Talk:Jules Michelet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Jules Michelet is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France 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. | |
[edit] Does this have the Encyclopedia Brittanica biases?
Stylistically this entry shows the genial tendentiousness of the British Empire apologists when dealing with those who disagree with goals imperial and/or British. A generalization, I know, but attention must be drawn. I think this whole entry is from the Enc. Brit. 11th Edit., and someone has seen fit to take the most egregious dismissal of Michelet and set that out as the E.B.'s opinion:
Four years later, in 1831, the Introduction à l'histoire universelle showed a very different style, exhibiting the idiosyncrasy and literary power of the writer to greater advantage, but also displaying, in the words of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, "the peculiar visionary qualities which made Michelet the most stimulating, but the most untrustworthy (not in facts, which he never consciously falsifies, but in suggestion) of all historians."
Having little access to Michelet, really only at one root of my old Russian studies, I can't refute the summation, but I can question whether it should continue to stand alone. --jb 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd love to see other citable opinions of his work added to the article. When I encountered this, it was, indeed, simply the 1911 EB article. I've now qualified where it was opinionated as to whose opinion this is: theirs, not ours. It would be great if someone wanted to properly research the topic and write a more up-to-date article. But that will take legwork. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Translation from French
Much of the page has obviously been translated ungracefully from the French. The whole thing needs a stylistic review, is there anyone willing to undertake? Charlie 04:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
