20 sentences where one would have sufficed. user:sjc

True enough. -- Jmabel 16:31, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I have found my contemporary source for Robespierre's dandyism: nay Robespierre, for one, would never once countenance that; but went always elegant and frizzled, not without vanity even [..] (Carlyle, The French Revolution, 3.6.iv). We can now move the evidence for this to a piece of documented and sourcable evidence. user:sjc

Fine by me. I've seen this mentioned by so many historians regardless of whether they were enemies or partisans. -- Jmabel 16:31, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

POV

The "summation" as it stands seems to be unalloyed POV. We need to find sources to quote on these matters (preferably representing diverse views on this controversial figure). -- Jmabel 05:46, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the stuff I have moved to the Summation section appears to be the only remotely objective part of the original 1911 EB text. Frankly you're right, but in the absence of anything else we have to live with it pro tem until I or someone else can articulate a coherent NPOV appraisal of Robespierre's role. He was certainly indecisive at key times, a political opprtunist par excellence, who failed at critical moments and who through fanatical motivations of his own drove much of the worst excesses of the Terror. But that is hardly NPOV either, clinically accurate thought it may be. I think the problem with history itself is that it is very difficult to be NPOV about it for all the obvious and well-worn reasons. But we have been there and done that as a topic of conversation more times than I care to recall. Sjc 12:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've now reworked this part (and renamed it to indicate that it is historians' views, rather than a "summation"). I'd like to see this expanded to be clear about multiple historians' views, but it's not my priority at the moment. I've been explicit about him being controversial. I hope eventually to expand on the remarks of Soboul or someone similar; I'd also like to get a good summary of what Schama or someone else on the right actually says about him.

Meanwhile, I've restored more of the 1911 EB text and made it clear that's what it is: the POV of a (public domain) source, quoted accurately and explicitly. The way to keep the POV neutral is not to put remarks like this in the narrative voice of the article. It's to quote them accurately and (at least eventually) try to find a balanced set of representative views and do the same with them. -- Jmabel 18:18, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that works very nicely. Still complete crap nevertheless :) Sjc 05:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

who shot M.R.?

An anon recently changed "...Robespierre was shot in the lower jaw by a young gendarme named Meda while signing an appeal to one of the sections of Paris to take up arms for him, though the wound was afterwards believed to have been inflicted by himself; and all the released deputies were once again arrested," to "The national guards under the command of Barras had little difficulty in making their way to the Hotel de Ville; In response Robespierre shot himself in the lower jaw and was later killed under the Guillotine. All the released deputies were once again arrested." A change like this, without comment, by an anonymous user is highly suspect. The old version follows the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, so I will restore it. If someone can provide an authoritative and more recent source contradicting the Britannica article, fine, but I can't think of a reason to accept this change without citiation. -- Jmabel 04:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think this one will be forever lost in the mists of history and confusion; there are any number of conflicting reports as to how Robespierre came by the injury to his jaw; probably the sensible thing is to flag this up as such. Sjc 06:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that covers the angles nicely, JMabel. Good work! Sjc 10:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reference: Stanley Loomis

I deleted the Stanley Loomis book from the reference because I feel that it's too sensational and not well-researched. It's certainly not a well-respected book among the academic circle. Although it's an entertaining read, I don't feel that it helps us to understand the complex situation at the time of th Terror. I don't think it offers much fresh ideas, and rather colorful descriptions such as "by [Maras'] compulsive, brusque and jerky walk, one recognised him as an assassin" makes me extremely uncomfortable. I might be biased against him because of my pro-Revolution bias. On the other hand, I don't agree with Simon Schama either, but I have much more respect for his carefully-researched work and indeed had learned a lot from him.

BTW, I'd also like to replace Thomas Carlyle's picturesque and less-than-accurate account with more recent academic books on the French Revolution, such as William Doyle's "The Oxford History of the French Revolution," or Peter McPhee's short but useful 2002 book "The French Revolution, 1789-1799." But neither of them focuses that much on Robespierre....--Middaythought 08:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Carlyle is not the most historically accurate source, but still, he's such a great read. I'd hate to drop him. (Loomis, I'm perfectly OK with losing.) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I prefer Michelet to Carlyle, but since Carlyle is available online I guess we should keep him. I've deleted the Loomis book since you have no objection, and added some intro about the books.--Middaythought 10:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

A bit tough to follow

Reading the article without much knowledge of the specific time frame, I had the feeling it was difficult to follow because a lot of People are introduced in a short order and only few are described as to what they did, etc. For someone who know King Louis XVI. and Napoleon and wants to fill in the holes, I find this article a bit difficult. Also there is absolutely no mention of Napoleon to give a person a sort of relation between that what was before and that what was after. One thing that also struck me as odd was the fact that the French Revolution wasn't mentioned in at least a small sentence and all the institutions weren't put into perspective as to which sort of function they had at the time they were created. --Ebralph 15:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

nobleman

hey everyone, since Robespierre here is named 'de robespierre' logically wouldn't he be a noble? same to 'de saint just' thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.99.50 (talk • contribs) 12 Sept 2005.

'Logic' and things pertaining to France are not always comfortable bedfellows :) Sjc 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

This article shows a clear bias and a clear Pro-Robbespierre overtone to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.186.70 (talk • contribs) 17 Nov 2005.

Then I suggest you read the original EB 1911 article on which this is based for the full and unexpurgated hagiography :). Having edited out a great deal of the pro-Robespierre bias, I would be grateful if you could clearly identify those areas which I have obviously overlooked or which do not meet your criteria, or, better yet, address them yourself. Sjc 05:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Anti-Robespierrean and Antiquated Biases

I found this article for the most part to be based on outmoded and biased information. In the case of so politically charged a figure as Robespierre, opinions ought not to be cited as facts. Thus, since the style of writing history was much more based on unqualified speculation than fact in 1911, the year when the encyclopedia article which this article is based on was published, I would recommend finding more recent articles to use in the writing of this article.

I would also recommend looking at the difference between the French wikipedia article on Robespierre (much more balanced and factual) and the English one, to see how Anglo-American biases have so infiltrated our culture that we no longer recognize them.

(Note: if anyone would like to read the French article but cannot read French, I would be happy to translate it.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montagnarde1794 (talk • contribs) 12 Jan 2006.

I am french, I have read the french article and it is a very poor article. Nothing about his career of lawyer, nothing about the 31 may and 2 june 1793 events, ...Claudeh5 le 24 juin 2006

Y'know, the funny thing is that not long ago it was pretty slanted in Robespierre's favor. Certainly the 1911 EB article is not overwhelmingly hostile to Robespierre, although they do use him as an object lesson in, to use their own words, "the fatal mistake of allowing a theorist to have power." (There is no really good copy online, but here's an un-proofread scan.)

I think someone trying to NPOV this may have gone a bit overboard. In any event, on such a controversial figure, besides bare biographical facts, we should be giving historians' differing assessments. I haven't worked much on this one, and I'm sure it could use a lot of careful work. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the article link. You're right; we need to cite historians more. The main problem still remaining is that the article attempts to give reasons for Robespierre and his compatriots' actions, relying on opinions without citing their sources (e.g. that Robespierre seldom appeared in the Committee of Public Safety during the last few weeks of his life is a fact; possible reasons for this are something historians disagree on; but in the article only one viewpoint is taken and no historians are cited). -- Montagnarde1794 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the Neutrality is under dispute

From what I just read I can see why the Neutrality is under despute, that has to be the nicest summary of Robespierre's life I have ever seen. It definatly plays down the fact that he sent thousands to the GUillotine, I think you should concentrait on merely presenting facts rsther than displaying facts and then imediatly saying they are misleading and he was actually a great guy, that way readers can make their own assumptions and oppinions regarding Maxemillien.

sorry no! It's historically simplistic to claim the guy "sent thousands to the guillotine". The committee he was part of did that. His personal involvement is both less and more, if you see what I mean. In some ways he was less of a 'Terrorist' than many of his colleagues and a balanced article needs to say that. But towards the end of his life (the last threeor four months) he seem to have been going more than a little crazy and certainly was willing to murder many people, for the 'republic of virtue'. Both things need to be stated.

