Talk:Girondins

Untitled

I don't think the category listing here is appropriate. The Girondists were not a political party in any proper sense - they were a faction. And to call them "liberals" is to buy into the grand historiographical narrative of girondin-admiring 19th century liberal historians like Thiers and Michelet (I think) who admired the Girondists as precursors to themselves. This view is seen by most modern historians as deeply flawed. While there was certainly liberalism to be found in the French Revolution, I think it's highly dubious to identify it with this opportunistic and not very impressive lot. john k 00:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"This view is seen by most modern historians as deeply flawed." That's pretty sweeping, and it's not reflected in the article as it stands. Some citations (and maybe some relevant contributions to the article) would seem to be in order. From what I can tell, both the Girondists and the Montagnards were generally what would later be called liberals. Of course, later liberals prefer to embrace the Gironde because they mostly didn't live long enough to get their hands as bloody... -- Jmabel 06:02, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be completely fair to call both Girondists and Montagnards liberals. However, The Mountain is not in this category, nor in the liberalism series. Which suggests to me that the categorization of Girondists as such is not so much a matter of noting that just about everybody in the French Revolution to the right of the Hébertists and to the left of the hard core monarchist emigrés was a liberal, but in the old, discredited, 19th century sense that the Girondists were the precursors of the reasonable Orleanist liberals (or, perhaps, its inverted Marxist form which sees the Girondins as the agents of large commercial interests, or whatever it is they said). That is to say - sure, the Girondins were liberals. So were the Montagnards. So were the Feuillants. So were the various deputies of the Plain. So was just about everybody who had a role in governing France between 1789 and 1799 (except, of course, for poor Louis XVI). But to call out the Girondins, specifically, and nobodoy else, as a "liberal party," is highly misleading. john k 06:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I concur. You might want to ping User:Wilfried Derksen (a.k.a. Gangulf), who was responsible for most the recent major reorganization of articles and categories related to liberalism. -- Jmabel 06:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I might agree that other currents could be considered to be more or less liberals, like the feuillants, but e.g. not every French revolutionary current. The Jacobins for example were clearly not liberal, since they used terror to impose their ideas. This method certainly excludes then from being liberal. --Gangulf 17:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You must realize, however, that the ideals the jacobins had were far more liberal than those of the girondists. Take note of where the members of the groups came from - the girondists drew their members and power bloc from the middle class - the burgeoisie. The jacobins, essentially the Mountain, drew their support from the mob of Paris. Robespierre is known as the "pure idealist" for a reason - he wanted total equality amongst the people. Indeed, he was the precursor of socialism - and, as some in the 60's and 70's may have argued, the precursor of communism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.131.181 (talk • contribs) 11 Jan 2006.

Which is precisely why many would say that, at least once in power, the Jacobins were to the left of "liberal". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look the political term "Liberal" can undergo many changes in an always changing society, especially during the French Revolution. During the Legislative Assembly period all those who opposed the ancien regime, were deemed "liberal" that ranged from the Constitutionalist Monarchists/Feulliants to the precusors of the Enrages/Hebrtists. Remember even the ancien regime aristocrats believed that the Feulliants were just as equally as radical as the jacobins when the revolution was in its infancy. Then you have the further division of power once the ancien regime is ousted and the Convention arises, Feulliants are considered conservative, while the Girodians as moderates and the Jacobins are leftists. Once Barnave and his boys are neutralized as a political force, you have the Jacobins becoming the Liberals and the Girondists righties, and Roux's Enrages and Herbertists becoming the radicals. After the eradication of Girondists, you have the Jacobins split among the Robespierre faction being of the left, Danton's faction which before were considered Radicals in the beggining, now as perceived as Righties and the Herbertists as Ultra-Lefties. To the Herbertist and to Roux's Enrages, Robespierre and his compatriots were Moderates at best. To the Indulgents, the Robespierrists were aligned with the Communial Radicals (herbertists) for allowing their social platform to continue. To put it succintly, as the Terror increased and Parisan radicalism arose, groups' reactions to the ever increasing changes brought from the revolution also changed. Therefore I agree Girondists should not be considered "Liberals", because at one time or another most groups in the Revolution were considered Liberals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronsin1976 (talk • contribs) 18 Feb 2006.

