Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Hidden text

Many times I work on various articles in different languages. Regarding Robespierre, my involvement began in 2010 but took a more serious turn in 2019. While my memory serves well for dates, retaining every detail proves challenging. To ensure chronological accuracy, I incorporate hidden comments. My proficiency with LaTeX dates back to the 1990s, a program upon which Wikipedia relies. In disciplines like physics and mathematics, hidden comments are commonplace, a practice less common on Wikipedia.

Additionally, when both preceding and subsequent sentences refer to the French author Walter on the same page, it's reasonable to attribute the intermediate sentence to Walter as well. Predicting reader preferences for references poses a challenge. Moreover, the year 1791 lacks the same focus as 1792 and beyond among French historians. Clarity regarding his role as public accuser remains elusive. Taksen (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Taksen, thanks for the comments. My understanding is that hidden text is only to be used for short guidelines, such as flagging why something doesn't need to be wikilinked, or that "a particular issue has been discussed, so please go to Talk page to raise your suggestion", etc. It's not meant to be used for substantive text, or for citations/notes. Doing so masks the full content of the article, making it readable only through the edit function. That's why I've been converting hidden text to plain text in the article, for anyone to read easily. I think that is required by MOS:DONTHIDE. When I started doing this yesterday, my first count was that there were close to 200 examples of hidden text in the article as a whole, and almost all of them that I looked at were substantive content; those are the ones I've been bringing out as plain text, which anyone reading the article can read without going into the editor. If there are problems with the text I've brought out into plain text, then we can fix them. I've done some fixes as I went along, but am using a very "light touch" because I don't have a great deal of familiarity with Robespierre. I'm bringing the text into plain sight, and then we can work on problems, as you have been doing. (I have found some examples of hidden text in the infobox which to my understanding don't violate MOS:DONTHIDE, because they are examples of guidelines on not duplicate linking, etc.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply and comments

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, in your early edits you deleted what Robespierre said:

"As for myself, I abhor the death penalty administered by your laws, and for Louis I have neither love nor hate; I hate only his crimes."

This text was invisible for many years, because there is no place or specific date mentioned. Rereading it I thought this could go back in somewhere. Robespierre explains well what happened earlier in 1791 where you questioned this:

"The current French constitution is a republic with a monarch.[131] It is therefore neither a monarchy nor a republic. She is both."[132] Cordeliers like Danton suggested not to recognize Louis XVI as their king. Robespierre frowned on the efforts to promote republican ideology but had not yet acquired the unchallenged grip over the Jacobins for which he would be known.[citation needed] The court denounced him as a republican.[133]

Thank you for paying attention to it. (Perhaps you can think of a solution how to bring those two details together, by moving or copying references? It is a pity I do not understand all the refinement in the rules. I prefer to stick to:

"Editors use "invisible" comments ... to communicate with one another." Quite often they became questions which I could not solve at that time and needed to remind or was open for comments. Anyhow, I will check more of your work and add here when or where I disagree. See you later. Taksen (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I never ask other people to look for references. Always I went searching and improving my self. This is how I learn and the reason the article changed in the past five years. byebyeTaksen (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Too long?

