Talk:War in the Vendée/Archive 2

Religious persecution nav box
About this revert, 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)

Genocide claims in the lede
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 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.
 * ✅ 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)

Number in levy?
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 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight and edit warring
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, Neutral point of view).

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
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)

The word "The" in the article title
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 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A better translation could be: Vendée war.

It's a common expression, used in books, websites, etc (you can check on Google) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:6C6E:B190:8F0C:B57B (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dieu Le Roi
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)

The real king of France is God, since Jeanne d'Arc. So, it's probably "Dieu, le Roi" with "," meaning "and", but "Dieu est le Roi" is also true for French catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:6C6E:B190:8F0C:B57B (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War in the Vendée. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212075001/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Wars_Of_The_Vendee to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Wars_Of_The_Vendee

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)