--Dee-Dee 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helped :) - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.139.121 (talk • contribs) 16 Jan 2006.

In short, Montagnarde1794 feels this article is too hostile to Robespierre and this anon things it is too friendly. -- Jmabel | Talk 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That indicates to me that the article is likely about right in terms of tone. The article does not engage in harsh condemnation of R's activites on the Committee of Public Safety or elsewhere, but seems to me to simply state them, state traditional critiques of Robespierre based on these actions, then comment on other, more friendly perspectives (i.e. other Jacobins were responsible and used R as a willing lightning rod, etc.) The historical book on Robsepierre is far from closed on such issues, and since the article mentions with equal respect all concerned viewpoints, and also presents undisputed facts that can't really be construed as biased against one side or the other (hard to downplay political mass murder of thousands), I find the article to be pretty solid in terms of NPOV. I think we ought to remove the neutrality tag, but perhaps we should talk about it more first. KrazyCaley 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is unduly harsh any longer, but I still don't feel it to be neutral according to the mandates of this site. Whether positive or negative, statements that are clearly opinions must be cited and it would be preferable if several different opinions were represented in the main body of the article, not merely in the form of a brief section at the end, because this makes bias in the rest more likely. --Montagnarde1794 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Entirely legitimate. Perhaps we should formulate some sort of list of ideas considered to be opinionated in some way, then find ways to rework them into the article, or to cite or eliminate them. KrazyCaley 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Source Citation

I'm trying to add a significant discussion of R's role in Louis XVI's Trial. Basically I want to talk about his (and other Jacobins, Saint-Just etc.) conflict with the Girondins in more detail. I made a minor addition of this sort yesterday but am hesitant to go into more detail without properly citing.

I apologize a thousand times for asking this of the kind keepers of this article rather than the more appropriate sources that likely exist, but I am an extremely new editor and am still a bit confused on how to cite in WP despite my re-review of the procedure in WP help. My source is:

The Old Regime and the French Revolution, Baker, Keith M. (Ed.) 1987, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Let's say I want to cite page 302 specifically, if that's necessary, after a paragraph with the above-mentioned content. Can someone help me out with how to perform such a citation? KrazyCaley 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

KC: I just glanced at this page on my way out a door. In this article, while you are learning, if you just get your information written down (even just in an HTML comment) I'll come in behind you and clean up. If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Citing sources is probably the best place to start. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php is a recent innovation that I like. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

THAT'S what I was trying to figure out, the footnote-style stuff. Thanks! KrazyCaley 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that could potentially be POV

Just on a quick read-through, here's stuff that I consider possible targets for reference/debate over POV/etc. This is an important article, it would be nice to remove that neutrality tag:

Early politics: "He completed his law studies with distinction and was admitted as a lawyer in 1781. He returned to Arras to seek practice and to struggle against poverty. His reputation had preceded him."

Where did this come from? Can someone give me a specific citation?

Opposition to Austrian War: "The strong men of the Commune were glad to have Robespierre's assistance, not because they cared for him or believed in him, but because of his popularity, his reputation for virtue (which had won for him the surname of "The Incorruptible"), and his influence over the Jacobin Club and its branches ubiquitous throughout France."

This might be interpreted as implying that Robespierre was swept away by/a tool of the Paris Commune. I would have no problem with eliminating this paragraph altogether. The first sentence belongs more in an article on the Paris Commune. His popularity, virtuous reputation, and influence over the Jacobin movement are discussed elsewhere.

Opposition to Austrian War: "On the meeting of the Convention the Girondins immediately attacked Robespierre; they were jealous of his influence in Paris, and knew that his single-hearted fanaticism would never forgive their intrigues with the king at the end of July. As early as September 26 the Girondists Marc-David Lasource accused him of aiming at the dictatorship; afterwards he was informed that Marat, Danton and himself were plotting to become triumvirs; and eventually on October 29 Louvet de Couvrai attacked him in a studied and declamatory harangue, abounding in ridiculous falsehoods and obviously concocted in Madame Roland's boudoir." This whole section, in addition to being messy, engages in some pretty questionable verbiage: "intrigues," "ridiculous" "obviously," and then there's the reference to the Boudoir. We should keep it, but maybe tone down the language a bit.

The whole section "Destruction of the Girondins" seems overly critical of the Girondins, and gives me the sense that the article believes the Girondins got what they had coming to them. It could also be expanded a great deal. I think the section needs to be seriously reworked to both get rid of the harsh language and to be more informative.

Creation of the CPS: "the Convention elected Robespierre to the Committee, a position he had not sought."

Questionable. Perhaps he didn't do it PUBLICLY. I think we ought to strike the dependent clause and stick with what we know for sure on this one.

Creation of the CPS: "As time progressed, Robespierre was to systematically weaken and remove his opponents within the Committee, thus enhancing both his position and his powers."

This might be debatable. I think that this view, though, is fair, and supported by significant historical evidence.

The Terror: This is the most debatable section of them all, obviously.

1st pg: The paragraph presents apologetic viewpoints as outside comments, then presents the traditionally critical view as the "article's perspective." Maybe we ought to cite critical historians, or at least have the neutral "article perspective" state that while the true extent is uncertain, Robespierre certainly had at least SOME influence.

2nd pg: This pg seems ok, but some explanation would be useful on WHY he though the Terror was necessary, and HOW he had a hand in putting it together, specifically. We should look at the Reign of Terror page, the neutrality of which is not disputed.

3rd pg: Seems to me to be a fair treatment of his dealings with the Hebertists.

Section on Dantonists: Mostly fair, but the following problems exist-

"Danton, he knew, was essentially a politician willing to negotiate for a premature peace with traitors, and that he laughed at his ideas and especially his politico-religious projects. He must have considered too that the result of his siding with Danton would probably have been fatal to himself."

Overly supportive of Robespierre's position. "premature peace with traitors" is pretty POV, in my opinion. The last sentence is highly debatable. A Jacobin-Danton coalition would have been formidable indeed, especially if Robespierre agreed to end the Terror.

"The extensive charge sheet against Danton was, 'even by the standards of the Revolutionary Tribunal, an incredibly feeble document.'"

Not only does this need a citation, it's extremely POV in even bringing it up in the absence of balancing evidence, and seems unfair to Robespierre.

pg starting "In Paris": "Through the increased efficiency of the revolutionary tribunal Paris should tremble before him as the chief member of the Committee. The Convention should pass whatever measures he might dictate."

Seems to be a pretty ambitious attempt to reach into Robespierre's mind. It implies a wish for dictatorial power at a rather early stage.

This pg: "To secure his aims, Couthon, his other ally in the Committee, proposed and carried on 10 June the drastic Law of 22 Prairial, by which even the appearance of justice was taken from the tribunal, which, as no witnesses were allowed, became a simple court of condemnation. The result of this law was that between 12 June and the 28 July, the day of Robespierre's death, no fewer than 1,285 victims perished by the guillotine in Paris. It was the bloodiest and the least justifiable period of the Terror. But before this there had taken place in Robespierre's life an episode of supreme importance, as illustrating his character and his political aims:"

This is probably the most POV pg in the article. "even the appearence of justice" is subjective- Robespierre probably thought it was just, though of course such belief is dubious. Perhaps we should substitute in "due process" for "justice." "Least-justifiable" is EXTREMELY POV and should be eliminated entirely, I think. "bloodiest" will lead people to draw their own conclusions.

