Talk:Louis Antoine de Saint-Just

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nmora052. Peer reviewers: Alilykat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV dispute

This article is absolutely shot through with animus towards its subject. I realize that the POV is that of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, which makes it less objectionable than if it had been deliberately added by a regular Wikipedian, but it's pretty egregious even by Britannica's standards. This deserves significant rewriting on that basis.

Normally, if I was accusing an article of POV I'd cite specifics. In this case, I believe a bright chimp could see the bias, so I will refrain, but I'm glad to participate in discussion if someone would rather discuss than edit. -- Jmabel 06:08, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

The prospect of bit by bit whitewashing Saint-Just, to the extent that the POV label is removed will be an entertaining spectacle. Wetman 10:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Journalistic neutrality? What journalist neutrality? The ghost of Camille Desmoulins has arrived to take matters into his own, oh, slightly embittered and by now thoroughly decomposed hands. There are times when unqualified bits of invective are indeed justice poetic. Oh, snerk. Snerk indeed. (anon 2 Aug 2005, about a year after the comments to which it applies.)

Oh God, not Camille again... Although I like how you think, anon :D I wouldn't happen to know you, would I? I would take it upon myself to rewrite the article, but I'm not too up on Wiki formatting, and I don't want to annoy anyone by completely trashing an entry and redoing it. Although I WOULD like to take on Wetman for his belief that you would have to "whitewash" poor Antoine to find anything to say about him that wasn't completely hostile. If no one has any objections I might start tinkering with the article a bit... *chases Camille's ghost away with a broom* --Togemon 03:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The POV on this article is extremely ugly. Some form of the word 'gloomy' is used three times. It's hard to think of a less helpful and more POV word than gloomy. Removing all the POV language and not replacing it with anything would pretty much render the article a stub. The burden of stub-hood versus the rabid, fanatical, and gloomy genius of 1911 Britanica stands before us. I pray that we have the wisdom and the courage to make the right choice, or find someone who knows more about this fellow. --Irongaard 02:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Saint-Just has the probably deserved reputation of being among the most vile men in history because of his fanaticism and callousness. I agree that the case for such a view could be made more effectively by a less POV article. Xxanthippe 11:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What the person above said. But I love the part about his death. It's like a little story. *tear* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.137.101 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress?

Is it safe to say that the POV issue has resolved itself at this point...? I'm mercifully not getting bloodthirsty demon vibes from the current version of the article. I may be missing something, though, so I'd hesitate to take down the tag without a second opinion. Pontmercy 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not that shy. I am willing to remove it. I may not be a "high" person in the Wiki hierarchy, but three full years is a long time. In addition I have read the article and is seems to me to be have a NPOV. Anyone can replace it if the disagree.

Nick Beeson 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The article now gives the impression that it was written by someone thoroughly enamoured of its subject, while still making it clear that he was one of the vilest men ever to have breathed. I guess this can count as NPOV. Maproom (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hair

Weirdly "the youth with the beautiful countenance and the long fair locks", was changed anonymously, without comment, to "...and the long dark locks". Since the 1911 Britannica says "fair", I am restoring; if someone has a more primary citation and I am wrong, then fine. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone agrees on what color his hair was, or much else about his appearance. I've heard it described as everything from dark to white-blonde. Whoever changed it probably just had a personal preference. --Togemon 03:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

With the hair colour debate, one must choose whether to believe portraits or written word. Pretty much all Saint-Just's portraits are drawn with dark brown hair, whereas most written accounts describe him as a blonde.

Perhaps this is a translation problem; on the pictures I know his hair seems to be what the French call "blond foncé", but I don't think this would be called "blond" in English. David Sneek 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, blond means blonde. And blonde foncé means light blonde. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.98.160.92 (talk • contribs) 28 March 2006.

