Talk:Girondins

message: Please!
A better summary would also be appropriate. Halfway down the article I still wasn't really sure what their political opinions were all about.
"In the Legislative Assembly these represented a compact body of opinion which, though not as yet definitely republican, was considerably more advanced than the moderate royalism of the majority of the Parisian deputies."
"More advanced"? And how royalistic were the 'majority of the Parisian deputies'? Apocryphite 11:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup! 

message: Sometimes they are referred to as "Girondists", sometimes as "Girondines". Could someone settle on one or the other name? Jhobson1 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make up your mind 

message: Just a question In declareing war on Austria.Did the Girondist have to "draft" an army to fight? Or was the revolutionary feeling so high. That people joined the army to fight? Thanks Mn08270921stcentDr.EdsonAndre'Johnson D.D.ULC>ANDREMOI (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you post the question on the reference desk, where lots of people are eager to answer questions that are not related to article improvement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question did the Girondists have to Draft a Army to fight Austria? 

message: Should this be in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first right wingers of the French Revolution were the royalist aristocrat lead party opposing the revolution during the early phases of the National Constituent Assembly in 1789, taking the right side of this assembly. After the political purges against the royalists the feuillants took over the right wing seats in the Legislative Assembly 1791, and again following the purge of that political party the Girondists took over their seatings on the right wing of the assembly. So, no, they were not in any way the original right wingers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: It is what you wrote that does not make sense ("but not to divide into states gerneralne. The behavior of feudalism doesn't mean the right-wing"... what this even means?); the division between left-wing and right-wing begins in 1789, in the National Assembly, about the question of royal veto power (right-wing in favour; left-wing against); from 1789 to 1792-93, the people that we call Girondins were in the "left-wing", like Saddhiyama said--MiguelMadeira (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  They were the original "right wingers" 

message: This article lacks a neutral point of view or any criticism of the Girondists and paints them as martyrs and heroes. Is this how the public viewed them? Or just the author of this page? 
:The terms martyrs and heroine are in quotation marks.  "Heroine" quotes a contemporary's viewpoint which a reasonable person would see as biased.  
:The source for the paragraph on "martyrs of liberty" is an unreferenced footnote in the cited 2005 book that directly quotes Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 12, p. 50, 1910.  I've found no other reference to this as it applies to the Girondins - the Encyclopedia does provide references to the whole entry that should be looked into. 
::--FYI, almost all of paragraph 1 under "Montagnards versus Girondins" is a direct unreferenced quote from the 1910 Encyclopedia, p. 49 as well - there may be more
:The phrase was a Jacobin rallying cry (Vengeance and Martyrdom in the French Revolution: The Case of the Shades Case of the Shade, from Archives parlementaires in 1794) and part of a "festivals and cult of the martyrs of Liberty" (Revolution against the Church: from reason to the Supreme Being, p. 112; Bonaparte as Hero and Saviour: Image, Rhetoric and Behaviour in the Construction of a Legend p. 383).
:The phrase also appears in Robespierre's Decree establishing the Cult of the Supreme Being: "...the days of decadi festivals to the Supreme Being and to nature... to the martyrs of liberty."
:Therefore, I propose the section be reworked with the "martyrs of liberty" paragraph at least qualified to note the better-sourced Jacobin use of the term. Skingski (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is now fully sourced with POV removed and it follows the current scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view? 

message: No reference is provided for the claim:
:"On the modern political spectrum, the Girondins are placed in the centre-left."
The Girondins sat on the right and the Jacobins on the left.  The article states "the group had a federalist inspiration" as well as sentiments for decentralized government, classical liberalism and a free market matching the views of the modern right; support for public education and women's suffrage fit right and left; and a "constitutional right to public assistance for the poor" (unreferenced) is modern left.  While pre-1900s abolitionism was primarily right-wing - the left-wing Jacobins opposed the "Girondin talk of emancipation" (Search of the Girondins, p. 39) - today the Western left largely embraces it too.  The Secularism the Girondins favored is in line with at least the modern American right and was not absolutist like the modern left or elements of the Jacobins.
Thus, Girondins appear to be primarily modern right to centre.  But since the Girondins are not a modern party, their position in the modern-day political spectrum is irrelevant, debatable and confusing.
Both Columbia and Britannica encyclopediae historically eschew such classifications.  As Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, I propose we follow this example and delete this sentence. Skingski (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology

message: though not as yet definitely republican (i.e. against the monarchy),
I have never subscribed to this definition of a republic. And I find great evidence in reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalists Papers and the usage of the word there to support my claims that a republic is a "hierarchical" democracy ... i.e. a democracy of democracies iterated.
Democracy can't work with more than 50 people involved. A republic solves this problem by having democratic collections "elect" a representative to deal with issues beyond their scope in a lower forum. These issues are passed down to the next level of collections of 50 or fewer representatives. This process iterates down to the bottom level where there is a single such collection on that level. Six levels easily enables democratic representation of all people on Earth. If it reaches the bottom level and can't be handled there, well, it can't be handled collectively. 
Contrast that with the current USA system that claims to be democratic. 50,000+ people elect a representative (who doesn't know them, nor they him). Whole states elect two representatives. These collectively then form committees (small democratic divisions) that deal with the issues ... which are then democratically embraced by about 500 people.
Is it any wonder our USA is a beauty contest constantly swerving toward monarchy? WithGLEE (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  though not as yet definitely republican (i.e. against the monarchy), 

message: A December 2020 edit war occurred partly over inclusion of Colors and the colour Blue in the Infobox.  The Colors add was made by an unknown editor in the revision as of 13:59, 15 October 2018 without reason 15 years after page creation.  Frustratingly, no Wikilink directs the reader to the meaning of the color.  A later editor in the war contended it should be retained for "aesthetic reasons and does not require a source."  Whose aesthetic? What Wikipedia rule governs this (especially since Girondins never had party colours)? Is there a Discussion page for it?  If it's just aesthetic, I like magenta.  Can it be magenta? Skingski (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors