Talk:Thermidorian Reaction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
Thermidorian Reaction is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France 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. | |
Hmm...now we have Thermidor, Thermidorian, and this. What should go where? Adam Bishop 01:43, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- (2 years later) Thermidorian is now just a redirect to Thermidor. I suspect that some material should be refactored from Thermidor to this article, then Thermidorian should point here. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Merge
I'm not convinced we should merge this with 9 Thermidor, but if we merge, I believe we should merge 9 Thermidor to Themidoriam Reaction rather than vice versa. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
I just noticed that among the sources cited are three books by Marianne Becker. While these books are very well-researched, they are still fiction (despite their somewhat misleading titles), and I think we need to make this more clear. --Montagnarde1794 08:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- They seem to have come in from 9 Thermidor by way of this merge by User:Kerowyn. The were added to 9 Thermidor about a year ago in this edit from an IP address that made several edits that day, but hasn't been heard of since. I doubt that they were really used as sources; perhaps none of these were. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Really? A pity; they're all excellent sources (although perhaps more applicable to the Robespierre article than one on the Thermidorian Reaction). At any rate, for the sake of those who might wish to do further research, it ought to be made clear that some of these books are fictional, and that, as you mentionned, it is doubtful that they were even used in the article. --Montagnarde1794 06:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I question the neutrality of this article. Every sourced document is directly related to Maximilien Robespierre, and it appears to make Robespierre look like a revolutionary "saint." The continual statements that he was killed without trial reflects a punishment that he served upon many individuals as well and it should be noted that there were additional reasons why Robespierre was arrested other than this claim of conspiracy. I believe the individual who has written this entry is ultimitely biased in their perception of Maximillien Robespierre in history in the context of the French Revolution. 20:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- As was previously noted, these sources were likely not actually used. I disagree with you in any case concerning Robespierre; he is not, in this article, being portrayed as a "revolutionary 'saint'," just being given fair treatment; he was sent to the guillotine without trial, something he had, to clarify the record, never "served upon many individuals," as you say (or anyone). Whether one agrees with his opinions and actions or not, one must admit verifiable fact. --Montagnarde1794 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Other "Thermidorian Reactions"
Is the characterization of Russia having undergone a "Terror" for the entire period from 1917 until Stalin's death Brinton's? If so, our article should be clear in saying so, and it should be cited. If not, and if it is just a contributor's own view, it should not be there. - Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Given that none of the actors in the Russian events of 85-91 had anything to do with the Russian Revolution, it should DEFINITELY not be here.
[edit] Illusory
What is "his apparently total grasp on power was, in fact, increasingly illusory" supposed to mean? Str1977 (smile back) 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. Doesn't seem the least bit obscure to me, so I'm not sure what you need explained. Let me try to be (much more) verbose. In the period of the Terror, it appeared to most of those concerned that Robespierre had gained the power of a tyrannical dictator. His disfavor had become a death warrant. If anything, this surface impression seemed even truer after he successfully dispatched two other powerful men and past allies, the indulgent Danton and the enragé Hebert. In retrospect, though, by bringing about the execution of those whose views were not that far from his own, he undercut the basis of his own power on two counts: he had ridded himself of potential powerful allies in the coming confrontation, and he had created a situation where it was clear that allying with Robespierre was not a position of safety. Some who had previously been his allies out of opportunism now decided that their chances were better by opposing him and bringing him down at one blow.
- I'm not sure if every bit of that is implicit in that one short phrase, but it is why that phrase is essentially accurate. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious image
The picture of Merda shooting Robespierre seems a dubious inclusion, since this probably did not even happen. It seems especially inappropriate without an explanatory caption or any discussion in the article. This is as if in the article on the JFK assassination we included a picture of someone shooting from the "grassy knoll", uncaptioned and undiscussed. - Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
