Talk:Paris Commune/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links

There are currently 5 external links at the bottom of this article. They are all excellent, and all should be kept, but they are all from either a Communist or anarchist perspective, which is to say that they are all (in varying degrees) celebratory of the commune. Can anyone provide a useful link to a discussion of the Commune from a more critical POV? Presumably some non-left historians have also written well on the subject. -- Jmabel 18:13, 8 August 2004 (UTC)

Fourscore raises several issues

I think the author(s) of this introduction have made a good job of describing, concisely, a very complex and contoversial episode. Here, however, are some further suggestions. The illustrations... I have never known the photograph to be referred to as an execution of Communards; usually it is described as the shooting of Generals Lecomte and Thomas. However, there is no good evidence that the generals were shot together (see Jellinkek and others) and, more to the point, the "photograph" is generally accepted as a fake, or, more politely, a "reconstruction". (See Dayot.) It is interesting as one of the earlier examples of photographic faking for political ends, but that's not what we need it for here.

• I believe that is now appropriately captioned. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:10, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

The fine map (I saw an original in the British Library map room several years ago) is the best we have to show the progress of the Versaillese army, broadly from the west of Paris to the eastern poorer districts, but perhaps it rather pre-empts the fuller account of La Semaine sanglante which I believe is linked to from this introductory page?

• I believe that is now appropriately addressed by integrating Fourscore's edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

On the text. It is true that Blanqui was elected to the Commune: but in view of his immense influence on the political thought and strategy of the period, would it be as well to mention that he was elected in his absence, having been arrested on the 17th March, and held in custody throughout the Commune, which was thus robbed of his potential leading role?

• I believe that is now appropriately addressed by integrating Fourscore's edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Not to be niggly, but the point about the decree on the municipal pawnshops was not so much that they should stop selling off pawned items that had run out of time, but that they should begin actually to return craftsmen's tools and similar, and thus make it possible for carpenters, masons and others to return to work. (Could this not be said in a short parenthesis?)

• I believe that is now appropriately addressed by integrating Fourscore's edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to think that there was a "remarkable cooperation between different revolutionists" - but couldn't this phrase bear thinking about? The divisions (over, for example, the creation of a Committee of Public Safety) were bitter and have been thought to have led to a fatal weakness in the final phases of the Commune. Would it be an idea to point, rather, to a truly remarkable feature of the Commune: namely, that divisions of opinion between electors and their delegates, could be, and sometimes were, thrashed out at short notice in local meetings?

• Fourscore, you are still welcome to try to write something on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Best wishes for the development of an interesting topic.

Fourscore

Sounds like you know more about this topic than most of us who've been working on it. Please, edit! (By the way, you should sign comments here by typing ~~~~; your sig will be added, with a datestamp.) -- Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 27 January 2005 (UTC)

A rather different version

I've done the text of a rather different version: I'll put it up as an aunt sally in a few days when I've spent more time studying the wiki markup rules Fourscore

Fourscore's text

In a formal sense the Paris Commune of 1871 was simply the local authority (council of a town or district - French "commune") which exercised power in Paris between 18th March and 28th May, 1871. But the conditions in which it was formed, its controversial decrees and tortured end constitute one of the more important political episodes of the time.

The war with Prussia, started by Napoleon III ("Louis Bonaparte") in July 1870, turned out disastrously for the French and by September Paris itself was under siege. The gap between rich and poor in the capital had widened in recent years and now food shortages and the continuous Prussian bombardment were adding to an already widespread discontent. Working people were becoming more open to radical ideas. A specific demand was that Paris should be self-governing, with its own elected "Commune", something enjoyed by most French towns, but denied Paris by a government wary of the capital's unruly populace. An associated but more vague wish was for a fairer, if not necessarily socialist, way of managing the economy, summed up in the popular cry for "La Sociale!"

By the beginning of 1871 many tens of thousands of Parisians were armed members of a citizens' militia known as the "National Guard", which had been greatly expanded to help defend the city. Battalions in the poorer districts elected their own officers and possessed many of the cannon which had been founded in Paris and paid for by public subscription. Steps were being taken to form a "Central Committee" of the Guard, and the President of the Third Republic, Louis Adolphe Thiers, realised that in the present unstable situation this body could come to form an alternative centre of political power.

In January, 1871, when the siege had lasted for four months, Thiers sought an armistice. Despite the hardships of the siege many Parisians were bitterly resentful and were particularly angry that the Prussians should be allowed a brief ceremonial occupation of their city.

In January, 1871, when the siege had lasted for four months, Thiers sought an armistice. Despite the hardships of the siege many Parisians were bitterly resentful and were particularly angry that the Prussians should be allowed a brief ceremonial occupation of their city. The events at this juncture are confused, but what is clear is that before the Prussians entered Paris National Guards, helped by ordinary working people, managed to take the cannon (which they regarded as their own property) away from the Prussians' path and store them in "safe" districts. One of the chief "cannon parks" was on the heights of Montmartre.

The Prussians entered Paris briefly and left again without incident. But Paris continued to be encircled while the issue of war indemnities dragged on. As the Central Committee of the National Guard was adopting an increasingly radical stance and steadily gaining in authority, the government could not indefinitely allow it to have four hundred cannon at its disposal. And so, as a first step, on 18th March Thiers ordered regular troops to seize the cannon stored on the Buttes Montmartre. Instead of following instructions, however, the soldiers, whose morale was in any case not high, fraternised with National Guards and local residents. When their general, Claude Martin Lecomte, ordered them to fire on an unarmed crowd they dragged him from his horse. He was later shot. Other army units joined in the rebellion which spread so rapidly that President Thiers ordered an immediate evacuation of Paris by as many of the regular forces as would obey; by the police; and by administrators and specialists of every kind. He himself fled, ahead of them, to Versailles. The Central Committee of the National Guard was now the only effective government in Paris: it almost immediately abdicated its authority and arranged elections for a Commune, to be held on 26th March.

The 92 members of the Commune (or, more correctly, of the "Communal Council") included skilled workers, several “professionals” (such as doctors and journalists), and a large number of political activists, ranging from reformist republicans, through various types of socialists, to the Jacobins who tended to look back nostalgically to the Revolution of 1789. The charismatic socialist, Louis Auguste Blanqui, was elected President of the Council, but this was in his absence, for he had been arrested on 17th March and was held in a secret prison throughout the life of the Commune. Despite internal differences, the Council made a good start in maintaining the public services essential for a city of two million; it was also able to reach a consensus on certain policies whose content tended towards a progressive social democracy rather than a social revolution. Lack of time (the Commune was able to meet on less than 60 days in all) meant that only a few decrees were actually implemented. These included: the remission of rents for the entire period of the siege (during which they had been raised considerably by many landlords); the abolition of night work in the hundreds of Paris bakeries; the abolition of the guillotine; the granting of pensions to the unmarried companions of National Guards killed on active service, as well as to the children if any; the free return, by the state pawnshops, of all workmen's tools of their trade, pledged during the siege; and, in an important departure from strictly "reformist" principles, the right of employees to take over and run an enterprise if it were deserted by its owner.

Projected legislation dealt, among other things, with the total separation of church from state and with educational reforms which would make further education and technical trading freely available to all.

