Talk:Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

This article reads like it was written by a montagnard apologist. It basically blames the girondins for everything. Whatever you believe, it doesn't sound balanced. 180.172.119.138 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journées?[edit]

"This is one event in all history sources."
Of course it is. It is one event composed of a pair of journées. Regardless, please use em dashes properly: no spaces before or after and never to indicate a range of numbers. For that, use en dashes. —Srnec (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not pair of journees. If you are speaking in terms of journees it is at least 3 days. At least move pages properly, without losing anythingNivose (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue about the number of journées. What are you talking about "losing anything"? Nothing was lost. You still don't know what an em dash is! Srnec (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no left nav languages and history was lost. Plus second sentence "The days (French journées) resulted in ..." does mentions "journees" - no need to repeat it again. Contemporary spoke about the event as a "revolution" also. Should we start changing it to "revolution". In all sources it is described (in English) as insurrection. To add description as "journees" it just to give it flavor in French. And in French they do it in different meaning - as to place it in context of one event - French Revolution. Please give me example of proper use em dash in the page name/title - i will appreciate it. Nivose (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No history was lost. Nothing was repeated. The interwiki links were lost (b/c of the stupid new format), but that is easily corrected.
For the record, Richard Cobb, The People's Armies (Yale University, 1987) , p. 18, speaks of "the journées of 31 May and 2 June"; and Florin Aftalion, The French Revolution: An Economic Interpretation (Cambridge University, 1990), p. 119, uses "the insurrections of 31 May and 2 June 1793". Srnec (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please. Read the event. "The Jacobins declared themselves in state of insurrection."... "On 28 May the Cite section called the other sections to a meeting the following day at the Évêché (the Bishop's Palace) in order to organize the insurrection."... "On the 29 the delegates representing thirty-three of the sections formed an insurrectionary committee of nine."... Insurrection was organized but we should call it ... "journees". Please, let be reasonable. Nivose (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the current title so long as the dash is fixed. In fact, I agree that it is probably the best title. My point was that you are drawing distinctions nobody else worries about. Was it one insurrection or two? Should we call it a journée? Or two journées? Translate that "days"? It's all of the above. Srnec (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved to Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793. There was no consensus for any more radical renaming, but there is a consensus that at minimum it should be changed to a spaced en-dash per WP:ENDASH. So that minimal change is the result. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Insurrection of 31 May — 2 June 1793 → Insurrection of 31 May–2 June 1793 – Nivose seems to think an em dash is correct here. I think it is not. The imput of others would be appreciated. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC) --Srnec (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support per MOS:DASH. Em dashes shouldn't be spaced, and it definitely doesn't look right here. --BDD (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DASH appears to prescribe "Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793" (en-dash, not em-dash, spaced). However, I prefer "Insurrection of 31 May to 2 June 1793", and more adventurously scope expanding to "Fall of the Gironde" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the time to propose an expansion of scope. There was a lot of debate about that part of WP:DASH. Plenty of style guides were cited that show my proposed title as preferred. I would not regard that part of the guidelines as binding (WP:IAR) or representative of actual consensus. But it's not a big deal. In any case the em dash, spaced or unspaced, is wrong. Srnec (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. At a minimum, it should be changed to a spaced en-dash (why do you not comment on that). And do you oppose changing the dash to "to"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am saying I prefer no space, but I can live with the space. I do not think "to" is necessary or an improvement. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that whole thing started from Srnec "Journees?" section's discussion and in addition to "dashes" content changes with "journees" and presenting "insurrection" as "events". Only after that it degenerated to spaced Dash nonsense. I changed as it was originally and he rolled it back to no-spaced again. It is just waste of time and ridiculous. This page was empty for two years until I wrote it couple weeks ago and now "expert" in French Revolution breaks it up. Not for the first time as I can see from his workNivose (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • About widening the scope. Some of the existing articles have questionable quality, softly speaking. For example the very Girondins article looks as it was written in the beginning of XIX century with statements like "But the Montagnards made up by their fanatical, or desperate, energy and boldness for what they lacked in talent or in numbers" or "They strengthened the revolutionary Commune by first decreeing its abolition but withdrawing the decree at the first sign of popular opposition" - strengthened by abolition... And instead improving this kind of stuff, we discuss... dashes. --Nivose (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by Not for the first time as I can see from his work. I'd really like to know. I'm a content creator, as my 2939 articles and 82.37% of edits in article space show, so don't bother trying to paint me as some kind of a punctuation nazi.
    The problem isn't me. It's you. You make changes to the form of dashes without apparently realising there is a difference between hyphens, en dashes and em dashes. You make categorical claims about what this event is called that are in conflict with sources, as I showed. If you think that calling this event two journées or two insurrections is false, take it up with the experts I cited. You can improve the article however you want, since I've never interfered with that. But if you really don't want to talk about dahes, then why didn't you leave it alone and let me fix it so you could get on with your editing? Srnec (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. 18:32, 24 February 2014 Srnec (Srnec moved page Days of 31 May and 2 June 1793 to Days of 27 May–2 June 1793)
    27 of May - historical discovery?
    2. 21:21, 30 March 2014 Srnec The insurrections(plural!!!) (French journées, "days") of 31 May and 2 June 1793 marks a significant.....from: The insurrection of 31 May - 2 June 1793 marks a significant...
    "take it up with the experts I cited..." Who did you cite that there were 2 or 3 insurrections?
    3. Even source you brought in as a "proof" - Slavin, Morris (1999). "Robespierre and the Insurrection of 31 May–2 June 1793". "Insurrection" - singular(!!!)...
    And even with this source you have to be not completely honest "02:56, 9 April 2014 Srnec (Sources: standardising sources, adding lost ones)" - It was not lost, it even was not there! Why not to say that you added it?!!
    4. And again about meaning and sources: Thompson, J. M. (1959). The French Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Content. p.XII. Chapter XVIII. Revolution of 31 May – 2 June 354.
  1. This is the first time I even noticed that on 24 February I renamed the page "Days of 27 May–2 June 1793". I have no idea where that date came from and can only assume it's a typo. This is also the first time you've brought it up. So if that's what this has been about, I had no idea.
  2. I cited Aftalion, who says "insurrections of 31 May and 2 June", in the previous talk page section. I'm not using sources as "proof". I used Slavin as proof of the proper and acceptable use of the en dash. As I said in the section above, I have no problem with the singular (or the plural!). If I had to pick, I'd choose the singular.