• Yes, it is long but not as long as the French equivalent.
• It takes years before one understands the French Revolution or Robespierre. The topic is not for babies. Most readers will be older people.
• One cannot understand Robespierre within a day. It took me almost twenty years.
• This article had millions of views, not very many complained about its length. Most people will not read the whole article anyhow.
• For a long time I know this article is not perfect but the numbers of readers doubled last month which has to do with a new movie on Napoleon. I have not seen it, but it is clear more people got interested in Robespierre.
• I assume the readers appreciate this article as is not superficial or written in an amateur or high school style. I agree, it contains of lot of details and has a lot of references.
• It is difficult to predict what people like to see referenced but recently some added about 80-90 references which I kept hidden.
• I think you should prove all the information on Robespierre should be split so we get an article that is easier to digest. I my point of view it will damage the article.
• When I checked your contributions I noticed I was not familiar with any of the topics. They seem the be about locals, not very many French or historical figures. Of course you got confused reading this article.
• This article contains a few highly controversial issues in which quite a few people seem to be interested: The right to bear arms, the abolition of slavery and the attack on the Convention.
• A few months ago someone tried to delete the legend section. Fortunately someone stopped her.
• Your perspective holds less weight compared to the insights of historians who dedicate years or even a lifetime to studying Robespierre.
• You could have used the talk page first instead of putting an ugly label on it and shocking the reader.
• Why should we bother about just one person who has problems reading it.
• Your talk page is also very long. I think this may have to do with each other.
• Only a few weeks ago someone added a lot of hidden information. He thought the article was too short. I could not stop him. Taksen (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) It is unusual what he did, most like to delete, which is easier.
• This article has a lot of sections, main sections and subsections, your label is superfluous.Taksen (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Many of the points raised above conflict with our policies and practices. Wikipedia is written for a wide, general audience. Readers should not have to spend years reading this article to understand the topic. Nor is the readership limited to the elderly or to experts. The article should be accessible to those without a background in the topic. This is especially true given the popularity of the topic, and the associated influx of curious laypeople. In order to promote accessibility, fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article, with this article kept to a high-level summary of the subject; this helps to maintain readability. The state of an article on another wiki is not relevant to our local policies and guidelines, nor is the state of a talk page. Nor is it the case that the perspectives of historians carry any more weight. Finally, aesthetics are not a reason to abstain from appropriate tags, which place the article in the necessary cleanup categories to help it be improved. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I just deleted the template, nobody seems to be interested in leaving a comment. Besides the template frightens people to read the article which is not what we want. The amount of visitors dropped considerably within a few days which is not what I like to see. Regards, Taksen (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Restored, since the issue hasn't yet been addressed. People wouldn't see the template unless they open the article, so any difference in pageviews cannot be attributed to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Most people will only stay a few seconds/perhaps a few minutes and then decide to leave. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not show this. Take a look at simple:Maximilian Robespierre. It is short but pretty good. Somehow it should mentioned in the template. Another option is too mention the article on French Revolution, which deals with the same topic. One can easily see how complicated this topic is. (A biography of Robespierre is actually an account on the French Revolution; that is why the article is so long.) I asked ChatGPT to improve several sections but it is a lot of work to go through the rest. I can only do a limited amount of text a day. If nobody responds I will delete the template again. We do not need head teachers but people who participate. Taksen (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If you feel it should be mentioned in the template, feel free to propose that at the template's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Because of an edit conflict I was not able to make improvements. I am not interested in improving templates and its talk pages. I specialize on the content. Please do not tell me to "feel free". Again you try to put me at work and you can lay back.Taksen (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

To my surprise someone recently added the same template to the article on the French Revolution; is this a new wave? He added: I leave that to editors more familiar with the literature. Horrible, I would not comment on articles which I do not understand or not familiar with. It seems also to be your problem.Taksen (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not so interested in people who do not "feel" responsible for their actions.Taksen (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) I hope Wikipedia will limit one day the activities of people who only drop a template and who are not interested in the consequences and further development of the article.Taksen (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the "Too long" template. There is a clear editing guideline dealing with article length: Wikipedia:Article size. Individual editors cannot simply ignore that guideline. In particular, any article over 15,000 words "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." WP:TOOBIG. The XTools for this page indicates that it currently has 21,315 words. That is more than 6,000 words over the recommended limit. To comply with that guideline, this article needs to be trimmed.

Wikpedia uses summary style; articles here should not be the same as articles in academic journals. Over-long articles go contrary to that principle: WP:SUMMARY:

"This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style keeps the reader from being overwhelmed by too much information up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles. What constitutes "too long" varies by situation, but generally 50 kilobytes of readable prose (8,000 words) is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified." [my bolding]

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Over several years, I've diligently gathered substantial data. Despite my comprehensive collection, condensing it into concise summaries remains challenging. A friend suggested incorporating brief summaries at the conclusion of each section, a technique I did not explore.

While platforms like DeepL offer summarization tools, my usage has been limited, just yesterday. I believe assigning this summarization task to another individual would be beneficial. Alternatively, delaying the summarization process until I'm available is an option, as I prefer relocating these valuable details rather than deleting them.

