Talk:War in the Vendée

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject France (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Peasants position worsened...[edit]

Is there a citation on the recently added claim that the "...peasants perceived that their position had worsened, not improved since the fall of the Ancien Régime"? The way this is written, it must mean worsened economically, not in terms of the issues over religion. I'm leaving it, because it seems likely enough, but a citation would be good. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:07, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

POV[edit]

This section, added a few hours ago under the heading "Aftermath", by User:Warzybok, strikes me as almost pure POV. I've moved it here for discussion; someone is welcome to rewrite it in a more neutral manner (if that leaves anything) and re-add it to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:59, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Less than 6 months after the Genocide in the Vendee, Robespierre and hundreds of Jacobin Club members were executed in what is called The White Terror. It is a generally accepted fact that the events of the Vendee had tremendous impact on this coup, that would see the Thermidorian Government rise to power. Robespierre had simply caused to much damage to the face of the revolution, and the last victim of his reign of terror would be none other than himself. Vendee is but one factor that led to the fall of the French Revolution, but it was a very critical one. The French people had initially joined the revolution when they saw the king as a threat to their rights, events in the Vendee and elsewhere illustrated that the Jacobins were no longer any better.



It appears to be more historical interpretation, rather than point of view. I personally havent read about a direct link between the Vendee Uprisings and the Thermidorians. I would be inclinded to disagree with it. The Jacobin terror was just as present in Paris and everywhere else as it was in the Vendee. Although the Thermidor Coup is seen a part of the Revolution rather than the fall of the revolution. BadSeed Dec 20 2004

More POV and uncited remarks[edit]

Recent edit: [1]. Is there some citation for this? Among other things, it claims to know people's motives, asks a rhetorical question, and gives no attribution. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's true. From Davies' Europa. Ksenon 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The revolt in Vendea is one of the basis of the folklore of modern royalists in France, and more generally of people who would like to "erase 1789" as a whole. It might so happen that we witness further occasional occurrences of correct facts described in, say, a quite lyrical style. Rama 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dubious link[edit]

In the external links: Douze colonnes à la une, by Gilles Marchal. (1)Hideously laid out page. (2) I can't quickly work out if it's non-fiction, historical fiction, or what. But my French isn't great, and I'm not inclined to give it a lot of time. Possible linkspam: User seems to have been adding a bunch of links to one site: Contributions. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


please, don't remove this links, They result from a very serious French site and can bring a new light on these articles concerning of the French events. It is not a question of linkspam. thank you in advance .Adrienne93 08:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know either if the text is a fiction or not. I don't think Gilles Marchal is an historian (he was a singer in the 70 or 80's). The webmaster of his site is called Adrienne G. Adrienne93, Would you please give more details ? --Julien Guyonnet 12:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien.guyonnet (talkcontribs)

WP:MilHist Assessment[edit]

This article has good length and details, and even has images. But I think it could benefit from some better organization (division into sections with headers) and an infobox. LordAmeth 11:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

causes/dates/levée en masse[edit]

on the levée en masse page it says ...a levée en masse was decreed by the National Convention on 23 August 1793...

Whereas this page says When mass conscription was added to the already perceived injustices of the Republic on March 7, 1793, the people struck back spontaneously.

Timeline of the French Revolution says the revolt started in march, and the levée en masse in August. It which case, its passage can not be a cause of the revolt.

Which is it? Could we get a source for the date? and a correction to one page or the other? Gomm 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Two books I have state it was 23 August 1793.
  • Taylor, B. The Empire of the French. Spellmount, 2006.
  • Connelly, O. The wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon, 1792-1815. Routledge, 2006.---Bryson 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Number in levy?[edit]

The article states that the number of troops leveed by the National Convention was 300,000 men from the whole of France, but later states the 300,000 was the number leveed from the Vendee alone. The former statement seems the more probable, yet the latter should be corrected to give the exact number actually leveed from the Vendee.67.52.199.50 (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea it was 300,000 for all of France, there's no way they would take half a region's population to fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wastedgrunt36 (talkcontribs) 22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Casualty figures[edit]

The trouble with the previous version was that if you actually read the 3 references quoted for this they don't seem to mention a figure of 500 000 dead, they do mention the 117 000 but criticise the scholarship behind it. PatGallacher 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not so. The New York Times article baldly says at least 300,000, and the final citation refers to three estimates being 500,000; 250,000 and 117,000. Moreover, the language you have inserted is very POV: "anything approaching serious scholarship"? Are you kidding me? Gabrielthursday 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I carefully read the three references. The first and third articles say that even the estimate of 117,000 is a gross fallacy (accusations of plagiarism, doctoring and other shabby scholarship), the 500,000 being considered ridiculous. The NYTimes article doesn't cite any source. If nobody contest this, I'll change the article in two days. Toitoine (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Problem of Objectivity[edit]

This article, and the respective entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#France has been subject to slow but steady dispute over Secher's and Chaunu's claims of genocide in the region. This article in the English version of Wikipedia is significantly more generous to Secher's thesis than the French version - which naturally is subject to a much more rigorous programme of editing and moderation.

The conventional authorities on the issue - from Claude Langlois of the Institute of History of the French Revolution at the University of Paris and his many Sorbonne colleagues Petitfrère, Martin, Tallonneau, to non-French authorities on the subject such as Peter McPhee, Julian Jackson, and Hugh Gough - plainly reject the event's characterization of genocide. Indeed, Jean-Clément Martin, who is not only a well-respected specialist on the Revolution, but on the Vendée during the Revolution in particular, and who has published extensively on the issue over more than two decades, estimates that 250,000 Royalists were killed over the course of the Wars, and 200,000 Republicans.

Definitions of genocide are highly contested, but there is little divergence on the very basics. Originally defined by the UN in the wake of the Holocaust as acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group", McPhee gives us Frank Chalk's and Kurt Jonassohn's more encompassing definition of: "A form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator."

Now, unfortunately I can't transfer the entirety of my knowledge of the issue of the war/revolt in the Vendée to readers (and/or moderators). But only the most blinkered, agenda-driven reader could possibly garnish from the records of this part of the Revolution a case of "genocide". If we were to label this regional subset of the civil war fought between Republicans and Royalists as genocide, we would have to label the actions of virtually every participant in bloody wars as perpetrators of this most gruesome of crimes: the Allies for the carpet bombing of Dresden, the Red (and White for that manner) Army in the wake of October 1917... it would be endless. However, as no specific "national, ethnic, racial or religious" group was targeted, and as the killing certainly was not "one-sided", it is an enormous stretch to apply this serious label to the Vendée.

Unfortunately, there are several "academics" in France - all devout Catholics and associated with the Royalist Action Francaise - who have supported Secher. And it is no coincidence, that those involved in eliminating a sense of perspective or objectivity in this article are themselves self-confessed devout Catholics. In such cases, when there is such a clear agenda (pathetic though it is), when no historian has written in support of Secher other than religiously and politically like-minded people, we ought to make it clear in the article that it is a marginal, unconventional view - not supported by the overwhelming majority of authorities on the issue.

To give readers some idea of who Secher is - which is difficult for Anglophones, and which I think is a great part of the problem here, as there are countless French sources online who reveal the extremism and non-scholarly character of Secher and Chaunu - let me point your attention to (1) He regards the First Republic as a proto-Communist totalitarian state comparable to Leninist Russia; (2) He claims the Republicans were racist against the Bretons (he himself is a Breton), patently absurd considering France was and is made up of several such "races"; (3)In 1991 he followed up with "Jews and Vendeans: From One Genocide to Another" comparing the fate of Royalist Vendeans with Jews under the Nazis; (4) started a now defunct journal called "War-Raok", associated with the Far Right "Adsav" Breton nationalist movement; (5) Speaks at Action Francaise functions alongside other ultra-conservatives who are members of La Pen's quasi-Fascist Front National party, such as Bernard Antony, Hugues Petit, Anne Bernet, Francis Bergeron, etc; (6) advocates the construction of statues in honor of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVII; (7) in the comic-strip he publishes, "The History of Brittany", he champions Breton leaders and politicians typically shunned by Bretons for their anti-Semitism and collaboration with the Nazis and Vichy France, such as Célestin Lainé, François Debauvais and Olier Mordrel. (8) Leftist newspapers such as Libération and L'Humanité have accused him of minimizing the Holocaust and playing down the role of ethnic minorities in Breton history and culture. He threatened to sue these publications unless they withdrew this allegations. They didn't, and of course, he didn't.

