Talk:Reign of Terror/Archive 1

Etymology
Shouldn't there be a section on the etymology of the phrase "reign of terror" itself. Who first called it that, etc. When it became the common designation? For instance, is it an English phrase or is it a translation of a phrase the French were using. The OED seems to think the French were calling it the red terror or some such. OrangeYouGlad (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Estimates
Estimates of the number of dead vary wildly, one estimate is as high as 30,000. I'd like to see a good recap of estimates by reliable historians. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.html gives some interesting numbers, but they are mostly from tertiary sources (so I guess that makes it a quaternary source! I'd really like to see some better statistics before I try to make the article more specific; French government or reputed historians would be good. -- Jmabel 22:00, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * [...] the National Convention voted to implement terror measures to repress revolutionary activities.

Surely the National Convention would generally want to repress counter-revolutionary activities, not revolutionary activities? Is this just a typographical error, or am I missing something? Svk 22:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say you are right. Of course, it was ultimately used against both: consider the Hebertists, for example, and ultimately Robespierre, Saint-Just, and others.heheheheheheheheheheheheo


 * This article needs... an article. It's pretty anemic. I'll make this small change now and put it on my long list of things to write eventually if no one gets there first. Jmabel 22:53, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of torture being used? My impression is that there were summary trials, but no torture. Contrast that with pre-Revolution justice, where judicial torture was legal and widespread. David.Monniaux 18:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There was no torture IMO at least from civilian authorithies. Ericd 13:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the main problem of this article is the confusion between the dictatorial regime -"The Reign of Terror" and the regime's main instrument -"The Terror". It might exist a better definition than "the brutal repression of suspected counter-revolutionaries by use of state terrorism". The regime was intended to pursue the Revolution on social matters, to destruct the suspected internal enemies by brutal repression (the terror) and to oust the external enemies from the national territory. --Vasile 06:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absolute & constitutional monarchy
What's up with the recent edit of "whether absolute or constitutional" to "whether absolute or partly balanced"? "Absolute monarchy" and "constitutional monarchy" are common terms. I, for one, have never heard of a "partly balanced monarchy". I'm not even sure I know what it would mean. -- Jmabel 15:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * It was a clumsy attempt at saying that there could be varying degrees of authoritarianism and lack of democracy in a monarchy. I don't think there was ANY constitutional monarchy in existence at that point (unless you count the British monarchy, but it has no written constitution, and anyway was at that point still far from being a democracy respectful of civil rights as we understand nowadays). David.Monniaux 17:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absolutism isn't a matter of authoritarianism, it's a matter of theoretical basis of sovereignty. Under the Great Committee, the French Republic became more authoritarian than any monarchy of the era. (BTW, I believe the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy, like the British, was not absolute.) I am reverting to what this orginally said. If you can word it more clearly than I can, great, but this actually obscured the point. -- Jmabel 23:59, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I have something to ask. Would the figure of execution in the last month be a problem? The reign lasted 11 months and killed at least 18,000 people. So in average at least over 1,600 people killed. The 1,300 execution count is surely a bit lower than this average figure, and not so significant therefore. -- Patrickov 12:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-

Content aside, the first paragraph of this article is a single run-on sentence. I had to read it twice to get the phrasing correct.

Here's a sugestion: (I'll check back in a few days and make the change if no one objects.)