My inclination doesn't align with multitasking across various articles simultaneously after investing considerable time. Some intricacies are solely mentioned here, pivotal in enriching the narrative. Consequently, retaining these specifics has been integral to presenting a comprehensive storyline.Taksen (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As you can see I used ChatJPG to reply. Finally there is a program that assists with formulating.Taksen (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't remove at this time - additional work is needed for the reasons outlined above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen: Please stop edit-warring. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz and I have explained to you above the relevant guideline, and the article still requires additional work to meet it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted video links

I have reverted the videolinks previously reverted by Nikkimaria and restored by Taksen, for three reasons: (1) Not clear if all of those links meet copyright concerns, as set out in WP:VIDEOLINK; (2) Comments about the themes and "balance" of the videolinks, without supporting cites, infringes NPOV and WP:OR; (3) Taksen can't have it both ways, and say that Nikkimaria can't put the TOOLONG template up without doing something, and then revert it right away when Nikkimaria starts cutting the article to comply with the standard page limits. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This section became pretty unbalanced. Charles F. Warwick published his book in 1909. It can't be historically reliable section if it does not show nothing newer. There are many rules which can be used in one's own profit, some rules I don't trust. I know Wikipedia does not like YouTube, me neither, but these documentaries are pretty good. They explain Robespierre pretty well when studying him.

You were also the one who added a lot of hidden text and references recently. Now you deleted this template and want the article to become shorter. How can you change your mind so quickly? It took P. Jordan more than 300 pages. I think this article is confusing when someone is not familiar with all the names but it has only 40 pages, 75 including the many refs.Taksen (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding changes in approach, it's common for contributors to reassess and refine their editing strategies based on various factors, including article length, readability, and relevance of content. The intention might be to ensure clarity for readers who might not be familiar with the names mentioned. Balancing comprehensiveness with readability is often a delicate task in creating accessible yet informative articles.Taksen (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As you can see I used ChatJPG to reply. Finally there is a program that assists with formulating.Taksen (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No size limits

I don't know how to link to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper

but this is what is written there:Taksen (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The most obvious difference is that there are, in principle, no size limits in the Wikipedia universe. It is quite possible, for example, that when you finish typing in everything you want to say about poker, there might well be over 100 pages, and enough text for a full-length book by itself. This would certainly never be tolerated in a paper encyclopedia, which is why Encyclopædia Britannica has such limited information on the topic (and on most other topics).

and from the same article:

Any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible.

The English Wikipedia version of that page is WP:NOTPAPER, which states, "Editors should limit individual articles to a reasonable size to keep Wikipedia accessible (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

While some articles may appear lengthy to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter, it's crucial to distinguish personal opinions about their length. Such judgments are more appropriately expressed on the talk page rather than being prominently featured at the top of the article.Taksen (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

December 1793 is a crucial month regarding the reign of terror. I moved some of the details to Le Vieux Cordelier but that article only has about ten/fifteen readers a day. That means that information gets lost. The context - the discussion with Desmoulins, who protected Danton, the suicide of Clavière, and the arrests and executions in December - should not disappear.Taksen (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

While there is room for improvement in the article, the current template is inaccurately applied. It has not undergone discussion, and the presence of numerous sections and subsections contradicts the assertion presented to the reader. A more accurate evaluation should be considered before displaying such information.Taksen (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Template

I'm concerned that shortening the article may result in the omission of events and accusations against Robespierre, which might be intentional.Taksen (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Get support here, and not on my talk page, Taksen (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Taksen, I have support here - see discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Execution time frame needs correction or clarification.

According to the intro and infobox, Robespierre died on 10 Thermidor. However, the second paragraph in the "Execution" section currently lists the sequence of events thusly: 1) the Revolutionary Tribunal assembled at noon on 10 Thermidor, 2) Robespierre & Co. were accused of being counter-revolutionary and sentenced to death at 2 a.m. [which would be 14 hours later on 11 Thermidor], 3) Rob & Co. were taken away to be executed at 6 p.m. [another 16 hours later].