In short, not a very objective source.

Simply that a book was published about an issue, and subsequently caused controversy, is not sufficient reason to place the opinions contained in that lone publication on a level footing with the dozens, hundreds of opinions found in more respected, less polemical sources. Ledenierhomme 08:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Your assertion that the French version of this article is inherently less biased and more reliable is not necessarily true. The French nation being a product of the Revolution would likely produce a defensiveness on this subject. Moreover, as with Turkey, any nationality is reluctant to have itself labelled as a perpetrator of genocide. For these reasons, there is a good argument that the French article is less biased and reliable.
As to "the Allies carpet bombing of Dresden, the Red (and White for that manner) Army in the wake of October 1917" and other such matters being comparable, I don't know that any reputable academic has labelled those as genocide. As to your facile dismissal of Chaunu as nonacademic, apparently the Sorbonne thinks more of him than you do, and Donald M. G. Sutherland in The French Revolution and Empire: The Quest for a Civic Order refers to him as "one of the most distinguished and prolific historians of Old Regime Europe", A. N. RYAN in EUROPE AND THE WIDER WORLD (Annual Bulletin of Historical Literature 55 (1), 122–128) refers to him as "prolific and authoritative", and Bruce Lenman in Shrinking World Rather than Expanding Europe? Eighteenth-Century Life - Volume 27, Number 2, Spring 2003, pp. 108-117, refers to him as "a great French historian". Is he conservative, yes? But that appelation is given him less often than are the superlatives which refer to his scholarly excellence.
If you want to talk about bias and ideology look at this characterization of French historiography from Time Magazine: "Twentieth century French historiography has been dominated by a Marxist school that celebrated the French Revolution and its class struggles as the mother of the Bolshevik Revolution."
Your repeated references to the Catholicity of scholars and editors here is at best ad hominem that has no place in an argument on the merits of what is written, and at worst smacks of rank bigotry. Would you discount a Jew's writing on the Holocaust because she is Jewish?
In Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State Mark Levene says that there is a thought process which links the "perpetrators to the latter day refuters of the Vendee as genocide", namely the idea that the French Revolution "is indubitably virtuous and good" and that there is something intrinsically wrong with those today and in the past who doubt its unqualified virtue.
I'm not saying it is a certainty that it was a genocide, but the claims certainly belong in the article. And if you are going to say that a "majority" of scholars deny it, you'd better have a cite. Otherwise its: "You list nine who say no...I can list twelve who say yes." Increasingly, the recently published general treatises on genocide include it. Mamalujo 01:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


You have made several crucial logical oversights, and not less than a few disingenuous claims. I will address them in turn...
"Your assertion that the French version of this article is inherently less biased and more reliable is not necessarily true. The French nation being a product of the Revolution would likely produce a defensiveness on this subject. Moreover, as with Turkey, any nationality is reluctant to have itself labelled as a perpetrator of genocide. For these reasons, there is a good argument that the French article is less biased and reliable."
Surely you are being disingenuous here. The French article has hundreds of contributers, presumably from all positions on the political spectrum, and presumably from many different Francophone countries. This article, so far, has been dominated by Catholic polemicists. How can I make it clearer that the contention of genocide is marginal position other than cite every authority who has published on the issue? And I'm sure the Armenians really appreciate that comparison by the way.....

(Actually many Armenians are painfully aware that the Ittihadists had been inspired by the Nationalist side of the French revolution and the atrocities it carried out against its own people, especially the religious --193.194.63.129 (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

"As to "the Allies carpet bombing of Dresden, the Red (and White for that manner) Army in the wake of October 1917" and other such matters being comparable, I don't know that any reputable academic has labelled those as genocide. As to your facile dismissal of Chaunu as nonacademic, apparently the Sorbonne thinks more of him than you do, and Donald M. G. Sutherland in The French Revolution and Empire: The Quest for a Civic Order refers to him as "one of the most distinguished and prolific historians of Old Regime Europe", A. N. RYAN in EUROPE AND THE WIDER WORLD (Annual Bulletin of Historical Literature 55 (1), 122–128) refers to him as "prolific and authoritative", and Bruce Lenman in Shrinking World Rather than Expanding Europe? Eighteenth-Century Life - Volume 27, Number 2, Spring 2003, pp. 108-117, refers to him as "a great French historian". Is he conservative, yes? But that appelation is given him less often than are the superlatives which refer to his scholarly excellence."
There is precisely this ONE authority who supported Secher's thesis - Chaunu - who was, of course, Secher's mentor and sponsor for his dissertation. And, like you, addresses this issue with special interest as a devout Catholic and Royalist sympathizer. Thus it must follow, that the article should make clear that it is a MARGINAL position.
"If you want to talk about bias and ideology look at this characterization of French historiography from Time Magazine: "Twentieth century French historiography has been dominated by a Marxist school that celebrated the French Revolution and its class struggles as the mother of the Bolshevik Revolution.""
Time Magazine? Are you actually joking? So you're calling all these Heads and Professors damned Reds under the Bed?? As far as I am aware, NONE of the esteemed authorities I've cited are Marxists. Jean-Clément Martin may be, I don't know. I can assure you Peter McPhee, who I know personally from University, is far from it! At any rate, MOST OF THEM AREN'T FRENCH! Did that escape your attention? The reason full listing such a vast array of nationalities was to contrast with the "special interest" nature of the Genocide partisans.
"Your repeated references to the Catholicity of scholars and editors here is at best ad hominem that has no place in an argument on the merits of what is written, and at worst smacks of rank bigotry. Would you discount a Jew's writing on the Holocaust because she is Jewish?"
Wait, so falsely accusing these eminent scholars of being "dominated by a Marxist school" is OK, but pointing out that Secher and Co. are devout Catholics and Royalists is ad hominem????
When all else fails, use a Hitler/Nazi analogy..... If a (singular) Ultra-Conservative Jewish academic published a book vastly extending the scope of the Holocaust beyond anything that had been claimed before, say, that in fact 14 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, and was supported by only ONE authority on the Holocaust - the same authority that sponsored the academics PhD in the first place - while all the world's other authorities on the issue, both Jewish and non-Jewish, European and American (and Australasian), rubbished the claims as polemical exaggerations, then yes, of course I would discount it and so ought every level-headed person.
"In Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State Mark Levene says that there is a thought process which links the "perpetrators to the latter day refuters of the Vendee as genocide", namely the idea that the French Revolution "is indubitably virtuous and good" and that there is something intrinsically wrong with those today and in the past who doubt its unqualified virtue.
I'm not saying it is a certainty that it was a genocide (presumably because it doesn't fit the definition!), but the claims certainly belong in the article. And if you are going to say that a "majority" of scholars deny it, you'd better have a cite. Otherwise its: "You list nine who say no...I can list twelve who say yes." Increasingly, the recently published general treatises on genocide include it."
Again, they ARE the majority, those 9. I'm sure I could find dozens more, but the precise reason why those specific people are mentioned is that they ARE the authorities on that period of history, and that issue. You ought to look them up. I don't think you understand how peer review and academia functions. There is ONE authority on modern French history (Chanu) who agrees with Secher. ONE. You will not find a peer reviewed journal that has a respected scholar publishing in support of Secher (save an article by Chanu of course).


Why would anyone want to keep "claims", in an encyclopedia, that are in deference to the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion, without mentioning that they are, in deference to the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion???? Really... why? - Ledenierhomme 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)




"Dresden Bombings were acts of Genocide. "Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, wrote: Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies' firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes and, as Leo Kuper and Eric Markusen have argued, also acts of genocide." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II ("How we can prevent genocide" by Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch and "The History and Sociology of Genocide" by Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, p. 24.)
Now, I don't agree with this characterization, in fact I think it is ridiculous and devalues the sufferers of genuine genocide (war crimes certainly, not genocide). However, Stanton is probably a more reliable source than Secher. - Ledenierhomme 05:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
But see Telford Taylor When people kill a people, New York Times, March 28, 1982. Which argues that Leo Kuper may be an authority on African atrocities, and he is not an authority on law of war and aerial bombardment. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This bit which reads: History and Sociology of Genocide" by Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, p. 24.).....is this where it may have been stated: END QUOTE....? --83.108.31.191 (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

traditional definitions of genocide[edit]

See: Talk:Genocides in history#traditional definitions of genocide

The changes I have made to the "claims of genocide" section are to integrate three paragraphs into two -- one for and one against. I have altered some of the references which were are English language sources from French into English. I have removed the nationality of the scholars mentioned in the paragraphs as in MHO they are not needed, and the nationality of the scholars were not taken from sources, (To paraphrase Wellington "Just because one works in a stable, it doesn't make one a horse").. I have also removed the Claims of consensus by doing as the advise in that guideline section suggests: "opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources".