See for yourself. David Sneek 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactement :-). 'Foncé' means 'dark', so 'blond foncé' means 'dark blond', as the link above actually shows. Chakgogka

Confession

Back before I became a more responsible wikipedian - back in the days when I lurked and read instead of editing and helping - I changed the purported color of Saint-Just's hair for no reason other than to see whether it would be changed back. I had doubts about wikipedia's capacity for protecting itself from subtle vandalism, and I figured I would switch a minor detail for a short period of time in order to see whether my little sabotage would go undetected. Jmabel saw it and reverted it, thus giving me faith in wikipedia's ability for self-correction. I shouldn't have done it, but I had no malicious intent and have since become a decent and mildly useful wikipedian under a number of other names and IP addresses. To make up for my original vandalism, I created a large number of redirects for the many variant forms of Louis' name, so that this article can be found more easily (before, you had to nail a single variant to get the article to come up at all). Anyway, I'm sorry; I have no real opinion at all on the Saint-Just hair-color issue. 141.150.105.19 01:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not well acquainted with the subject and the various forms of Louis' name but I've counted over 60 redirects and it seems to me that many of them are redundant. Does anybody else think so? Maymay (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Postscript

In Citizens, p. 651, Saint-Just is described by Simon Schama (who has a penchant for such detail) as having long "tresses of black hair" which "fell on his shoulders" (and wearing "a single golden earring", location undescribed). SteveStrummer (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Germany"

Re: this edit While the link provided for Germany - to the current unified country - is arguably wrong, I believe that the word "Germany", which at that time referred to a region defined by language, not politics, was entirely correct. "Prussia" is certainly wrong: there was no French-Prussian border. The army they were facing was mostly Prussian, but the Rhineland was not Prussian territory until after Napoleon was ultimately defeated. Perhaps we should say "the Rhineland" if Tazmaniacs has a problem with "Germany"? Or was the problem just with the link? - Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "modern Germany", or even better Rhineland as you propose would be more accurate? Tazmaniacs 05:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say "modern Germany": this is "Germany" precisely as the term was then used. But "the Rhineland" is at least accurate; "Prussia" is not, so that's what I'll do. - Jmabel | Talk 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing style

The heavy use of passive voice not only makes the article very confusing (Who suspected treason? Who defeated the conspiracy?) it reads as very archaic. If it's not a fairly close copy of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, it sure sounds like it.

Examples:

• This was agreed to
• Saint-Just was despatched
• It was suspected
• conspiracy was defeated
• the frontier was delivered
• the German Rhineland was invaded
• Saint-Just was made president
• Belgium was gained
• a sight of which, however, had been refused

[[1]] 18:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Par trop de Camus

A full third of this article is on what Camus thinks of Saint-Just! Have you no shame? No mercy? No decency? Writtenright 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

i kinda like the Camus section: it distracts from the EB 1911 parts. just wish there was a pithy blockquote pohick (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now this article is pretty lousy, with a bunch of grammatical errors and a lot of POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference in Literature

Shouldn't be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Saint-Just mentioned in the part about literary mentions too? It obviously is heavily inspired by the historic persona, even sharing the "job" of sitting in the Public Safety comittee (and dying forcefully) --145.254.103.48 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved to Louis Antoine de Saint-Just. Although there was no slamdunk consensus in favour of this name at the expense of all others, the default option of not moving the article had no support. I've gone with this version as the one with most support, but feel free to reopen the discussion if you feel another is superior.  Skomorokh  07:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Louis de Saint-Just → Louis Antoine Saint-Just — Saint-Just was named "Louis Antoine" and was throughout his life known as "Antoine" (first to differentiate himself from his father "Louis" and then when the name "Louis" became very unpopular), so it makes no sense for his wiki page to refer to him by a name he did not use. Furthermore, he did not use the "de" in his name during his most recognisable period - the Revolution - and it makes no more sense to refer to him as "de Saint-Just" as it would to refer to "de Robespierre" or "d'Anton" --216.165.61.231 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Putting in a more complete version of his full name seems reasonable. A literal reading of WP:NCP would suggest Louis Saint-Just, but this is ambiguous against his father. In default of Louis Saint-Just (revolutionary) or similar abominations, adding "Antoine" seems like a good idea - although, why not go all the way to Louis Antoine Léon de Saint-Just? Tevildo (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to mention that myself, what about "Léon"? I would support a move to "Antoine Louis Léon de Saint-Just" --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Louis Antoine de Saint-Just