So, A) is the "2 a.m." really supposed to be "2 p.m."; B) "2 a.m." refers only to when they were accused of being counter-revolutionary (i.e. arrested) and not when they were sentenced, and therefore that event should be split off and listed before the information about when the Tribunal met; or C) they really did wait thirty hours and executed him on the 11th? 104.184.182.119 (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

you are right, it was 2 p.m, thanks. I changed it.Taksen (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

Hello. I just want to signal that the legacy section is missing a large amount of French historiography in recent years. Of course, some of that isn’t getting a lot of attention in English literature, but most of it is very important, and marks a new development in research concerning Robespierre. The section on fr.wiki on the legacy of Robespierre mentions a call by all mainstream center-left and left-wing parties to rehabilitate Robespierre, published by Le Monde, at the end. Nothing about any of that here. The research of Jean-Clément Martin is also missing. Both en.wiki and fr.wiki are missing modern political reappropriations like that of La France Insoumise, and there is no word yet on the criticism of the "proto-communist" approach. I’m planning on working on it myself, but since one user, @Taksen: has been working on this article for years now, I would like to know their opinion about this. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I can see you like talk pages. Another thing is that you are very unexperienced when it comes to Robespierre. Many historians spent their whole life on him. I never studied Pierre Serna and the article on him is unimpressive. It is not necessary to mention the Spring revolutions here, this discussion is from 2011, or pay more attention to the latest Marxist point of view, which is difficult to follow unless one understands French very well and has a subscription on French newspapers. The article is already long enough, sorry.

Are you active on the French Wikipedia? I was not able to find much. Perhaps you could start an article on the French left wing view on him? Something that does not seem easy to me. A better idea is to improve the article on Serna, or Jean-Clément Martin (which I started many years ago). Then we can see what you added. Thank you for you concern. Taksen (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) I did like this link on the French Wikipedia but will not use it: [1]

Thanks for stalking me, I guess, though it’s not what your supposed to do. I think it is important to mention the left-wing view of him, because you seem to think it is exclusively a Marxist perspective which sees him positively. There is also criticism to him being a communist, which isn’t mentioned here. I’m not familiar with this subject, I’m familiar with the Inca Empire… So I guess your right, still, your tone isn’t pleasant. You can see my contributions on fr.wiki by going there. You never studied Pierre Serna? That seems to be a problem, but whatever. From previous discussions you seem to not understand French very well and to not like French historiography in general in the article. It’s not long, two paragraphs perhaps. I will go on to translate fr.wiki, and then add everything which is missing there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There, not too long, isn’t it. Encyclopédisme (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What does "There, not too long, isn’t it" mean? What is your username/utilisateur on the French Wikipedia?Taksen (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopédisme, the same one as here? I translated it. Do you not know how to see user contributions? Encyclopédisme (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a feeling your a little biased in condensing some info. But whatever, the call by those three parties is important, as it shows a wide political mobilisation, those parties are, with exception of the radical party, the two most important parties next to EELV and LFI. The socialist party always had a Jacobin tradition, so this information is important, the section is entitled legacy, not historiography. Everything important concerning his posterity has a place there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda? Either you discuss this at talk, or I’m starting an ANI case. You know the rule where no article belongs to one person? Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen:: As to Jaurès, he does talk about Robespierre. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have little knowledge of guidelines. I gave you the reasons up there. The Chinese historian is really that important? Fine. But first discuss things, this article doesn’t belong to you. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Wp:Ownership of content for reference. I am still awaiting your answer. If you start an edit war, I’m starting an ANI case. Encyclopédisme (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Taksen:, please, come here, and discuss your issues with the presence of the French center-left parties in the "legacy" section designed to contain the posterity of Robespierre. Other works aren’t presented in such detail as the one by that Chinese historian (have you read it and you were impressed? In that case, that doesn’t justify the other parts of the section being so short). There is an introduction to the neo-liberal and revisionist school, there are citations from different revisionist historians, not mentioning the general trend and tradition. And for good reason, the article is way too long. But you see, this information, presented in a short paragraph, is an important information, as Jacobin thought had and has an influence on the French non-Marxist left. That is an information missing here. Perhaps there should be a paragraph explicitly stating this information, however the omission of the political parties because it is "out of focus" as you put it, isn’t a justification. If you are doing this because you think otherwise it would be "propaganda", you would be showing bias on a, sorry, controversial figure. If you aren’t doing this, and I’m going to assume good faith, then why not care to explain and discuss (that can take time) instead of edit warring. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)