Given the information about Gough's statement in Talk: GIH I think "Hugh Gough (a professor at University College Dublin) considers that Secher book is an attempt at historical revisionism but that it is unlikely to have any lasting impact," conveys the same meaning as "Nevertheless, the great majority of authorities on modern French history have have rejected the characterization of genocide", but does so in a way that does not violate WP:SYN and Claims of consensus. Similarly I think breaking out the McPhee analysis and mentioning him by name is a better match to Wikipedia policies and guidelines than the text that was based on his article and was in the article until this edit. Neither change in my opinion is a fundamental change to the wording that was in the article before this edit. (Infact I think my interpretation of McPhee is clumsy and could do with some fettling. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lenin[edit]

The last sentence, apart from being badly worded, sheds little light on the controversy, and raises more questions than it answers. Quite possibly if you go through the complete works of Lenin you will find some comment where he compared the Cossacks with the Vendee. However since both events are disputed this creates little clarity. Also, why mention Gracchus Babeuf, although he is regarded as the first communist did he have much to do with the events in Vendee? PatGallacher 10:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "The" in the article title[edit]

Why is the word "The" in the title of this article? It is a horrible translation from French. It should be simply "Revolt in Vendée" (just like "Revolt in Texas" or "Revolt in Russia"). The use of "the" like this belongs in the dustbin of history with "The Ukraine" and other lousy translations that have fallen out of use (finally, I might add) by poor English translators. I would hope that Wikipedia would do better. - Just an observation. Charvex (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Julien and I'm coming from the France, from the Vendée... Sounds weird, isn't it ? Because the revolt was actually taking place also outside the Vendée département, the title could be "War in the Vendée area" or "War in the historical Vendée" (translation word by word of a phrase used sometime in France). From my simple reader point of view "War in Vendée" (direct translation of "Guerre de Vendée") is better. Wars could also be plural as the event is also known as "Guerres de Vendée". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien.guyonnet (talkcontribs) 09:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Disputed" Tag[edit]

Hi there. Took a look at the article and added the "Disputed" Tag. There are many affirmations which are completely POV, and the fact that the "genocide" section occupies more than the whole article is... well, most revealing. Additionally, considering the revolt of the Vendée as an episode of religious persecution is the kind of simplification that presents complex episodes like World War II as "the good democrats against evil fascist expansion". The kind of simplification I expect from pamphlets, soapbox rappers and pub conversations, but not from encyclopedias or anyone with any serious academic disposition. Dr Benway (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your objection seems to be more a matter of POV and undue weight (although I don't think those are valid either). Is there anything that you assert is factually false? If so please state them. Also, I don't think that there is any question that the supression of the Vendee was religious persecution. They had forced upon them juring priest and their nonjuring priests were ejected (same thing China and Vietnam do today). At one point all the churches were ordered closed and their sacramental items stolen by soldiers. They were forbidden to erect crosses on their graves. (Just to mention a few of the items of persecution). Actually, I think this article is deficient in that it fails to state the reasons why the rebellion occured, primarily the religious persecution and secondarily the draft which the Republican officials (the same people who bought up the expropriated church property) exempted themselves from. Mamalujo (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that something is not factually false does not in any way make it necessarily true. You can elaborate many theories on many things that can fall into certain categories, giving sound reasons for these things to do so, but if you are decontextualising and extrapolating modern ideas and morality into historical events which belong to other times you are simply theorising and forwarding original research or simply echoing some minority opinion or theory. Interesting, sometimes stimulating or inspiring, but historically inconsequential and not encyclopedic. Discussing wether the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki amounted to genocide has a place in historical discussion because the historical event in itself, the moral/legal concept under discussion, and the political background are all related in time. The same can be said about the bombing of Dresden and, unfortunately, hundreds of other instances in the past century. Discussing whether Jesus Christ was the first communist, or whether the Isaraeli conquest of Canaan, the Crusades, or the French revolutionary terror are instances of genocide is, again, stimulating, polemic and fun to argue, but historiographically speaking amounts to nothing more than tendentious splattering of modern politics on past events.
As to the revolt of the Vendee as an episode of religious prosecution, of course I agree with you. I only say that considering the causes of the revolt as solely or principally based on religious issues is oversimplifying something which is far more complex. Religious persecution occured, certainly. But it was not the sole reason, and shares importance with a number of other factors which are equally as important.
And btw, Happy Winter Solstice and the best for 2008, good sir ;) Dr Benway (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The disputed tag is on top of the section "Defeats" while the dispute if any remains is of the genocide part. I do not remove the tag yet but move it to the Genocie section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien.guyonnet (talkcontribs) 13:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Change of title[edit]

why does the English-language version of this article have the term "Revolt"?

It is known in French as the Guerre de Vendée. Guerre = War. A "guerre civile", civil war.

"Revolt" implies something rather different.

Ledenierhomme (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Title has been changed. "Revolt in the Vendée" redirects to this article. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

Several editors are reverting the edits I have been in contravention of Wikipedia:Consensus.

In the relevant section of the Genocides In History article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#France), this "issue" was debated over for several weeks, at length, with many editors involvement. The resulting section is still FAR from perfect, (placing the sophistry of polemicists - in most cases self-published in all but name - on an equal footing with established authorities who are specialists/experts on the subjects and have been published in peer-reviewed journals) but it is far and away more objective and dispassionate than the argumentative, unbalanced, diatribe that some editors have allowed this article to become. This includes at least two editors who were involved in the discussion on the Genocides In History talk page who are trying to get their skewed political/national/religious/ethnic POINTs enshrined in this article, because it has drawn much less attention. Ledenierhomme (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to delete materials with no citations then fine, but you are removing large swaths of credible materials with citations. For excample, you removed all the materials pertaining to the numerous atrocities committed by the revolutionaries, such as the "national baths," with citations from credible historians like Simon Schama. This is unacceptable IMO. I will restore such materials.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"credible historians like Simon Schama" - he may well be a credible historian, as Stephen Hawking is a credible astrophysicist, but neither are authorities on the Vendee conflict like the sources I am replacing him with. This article is entitled "War in the Vendée", not "List of atrocities committed by Republican/Government forces during the War in the Vendée". Do you wish me to add the atrocities that were committed by Royalists? Wouldn't that be rather tedious? Wouldn't it be better to arrive at some sort of compromise - no matter how incomplete and unsatisfactory - between the authors of the Genocide polemic and the authors of the mainstream/conventional analysis? Believe it or not, that's what I and many editors spent a great deal of time doing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#France - only for someone (you?) to turn this article into a religion-infused wild-eyed diatribe. I am reporting your reverts as vandalism. Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and try it, pal. I like the way you accuse others here of having some kind of nefarious agenda, when you clearly have one yourself.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"nefarious agenda"? I beg your pardon? I merely spend my time trying to prevent Wikipedia articles being overrun by special interest nationalist, sectarian, and supremacist soapboxers. If you want to preach about "anti-Catholicism" or "anti-Royalism", do it somewhere else, Wikipedia is not the place. Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys! I'm not historian, just a 27 years old production engineer. I'm French and Vendéen. I'm using Wikipedia because the data is usually clear & well organized. My point of view on the debate you have : "Keep it simple".
Three paragraphs.
The first one to explain that there's a debate, in France and overseas, within the historian community but not only. In fact, some people used the guerres de Vendée to generate other things, often more 'actuals', (ie : politic arguments, money (tourism for example is important in the local economy, see historical Parc du Puy du Fou [2] or La Chabotterie[3], ...)).
Second paragraph : Description of the argument for the genocide thesis. (Number of dead. General Somebody wrote to Paris government : "I killed a lot of Vendéeans, including wifes and children, ...).)
Third paragraph : Arguments against the thesis. (Governement unstable. Killing each others was the national sport in France at the time. It was a civil war as Mister VeryKnown explain in his book.)
Sadly my experience, knowledge and my english doesn't allow me to create a good quality job on this topic but i'll be happy to help if i can.
I thank you anyway. I appreciate the job you contributors are doing... specially when it allows the world to learn about 'my' Vendée. :) --Julien Guyonnet 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dieu Le Roi[edit]

