|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Opening comments
- 2 category
- 3 Jacobin v Jacobin Club
- 4 Cut recent addition
- 5 Minority languages
- 6 Page move?
- 7 The left wing
- 8 Other national personifications
- 9 In US during the Civil War
- 10 Pictures
- 11 Jacobin Magazine
- 12 Tea Party?
- 13 "Federal" level
- 14 Girondists
- 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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
- 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)
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
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)
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
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. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
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)