Talk:Second French Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Second 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force

	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).
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no
WP Former Countries - Things to do: Open tasks for WikiProject Former countries      Edit Correct links: Correct any wikilinks that you find anywhere on Wikipedia where the link is to the wrong version of the state. Some examples of bad links: Referring to the former Free City of Lübeck (an independent entity for 711 years), but the link goes to the modern city of Lübeck. Referring to Napoleon's France, where the link instead goes to modern France. Create redirects: If the article for the correct state does not yet exist, create a redirect to the nearest existing article (if possible) and place {{WPFC|class=Needed}} on the redirect's talk page. Whether or not a redirect has been created, list the wanted article below under "Needed". Article improvement After performing any of these tasks, re-rate the entry via the WPFC banner, and remove the article from the relevant list. Expand: Confederation of the Rhine, Straits Settlements, Belgian Congo, Free City of Lübeck, Kingdom of Ireland, North German Confederation, Spanish East Indies Stubs: Adamawa Emirate, Baranya-Baja Republic, Kingdom of Redonda, Piratini Republic, United States of Colombia Needed: Kingdom of Bavaria Nyasaland Assess: Anjouan, Austrian Empire, German East Africa, Orange Free State Articles requiring particular elements After providing the requested element, please remove the relevant tag from the article's WPFC banner and remove the article from this list. Flag: Alta California, Baranya-Baja Republic, Bishopric of Liège, Duchy of Lucca, Lordship of Ireland, Mexican Empire Coat of Arms: Adamawa Emirate, Anjouan, Baranya-Baja Republic, Confederation of the Equator, New Spain, West Florida Map: Baranya-Baja Republic, California Republic, Republic of Manitoba Venezuela (second republic) Infobox: Anjouan, Baranya-Baja Republic, Belgian Congo, Kingdom of Chile, Orange Free State Quality watch: 11 FA-Class former country articles - 8 GA-Class former country articles.

I'm not an expert in english, but the french name is « fr:Second Empire » so I think the name French Second Empire is better than "Second French Empire".

Second Empire (France) seem be good too.

English speakers can confirm or disagree with this proposition ? Yug 10:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker, and "Second French Empire" sounds much more natural to me.Adso de Fimnu 01:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok ~~ Yug 08:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

French Second Empire sounds better to me as a native English speaker. --61.88.82.133 04:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Second Empire (France) sounds a lot better to me. "Second French Empire" just sounds...artificial. I think the phrase "Second Empire" only exists as a direct calque of the French Second empire, so to whack a 'French' in the middle...hmmm. Who wants to update it? Stevage 11:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the title should be "French Second Empire". For instance we have French Fourth Republic, and not "Fourth French Republic". There are also 22,200 hits on Google for "French Second Empire" (-Wikipedia) vs. only 920 hits for "Second French Empire" (-Wikipedia). Hardouin 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's ugly, but you're right, that seems to be the most common translation, so I say we go for it. Strangely, "Fourth French Republic" actually sounds better to me than the reverse, but consistency is obviously more important. There should probably be redirects for all the other possibilities. Stevage 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the phrase "Second Empire" is extremely ugly. The phrase "Second Empire" is the unequivocal and unambiguous common name for this regime, so I'd be bold and go for Second Empire. The article currently sitting at Second Empire is a derived meaning principally used adjectivally and should be moved to one of the following:

• Second Empire architecture
• Second Empire (architecture)
• Second Empire style (to match Queen Anne style)

Then the disambiguation blurb can go on the top of this article and point the architects and the people looking for the Kaiserreich away. A435(m) 14:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the idea of swapping the articles? Seemed like a good idea.--Gheuf 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica bias

I am placing a NPOV tag here because many passages inherited from Britannica retain an anti-French POV. Expressions like "Napoleonic virus" are not exactly encyclopedic, and the whole article has an implicit assumption about the Second Empire and Napoleon III being evil. Too bad, entries from the Britannica about sensitive topics in 1911 can be badly biased. I leave it hoping someone can write it in a more neutral style. --Orzetto 10:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I like "Second Empire of France." I am a native English speaker.

[edit] A few problems with the article

The Wikipedia article "The Second French Empire", although technically flawed, is well-written and informative overall in that it provides a detailed account of the politics and events of that period. In addition to providing in-depth information, however, the author tries to persuade the reader to see the events of the Second Empire as he sees them — and he does this convincingly. The author also makes several implicit assumptions in the article, but he backs them only with a single source and his own knowledge of the period. Additionally, the structure of the article is odd, with subjects and sub-topics presented throughout in no obvious order. Moreover, important information about the origins and the end of the Second Empire also is omitted.