The translation of the text Dieu Le Roi

God (is) the king

strikes me.
The Vendéens were fighting "Pour Dieu et pour le Roi" ("for God and for the king"). "Dieu ! Le Roi !" ("God ! King!") was also certainly a very popular slogan at that time. "(is)" has no added value and is not necessary as it could lead to a mistake/misunderstanding.
--Julien Guyonnet 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A Time for France and other Western Powers to Grow Up[edit]

That an event as clear as this can be made "disputed" by radical secularist republicans is beyond comprehension. In the name of supposed "perspective" the truth is sacrificed in favor of their need for liberating myth. France and the UK need to confront their nasty history, with their own people and apologize. --Jackkalpakian (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us see: Algeria, Bengal, Indochina, Equatorial Africa, the Dervish Wars, and the clearest example Ireland. These states began by butchering their own people and then exported the concept -- it is time for the UK and France to own up to the tide of destruction their state-building brought. Does that answer your question??? --Jackkalpakian (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Then nothing can. You are wedded to total celebration of the bloodshed of revolutionary change and supposed "progress." The fact is that the construction of Nations in Western Europe was as bloody, if not bloodier than in the Balkans. The more we have denial and the clinging on to myth, the more likely we ill have the events of Darfur repeat themselves. Western states cannot make arguments about the events there, without owning up to their own histories, including France.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your examples (of what they are suppo0sed to be examples, you have not even even stated) are nothing more but examples of conquest and war, and are additionally well known and criticized in modern day Europe. So what? You do not actually claim that these (conquest and war) have been invented by western nations do you? They have existed throughout the history of humanity. And to this specific event in French history: It's a civil war. Civilians die in civil war just like in normal wars. Genocide on the other is something specific, scholary defined. This definition simply does not apply here, and no one but a fanatic Catholic could have the insulting (to the victims of real genocides) stupidity to compare this event to real genocides like the Holocaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.122.82 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit War[edit]

I note a recent edit war principally between User:Ledenierhomme and User:Mamalujo. I note that some sourced material has been taken out without explanation; also that Ledenierhomme has twice marked major reversions as minor edits, which is inaccurate and inappropriate. Further, Ledenierhomme has made repeated accusations that Mamalujo is a single-purpose account. Such spurious charges amounts in my mind to a violation of WP:NPA. At this point, I recommend that Ledenierhomme justify any deletions on this talk page in order to arrive at some rough consensus. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear to me, a practicing Catholic with long experience at this sort of thing, that Ledenierhomme is an anti-Catholic bigot, despite his attempts to appear completely objective. KenGordon (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing you clearly reveal with your statement is your own bias, as well as your lack of manners. Dr Benway (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious persecution template[edit]

Hi there, Mamalujo. Dindn't realise it was you doing the reverts. Could we please have a normal conversation on the use of this infobox in the article War in the Vendée? I thought we had agreed on the fact that it was a bit of an overuse there, as I thought I had already explained in the infobox talk-page... No answer, no discussion, simply revert and ongoing revert war. It's plain silly, frankly. Dr Benway (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to discuss it, but I don't think there's any question that there was pretty egregious religious persecution, i.e. clergy imprisoned, women beaten on the way to mass, churches ordered closed, monastics suppressed, etc., not to mention what many call the first modern genocide. From the article:

The Civil Constitution required all clerics to swear allegiance to it and by extension to the increasingly anti-clerical National Constituent Assembly. All but seven of the 160 bishops refused the oath, as did about half of the parish priests. Persecution of the clergy and the faithful was the first trigger of the rebellion; the second being conscription. Nonjuring priests were exiled or imprisoned. Women on their way to Mass were beaten in the streets.[5] Religious orders were suppressed and Church property confiscated. On March 3, 1793, virtually all the churches were ordered closed. Sacramental vessels were confiscated by soldiers and the people were forbidden to place a cross on their graves. The March 1793 conscription requiring Vendeans to fill their district's quota of 300,000 enraged the populace,who took up arms as "The Catholic Army", "Royal" being added later, and fought for "above all the reopening of their parish churches with their former priests."

Mamalujo (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As stated back in January, in the Talk page:

Please consider the removal of this Template from the article on War in the Vendée. I agree that there were episodes of religious prosecution in the conflict, but the template of religious prosecution in the article is excessive, bungles up the article, and serves no real purpose. Templates should be used where the issue or topic represented by it is directly related to the article, and closely connected with it. Following the logic of putting this template up over every single article having to do with events, conflict and war with religion as backdrop would make this template appear in practically all articles on historical conflicts. I don't see it -and quite correctly- in the Albigensian Crusade article, or in any of the Crusade articles, for instance... I don't really see what it's doing in the War in the Vendée. Cheers! Dr Benway (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing, not for a single moment, that there were episodes of religious prosecution. And it was a cause for the uprising. But please refer to qouted paragraph for specifics. 194.224.27.161 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This subject did not involve episodes of religious persection (as did the Crusades) but was itself religious persecution. It was the suppression and ultimately mass murder of a group who rebelled against their religious oppression. It is like the Cristero War, and one source I mentioned in an edit summary said just that. The template "is directly related to the article, and closely connected with it." Religious persecution was not just the backdrop of this war, it was the cause and the very gist of it, and sources say so. The Crusades, for example, are different in that they were about the reconquest of lands that had been taken in military campaigns by the Muslims, the purpose and the gist of the Crusades was not persecution of Muslims, although there were episodes of it, and that is the difference. Mamalujo (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into an edit war about this since I can't be bothered and I've explained what I think. So basically I'm not even going to waste more of my time (or yours, for that matter) arguing this over with you (and much less going into the Crusades... if you view it as a "reconquest", I can imagine the rest lol), since it's pretty much like hitting one's head against a very thick brick wall, and you evidently just don't want to take time with editing this article to an encyclopaedic standard. I've read a couple of mainstream textbooks on the French Revolution period (pretty standard stuff, Oxford Uni publishers and a few canon contemporary history manuals), and I've never come accross any serious scholar who defined the driving cause of the war in the Vendee as religion. So if this is the academic and analytical quality you're aiming for, it's all yours; soapbox to your heart's content ;) Cheers, and good night to you. Dr. Benway84.79.201.106 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the template. If we tagged every article with every minor opinion and POV then we'd end up with an utter mess of templates on the right. The rebels started the disturbances by targeting republicans: they did not target non-Catholics or the non-religious AFAIK. If they did then it would be religious persecution but they didn't - they attacked the symbols of the then state not the symbols of a religion (or lack of a religion). That the republicans then responded and targeted the rebels, who self-identified as a mixture of catholic and royals is in response to the initial trigger. That there is an overlap between the rebels and a religion is incidental. That in a civil war the belligerents had to use religion as a criteria simply highlights the convenience of using the intrinsically divisive nature of religion as a method of dividing a civilian population. In the template we already have the French Revolutionary Dechristianisation so the anticlerical aspects of this period of French history are already well covered in the template. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


It should certainly be included in the article, but please can we make it into a bar at the bottom? It messes up the whole format of the article otherwise. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates of the warS[edit]

The war in the Vendée could be divided in different wars, the treaty of Jaunaye (or Jaunais) officially ends the war in the Vendée on February 17 1795, but Jean-Nicolas Stofflet doesn't agree with it and continues the insurrection a few months later. So we can't say the war ended in 1795 since battles continued to take place. Hence this article is right to not end it in February 1795. Stofflet continues to fight and is captured in early 1796, hence the war ends in 1796, as is mentioned by the article. YET, it starts again in 1799, with the same surviving protagonists (Charles Marie de Beaumont d'Autichamp, Henri Forestier.. etc..., who were Vendéens officers, not chouans so one can't call it chouannerie), so its exactly the same thing as Stofflet not respecting the 1795 peace, only this time they waited a little longer than Stofflet to break it (years instead of months). I would agree to date the war in the Vendée from 1793 to 1796 AND from 1799 to 1800, when the last peace treaty is signed. Then significant insurrections in Vendée start again in 1814 during the Hundred Days, and again in 1832 after the July revolution.

