Talk:September Massacres
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
September Massacres is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
Lots and lots of blood. Rollin' down the streets. "I've got a river of blood flowin' out of me...etc." (-- 13:22, Mar 2, 2004 12.17.38.3)
This is pretty mediocre as it stands, and the last paragraph -- "Some historians cite this outbreak of violence in the name of defending an imperiled Revolution as evidence of an inherent tendency toward bloodshed on the part of the Jacobins" -- is pure weasel: "Some historians" cite it as an "inherent tendency toward bloodshed on the part of" people they don't like.
Currently, I believe the material is covered in more detail at The Legislative Assembly and the fall of the French monarchy. Merge? Refactor? I'm at least adding a "see also". -- Jmabel 05:57, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
A recent edit added "The September Massacres marked a period of violence against the Roman Catholic Church that spread throughout France and lasted for nearly a decade." I have two problems with that: (1) it tends to suggest that most of the victims were attacked for their connections to the Church. I am unaware of any reputable source that makes that claim. (2) As far as I know, violence against the Church and its institutions was, at most, intermittent after the fall of Robespierre: there was a flare-up at the time Rome was occupied by the French in 1799, but other than that just a smattering of incidents. No? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I was only quoting J. McManners, The French Revolution and the Church (1969) and Gwynne Lewis, Life in Revolutionary France (1972). However, I did not mean it to say continual and massive like 1792, only sporadic but that acts of violence, plus demonstrations against the church that turned violent, continued until the Concordat. 17:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"However this popular account of her being raped, dismembered or mutilated is disputed." Quite possibly; can someone please cite: disputed by whom? - Jmabel | Talk 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Justification
Recently added, recently cut: "They justified their actions by claiming that they were preserving the republic." The place this was placed in the article, it is not clear who "they" are, though presumably the perpetrators of the massacres. I don't think this is necessarily false, but I don't think it is exactly true either: as I understand it, they justified their actions as an effort to destroy what would now be called a potential Fifth Column before heading off to war. Does someone have a citation for this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pcesse de Lamballe
moved here: 'However this popular account of her being raped, dismembered or mutilated is disputed." If this well-attested incident is "disputed", some details are required and the symptomatic "passive of non-attribution" corrected. --Wetman 04:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