The load of work was eased by several factors, although the Council members (who were not "representatives" but delegates, subject to immediate recall by their electors) were expected to carry out many executive functions as well as their legislative ones. But the numerous ad hoc organisations set up during the siege in the localities ("quartiers") to meet social needs (canteens, first aid stations) continued to thrive and cooperated with the Commune. In the 3rd arrondissement, for instance, school materials were provided free, three schools were laicised and an orphanage was established. In the 20th arrondissement school children were provided with free clothing and food. And so on. The vital ingredient, however, in the Commune's relative success at this stage was the initiative shown by ordinary workers in the public domain, who managed to take on the responsibilities of the administrators and specialists removed by Thiers. Engels, Marx's closest associate, would later maintain that the absence of a standing army, the self-policing of the "quartiers", and other features meant that the Commune was no longer a "state" in the old, repressive sense of the term: it was a transitional form, moving towards the abolition of the state as such. Its future development, however, was to remain a theoretical question. After only a week it came under attack by elements of the new army (which included former prisoners of war released by the Prussians) being created at a furious pace in Versailles.

The outer suburb of Courbevoie was captured, and a delayed attempt by the Commune's own forces to march on Versailles failed ignominiously. Defence and survival became overriding considerations. The working-class women of Paris now played a steadily more important role. They served with the National Guard and even formed a battalion of their own which later fought heroically to defend the Place Blanche, a key to Montmartre. (It must be admitted that the democratic credentials of the Commune were not improved by the fact that women did not have the vote, or that there were no female members of the Council!)

Strong support came also from the large foreign community of political refugees and exiles in Paris: one of them, the Polish ex-officer and fighter for the independence of his country from Russia, Jaroslav Dombrowski, was to be the Commune's best general. The Council was fully committed to internationalism, and it was in the name of brotherhood that the Vendôme Column, celebrating the victories of Napoleon I, and considered by the Commune to be a monmument to chauvinism, was pulled down.

Abroad, there were rallies and messages of goodwill sent by trade union and socialist organisations, including some in Germany. But any hopes of getting serious help from other French cities were soon dashed. Thiers and his ministers in Versailles managed to prevent almost all information from leaking out of Paris; and in provincial and rural France there had always been a sceptical attitude towards the activities of the metropolis. Movements at Narbonne, Limoges and Marseilles were rapidly crushed.

As the situation deteriorated further, a section of the Council won a vote (opposed by bookbinder Eugène Varlin, a correspondent of Karl Marx, and by other moderates) for the creation of a "Committee of Public Safety", modelled on the Jacobin organ with the same title, formed in 1792. Its powers were extensive and ruthless. But the time when a strong central authority could have helped was now almost past. On 21st May a gate in the fortified wall of Paris was forced (or, more probably, betrayed) and Versaillese troops began the reconquest of the city, first occupying the prosperous western districts where they were made welcome by the residents who had not left Paris after the armistice, and then moving towards Montmartre and the poorer eastern districts of Belleville and Menilmontant.

The strong local loyalties which had been a positive feature of the Commune now became something of a disadvantage: instead of an overall planned defence, each "quartier" fought desperately for survival and was overcome in its turn. The webs of narrow streets which made entire districts nearly impregnable in earlier Parisian revolutions had been largely replaced by wide boulevards. The Versaillese enjoyed a centralised command and had modern artillery. By the 27th May only a few pockets of resistance remained. The advance of the Versaillese took a heavy toll in life: prisoners were shot out of hand and multiple executions were commonplace. In a futile gesture of defiance on 27th May, a mob seized and brutally murdered 50 hostages, several of them priests, who had been held by the Commune. These deaths were to be avenged many times over.

At four o'clock in the afternoon of the next day the last barricade, in the rue Ramponeau in Belleville, fell, and Marshall Mac-Mahon issued a proclamation: "To the inhabitants of Paris. The French army has come to save you. Paris is freed! At 4 o'clock our soldiers took the last insurgent position. Today the fight is over. Order, work and security will be reborn."

Reprisals now began in earnest. Having supported the Commune in any way was declared a crime, of which thousands could be, and were, accused. For many days endless columns of men, women and children made a painful way under military escort to temporary prison quarters in Versailles. Later they were tried; a few were executed; many were condemned to hard labour; many more were deported for long terms or for life to virtually uninhabited French islands in the Pacific. The number of killed during what became known as "La Semaine sanglante", the Week of Blood, can never be established for certain but the best estimates are 30,000 dead, many more wounded, and perhaps as many as 50,000 later executed or imprisoned. For the imprisoned there was a general amnesty in 1889.

The better-off citizens of Paris and many of the earlier historians of the Commune, saw it as a classic example of mob rule, terrifying and yet at the same time inexplicable. Most later historians, even those on the right, have recognised the value of some of the Commune's reforms and have deplored the savagery of its repression. However, they have found it difficult to explain the unprecidented hatred which the Commune aroused in the middle and upper classes. On the left, there have been many who criticise the Commune for showing too great moderation (for example, for having failed to seize the gold reserves of the Bank of France, which went on sending large sums of money to Versailles while doing out small loans to the Commune.) Communists, left-wing socialists, anarchists and others have seen the Commune as a model for, or a prefiguration of, a liberated society, with a political system based on participatory democracy from the grass roots up. Marx and Engels, Bakunin, and later Lenin and Trotsky tried to draw major theoretical lessons (in particular as regards the "withering away of the state") from the limited experience of the Commune. A more pragmatic lesson was drawn by the diarist Edmond de Goncourt, who wrote, three days after La Semaine sanglante, "…the bleeding has been done thoroughly, and a bleeding like that, by killing the rebellious part of a population, postpones the next revolution… The old society has twenty years of peace before it…" Fourscore 14:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't find it feasible to work my account ( see previous posting) in with the other one that had the images. My account needs some better formatting (internal links, e.g.) and some relevant images of which I have several waiting to be uploaded. But any comments, anyone? All help appreciated as I am a newbie. User:Fourscore 14:38, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

Editing difficulties

Well, in my ignorance I've obviously done something wrong. I first edited (adding to and modifying slightly) the page of references, saved my changes, and lo and behold my page is up and running for all to see, and the one it replaced has gone! But it's there as an appendage to the original article - which has had my rewrite added on to the end! I can understand someone junking my rewrite altogether, or improving it by better formatting with some internal links (and if my rewrite proves more or less acceptable I'd also like to upload some relevant images and place them exactly where they ought to be in the text) - but it can't be normal for a student searching for Paris Commune to be presented with two rather different articles on the subject, one after the other, can it? What have I done wrong? Somewhere along the way I got a message that before my own rewrite, or edit, came through, someone else had been doing some editing and I'd have to merge my changes with theirs. There were even, for a few seconds, two different columns, in two different colours, with the two texts side by side for comparison, but this page suddenly disappeared. I'll get the hang of wiki etiquette eventually. Perhaps in my impatience I'm pressing too many tits - the wiki server seems painfully slow!Fourscore 18:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fourscore, good writing, but you might do well to look at some of the information you can find starting at the Community Portal about the tech aspects of working with Wikipedia articles.

I believe what you did was to replace a section when you meant to replace the whole article. It's also possible that in addition you ended up in an edit conflict with the other user who was editing during the same period and didn't notice that you were on a page intended to facilitate the conflict resolution rather than the regular edit page.

In any case, what you added looks quite good, but it also looks to me like you deleted some pretty good links that I don't think we should lose. Generally, one does not delete others' external links and references unless there is actually some reason they shouldn't be there.