I think we should date the War in the Vendée until 1800. Most french sources say 1793 to 1796 but mention the dates 1799 to 1800 as a continuation or as a "second war in the Vendée", and sometimes part of it. The later insurrections of 1814 aren't associated to the general war in the Vendée as much, although they are a also continuation. Probably because the time between the two wars was simply too long. What I'm saying is that I believe we should at least mention in the intro and the infobox that there was a significant continuation of the war until 1800. People reading about battles and Vendéens generals who fought in 1799 will be confused seeing this article ends the war in 1796. What do you think?Munin75 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Only "one reputable scholar" considers it genocide?[edit]

Not just one scholar, but Jonassohn, Chaunu, Secher, Mark Levene, Tulard, Adam Jones and Joes (all cited in the article), just to name a few, consider it genocide. I am reverting the lede to reflect that facts. The assertion that "only one reputable scholar" considers it genocide is not only patently false, but also downright preposterous. Mamalujo (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Chanu is the only scholar on the period - and, as previously discussed, he is self-admittedly an ideology-driven scholar. He still did good work, 'twas just always clouded by his political interests. None of the others are experts on the period, most aren't scholars at all (a scholar and someone who has published the book is not the same thing). - Ledenierhomme (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
1)Do you have a source that says he's the only scholar of the period who considers it genocide? Otherwise it is just your own OR assertion. And 2) who says the relevent discipline is the chronological period (as opposed to the study of genocide)? Mamalujo (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
1) The burden of proof is on you. You have asserted "some scholars" - Chanu is the only scholar you mentioned on the period and events in question (I'd like to remind you, that I am the one who originally placed Chanu in this article); 2) Embarrassing. Remind yourself of the title of the article again. If you want to create an article on the "field" or "study" of genocide, go ahead. This is an article about an historical event. We've gone through this a million times. Accusations of genocide are made and repeated all the time. Prime Minister Erdogan recently called the Chinese government's treatment of its Uyghurs "genocidal" - you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable scholar who agrees with him though. So it is with the revolutionary war in the Vendee. No authoritative voices echoed Secher's ridiculous claims. Chanu gave some support (calling it "ideological genocide" or "poplicide"); when Secher published his follow-up saying it was as bad as the Holocaust, he lost what little credibility he possibly had. Of course, as you've so vociferously pointed out, this hasn't stopped various authors and "genocide experts" from reprinting Secher's initial claims, that were widely debunked and ridiculed by all the relevant scholars that I've listed in the article. Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I have multiple sources for my version. You have no source that says only "one scholar..blah, blah". Moreover, the edit you want, even if it were true, which I highly doubt it is, is misleading becuase it gives the false and preposterous impression that only one scholar holds that position. I we must, we can move on the other methods to resolve this. I am certain your position will not prevail. Mamalujo (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to educate you on how authority, scholarship, and peer-review works, yet you continue to stick your head in the sand and refer to people like Secher or whoever "Kurt Jonassohn" is as reliable sources and "scholars", on the same level as Heads of Department from respected universities. Ledenierhomme (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Jonassohn is considered both one of the "pioneers" of the study of genocide and, along with Levene (who also considers it genocide), one of the "major scholars" of the discipline. He has specialized in that discipline since the 1970s. Please see Pioneers of genocide studies. You had even cited to him in at least one of your earlier edits regarding the definition of genocide. Mamalujo (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is an article on an historical event - not a soapbox for a new field you term "Genocide Studies". Where there is severe disagreement, you refer to the authorities - not obscure authors in obscure fields - and make it clear that any fringe or minority (or in this case, ideology-driven) view is clearly represented as such, and not put on equal footing with respected, established scholars whose work is subject to peer-review. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The assertions made by the scholars I've cited to are not fringe in any way. Jonassohn, Levene and the like are scholars of note and publish in peer reviewed journals such as Holocaust and Genocide Studies, a journal of long standing publishled by Oxford University. Certainly there is disagreement, sometimes vehement, about the status of the massacres in the Vendee, but the academic status of the subject is not what you pretend or mistakenly believe it to be. Mamalujo (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and when Secher originally published his results, all the scholars who wrote about it in peer-review journals, rejected it. I wish you'd stop using the term "scholar" so loosely. "Scholars of note"? Please try to understand how scholarship, academic authority, and peer-review works before you make such ridiculous statements. The assertions by Secher, and writers who have re-published his assertions, are fringe by its very definition. Mentioning the fact that a journal called Holocaust and Genocide Studies has published their articles, does not make them authorities on the War in the Vendee! I've also had articles published, but I'm hardly a scholar of note and worthy of citing against Hugh Gough or Paul Tallonneau! - Ledenierhomme (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) The accusation of genocide is fringe and does not appear in any of the mainstream literature about genocide. It does not deserve a section in the article - perhaps a mention. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Four Deuces, you are quite mistaken. Apparently you have not looked into it too much. It appears in many of the mainstream texts including textbooks.Mamalujo (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Then please name one genocide scholar who calls the Vendee genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll name three, right of the top of my head: Kurt Jonassohn, Mark Levene, and Adam Jones.Mamalujo (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact in their book Genocide in World History (1990), Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn provided a new definition of genocide, widened to include among other things killings "to eliminate a real or potential threat". They revisted many events throughout history which they identified as genocide. Should we therefore re-write the leads for articles about all these events? We could for example add to the lead of the Trojan War that some scholars found the actions of the Greeks to be genocide. In fact the term does not appear in the article at all. The proper place to report these theories is in the article about genocide. The Vendee article correctly reports the events that occurred. The fact that there is a minority opinion that it should be classified as genocide is irrelevant. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the view is a minority any more. But that is beside the point. A minority view is not necessarily fringe. This scholarly position is decidedly not fringe. It is held by mainstream academics, many of them at the top of their field and published in peer reviewed works. Mamalujo (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I saved the last change without an edit summary. The mainstream view of genocide is written about by writers like Fein, Rummel and Valentino. Jonassohn's views do not have sufficient acceptance to be included in the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the position of the other two, but Rummel explicitly says that the Vendee was genocide on p. 55 of Death by Government. I've cited to him in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) He must be using it in a loose way. The concept he developed was democide. His definition of genocide is clearly killing of one ethnic group by another. (p. 39)[4] I do not know however how accepted this terminology is. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he's quite explicit: "And, although often reported as a civil war, in fact a full scale genocide was carried out in the Vendee, in which possibly 117,000 inhabitants were indiscriminately murdered." Also, you state that Fein, Rummel and Valentino are mainstream, but if you read up, you will see that Levene, Jones and Jonassohn are also mainstream, and they along with Rummel consider it genocide. Indeed, as I posted above Jonassohn is considered one of the "pioneers" of the study of genocide and, along with Rummel and Levene (who also consider it genocide), one of the "major scholars" of the discipline (Pioneers of genocide studies). There is no good argument that this is fringe - you may as well drop that one. It is a view held by numerous major scholars in the field. Mamalujo (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Rummel does not explain why he uses the term genocide. Anyone can conduct a Google search to support text they wish to include, but the correct way to write articles is to take relevant articles and then reflect here what is in them. Is it normal for articles about the war to talk about genocide? No. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit removing ref. to Tulard, Rummel and Joes as "scholars".[edit]

Yes they are scholars. Rummel is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, Tulard is Professor of French History at the Sorbonne and a noted specialist on the French Revolution, Napoleon and military history, and Joes is Professor of Political Science and Director of the International Relations Program at Saint Joseph's University, versed in, among other things, insurgencies and revolution. Mamalujo (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

They are either not scholars, or scholars in entirely irrelevant fields. Rummel? Are you for real? I'll say for the umpteenth time - you need to learn how academic authority and peer review works. I added in Chanu and Tulard, who could be described as "scholars" in the traditional sense (albeit strongly ideological ones). Keeping this in mind, try again, by all means. And please adhere to WP:CIVIL Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean they are not scholars!?? Are you daft?!! You are making it very difficult to be civil - removing the word "scholars" from noted scholars at top universities. The study of genocide is not an irrelevant field. Nor is a political scientist who studies revolution and insurrection in an irrelevant field. As to Rummel, he's not dilettante. As search for his name on google scholar returns over 1,500 entries.Mamalujo (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Rummel write scholarly papers but his conclusions are considered a minority opinion. But a major problem with using his book as a source is that although he calls the Vendee War "genocide" in passing, he does not explain why and his description of the events does not conform to his definition of genocide. Articles should follow stories as they are understood in the main literature about them. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Denialism and the Vendée Genocide[edit]