Cleanup!

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)

I agree that a clean up is required.

This while piece reads like some sort of poor translation.

I've read video instruction manuals that made more sense. (Surfingus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingus (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind

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)

Answer the obvious question: "What did they believe?"

The introduction is among the worst I've read in the Wikipedia. It's a jumble of minutae.

• Just answer the obvious question "What did they believe?" (And why should I care?)

• What is meant by "considerably more advanced than the moderate royalism" It this some sort of standardized Wikipedia civilization score? patsw 13:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconding this (almost a year later, I note).

"The Girondists ... were a political faction .... a group of individuals who held certain opinions and principles in common"

Well just what were these "opinions and principles" that made them "a political faction"??
There should be a sentence or two on this in the lead paragraph.
- (Though pace User:Patsw above, IMHO the question "why should I care?" will have to be resolved by each reader for him/her self.) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

This is currently a broken article, probably due to the indiscriminate inclusion of 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica material. Lines such as

"The crisis came in March 1793. The Girondists, who had a majority in the Convention, controlled the executive council and filled the ministry, believed themselves invincible. Their orators had no serious rivals in the hostile camp; their system was established in the purest reason. But the Montagnards made up by their fanatical, or desperate, energy and boldness for what they lacked in talent or in numbers"

are laughably POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.46.220 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, terrible intro. Colipon+(T) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not POV in the sense it reflects the contributor's opinion, but in the sense it was copied and pasted from a very old-fashioned account dating back to the time when the issues of the FR were still topical. Modern research has covered this period and has much more interesting things to say. --Anne97432 (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, whether it's language is POV or not on some key points (it does seem a bit flowery and accusatory when it talks about them being killed by 'the very forces they helped unchained) ultimately isn't so important as the fact that it completely fails to say what they believe. The intro says it was a group united by 'certain opinions and principles', and then the article completely fails to articulate anywhere what those principles were. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the mistake is in implying that they were unified by "certain opinions and principles." They really weren't. The group formed as a loose collection of orators in the Legislative Assembly who were pushing for war with the Emperor. Later they tended to oppose execution of the king. Otherwise, they were largely united only by their dislike of the Mountain. They were not a particularly coherent faction. john k (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, you've identified some general unifying features of this group: they pushed for war and opposed execution of the King. Also, they disliked some Mountain. If this is true of the group, on the balance anyway, then it should be in the intro. In fact, it should probably be the intro.

Thanks, I've learned more by reading this entry than by staring at the lists of names in the article. — gogobera (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A question did the Girondists have to Draft a Army to fight Austria?

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)

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)

A little much?

Segments like these make for pretty exciting reading, but sound a little one sided and sensationalistic...: "The crisis came in March 1793. The Girondists, who had a majority in the Convention, controlled the executive council and filled the ministry, believed themselves invincible. Their orators had no serious rivals in the hostile camp; their system was established in the purest reason. But the Montagnards made up by their fanatical, or desperate, energy and boldness for what they lacked in talent or in numbers. This was especially fruitful because while the largest groups in the convention were the Jacobins and Brissotins, uncommitted delegates accounted for almost half the total number."

Would anyone object to this being rewritten to sound a little more balanced. I hardly think it's apt to say the Girondist "system was established in the purest reason", nor that the Montagnards were lacking in "talent" by comparison... 174.53.187.179 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As is true for many Wikipedia articles on the French Revolution, The text is taken verbatim from the 1910 or 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course much of the English scholarship on the event followed in the ideological tradition of Burke, who was hostile to the revolution in a number of ways. It should be pointed out with regard to the early 20th century Britannica that:

1) Our standards of scholarship are now quite different, and

2) The social, political and democratic conceptions of Britannica editors 100 years ago are very different from ours today. In the United Kingdom, men without property could not vote, and women were wholly excluded.