The Reign of Terror (June 1793 - July 1794) was a period in the French Revolution characterized by brutal repression. The Terror (see also state terrorism),originated with a highly centralized political regime that suspended most of the democratic achievements of the Revolution, and intended to pursue the Revolution on social matters. It's stated aim was to destroy internal enemies and conspirators and to oust the external enemies from French territory.--Bookandcoffee 18:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OK except that uncalled-for comma after the parentheses. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha! True, the comma is a mistake isn't it. :) --Bookandcoffee 02:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fiction
Some mention of Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities" having been set in this period might be welcome; links to historical fiction and literature can provide another angle to cast light on a subject.
 * I started a section "Treatment in fiction" -- Jmabel | Talk 18:56, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Redistribution of wealth
"in order to prepare the redistribution of wealth" what does it means ? That Robespierre was a pre-socialist ? In no way IMO. Ericd 13:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't write it, so I can't say the author's intent. There certainly was a massive redistribution of former Church lands via the assignats, but that was already under way before the Reign of Terror. And there was also redistribution of the property of emigres. Not a redistribution in any socialist sense, mostly a gain for a small segment of the bourgeousie at the expense of the Church. The extent to which any of that occasioned the Terror, I couldn't say. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Apology: accidental bad edit
Sorry about this edit. We had been double-teamed by vandals. I did a rollback, and didn't realize that the state I was restoring was also vandalized. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Saint-Just
Should there be any mention of Saint-Just in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.127.114 (talk) 29 Nov 2005
 * I would say so. Seems like quite an omission to me, but I don't have time to work on this one right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sept. 5
What exactly was passed on this day? The article says it is the day that the Convention institutionalized the Terror, but what does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 1 Dec 2005 at least I think that's who wrote this, there was a weird edit sequence. -- Jmabel | Talk
 * I'm not sure exactly what was enacted that day. The Law of Suspects (which set up the Revolutionary Tribunals was September 17. Does anyone know exactly what the September 5 legislation did? Online sources all seem to agree on it as the date of the start of the Terror, but none seem clear about the provisions made on that particular day. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Reign of Terror?
If I may comment, in reference to the first two paragraphs of this article (particularly the phrase, "The Terror as such started on 5 September, 1793 and, as the The Reign of Terror, lasted until the summer of 1794..."): the "Reign of Terror" has no seperate definition from the Terror, and is simply an Anglo-American term for la Terreur. As such, it seems reasonable that the article ought to be cleaned up in terms of definitions of terminology. --Montagnarde1794 08:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I did some minimal cleanup on the lead. But, as you can see in the previous section, I have no idea why the 5 Sept date is singled out. Does someone know what is going on here? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh. Simple enough; 5 September is the date of institution of an "extraordinary tribunal" in Paris (the Revolutionary Tribunal) and on that day, the Revolutionary government declared "Terror the order of the day." The confusion might be between the Terror and the so-called Great Terror which began with the law of 22 Prairial.


 * But I must add that the term "Reign of Terror" was invented as a British propaganda technique, and, while still widely used, displays an Anglo-American anti-Revolutionary bias which ought, I think, to be removed.

--Montagnarde1794 06:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * a 19th century created bias; like the French invented anti-German bias "the vandal". Do you want to remove that one too? --Vasile 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just think it's something that ought to be mentioned; several modern historians and critics have commented on this bias, and I wanted to point it out. "Reign of Terror" should not be omitted, simply acknowledged for what it is. Besides, the last time I checked, "Reign of Terror" was not in the dictionary; unlike vandal (and the earlier barbarian) it has not become a word, merely an oft-repeated phrase. --Montagnarde1794 05:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems with bias/over-simplification
"Maximilien Robespierre, 'the Incorruptible', made his entrance, quickly becoming the most influential member of the Committee"

This is debatable and ought not to be stated as indisputable fact; just because he is the best known member of the Committee of Public Safety, does not make him the most influential member. Looking at the record of documents to come out of the Committee, one will find that Robespierre signed few decrees in comparison with the other Committee-members and wrote even fewer. Furthermore, there were several long periods when Robespierre did not appear at the Committee either due to illness, or, as in his last absence before Thermidor, unknown reasons.

"The guillotine serves its use: Queen Marie-Antoinette, the Girondins, Philippe Égalité despite his vote for the death of the King, Madame Roland and many others. The Revolutionary Tribunal summarily condemned thousands of people to death by the guillotine. Mobs beat some victims to death. Sometimes people died for their political opinions or actions, but often for little reason whatsoever beyond mere suspicion, or because some others had a stake in getting rid of them."