I'll try to clean it up. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

Exterrnal/internal links

Thanks, Jmabel, I'll pay heed. Certainly grateful for any cleaning-up you can find time to do, I know I'm still weak on internal links, I'll spend time at the Community Portal. I thought I'd only left out one external link, it was to a friends of the Commune association (Les amis de la Commune), there were reasons I thought it a weak link but I should have discussed it. Fourscore 21:56, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

Merged by Jmabel

Fourscore, I've done my best to merge your version with the previous version. Your material was excellent, and literally the majority of your paragraphs are intact (and "wikified": that is, I've added appropriate internal links) in the resulting merged version.

I think that all of the material I kept from the previous version was worth keeping. Your approach of just pasting your material and letting someone else merge is actually not a bad one: much better, in fact, than if you had simply overwritten the other material, much of which was good and touched on different matters than you chose to address.

Could I prevail upon you to have a pass through and see if you think I got anything wrong? It is possible that I retained some sentences from the old article that you believe are outright wrong. It is also possible that something in the merged article is now redundant, or that the prose I tried to merge from two different sources that did not necessarily handle things in quite the same sequence does not flow as well as it should. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:29, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

Paris Commune

--Fourscore 11:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) Jmabel, I am very pleased thatyou have been able to merge so seamlessly my modest contribution with an already sound article. It must have been a lot of work for you. One or two typos crept into my text. I also think that the caption to the excellent map could have a reminder that by clicking on the image an enlarged version will appear - no doubt most readers will work this out for themselves, but the delay in getting up the enlarged image can be rather long, perhaps to do with the volume of traffic. I shall assume that it is in order to try out these minor edits, and also look forward to comments, corrections and suggestions for further improvements to this important page, from wiki users. I am now going to try your patience once more. I have spent some time at the Community Portal, specifically on the conventions and rules for images. The map, as I have commented, is a splendid aid. But I shall shortly use the Special page to upload 7 images some of which at least might be useful illustrations to the text (workmen recovering their tools from a pawnshop, the burning of the guillotine, the cannon being taken by women and children to Montmartre, a communal canteen during the siege, prisoners being marched to Versailles, etc.) They are all from illustrated magazines of the time. I have compressed and optimised them in Image Ready and sized them to fit comfortably. Are there likely to be any copyright problems? And... if they are usable as is (with appropriate captions)dare I ask you to place one or two of them in the page? If you do not have time, I'll work out placements for myself. They are all jpg's and all have file names beginning with commune - communepawnshop.jpg, and similar. Fourscore 11:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the images are 19th century, then there should be not copyright issues. And please, if you find typos just correct them.

I'm going to make that map a little larger on the page, because it really is important content, not eye candy. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:29, 3 February 2005 (UTC)

Images

Two points Jmabel: I have taken the liberty of placing 3 images which seem to me relevant, in their right position in the text (I feel that these 3 more images are about all the page can take) but am not happy that I have provided the required source and copyright information, not having quite got the hang of the schema provided. The other thing is that in the map the little colour code bars, which make sense of the coloured map areas, are for some reason blank. I don't remember this in the original version I saw once. If it's o.k. I would be happy to colour them suitably in a graphic editing programme, but this would involve downloading the map to my hard disk, making the small modifications, and then re-uploading the map (of course in the excellent size and format you have chosen.) Fourscore 10:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put the map there, but absolutely, feel free to fix it.

Any information about copyrights belongs on the Image page. When you choose "edit" on that page, you are editing the text of that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

BTW, please use section headings in talk that have to do with the specific topic at hand. I changed this section header from "Paris Commune" (a given, since we are on that page) to "Images", which indicates the topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 6 February 2005 (UTC)

Map of Versaillese advance

Hope the colours match, Jmabel! Not eye-candy, in your nice expression (how do North Americans always manage to write so graphically?) I think it's an attractive page as regards layout as well as content - apart from the lake of white opposite the chapter headings, but there doesn't seem much point in sticking an image in there just for the sake of it and the image at the head of the page sums up, in its way, what the Commune was about. Thanks for your editorial patience, I've acquired more wiki-awareness from this little project than I would have done any other way. Fourscore 16:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. By the way, you could have uploaded to the existing image name, overwriting the existing image. That tends to work better on a correction like this, since (1) if any other articles were using the image, they are also updated and (2) any earlier information about the picture is preserved. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:22, 7 February 2005 (UTC)

Article series templates

This article now has two side-by-side article series templates for series of which it is not part. I think the inclusion of both of these is dubious (Category? Sure. Template? Excessive.) and it looks really bad at 800 x 600, still a common screen resolution. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

People still use 800x600? Wow... Well you can remove the communism series I added if it bothers you that much. It looks pretty good at my resolution though.--Che y Marijuana 00:52, 31 March 2005 (UTC)

What is this?

"However, they have found it difficult to explain the unprecedented hatred which the Commune aroused in the middle and upper classes."

This is the first mention in the entire article that there was any unprecedent hatred involved. Ken Arromdee 04:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The rise and nature of the commune

These are the first few lines of the section "The rise and nature of the commune". I can't figure out what is being said here. Perhaps someone who knows, can clarify?

The Prussians entered Paris briefly and after taking a good look at all the cannons and pipes, they realized that the average pipe size was too small so they had to do something. Ruler stick were then placed above the pipe to get more precise measurement. Anything above 5 got too stick around. If they were above a 7, they were inducted into the Cornelius Collosus club for big pipes. During celebrations, skis were shared generously.

--Davecampbell 01:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It was vandalism about 2 hours before your comment. Once you commented, someone promptly reverted it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could help! ;-)

Hm?

"They ended conscription and replaced the standing army with a National Guard of all citizens who could bear arms."

How is that possible? Unless every single citizen who could bear arms voluntarily joined the National Guard, which seems unlikely, they must have been conscripted. So the line should read something like "They conscripted people into the National Guard instead of into a standing army, extending conscription to all citizens who could bear arms."

"However, they have found it difficult to explain the unprecedented hatred which the Commune aroused in the middle and upper classes."

Really? Does anyone have a quote which says "I find it difficult to explain the unprecedented hatred which the Commune aroused"? Let alone enough such quotes to show that this is what most historians believe. This sounds to me like someone tried to say "there was unprecedented hatred", could not prove that directly, and instead attributed it to unnamed historians. Ken Arromdee 17:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the passages. I'm sure someone is going to restore the National Guard line; if you do, please figure out how to avoid the contradiction. Ken Arromdee 16:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Caption

Another issue, also in this section: On this page, the picture is captioned "Generals Lecomte and Thomas being shot in Montmartre after their troops join the rebellion: a photographic reconstruction, not an actual photograph"; on the image page, however, the caption says "Communards being shot during the Paris Commune; a photographic reconstruction, not an actual photograph".

So ok, the obvious answer is, no one's actually getting shot, it's a photographic reconstruction.

But the correct question was too long: Is it the Generals, or the Communards, whose execution is being photographically reconstructed? --Davecampbell 12:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The caption has now been changed to match the article, which I believe is correct. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty

I was asked on my talk page [1] to provide a reference for why I changed the date of the general amnesty in the article from 1889 to 1880. [2]. The date we had was a long-standing mistake:

"A partial amnesty, granted in spring 1879, reduced the number of Communard prisoners or exiles to about one thousand. Those who were released were the best plea for an amnesty to the remainder. Ill, wasted, and in rags, they staggered off the ships that had brought them back across half the world...With new elections due in 1881, the republicans were anxious to remove from the political agenda a question which divided them...Freycinet introduced the proposal for a full amnesty in June 1880, but it was the authority of Gambetta which carried the measure."