• His baptismal certificate (acte de baptême) shows only Louis Antoine as first names.
• Dictionary Petit Robert has him under Louis Antoine de Saint-Just

Frania W. (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, discussions like this have a tendency to be closed "No Consensus", so we end up with the status quo even though nobody really supports it. I would therefore suggest that we list the various options and put our opinions against those which we support, so that the closing admin (while not merely tallying votes, of course) can see which option is the most popular. I've put together something below: however, if this isn't an acceptable method, please feel free to delete it. It might be better to continue the discussion in this section; however, that's just my opinion. Tevildo (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Options

• Louis Saint-Just

Oppose. Potentially ambiguous. Tevildo (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Louis Antoine Saint-Just (original RM proposal)

• Louis Antoine Léon Saint-Just

• Louis de Saint-Just (status quo)

Oppose per OP. Tevildo (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Louis Antoine de Saint-Just

Support per Robert and Frania W. Tevildo (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Louis Antoine Léon de Saint-Just

Weak Support. Most complete version of his name. Tevildo (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent anonymous edit

This recent anonymous edit is not very well written and also seems to me problematic in places. I reverted one change (you can't change a quotation!), but if anyone is at all actively monitoring this article I suggest they have a close look at all of it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Article has undergone a complete rewrite since August 2011. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

One person, one vote

This is fatuous, condescending, conceited, judgemental and inaccurate: "His inflexible "one man one vote" plan was no more successful than any other, but its fashionable reverence for the traditions of antiquity helped enhance his political cachet."

One person, one vote is Constitutional Law in the United States in 2014Lethomme (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well. Here's a revision to clear up that. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It still sounds biased... How can you argue that he held more inflexible to his point of view than anyone else? But it is better than the older version.

Icarusatthesun (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible ideas and bibliography?

Talk about how Saint-Just's decisions and tasks throughout the French Revolution affected the revolution. What he could have done differently in order to have a better outcome. - Biography in Context - The History Guide: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/louis_trial.html Nmora052 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"The vessel of the Revolution"

The quote deleted by me is attributed by Eugene Curtis to Barere ("Barere, impatient to show his zeal for principles, declared: "The vessel of the Revolution cannot arrive at port except upon a sea reddened with waves of blood." Saint-Just agreed. "That is true," he said."). Curtis refers to the memoirs of Vilate ("Causes secretes de la revolution du 9 au 10 thermidor", pp. 12-14) who was present at the meeting. Eyre8 (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

“The vessel of the Revolution can arrive in port only on a sea reddened with torrents of blood” is attributed directly to Saint-Just by Stanley Loomis, and corroborating quotations are found in other historical works, including every edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica modern and old. Any claim to the contrary would have to be supported by more than Eugene Curtis, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, although I wouldn't object if it was inserted in the Footnotes section with a proper citation to Curtis's book. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The quote is attributed to Barère by:

1) Edouard Fleury, "Saint-Just et la terreur", first volume, p. 336

2) Alphonse Dunoyer, "Deux jurés du Tribunal révolutionnaire", p. 53-54. ("Barère, renchérissant, avait nettement délaré que "le vaisseau de la Révolution ne pouvait arriver au port que sur une mer rougie de flots de sang")

3) Eugene Curtis, "Saint-Just, colleague of Robespierre", p. 236

4) Nicolas-Toussaint Lemoyne des Essarts, "Procès fameux jugés avant et depuis la Révolution" (1797)

5) Joachim Vilate, "Causes secrètes de la révolution du 9 au 10 thermidor", p. 12-14. Memoirs were written in 1794 (an 3). It is the earliest source where the quotation appears. All the previous authors refer to Vilate's memoirs in their works.