  3. I added the Slavin paper on 31 March (see diff), but accidentally deleted it two minutes later. When I wrote the edit summary about the "lost" paper, I did not realize that I myself had accidentally removed it. So I was completely honest: the source had been added and lost. Srnec (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, there are number of people who edited my input in both punctuation and content. But none of them changed or "improved" meaning of it. Most of them I thanked. But you combined content changes with punctuation. If it was only punctuation, most likely, I would not rolled your initial change back. But after your insistence on plural interpretation, making honest mistake into ... well give your own assessment to that. By insisting on gross misunderstanding you invalidate any of the changes which are coming from you...
    Aftalion - born in Bucharest ( Romania ) in 1937, is French liberal economist . He is a professor of finance at the ESSEC , and has taught economics and finance at the Universities of New York , Northwestern and Tel Aviv.
    French liberal economist - is not an authority on French Revolution.
    Citing your own words above - There was a lot of debate about that part of WP:DASH. Plenty of style guides were cited that show my proposed title as preferred. - meaning that your guess is as good as mine. --Nivose (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
I don't know; that looks awkward to me. What do sources say? --BDD (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insurrection of 31 May to 2 June is fine. Why to show 1793 if there is no other insurrection 31 May to 2 June in whole history and in 1793; and anyway 1793 is mentioned in preamble. ("The insurrection of 31 May–2 June 1793 marks a significant milestone...")? Nivose (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I am relisting to allow further consideration of the alternative proposal by User:SmokeyJoe. Would either of the two other contributors (Srnec and BDD) like to comment on it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To SmokeyJoe: It's not sloppy sentence construction because it's not a sentence.
To BDD: Sources don't care whether we use a dash or the word "to", since it's the same thing.
Despite what Nivose thought when he started reverting my changes to the article, sources have different ways of referring to this event (events?) and "insurrection" (singular) is only one of them. See my last comments in the section above. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what Nivose thought... Well, looking at National Convention article, contributins to French Revolution and Robespierre, one definitely can draw a conclusion that Nivose has no idea what he is writing about. On the other hand the Battle of Midway, for example, is not singular event, but definitely multiple events and should be called "Journees of 4 and 7 June 1942".--Nivose (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srnec, so you don't disagree that it is sloppy? I may be years behind DASH discussions. I don't use them myself. I consider writing to supposed to be readable, aloud. The one form of long dash that I sometimes see in formal writing is when they are used in a pair, much like commas or parentheses, to denote an explanatory aside within a sentence. This long dash does not correspond to the word "to". Here, in the current title, we have a long dash that is meant to read as "to". So why not transcribe it as "to". An alternative reading is that "31 May" can also be read as "2 June 1793". Sloppy. In the proposed new title, "May-2" looks more connected than "31 May" or "2 June". Was there a 31 of "May-2"? Sloppy. Read the title aloud, and write down what you say.
Yes, BDD, reference to source use is very important, I have always said so, and I don't want to be nicely embarrassed again ouch. On reading around this topic, including the French articles and external sources, I believe a better title (and a title that would promote a better article) is "The fall of the Gironde". Note that this article should be considered a spinout of Girondin#Fall. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title should not have a hyphen (-) or em dash (—), but an en dash (–), which is read as "to", just as "31 May" is read as "the thirty-first of May" or "12:00" can be read as "twelve-o'-clock". The exact proposed title is used in the title of a paper by Morris Slavin, now in the references in the article. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but it is not sufficiently obvious. I see you have found a reference using a data range in its title, but there are many sources, many with more descriptive titles. I don't think that date-ranges make good titles. If the date is important (I think it helps), I suggest The fall of the Gironde, 1793. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The event probably wouldn't meet WP:THE, and unless the Gironde had multiple notable falls, Fall of the Gironde would suffice. --BDD (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Gironde had no similar falls to this spectacular fall. I don't want to get in an argument with WP:THE! Fall of the Gironde seems a good title. (As does Fall of the Girondin). Agree that, on my watchlist, the current title looks very odd, with a spaced really long dash. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fall of the Gironde is much more protracted period one can trace from the king's trial, culminating in this insurrection as a singular event. See in National Convention article The crisis and fall of the_Gironde. The same way it should be done in the main French Revolution article. It is almost the same as a battle - there are plenty of examples when battles were fought during several days, if not weeks, but still have singular name as a battle. Glaringly false it was done in Thermidorian Reaction article, when it combines Fall of Robespierre with what follows after. Thermidorian Reaction is a period. Fall of Robespierre is an event and should be cited separately, eventually resulting in Thermidorian Reaction, which was not obvious during and immediate after the events of 9 — 10 Thermidor (also 2 days). Also everywhere I was using time span like 1789 — 1793 or such I was corrected to use spaces with a long dash.Nivose (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the final days 31 May to 2 June, where just the climax of the fall of the Gironde. I am proposing that the article scope be expanded, from days to months. As it is, the context is excessively limited. Time spans like 1789 — 1793, or 1789-93, or more easily read than spans of days across months. As above, I suggest avoiding any dash, writing "to" where "to" would be read, unless we agree to go further and expand to the "Fall of the Gironde". I don't know who has been telling you things, but I suspect documentation can be found at WP:DASH. There it reads:
"The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space.
23 July 1790 – 1 December 1791, not 23 July 1790–1 December 1791
I guess this means, most conservatively, that the title should be changed to "Insurrection_of_31_May_–_2_June_1793" (en-dash, not em-dash, spaced).
I prefer "Insurrection_of_31_May_to_2_June_1793", and more adventurously scope expanding to "Fall of the Gironde" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention above "Insurrection_of_31_May_to_2_June" in my view looks better than "Insurrection_of_31_May_to_2_June_1793" - there is no such event and no need to show year . example 10 August article.Nivose (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Insurrection_of_31_May_to_2_June" fails the recognizability criterion. There are many insurrections it could be. 1793 indicates the French revolution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No strong objections from my part, but what about July Days? :) And in preamble year - 1917.Nivose (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think July Days is a terrible title. It is imprecise. It is overly short. I think that title should redirect to 31. That topic should be titled with reference to the place, the year, or the name of the encompassing event. I presume that similarly titled source documents are written in the context of the wider subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spaced en-dash per WP:ENDASH (The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space. 23 July 1790 – 1 December 1791, not 23 July 1790–1 December 1791) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