So please don't feel obliged to apologize if your intention is merely to establish a neutral point of view! Thanks for your help in making Wikipedia a better place. -Darouet (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be going through in the next week and editing that section specifically. Phoniel (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

They were the original "right wingers"

Should this be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

They were original right-wing. The division into right and left was first used during the National Convention, but not to divide into states gerneralne. The behavior of feudalism doesn't mean the right-wing, because feudalism existed long before the division of the political scene, so feudalism right-wing doesn't make sense. The division of the right and left, liberalism against totalitarianism, the Girondins against Jacobins. Today, parties That support the Free Market are called right wing, because they are like the Girondins mean right-wing of National Convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.181.138.18 (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Neutral point of view?

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)

They are a political group who participated in the aftermath of the French Revolution...they can not be completely blameless for the excesses of that period, especially if, as this article suggests, they formed a majority faction in the Convention. This article makes them appear to be innocent victims of their bloodthirsty and depraved political opponents. That's just too partisan to be accurate. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

the article is now fully sourced with POV removed and it follows the current scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideology

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)

IPA

The name "Brissotins" is mentioned. The IPA spelling does not agree with the French spelling. The IPA makes a vowel nasalised when it is apparently not in spoken French.

Requested move 21 November 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Girondist → Girondins – More common name. For example, look at recent Google Scholar results: 1 690 for Girondins compared to 428 for Girondists. The title should also be plural like many other articles on groups of people, since "the Girondins" is the usual way to refer to the faction collectively. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Girondins is the more traditional and familiar rendering. SteveStrummer (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 21 April 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved —  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Girondins → The Gironde – "The Gironde" is the proper name for the political group, whereas "Girondins" and "Girondists" are like demonyms; they are names adapted from the origin group used to refer to members of that group. The page movie will also keep consistency with the rival political group The Mountain. For example, the article on the Nazi Party is not called "Nazis", it's given a proper title that refers to the party, not the members. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 03:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have no feelings on this other than "The" should be avoided per WP:THE. "Gironde" and "Girondins" appear to be about at par in Google Books, likely because few sources would mention one without the other.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment There is legitimate reason to include "The" in the article title as shown in WP:THE#Names of groups, sports teams and companies: "When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well." Also, regardless of the article title, the proper name of the group ("The Gironde") should be placed first, not the denonym of the members ("Girondins"). – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See below on the WP:LEADSENTENCE. On WP:THE, I don't think this follows the spirit of the guideline's conditions:

"If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article..." - not the case here, as both this and Gironde may be called "the Gironde".[1]

"If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text...": in this case, "the" is not frequently capitalized in running text.[2]

I didn't catch it before, but "Gironde" is likely only as common as "Girondins" because of the other Gironde. That also means the name "Gironde" isn't available. As such, I'm switching to oppose.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Or move to Gironde (political party)? These political events have gone back into the past, and to most people now, "(the) Gironde" likely first means the estuary and the département. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind that, either. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Girondins were loosely affiliated individuals – they were not a political party and they never assumed a collective name. When one was used to refer to them in French, it was more often than not Brissotins. English writers have preferred Girondins, but only florid writers like Carlyle employ the metonymic term The Gironde with any regularity. It's fine to use it sparingly in article text, but to rename the article as such would be inconsistent with historical usage. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @Cuchullain: why have you reverted my edits to the lead paragraph? The collective name of the group should be used first, not the denonym of its members. I have explained by point above, but you have not yet provided a reason to revert the lead paragraph. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 13:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick Mitchell 98: The introductory sentence should generally have the article title - in this case "Girondins" - as its subject. If the article is moved, you can rearrange the lead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per SteveStrummer and to reduce the potential for confusion with the department and estuary. Johnbod (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

though not as yet definitely republican (i.e. against the monarchy),

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)

Colors

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)

I do see that two of the ideologies are given flags by Wikipedia: both forms of liberalism listed are associated with the gold and conservatism is associated with blue. If someone can enlighten me as to why Wikipedia invented this color system which has no relevance to ideology, I'd be appreciative. It's still confusing to the average reader. Do we need to add the second color too then? Skingski (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Rolled back some stuff

@Higgs100, Ira Leviton, Candido, and 185.3.86.208: There was a lot of hard-to-figure breakage inserted by Higgs100, so I reverted to behind that. Some of your recent edits may need to be redone, from that less broken version. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I just copied the previous version and pasted it back. I’ll fix it on my laptop. The section was deceptively edited and misrepresents history for a political motive. Higgs100 (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)