Supreme Being: I think generally Robespierre's religious beliefs aren't sufficiently discussed. Little is said about the festival, or Robespierre's many speeches on the subject. That's more for expansion than anything else, though.

This section of the paragraph starting "On May 7": "he may well have believed that his position was secured and that he was at last within reach of a supreme power which should enable him to impose his belief on all France, and so ensure its happiness. The majority of the Committee found his popularity—or rather his ascendancy, for as that increased his personal popularity diminished—useful to them, since by increasing the stringency of the Terror he strengthened the position of the Committee, whilst attracting to himself, as occupying the most prominent position in it, any latent feeling of dissatisfaction at such stringency."

The beginning speculates on Robespierre's thoughts and motives, and should be changed to state the overconfidence apparently implied in his public actions.

Fall of R: "Robespierre tried in vain to get a hearing"

This needs SERIOUS expansion. Plenty of sources explain exactly how this went down, and it's an interesting story that speaks much of Robespierre's real character.

1911: The Britannica's last sentence: "In his habits and manner of life he was simple and laborious; he was not a man gifted with flashes of genius, but one who had to think much before he could come to a decision, and he worked hard all his life.""

I think this is highly questionable in light of modern evidence that suggests that Robespierre has a much greater degree of intelligence and skill at politics that might well be called genius. His long retreats before major policy pushes seem to be the only justification for the "long thought" assertion, but his detailed planning on EXTREMELY complicated matters hardly represents slowness, and Robespierre could come to good snap judgments and quick decisiveness when he needed to.

Anyway, that's all I see. I hope for comment on these thoughts soon, as I plan to change the discussed language in several points based on what we talk about here. KrazyCaley 10:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I might add a few things to that, although it does touch on many of the article's faults. Some of these might seem minor, but I think they are worth mentioning.

Firstly, paragraph two: most historians would agree that Robespierre did not really speak for the bourgeoisie, but for the petite-bourgeoisie. Also in the paragraph, the term "rabble-rousing" is somewhat biased and could be changed to less charged language. And again in that paragraph "often described as a rather impractical man" could be changed to reflect the views of both historians who agree with that statement and those who do not.

Secondly, in the first paragraph of "Family and early life": this doesn't have much to do with bias, but it would be nice to have more specific information on these genealogists.

Thirdly, again not having to do much with bias, in the third paragraph of "Early politics": I just noticed the terms Estates-General and States-General are used in the same paragraph; I think we should pick one translation and stick with it to avoid confusion. Also, in paragraph four of that section, the quote attributed to Mirabeau is not a very accurate translation of "il ira loin; il croit tous qu'il dit" ("he will go far; he believes all that he says"), although I suppose it gets the point across well enough. And as far as the assertion in paragraph six that "his voice is noted as being 'high-pitched [and] metallic,' I had read that the main problem people had had with his voice was his Artesian accent (although those factors played a part as well).

Fourthly, the sentence "The fanatical leader had found followers." in paragraph seven of "Early politic" seems biased to me, as his fanaticism would seem to be a matter opinion. Similarly, in the eighth paragraph of that section only one possible reason for Robespierre's motion that no deputies from the Constituent could sit in the Legislative Assembly is given; more historians' opinions ought to be reflected there.

Fifth: in the first paragraph of "Robespierre's opposition to war with Austria," it might be worth noting that Collot d'Herbois, future member of the Committee of Public Safety, also ranked among the opposition.

Sixth: in paragraph four of "...opposition to war..." the statement "stronger men with practical instincts of statesmanship, like Georges Danton and Billaud Varenne, were the men who made the insurrection of 10 August and took the Tuileries" seems biased, especially since Danton is not himself a wholy uncontroversial figure; Albert Mathiez, for example, argues that he can no more be called the "man of 10 August" than Robespierre himself, for various reasons, which he expounds upon in his various Revolutionary studies. Also, the first sentence of the following paragraph is biased, saying that the "strong men of the Commune were glad to have Robespierre's assistance, not because they cared for him or believed in him, but because of his popularity..." While the reasons listed are probably partial reason's for the Commune's support, there is no evidence that the men of the Commune did not care for him or believe him; this is clearly bias and as such should have to be cited or removed. Additionally, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the establishment of a revolutionary tribunal was Danton's idea (although Robespierre did support it)... but it might be useful to incorporate their reasoning here.

Seventh: I agree that the last paragraph of the "...opposition to war..." section is biased against the Girondins and needs to be re-worded. Personally I think the part about Louvet's speech attacking him could be improved by a "show don't tell" sort of method; if some of these "ridiculous falsehoods" were quoted it would allow readers to make their own decisions (not that historians tend to deny the nature of this speech; I just think it would be a better way to format this section). Additionally, I must repeat that the phrase "single-hearted fanaticism" is biased and ought, especially in this context, to be removed. The same goes for "the fanatical Robespierre" in paragraph one of "Destruction of the Girondins."

Eighth: as to paragraph three of "Foudation of the Committee of Public Safety"; I had read that Jean-Bon Saint-Andre and one of the Prieurs (I think de la Cote d'Or) were also allies of Robespierre to some degree--although not as close, obviously, as Couthon and Saint-Just. Also, I agree that the last sentence of that paragraph is pure bias, and given with no evidence, no countering opinion, and not even a citing, it seems without merit.

Ninth: as far as second paragraph in "The Terror" goes, it is true Robespierre is often regarded as the Committee's dominant spirit from the time he joined it, but only the uninformed would regard him as its creator.

Tenth: the section on the trials and executions of the Hebertists and Dantonists ought to be expanded. Aside from that, I agree that the line "'even by the standards of the Revolutionary Tribunal, an incredibly feeble document,'" must be cited or removed.

Eleventh: in paragraph seven of "The Terror," the last sentence is biased. The reasoning given for Saint-Just's mission to the army is just one opinion, and not one that I've noticed has been particularly popular among historians either; other opinions must be added for balance. Similarly, the logic of the following paragraph is faulty; he was accused of moderatism by the enrages, the remaining Hebertists, and one portion of the original Thermidorians. The rest of this paragraph is also suspect, considering that in proportion to the other members of the Committee of Public Safety, Robespierre's signature is found infrequently on documents sent to the Convention; those drafted by him are even more rare. (I can provide statistics if anyone is interested.)

Twelfth: I agree with the aforementioned critiques of paragraph nine of "The Terror."

Thirteenth: as to the Festival of the Supreme Being in paragraph ten of "The Terror," referring to Robespierre's speech as a "harangue" seems to me biased wording. Also the speculation into Robespierre's thoughts at the time does not seem to add much to the article and should probably be replaced with some other comment(s) on the Fete. And as far as popularity is difficult to measure (and not all historians are in agreement on this point) the phrase "...Committee found his popularity--or rather his ascendancy, for as that increased his personal popularity diminished" ought to be reworded. Furthermore, 9 Thermidor in embryo was a close-knit conspiracy, hardly certain of success and most historians would not agree that they "had little fear" of a "struggle between themselves and Robespierre."

Fourteenth: the last paragraph of "The Terror" only presents one view of Robespierre's absence from the Committee; there are many theories on this point. Furthermore, the calling him "not sufficiently audacious" is a bias and should not be included without showing the other side.

Fifteeth: again with the word harangue (first paragraph "Robespierre's downfall")? "Speech," or "discourse" would be more objective. Also, the cause given for 9 Thermidor is the traditional Anglo-American one, but is not the only opinion; the question for historians being whether they can trust accounts written in the immediate aftermath or by those who otherthrew Robespierre (often they find that these sources are quite unreliable, since they were written for the purpose of imputing all manner of crimes to Robespierre in order to absolve some of the more radical terrorists of all guilt--the latter goal did not work, as moderates gained control, but the habit of scapegoating Robespierre stuck).