I do not speak concerning the provinces, where conditions can be more accurately termed those of civil war, but one of the reasons for the institution of the Terror was to stop "mob violence" akin to that of the September Massacres; if the people of Paris thought justice was being served, they wouldn't try to take matters into their own hands. Thus, that the main incidence of violence by "mob" was before the Terror and this ought to be made clear.

"Because dissent was now regarded as counterrevolutionary, extremists such as Hébert and moderate Montagnards such as Danton were guillotined in the spring of 1794."

The reasons for the arrest, trial, and execution of the Hébertists and Dantonists are much more complex than can be summed up in the phrase "because dissent was now regarded as counterrevolutionary." For example (though by no means an all-inclusive report of the Revolutionary government's reasoning) the Hébertists were not merely dissenting with the government, but attempting insurrection against it, while the Dantonists were corrupt and could not account for their spending on various missions and under various offices.

"On June 7 Robespierre, who had previously condemned the Cult of Reason, advocated a new state religion and recommended the Convention to acknowledge the existence of God. On the next day, the worship of the deistic Supreme Being was inaugurated as an official aspect of the Revolution. Compared with Hébert's popular festivals, this austere new religion of Virtue was received with signs of hostility by an amazed Parisian public."

To begin with, while there can be no doubt that Robespierre supported and had a major part in the festival of the Supreme Being, the idea was not his alone, and indeed a similar idea was proposed earlier on by Danton. The recommendation for the "Convention to acknowledge the existence of God," cited actually came from Couthon. Additionally, the festival must be looked at in historical context. That "this austere new religion of Virtue was received with signs of hostility from an amazed Parisian public," is just flat-out wrong; the festival of the Supreme Being was extremely well-received by the "Parisian public," who were used, unlike those of the modern day, to such festivals and expected them. If anyone received it with "signs of hostility," it was the atheists in the Convention and those who were already counterrevolutionaries, especially Catholics in the provinces. It merits noting as well that "Virtue" (Vertu) is not meant in the sense conceived by most English-speakers upon first seeing it; it has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with ethics. What was meant by Vertu was doing one's civic duty.

Montagnarde1794 06:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to take that up point by point but: of course Danton was corrupt. And always had been. But he also had been a mainstay of the Revolution. There had been a narrowing, and it had become possible to be executed for very small deviations. Danton's corruption may have been one of the excuses to put him on trial, but surely it was not the reason: he was no less honest when he was condemned to death, than when Robespierre had defended him only months earlier. And his trial was a mockery: essentially, it was cut short when it appeared that he might turn the crowd in his favor. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems the following statement is also a gross oversimplification, or else it is the conlcusion of an argument which is not properly made throughout the article:


 * The Reign of Terror enabled the revolutionary government to avoid military defeat.

My understanding of the Reign of Terror is that it was a campaign directed against enemies, real or imagined, of the "Republic" -- i.e. of Robespierre et co. So then how did the purging of political enemies allow for the military success of the French? --Todeswalzer 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As well calling it "Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety is way too biased and I will correct it.

Really? The neutrality of this article isn't disputed yet? Let me be the first. Wiki has failed as an undertaking. (Apt word, that) 74.232.71.211 03:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, cast doubt on the neutrality and credibility of http://haciendapublishing.com/blog/bastille-day-and-french-revolution-part-i-ancien-r%C3%A9gime-and-storming-bastille. Note that I have not found any outright false statements in the aforelinked article, but do think the link to it should be moved to dmoz Open Directory Project or a "Further Reading"/"External Links" section and inline citations removed. The referenced article is of no greater credibility than the Wikipedia article itself. SvartMan (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

 * Greetings, there has been an extensive amount of vandalism on this page lately. Perhaps it would be wise to block edits for this page for a bit. - Enzo Aquarius 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed another bit of vandalism today. LuxPerpetua 21:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, all articles related to the French Revolution are relatively common targets of vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It has received repeated vandalism since 29th june, and nobody noticed it. Maybe the page should be semi-protected.--BMF81 10:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC) ooo i also removed vandalism but it came back on so i left it

I will eventually register for Wikipedia, because I like to make little edits and correct vandalism. Some puerile individual added a little commentary in the image of the Phrygian hat, and I deleted it. 5 September 2006

Really? The neutrality of this article isn't disputed yet? Let me be the first. Wiki has failed as an undertaking. (Apt word, that)

Belay my last.