As with many other genocides, the topic of denialism by the guilty party has some sort of coverage or even articles. In this article, we have a lot of airtime given to the Jacobin sympathetic, deniers and their wriggling, but we don't really Freud them as is done elsewhere, we don't mention their political and intellectual motivation (secularist, republican, liberal, socialist) for trying to deny the fact that this horrific genocide in the Vendée took place. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not "denialism" but categorization. Ironically the categorization of the Vendee and other episodes as genocide has become popular among holocaust deniers. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue is most certainly one of grave denialism. Defined as the negation of a historical event, the genocide in the Vendée, specifically motivated by the desire to attain political goals by certain French authors with an anti-Catholic bias (motiviated to protect the republican Jacobin myth of "liberty, fraternity, equality"). It is no coincidence that the Great Revolt in France, led in a direct political line to Bolshevism and Holodomor, as well as National Socialism and Holocaust. Isn't it amazing, how people have the gall to openly deny genocides carried out solely because the people of the Vendée were Loyal Catholics and Royalists? Sickening. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of that view of history but it is has gained no acceptance in the academic community. No one denies that Jacobins killed people in order to attain political goals. What they do deny is that the people of the Vendee were targeted because they were not French. Incidentally, this was not the first mass killing in French history, there was the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Do you consider that to be genocide? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Deuces, scholars are generally united in their opinion on this subject. I'd like to remind everyone that this talk page is not the place to propagate our pet theories and beliefs on what happened, nor is this talk page a place to spread your own personal views in general. The arguments here should focus on analyzing what reputable source from historians of the Revolution have to say.UberCryxic (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have removed the word "suppressed" from the lead per WP:PEACOCK. Wikipedia should not take sides, and when we claim that the Catholics and the Royalists were suppressed, that's exactly what it looks like.UberCryxic (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Some "scholars" beholden to the political aims of the Frankfurt School in the West may be "united". But many scholars, of a more neutral, reputable standing do not take the pro-Jacobin, anti-Catholic denialist position of the genocide. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok see this is a perfect example of what I mean. I appreciate and acknowledge your personal views, I really do, but Wikipedia is not the forum to announce such views. Please try and stay on topic in the future.UberCryxic (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Yes Yorkshiran, it is us who are all biased. We are all French radical secularist Jacobin republicans (and communists?). And you're NOT biased because you're NOT Catholic, right? Oh, wait.... For the record, I am not French (my username refers to the German philosopher Hegel and the Russian-French philosopher Kojeve), "radical", communist, a Jacobin, and I'm not even, strictly speaking, completely dedicated to secularism in government. And I think that neither do authorities who ouright rejected Secher's accusation when it was published fit your stereotype. So where does that leave your accusation of denialism? I am merely trying, as I do with all Wikipedia articles, to reflect the scholarly consensus, and remove special interest soapboxing. By your own admission, you're both a devout Catholic AND a monarchist, so....... rearrange these words: kettle the black calling pot the - Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the article should take neither a Jacobin postition nor a Catholic Monarchist position. That being said, some on this talk page have asserted patently false positions about the historiagraphy and scholarly status of the genocide claim such as "scholars are generally united in their opinion on this subject". The fact of the matter is that there is scholarly disagreement on this subject, with numerous reputable scholars on both sides and the article should reflect that. Now to the extent the article dismisses the claim as "quasi-mythological" which it does or dismisses the claim by attributing it to the political or religious views of the proponents, which it also does, balance would require that reliably voiced criticism of the deniers as Jacobin, secularist or the like should also be permissable. And reliably sourced material which attributes the denialism to perpetrator guilt (or at least that of their sucessors, as with the Turks) or similar factors would also be appropriate. Mamalujo (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source that would give more realistic information than, "Estimates of those killed in the Vendean conflict range between 117,000 and 450,000, out of a population of around 800,000"? Apparently the 117,000 figure is from a discredited calculation by Reynald Secher. It should also point out that there were deaths on both sides. ~~ ~~
An editor continues to insert the adjective "suppressed" for Catholics involved on the royalist side of the conflict. No mention btw is made of the Catholics in the Republican Army. Since use of the the term violates WP:Neutrality it should not be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the number killed, Simon Schama, a specialist in the French Revolution, in his Citizens: a chronicle of the French Revolution‎ at pp. 791-2 says Jean Clement Martin's book is a "model of reasoned research" and gives the figure of a quarter million or one third of the population of the entire region. He also notes that the figure does not include Republican soldiers. Mamalujo (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There you go, totally misapprehending academia again. Simon Schama a "specialist in the French Revolution"? Wrong again. He published a book on the subject, a polemic saying the whole thing was all about violence. That does not make one a "specialist" or a "scholar" on the subject, worthy of camparison to someone like, say, Jean-Clement Martin. And either Schama made a mistake, or you did, as Jean-Clément Martin estimated 250,000 insurgents and 200,000 republicans killed in the conflict. And he of course rejects the characterization of genocide, as every disinterested scholar of history has done. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article on Schama: he worked "at Oxford where he was made a Fellow of Brasenose College in 1976, specialising in the French Revolution." [emphasis mine]. Mamalujo (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source! Who said he was a specialist? Of course he isn't. You really think that someone who publishes one argumentative book for a lay audience can be considered a specialist or an authority? Of course you don't. Well, at least I hope you don't, otherwise we're all screwed, and there's no point even having this conversation. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Although Schama may have specialized in the French Revolution, his writings do not form part of academic literature about the Revolution. His various books are considered "popular history". Note that the WP article says, "Citizens (1989), written at speed to a publisher's commission, finally saw the publication of his long-awaited study of the French revolution, and won the 1990 NCR Book Award. Citizens was very well-received and sold admirably. Its view that the violence of the Terror was inherent from the start of the Revolution, however, has received serious criticism." The Four Deuces (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing that is missing here is the constitutional clergy. The depiction of any struggle as between "the Catholics" and the Republic is necessarily an oversimplification. I feel impelled to rewrite from a real history of the Revolution; I have a copy of Palmer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead.UBER (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede paragraph of Genocide section should include that others support Secher.[edit]

Previously the lede paragraph in the genocide section stated that Secher considered the event genocide and then it goes on for a number of sentances stronly denying the claim. The paragraph had no statement that a number of other scholars now support the claim. In fact, there is no indication that other scholars support this claim until the THIRD paragraph. This is not a proper lede paragraph, either in Wikipdia policy or in third grade Englih composition. Moreover, it is misleading. In the lede paragraph of the section there must be an indication that there is support for the claim. Otherwise, the false and POV impression is created that the claim faces universal denial. I simply summarized the support found later in the section: "Notwithstanding these objections, a number of scholars, as noted below, now agree with Secher and consider the acts of the revolutionary state to be genocide." This is a true and accurate summary of the later part of the section. Indeed, it arguably understates the case (the fact of the matter is that a substantial number of scholars in genocide studies, even some of the most notable scholars, support the claim). If we have to get a neutral party in to asses the matter, then we will. I'm sure they'll come to the obvious conclusion: plainly the lede should summarize the section - meaning there has to be a mention of the other support for the postion. Mamalujo (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The view that this episode was genocide is a fringe view. Can you provide any sources that indicate the degree of academic acceptance? TFD (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, how 'bout reading the genocide section of the article. I'm trying to maintain good faith here, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about. In that section you'll see listed there the support of a number of scholars of considerable repute in the area of genocide studies. Clearly there is not a consensus, but the idea that the assertion is fringe is totally without merit.Mamalujo (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No matter how many times you revert my edits, you will never be able to alter the fact that all the authorities on this particular history from France to the US to Australia and more, regard Secher's 1980 accusation as ludicrous on its face - i.e. how can the French commit genocide against the French? The fact that the one region was somewhat more Royalist and Catholic than the many other French region hardly qualifies it as a different "genos". The Vendeans were/are French. They were on the losing side of a Civil War. Did the Union army commit genocide against the Confederates, who happened to be of a different political persuasian - indeed also of a measurably different ethnicity - and somewhat more religious than the Yankees? I think not. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No "all the authorities" do not regard anything of the sort. Indeed, there are numerous scholars noted in the article who now agree with Secher. You may not like it but that is not what matters. Mamalujo (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
We've gone through this now, I don't know how many times..... Secher has no credibility, obviously, never was a scholar. The "genocide studies" (not a real field) authors, Jones etc, are not authorities - much less scholar. You have Chanu on your side - ONE actual scholar on the time period (and of course Tulard, the monarchist!) - who of course everyone else rubbishes on this issue because he's so politically-motivated. ALL the authorities on the period, reject it. I had to go through and find all the reputable scholars who even bothered to respond to Secher's ridiculous claim in 1980, and they all rejected it. Your view is a fringe, wingnut one. Stop trying to pass it of as a common opinion of "scholars"! - Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