NPOV[edit]

As is said above, this article is really partisan. Many articles concerning the French revolution seem to have been "got at" by an apologist for the anti-democratic tendencies of the revolution. The judicial murder of the Girondins is not even mentioned in the article. I don't have the knowledge and skills to suggest changes, but if I knew how, I would examine earlier versions of these articles and perhaps suggest reverts. I'm afraid it seems to be a trend with Wikipedia nowadays for people with a political axe to grind to slant articles from a correct encyclopedic style. (By User:Backep1 on 2 June 2021)

Even the bot didn't care to add the creator. The contributors on the talk page try to change the lay-out and discuss dashes, use name-dropping in the article, instead of concentrating on the (confusing) content, and historiography failed but therefore you need to understand some French, as English sources are scarce and poor. The prevailing explanation is the one given by Robespierre, a Montagnard/Jacobin.Taksen (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "books.google.com":

  • From Jacques Necker: Considerations on the principal events of the French Revolution Germaine de Staël
  • From Voltaire: The history of Charles xii. king of Sweden [tr. and abridged by A. Henderson from the work by F.M.A. de Voltaire]. 1734. p. 112.
  • From Maximilien Robespierre: Robespierre, Maximilien (12 March 1793). "Oeuvres de Maximilien Robespierre". E. Leroux – via Google Books.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insurrection_of_31_May_–_2_June_1793&oldid=1202966567"