Talk:Jacobins

message: ... but I think this is a poor edit, and would welcome someone else's reverting back to my version. The edit removes the cleanup tag from an article that I think still needs a lot of cleanup, turns m-dashes into double hyphens, and substitutes a generally inferior (in some case frivolous or even misspelled) set of section headings. Since I've already reverted this person twice, I leave it to someone else to make the next move. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Steve espanola has basically followed my hours of work ni converting the old cleanup archives to the new cleanup system, frivously removing cleanup tags and vandalizing page after page after page...this is merely one front in a expansive edit war.  Thanks for your help! — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 17:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not going to be sucked into a reversion war... 

message: Who was the St Jacques after whom the street was named?  Was this the apostle St James, or some other saint?  JackofOz 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For anybody who may have been getting around to responding, I've now posted the question on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous.  Please respond there only. JackofOz 01:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponynm of Rue St Jacques 

message: This major edit  seems to me to have removed several legitimate citations quite a bit of good material, which I have generally restored, in some cases rewriting. In several places, it also restored the relatively stilted language of the 1911 Britannica; in general, I have not gone through and dealt with that (someone may want to), though I did revert one area where Britannica was very POV (giving a justification for the terror: we now, again, cite this as Britannica's view, rather than having it in the narrative voice. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit partly retreated 

message: There was a student essay that was posted into Jacobin almost a year ago. At that time, I had moved it to Jacobin/Sandbox and pretty much forgotten about it until WikiGnome Cje reminded me today. It was, frankly, not all that good, but there was some good material there. I've heavily rewritten it, wikified it, etc. The result may or may not be worth merging here; I'd appreciate outside opinions. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be merged? 

message: Marat was never officially a member of the jacobin Club - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 35.8.219.118 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 November 2006.
:True. Fixed. Foraminifera 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, somebody un-fixed it then. I'll re-fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimSheehan (talk • contribs) 12:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marat not a member 

message: Is it just me, or does the attitude of this article towards its subject matter seems somewhat negatively biased? - 76.84.130.190 (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific about what you see as issues? - Jmabel | Talk 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Robespierre is selectively and quite unfairly quoted on the Terror.  The article puts these words in his mouth, "Terror is only justice that is prompt, severe and inflexible."  Following the link, that appears to be taken from a slightly different translation of this passage (bold text to highlight the approximate source), "If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs. "  Stripped of context, he is being made out to be a tyrant, but in the context of the paragraph it's clear that Robespierre has in mind an emergency measure.  (The following paragraph is important for giving a sense of Robespierre's thinking, as well.)  If it's necessary to have a one-liner from him on Terror, then it should probably be, "the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror."  --Nixin06 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nixin06, thanks for your comments. I was editing the Robespierre page some time ago and meant to eventually improve the section on the terror, but never finished. In my opinion, the events leading up to and following the split with the Girondists need more attention; the section on the terror could also use improvement. If you have a number of sources available, some time, and want to improve this section, you can do so, without worrying about the talk pages unless someone raises concerns. Good luck! If you don't have time, I still hope to get there eventually... -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we ought to be fair to all subjects, guided only by the facts. The thing is, when we follow our code on a subject like the Jacobins, the article is bound to create a negative impression, because they of the atrocities they committed. This is not negative "bias," which would require a manipulation of the facts (at the very least, over-emphasis of the bad actions of the subject, and, more cleverly, elisions of facts that, if included, would portray the subject in a positive light.) With the Jacobins, any fair article is bound to create a negative impression — I mean, golly, they chopped off more heads than ISIS has, and you know how the average person regards ISIS's atrocities. Most people just feel uneasy with organizations for whom beheadings are the modus operandi. Very similar allegations of bias constantly come up on the talk pages for political movements that utilize mass-murder as a political tool — see for example, the archives of the "Fascism" article's talk page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.44.173 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Harsh? 

message: I'm going to change the headings around to make them more chronological. ("Fall of Monarchy" comes before "Paris") 71.131.23.199 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: This phrase is used in the article, yet I've never heard of it. A Google search only gives me an article from the Encyclopedea Brittanica (from which this article was apparently copied). If anyone knows what this means, please replace this phrase with something that a modern English speaker can understand! 
96.236.163.224 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "war of sticks and chairs"? 

message: Several of the citations in the influence section are in academic inline format rather than Wiki format.  Is this deliberate or should the references be Wikified? 143.239.96.226 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations 

message: I see this was moved from Jacobin to the current title to distinguish it from the use of Jacobin as a general political derogation of radical leftist politics. However, surely I cannot be the only one who finds the inclusion of our article on Jacobinism under this title to be extremely odd. I suggest that the political article (such as it is which is not very much) retain its current title at Jacobin (Politics) and this be restored back to good old, straightforward, tried and true, consistent with every History Book on the French Revolution index entry Jacobin. Eusebeus (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find it odd, and it's also annoying that Jacobin itself is a dab page. French Revolutionary Jacobins are the most common usage. The Jacobin (politics) article is muddled in that it attempts to describe the French Jacobins as well as all other manifestations of the term in politics. I think it should be edited to reflect its worldwide approach, and perhaps even renamed to Jacobinism (politics); its French Revolutionary material should be merged into Jacobin which should be reserved strictly for the historical French term; and Jacobin Club should just be a redirect to Jacobin just like Cordeliers Club redirects to Cordeliers. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -Darouet (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- check to make sure that's all the way you want it (makes sense to me too, by the way, as this is the main usage of 'Jacobin'). Antandrus  (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Apologies . . I’ve amended the Short Description - via the Edit button built in to the page display - and now found to my surprise tht there’s no opportunity to give an edit-summary.
So here we go:
    (For some readers, the Jacobins were *victims* of the Montagnards - an ‘internal splinter group’ which took over from the broader Jacobin movement and imposed the Reign of Terror.  The Short Description (“The more radical group”) risked puzzling / confusing readers who aren’t thinking of the Feuilletins at all.  The article itself does the detail, of course: but to help the reader at the Short Description stage I’ve changed it: The more radical group [ The more radical constitutional reform group)
Hope that helps.
- SquisherDa (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   Short description  

message: Any interest in moving this article to Jacobin Club or The Jacobin Club, then replacing Jacobin with a redirect to Jacobin (disambiguation)? There's 14 articles on the disambiguation page, so it may make sense for that to be the main page. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Jacobin Club? 

message: Colloquial definitions of the word "Jacobin" is provided in the introduction.  However, this page is concerned with the historical Jacobins, not its use in general politics.  Thus, this paragraph should be on the Jacobin_(politics) page - except that page already has the definition.  So let's delete this paragraph. Skingski (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition deletion 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jacobin →  – Should be in plural - it's either 'The Jacobin Club' or 'The Jacobins'. Statskvinde (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 February 2023