Talk:Reign of Terror

Confused framing and narrative

This reads like a coherently written article that has had major chunks haphazardly stripped out and replaced with sloppy attempts to control narrative. After reading the entire article, I wound up completely confused as to what the reign of terror is actually referring to, and what Robespierre's role was in any of it. Starting at the beginning, we have:

• There is disagreement among historians over when exactly "the Terror" began. Some consider it to have begun only in 1793
• Others, however, cite the earlier time of the September Massacres in 1792, or even July 1789
• The term "Terror" being used to describe the period was introduced by the Thermidorian Reaction who took power after the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794, to discredit Robespierre and justify their actions.
• Today there is consensus amongst historians that the exceptional revolutionary measures continued after the death of Robespierre, and this subsequent period is now called the "White Terror".
• The "Date" listed in the Part of the French Revolution" box at the top right is: 1793–1794

Okay, so the reign of terror began in 1789, 1792, or 1793, and continued after Robespierre's death in 1794, though it was also "introduced by" the Thermidorian Reaction who took power after that time. No wait, it means the word "terror" was applied only by the "Thermidorian Reaction" (apparently an entity?), to discredit the prior period under Robespierre? Okay okay, so the French revolution was 1789 to some time after 1794, and one phase during Robespierre's life is "The Reign of Terror," and after Robespierre dies it becomes "White Terror," the first name being coined by "the Thermidorian Reaction," the latter name being coined by a consensus amongst modern historians. Did I get that right? Maybe this next section "Terror as the order of the day" will clarify things:

• What Robespierre calls "terror" is the fear that the justice of exception shall inspire the enemies of the Republic.
• He opposes the idea of terror as the order of the day, defending instead "justice" as the order of the day.
• In February 1794 in a speech he explains why this "terror" is necessary as a form of exceptional justice in the context of the revolutionary government

Huh? I thought the word "terror" had only been assigned after Robespierre died. Now I'm told Robespierre both opposed terror (meaning fear of justice), but also defended terror (meaning exceptional justice) as necessary during his revolutionary time. What are we even talking about, who is Robespierre?!

• Some historians argue that such terror was a necessary reaction to the circumstances.
• Others suggest there were additional causes, including ideological and emotional.

Gee, did Robespierre's headless corpse reach through the grave to edit this article? Pretty big red flag that a history article is written so defensively of someone's actions. And since the article doesn't specify what those actions actually were, I'm left to speculate. What would have instead been helpful, is any explanation of who Maximilien Robespierre was, and more broadly, what the Reign of Terror was. I mean I see one reference to "Maximilian rule," and one image description notes he was actually on the Committee of Public Safety, which seems to have played a role in the administration of the Reign of Terror, whatever that was. And I think the committee guillotined Robespierre? The article is never explicit. Guess they had a falling out--sounds like a pretty fascinating time! Maybe someday I'll learn about it. PS, I looked at the article one thousand versions ago, and it contained a proper introduction full of expository information entirely absent from the current version. Imho, all the preemptive historiography/revisionism, which I'm not disputing, should be in a separate section or article, save for a brief mention here or there maybe. It certainly should not be replacing the actual historical information the uninformed reader would come to this article to read. 128.12.88.50 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I just read this after reading several books on the French Revolution; this Wikipedia article stinks of revisionism and politics rather than sounding like an encyclopaedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.8.70 (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation - links don't link to the quoted text

In the version I'm looking at (today, now), the following text is quoted, along with the introductory text:

[begin quoted text]

In February 1794 in a speech he explains why this "terror" was necessary as a form of exceptional justice in the context of the revolutionary government:

If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie [homeland, fatherland].

[end quoted text]

Two links are given - numbered [11] and [7]; both links work. But neither linked-to text contains the above text.

First link is Halsall, Paul (1997). "Maximilien Robespierre: On the Principles of Political Morality, February 1794". Fordham University. Retrieved 5 March 2016.

Second link is http://www.historytoday.com/marisa-linton/robespierre-and-terror LeoHesting (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The exact quote is from a 2006 article in History Today by Marisa Linton, a historian. I assume this is the quote in the second link you mentioned, but the page is restricted access. The Academia link that I gave can be accessed by making a free account.

If we want a more accessible source, Marxists.org has a translation from 1997. We could also directly cite Robespierre in French from Wikisource or somewhere else, and translate.

Si le ressort du gouvernement populaire dans la paix est la vertu, le ressort du gouvernement populaire en révolution est à la fois la vertu et la terreur : la vertu, sans laquelle la terreur est funeste ; la terreur, sans laquelle la vertu est impuissante. La terreur n’est autre chose que la justice prompte, sévère, inflexible ; elle est donc une émanation de la vertu ; elle est moins un principe particulier qu’une conséquence du principe de la démocratie appliqué aux plus pressants besoins de la patrie.

