Talk:Committee of Public Safety

Huh?
I believe that the following has no bearing in reality, so I cut it from the article. Am I missing something?
 * The four policies of the Committee of Public Safety were:
 * Married men will make weapons, transport military supplies, and prepare food.
 * Young men will fight.
 * Children will make old cloth into lint.
 * Women will forget the futile tasks.

-- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

These "policies" were actually part of the Levée en masse, a law put into effect by the Committee of Public Safety in 1794. -Moonbeast 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. It made no sense in the context where it was placed in the article a year ago. We have some OK, not great, material at Levée en masse. Is this quotation accurate and citable? If so, it should probably be added there. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Committee for Public Safety was responsible for the beheading of The King of France." This could not be possible since the king was executed in January 1793, but the Committee of Public Safety was not established until 6 April 1793. Therefore, I have deleted this phrase from the first paragraph. More accuracy and content is necessary to make this article more reliable and useful. Perhaps once I have finished my papers this month, I will lend a hand in fleshing it out: my current paper is on the Committee and its rise to power, and so my research will make me a bit more knowledgeable on the topic. BTW, I either need to sign up for an account or remember the username and password to my old one. -- 10 March 2007

Calendars
Can we stick with one calendar throughout the article? Either the Republican Calendar (with corresponding Gregorian dates listed) or the Gregorian alone will do, but every member's term should be in the same system. Mdotley 16:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm lost on what the problem is. The only place I see Republican dates is when we say "after 9 Thermidor", which is to say "after the fall of Robespierre et. al." - Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

merge
merge away! Gomm 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Carillonatreides 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. -Arch dude 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub
This page really isn't that informative, shouldn't the stub modifier be attached to it? Carillonatreides 02:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem with that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak
The sections on "Accomplishments of the Committee of Public Safety" and "Failures of the Committee of Public Safety" are so weak that I'm not sure I'd even give them a passing grade in a high school paper, and certainly not in anything past that level. Does someone want to take this on? - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Very weak, the "accomplishments" are anything but, unless you define any action you succeed in taking as an accomplishment no matter how negative the results. "Creation of a war dictatorship" and price controls which result in increases shortage of basic necessities are hardly what I would consider accomplishments. Twfowler 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cutting editorial comment to the TalkPage
I cut the following editorial comment to this TalkPage

=
Begin editorial comment this article dont give enough information....

=
End editorial comment --Rednblu 18:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Accomplishments and Failures?
What rule was used to decide whether certain effects were "accomplishments" or "failures"? Everything listed in the "accomplishments" section seems just as disastrous and unsavory... Adam Lein 05:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased
This article seems kind of biased by using the word "failures". Who are we to judge if killing thousands of people is a "failure", or if it save France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.237.242 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the failures title should be removed and all under it be put into actions - there will be no bias that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.197.235 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ->

"Frenchmen were executed..."
No Frenchwomen at all, then? 86.136.250.154 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes...I agree upon the idea you have set forth. This article uses gender spacific terms. This should be fixed by now... TheApplePi (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Failures" issue/proposed rehaul
I agree with earlier comments that the "Failures" section should be removed completely, since in addition to potentially presenting a biased viewpoint, it's also very confusing: any section entitled "Failures" should really detail failed actions of the Committee-- i.e., goals which the Committee tried and failed to accomplish. Unless anyone objects (it seems like this page is slightly dead-ish?) I will remove it. I am also interested in doing a complete overhaul of the page, as this is a topic of pretty central importance to the French Revolution, and ought to be more fully explored. Zhuravlei (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture
The main image for the article does not, in fact, show the Committee of Public Safety, but another one, according to the file's description. would it not be more appropriate to replace or remove this one? Therealpirateblue (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible. Is there a free pic available that does show the Committee of Public Safety? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Salvation or Safety?
The name of the committee in French is Comité de salut public. "Salut" in this case means salvation (as in "save the nation"), not safety. I suppose there's a tradition of calling it "safety", but a note could be added to alert the reader.

--189.130.252.42 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have support for this take on the translation? I'm skeptical that, given the context, "salut" would so definitely translate to a word with overtones of religiosity, and that "safety" or "welfare" would be considered wrong. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Salvation" is the translation used in Russian, for example. Vladislav.kuzkokov (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Safety” is the standard English version in all mainstream texts on the subject. Mccapra (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Reign of Terror" article linked to twice
I recently checked out this page and saw that not only was the Reign of Terror article linked to twice on this page, but that the second link went to a music album and not the event itself. I went ahead and removed that second link, but it has now been reinstated, albeit corrected. Is there a need for Reign of Terror to be linked twice? It would make sense if the Reign of Terror was mentioned a lot further down in the page, but this second link is still in the introduction. --Yy958 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2020