Cobban, Alfred. A History of Modern France. Vol 3: 1871-1962. Penguin books, London: 1965. Pg. 23.

Amnesty for the Communards was a political issue throughout the 1870s in France. Victor Hugo was famous for his role in this. The partial amnesty was voted on 3 mars 1879. It was applicable to all exiles or convicts that had been pardoned prior to or within three months of the law. The general amnesty was voted on July 10, 1880 applicable on July 14, 1880. This was also the first time that Bastille day was celebrated as France's national holiday. As far as I know, the July 1880 amnesty covered all Communard prisoners.-- JJay 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for the solid citation. - Jmabel | Talk 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Translation was asked for "Eh ben ! bougre de canaille, on va donc te foutre en bas comme ta crapule de neveu !..." My French is not so great, and it clearly is so colloquial that it won't translate easily ("bougre de canaille" is literally "guy of rabble") but it's something like "Ah, good! You rabble, here's how I can fuck you in the ass like your villain of nephew!" (If someone can do better, please do.) - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see this has now acquired a much milder translation in the article. Am I wrong to read foutre as "fuck"? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Foutre means sperm in french and has numerous other uses but is rarely used to mean fuck in the same way as baiser. "On est foutu" could be translated as "we're fucked". In this case, "on va donc te foutre en bas"...would be translated as "we're going to throw you down" or "we're going to pull you down". -- JJay 01:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good thing I don't ever try to curse in French. - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Marx and the Commune

The "in retrospect" part is well-written, but the references to Marx and the Commune are a bit misleading. Marx was greatly enthusiastic about the Commune, seeing it as the first workers' government in history. He did, of course, have some criticism, but the article makes it seems as though he was more critical than supportive. Perhaps some mention should also be made of his important work about the Commune, "The Civil War in France", in which he developed the idea that the working class cannot just take over bourgeois government but must transform it - an important and underratted idea in Marxism. If there is agreement here I will try a rewrite. PS Pere Duchesne is the greatest!

Bandiera 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Some of the names of people were missing photos on the page with the extra list of names. In the discussion for each I put a link to a site with many many photos of all types. I suggest someone write to that site and request directly the use of those photos for wikipedia. I also put that site as a link at the bottom of the main page. Hope that wasn't too out of line, I'm new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean1K2GA9 (talk • contribs) 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos from the period of the Commune should be old enough to be out of copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues with recent edits

• "…republicans, democrats and patriots…" in the first paragraph of the Background section seems rather POV.

• How did "the Prussians" become "the Germans" in this article? At the time, there was not yet a united Germany.
  • I see. The Empire was declared January 1871, so while it is the wrong term during the Franco-Prussian war, it is the correct term during the Commune. - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• To describe General Thomas as having been "arrested" seems rather a euphemism. He was, as I understand it, basically grabbed by an angry mob. Am I wrong on this? I am sure I have read that in works sympathetic to the Commune.

• Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray, formerly described as "observant and reliable" is now described as "an (sic) Communard… very vivid and partisan." I would suggest that we drop either the favorable or unfavorable descriptions unless we can cite them, since there is obviously disagreement in the matter. - Jmabel | Talk 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing:

• We still say (in a footnote that has become detached from the material it related to) "estimates come from Cobban", but it looks like estimates from elsewhere are now also being used. Someone ought to sort out what comes from where and cite accordingly. It looks like the problem began in May 2006, and has been compounded since. - Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to be chiming in. I will deal with the first four points myself; to sort out the "one more thing" about numbers would take some research (or re-research). - Jmabel | Talk 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like someone has now nailed it. All resolved. - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

image of map

Sorry, I have to ask someone who knows Wiki ettiquette better than me to direct this to the person who asked about the origins of an image - I can't find his question right now, but it was about the origins of the map of the Versaillese advance. I misunderstood his question and my answer was right off the point. Here are the facts: this image was in the earlier version of the article, before I did a rewrite. It was, sadly, lacking much of its usefulness because the key to the colour coding (4 lozenges at bottom of map) were not themselves coloured, but blank! I coloured them correctly, as in the original map, and uploaded the modified image, adding "new" to its name. The original image was taken from I know not where - but I have seen and handled a copy of the original map itself in the map room of the British Museum. It certainly dates from the nineteenth century and I would guess from within 10 or 15 years of the end of the Commune. Fourscore (8 Aug 2005)

I think the usage comes from the military terminology of "foot, horse and cannon", as in "The British fielded 20,000 foot, 5,000 horse and 25 cannon". Boomcoach 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution

The article references a call for the "abolition of prostitution". Does this mean that prostitutes would not be allowed, or did it mean abolition of rules against prostitution? What was the legal status of prostitution in Paris before the Commune? marzolian

Gieven the politics of the time, it would doubtless mean that prostitution would not be allowed. At the time, brothels in France were either outright legal or quite tolerated; I'm not sure about the status of other prostitution (common, but I'm not sure if it was all technically illegal). - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Another account

I just ran across a reaonsably interesting account online by a military historian, clearly not sympathetic to the Commune, but equally clearly viewing as brutal and excessive the repression that followed: Mark Jacobsen (USMC Command & Staff College), "The War or the Paris Commune, 1871" (archived article), on the site of the National War College (U.S.). Might be useful to anyone working further on this article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

This is, all things considered, a very strong article. Thanks to all editors - especially Fourscore and Jmabel. Good work. Tommall 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Credit probably more to Fourscore than to me. I've been playing editor more than writer on this one. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hostages

The passage about execution of hostages during the final assault was recently edited. Information was removed on the basis that the particular cited source (an old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia) did not say this. I believe the removed information was essentially correct; does someone have another source? The edit was as follows:

In a futile gesture of defiance on 24 – 26 May, more than 50 hostages, most of whom were priests or policemen, who had been captured by the Commune, were murdered. In some cases, certain leaders of the Commune, mainly Blanquists, gave the orders, in other cases they were killed by mobs in spite of the efforts by Commune leaders to prevent the killing.

-- Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC) The original information is indeed correct: if you want a reference for this, a good one is Maxime Vuillaume, Mes cahiers rouges au temps de la Commune (first published 1909), which has a whole section on this episode giving full details (pages 116-139). 131.111.142.38 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose one could find a more modern reference, from a recognized historian. A quick Googling made me stumble into this, which states (in French) that the Commune took a decree on April 5, 1871, according to which « que toutes personnes prévenues de complicité avec le gouvernement de Versailles […] seront les otages du peuple de Paris » (any person demonstrating complicity with Versailles government... will be the hostages of the Parisian people". Article 5 stipulating that « Toute exécution d’un prisonnier de guerre ou d’un partisan du gouvernement régulier de la Commune de Paris sera, sur-le-champ, suivie de l’exécution d’un nombre triple des otages retenus […] et qui seront désignés par le sort. » (Any execution of a war prisonner or of a partisan of the regular government of the Paris Commune will be on the spot followed by the execution of the triple equivalent of the retained hostages... which will be designed by chance) Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray, one of the first historian of the Commune and supporter of it, would criticize this decree, which lifted indignation in the Versailles' camp (and also for Victor Hugo, in his poem Pas de représailles). A few days later, the Commune proposed the exchange of Georges Darboy, archevêque of Paris, against Auguste Blanqui retained by Versailles. This was met by harsh refusal. The Commune tried again and again, and on May 14, 1871, proposed the exchange "of the 74 hostages it detained against Blanqui." Thiers refused, and his secretary Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire declared: "The hostages! the hostages! too bad for them (tant pis pour eux!)." And although Versailles continue with its executions, the Commune does not apply its decree. It will be only during the Bloody Week that Théophile Ferré finally sign the order of execution of 6 hostages, which pass before a firing-squad on May 24 in the prison de la Roquette.