More vandalism - The Summer of 2011?! 69.118.137.164 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Marat & his supposed responsibility in the September massacres
It was demonstrated beyond doubt by Pierre Caron, in his classic work on the September massacres, that Marat had no practical role in organizing them. His journal, L'Ami du peuple, certainly fueled the bloodthirsty spirit of the sans-culottes, by calling for more "heads" to be felled, but Marat was not involved at all in the section politics of Paris, from which the instigators of the massacres emerged. [user: dedelstein]

A good translator ?
If someone feels like translating Robespierre's following statement (present in the fr:La Terreur), I think it would shed new light on the article, rather than the short sentence now quoted. Here goes the extract: "« Le but du gouvernement constitutionnel est de conserver la République ; celui du gouvernement révolutionnaire est de la fonder. [...] Le gouvernement révolutionnaire doit au bon citoyen toute la protection nationale ; il ne doit aux Ennemis du Peuple que la mort. Ces notions suffisent pour expliquer l'origine et la nature des lois que nous appelons révolutionnaires [...]. Si le gouvernement révolutionnaire doit être plus actif dans sa marche et plus libre dans ses mouvements que le gouvernement ordinaire, en est-il moins juste et moins légitime ? Non ; il est appuyé sur la plus sainte de toutes les lois : le salut du Peuple. » "

As to prove that it's not out of pure laziness that I ask someone competent to do it, I'll give a first try here:


 * "The goal of the constitutional government is to conserve the Republic; the aim of the revolutionary goverment is to found it... The revolutionary gvt owes to the good citizen all the national protection [he is entitled to?] ; he owes to the Enemies of the People only death. These notions would be enough to explain the origin and the nature of laws that we call revolutionary ... If the revolutionary gvt must be more active in its march and more free in his movements than an ordinary gvt, is it for that less fair and legitime? No; it is supported by the most holy of all laws: the salut du Peuple [the Comité de salut public is transl. by "Committee of Public Safety"; however, salut also refers to salvation, and in this last context (most holy of all laws, salut du peuple, I think we should rather translate it as "salvation of the People".)