I found the 7th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (1842). Indeed, the quote is attributed there to Saint-Just. But in the following sentence the phrase "a nation is only regenerated on heaps of dead bodies" (which is unquestionably Saint-Just's as all the sources unanimously attribute it to him) is wrongly attributed to Robespierre. This indicates that the Encyclopedia may not be entirely accurate on the subject.

Unfortunately, I do not have an access to the book of Loomis. May I ask which source he refers to when attributing the quote to Saint-Just? Eyre8 (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Professional historians are not expected to provide primary sources for the reader. As for the EB, it is unquestionably a solid RS no matter what you suggest, and the quotation at issue here was still in print at least as late as 1991. Besides, a mistake made in the relatively early date of 1842 is not all that surprising given that scholarship is built upon the work of predecessors. That's why we generally prefer modern scholarship to older, and the writers you mention are all from the 18th or 19th centuries; Eugene Curtis, no towering authority himself, wrote in the early 1930s. I'm sure you must know that Vitale, arrested in Thermidor, wrote his memoir in prison long after Saint-Just and Robespierre were dead, and was presumed to be trying to save his own neck by damning his enemies, including Barère. Recent scholarship has even suggested that Vitale's memoir was a forgery. So I see no reason to jettison the text of an award winning book like Paris in the Terror over this. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether Vilate made up the whole story trying to damn his enemies or gave true account of the event is not known for sure. Whether his memoir was a forgery or not is not known for sure as well. One thing is clear: it was printed in 1794 and still remains the first work to mention the quote whereas Loomis, for example, alludes to a certain "speech to the Convention" of which no record exists. According to WP:RS AGE, modern scholarship is preferable in scientific fields such as medicine, for example. "With regard to historical events, older reports tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing". Therefore I am terribly sorry, but I cannot see any reason to jettison Vilate's memoir and old studies in favor of unsourced statements. Eyre8 (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You're deliberately leaving out the second half of that guideline which states "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt." It most certainly does matter if the memoirs are lies or forgeries, as any historian will attest. Ultimately Wikipedia relies not on original research or claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources, but on verifiable secondary sources. This quotation has several high-quality sources behind it and, absent any new information, will remain in place. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The second part of the guideline I am "deliberately leaving out", indeed, "most certainly does matter if the memoirs are lies or forgeries". But I have to repeat that Vilate's memoir cannot be decisively proven to be "a lie" or "a forgery", as you peremptorily call it. Its validity may be disputed, but its falseness cannot be decisively proven. As for the "bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt", I am sure you do not really think that the "conflicts described were still active or strongly felt" in the times of Fleury, Dunoyer or Curtis whose works are reliable secondary sources on which I base my exceptional claim. However, I believe that a consensus is possible. According to WP:YTCOPYRIGHT, "If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation". Would you object to such a solution? Eyre8 (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We'll need the ISBN of the Curtis edition you're using. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a scan of the first edition of the book (New York: Columbia Press, 1935). As far as I know, such old books (published before the introduction of ISBN) don't have ISBN numbers. Can we use the ISBN of the 1973 edition? Eyre8 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we certainly will not do that. A Google Books search of the 1973 edition shows that the quotation does not appear in the book at all. Feel free to search for any fragment of the text you gave at the top of this discussion: I did. Interestingly, the phrase "impatient to show his zeal" does appear – but in the form "Saint-Just, impatient to show his zeal". I don't believe a writer would use that phrase twice in one book, do you? SteveStrummer (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Can an OCLC number be used instead of ISBN? In case you have suspicions about the quotation, where should I upload a screenshot of the page? Eyre8 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That's so funny, because in your original edit you said you were working from the 1973 edition. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In my original edit I just copied a line from "Bibliography" without paying attention to the year of edition. Could you please answer the questions from my previous reply? Eyre8 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The line was removed from the second edition, so there is no justifiable reason to cite it. The quotation, however, remains supported by high-quality modern sources. This discussion is over. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether the line was removed from 1973 reprint edition or not is not clear. This discussion is over until new evidence is found. Eyre8 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Vitale is the only source for the quote, if he is not reliable that is just more reason not to attribute the quote to Saint-Just. 213.149.61.226 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, the source is historian Stanley Loomis in Paris in the Terror. It's also reported in the 1982 Encyclopedia Brittanica among other sources. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