But this site even quotes Maxime Vuillaume, above mentionned, who also states that only 6 hostages were executed. And Maxime Vuillaume quotes Vermorel, who says, after the execution of Darboy: "you've done here a great job! now we lost the only opportunity we had to stop the blood shedding".

Conclusion: 6 hostages, amon which Georges Darboy, were executed during the Bloody Week. The April 5, 1871 decree on hostages was not applied, and Thiers refused to negotiate with the Commune about an exchange of hostages, and especially concerning the liberation of Blanqui. Should I add that the expression "a futile geste of defiance" is of course POV value judgment? Tazmaniacs 16:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

URL

I'm not having any luck with either the new or the old URL for the article from New Left Review. Can anyone else access one of these? In any case, since we have a clear print reference, the loss of the convenience URL would be no big deal. - Jmabel | Talk 23:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[3] is accessible. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That page gives me one paragraph and then says "Subscribe for just £32 and get free access to the archive." So it is at best a convenience link for those with subscriptions. Thank you for providing the relevant passage. - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh...cannon or cannons?

Am I missing something or is all reference to cannon singular, even though the context clearly says it is plural i.e. have four hundred cannon? Is there a way cannon can be used in its plural form without saying cannons? --Bash 06:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. If you do revert, please explain because I may be missing out on something. --Bash 06:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both "cannon" and "cannons" are acceptable plurals of "cannon" (there aren't a lot of these in English, but "fish" and "fishes" is another example.) For "cannon", at least, the "-s" form is of more recent vintage, but is probably gaining favor. My guess is that among native English speakers alive today, there would be a generational split on this. I'm 50; "cannon" as plural comes more naturally to me, but I've heard "cannons" more from people now in their 20s. When Tennyson wrote "Cannon to the right of us, cannon to the left of us, cannon in front of us volleyed and thundered", he did not mean one each. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:37, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ah O.K. then. To my eyes "cannon" as the plural form looked really odd. --Bash 23:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, you will find that cannon is in fact far more common as the plural form if you look back over historical texts from a few hundred years ago; look at any contemporary sources about pirates and you'll find that practically every mention uses the plural form without the 's'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.116.67 (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Votes for women

I removed the "contradiction" tag from the sub-section "social measures", as the sub-section as a whole was not in contradiction, just one fact tagged sentance, which contradicts the rest of the sub-section. The following talk, which should have been made here, was appended to the tag:

• This section is self-contradictory, saying that the Commune passed the right of vote for women, but then going on to say that "women didn't acquire or even ask for the right to vote". Could someone please find a reliable source, then correct and clarify the article? Thanks.

Perhaps if the fact tagged statement quoted cannot be sourced or corrected, it should be removed?

By the way, it looks like the article has improved immensely since this talk stated, so some archiving would perhaps be useful. Andysoh 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Marx & Bakunin in the opening.

I suggest that the following statement be removed from the opening:

Karl Marx described it as a vindication of his Communist ideas while the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin countered that since it did not rely on a vanguard and did not seize the State or attempt to create a new revolutionary State it was actually anarchist.

The debate between the two sides and their interpretations can and should be dealt with in the "Commune in retrospect" section. Having two uncited opinions (and a glaring fact tag) in the opening looks bad to me. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the statement from the opening. If someone feels it should be reinstated, feel free, but please provide a source. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Class Enemy

I see that most historians, even those on the 'right', have deplored the savagery of the Commune's repression, though we are not told who these historians are. A little later mention is made of Lenin's criticism that the Communards had not employed 'ruthless extermination' against the class enemy. It would seem that Thiers, anticipating the advice of the great theorist of world revolution, made the first move. Can he really be blamed for this? White Guard 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Unless, of course, you approve heartily of Lenin's methods. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard, your partisanship to murdering conservative thugs such as Thiers is appalling.

This is not a serious comment unless we look at the whole of Lenin's comment on this. Two word quotations are almost alwasy misleading, and often deliberately so. 90.11.99.231 (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not; it's just that I've always found it curious that socialists, communists and the like are always quick to condemn savagery in others and excuse it in themselves. Better Theirs than Lenin, or any of his kin. White Guard 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing edits to the article, not condemning socialists as supporters of mass murder. I agree that the sentence you added the fact needed template to might be improved by a citation. Surely a great many historians on the right could be found that would not be supportive of the methods advocated by Thiers, Lenin, and others.--Trystan 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, I cannot resist adding that if we really cannot find historians on the right who considered Thiers tactics excessive, that would be far more of a condemnation of the right than a vindication of Thiers. It's not at all hard to find leftists who condemn the violence of the Bolsheviks. - Jmabel | Talk 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure that it is the business of historians to praise or condemn, but rather to set out the facts and the circumstances leading up to a particular set of events. Thiers was dealing with a major act of rebellion-and treason-in the face of the enemy-which clearly had an important bearing on his general approach. White Guard 02:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

He was also dealing with a group of people who, as Lenin noted unhappily, had not shown themselves to be the least bit inclined to massacre their enemies when they were in a position to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true-up to a point; they certainly killed some of those they got their hands on. What crime did the Archbishop of Paris commit? I have to say that my original point was really only for polemical effect, intending to throw Lenin's remark-rather than Theirs conduct-into relief. As far as I am aware Thiers gave no order for the wholesale massacre of the Communards; but they were traitors and the army's blood was up. White Guard 00:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read this article? The French government were the traitors, the popular insurrection was the only thing to patriotically support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.27.157 (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2006

I know that, when demonizing Lenin, it is socially acceptable to completely substitute mythology for historical fact, but Lenin ordered no massacres. So when "whiteguard" (What's up with that neo-fascist handle?) expresses his preference for Theirs, who massacred people, over Lenin, who didn't, we get nothing more than an expression of his preference for right-wing ideology over fact. Or intellectual honesty. Notice how he accuses the left of "excusing savagery in themselves", but later says this of the massacre of the Communards: "they were traitors and the army's blood was up." Jmabel, though gamely challenging whiteguard's foolishness, nonetheless accepts the fairytale version of Lenin the massacre-lover. Which leads me to second the earlier point about the distorted "quote" of Lenin in the main article, which does more to express someone's hostile POV about Lenin than to illuminate anything about the Commune. In fact, I'm going to go change that right now.97.90.133.77 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality violation

The current article as it is now is completely biased towards socialism. Being an historian and researcher of the Commune, I really recommend keeping the neutrality-warning on top of the article as long as it continues to be like this. When I have time in the near-future, I will try to improve it myself. Let's first start by affirming that the Commune was NOT a 'socialist government' as the opening of the article claims. --GHoeberX 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

theres no such thing as neutrality for describing events that happened so far in the past.

