Talk:Georges Danton/Archive 1

Request for "meta" material on Danton
This article in my opinion contains only part of what a (twenty-first century) encyclopedia article about such an important historical and political figure should contain. I came to this page looking for the answers to questions about Danton's relevance to today's world: 1) Who was Danton?; 2) Why did that Polish guy make a movie about him, and what cultural resonance does Danton have for Europeans in general and French people in particular that makes him worthy of such a movie?; 3) What does Danton's cultural resonance or whatever you want to call it have to do with a Polish guy making a movie about Danton in the 1980s?; 4) What do French people think of when Danton's name is mentioned -- is it something like what Americans think of when someone says "McCarthy" or "McCarthyism"?; and so forth. What I found here is a very factual biography of Danton with an emphasis on his role in the Revolution, the Gironde, the Mountain, and the Terror--but then he dies and the article stops. Has Danton no relevance to today? If he does, then could somebody who knows the answer to questions such as the ones I posed above write something about it, please? I think that would greatly help students of politics, history and culture. Merci en avance! Dveej 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As for Wajda's film, that probably deserves an article of its own (as does Büchner's Danton's Death). I could imagine doing a broader article on Danton's legacy & cultural significance, and certainly we could start by "incubating" that as a section of this one. Does anyone want to take this on? - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Toujours l'audace
"One of his fierce sayings has become a proverb. Against the Duke of Brunswick and the invaders, "il nous faut de l'audace, et encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace" - "we must dare, and again dare, and forever dare." " -- I've also seen this attributed to Carnot and Frederick the Great. Source, anyone? -- 201.78.233.162 13:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I agree that this article needs a cleanup, but not to get rid of any information. One can never have too much. What if someone who was doing an essay for school/college work needed information but something they wanted was deleted? All this article needs are some more sub-headings to split it up a bit. —This unsigned comment was added by Crazy Eddy (talk • contribs) 26 March 2006.

Just a question bout how valid half this stuf is. It seems like its going into more detail about the Rovolution then in to the actual biography Imbored24 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be pretty useless to talk about Danton outside of the context of the Revolution. - Jmabel | Talk 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done a major lot of cleanup. The article is now a bit more chronological; the more blatant POV phrases are now explicitly attributed, and many of the 1911 EB's opinions simply removed; I've modernised a lot of the prose while, I hope, not committing felonies against good writing. Given that, I've removed the cleanup tag; if anyone thinks that still more is needed, please restore the tag, but be specific about what issues you think remain. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kicked in the face?
Recently added anonymously with no citation: "As a child he was allegedly kicked in the face by a bull, which led to a slight disfigurement of his face." Does anyone know whether this is accurate or vandalism? If no one can provide a cite, and if it's not verified by someone active in Wikipedia, I'm inclined to revert: not terribly important, but bad to have here if false. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's true; Danton did have a few accidents involving farm animals in his childhood. The wording could be changed though. --Montagnarde1794 06:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll trust you on this, based on your other work. If you have a citation, it would be nice. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your confidence; I'll give a citation as soon as I find my biography of Danton. --Montagnarde1794 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true; he was also trampled by a herd of pigs and got scarred from Smallpox. The book I foudn this is was called something like "Paris in the Terror". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.212.155 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hibbert, in his book "The French Revolution", writes, "His scared and twisted lip, so it was said, was the result of being gored by an angry bull when he was sucking the teat of a cow; his squashed nose was also the consequence of an encounter with a bull; the scars on his cheeks and eyelids were caused by the hooves of a herd of pigs. The skin around them was badly disfigured by smallpox."

Odd wording
Although this article touches on the main points of Danton's life it really comes nowhere near a proper understanding of his role in the Revolution and his significance as a politician. The prose, moreover, is flowery and subjective. Phrases like "But in Germinal feeling was not yet ripe" are either pseudo-poetic and highly overblown, or unintentionally funny. I am not really sure which. I would ask for justice for Danton as the greatest-and most human-of all the players in a great historical drama ( my own purple prose!) White Guard 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of this comes from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, which is rather more flowery than normal Wikipedia style. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How can he be the only person to have owned and operated a motor car, logic tells me that the inventor of said car owned and operated it. Do you mean in france? also what is this doing here? - "he was born to a respectable though not wealthy family, his family was very rich" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.232.97 (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert K. Massie, author of Nicolas and Alexandra, An Intimate Account of the Last of the Romanovs and the Fall of Imperial Russia, 1967, p.82: "If Lenin was Robespierre, Alexander Kerensky was Russia's Danton." Massie's an Oxvard-educated Rhodes scholar from KY. I had no idea who Danton was, hence I came to this site. Guess I got a good enough idea...Thanks.

