![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This is a spinoff from the main Napoleon article. I plan to add a lot of new material that is too detailed for that article. Rjensen ( talk) 00:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be Napoleon legacy and remembrance? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I find this passage unduly and gratuitously politicized:
"Critics have had to deal with the fact that many intellectuals and artists have praised Napoleon. Victor Davis Hanson notes that Paul Johnson explains away "the fawning by Shelley, Keats, Hegel, Carlyle, Belloc, Chesterton, Hardy, and Shaw—as the precursor of the Left's modern-day worship of odious tyrants."
Considering that Napoleon is an icon of the French right, and considering the right's own infamous coziness with some legendarily odious tyrants, I'd say such hobbyhorsing is out of place in an encyclopedic article. If someone wants to discuss perceptions of Napoleon across the political spectrum, I think that such a topic would make a very interesting section in this article. But the passage in question seems concerned mainly with taking potshots at "the Left." Until such time, I'm removing the passage. Mpaniello ( talk) 02:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to see biographies described as favorable or hostile. Isn't this a point of view ? It is useful to know the scope of the book, but judging it doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. But then I'm pretty new around here. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 03:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
"For Susan Siegfried (2006), the painting shows not just a man but the complexity and glory of his new empire. The insignia conveys the inter-relations of old French traditions and the new imperial formation, an empire for which Napoleon provided the brain but many others ultimately helped create."
I am concerned about the citation - page 38 of the cited passage says little about any such interrelations, and the following pages make only implications. Page 58 comes close but the linked preview ends there. For claims to such abstract allusions, interpretations, etc. I think it's imperative to provide more explicit citations and quotes. Aslan the man ( talk) 16:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this is an error. It should probably read ‘Jacques-Louis David's painting of the coronation of Josephine…’. However, the intention might also be the painting of Napoleon on his throne by Ingres. Does anyone know which painting was widely shown in the United States? Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 00:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This is a spinoff from the main Napoleon article. I plan to add a lot of new material that is too detailed for that article. Rjensen ( talk) 00:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be Napoleon legacy and remembrance? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I find this passage unduly and gratuitously politicized:
"Critics have had to deal with the fact that many intellectuals and artists have praised Napoleon. Victor Davis Hanson notes that Paul Johnson explains away "the fawning by Shelley, Keats, Hegel, Carlyle, Belloc, Chesterton, Hardy, and Shaw—as the precursor of the Left's modern-day worship of odious tyrants."
Considering that Napoleon is an icon of the French right, and considering the right's own infamous coziness with some legendarily odious tyrants, I'd say such hobbyhorsing is out of place in an encyclopedic article. If someone wants to discuss perceptions of Napoleon across the political spectrum, I think that such a topic would make a very interesting section in this article. But the passage in question seems concerned mainly with taking potshots at "the Left." Until such time, I'm removing the passage. Mpaniello ( talk) 02:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to see biographies described as favorable or hostile. Isn't this a point of view ? It is useful to know the scope of the book, but judging it doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. But then I'm pretty new around here. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 03:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
"For Susan Siegfried (2006), the painting shows not just a man but the complexity and glory of his new empire. The insignia conveys the inter-relations of old French traditions and the new imperial formation, an empire for which Napoleon provided the brain but many others ultimately helped create."
I am concerned about the citation - page 38 of the cited passage says little about any such interrelations, and the following pages make only implications. Page 58 comes close but the linked preview ends there. For claims to such abstract allusions, interpretations, etc. I think it's imperative to provide more explicit citations and quotes. Aslan the man ( talk) 16:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this is an error. It should probably read ‘Jacques-Louis David's painting of the coronation of Josephine…’. However, the intention might also be the painting of Napoleon on his throne by Ingres. Does anyone know which painting was widely shown in the United States? Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 00:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)