Certainly the communards intended it to be socialist. At the time, socialism was viewed as an intermediate phase on the way to communism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.32.189 (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Since the article no longer claims that it was a 'socialist government', and no further violations have been named or identified in the text, the tag can go. It was, of course, governed by a coalition of many ideologies, the two main strands being, as the article implies, those of a socialist and anarchist outloook.

Alright, I originally added the tag and I agree that the article is improved and neutral now. It's important to always keep in mind that when you link Paris Commune with socialism that only one Commune-member (Léo Fränkel) actually knew Karl Marx and practically all of the Proudhonist didn't have any real understanding of socialism. Another common mistake is to see the 'Internationale' as a purely socialist organization, while in Southern Europe countries it was much more filled with anarchists. During the first decades, the Internationale should be regarded as a general organization for laborers without too much socialist influence, especially in France and Italy. So my dear wikipedia-comrades, please keep this in mind when writing about the Paris Commune. I'll remove the neutrality-tag now. GHoeberX (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence

This, from "Retrospect": "Marx and Engels, Bakunin, and later Lenin and Trotsky along with Mao tried to draw major theoretical lessons (in particular as regards the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and the 'withering away of the state') from the limited experience of the Commune." It seems to say that these people were drawing the same lessons, which is false. Wouldn't it be better to have two sentences? One for anarchists and one for communists?151.200.228.62 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Women Incendiaries

This entry lacks detail on the contributions of women to the defense of the Commune. During Bloody Week, women and men mounted the barricades in Paris. According to historian Edith Thomas, women were responsible themselves for building the barricades at the Place Saint-Jacques and Blvd. Sébastopol, and also in the Place du Panthéon. Confronted by the Versailles troops, the women fought sholder to shoulder with their men. A contingent from the Union des Femmes held the barricade at the Place Blanche for a number of hours. Dressmaker and organizer Blanche Lefebvre stated that she "loved the Revolution as one loves a man." Thomas recounts compelling testimony of eyewitnesses to these struggles and the subsequent mass arrests of both women and men. Most significant is the question of the women's roles in the fires that destroyed Paris.

The Federal troops of the commune did set a number of fires near barricades to flush out the Versaille soldiers; in addition, the communards set fire to the Légion d'Honneur, the Rue Royale, and the Tuileries--all sites and symbols of feudal rule. Hundreds of women were executed by the Versailles troops on suspicion of starting fires regardless of whether they had done. While the many women on the barricades had prepared to light fires on the front lines, Thomas concludes that the existence of ranks of pétroleuses who deliberately set premeditated political fires was largely a myth trumped up by the Versailles forces to justify mass arrests and executions and to build a case against the Commune's attempts to emancipate women and elevate them to equal military roles with men.

That accounts of of women's part in lighting Paris on fire have been exaggerated does not mitigate the militancy of the women in the revolutionary clubs, the vigilance committees, and the Union des Femmes. The most widely known trial of a female communard was that of Louise Michele, who had been active in the Vigilance Committees and the Club de la Révolution. After staunchly defending the aims and tactics of the revolution, Michele was sentenced to banishment, declaring that she would have preferred death.

Carolyn Eichner also provides detailed archival evidence as to the sustained and militant involvement of women, including the revolutionary theorist and educator André Leo and the gender-bending clubiste Paule Mink. Eichner features a discussion of how these women challenged religious restrictions on women's sphere as an integral part of the revolutionary aims of the Commune.

Sources: Carolyn J. Eichner, Surmounting the Barricades: Women in the Paris Commune (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004); Edith Thomas, The Women Incendiaries (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2007; originally published as Les Pétroleuses in 1963). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcloud (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Republican Calendar

The article says that the French Republican Calendar was reinstated during the Commune. What were the dates of the Commune's existence in that calendar? Opera hat (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply: The dates the Republican Calendar were used during the Paris Commune were 6 May to 23 May 1871 (le 16 floréal au 3 prairial de l'an LXXIX); for 18 days. Charvex (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Date

The Paris Commune arose on March 18, not March 28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.132.232 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential copyright issues

I'm afraid the first half of the 'Retrospect' section has been taken word by word from David Harvey's book Paris: Capital of Modernity... The last chapter, if I'm not mistaken. Ivanicov (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Content of the policies"

"Despite internal differences, the Council made a good start in maintaining the public services essential for a city of two million; it was also able to reach a consensus on certain policies whose content tended towards a progressive, secular and highly democratic social democracy rather than a social revolution."

My comments are about the last portion of the passage. The contrast that this statment makes is misleading and a false distinction. It is contrasting a "democratic social democracy" and a "social revolution". What exactly is the "content" of "social revolutionary" policies?

I think this passage is merely a liberal interjection (and revisionism!) that the policies were of the "social democratic" and not the "communist" type, merely trying to erase the fact that the commune, in Marx's words and thier own, was the armed -dictatorship- of the proletariot and not a democratic republic. They were the model of democratic centralism, which is typically described as the example of worker's democracy. The commune was againsts (and with the force of arms!) the bourgeois and thier representatives amongst the officer-ranks of the army how is that "secular"? More so, the central committee did not reach a 'consensus' with everyone - it was the 'executive and legislative body' (to quote Marx). - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.111.238 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2006.

---If you actually did some reading, you'd know "dictatorship of the proletariat" was synonymous with democratic republic. The proletariat is simply the Marxist term for the working class - ie, the masses - and 'dictatorship' is meant in the literal etymological sense of rule, not the modern sense of unaccountable rule, so the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply means rule by the masses. All officials in the Commune were elected, instantly recallable and paid no more than the average worker - these are obviously characteristics of a democratic republic. 91.110.42.89 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---"secular", to me, means absence of religion in government. How is anti-bourgeois and anti-military not secular? Those are secular issues, yes?Sean1K2GA9 05:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---I can agree that the adj. 'secular' can apply to the commune, but I think my other criticisms (the use of "consensus" and the false distinction between "democratic social democracy" and "social revolution" still stand. Chiefly, historically and politically speaking social democrats (and the proposition of the social democracy) has a direct line to the 2nd international which Engels (and Marx tacitly in his Critique of the Gotha Program) opposed. Most importantly, a social democracy is not an institution formed by an -armed- revolution, but reform and 'election politics'.

Perhaps removing any -political- conception of the commune is best, and in its place, describing merely its actually political -organization- (the formation and composition of the central committee, etc.) Perhaps even removing the term 'progressive' and stating more simply the fact: The commune was able to maintain public services which a majority of the two million citizens of Paris depended on.

I hope I'm not coming off too zealous here, but I think words are very important and how you dscribe things influence how readers will think about these concepts. I'm willing to elborate more. --66.227.111.238 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Female vote

in the list of decrees, it says women got the right to vote. but near the end of the second paragraph after that list, it says that women didn't. which is correct?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.91.7 (talk • contribs) 11 August 2006.

I'm pretty certain the latter is correct (they didn't), but I don't have a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This remains unresolved, and the section remains self-contradictory. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The article Women's_suffrage states: "The 1871 Paris Commune granted voting rights to women...". However, it does not cite a source. --Spitzl 09:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

women were not given the right to vote under any french government until the 1970's24.47.63.29 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The reforms made by the Paris Commune obviously weren't honoured by the Versailles government, I would have thought that was common sense. And incidentally, it was immediately after the end of the Nazi occupation that women won the vote, not the 1970s. 91.110.42.89 (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No they were given the female vote. I believe that Marx mentions it in "The Civil War in France." I'm not sure, I'll have to read through it again to verify. (Demigod Ron 04:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

He does, I remember seeing it.