Sixteenth: it would be preferable if someone could cite that Robespierre was guillotined "face up"; from what I've heard that was just a myth, but I could, of course, be wrong. It also might be useful to note that after the July Revolution of 1830, some Robespierristes tried to find his body and it was not there in the Errancis cemetary.

Seventeenth: "Historians' views of Robespierre" ought to be expanded.

That's all I can think of at present.

--Montagnarde1794 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything else? Is that anon who thought it was soft on R still around to give some views? KrazyCaley 23:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that at least some of the opinions can be cited to the 1911 Britannica. As it says above, "The 1911 Britannica article is a deeply flawed apology for Robespierre and should be handled with tongs", but that doesn't mean that it is uncitable for its opinions. Online copy, has some typos but generally readable. Mignet's History of the French Revolution is also online and hence searchable, and may be another citable source for some relevant opinions. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost ready with a reaaaaally big change. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 08:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

to pity or not to pity

I pity the fool --User page:Albino Ibis 11:47, 9 May 2006 (AEST)

Mrs. Marr's History class is the coolest

What's up Mrs. Marr.) I would dispute the assertion that Robespierre was simply a mouthpiece for the "left-wing bourgeoisie." He may have been left-wing in that he favored the revolution, but many indications point to a deep-seated sense of responsibility towards France as a unified nation. In reality, I believed Danton to be the one who claimed concern for the people, bourgeoisie or otherwise, while Robespierre worried over France. For that matter, it could be argued that Maximilien's mania for revolution resulted in isolating sociopathic behavior, such as his advocacy for The Terror. It would seem that Robespierre cared for neither his aristocratic peers nor the lower classes. But then again, I'm not an historian. 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC) willrams

I don't know where you would get that idea from... what histories have you been reading to come to such a conclusion? FYI: Danton supported the Terror to begin with, even before Robespierre did; also, Robespierre was not an aristocrat. --Montagnarde1794 06:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Early Politics"

Umm... does anyone know why the Early Politics section was removed? If there's no objection I don't see why it shouldn't be there. --Montagnarde1794 06:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's back. It was vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a vandal! - User: Albino Ibis 09:25, 11 May 2006 (AEST)

Possibility of Homosexuality

I believe that the article failed to mention the possibility of Robespierre's homosexuality. If you observe the picture http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/tennis_court_oath.jpg you will see that Robespierre is located to the right of the man in the red suit. Need I say more? -- Albino Ibis 11:37, 9 May 2006 (AEST)

Physical Description

I would really appreciate it if someone could add a "physical descrption" to the article.

i.e. height, distictive facial features, ect....

If you can...

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.151.75.79 (talk • contribs) 10 June 2006.

Initiation of the Terror

"The Terror was initially based on Danton's idea that it was necessary to resort to extreme measures to keep France united and strong at home in order to successfully meet her enemies upon the frontier." There is certainly more than a little truth to this, but something important is missing. The institutionalization of the Terror — distinct from the Parisian sans coulottes or the certain peasants taking matters into their own hands — was, arguably, in some ways, a restoration of moderation. I wish I could cite where I've seen the argument made: I can't, offhand, and would appreciate if someone could, otherwise eventually I'll go looking. Essentially, the case is that Danton, Robespierre, et. al. recaptured control of a situation that threatened to turn into simple mob rule, retaining some degree of both bourgeois hegemony and some semblance of legality. In this view of things, it also becomes problematic whether to take Robespierre's praise of Terror at face value, or to see it as demagogy. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

portrait - vandalism?

See Top of page - anonymous portrait of MR

That is a *Pokemon*??!!! I doubt the kind of art as depicted in that picture of green monster with a garlic clove on his back was en vogue in France in 1793.

If it is really a portrait, Pokemon is a derivative of that art-form...heh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.48.2 (talk • contribs) 28 July 2006.

Vandalism, of course. Long since reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A question

I just read this article and found it readable and interesting. There is one odd note though, and that is the two sentences starting "More recently, feminist ..." which seem to have little to do with anything else in the article and which look mostly like rumor ("there was circumstantial evidence") intended to cast a slur on Robespierre that cannot be refuted. I would suggest that that bit either be removed, or that someone really justify its inclusion. (I know, I can do it myself, but I'm insufficiently familiar with the etiquette of editing to feel entirely comfy doing that.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.118.90.22 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

I will mark it as needing citation; if it doesn't get one soon, it should probably be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been removed (anonymously, without comment). - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Perhaps missed by many in this much-vandalised article (the edit summary said almost nothing, and there was no discussion on the talk page) Skysmith did a pretty substantial rewrite on several portions of the article. Some of it was doubtless good; some of it, in my opinion, was not. I've made a considerable number of small edits downstream of Skysmith's relating to the period prior to the start of the French Revolutionary Wars. I don't have the time or focus right now to go comparably through the rest of the article, but would urge others to get out their fine-tooth combs.

Speaking of the start of the French Revolutionary Wars: the 1911 EB's handling of Robespierre's initial opposition to "exporting the Revolution" is a bit abrreviated; ours, especially with Skysmith's edits, is now even more abbreviated. I don't have good sources at hand: unfortunately, a few years back, before Wikipedia came along, I had given away most of my books on the French Revolution. But there is quite a story here, and it should be (sourced and) told. This was Robespierre's big break with the Girondists, and it took them by surprise, and it should be explained.

Robespierre's speech(es?) against the war policy contained some rather perspicacious remarks. He had three major points:

1. He had a general suspicion of the idea that one country could bring liberty to another by making war on it.
2. He believed that war would distract from consolidating the gains of the revolution and that, in fact, it would put them all at risk, given the possibility of a defeat that would restore the Old Regime (certainly the same logic that had placed much of the royal court in the war party).
3. He believed that victory had perils almost as great as defeat: that a victory achieved by a general might well bring that general to power as a dictator.

Again, I don't have sources handy from which to cite, but I presume someone should. If no one follows through on this, I imagine I'll eventually hit a library with this in mind, but it could be months. - Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocide?

Can I please have a reference for those historians who consider the campaign in the Vendee as genocide? How can a war of Frenchman against Frenchman be viewed in racial terms? White Guard 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling anything that happened in the French Revolution "genocide" is far beyond an exaggeration. (Note also that "mass killing" is not synonymous with "genocidal".) If any scholars have made such assertions, I don't think they're very credible and there would still be a strong argument for not including them in this article; but without even a citation, that phrase has to go. I've therefore removed the reference. --Todeswalzer 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right: it's absurd. I was waiting to see what kind of reference, if any, could be produced. Clearly there are none.White Guard 23:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gallo

Do we have references to this book in the article?

• Gallo, Max. Maximilien Robespierre, histoire d'une sollitude. Paris: Perrin, 1999 (paperback, ISBN 2262014094).

If not, should it be here? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against French books in general, or this one in particular. ... Also, there's a more recent and available edition.--Barbatus 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

His Reputation Preceded Him?

The section "Early Politics" has, as its first paragraph, the following: Robespierre completed his law studies with distinction and was admitted to the bar in 1781, returning to Arras to practice law. His reputation preceded him. What exactly does this mean? What was his reputation at the time? That he "admire(d) the idealized Roman Republic and the rhetoric of Cicero, Cato, and other classic figures"? What actual effect did it have on subsequent developments? Could somone clarify this? Hi There 10:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

An unfortunate introduction of a sentence and paragraph break made this incoherent. The reputation at this point was simply that of being a very bright young man. The original of the sentence was "His reputation had already preceded him, and the bishop of Arras, M. de Conzie, appointed him criminal judge in the diocese of Arras in March 1782." I'll restore it to something more like that. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold

This has clearly been defaced in some recent edits and needs to be cleaned and restored. --65.183.251.28 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Abolition of the Death Penalty?