This article is so poorly constructed, disjointed, long on opinion and short on facts that it needs to be scrapped and rewritten from scatch, with the objective of providing information on the subject-matter; rather than the personal opinions of contributors, their biases, and irrelevant debates on the definition of genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorzu (talkcontribs) 09:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Genocide claims in the lede[edit]

So, I'm talking this issue the talk page: there is currently a disagreement between myself and Mamalujo over how to characterize the claims that the Vendée was the first genocide in the lede. I'm bringing my argument here for input from others.

As far as I'm concerned, the genocide claim is WP:FRINGE and presenting it as anything else in the lede violates WP:UNDUE.

Here are my sources and justification. From Howard G. Brown's review of Secher's work in 'The Journal of Modern History'

Despite his book’s title, Secher makes no attempt to define genocide but, rather, uses the term for shock value. The concept of genocide, as distinct from mass murder, depends on choosing a target group that can be clearly distinguished from others in society. This was simply not the case in the Vendée, which was a classic civil war in which many of the local inhabitants sided with the Revolution.

From Claude Langlois in Vingtième Siècle. Revue d'histoir

Pierre Chaunau, pour appuyer sa dénonciation du génocide vendéen ... basculer les morts d'un seule côté.

Langlois also describes the numbers cited by Chaunau, Secher, et al. as "sans aucun fondement scientifique." And states that the argument in favor of genocide "repose surtout sur un erreur de méthode."

Hugh Gough, in the Historical Journal, rightly points out that the primary proponents of the genocide claim are all tied to two firms, both directed by Chaunau. If the claim is not in fact widely denounced, then it should be fairly simple to find sources not tied to Chaunau.

Eldamorie (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Mamalujo reverted. Shinui (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The number of academics that considers it the first modern genocide is, of course, narrower than those who consider it to be genocide. Those who consider it to be genocide are certainly not limited to Secher and his associates. That is simply today a demonstrable factual falsehood. It might have been true in 1987 when Gough wrote his review, but a quarter century has passed since then and a simple glance at the genocide section of the article and the many scholars there who hold this position demonstrates it is not true today. The source is stale and is not now reliable. As to the position being fringe, that is absolutely not the case. Certainly, it is a hotly contested issue, but it is a position held by noted scholars of good repute. Indeed, it is described as genocide in many general volumes on genocide. Mamalujo (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You've claimed that the number of academics is growing... but have yet to cite a single secondary source showing this. The Encyclopedia of Genocide never directly states that the war in the Vendée was a genocide, and it is a tertiary source and provides absolutely no citations to back up its claims. If it's true that the fringe nature of these claims is a "demonstrable factual falsehood" then it shouldn't be too hard to find a citation by a historian not connected to Chaunau or Secher that makes the claim. Gough's review is old, I'll readily admit that, but at this point an old citation is better than no citation. eldamorie (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
While it might be helpful to the discussion, I don't have to provide sources for what I assert here on the talk page. As to The encyclopedia of genocide, it was not cited for the assertion that the event was genocide but for the growing consensus as to the death toll. What I said was a demonstrable falsehood today was not that the claim of genocide is fringe (although that too is demonstrably false) but that the only supporters of the claim were connected to Secher. Chalk, Jonassohn, Levene, Jones and Joes to name just a few notable scholars (see the genocide section) all hold this position. They are not all connected to Secher. Such an assertion is plainly untrue today. An old (and factually stale) citation in the lede is not better than none at all. The lede is a summary of the article and the sourcing for it lies in the body of the article. Mamalujo (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should source talk page assertions. I'm saying you should cite changes to the article, especially when there is a citation that directly contradicts it. I have no problem with removing the Gough citation, but as the claim that others support the theory is directly contradicted by the four sources I mentioned above, to include that information in the text of the article should definitely be cited. eldamorie (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I know the taste of some people for conspiracy theories and for sensationalist historical revisionism, but the term “genocide" doesn’t apply to the War in the Vendée
It is basically supported by a single person, Reynald Secher, and rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community for three major reasons :
1. Anybody with a basic knowledge of vocabulary knows that a genocide is the planned and systematic killing of an ethnic group. But there's not such thing as a "Vendéen" ethnic group. Hence there was not, and couldn't exist, a planned massacre of this unidentified group.
2. The royalist Vendéens initiated the mass murders of republican Vendéens in Machecoul. What kind of genocide is that, when the supposed victim of a genocide genocides its own group ???
3. There was no further massacre after the defeat of the Catholic and Royalist Army, when the royalist population of Vendée was at the mercy of the Republican government.
Secher's extreme assertions shouldn't be in the lead as it violates Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories and WP:UNDUE, it gives to his controversial and very personal vision of history an overwhelming presence in this article. Would Thierry Meyssan's conspiracy theory about 9/11 should figure in the lead of the 9/11 article ? Of course not.
It's a lack of Ihistorical rigor to have Secher's claim in the lead of this article, as if his claim had ascendancy over the mainstream position. I propose to move Secher's claim from the lead and to keep it in the historiography section. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read the article before you start insisting that portions of it are fringe when, in fact, there is no merit whatsoever to that assertion. You talk about what the definition of genocide is then say, in your own editorial opinion, that this cannot be genocide. The problem with your assertion is that many highly reputed scholars in the area of genocide studies say this IS an example of genocide. Whenever this is discussed here, people get fixated on Secher. Chalk, Jonassohn, Levene, Jones and Joes, to name just a few notable scholars (see the genocide section) all hold this position. These are reputable scholars, indeed some are considered at the top of their field. Again, the assertion of fringe is totally without merit. Jones, Chalk and Levene are all on the editorial board of the Journal of Genocide Research, the peer reviewed publication of the International Network of Genocide Scholars. Jonassohn, who just died December 1, was also a scholar of high repute. He presented and published more than 40 papers and articles on genocide in addition to co-authoring two books. (Please see the reviews of his book on genocide which was published by Yale Univ. Press.) All of these are serious scholars, in no way fringe thinkers. Their categorization of this event as genocide may be contested but it is in no way outside of the academic mainstream. In fact, they in large part are the mainstream in this area of study. Mamalujo (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I read much more about the War in the Vendée than this poorly sourced article, but thanks for the advice. I brought sources arguing that accusation of genocide was the point of view of a small minority of historians.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove sourced information as it is disruptive. I guess you haven't found a source which states that Secher's claim is not a fringe theory ? DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Now that it is established that Secher's claim is a fringe theory, there is no more reason to oppose to its removal from de lead. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Brutal as the war may have been (on both sides BTW), a scorched earth military policy, as was the case in the Vendée, isn't necessarily genocide. Views that the war in the Vendée was a genocide is definately fringe. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2012, 11:08 CET.
Yes check.svg Done DITWIN GRIM (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since this keeps coming up, and certain users keep re-adding this information, I'm going to point out here that the so-called "multiple scholarly reliable sources" that support the genocide claims can universally be traced back to Secher. Check the bibliographies of these works - they only ever cite Secher, and occasionally Chaunau in support of their claims. This does NOT make the viewpoint more mainstream. eldamorie (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether they go back to Secher or not is irrelevant to whether they are mainstream reputable academics. When Secher raised this issue it was somewhat novel, so it is not surprising that he is referred to or cited. The proposition is not novel today. The fact of the matter is that the scholars who posit this position are mainstream reputable scholars. It is nothing like a fringe theory. As I pointed out above, they publish in or are even on the boards of reputable peer reviewed publications in the area of genocide studies. Yale University Press, the publisher of Chalk and Jonassohn's book, is not really in the habit of publishing the fringey theories of wingnuts. The idea that this is a fringe theory really has zero merit. Yes, it is contested and the article reflects that. However, wikipedia policy is that multiple reputable points of view on a matter should be reflected in the article and the lede should summarize that article. Mamalujo (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Whether they go back to Secher or not is of VITAL importance. Secher's claims have been thoroughly refuted. Secher and Chanau are not reliable sources for the war. Thus, sources which cite Secher and Chanau uncontested are therefore also unreliable, regardless of their source. eldamorie (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious persecution nav box[edit]