Of the several persuasive messages in the article, the most obvious is that Emperor Napoleon III's reign served to make a mockery of the very ideals it was supposed to represent. The author believes all the symbols of French democracy — parliament, universal suffrage, and the Constitution of 1852 — had no real impact in the Second Republic. The author is also convinced that Napoleon III sought to govern as an absolute monarch under the guise of an at least somewhat democratic and representative ruler. The author also makes the argument that foreign policy blunders of Napoleon III were the predominant reason for the loss of popular support for the Second Empire. This last argument, however, seems rather shallow considering the abundance of religious, social, or economic problems during this period.

The author also makes several assumptions about the Second Empire. The most obvious ones involve reasons for the mass support of the early Empire. The article implies that it was the fear of instability that led the populous to bring Napoleon III to power. It fails to surface and discuss other major reasons that played an equally important role in the creation of the Empire. The article also fails by omission to discuss the religious, social, and economic reasons underlying the early support for Napoleon III. The author states that a "Napoleonic Virus" led to the overwhelming decision in the form of a plebiscite to give Napoleon III supreme power to rule. What this so-called "Napoleonic Virus" was is never really explained, and the contention that it was somehow a factor in Napoleon III’s ascension to power is not backed by evidence.

The author's most compelling argument concerns Napoleon III’s ineptness in foreign affairs. The author provides several examples of severe foreign policy blunders made by the Emperor. One is France's controversial role in Italy's unification; another is the major misstep of trying to establish a colonial empire in Mexico. Most important of all, however, is France's disastrous dealings with Prussia, which would cumulate in the Franco-Prussian War.

In addition to making strong arguments, however, the author also proffers a few relatively weak ones. One that stands out is the author's description of the progression of the Second Empire during its 18-year life span. The author initially describes the Empire as a shell democracy with a powerless legislature and tight censorship of the press. Later in the article though, the author describes an Empire in which public opinion was vitally important and where opposition openly existed. This transformation was a huge one and had significant underlying causes. However, the article provides only a weak and unconvincing reason: the Italian foreign policies of Napoleon III. The Italian expedition did, indeed, create opposition among some French Catholics, but it certainly could not have been the sole reason underlying the shift from an absolute Empire to a liberal Empire. The article does not explore at all what the internal economic, social, and religious factors that might also underlie this transformation.

The author fails to use multiple, diverse sources as the evidence supporting all of his claims and assumptions. He simply provides as his sole source the 1911 edition of "Encyclopedia Britannica". Citing other broad books and other materials would significantly help to verify the academic integrity of the article. Additionally, including focused and specialized academic works and at least some modern sources would also have bolstered the article’s credibility. Since 1911, for example, more in-depth studies of the Second Empire have no doubt been undertaken. It is entirely possible that new facts or ideas about the Second Empire have been unearthed that would not have been available to the editors of the 1911 edition of "Encyclopedia Britannica".

A final flaw in the article is the seeming lack of order in which topics are presented. A chronological order of the events is not used as the organizational system. Instead, events seem to be listed in a haphazard order rather than with any structured purpose or intent. There is no reason provided or apparent, for example, for mentioning the "Rise of Prussia" prior to the "Mobilization of the Working Classes".

Despite the above problems, the article is very informative. The information is presented in a very clear and concise matter. However, the article does leave out important elements of the inception and demise of the Empire. For example, the author does not elaborate how Napoleon III was able to come to power and thus create the Second Empire. It also fails to mention details of Napoleon III's direct election to the office of president by the French people or the one term limit of the presidency that forced Napoleon III to launch a palace coup to stay in power. Additionally, the author fails to mention the disastrous Franco-Prussian War that led to the capture of Napoleon III and the downfall of the Second Empire. The article would be much more complete with even a brief mention of the origins of the Second Empire and its final demise. Notwithstanding these few shortcomings, the Wikipedia article is very informative and presents the information in a clear and precise manner. -Donnie Holzinger

[edit] Coat of arms

The coat of arms shown in the article is presented as being the arms of the Second Empire. However, the accompanying text to the picture clearly shows (in French and English) that this is the coat of arms of the First Empire.

ECONOMICS

The article is very light on the economics of France during the Second Empire. Really, the main success of the Second Empire was the industrialization of France. There is little mention of the transformation of Paris directed by Napoleon III.