First speech in convention

The text reads "waited until 13 November 1792 to give his first speech to the Convention, but when he did the effect was spectacular. What brought him to the lectern was the discussion over how to treat the king after Varennes.[35] In dramatic contrast to the earlier speakers, Saint-Just delivered a blazing condemnation of the king."

This is most certainly not true, as the first speech he gave was about an economic matter. I think it was related to grain shortages in Paris and how to solve the crisis.

I'm pretty certain i read this in Bernand Vinots "Saint-Just" and also in Jörg Monars "Saint-Just".

Icarusatthesun (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Reasons why I reverted to previous:

• "Too broad a claim"

It's sourced to Hampson, whose bio of SJ is highly regarded. Other sources affirming the revolutionary vogue of Greco-Roman virtue are easy to find.

• "NPOV, references Robespierre's feelings (WTF)"

The whole paragraph is not based on his feelings, and the part which is uses them to explain his actions. Without this fully sourced paragraph, the narrative structure of the section is destroyed.

• "support among whom? NPOV"

Support among the deputies: that should be obvious. As for "convenient pretext" being NPOV, that's a direct quote from Doyle.

• NPOV

I don't know of any author who claims that Danton was not condemned via trumped up charges, but if you can mention even one, I will go along.

• "violence does not provide stability"

That's why it says a "mirage of stability". It gave the Robespierrists an apparent dominance, but it was... a mirage.

• "constitution"

Fixing refs that you yourself broke is nice. But "legislatorial" is already covered by "political" I think. Anyway , I might go along with it if it weren't for the next edit.

• "Undid revision 861803773 by SteveStrummer

There it is, the whole reason for this edit-bomb. I'm not sure if you'll take credit for that first edit, but it doesn't matter: I undid it then and now because it is a clear ploy to make SJ seem anodyne, even admirable, by shifting undue weight to the Ventose Decrees (which never took effect) and away from the Terror (which very much did). SteveStrummer (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There is not trace of a doubt that the set of your edits is supported by quite decent refs but the IP edits were not devoid of their own virtues, superficially where my own eyes are concerned at least. Partisanship still today is not fully to be discarded even among historiasn when it comes to opposing such great figure to such other great frame of the period, thus I'm not positive regarding suggestive assertions such as that of a "convenient pretext" (in the matter of the French East India Company). This is completely disregarding Fabre d'Églantine role and behaviors in the matter, so if I may add, by extension, purely ignoring fatality but designing instead some mysterious set of villains whose only purpose regarding good order would have been getting Georges D. down the drain. It's the only set of double quotes I found which can not be related to a direct quotation from the prose of the era by the way. --Askedonty (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

William Doyle says: "The case offered a convenient pretext, since Fabre before his arrest had been a leading opponent of continuing terror." I don't know of any author who has said that Fabre (let alone Danton and the others) committed any crimes that merited the death penalty. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. In his "Histoire de la revolution" (french) Adolphe Thiers mentions, just before his account about Danton's fall, the executions of Ronsin and Clootz. He comments: "So were those poor souls offered in sacrifice to the indisputable necessity of establishing strong and firm a governance." --Askedonty (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