I would translate as:

If the mainspring of popular government in peace is virtue, the mainspring of popular government in revolution is at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is nothing other than justice prompt, severe, and inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a particular principle than a consequence of the principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the fatherland.

I think the main advantage of original translation would be that both Linton and the 1997 source over-emphasize what Robespierre says about terror being "less a particular principle than a consequence of the principle of democracy" (he doesn't say "principle in itself", "general principle", nor "natural consequence").

Curuwen (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"Reign of Terror" or "The Terror"

First things first: the obligatory Ngrams is about what I expected. "Reign of Terror" is, of course, an anglicism. Some have shown interest in maybe changing it, though I'm not convinced. Remsense ‥ 论 04:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am one of those who support changing terminology, at the very least by adding the alternative name to the lead sentence (The Reign of Terror, also known as the Terror, was a period of the French Revolution when, following the creation of the French First Republic...). [Note: something similar was in the lead as late as April 2022 but was removed after cleaning up vandalism.] Or a stronger change would be renaming the page (The Terror, sometimes referred to as the Reign of Terror, was a period of the French Revolution when...). But I am not sure if we should rename the page because I don't know how widely recognized each term is. I left a message on Remsense's talk page listing my reasoning; I am going to restate part of that here.

The term used in French is and was always the Terror, while "Reign of Terror" is an exclusively English term invented after the fact by English-speaking critics. These propagandists wanted to evoke images of anarchy and blood, as if only terror could reign in the place of a king. I think that as Wikipedia editors we should try to present facts in an unbiased way, and not cling to centuries-old propaganda meant to portray the French Revolution in a purely negative light.

My initial proposal, on the talk page, was only for changing the term in articles related to the Terror (ex. Robespierre, Thermidorian Reaction). In response to potential concerns that people may not recognize the term "the Terror" there, the context of the French Revolution is usually present, of which the terror is well-known; and of course the link would bring them to this page with both names listed. If that is still not enough context, we could also use "Reign of Terror" just the first time in the lead section and/or in the section headers of articles, and then use "the Terror" afterwards. Another option is to keep "Reign of Terror" but in quotation marks to show that this is a name given by others; or to every time state something like "he...is often considered a key architect of the period now referred to as the Reign of Terror." (Billaud-Varenne)

Fortunately in terms of evidence for changing the name, "the Terror" is widely used by scholars and historians. Indeed many Wikipedia articles already use this phrase—Danton's article mentions "the Terror" eleven times while "Reign of Terror" is only mentioned three times; Saint-Just's article mentions "the Terror" eight times and "Reign of Terror" only two times, once in a movie title.

Searching on Google for these terms alongside French Revolution, the Terror returns 637,000 results while Reign of Terror gives 537,000 results; thus "Reign of Terror" is used slightly less, but certainly not much more.

Many scholarly works have been published in English that use the phrase "the Terror" only. For example:

Saint-Just, Apostle of the Terror, 1932. The Incidence of the Terror During the French Revolution: A Statistical Interpretation, 1935. Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution, 1941. "Maximilien Robespierre, Master of the Terror", 1947; the original link is down but this article is cited in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Paris in the Terror 1964. Ending the Terror: The French Revolution After Robespierre, 1989. The Terror in the French Revolution., 1998. The Terror: The Shadow of the Guillotine: France, 1792-1794, 2004. Envoy to the Terror: Gouverneur Morris and the French Revolution, 2005. "Robespierre and the Terror", 2006. Reimagining Politics After the Terror: The Republican Origins of French Liberalism, 2008. "What Was the Terror?", 2014, in The Oxford Handbook to the French Revolution. The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution, 2015. "From Terror to the Terror: Terror and the French Revolution", 2019, in States of Terror: History, Theory, Literature.

Articles in the New York Times from 1910 and 1936, and the Washington Post from 1989 use the term "the Terror" in the title.

Also: this very issue has been brought up before, several times, on this very talk page.