According to Claude Willard, president of the association Les Amis de la Commune, women organised themselves and requested several rights (equal work = equal wages; civil union (libre union) ; repeal of prostitution) but did not request the right of vote. According to an interview of Willard by L'Humanite, several women were elected. So they could not vote, but could be elected. Tazmaniacs 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Red flag?

The Paris Commune article says of Lenin:

At his funeral, his body was wrapped in the remains of a red and white flag preserved from the Commune.

But the article Red flag says this:

The red flag subsequently became the banner of the Paris Commune in 1871, at which time it became firmly associated with socialism.

Who is correct? Was the flag of the Paris Commune entirely red? Or was it red and white? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there may have been more than one flag, but I don't know with certainty. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just searched Google books -- "The Rise and Fall of the Paris Commune in 1871" states that "one of the first acts of the Commune was to display the red flag from the Palace of the Tuileries." Perhaps some versions had white lettering or symbols on them. I don't know why Lenin would be wrapped in a red and white flag -- the white portion of the tri-color (and white in general) represents monarchy. Interesting point about the red flag -- it first become firmly associated with socialism in 1871 (arguably), but it's first association with the radical left came about 80 years earlier. It was flying above the Jacobin club around the time of the massacres in the prisons. Its meaning at the time: "no quarter" (no prisoners). The black flag also made an appearance in 1792 (above the Hotel de Ville), and then again in the 1871 commune, which is where modern day anarchists claim their flag originated. Both flags, incidentally, were well known at the time as pirate flags. Probably that's why socialists switched to a meaningless red rose.

Where is the flag on the page... can someone find it and add it? 173.230.178.111 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Internationale?

The article states that the de facto anthem of the Paris Commune was the Internationale; however, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject, the lyrics were for the song were written in June of 1871, while the Paris Commune was put down in May of 1871. Moreover, the lyrics were not actually put to music until 1888. Seeing as how it was impossible for the Internationale to have been the anthem, much less known at all in the Paris Commune, what would be an appropriate replacement for its anthem, if there is one? 76.28.97.246 (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how I haven't gotten an answer yet, I've simply removed any mention of an "anthem" at all. Feel free to change it if you feel I was mistaken in doing so, but I highly doubt there was ever a widely accepted anthem for the Commune to begin with. 76.28.97.246 (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research/bad fit with article

The final paragraph of the 'In Retrospect' section reads like it has been copied-and-pasted from a bad undergraduate essay. It doesn't fit with the rest of the section (or the wider article) and gives undue prominence to a couple of dodgy-sounding publications. I would go as far as to say it lacks NPOV. Perhaps it just needs cutting out, but I don't want to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.230.92 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Semaine sanglante fires

Surprisingly, there appears to be no mention of the fires that destroyed much of Paris during the semaine sanglante. Numerous important buildings and landmarks were completely decimated by the inferno that raged from Palais de justice to Saint-Chapelle and beyond. Le Palais des Tuileries, a center of power that was never rebuilt, le Palais de la Légion d'honneur, la Cour des Comptes, and l'Hôtel de Ville (Paris City Hall) were consumed by flames. Millions of the historical documents of Paris from earliest times to 1860 vanished, including original and duplicate copies of ALL of the civil birth, marriage, and death records, as well as all of the ancient church parish registers that were confiscated by the state. (An attempt to these reconstruct some of these records from notarial minutes, which were not destroyed, was never more than 30% successful.) This important omission should be rectified. - - I would do it myself but all of my sources are French, and I know English Wikipédiens prefer English sources.

Perhaps a separate article on the subject of the semaine sanglante as a timeline, corresponding to the artcle at fr.Wikipédia here would be a good addition, as well. Charvex (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

---

there is no mention of the mass muder of preists, I find this article incrediby biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.34.225 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whereas you'd view such murder as a negative, others like myself view it as a shining positive.

"Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest." - Emile Zola

Zola has failed and so has communism but do dream on! So tell me how is the party doing in Russia?? I thought it was very hilarious when East Berliners began punching the crap out of loyal communist guards, the guards showing up to their meaningless posts with two black eyes because the proletarians done told the communists twice they were wrong! And then Gorbachev became a Christian as well as the children of Stalin and Khrushchev. Its just a matter of time for North Korea and Cuba. Communism duh wave of duh future! The Karma bill is long overdue. As Einstein noted God doesn't play craps with the Universe. There are mathematical spiritual laws in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.33.130 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See petroleuses, I propose to rewrite parts of this article in the light of this. PatGallacher (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate terror" of Rigaud and Ferré

In the interests of discussion, I will raise this rather than just revert Hubertgrove's edits. To be blunt, I find it hard to take seriously anyone who uses this kind of language. I certainly do not think that this language or the edits made are indicative of a neutral POV. --Nixin06 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I suggest that you either do not know much about Raoul Rigault (sic) - the Communard Prefect of Police - or Theophile Ferre. Loath though I am to have to go into historical detail here, they were called by Elihu Washburne, a contemporary American witness and present during the violence - as 'the most desperate and dangerous men in the Commune'. A historian of the Second Empire, de la Gorce, did not know whether 'to rank [Rigault] among the most dangerous lunatics or the corrupt'.

Rigault was responsible for re-establishing the Committee of Public Safety (with Ferre as his deputy), he became its Police Chief and later the 'Procureur' of the Revolutionary Tribunal set up under its auspices. By May 23rd, Rigault had arrested 14000 people without warrant or hearing - 3000 of them associated with clerical and 1500 former soldiers including the Archbishop of Paris (who was shot under his orders without trial on 24 May 1871). Along with Ferre, he personally ordered and supervised summary executions of an estimated 900 unarmed prisoners. A further 9000 of those arrested under the 'Hostages Law' were estimated to have been executed either piecemeal or systematically. On a personal level, Rigault routinely forced-seduced or raped women he had arrested. Do you wish me to cite further verified examples that Communard forces - including those not under the command of Rigault or Ferre - committed atrocities as savage - of not on the same scale - as those committed by anti-Communard forces?

If you are unfamiliar with Rigault, Ferre or other Communard politicians and soldiers responsible for violence against civilians or prisoners that any objective observer would call 'atrocity', may I suggest recommend Alistair Horne's 'The Fall of Paris' (Reprinted 1990) or History of the Paris Commune of 1871(2012)by Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray and Eric Hazan? Hubertgrove (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just another propaganda piece

really worthless, an ahistorical piece full of conjecture and opinion, written from a Leninist-Marxist perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.33.130 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone thinks it is "an ahistorical piece," then perhaps they should alter it to include a more historical sources than the ones given. The history of the Paris Commune is one that is oft overlooked, and we have to make do with the material at hand (generally written from a leftist perspective due to the importance attached to the event by many on the political far-left). Moreover, it seems that this particular criticism is in and of itself motivated by political bias. 76.28.97.246 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article has been given a strongly political, NPOV slant which needs to be adjusted. Hubertgrove (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Source for "feminist" initiatives?

