Talk:First French Empire
|
|
Is this original work? -- Zoe
No, it's from 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica -- Taku 00:21 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
OK, thanks. -- Zoe
| Contents |
Whoa!
I found this article quite stirring, quite lyrical — and quite unlike an NPOV encyclopedia entry. If this truly is from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, then its author must have been just a little too infused with the passion of a British Imperial, extolling the virtues and follies of the great Napoleon Bonaparte largely as an indirect way of basking in the glow of his defeat. I respectfully suggest that it need serious, dispassionate rewriting. — Jeff Q 04:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I kept getting lost in the sentences. They're awfully long. Art LaPella 00:37, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- This article glosses over nearly every factual event in order to wax poetic about Napoleon. There seems to be very little actual content. - jhf 23:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the spoliations of 1763?
Isn't the spoliations of 1793? Marc Venot 05:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Another oddball Wikipedia title
...this isn't very idiomatic, though of course it is technically the first. I notice that Napoleonic Empire doesn't evenb redirect to this . I'll fix it. Has everyone discovered that the Restauration can only be found as "Bourbon Dynasty, Restored" with capital R?...
- Yes, a lot of the French history is a mess. Last winter I intensely worked on the events of roughly spring 1789 – September 1792, because they are so crucial. Some time I'd love to continue forward from there. I'm pretty happy with what I did with that one span of time, although I may have leaned a little heavily on Mignet (readable and public domain, so I could grab whole sentences when it suited my purposes). We just need, oh, a hundred other people to put in comparable effort on other periods... -- Jmabel | Talk 01:30, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Bias
This article is based on Britannica 1911. As anybody can see, it's written in a very strong and lyrical style, with a lot of judgments passed here and there. I also spotted a factual inaccuracy about the dates of constitutions, so it may not even be accurate. One must also take into account the fact that Britannica was, at the time, a British encyclopedia, and the British tend to have very strong views against Napoleon. For instance, the article also makes frequent remarks as to Napoleon's "dictatorial" behavior — but, in fact, Napoleon, as far as I know, had less power or than most of the monarchs of Europe at the time, and also less than more recent dictators (Mussolini, Franco, not to mention Hitler...). For instance, Napoleon is credited with a series of codes of laws — but it seems that these codes were established after considerable legislative debate. In a true classical dictatorship, these codes would have been adopted as part of rule by decree, without discussion. One would, for instance, have to make a fair and balanced assessment of his rule. I'm not an expert on the era though, so I'd prefer somebody more knowledgeable than me to write on this. David.Monniaux 06:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
User:Beland has slapped an NPOV notice on this without stating his/her issues at all. I assume it is the 1911 Britannica POV material referred to above.
Beland: as I understand it, the NPOV notice indicates a dispute. I am unaware of anyone actively defending the maintenance of the 1911 Britannica POV; it's just that no one has taken on the task of de-POVing this article. Are you saying that someone is resisting this, or are you perhaps escalating a bit far? Or is something else going on here that I am missing? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- My intent is simply to tag the article as non-neutral for the edification of readers and so that editors with knowledge or interest in the subject will notice that it needs attention. Would there be a better template to indicate this? -- Beland 13:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By the way, if there is vivid but POV writing that we want to preserve, we can use it as long as we attribute it correctly, such as "The 1911 Britannica wrote 'Blah'." Just make sure you check back to a reliable copy of Britannica: content currently in the article may be edited to some degree. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I "defend... the maintenance of the 1911 Britannica POV", and agree w jmabel that it should be clarified in its source. 1911 britanica is a particularly notable, valid, verifiable POV! Sam Spade 16:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)