• In January 2006, under Reign of Terror?, someone raised the point that "the term "Reign of Terror" was invented as a British propaganda technique, and, while still widely used, displays an Anglo-American anti-Revolutionary bias", and that the usage of this term "ought to be mentioned; several modern historians and critics have commented on this bias, and I wanted to point it out."
• In September 2006, under Should we change the title of this article? there was another discussion where someone said s/he had "never heard of 'The Terror' being designated 'The Reign of Terror'" and said that the term "Reign of Terror" might not be clear because it is used in many other ways including in H. G. Wells' novel The Invisible Man. (Also, on the December 2024 talk thread I linked to above, someone else made a similar statement about only ever having heard "the Terror".)
• In February 2009, under Etymology someone requested a section about the origins of the phrase "Reign of Terror", whether the phrase was first used by the English or the French, and when exactly the phrase became the common name.
• In May 2017, under Reasons I deleted the "Why 'Reign of Terror'" section, another person said, "The editor of this section makes a very good point that "Reign of Terror" is a subjective framing and we should avoid uncritically affirm[ing] that frame and explain how the name came into being. (Like, I cannot agree more.)". The original section editor had acknowledged that "Reign of Terror" is a label given by historians.
• Several posts have also been made about how this article should include historical and cultural interpretations of the Terror.
  • In Februrary 2005, after a talk message about Fiction portrayals, a subsection was created with A Tale of Two Cities and grew to include 26 works from fiction, film and TV and music, but was removed in July 2011. Given that Robespierre, Saint-Just and especially Danton's articles have lengthy lists of media portrayals, I think that the page describing the actual time period should certainly also document portrayals, including those where characters were not real historical figures and would not be mentioned elsewhere (ex. A Tale of Two Cities).
  • In Sept–Aug 2006, there was a discussion about Jean-Clément Martin's commentary of the Terror where two users agreed that "we are really short on historians' assessments. We should probably cite a representative spectrum"; and suggested Lefebvre and Soboul as two historians to include. As of Dec. 2024 Soboul is cited once and Lefebvre not at all.

These and other proposals I found from reading the talk page archives made me think that this article should have a section(s) devoted to Legacy and portrayals or Depictions of the Terror or something similar, that would include 1) historical views from both sides—the invention of the term "Reign of Terror" and associated image, as well as Marxist interpretations; 2) major fictional depictions such as the 26 works listed formerly, possibly with elaboration on some of their perspectives; 3) allusion by later politicians or revolutionaries (Lenin invoked the Jacobins; according to some claims the Bolshevik Red Terror and Revolutionary Tribunal were inspired by the French ones but I'm not sure if this is accurate), and maybe 4) other prominent figures' views on the Terror? For ex. I know Thomas Jefferson had radical opinions unpopular in the US at the time, and from quick research Hegel also seemed to have made remarks.

Basically my argument boils down to changing the lead sentence/changing related articles in favor of the term "The Terror" to be more accurate and less biased, perhaps also changing the article name; and adding a section about depictions of the terror in history, culture, and by major figures. For the second we could start by restoring the list from July 2011. Curuwen (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter what the term in French is, so that should not factor into this argument. We aren't going to select a preferred term other than what is used by the most English-language reliable sources, and that seems to be "Reign of Terror". You can find many English-language sources that use "The Terror", but what I see presented amounts to cherrypicking, and does not demonstrate it has become the most common term. Remsense ‥ 论 05:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said "The Terror" was the most common term. I said that this term is widely used by scholars and that it is less biased and more accurate than "Reign of Terror". Given that some people seem to only use "the Terror", and that questions about the term have been raised several times before on Wikipedia, using both names in the header and/or adding a section explaining the history of the term aren't exactly out of the blue requests. Curuwen (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The term being most widely used in English-language reliable sources is generally required by our naming conventions policy, as I've linked or intoned to you multiple times. There are exceptions outlined at the subsection WP:NPOVNAME, but it also says Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. To me, this is clearly a Teapot Dome scandal case. Many more recent scholars have very reasonable opinions about their choice not to call him "Alexander the Great". That does not allow us to avoid the reality that readers would not recognize the article topic nearly as often if it were titled Alexander III of Macedon.Remsense ‥ 论 17:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The section you quoted from NPOVNAME is exactly why I am not sure that we should rename this article. But you gave an excellent example, Alexander III of Macedon, who is actually listed under that name first in his article before Alexander the Great, despite the page title following common usage with "Alexander the Great". More evidence to include both "The Terror" and "Reign of Terror" in the lead sentence, preferably in that order. Curuwen (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a particular situation specific for monarchs and biographies in general—we almost always list formal/legal name first, etc. That is not the case with historical events, where we almost always list the common name first. Remsense ‥ 论 22:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about the people vs events naming, I did not know. However, I hope you would agree that a name that is widely used both in academia and colloquially (and already has a redirect) should be added to the bolded terms. Especially when this was formerly the case on English Wikipedia for 21 years. From the third ever version of the page in 2001 to April 2022 when someone deleted the phrase in a removal of vandalism.

That's pretty much all I have to say about the name issue before someone else chimes in. I might go and restore the section about interpretations in fiction. Curuwen (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)