Talk:First French Empire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
First French Empire is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ). Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
|
WP Former Countries - Things to do:
|
||
Is this original work? -- Zoe
No, it's from 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica -- Taku 00:21 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
OK, thanks. -- Zoe
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] the spoliations of 1763?
Isn't the spoliations of 1793? Marc Venot 05:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
I did some minor clipping of some of the "Ego" description and stuff that seemed a little POV. I may be wrong, revert it if you think so. But I don't see why this article can't be worked into something good. I just think there's waaay too much dwelling on Napoleon's personality and desires. Move some of that to the biography article. I think it just needs to NOT be centered on Napoleon so much but more on the events of the period. --DanielCD 21:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- It'd probably be better to rewrite this from scratch, and thus get this article out permanently from under the EB shadow. Alas, this isn't really my area. Ambi 03:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Old Cleanup Archive
- Taken from the old Cleanup entry…Archived by HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 01:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- First French Empire is heavily laden with 1911 Britannica POV, and maybe some factual errors as well. There's been some discussion on the talk page. We all seem to agree it's a problem, but no one involved has considered themselves expert enough to really take it on. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Silly notices
I cut these notices from the top of the article. Yes, the article is in 1911EB style. Yes, it needs to be improved. But sticking silly notices won't make it magically fix itself: someone actually has to do the work. Until then, let's leave the article looking a bit nicer. Gdr 10:39:04, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
{{cleanup-date|April 2005}}{{cleanup-tone}}{{NPOV}}
- "The tone of this article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article." -- for an article copy-pasted from the Britannica, this is a harsh criticism ! :D Rama 07:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I no wikied the tags because this talk page was showing up in the NPOV disputes category, and probably the other categories as well. I suggest at least putting back the first cleanup tag so people are aware that it needs work. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
And now it has {{POV}} + {{inappropriate tone}}. The latter seems particularly bizarre, for the reasons given above. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Legend
The {{legend}} in the map doesn't seem to work, at least not on my Firefox browser. The blocks render in black, not in the appropriate colors. Given that picture captions also function as "alt" text, which exists mainly for the blind and for search engines, the whole approach seems to me to be off kilter. I would be inclined to revert to the earlier version, which used text to refer to "dark blue" and "light blue". - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's been 5 days, no one has responded, I am going back to the old way of doing this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Napoleonic Code revert
Correct me if I'm mistaken but I do believe that the Napoleonic Code "made everyone equal before the law" except Napoleon himself. --70.30.56.94 19:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is disputed?
User:UberCryxic added the "disputed" tag to this without explaining what is disputed. I'll drop a note on his talk page asking for clarification. - Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Among some of the many ridiculous statements in this article:
Napoleon made a desperate effort in 1812 against a country as invincible as Russia - ?????
Napoleon had hardly succeeded in putting down the revolt in Germany when the tsar of Russia himself headed a European insurrection against the ruinous tyranny of the continental blockade - weird......
Napoleon himself was no longer the 'General Bonaparte' of his campaign in Italy. He was already showing signs of physical decay; the Roman medallion profile had coarsened, the obese body was often lymphatic. Mental degeneration, too, betrayed itself in an unwonted irresolution. - I almost don't want to continue. The entire article is horrible and outdated. I was going to completely rewrite it (that's what was behind my major additions to the lead), but unfortunately I haven't continued my work here too thoroughly. Maybe some other time...UberCryxic 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Since we have a section here, let's make sure we discuss any wishes about wanting to remove the disputed tag. I am disputing right now because of the statements listed above and many others that I don't feel like listing. Unless these get corrected, and for that matter unless this entire gets a reconstruction, that disputed tag should be there.UberCryxic 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- This whole article shows a quite appalling lack of objectivity. White Guard 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that the article is written from a very British perspective, and a rather outdated, at that. Hence the lyrical style and shameless instrumentalisation of the narration. This article is basically an ode to the British Empire. Which is fine for the Britannica of 1908, but is not really appropriate by contemporary standards (I mean outside of some USAyan right-wingers), not to speak of to the standards to which Wikipedia abides. Rama 08:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
Should there be an infobox to the side, detailing the specifics of the country? Other nations of this period have sidebar infoboxes in their articles, such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -Alex The Gonz 10:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Mmmm....this was just a different administration ruling over the nation of France and wishing to call itself an 'empire.' I doubt that represents a separate country.UberCryxic 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- For one, it wasn't just wishing to call itself an empire. It had an Emperor as head-of-state, and was by definition an Empire. Second of all, Wiki has done the same thing with other regions, making seperate articles for different administrations, such as Yugoslavia and Germany. Third, the historical significance of the first French Empire cannot be understated, and seeing as its system of government was very different from either the Republic or Bourbon Monarchy, this article deserves an infobox. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make one. So, if someone knows how to, please do as soon as possible. -The Gonz 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ehh...perhaps. I'm not really that keen on it, but you do have a point in the larger Wikipedia context (the Third Reich, for one, as you mentioned).UberCryxic 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Republic of Connaught
In 1798 France brief held a portion of the west of Ireland known as Connaught. However, there is no mention of this in the article. Vintagekits 13:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That was 1798; First Empire existed from 1804 to 1815 (with an interruption in 1814 to 1815).UberCryxic 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- You probably need to alter this article then - Republic of Connaught as its state it was a client state of the First French Empire Vintagekits 11:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Better map?
This shows alliances also. - Leonard G. 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] From Consulate to Empire
This section doesn't make any sense. It seems like every other sentence is missing. I can't follow its development at all.85.116.207.246 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class France articles | Unknown-importance France articles | B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class French military history articles | French military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles | Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested) | Unassessed former country articles