I think this is a very important passage, as it makes the distinction between fr:pouvoir constituant and fr:pouvoir constitué, which will become of high importance in 20th century political philosophy. Tazmaniacs 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I'll include the following translation, leaving in the original in notes, as to improve it. Tazmaniacs 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Disclaimer: French is pretty low on my list.) toute la protection nationale above is presumably to be translated as "all the protection of the nation" (in the sense of the nation as protector; consider the last phrase of the passage) not "all the national protection". "He owes to the Enemies of the People only death" is good, but possibly pithier than the original, which might be closer to "He owes nothing to the Enemies of the People but death". "fair and legitime" I assume is a typo: :fair and legitimate". On "salut", I'd be inclined to go with "the safety of the people", the primary meaning. It can also mean mean merely "the welfare of the people". "Salvation" seems a bit much, though it's certainly possible. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I adjusted following your comments. I kept "salvation", but also pointed out how the translation of salut is here problematic. I think we should think about the use of this term also in the frame of Saint-Just's le bonheur est une idée neuve en Europe (happiness is a new idea in Europe), meaning that people's welfare became one the aim of modern politics. But this welfare is mixed up in a religious glossary in this extract by Robespierre. Tazmaniacs 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Clément Martin
I've done something of a rewrite on the lead as written by User:Tazmaniacs (really a matter of prose rather than any changes in substance, although I made a few small dents in some POV language). Question: who precisely is Jean-Clément Martin? Why are his views being presented as so authoritative in a controversial area? - Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, we are really short on historians' assessments. We should probably cite a representative spectrum. As I recall, George Lefebvre and Albert Souboul both argue that the Terror was a necessary step to preserve the Revolution; Souboul's main regret seems to be that turning against the enragés deprived Robespierre of a necessary left flank. - Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article lacks various historians perspective. I've added Jean-Clément Martin's comment in a recent article from L'Histoire because it underscored how the previous version of the article (which heavily insisted on a supposed "highly centralized government", which would have been the cause of the terror) was erroneous (the context was actually more of a weak government). I assumed a mainstream historian's comments would be more interesting than some Wikipedian's unsourced opinion, but a comparison of various perspectives adopted by historians would of course be a valuable improvement to the article. Tazmaniacs 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we change the title of this article?
Just to put on record here that in every book I have ever read on the French Revolution I have never heard of 'The Terror' being designated 'The Reign of Terror'. Is this just another example where wikipedia editors make up things from thin air, or does anyone know a citation for this usage? Colin4C 16:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Were you reading books in English or in French? Because this is not a common French-language term (they just use la Terreur), but it is a common English-language term. The Columbia Encyclopedia] uses it, as does The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy; the 1955 Britannica (which is the one I have handy) sort of splits the difference: it's in the Index as "Terror, Reign of", a solution not open to us; a use on an exhibit from the University of Maryland; a use in the Internet Modern History Sourcebook from Fordham U.; that's in ten minutes or so.


 * I think that probably in scholarly circles in English "The Terror" is slightly more common and in popular usage "The Reign of Terror" is almost universal. I don't care a great deal about which of the two we choose, but, no, this is not "mak[ing] up things from thin air". - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Forgive my asperity...However I'm thinking also that the 'The Terror' is very specific about what is being referred to (i.e. the French Revolution), whereas 'Reign of Terror' could refer to lots of periods in history or be used in a metaphorical way. E.g. the anti-hero in H.G. Wells' 'Invisible Man' threatens to unleash a 'reign of terror' (starting at Portsmouth....). Maybe (judging from the above examples) 'Reign of Terror' is used more often in the USA than the UK, where I'm from. On a slightly different note it's interesting to remember now that Robespierre and co were the first designated 'terrorists'.Colin4C 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Could, indeed, be US vs. UK. Again, I don't care which of the two titles we use, as long as both link. - Jmabel | Talk 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This may or may not be important but 'The Terror' and 'The Reign of Terror' seem to me to have slightly different resonances. I think I'm correct in thinking that Robespierre and co deliberately instituted 'The Terror', and called it such at the time, as a policy decision. 'Reign of Terror' however seems to be a view from outside, possibly in retrospect...Colin4C 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'd tend to say "The Terror" for the policy, and "The Reign of Terror" for the period. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Robespierre - speaking backwards in time???
I just want to point out: in the section called "The Terror", how could Robespierre have said something on 17 February 1794, and then added something on December 25 1793? I don't know what it's supposed to be, but I thought that was kind of strange. 24.40.200.86 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reworded accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Horrible opening paragraph
Someone please do something about rewording the opening paragraph. It does not state specifically what the term in question actually is. No definition is given before it launches into a timeline. 74.249.3.91 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Kevin Coenen


 * Seems entirely clear to me. What would you say differently? - Jmabel | Talk 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment had been left before the try at a "definition" that I made (following this anon's remark). I just didn't bother leaving a note here, but he was actually right, there was no very general intro before. Tazmaniacs


