Talk:Jacobitism

message: There are many issues with the recent spate of rather radical edits. Users need to try to gain consensus on the talk page before making such sweeping changes. The alternative we are left with now is to revert all the recent edits and start again and/or to debate each point of change here. This makes the editing process far more laborious than it needs to be. 
Regarding the political background section, there are a number of problems, the summary of the Civil Wars in mid 17 C is very inadequate and misleading, as if the paragraph on the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, re the Adventurers Act etc. The work that was done on the English and Scottish sections has been undone in favour of what is rankly a very confusing and confused narrative.
At the heart of the problem is that the editor in question seeks to present Jacobitism as the ideology of the Stuart Kings and proceed from there, pointing out at all points the inconsistencies between those kings and their supporters. When in fact Jacobitism was not a defined ideology -like, say Marxism - but a very broad term term for all of those who supported the Stuart kings. Nor is it clear that all Stuart monarchs shared the same ideas at all times at all. Because of the agenda of one user we are constantly being moved back to a very argumentative and confusing article. And not, as the article is supposed to be, a summary of the topic for the general reader. Jdorney (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: First, the whole point is whether the riots that occurred in Dublin in 1720s can be viewed as "Jacobite'; so stating 'these Pro-Jacobite riots are proof of Jacobitism' is nonsense.
Second, every time I've been challenged, I've gone away and looked at Sources (look at the list). I didn't think I needed to remind a 'historian' of the considerable body of work done by George Rude and others on the role of crowds in the 18th century. But obviously I did, so I provided a direct reference and two others - why not read them? The idea rioting around a Jacobite celebration therefore means it was Jacobite is similar to arguing the current Dublin gang warfare is about Irish union, because some members used to be part of Continuity IRA.
Third I strongly object to having edits reversed on the grounds of non-neutral POV, particularly by someone  who so far has displayed zero willingness to say 'Yeah, I might be wrong' and is still using the same two sources they started with.
Fourth I say I'm not an expert deliberately because it stops me assuming I'm always right and makes me challenge myself.   
I don't want a response; I don't need to be told yet again I'm wrong. What I'd like is for others to be willing to do what I've done and challenge their views. That's not unreasonable.  
Robinvp11 (talk)
:I know that some contemporary reports put the rioting down to "Popish rabble", but my own understanding (bearing in mind I'm just coming to this part of the discussion myself) is that Jacobite typology was quite clearly followed, down to the adoption of the slogan "High Church and Ormond" (showing that at least some of the disturbances were not Catholic in origin) and followed widespread reports that Ormond was involved in an invasion plot; this is why several academics have characterised them as "Jacobite" and as evidence of Jacobite discourse permeating a 'popular' level (O Ciardha, Connolly), which I thought was the whole point of that particular section. I don't really see that the description of the clashes as 'ritualised' by Garnham (sourced to the same 'Popish rabble' commentator) necessarily negates the idea of the riots as Jacobite in character. His point is that urban violence was "discriminating and controlled", not that they can be regarded in isolation from theur political context. Svejk74 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not my views. I'm just making sure the sources are accurately represented. And will continue to do so. BestJdorney (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of Jacobite Rioting  

message: This chronological ordering of this article is severely broken. It starts off well enough, but then starts over again from the beginning. Needs some serious editing... Tstexture (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific, bearing in mind the Lead summarises the article, with the detail appearing in the body, so no article would necessarily be purely chronological. Plus its isn't intended to be structured in that way; ie "Background" (what was it all about), then separate sections on how that played out in the three kingdoms. Thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Given it's a complex subject with very different characteristics in each of the three kingdoms, the current structure is the best I could come up with. Not sure a purely chronological approach could even be made to work.Svejk74 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronology broken