According to this wiki article [1], Robespierre introduced legislation to abolish the death penalty in 1791, about 2 years before sending the royals to the guillotine, and about 3 years before Robespierre got his own. If it's true, I'm surprised it hasn't been noted in the article due to the drastic dramatic irony. Has the National Constituent Assembly agreed, the Terror possibly wouldn't have been (perhaps it would have eventually sometime later), and Robespierre wouldn't be a historically stereotypical pariah. Is there any validity to the abolition story, and if so what's the details and sources of information so the article could be updated accordingly. Jessikins 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Maxime did indeed advocate the abolition of the death penalty in 1791. I have a copy of the speech, if anyone is interested; I think it's one of his best. However, there's not as much irony as you would think in the eventual coming the Terror - even in his 1791 speech, he specifies that, more or less, if it's a life-or-death situation, one has a right to kill in order to live. It seems clear to me that at the time he was thinking about it in the context of individuals, but the delicate situation of France in 1793-1794 does seem to fit the bill, nevertheless:

"Outside of civil society, when a relentless enemy comes to attack my life, or when, twenty times repulsed, he returns again to lay waste to the field that I have cultivated with my hands, either I must perish or I must kill him because I can only oppose my own strength against his, and the law of natural defense vindicates and approves me." - Maximilien Robespierre, "On the Abolition of the Death Penalty." Read before the National Assembly on May 30, 1791. Extract taken from the book The French Revolution: A Document Collection, put together by Laura Mason and Tracey Rizzo.

Also, this is merely a quibble, but I'm not quite fond of your saying that HE sent the royals to the guillotine. It was an act of the National Convention as a whole, not of one man. Sorry - I'm just absurdly sensitive when it seems like people get the mindset that Maxime was the be all and end all of the revolution, for better or for worse. As he himself once said, "Obliging persons have been found to attribute to me more good than I have done in order to impute to me mischief in which I had no hand."

A young Jacobine--24.208.91.146 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still ironic that he first gave such a speech and than turned around to become a mass murderer. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying he "turned around to become a mass murderer" is a GROSS oversimplification both of the evolution of the Revolutionary government and of Robespierre's role in it. Just saying. Ebolamunkee (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What to put in the infobox

Right now the infobox lists one of Robespierre's offices to have been "Deputy for the Third Estate of the Estates-General." I was wondering if there is a more specific title by which members of that body were called. Also, I have listed his religion as Cult of the Supreme Being due to his prominace in advocating it, but I'm not sure if it should simply be changed to Deism. YankeeDoodle14 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So! Even you may now see why many Wikipedians spurn these as 'disinfoboxes'. Even very primitive lives rarely fit into a suit of categories. Disinfoboxes are mostly for those marginally unprepared to deal with text. Listing Robespierre's religion as Cult of the Supreme Being, simply to fill a box, will raise smiles. --Wetman 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I gather that you dissapprove of infobox from your post. I'm not quite so sure what you mean by, "So! Even you may now see why many Wikipedians spurn these as 'disinfoboxes'," as I don't recall ever having disputed the merit of infoboxes with you before.

It remains a fact, however unfortunate it may be, that many Wikipedians do not do more than skim any given article for general details. As this is the case it is important to achieve the greatest degree of accuracy that is possible.

If it is your opinion that Cult of the Supreme Being is not the best choice for this article, then I will differ and let the infobox read (as it now does), "Deism (Cult of the Supreme Being." YankeeDoodle14 04:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dame politique?

I'm not familiar with the phrase. Is there any other suitable English synonym? Political(as in willing to compromise à la Jean Bodin)lady ?Jatrius 14:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Death

On the bottom of the page of the "Reign of Terror" there is a picture that depicts Robespierre's death. If it could be moved to the Robespierre page, it would be better depicted. I would move it myself, but I have no knowledge of how to do so.71.177.236.12 04:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have conflicting accounts of whether Robespierre attempted suicide or whether he was shot by one Charles-Andre Merda, who gave an account of Robespierre's arrest, and I quote "...I reached for one of my pistols....and fired. I meant to shoot him in the chest but the ball struck his chin and smashed his lower jaw." Apparently though this account has been discredited as vainglorious and inaccurate by some. Anyone with better sources than mine care to comment? --Phil Wardle (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard he tried to shoot himself, but I have no sources immediately at hand... Ebolamunkee (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistancies in dating

The article claims that Robespierre opposed the Austrian War in 1797, but he had been put to death by then. The dates in this article need to be reviewed.24.72.156.21 06:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Szustak 26 October 2007 2:42 AM EDT

Yes I agree we do need to clear up the dating problems. We do need to delete this and to set up correctly. Thank God, most school don't allow their students to use Wikipedia as a reference source. Also in the hell is Jacques Pierre Bubnarios?. I have studied the French Revolution for years and never came to this name. Did he mean Brissot? If this Bubnarios fellow existed he must have been a very minor Girodin or a member of the unacclaimed plain. Ronsin1976 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some on the spot corrections. Jacques Pierre Brissot was the intended fellow not Jacques Pierre Bubnarios. I also changed the years from 1797 to 1792, when it actually happened. I will research the months which I left for the time being, but if they need to be changed please someone with all due haste. I could not stand to have such errors in historial dating exist much longer. Ronsin1976 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Affectionate wording

Throughout the whole article, there is a distinct bias in wording in Robespierre's favor. "His supporters called him 'The Incorruptible'" is included as vital information at the very start; he is a "capable articulator"; his motives are carefully defended at every turn. If he gets this much support, other viewpoints should be added as well. --68.100.78.74 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article does have a distinct bias. I'll try to get around making in more neutral. 71.242.205.5 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I second. It's still way too positive-sounding (Jun 08) - the guy was a mass-murderer. 62.176.111.68 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but with reservations. Robespierre was an authoritarian (with serious personality disorders) who had an uncritical belief in the virtue of the French Revolution, but on the other hand, the French Revolution had a positive influence on liberation movements in other countries in ways that, say, the Third Reich or the Khmer Rouge didn't have. The French Revolution, unlike the Third Reich, was carried out in the name of ideals and principles that a significant number of people would still claim to believe in. Most people in Western democracies believe that the power of hereditary ruling families should be curbed by democratic institutions or even done away with altogether, and that's the exact same principle that animated Robespierre durigng his transformation into a mass-murderer - but it doesn't invalidate the principle. I'm not saying that Robespierre isn't a bad guy, just that he was a bad guy in the name of the same principles that most Western democracies have founded their constitutions upon. Lexo (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • That doesn't condone the bias in the article but only explains it. Hitler fans are fewer than Robespierre fans and hence the Hitler article is not biased in his favour, while this article was. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

"His corpse and head both were buried in the common cemetery of Errancis (now the Place de Goubeaux), but were accidentally moved to the Catacombs of Paris." This isn't clear? Was he buried in Palace De Goubeaux then moved, or was he suppose to be buried there but burried in the catacombs? And how can a body be buried or moved accidentally? I would never accidentally move a dead body that is for sure.Mantion (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably should just delete the part about 'accidentally' moving his cadaver to the Catacombs, that might help clear up any confusion in the future.