 * It's totally unclear as to who is responsible for the terror. Were the "revolutionists" killing the "establishment" for what they did? Or was the "establishment" killing people and thus provoking the revolution? It's also unclear which people are on which side. Granted that can be determined with some link clicking, but I just wanted a two or three paragraph synopsis. A properly written article would give me enough context to figure it out. I shouldn't have to follow up on fifteen pages to get a feel for the basics of who did what and the motivations behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.221.123 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I would expand this section to "horrible opening paragraph*s* (plural). What's with the last paragraph?  The first sentence merely offers a rephrasing of the conclusion of the previous paragraph.  The last paragraph then continues into a philosophical argument on violent abuses of power during governmental transitions.  What relevancy does Nazism and Marxism have to elements of the Terror?  They are presented as the basis of comparison for the contributor's irrelevant thesis rather than as relevant, directly-linked historical content. I vote for the complete removal of the last paragraph. Broomduster 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the last paragraph, the "relevancy of Nazism and Marxism ... to elements of the Terror" is that a myriad of scholars and pundits have seen the French Revolution as a precursor to modern oppressive regimes. It is not the contributor's "irrelevant thesis" but a widely held thesis, and it in no way constitutes original research.  What should, perhaps, be done is to cite reliable sources for the assertions. Mamalujo 19:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if "terror in the pursuit of totalitarian power leads to terror in the maintenance of that power" etc. were supported by reliable sources, I think it belongs in Totalitarianism, not here. This article is about The Terror, not totalitarian programmes generally.


 * Fully agreed on. Any comparisons with modern totalitarian regimes belong to these pages, not to this page. It is an anachronism to claim that the Terror was totalitarian, as most scholars agree to define totalitarianism by a certain amounts of easily determinable characteristics, including one-party system, the use of mass media and of social organizations (Balilla, etc.) to engrain the whole of the society, etc. The rest belong to political and ideological struggles, with a lot of those scholars attempting to discredit the French Revolution by underscoring the Terror. This debate is an ancient one, but does not belong to factual research on this period. Tazmaniacs 15:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that the purported connection to totalitarianism should be removed. Although, after reading the paragraph I must agree there are some problems and it needs a reworking. To underscore the importance of the concept see this passage from the Columbia Encyclopedia's article on the French Revolution:  "Although some historians view the Reign of Terror as an ominous precursor of modern totalitarianism, others argue that this ignores the vital role the Revolution played in establishing the precedents of such democratic institutions as elections, representative government, and constitutions."  I think something akin to this is appropriate.  I will work on some changes.  Mamalujo 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made changes to the last paragraph of the opening section that I think are improvements. One thing I've realized, though.  All the subject matter about the Reign of Terror being a precursor to modern tyranies is in the opening with nothing in the main body of the article.  Since an opening is supposed to be a summary of the substance of an article, the matter should be moved to the main body, probably as a separate section, with just a short summary in the opening.  If someone else can do that, great.  Otherwise, I'll eventually get to it.Mamalujo 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the edit myself. Moving the matter from the opening section to a section on the legacy of the Reign of Terror and including a one sentance summary in the opening. Mamalujo 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Province Massacres
Maybe one should mentioned the massacres in the 'Province', in particular the Noyades in Nantes by Jean-Baptiste Carrier, and in Lyon by Joseph Fouché.

WP:NPOV violations
I have attempted to remove two obviously biased terms from this article, both draconian and victim are value judgments and can be phrased more neutrally. User:Mamalujo replaced them with the comment "rv - 'draconian' is descriptive (and accurately so), not POV. 'Victim' is not POV in this context. See its use in the articles Holocaust and Spanish Inquisition. Removing the word victim not minor."

Draconian is quite obviously a pejorative label which is often applied by the opponents of any law. It is not a factual description, as what is a minor offense and what is the appropriate punishment therefor are completely dependent on one's point of view. Victim also assigns an ethical value to an act - if it was not wrongful, there is no victim. In the absense of a criminal offense and conviction, or lack of opposing point of view (such as the victims of an illness), "victim" should be removed from any and all wikipedia articles and replaced with a neutral point of view. Contrary to what you indicated, I found only one use of the word "victims" in the Spanish Inquisition article, in regards to a pogrom against Jews, and I have replaced that with "people killed", a factual rather than pejorative description.

