Talk:September Massacres

message: A recent edit added "The September Massacres marked a period of violence against the Roman Catholic Church that spread throughout France and lasted for nearly a decade." I have two problems with that: (1) it tends to suggest that most of the victims were attacked for their connections to the Church. I am unaware of any reputable source that makes that claim. (2) As far as I know, violence against the Church and its institutions was, at most, intermittent after the fall of Robespierre: there was a flare-up at the time Rome was occupied by the French in 1799, but other than that just a smattering of incidents. No? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
: I was only quoting J. McManners, The French Revolution and the Church (1969) and Gwynne Lewis, Life in Revolutionary France (1972). However, I did not mean it to say continual and massive like 1792, only sporadic but that acts of violence, plus demonstrations against the church that turned violent, continued until the Concordat. 17:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems 

message: Recently added, recently cut: "They justified their actions by claiming that they were preserving the republic." The place this was placed in the article, it is not clear who "they" are, though presumably the perpetrators of the massacres. I don't think this is necessarily false, but I don't think it is exactly true either: as I understand it, they justified their actions as an effort to destroy what would now be called a potential Fifth Column before heading off to war. Does someone have a citation for this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification 

message: moved here: 'However this popular account of her being raped, dismembered or mutilated is disputed." If this well-attested incident is "disputed", some details are required and the symptomatic "passive of non-attribution" corrected. --Wetman 04:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pcesse de Lamballe

message: I've just writted down some more text in order to better this article, including some information about the background of the Paris Commune. I also added some aditional numbers of casualties. Besides, I made some changes in the way this articles was organized, in order to better its presentation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaelman (talk • contribs) 08:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Bergeron's universal history the very best source we can muster. What does Simon Schama's Citizens report of these days?--Wetman (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to the background 

message: Do you think this is the most blatant violation of POV in Wiki history?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Last line

message: "sans-culottes, the vast majority of Paris' fairly poor population"
To what or to whom does the phrase "fairly poor population" refer, to the vast majority who also happened to be fairly poor? to those who were fairly poor but not to those who were abjectly poor or only moderately poor? And was it a majority of this subset that formed the sans culottes? Remember when you write for public consumption you should take care to express a whole thought not a half; the reader can't read your mind (at least I can't).154.5.32.113 (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague reference 

message: text says: 
The Commune took major steps towards democratizing the Revolution: the adoption of universal suffrage, the arming of the civilian population, absolute abolition of all remnants of noble privileges, the selling of the properties of the émigrés.
I do not believe that an armed insurrection by a manipulated crowd, destituting the constitutional monarch, forcing the Assembly to dissolve itself, killing prisoners, intimidating voters (the suffrage was not secret), arming civilians, and confiscating properties is to be called "democratising" on the merit that it called for universal suffrage. The author (from North Korea :) should explain.
Note that the noble privileges were already abolished in 1789 (August 4). The writer is clearly tendentious in trying to assign the merit to the Commune, by inventing a new "absolute" abolition.
The short-lived universal suffrage (it was abolished again in 1795) increased the number of voters from an unrepresentative 10.2% in 1791 to and unrepresentative 11.9% in 1792. This was no step towards democracy. None of the revolutionary elections were democratic or representative for the French people in a modern democratic sense.
Riyadi (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All other objections aside (where I concede you have a point), I do believe that "democratising" is an apt description. As compared to most other political systems in the world at that time (including the U.S.) it certainly was one of the more democratic in regards to voting access. You can't judge it by modern day democratic standards, since systems which we today percieve as actual full universal suffrage wasn't introduced anywhere until late 19th early 20th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratising (POV) 

message: I don't understand why someone left the pagenumbers out. Could you explain for which reason? I think it is bad behavior.Taksen (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers

message: I've noticed a tendency for minor academics to publish University material on a subject and then splice in pages of florid, amateur prose into Wikipedia. Ultimately, they are trying to "flesh out" history, and add other perspectives than "history is written by the winners", but I see it as my ethical duty to pare this material down to the facts, and "re-balance" the viewpoint, not to some unrecognised Centrism, but to a reasonable inclusion. I'll whack this lead down and remove the notice, then cruise through the text for weasel words. Probably this merits an article, I'll leave that to others. Billyshiverstick (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your prose is difficult to understand. Are you saying I am not going to do anything here? We don't need headmasters, but people who check and improve. If nothing happens I will revert your contribution one day. It looks as if you want to have everything presented on a silver tea tray, so you can lay back and see others struggling. Taksen (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

text: It was Bumbubookworm. He is an expert on swimmers and Vietnam. I am sorry, even the history of the article was difficult to understand. Taksen (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onward and upward