User talk:Executeur

Hello, i've noticed you made a lot of pro-Napoleon edits to the Napoleon article. I've worked very hard on the article over the last 6 months and am improving it's quality. You can probably understand why i'd find it annoying for someone to be inadvertently reducing it's quality by not understanding the standards we're working towards. We need to adhere to wp:npov and wp:undue. Thanks, Tom B (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I admire the standards you're working towards, and I entirely sympathise with your comments, but I have at no point reduced the quality of the article. As you'll have noticed, I've argued for as unbiased a content as possible, by including both points of view on different issues. I'd be more than happy to discuss any issues you might like to raise. Thanks, Executeur (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted a reliable source and added only pro-Napoleon material in random formatting. You say you've included both points of view but you've only added pro-Napoleon material. You recently added this source [1] in the incorrect format and other editors won't recognise it as a good source, we'll need to find a better one. this article is about Napoleon not Napoleon and the jews and the article is already getting a bit large. Tom B (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, which reliable source was that? I've always left in both points of view, despite the fact that McLynn is not a good source in this case, as you would know if you'd read his book. Encouraging mixed marriages and forbidding usury are not proof of "personal" anti-semitism, and in any case, you've marred the quality of the piece by stating that it's a fact rather than one person's opinion. The late Ben Weider worked with J David Markham, so if you want a "good" reference for Napoleon as a philosemite, then start with Markham's "Napoleon for Dummies",Chapter 23,on the liberation of the Jews. The article is on Napoleon, certainly, but his role in the emancipation of the Jews, to quote J Anderson Black in "Life and Times of Napoleon", "would put many later European rulers to shame". Furthermore, Weider believed that his policy cristallised the hostility of the religious authorities of his time against him, and encouraged anti-French and anti-Napoleonic religious fanaticism in Spain, Germany and Russia, ultimately leading to his downfall. So if you want a balanced, well-written article, then his religious policy has more place in his biography than the cause of his death, which McLynn considers irrelevant to his life. "the determination of the exact cause of Napoleon's death scarcely matters" (McLynn, Napoleon, Pimlico 1998, p662)Executeur (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)