I personally find both the Reign of Terror and Spanish Inquisition repugnant and evil. However, sneaking that bias into the article with loaded terminology is a violation of the intent and policies of wikipedia. Fourdee 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A related template is Template:Religious_persecution which I'm starting WP:DR on NPOV too. There is some overlap in the editors between that and this. Ttiotsw 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's awful. I can't believe all this POV bias is thriving on Wikipedia.  Fourdee 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Raison1793.jpg.jpg
Image:Raison1793.jpg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Great Terror
The article fails to distinguish an especially brutal period of fr:Terreur (Révolution française) during the last 6 weeks of The Terror. `'юзырь:mikka 02:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite so. One of its many failings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Law, Constitution & suspension of legal order
I reversed this, for the simple reason that yes, I would like to hear judicial sources about "suspending a Constitution". One suspends the legal order and stops applying the legal rule, that is called a state of emergency. Problem is, the state of emergency is included in most Constitutions, which allows for the interesting paradox of a factual moment when you can constitutionnaly suspend laws. But a Constitution is another step from the law... Right of rebellion is another interesting paradox on this case, when one has the constitutional right to rebel against one's tyrant, but certainly not the legal right to do so! Please let's not confuse a Constitution with laws, that would be messy indeed! Tazmaniacs 00:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The constitution of 1793 was ratified, but never implemented (by the authority of the ratifying Convention). Please do not impose the American concept of judicial review a decade before Marbury on a society to which it was foreign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL wording on intro sentences.
The following is waffle and WP:WEASEL,

"While some consider modern tyrannies to be the legacy of the Reign of Terror, others argue that this view overlooks the French Revolution's influence in the ascendency of representative democracy and constitutionalism."

It is utter blah blah blah. I removed it but some editor has reverted but how can you reword nonsense ?. It's a bit like asking someone to translate Finnegans Wake into another language. I have fact tagged it as a compromise. If it stays tagged for a week then it gets deleted. Ttiotsw 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's total rubbish, out of context and gratuitious. It's like adding a paragraph at the start of an article on the Catholic Church saying out of the blue that "While some consider the concept of genocide to be the legacy of the Catholic church, others argue that this view completely obviates the founding principle of this institution." Not to mention the "Legacy" section, which is even worse and which I won't even bother commenting on.Dr Benway (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the third paragraph of the intro, despite having citations and such, is out of place and confusing. I recommend that someone more familiar with the article than I, either delete it or move it.Jordalus (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing word alters meaning of sentence?
Second paragraph, second sentence: "The repression accelerated in June and July 1794, a period called la Grande Terreur (The Great Fear), which ended the coup of 9 Thermidor Year II (27 July 1794)" shouldn't that read "which ended WITH the coup of 9 Thermidor"? The Great Fear preceded the coup, not the other way round? Yorkist (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

initial timeline unintelligible
1789 plus 15 months does not equal 1793.

This is simply false, unless the writer is concealing some premise.

The first paragraph says The Terror "(5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794) ... is a period fifteen months after the onset of the French Revolution ...", presumably meaning beginning fifteen months after the onset of the French Revolution, which is sloppy writing, but nevertheless 1789 is commonly given by all sources including Wikipedia as either the date of the Revolution or of the beginning of the Revolution.