Political party

I'm not sure whether it can be changed or not, but it is inaccurate to say in the infobox that Robespierre's "party" was Jacobin. For a start, it doesn't tell you much at all in the context of the Revolution, but more importantly it's just factually inaccurate. There were no political parties in the French Revolution, and if you tried to organise all of the groups as such, you would fail. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead has some serious problems. The last paragraph is a relatively unimportant anecdote that doesn't belong in the lead. The rest of the lead is mostly minor biographical stuff. The lead should give an overview of Robespierre's importance as a political figure and his role in the revolution.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I came here to say the same. (Incidentally, I wonder why we spell this "lead" rather than "lede"?) --Doradus (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article seems very sympathetic to Robespierre. Quotes like "some tried to smudge the purity of his name" certainly don't help the article seem impartial. --Doradus (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. The article looks like as if being written by a Communist or other Revolutionary enthusiast. (Probably, the Che Guevera article has the same one-sided view...) I for one would also be interested in Robespierre's genealogy. His hatred against the then traditional French values and institutions, especially the Roman Catholic Church must have had a family root.--Mazarin07 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mazarin, Robespierre was not a "communist", nor is the French revolution identified as being connected to communist ideology. Moreover, Che Guevara or his article is also irrelevant to discussion on this article. As for your "theory" that his hatred for nobility was "genetic" or imbued from his family, it is possible, but a reliable source would need to be utilized in making such an observation. As for a favorable presentation, the article should reflect the scholarly sources, thus if the majority of researchers take an “apologist” tone, then the article would and should as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought he meant upbringing. But I agree that only genetics could create a hate so irrational and enduring. Definitely an innate quality, that. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with P3d0. I have tried to remove the worst excess of Robespierre-worship. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Revolutionary principles?

Thanks very much for this article, it is very informative. However, if I am not mistaken the article doesn't include Robespierre's revolutionary principles and aims. Since I am not an expert on these but am still incredibly interested in that topic I was wondering if anyone could share their knowledge with the rest of us who are not priveledged enough to have it. If anyone would do me the favour I would be extremely grateful. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.187.65.70 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Robespierre's main goal was the "liberation" of deism from the monarchy, as was shown in the days before the end of his reign when he advocated the "cult of the supreme being". Everything else he did, including his participation in the revolution, was just a means to that end. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Full name and "nom de guerre"

"put the entire name in boldface, not just the parts that form the article title", says and does Hairy Dude in his revision of 18:59, 19 April 2009.

I know presenting a person by all of his/her given names, giving no hint as to by which one(s) (s)he was called or is commonly known, has become common practice on Wikipedia. Probably because younger and uneducated people prevail here, or what should one think? The abuse is not unique to Wikipedia, or else its influence is such that I can see people generally starting to call Friedrich Nietzsche "Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche", Joseph Haydn "Franz Joseph Haydn" and so on and so forth. Totally new and unfounded in either history or common usage up to now and making it impossible to search the person in a lot of computer lists under the name that's both easier to remember and by which most people still know him .

Well, that war is probably lost; anyway I have other things to do than fight it. I just want to leave this reservation for myself. -Keinstein (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I put the first name he is known by, Maximilien, in italics. Could that solve part of the problem? At least, it shows the name that should be used.. Frania W. (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias

"Maximillien Robespierre is STILL a controversial figure" I would certainly hope so. I would like to assume he will always be one and believe the word "still" ought to be removed. The man was an intolerant murderer by any objective standard who was capable of killing anyone whose view of the revolution differed from his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.103.57 (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand certain aspects of what you're saying, however your logic in removing still makes little to no sense. If everyone agreed that Robespierre was an "intollerant murder" there would be no controversy, would there. Perhaps a quick look at the dictionary definition of "controversial" would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sverez (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

le bébé souriant de miracle

***In the depictions of many artists, especially in urban France, Robespierre is known for his gentle smile. This has led some to refer to him as "le bébé souriant de miracle" (the smiling miracle baby).***

What is the source for the above? Who are the ***some*** who refer to him as "le bébé souriant de miracle"? Frania W. (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you can safely remove such a dubious and uncited claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Frania W. (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Typing error: Marc Guillaume Valdiergave --> Marc Guillaume Vadier

I think there's a typing error short before citation 13. The man giving a mocking impression of Robespierre on 9th Thermidor was Marc Guillaume (Alexis) Vadier, president of the Committee of General Security.

193.254.155.48 (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Jörg Kahl

"Robespierre's role as a leader and mouthpiece of the Terror is clear"

Hi there. I've added a citation tag here. I'm currently going through William Doyle's "Oxford History of the French Revolution" and it seems to me that Robespierre's role in the Terror was not so prominent. As soon as I find a bit of time I'll try to propose some alternative paragraph or sentence. Cheers ;) Dr Benway (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The charismatic guy is always the guy behind the desk which orders the pulling of the trigger. The devil is in the context. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the original poster here. Robespierre was not, contrary to popular belief, a charismatic guy, nor was he by any stretch of the imagination the craziest member of the Committee of Public Safety. He actually brought very few laws before the Convention. I'm a little baffled about why he's become the most infamous of the bunch.Ebolamunkee (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, he's often considered a major player in the Revolution. I have to say, I agree that his part wasn't so prominent as purported by many - incomparable, for instance, to the role played by Mao in the Chinese Revolution - but all the same, he was a brilliant orator, and his ideas of virtue and terror were, at the end of the day, mostly integrated into the Revolution up until his death. Kfodderst (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Robespierre's role is attested to by the actions and the words of the convention, the municipality, the club. The proportion of his influence was not much argued at the time -- presumably for a reason. Disregarding the universal opinion held of him at the time, in favor of a new interpretation several centuries removed, is presumptuous to say the least. He wrote few laws, and he never operated the guillotine. So what? If these were the traits of influence, then history in general would read somewhat different. 198.228.225.252 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Last Words

I've read (I think in RR Palmer's "The Twelve Who Ruled") that the story of Robespierre's last words being "merci, monsieur" is probably apocryphal. I'll have to check his reference, but the article presents this as pure truth when I think it's disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.225.209 (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

Perhaps it’s just me, but the ‘Legacy’ section of this article seems to say nothing – it consist mainly of two lengthy quotes; and at that, two quotes that seem to strongly sympathize with Robespierre. I think it would be much more useful if we were given a sampling of some of the more negative perspectives on Robespierre alongside the positive: If his legacy is indeed controversial, as is claimed, there should be the multiple views of the man contrasted in this section instead of two quotes, both in need of truncation, that say the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.192.47 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's just the legacy section-- the over-use of adjectives in the opening paragraphs: 'one of the most influential', 'best-known', and the ordering of his 'supporters' prioritized over his 'adversaries'. The edited portion above that read "le bébé souriant de miracle" is another. It seems like this entire page was sketched from the view-point of someone(s?) who romanticizes Maximilien Robespierre the revolutionary and minimizes Maximilien Robespierre the murderous dictator; one need only read the 'Reign of Terror' section where it starts with a quote as if the piece was written for apologetic purposes. It's quite embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In Arras, his home town, there are Robespierre Rue, where he lived, also Robespierre College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.174.56 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Heads Up!

The next day, 28 July 1794, Robespierre was guillotined without trial in the Place de la Révolution. His brother Augustin, Couthon, Saint-Just, Hanriot and twelve other followers, among them the cobbler Simon, were also executed. Only Robespierre was guillotined face-up.[citation needed]. Yes indeed a citation needed because I am sure no one was executed that way due to the design of the guillotine which required the victim to be face down. This idea of 'face up' I think comes from the film Carry on Don't Lose Your Head as one of their running jokes.--80.177.121.233 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Called a dictator

Who called him a "dictator"? Was it only his enemies, or did he style himself "Dictator of France"?

