Talk:Georges Danton

France High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Old comment[edit]

This is very old fashionned and not really NPOV. Who feels to rewrite ?

I made a cut at it, but there are references to last names whose full names I don't know. Any help? -- Zoe

I will try to look at this but not now it's getting very late. Ericd 02:01 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Roussel[edit]

Hi. I just added the passage about Roussel's Locus Solus in the "fictionalized accounts" section. Unfortunately, I can't remember if I've gotten the details of the arrangement with the executioner exactly right, but the section in Locus Solus pertaining to Danton's head and Roussel's fictionalized back-story is too fantastical to leave out of the wiki, especially since there's already a "fictionalized accounts" section.

As a side-note, the wiki really is in serious need of some organization and "clean-up." There seems to be a wealth of information, but it's highly inaccessible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.39.34 (talk • contribs) 27 July 2006.

is this history?[edit]

why is the 1911 Britannica being referenced for goodness sake? How is that useful. Research has moved a bit in the last 110 years. Plus why is the article so weirdly disjointed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.112.52 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]