Jump to content

Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.24.51.205 (talk) at 19:16, 4 February 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

== TYPICAL WIKIPEDIA 1 WHY IS THERE NO USE OF THE WORD HYPOCRITE IN ANY SECTION?

AGASINT DEATH PENALTY - FOR IT AGAINST SLAVERY AND THUS THOSE WITH POWER - BUT FOR POWER FOR HIMSLEF

2 THE WORDSMITHING CONTAINS MUCH OPINION - NOT FACT

Centre for Research on Globalization quote

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

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

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

Yes, we should get a better source. In the mean time, if you don't know why Robespierre is relevant to Haiti or slavery, you don't have the competence to contribute to this article. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could enlighten us, O competent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.42.89 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I came to the talk page only because of the odd floating box. What has this quote to do with the article? If there is a _connection_, please write a section on Robespierre and Haiti, or on Robespierre and the anti-Globalisation movement. I have no idea if or how Robespiere is relevant to Haiti or slavery. Please make the connection for us. Otherwise, I suggest the box is just a tad unencyclopedic, and should go. J.A.Treloar 86.185.12.70 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Execution of Louis XVI

I've made a number of edits and additions to the sections on Robespierre's opposition to War and on the execution of the king, and have added a section concerning the National Convention. My principle goal is to add historical context (provided in much greater detail by linked wiki pages), and to make more clear Robespierre's political position on major events of the Revolution. My changes will certainly be insufficient in some ways and so I hope all who can will contribute, while being meticulous in sourcing. Regarding the section on the execution of the king, I've provided two long quotes because I wasn't sure how to edit these any more without eliminating critical information. I believe the extended treatment is justified given Robespierre's previous opposition to the death penalty, given the momentous event of the King's execution, and given the terror that would follow. The section deserves more material if anybody can provide it. Darouet (talk) 3:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

[From Merriam-Webster: Providence:

a often capitalized : divine guidance or care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki editors are supposed to pay attention to the reliable secondary sources and not try for themselves to do original research to decoide what French religious beliefs really were in the 1790s. For the RS look at these citations to scholarly books -- which generally call him a deist. Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not trying to judge what were the religious beliefs of the French in the 1790s. Rather, I’m simply stating what Robespierre's were, the subject of this article, which seem clear to me. If a Christian doesn’t accept the supremacy of Rome, then he or she is not a Catholic. In what or whose definition of deism can the concept of Providence be reconciled with it?
Okay, you are obviously against my proposed change, so I shall not make it at this point. We’ll see if others choose to weigh in. If no consensus can be formed, then I shall refrain from making the change. I usually only edit in regard to trivial matters, typos and obvious hasty mistakes.
In regard to substantive changes to articles, the only one of perhaps a dozen I have made that was reverted was reinstated by the person reverting it after I explained my reasoning. I’m doing what I’m supposed to do before making a substantive change to an article, discussing it on the article’s Talk Page, so please refrain from lecturing me.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Robespierre was a Deist in that he believed the universe was created and upheld by the unifying force of a Supreme Being. Like many of his era, he believed this was irrefutable truth based on reason and scientific observation. As noted by observers like Immanuel Kant, this differs essentially from Theism, which offers a faith-based belief in a God who works as a personal savior. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is true as far as it goes. But can you reconcile the concept of Providence with deism? If Robespierre had been a deist, it seems to me that he had been rather a heretical one. :>. Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem surprising, considering this was the French Revolution. Most historians consider Robespierre's anti-atheistic beliefs to be sincere, but note that they were propelled more by political concerns than theology. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My introduction to the concept of deism was from a Catholic high school lay teacher with a quirky sense of humor. His initial summation of a deist was one who held that God created the universe and then went out to lunch, having nothing more to do with it. So perhaps my view of the philosophy was unduly solidified at such an impressionable age. However, when one takes Robespierre's belief in Providence combined with his belief in an afterlife dictated by God, then I still maintain that he was far closer to theism than deism. I also agree with Loomis’s assessment of the man’s character regarding Robespierre’s motivation with his views on God.
However, rest assured that barring a totally unexpected groundswell of support for my proposed change to the article emerging, I shall refrain from making it. Thank you for your input which is most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i think deism is appropriate for two reasons: this is how the faith of jean-jacques rousseau is generally described, and rousseau was the principal influence on robespierre's conception of the "supreme being" -- not as a matter of personal faith, but as described in his public pronouncements about what he intended to be a public cult with the purpose of emotionally binding the people to the revolution and virtue. i don't believe there are sources to show that robespierre claimed the "supreme being" would intervene in individual lives, or that prayer would be useful to invoke his aid, etc. Drollere (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warehouse 13

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maximilien_Robespierre&oldid=703310245"