About this revert,[5] the relevance of Template:religious persecution is well established by the citations in the section Background. Tom Harrison Talk 16:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not use an article of Wikipedia as a reference, especially when it is as poorly sourced. And do not confuse anti-clericalism with religious persecution. The anti-clericalism of the State was not even the core of the revolt. It was the Levée en masse that ignited the uprising and it was completely unrelated to religion. It's only when the aristocracy took control over this popular rebellion that it took a distinctly Catholic and royalist coloration. Although there were massacres perpetrated by republicans against rebels (and massacres perpetrated by rebels against republicans) no one was killed for simply "being Catholic". Many Catholic Priests and Vendeans were sympathetic towards the revolution. So what are you considering as a Religious Persecution? The massacres of Constitutional Priests by ultra-catholic Vendeans  ? DITWIN GRIM (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The material in the section Background is cited to Joes' Resisting Rebellion: The History and Politics of Counterinsurgency, and others. That the Religious persecution nav box is appropriate is well established. Tom Harrison Talk 18:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There's not a single Primary source about the causes of the war in Vendée, there are only Secondary and Tertiary sources about the French Revolution in general or extensive books about rebellions throughout the ages... And you're not answering the questions... DITWIN GRIM (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, not primary sources. I didn't answer your question because it's irrelevant, and I don't care for your hectoring tone. What you or I consider religious persecution doesn't matter. The sources cited in the Background section establish that the Religious persection nav template is appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 18:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Sources availabe in the article don't categorize this conflict as a religious persecution. And Joes' book is way too unspecialized.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It need not be catagorized as a religious conflict for the Religious persecution nav box to be appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course it needs to be sourced, otherwise it's WP:NOR. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say it need not be sourced. It is sourced, to Joes' Resisting Rebellion. It need not be categorized as a religious conflict for the Religious persecution nav box to be appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be widely recognized by historians as a case of Religious persecution for the template to be appropriate. And it is not.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the assertion of religious persecution sourced to reliable sources, it was for a long time a stable part of this article. Mamalujo (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight and edit warring[edit]

In this article, the chronology is limited and most parts are not very important in term of size. So there is an undue weight of fringe positions (this strange debate about genocide, Secher, the casualties, some refs, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight).

First of all, there is a big majority and a small minority (very much on the far right of the political spectrum) in this historical debate and that should be visible in the article. the sentence "The nature of the uprising has been heavily disputed by historians since the nineteenth century" is false. A very large majority agree that the war in the Vendée is a civil war launched by royalists (with strong religious beliefs) against a revolutionnary, republican government that eventually crushed the revolt (nobody in the "mainstream" accept or even talk about genocide) and that a lot of civilians were killed by both sides (more by the winners of course).

Other case  : "In response, the Committee of Public Safety ordered him to "eliminate the brigands to the last man, there is your duty...".[14]" ; and it is not said in this paragraph that the comittee also ordered the republican troops to spare women, children and old people...

Finally, stop the edit warring, explain yourself on the talk page or we will keep only a shorter, more neutral version of the article. Eleventh1 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • and Nantes in not part of the Vendée, so the Noyades are not relevant to this article and learn to not repeat the same ref again and again. Use the additional use of same reference. Eleventh1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC).
I agree that the war in Vendée is a civil war launched by royalists and that the thesis of genocide disputed by most historians. But Republicans have massacred far more civilians than the Vendeans. The major massacres perpetrated by the royalists are fr:Massacres de Machecoul (150 to 200 killed), First Battle of Châtillon (some hundreds massacred), the massacre of Bouin (180 soldiers shot), Le Pallet (400 soldiers woundeds are killed) and the fr:Massacre de Belleville (300 to 400 soldiers shot). In the Battle of Fontenay-le-Comte, Thouars, Saumur, and Cholet, republican prisoners (14,000 to 22,000 in total) are spared and released by the Vendeans. In comparison, Republicans committed fr:Colonnes infernales (20,000 to 50,000 civilians massacred), the massacre of Le Mans (10,000 to 15,000, mens womens an childrens killed), the Massacre of Savenay (5,000 to 9,000 victims), the executions in Nantes (8,000 to 11,000 dead), the executions in Anjou (9,000 dead) the fr:Bataille de Noirmoutier (1794) (1,500 prisonners shot) and many others making several hundred victims (Fougères, Avranches, Chatillon, Beaupréau...). Vendeans losses are much heavier.
According to the Committee of Public Safety, women and children must be spared. It's Turreau, Carrier, Hentz and Francastel who ordered the massacre of non-combattants. Nantes is the boarder of the Vendee, (the Pays de Retz is insurgent) and the majority of prisonners are Vendéans. Khaerr (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
So we agree on what is the war in the Vendée. That is a good start. I don't have any problem when you mention the fact that republicans killed more than royalists. My problem is with the use of refs (always the same with always the same point of view) that don't represent the opinion of the majority of scholars. I have read several textbooks with very different levels of casualties for instance (not only because of different estimates on each event but also because they don't include the same things in the war).
The other question is to stay on the topic of the article : Nantes is not far from the Vendée (but not in it) but we have now an article with one third of the text on a fringe debate, one third that is about other issues than the war itself and only a small part for the actual relevant content. Do you see the problem?
The last problem is that this article lacks serious citations. Only twelve refs (a lot of repetition) and half of them are for the "genocide" debate. Eleventh1 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Révolution-française.net source[edit]

Since there's some disagreement over the last sentence where this source is cited, I'd like to point out that Révolution-française is a peer-reviewed source. Here is the review/editorial committee:

Marc Belissa, CHISCO-Université Paris Ouest Nanterre-La Défense

Yannick Bosc, GRHIS-Université de Rouen

Françoise Brunel, IHRF-Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne

Marc Deleplace, Centre d'histoire du XIXe siècle- Université Paris IV Paris-Sorbonne

Florence Gauthier, ICT- Université Paris-Diderot Paris VII

Jacques Guilhaumou, TRIANGLE-CNRS/ENS Lyon

Fabien Marius-Hatchi, ICT- Université Paris-Diderot Paris VII

Sophie Wahnich, LAIOS-CNRS/EHESS

This is not some hack site. eldamorie (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the poor wording of my last version of what was stated... RF quotes Noiriel, who criticizes the politicization of history, claiming that passing laws about historical events can have a negative impact on the teaching and study of those events. RF argues that this would serve to destabilize post-revolution reforms by painting the entire revolution with a broad brush.
Additionally, checking for more sources on this resolution, virtually every supportive source I found was from a neo-royalist or Breton independence movement site arguing that the law would be an inroad on ending the republic. The genocide argument is completely fringe, there's no reason not to include a duly attributed statement on why this resolution was a problem. eldamorie (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Was Gérard Noiriel referring to this particular issue on the website in question or not? Obviously not. So why did you write in your edit, "it's Gérard Noiriel who's making the criticism"? If, as you now say, you read French fine, then you know that he was talking about something else entirely.

2. Does an unsigned comment on some website amount to a statement by a group of historians? Obviously not. And if not, why pretend that it does? If you want to cite an unsigned comment on some website, then call it what it is, an unsigned comment found on a historical website. But please don't pretend that something you found on this site amounts to some kind of official statement by historians.

Pterosaur10 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: 1: yeah, that was my bad. The link to Noiriel's website is dead and I wasn't really reading very carefully. I've dropped that claim.
Re: 2.: Check above. Everything on the page is vetted by the group above. Yes it's unsigned, but one would think that it's reasonable for content on website with an editorial board comprised of a group of professors and historians at renowned schools to reflect the views of those historians. I admit the wording could be better, but considering how the only supporters of that legislation appear to be far-right it would be nice to have a more mainstream contrast. eldamorie (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)