I've looked at the article from L'Humanité using this archived version. It doesn't back up the claims that these initiatives were "feminist" in the sense given in the article (i.e. a struggle against patriarchy). With my limited French, I understand the quote "toute inégalité et tout antagonisme entre les sexes constituent une des bases du pouvoir des classes gouvernantes" to mean "all inequality and all antagonism between the sexes constitutes a base of power for the ruling classes". This appears to be the opposite position to that attributed by the article - "their struggle against patriarchy could only be pursued through a global struggle against capitalism". --Nixin06 (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

While researching the Commune more generally, I came across this paper. In note 4, Eichner writes:

"I define feminism as the recognition and condemnation of power inequities between men and women, and the desire and efforts to rectify them. While the term (or any synonym) did not exist before the 1880s, the people,ideas, and actions that fit this definition certainly did. Thus, following Offen, I employ “a careful definition of terms, grounded in historical evidence” in my use of “feminism” for the pre-1880 period."

This makes clear that the "feminist" initiatives here are the actions of female radicals that have been claimed as feminists by later scholars. I don't think it's NPOV to state this feminist conception as if it were the fact of the matter, although I see no problem with noting the actions of women in the Commune (more or less as is) and explaining that later scholars see this as feminist action. --Nixin06 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between a 'female radical' and a 'feminist'? This seems to be a contemporary distinction only relevant to arguments between various leftist groupuscules. Can we please remember this is an online encyclopaedia for everybody and is supposed to be free of political or academic slant. Hubertgrove (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

bad grammar - hope in the passive!

"...was hoped by his followers to be a potential leader..." Modern English usage by Fowler says this construction is incorrect.

more bad grammar and spelling

I spotted one obvious spelling error, fixed it, and went on reading the article. The article has many errors of grammar, spelling, etc. I will leave these corrections to others. Oaklandguy (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Paris Commune

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Paris Commune's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Anarchism 1962":

• From Libertarianism: Woodcock, George (1962). Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements.
• From History of anarchism: George Woodcock. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962)
• From Libertarian socialism: Woodcock

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

About recent edits

I appreciate the many recent edits by Indopug, which improved the article in many ways. However, I do have a question about two of the edits made.

-I think it is a mistake to delete the section on the aftermath of the Commune; I think it's important to know what happened to the leaders of the Commune afterwards, since there's a common perception that they were all killed, when in fact many, such as Louise Michel, returned to France and went back into political life, and others were elected to the National Assembly. Unless there's a strong objection to this, I would like to put that section back.

-I also wonder why some parts of the text were changed from US English to British English. The article was written in US English, and I think, for consistency and per WP rules, it should remain that way. I would like to make those changes.

Again, thank you for your very good and constructive work. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious compliments. I've reverted myself on both counts.—indopug (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paris Commune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202121303/http://www.humanite.fr:80/journal/2005-03-19/2005-03-19-458756 to http://www.humanite.fr/journal/2005-03-19/2005-03-19-458756
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326175450/http://www.femmesprevoyantes.be/NR/rdonlyres/E9B8FF14-B989-404F-A844-DB71B8D98326/0/PETROLEUSESDEFVERSIONFPS.doc to http://www.femmesprevoyantes.be/NR/rdonlyres/E9B8FF14-B989-404F-A844-DB71B8D98326/0/PETROLEUSESDEFVERSIONFPS.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bias

This is generally a very good article, its language, for wikipedia, is superb. However I worry that parts of it sound almost like an apologia for the commune, while it doesn't quite reach the level of an NPOV breach I think that in fairness we need more criticism of the commune, as well as a more balanced presentation of it's merits. Deeper disscusion of the politics of the commune, as well as disscusion of the governments motives should be part of the articile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.64.90 (talk) 31 Oct 2005

Probably so. But I hope that whoever wants to add that balance can do so without weighing down all well-put sentences with a swamp of qualifiers, which is what all too often happens. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a considerable bias towards the "Communards". The section discussing the Commune itself is concise and simple (even if it is poorly structured and confusing), but it fails to mention that the Commune resulted in many deaths and it wasn't always the socialist "haven" one might imagine. Although it was a time of popular joy, some members of the establishment (political, religious or simply the wealthier bourgeoisie) suffered at the hands of mobs, and it would be unfair to forget about those people. (The Nouv, 18 March 2008)

See, I disagree. I think the bias is the other way around. There are a lot of assertions sans warrants in the paragraph critiquing Marx's & Engel's view of the commune. In fact, it was neither a dictatorship nor was it proletarian (except in the very loosest sense). Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not, but it definitely needs more qualification than the author's assertion. I mean, point of fact -- Engel's work is a text, and we have to defer to the logic of the text that is not in fact reproduced here we we don't see a counterpoint made or implied by the author of the wiki. I mean, even something as simple as, "At odds with Engel's assertion is the fact that the Commune did x, y, z." (X, y, z being things that presumably wouldn't be a dictatorship or proletarian.) I don't know what the hell the author of that sentence was going for, anyway, since I see plenty of justification that the Commune was a bunch of workers making solid bottom-up political action and pushing the big guys around. That's just me; if you want it to stay please fix it or tell me why blithe assertions are ok in an encyclopedia. Ihavenoheroes 06:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The working class revolted against their oppressors. Of course they wouldn't treat their enemies good. As we saw the aristocracy, the rich bourgeois and the religious people massacred all the civilians later once they won. The communards didn't even do the 1/50 of what their previous oppressors did. It is as if we accuse the Holocaust section about bias because it doesn't say about the "crimes of the jews" during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.1.97 (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

would the above poster like to justify the Holodomor while he is at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:9808:CD31:1561:B217 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is this paragraph included?

There is a paragraph that begins "Anarchist historian George Woodcock reports...." which has, so far as I can see, no connection whatsoever to the history of the Commune. It might have some interest in some other article about anarchism, but none here.

Should it not be removed? I haven't done so only because I think it would be presumptuous to yank out a whole paragraph when I'm not any kind of expert on this subject matter.

Poihths (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it adds no new information on the subject that isn't already in the article, and also citations like "Anarchist historian George Woodcock reports" don't belong in the text of the article. It should go. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Tombs's figures

According to the French article fr:Semaine sanglante which actually quotes Tombs in full, Tombs's "between 6,000 and 7,000" exclusively refers to those active communard combatant men that were executed while the combat was still on-going (which is what Rougerie actually agreed with in 2014), whereas the figures of 17,000 of up to 30,000 includes the number of combatant and non-combatant men, women, and children that were slain by anti-communards in and around Paris in pure rage during the time of official combat as well as for days after the commune had officially surrendered, and people that had been executed by anti-communards outside of the gates. According to Rougerie 2009, althroughout 1871 additionally 1,000 more arrested Parisiens were killed by anti-communard forces by means of deliberate starving in cattle waggons outside Brest, Lorient, Cherbourg, and Rochefort where they had been deported, or on the way there in those waggons.

According to the French article a bit earlier, even those 30,000 dead were only a fraction of actual victims at the hands of anti-communards, as all over France "400,000" people overall were denunciated by informants, although the majority of those 400,000 were imprisoned, sentenced to forced labor, or deported into the colonies instead, whereas the English-language article's figures on captured and tried persons only lists those captured in Paris during and immediately after Bloody Week. --2003:EF:1700:B436:A9D9:4009:8D35:320E (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

150th anniversary

Big anniversary coming up in a few months! I'm considering doing some expansion but wanted to check first whether anyone was already planning to do so. czar 07:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Paris-commune.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality problems in lead

The lead of the article now has serious neutrality problems. It has been re-written into the language of a Marxist political tract, and needs to be re-written following Wikipedia standards of verifiability and neutrality.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)