But I'm curious about the fact that Fabre was in detention since a couple of months when the final blow fell on the Hebertists. Enumerating the number of heads Danton during his own trial claimed to have led to their fall also leads to wonder whether such a pretext would have been necessary. Danton had a stay in London, was involved in very complicated dealings with the state finances during a critical period, he is also said to have ultimately claimed in private he'd led himself to his own death. Thus it's a matter of choice to decide that people were targeted for their personae instead of taking most actors struggling with the consequences of a monarchy speedily eradicated, amongst those, an urgent need of keeping corruption at large. Which Danton may have not been able to see. --Askedonty (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Late reply, but at that time embezzlement of funds as a politician was grounds for execution- that was what d'Eglantine and by extension Danton were accused of. CherryPigeon (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Informal review

In response to a request on my talk page, I'd like to offer the following comments to help prepare the article for a FAC. They come with the proviso that I'm not hugely familiar with the French Revolution:

• The lead is probably a bit brief - I'd suggest fleshing out the paragraphs.

Done.

• Please also make sure that the first para sets out the scope of the article per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH.

Done.

• "After a promising start, Saint-Just acquired a reputation as a troublemaker, augmented by infamous stories" - were these stories in circulation when he was a child, or later? (I'm also not sure that "augmented" is the best word here?)

This definitely needed clarification. I hope this rewording helps?

• "Nonetheless, he earned his graduation" - could this be "Nonetheless, he graduated"?

I went with the more formal "was graduated" here.

• "it gave a juvenile foreshadowing of his own political extremism" - this is hard to follow

Changed to this.

• It's unclear how Saint-Just went from being an unemployed university drop out to an influential figure in his town. Could this be fleshed out?

His rise was mostly based on his success in the local National Guard unit. I reworked the Early Revolutionary section to stress that point.

• " Saint-Just directed his focus on the single goal of revolutionary command." - is this necessary?

I feel like it is. It sums up his turn away from his other endeavors, and mimics his own abrupt, decisive style. I'm open to persuasion though.

• "Blérancourt's traditional power structure was reshaped by the events of 1789." - please specify that this is when the revolution started

Done.

• "It revealed an unexpectedly moderate set of principles" - who considered this unexpectedly moderate?

Removed: I was getting ahead of the narrative there.

• "He left for Paris to join the National Convention as its youngest member" - I'd suggest saying what his age was

I incorrectly used prose instead of numerals for his age. Hopefully it stands out more now!

• How and why did Saint-Just transition from advocating constitutional monarchy to wanting to execute the king and drafting a lengthy republican constitution?
• "exacted the arrest" - could this be replaced with "arrested"?

Yes, it could!

• "compelled to make some obeisance" - I don't think the grammar is quite right here

All new wording for clarity.

• "a vote on 13 Ventôse" - please provide the conventional date as well

Done.

• Why was Saint-Just sent back to the army in 1794?

His commissar skills were needed: Springtime was expected to bring an offensive at the front.

• "he alone emerged unruffled from the wild, violent final arrest" - the Thermidorian Reaction article states that he was badly beaten and one of his eyes was gouged out. Is this incorrect?

It was commander François Hanriot who suffered the injuries. I'll make a change to the Thermidorian Reaction article to make this more clear.

• "Throughout his lifetime, Saint-Just continued to work on books and essays about the meaning of the Revolution" - I suspect that this sentence should start with "Throughout his political career" or similar

Done.

• "Œuvres complètes." - can this be replaced with something like "complete editions", or is it a different concept?

It's not a different concept; I replaced it with English.

• The images are all PD and tagged correctly
• Some of the article's grammar is a bit off, with unusual choices of words. I've made some example edits which may be helpful, but I'd suggest asking someone to read through the article closely for this.

I will make a request at GOCE.