Involvement in storming of Bastille & removal of court
I don't have access to DISCovering World History at the moment, but the Encyclopedia of World History seems to contain nothing that would support 66.16.79.110's assertion. Unless the sources are quoted directly—or at least cited properly, with publication info and page numbers or article names—I see no reason that the article should suddenly contradict its previous, long-established text. Deor 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fictionalized accounts
Does his appearance in the 1921 Movie Orphans of the Storm belong in this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.144.40 (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironically?
I removed the word "ironically" from this phrase:
 * "...Danton having ironically converted to Catholicism."

because, as it stood, it reads as:
 * "...Danton having converted to Catholicism as an ironic joke."

when I think what is meant is:
 * "...Danton having, ironically, converted to Catholicism."

However, even assuming this is the intended meaning, I don't agree that his conversion was ironic. Unexpected events are not necessarily ironic. It may have been ironic. I would rather leave the interpretation up to the reader. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Much more cleanup necessary
In places this article just reads like a ham-fisted mixture of a rewrite and a quoting of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Surely there are more and better sources around now than an encyclopedia from almost a century ago written, it should be remembered, by people with their own little political views. As someone who studied the French Revolution a decade back and has forgotten a lot of what he knew, I'd certainly appreciate something that isn't quite so amateurish.88.67.241.134 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just went over the article, and a lot of it is kind of shocking in the degree of NPOV/clearly biased material. The only source for the article appears to be a (as of tomorrow) century and one year old encyclopedia written from the perspective of a British Empire deeply opposed to the French Revolution. That shows. If there are no objections, I will go through and begin deleting material in the next few days. Phoniel (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Needed Cleanup
The article lacks internal organization (perhaps chrono order would work) and can be difficult to parse through. There are also NPOV issues relating to the politics of certain figures and groups, especially the Girondins. The article might also contain slightly too much info. Tagged for cleanup. SicilianMorpheus 21:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

this and most of wiki is dirty and needs cleaning example "The committees presently came to quarrel with the pretensions of Robespierre." no citition - no proof of - quarrel - and for sure 'pretensions is so subjective a term it is as if the stupdity of the reign of terror lives on in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.51.205 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rating
This is a good B article, but needs to be better sorted out and more sources brought in to upgrade this to GA status. ludahai 魯大海 13:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be a bit more sources. On that note, i do like how most of the sources check out and are summarized quite well. I do wish there was a source on the kids and wife. I'm trying to find more info on them. May add later once I find more information. Michael Garcia (IDH1001) (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi i noticed that the first paragraph has some similar information and sadly, same wording as the article in [Assassin's Creed Danton] This is a major issue for plagiarism and it should be addressed as a very important issue. Using sources will also help clear this issue so we know who is getting information from where. Michael Garcia (IDH1001) (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i need help adding info to the box. i put the info there but when reading, nothing shows up. Michael Garcia (IDH1001) (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Education?
I think it would help if someone posted a bit more about his education, at least what school or private tutors he was educated by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.237.199 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * hi yes, i added some information. under education section Michael Garcia (IDH1001) (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's start again
Fourteen years on from the previous comment, I agree. This article is not encyclopedic. It is not planned in a satisfying sequence of sections. It may be too long. Much of it reads like a poor translation. And the lede does not give an adequate summary of the topic. Some French Revolution scholar needs to start again with it. Valetude (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Valetude seems to like talk pages. Why do you use the royal we? Why not improving the article yourself? Are you a head teacher? Taksen (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Rather an unexpected reaction. I’m simply endorsing a comment made long ago by someone else who has also not seen fit to re-draft the article. Knowing nothing about the French Revolution, I feel there are people better equipped than myself (maybe a suitable Head Teacher somewhere). I also don’t seem to notice any use of the royal ‘we’ in this instance. If you disagree with any of my points, I welcome rational debate, in the best traditions of the Talk Page. Valetude (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Let's start again" in my point of view means using the royal we. Or do you really mean someone else should start again? If you do not know anything about the French Revolution why leave a comment? Because you are a historian? I have been working on Robespierre and put a lot on Danton here. Not very many people seem to bother, is it the education system? Don't use/touch Wikipedia because it is bad?Taksen (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The heading ‘Let’s start again’ was just referencing ‘us’ as the wiki community, not royalty. I don’t know a lot about the French Revolution, but I have received many thanks over the years for my suggestions about the composition of wiki articles generally. Do any of my current criticisms seem misplaced? That is the usual starting-point for debate on Talk pages. Valetude (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)