• After the execution of Danton and Desmoulins, Robespierre became the dictator France. He got 1370 persons guillotined in Paris ... History of Europe - Radhey Shyam Chaurasia

Is this a reliable source? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

People who opposed him called him a dictator, but from a historical perspective this would be a very controversial statement, even among opponents of the Montagnards. Robespierre's formal power even at the height of the terror was not equivalent to his de facto power on the basis of his prestige and personality in France. Also, if you're able to look at it, the French Wikipedia page has a much more thoughtful discussion of his role in the terror than we have presented here. -Darouet (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the book you quote reliable? Was Maximilien Robespierre a dictator? For the first question, it is only reliable to illustrate the common misconceptions about Robespierre but it is not a very serious text. In Paris, 2,639 persons were executed during the reign of Terror, not 1,370 and it wasn't Robespierre who particularly demanded all these executions. It was the comittee of public safety as a whole and the Revolutionary Tribunal (especially Fouquier-Tinville). A dictator is supposed to assume sole and absolute power and Robespierre was only one member (influential and popular but not more powerful than Barrère) of a not-so-strong executive branch (among eleven others). Another thing, most people who opposed him called him a dictator only after the Battle of Fleurus (which saved the country) and his reputation of dictator was promoted among the general public after his death when he was used, in France, as a scapegoat by the other revolutionary leaders and, in the rest of Europe, as a bogeyman by conservatives. Serious scholars don't call him a dictator. Eleventh1 (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above, but just to make sure this is perfectly clear: Robespierre never styled himself "dictator of France" eldamorie (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice to incorporate some of Slavoj Zizek's commentary on Robespierre from "In Defense of Lost Causes"

• How would adding commentary from a flat out Marxist not lend this article to imply that Robespierre's rule was a model for latter Marxist governments? OTOH, if you are attempting to tie Robespierre's terror into certain 20th century Marxist "reigns of terror" - I'd be interested to see a well cited treatise on this. 10stone5 (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

End of Reign of Terror correct?

While this entry claims the Reign ended months after Robespierre's execution, another source I saw awhile back--it may have been Encyclopedia Britannica--insisted the Reign ended with his execution. Anyone know what is the historians' consensus on the final date of the Reign? Thanks in advance! [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.22.25 (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Robespierre’s speeches were exceptional, and he had the power to change the views of almost any audience." This phrase does not meet Wikipedia's standards. When we write our history we must do it without bias!--67.172.32.229 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ronan Vibert's performance

I think there should be a reference somewhere in the article to Ronan Vibert's superb performance as Robespierre in the 1999 and 2000 film versions of The Scarlet Pimpernel. 'Ah, Lady Blakeney ... or do you prefer Citizeness?'

Djwilms (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Robespierre's Views On Capital Punishment

Robespierre certainly had qualms about capital punishment; however, the idea that he resigned rather than deliver the death penalty as a judge in Arras is false. His signature is on a death warrant. His sister Charlotte is the source of the claim that he resigned. Ruth Scurr, Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution, pp 44-45. Maurizio689 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

True. Nice catch! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Advocated against death penalty but directly involved in executions ? it is confusing, needs clarification and sources "As a member of the Estates-General, the Constituent Assembly and the Jacobin Club (Jacobin leader during the Reign of Terror), he advocated against the death penalty" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.53.84.129 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

picture caption needs a little clarification

I find: "The execution of Robespierre. Note: the beheaded man is not Robespierre, but Couthon; Robespierre is shown sitting on the cart closest to the scaffold, holding a handkerchief to his mouth."

Did you mean "just-beheaded"? (Headless body still on the scaffold, and the executioner displaying the severed head.) I am asking this because the sketch also has a headless body on the ground nearby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"headless body on the ground nearby" - body of Le Bas, who committed suicide during Hotel de Ville capture and whose dead body was decapitated together with other robespierrists as it is shown on the picture.
--24.193.31.234 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you arrive at Le Bas for the identity of the headless body on the ground nearby? I take it you agree with "just-beheaded", which I have still not implemented, in reference to the decapitated body still on the scaffold.

Well, there is no other body on the ground... Just Le Bas... How? By numbers, my friend, by numbers.. Number 5 is "Le traitre Lebas..." https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Execution_de_Robespierre_full.jpg?uselang=ru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nivose (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Warehouse 13

I think there should be something about the reference of Robspierre using Magellan's Astrolabe in the show Warehouse 13. Perhaps merged with Djwilm’s suggestion in a section called References in Popular Culture? --Atutouato - 69.131.83.26 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sections entitled "References in Popular Culture" are silly drivel in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.166.151 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to change the subject’s religious belief from deism to theism

As noted within Ruth Scurr’s Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution, to the bemusement of many of his fellow Jacobins and other radical revolutionaries, Robespierre was always going on about “Providence.”

[From Merriam-Webster: Providence:

a often capitalized : divine guidance or care

b capitalized : God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny]

He raged against atheists and their slogan that “death is but eternal sleep.” Most importantly in regard to my point here, he (rather curiously in my view) held that atheism was an “aristocratic” notion, the denial that God watches over the poor and downtrodden, which the aristocrats have no need of or interest in.

In Paris in the Terror: June 1793 - July 1794, by Stanley Loomis, the author makes the wry remark that it had seemed to occur to Robespierre—unusual among left wing revolutionaries—that he was going to die one day, thus his affinity for the idea of an eternal afterlife.

What follows are quotations form Wikipedia’s article on deism:

“Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature.”

(Below) Quoting from Orr, John (1934). English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits:

"Prior to the 17th century the terms ['deism' and 'deist'] were used interchangeably with the terms 'theism' and 'theist', respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words... Both [theists and Deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.”

Later, Wiki’s article on deism seems to divert from the original understanding of what constitutes deism as explained by Orr by accepting that deists can accept the notion of a judgmental, rewarding/punitive deity in regard to an afterlife. To me, that so diminishes the differences between deism and theism as to render the distinction virtually moot. However, even if I can accept this for the sake of argument here, the one salient remaining difference between the two theological paradigms is whether God intervenes within His creation during its metaphorical run.

As noted above (from Scurr), Robespierre’s belief in Providence and God’s protection of and affinity for the poor (i.e., the "virtuous") confirms that at the time he began his political career, though he had long since ceased to be a conventional Catholic, he was still a theist. Therefore, I would like to change the article to reflect such. Does anyone object and, if so, why please?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki editors are supposed to pay attention to the reliable secondary sources and not try for themselves to do original research to decoide what French religious beliefs really were in the 1790s. For the RS look at these citations to scholarly books -- which generally call him a deist. Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I’m not trying to judge what were the religious beliefs of the French in the 1790s. Rather, I’m simply stating what Robespierre's were, the subject of this article, which seem clear to me. If a Christian doesn’t accept the supremacy of Rome, then he or she is not a Catholic. In what or whose definition of deism can the concept of Providence be reconciled with it?

Okay, you are obviously against my proposed change, so I shall not make it at this point. We’ll see if others choose to weigh in. If no consensus can be formed, then I shall refrain from making the change. I usually only edit in regard to trivial matters, typos and obvious hasty mistakes.

In regard to substantive changes to articles, the only one of perhaps a dozen I have made that was reverted was reinstated by the person reverting it after I explained my reasoning. I’m doing what I’m supposed to do before making a substantive change to an article, discussing it on the article’s Talk Page, so please refrain from lecturing me.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Robespierre was a Deist in that he believed the universe was created and upheld by the unifying force of a Supreme Being. Like many of his era, he believed this was irrefutable truth based on reason and scientific observation. As noted by observers like Immanuel Kant, this differs essentially from Theism, which offers a faith-based belief in a God who works as a personal savior. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This is true as far as it goes. But can you reconcile the concept of Providence with deism? If Robespierre had been a deist, it seems to me that he had been rather a heretical one. :>. Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem surprising, considering this was the French Revolution. Most historians consider Robespierre's anti-atheistic beliefs to be sincere, but note that they were propelled more by political concerns than theology. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My introduction to the concept of deism was from a Catholic high school lay teacher with a quirky sense of humor. His initial summation of a deist was one who held that God created the universe and then went out to lunch, having nothing more to do with it. So perhaps my view of the philosophy was unduly solidified at such an impressionable age. However, when one takes Robespierre's belief in Providence combined with his belief in an afterlife dictated by God, then I still maintain that he was far closer to theism than deism. I also agree with Loomis’s assessment of the man’s character regarding Robespierre’s motivation with his views on God.

