Talk:Maximilien Robespierre/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  who shot M.R.? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference: Stanley Loomis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A bit tough to follow 

message: 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)
thread_title:  nobleman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Strong Anti-Robespierrean and Antiquated Biases 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why the Neutrality is under dispute 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mrs. Marr's History class is the coolest 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Initiation of the Terror 

message: 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)
thread_title:  portrait - vandalism? 

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

message: 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:
# He had a general suspicion of the idea that one country could bring liberty to another by making war on it.
# 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).
# 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Genocide? 

message: Do we have references to this book in the article?
:* Gallo, Max. Maximilien Robespierre, histoire d'une sollitude. Paris: Perrin, 1999 (paperback, ).
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)
thread_title:  Gallo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  His Reputation Preceded Him? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bold 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dame politique? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Death 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Inconsistancies in dating 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Affectionate wording 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political party 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not necessarily. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I must agree with P3d0. I have tried to remove the worst excess of Robespierre-worship. Str1977 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revolutionary principles? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Full name and "nom de guerre" 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: : ***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)
replies: text: I think you can safely remove such a dubious and uncited claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Frania W. (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''le bébé souriant de miracle'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Typing error: Marc Guillaume Valdiergave --> Marc Guillaume Vadier 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Robespierre's role as a leader and mouthpiece of the Terror is clear" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last Words 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Heads Up! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title: Called a dictator

message: 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)
thread_title:  End of Reign of Terror correct? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ronan Vibert's performance

message: 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)
replies: text: True. Nice catch! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robespierre's Views On Capital Punishment 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  picture caption needs a little clarification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Warehouse 13

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Maximilien Robespierre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Maximilien Robespierre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  16 July 2016 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Robespierre's Legacy Section