• I'd also encourage you to put the article through a Military History Wikiproject A-class review, as this provides a comprehensive pre-FAC assessment by knowledgeable editors. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, thanks so much for your time and attention! It will take me time to address these issues, but I really appreciate your help. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, I'm responding to these issues as I do them, but the remaining ones will probably take me a lot longer. I just wanted to say I know you're too busy to stay in contact while I work on them, but I hope I can look forward to your reassessment after I'm done with them all. Even if you can't, I appreciate what you've already done. Thanks for your time! SteveStrummer (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've watchlisted this page, but please ping me if I can help. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Epigraph by François Furet

Jeremy Popkin uses an interesting detail in his A New World Begins (2019) which could be added here but where? After the September Massacres or after the Insurrection of 31 May - 2 June 1793.Taksen (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

François Furet as having motivated scholars to approach the subject with ‘fresh eyes’. He implicitly argues in favour of the classic ‘thesis of circumstances’: that the revolutionaries were forced forward through the onslaught of events rather than any preconceived plan, choosing a quote from Louis Antoine de Saint-Just for his opening epigraph: ‘The force of things has perhaps led us to do things that we did not foresee’. [2]

Ordinary men and women were capable of both acts of courage, such as the storming of the Bastille, and acts of inhuman cruelty, including the September massacres of 1792. Certainly all of the participants could have agreed on at least one thing: the truth of the words of a young revolutionary legislator, Louis-Antoine de Saint-Just, when he remarked that “the force of things has perhaps led us to do things that we did not foresee.” [3]'

Edit by Lucullus19 - Triumvirate

Hello @Lucullus19: The source is a quote by Louis-Marie Stanislas Fréron who was accusing the three men of the formation of a triumvirate on the day before his execution... The text should be moved to the Thermidor section and should properly state that this was an accusation by a political adversary.

I am fine with it now. Removed from lead section and accurately reports the content of the source.

Icarusatthesun (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC) edited 11:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add to Popular Culture the Honor Herrington series by David Webber

Please add to Popular Culture the Honor Herrington series by David Webber. Throughout the series there are two major villains, Rob Pierre and Oscar Saint-Just. These two characters are the leaders of the Committee of Public Safety of the People's Republic of Haven. 2600:1700:D250:B6D0:1C27:8CFA:5A99:93A2 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Terror"

It's come to my attention that the terms "Terror" and "Reign of Terror" are frequently used here to describe the period generally around 1793-94. I understand that this is a colloquial term likely used for simplicity's sake, but it carries a definite political connotation. Furthermore, the period was not known at the time as the "Terror"- that was a post-Thermidor coining and there was no official policy of "terror" at any point. (The shifting connotations of the term would be a whole other essay.)

Any possibility/suggestion for alternate terminology that's more neutral and accurate? CherryPigeon (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

clearly the political shaping of the term has been immense, the only way in my opinion is stating when it was refered to like this Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

lead things

I just finished the reading of the biography by Antoine Boulant "L'archange de la Revolution". It is one of the most clean, fair and balanced biography you can find on Saint-Just.

1) Before starting to add any missing info on the page I noticed that his speech against the king, the one that got him killed, is missing from lead. It is one of the main thing he has always been known for. And also a very good exemple that would make the second paragraph more clear.

2) Besides that I feel like the lead has most of the elements already there, it should just be reshaped a little bit to put informations in a more clear 4 pragraph structure.

3) I also have some doubts on the current mention of his "wild and violent sexuality", according to the biography there is absolutelly zero concrete proof for this, it should be mentioned that all of this talks started after his fall.

4) Contrary to his "violent sexuality" I feel like his role in the political repression is a bit too nuanced "Politically combating" "designated speaker" and "launching accusations" is very very vague for a political figure that launched explicit death sentences on his speechs. The nuance should be kept intact by refering to the fact that he didn't actually wanted all the executions that other part of the governement pushed for, but he was indeed one of the main theoretical figures of it.

It's very complex topic, so I want to gather opinions before doing changes. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I got no answers, I am going to proceede editing the page, looking for missing info on body and then reshaping the lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)