However, rest assured that barring a totally unexpected groundswell of support for my proposed change to the article emerging, I shall refrain from making it. Thank you for your input which is most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

i think deism is appropriate for two reasons: this is how the faith of jean-jacques rousseau is generally described, and rousseau was the principal influence on robespierre's conception of the "supreme being" -- not as a matter of personal faith, but as described in his public pronouncements about what he intended to be a public cult with the purpose of emotionally binding the people to the revolution and virtue. i don't believe there are sources to show that robespierre claimed the "supreme being" would intervene in individual lives, or that prayer would be useful to invoke his aid, etc. Drollere (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maximilien Robespierre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060127090226/http://www.galichon.com:80/genealogie/html/celebre/robes/index.php to http://www.galichon.com/genealogie/html/celebre/robes/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Centre for Research on Globalization quote

I do not understand it's value whatsoever. it seems out of place entirely.--31.210.180.63 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Shockingly this is the only reference to slavery and Haiti in this whole article. The subject deserves more extended treatment, and I am not sure why it appears in this floating box, unconnected to other issues. If somebody is going to address this problem they should add a section or paragraph on slavery before removing the quote. - Darouet | Talk 03:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is shocking about this being the only reference to slavery or Haiti? I looked up this article for information about Robespierre. If I had wanted to know about Haiti, I should have typed in 'Haiti'. If I had wanted to know about slavery, I should have entered 'slavery'. If I had wanted to know about left wing loonies who hate globalisation, I should have entered ditto. If Maximilien Robespierre had anything whatsoever to do with Toussaint Louverture & his revolution, please include it in the article, otherwise remove the silly box. Wikipedia has major problems with perceptions of bias, and this does not help. Just because one can quote a source does not make it gospel, or relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanThomas (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should get a better source. In the mean time, if you don't know why Robespierre is relevant to Haiti or slavery, you don't have the competence to contribute to this article. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could enlighten us, O competent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.42.89 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, I came to the talk page only because of the odd floating box. What has this quote to do with the article? If there is a _connection_, please write a section on Robespierre and Haiti, or on Robespierre and the anti-Globalisation movement. I have no idea if or how Robespiere is relevant to Haiti or slavery. Please make the connection for us. Otherwise, I suggest the box is just a tad unencyclopedic, and should go. J.A.Treloar 86.185.12.70 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed Gearóid Ó Colmáin's analysis of the French and Haitian Revolutions. He has no other scholarly works on the Haitain Revolution and provides no primary sources referencing Robespierre's involvement in the 4th of February decree. Since he was not alive at the time, he can't constitute a primary source either. I contest the assertion that his commentary constitutes sourced material and is instead opinion.128.111.185.93 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is legitimate for 128.111.185.93 to contest a Center for Research on Globalization Quote. We should find scholarly material on Robespierre's relationship to the emancipation in Haiti. -Darouet (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

the box as it stands is neither relevant or accurate. the early antislavery advocates were brissot, condorcet and others allied to them. the brief upon which the brissotins were tried and sentenced to death included as one charge that they "ruined the colonies" through their antislavery advocacy. the decree of 4 february was passed only after the colonialists openly allied with britain and spain and thereby became monarchist and royalist; passed as a form of war measure, it was pushed through the assembly by danton, who gave a rousing speech in its favor. as for the risible claim that robespierre was concerned for the people, the author must be thinking of marat, hebert, varlet or roux: the convention under robespierre moved in september '93 to defang the commune and sectional assemblies and arrest the sansculotte leaders. as for the sansculotte love of robespierre, one should recall how meekly the sections responded to his arrest and how lustily they cheered his execution – "a bas le maximum!" remove the box, and pursue the important history of antislavery heroes on appropriate pages. Drollere (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

again, from Andress, "The Terror", p.272-3: "The charges against Danton were extremely general – that he had not been implacably opposed to all the other factions and later 'proven' counter-revolutionaries, from Mirabeau and Orleans to the Gironde; that he had in some unspecified way aided in the treachery of Dumouriez in the spring of 1793 – along with a few more absurd accusations, such as the notion that his move to abolish colonial slavery was intended deliberately to injure France's position in the world." this brief was written by robespierre himself from the draft by saint-just. why would robespierre insert a charge against danton that was in any way associated with his own policies or recommendations? the fact that it reappears here reinforces the fact that robespierre was the source of it against the girondins. i recognize the apologist tone of this page on robespierre, but do not have time to correct the several biases in detail. i suggest you start however by deleting the box claiming robespierre is a figure of the antislavery movement. he was no such thing. Drollere (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually wrote a section on slavery now, no Center for Research on Globalization source required. -Darouet (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maximilien Robespierre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060127090226/http://www.galichon.com:80/genealogie/html/celebre/robes/index.php to http://www.galichon.com/genealogie/html/celebre/robes/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016

The *Hebertists* were not *right-wing* as stated in the article, but *left-wing*. They were atheists or religious scoffers who advocated a kind of secular religion of revolution. They supported a *Peoples Army* (a domestic armed force imbued with revolutionary zeal and committed to fighting internal enemies); they supported the Terror strongly; they supported government economic measures contrary to free-market principles (price controls) to benefit the urban working classes or *sans culottes*. They were sometimes called *New Cordeliers* in reference to the idea that they were a dominant clique in that political club, replacing the *Old Cordeliers* or Dantonists. Their associates included a number of non-native-Frenchmen, both business people and political agitators. They were despised by Robespierre who considered them agents provocateurs by design or in effect. They were also seen as threats to the government by the ruling Committee of Public Safety, which took the *line*, more or less, that unity in the face of the foreign threat to France was the preeminent revolutionary duty, and viewed efforts to further radicalize France and advance internal revolution as suspect. Their name comes from the radical journalist Hebert, editor of the leftist newspaper *Pere Duchesne*. When some *Hebertists* dared to criticize Robespierre, and even to advocate *insurrection*, i.e. a show of force by grass-roots revolutionary organizations against the national government, to force certain policies or programs, they were purged and executed. 71.222.1.21 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Context and appropriateness

Correct me if I'm wrong, bu the final sentence of the final paragraph feels inappropriate without context, or spinning it into a sub-section like "In fiction" (though that might be a slippery slope).

Here is the offending content:

In the Honorverse, Robespierre's memory provides the inspiration of the fictional character 'Robert Stanton Pierre', who was the head of state of the People's Republic of Haven under it's version of the Committee of Public Safety.

I look forward to a consensus to move forward (remove, revise, or reject)

--Kassorlae 05:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kassorlae (talk • contribs)

Agree, and done. At some point it'd be worthwhile to write a section on fictional representations and memory of Robespierre. -Darouet (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Support also. I saw that edit the day it was applied and didn't think it encyclopedic. Thank you, Kassorlae for calling it out, and also Darouet for taking action. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 14:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Robespierre's Legacy Section

I have attempted to remove an incorrectly placed block quote a few times now. Though I believe that its contents may be relevant, the placement of it disrupts another paragraph discussing another historian. In addition, the citation does not provide a page number, which is unacceptable for a block quote. Due to this, it should be either relocated and cited, or removed from the article altogether. HIS30317Laurel (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC) HIS30317Laurel

I've had a look at the block quote: I think it does follow, but needs to be more thoughtfully introduced. The fact that it is sourced without page numbers, however, is a serious issue. I'd agree that it should be removed unless contextualized more fully and accurately/precisely sourced. Cliometrics