Talk:Jacobin (politics)

Opening comments

Jacobians during the french revolution were radical revolutionaries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.50.130 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 January 2005‎

Well, no, they were Jacobins. I'm not sure who a "Jacobian" would be. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

The statement that those who ascribe to certain political beliefs "are referred to" as "Jacobins" in the United States, which links to the blog of a marginal political organization calling itself the American Jacobin Club, constitutes original research and is likely self-promotion. I also removed a subheading occurring later in the article that refers to the same organization, on the grounds that the organization's tiny membership and lack of external mention both undermine its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.42.54 (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

category

This list of standard iconic national symbolic figures that is now gathered here in a "see also" is a lot more suggestive of a category than of something that belongs in this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) It was a part of an old rugby club

Jacobin v Jacobin Club

There is a good reason for two articles. The Jacobin Club existed only during the French Revolution. Jacobin as a political stance has been been adopted by others since. Hence I think a merge would be a mistakeDejvid 00:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:58, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cut recent addition

There was a large recent addition by a brand new user, who added it, then removed it, then someone else (another new user) recovered it; this happened twice. I've cut from article, and moved it to Jacobin/Sandbox. It's clearly someone's academic paper. It cites references by author name that were not added to the References section of the article (it even cites Wikipedia!), although in all cases it would not be hard to guess what work is referred to (nothing obscure). It was not really integrated with the article.

I've asked the person who added it whether it is his own work, and, if not, whether he has appropriate permission to use it. I figure he may have had good reason to ultimately delete it himself. Anyway, if it is OK to use, there is probably some material in it worth mining, maybe even the bulk of it, based on a quick read. -- Jmabel | Talk July 6, 2005 01:40 (UTC)

Minority languages

Does this belong in the intro?

My recollection of this is that all the Jacobins did was to stop use of minority language for official purposes, like legal documents. If I'm wrong, please add details; if I'm right "stamp out" seems a little strong.

Did they claim Breton was reactionary before or after the Vendee? Septentrionalis 14:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have no idea about the relevance of it; I was really just copyediting and it was there when I got here. :) If you are more well-informed than I, please feel free to move it along, otherwise I'll need to do some reading and then figure out how to improve the article. Also see below. Kaisershatner 01:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Page move?

I was thinking that this page might be better entitled "Jacobin (politics)" along the lines of "Chickenhawk (politics)" to make it clear about its use as a political epithet. "Jacobin" could then point to a disambiguation page that also would link to Jacobin Club. At least one of the politics articles I was reading that got me here (Neoconservatism in the United States) actually pointed at "Jacobin Club" accidentally. Thoughts? Kaisershatner 01:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd have no problem with this. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm doing it.--Bkwillwm 08:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrongly reversed this prior move

Below is my comment regarding a move request on Talk:Jacobin (disambiguation).

I was good intentioned, but have found myself in over my head and need help. I moved "Jacobin" to "Jacobin (disambiguation)", intending then to move "Jacobin (politics) to "Jacobin". I felt the (politics) article was the most notable of the disambiguated articles and the most like to be sought by a reader doing a search. Well I discovered a) I cannot do the second move because the name conflicts, and b) an old discussion on Talk:Jacobin (politics) had resulted in exactly the opposite renaming. (That is, I was inadvertently undoing the agree-to work of others.) Can I now have an administrator help me put things right? Jacobin (politics) should be left as it is; my "Jacobin (disambiguation)" should be move back to "Jacobin". Make sense? I do apologize.

I have repeated the comment here, so that interested editors will be sure to see it. Hult041956 23:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The left wing

Why no mention of the left? The Jacobins were the original (extremely radical) left wing. 71.131.23.199 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Other national personifications

It is unclear to me why this section, "Other national personifications", is included. I can understand "Polish Jacobins", but it does not seem that entries such as the following have anything to do with Jacobin politics: "Uncle Sam", "John Bull", "Johnny Canuck", and "Aura the Finnish Maiden". Seems like most of these should be moved to a different article altogether, something separate from Jacobin politics. Pete unseth (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In US during the Civil War

In histories of the Civil War, Shelby Foote's in particular, the most radical abolitionist/pro-war Republicans are often referred to as Jacobins. I do not have the citations to tell if that was a contemporary usage or a modern usage. Boomcoach (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a cursory search. These references indicate it is purely Shelby's epithet, not one used at the time to describe them: | Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: A Narrative Volume 1 Chapter 3 and | History shows we can right the ship of state again. Skingski (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Pictures

This page have been be rapped ... where are the "freedom or the death" pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.184.104 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Jacobin Magazine

"In 2010 a radical American publication, Jacobin (magazine), was founded." Radical is used as a pejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.67.7 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be prejorative as such, but in this case it's very misleading. Jacobin are left leaning moderates, and just as likely to oppose the ideas of the American left as they are to support them.78.69.180.157 (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Tea Party?

Absurd. It won't take too many articles like this to convince people that Wikipedia is not reliable.Devnull5475 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party - Jacobin? Although it may not be intentional, notice the way "Tea Party" appears to be boldface print. The reference being a link to an error is perfectly fitting for this paragraph. Is a washington post featured 'journalist' really a legitimate reference (knowing that they are hostile towards the 'Tea Party')? Is it any wonder that when I think of wikipedia, I think of facts being leftwashed? Washicd (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)washicd

"Federal" level

The opening sentence making reference to the "federal" level seems inappropriate, given that this doctrine can apply to any state, unitary or federal. In fact, France, from which this term originates, is a unitary state, where there is no federal government at all, since there is no federation. Shouldn't "federal" be replaced with "national" here? This term covers any government of an independent nation-state, regardless of what type of state (federal or unitary) the country happens to be. 184.161.25.168 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Girondists

The article seems to imply Girondists were not Jacobins. This is not the case; in fact, the Girondists dominated the Jacobins until 1793. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4900:E583:E1E1:2F72:12DE:249D (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Jacobin ideology

This section fails to discuss what Jacobinism is - it only says it is a system of representations and action, which is saying nothing. The prior 2 paragraphs deal with what the ideology was during the Revolution. If it remains the same, then they should be moved to this section.

A more descriptive paragraph however specific to post Revolution is needed - especially using Jacobinist sources; their detractors could be used as a criticism. Skingski (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the Infuence section and this section should be combined since it goes into the ideology. Skingski (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I do agree because the article states that they were "left-wing" and were in support of a "market economy", and in modern use of the term "left wing", those don't seem to completely match up. I don't know much about the French Revolution so this really confused me so discussing their ideology would be very useful. SanctaSofya (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge

Should this article be merged to Jacobin? Editor2020 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I would vote no. Both articles are lengthy and combining the two would be a mistake just on that basis. Overlap exists between the two, but we should be able to keep a line between the history of the Jacobins and their philosophy and adoption in later centuries. An imprecise comparison would be that Wikipedia has separate articles for the historical Muhammed and the religion he founded, Islam. Skingski (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Influence

The Influence section seems like a general discussion of the page's topic. Thus, I propose it appear before most or all the countries listed as they represent specific instances of the general review in the Influence section. Skingski (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)