Paulownia5 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasnt the economic drain of the American revolution a major cause?
The French revolution and the resulting "Reighn of terro" I beleive the support for American Revoultion the economic drain o French goverment was a major cause .Maybe article should say more about this? And was the Gullotine used exclusively in the Reign of terror executions? Merci"Thank You!(DatedAMMornSat.Sept.5th200921stcwent.By Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC "X")ANDREMOI (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology
The chronology of the article is all over the place. One would be forgiven for thinking that the establishment of the revolutionary army and the promulgation of the Law of Suspects occurred in 1794. Please fix, somebody! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesb442 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just fixed an embarrassing anachronism in the lead, editing "... that occurred for one year and one month after the onset ... " to remove the obvious nonsense. Based on the start and end dates in the same sentence, The Terror lasted about ten and a half months; or, if the revolution began in 1789, it began about four years later.  Whatever was intended, these dates and intervals need to be consistent.  It appears (based on the infrequent comments) that this article is not being looked after very well, which is too bad, as it is an important subject.  Wwheaton (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources for recently added information
An user from IP 130.63.18.178 has recently added the section "Origins and causes" with parenthetical citations referring to authors only. One author already exists in the secondary sources (David Andress), and one other was added by the IP. I've edited the section to conform better to the WP:Manual of Style, but wasn't sure if the citation for Andress meant it was related to the source currently attributed in the secondary sources. I'm also unsure of which source should be attributed to the author who does not appear in the list of secondary sources, Timothy Tackett. If anyone has these sources, could you please add the correct citations? -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 18:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Origins and Causes
The Origins and Causes section is much in need of expansion. There are many interpretations by historians about why the French Revolution turned so violent during the Reign and Terror and we propose to contribute some of these conflicting opinions to this page. This will make this section much more scholarly (with ample sources) and give a lot more information about the origins and causes of the Terror. Lake1789 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. Feel free to be bold and expand the section. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just posted an edit and expansion of the origins and causes section! Please let me know what you think because I'm open to interpretations! Lake1789 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The End of the Reign
The paragraph mentioning Marat in this section doesn't make a lot of sense IMHO. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Death toll
It turns out that 16,000 is the number of executions by guillotine. Another 25,000 people were summarily executed by firing squad. This makes the number of execution in this single year in France about equal to the total number of executions in three centuries of witch-hunts, in all of Europe. And this is not counting the death toll from massacres which were not given the formal status of execution.

This should be a lesson to anyone who is under the impression that "religion is the cause" of mass hysteria, violence, witch-hunts, wars and massacres. "Religion" is as much the cause of these things as "anti-religion". In other words, both of these things aren't "causes", they are pretexts, or post-facto rationalizations, of deeds that people just felt compelled to do for reasons beyond their conscious control. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As an experienced editor I would have assumed you were familiar with WP:NOTFORUM. This really doesn't belong on this page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * indeed. I only fixed the article. By "fixing" I mean, I replaced an airy, unreferenced claim that had been in the live article for five years with proper references and accurate data. Then I vented some spleen on talk. "Notforum" is usually directed at editors who post rants on talk without bothering to improve encyclopedic content. But of course some people care more about wikibureaucracy (patrolling talk space for minor misconducts) than about writing an encyclopedia (patrolling article space for glaring holes and mistakes). --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if you got offended, but WP:NOTFORUM applies to everybody, also to established article contributing editors. Normally I would have deleted such a post outright, and left a message on the talk page of the editor who inserted it, but since you are a veteran I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
 * And yes I do think that your first post does read something like a personal essay, and that it is discussing subject matter not just in a general way, but not connected to the article subject at all.
 * Your main subject in your post is about a comparison of the Reign of Terror to the witch trials in early modern Europe. A comparison that is not made in the article, nor would it likely ever be made. Furthermore you are making some general claims about people being "under the impression that religion is the cause of mass hysteria". This goes way beyond anything even remotely connected to the article and is basically an invitation for a debate on the subject. It has nothing to do with the edit dif you provide, and I don't see how making a constructive edit gives a free pass to insert unrelated matter on talk pages. Your work on articles is always appreciated and most welcome, but it is also appreciated if you found other venues to debate or express your opinions about subjects not related to article improvement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

implied connection not explained
The sentence "Finally, after 26 June's decisive military victory over Austria at the Battle of Fleurus, Robespierre was overthrown on 9 Thermidor (27 July)" implies a connection between the two events which is is never explained.Etduke (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)