Talk:Second Mexican Empire

No neutral
Maximilian I was not a puppet, this page needs a more neutral point of view, other sources are needed because is totally written in the republican point of view.
 * According to historians, he was. If you have sources that contradict that point of view, then we can present a section of alternative views of his government. -- the D únadan 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a lot of investigation on the subject and I as well think that this is at an extreme republican point-of-vew, Maximilian was not a puppet and did very good things during his reign. This needs to be more neutral. As for the current pretendors to the throne of mexico, I think it is well written but for the part of the opinions "an arrogant family..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.134.26.32 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should cite the books of your investigation. -- the D únadan 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * funny, there are no sources cited saying he was a puppet, or any citations at all. Rds865 (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Beginning, Middle, ...
Does anyone have any info on how the Second Mexican Empire ended? Some discussion as to the cause of it's ultimate downfall (and what replaced it) would be warranted. -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing style
The whole reason the article needs not be changed in the way TownDown would like is that his style of writing IS NOT encyclopedic - it is very "romanticised" and not in any way what Wikipedia is all about. While leaving in what is already here (older versions, not by TownDown) will Town Down like to ADD related information that FITS? The part of about Maximilian being a tall, romantic, etc person is not what Wikipedia is aboutC.Kent87 (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess your version of "encyclopedic" is writing some things like this Emperor Maximilian was viewed as a French puppet, who says that??, who thinks that??, this is ADD related information that FITS?. The part of about Maximilian being a tall and more can be removed, but not to blank the page like you did. --TownDownHow's going? 00:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was not I who added it in the first place. However, unlike you, I will not delete it if I do not agree with it. In actuality, I do not agree wholly with that accusation about Maximilian. He was somewhat of a puppet, but did his best to help the Mexican people. However, and sadly, this isn't a place to tell anyone "SIDE" of any story. FACTS only.C.Kent87 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll see what happen later. --TownDownHow's going? 01:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you should help with what happens now. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't created by Napoleon III of France first. it was supported by him. And more things, you'll see what happen. --TownDownHow's going? 01:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was created by him. He was the one who supplied the troops, he gave Maximilian a pension of sorts, and it was his and his Empress consort's idea to look to Mexico in the first place. What would one call that if not creation? As for "more things", please do list them. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created by Mexican conservatives and rich land-owners who offered the mexican crown when they were in Europe after Reform War. I guess you need to study more first. --TownDownHow's going? 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, I have over ten books on the subject and have studied it. The Mexican conservatives, were in no way able to "create" an empire, or anything else for that matter. The Liberals were always in the way. It wasn't UNTIL Napoleon III INITIATED it that they were called upon and the troops were sent (over simplification). Thus, CREATING the empire and giving it to an Archduke of the House of Habsburg - Maximilian. There's little you can refute about that. Back at you. C.Kent87 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough for me, you won't create a new history or your 10 wrong books without validity. That's it. --TownDownHow's going? 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Mexican Empire photos
I'm Brazilian and unfortunately, there are no history books solely about the Second Mexican Empire. Thus, I was not able to scan photos by myself. However, after some time, I was able to find some good and great quality photos in the internet. They are uploaded and grouped in a category that I created at the Commons. I hope that will help. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird, unbalanced article
Very weird article. The railway section occupies almost half of the core of this short article. Then you have a long list of the departments, followed by another long list of the same departments with their population. That's a lot considering that this empire, and its territorial division, were ephemeral. At the very least, couldn't those two lists be fused?--Lubiesque (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias in Lead Paragraph/Better Map
There's two recent edits which I don't understand.

One was to remove the descriptor 'fraudulent' from the link leading to the 1863 Mexican emperor referendum.

The other one was to remove the map showing how the nation was divided into different loyalties during the Second French Intervention.

The referendum was undoubtedly fraudlent, and leaving that descriptor out gives a false impression that a legitimate plebiscite was carried out. Also, the Empire never controlled the entire country and when the Empire was established it controlled very little of it. I think this is important to show. The map didn't leave out that the Imperial Government claimed and sought to govern the whole country, that's what the dark green was for, but to show a solid green map is misleading and fails to show important information. Loera 714 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I see the point in the edit comment that the old map does not show the full extent of the Empire. If there was a map that showed the full extent of the Empire it would look like this or this. That's still a substantial amount of territory not under the control of the Empire to the point where a solid green map is misleading.
 * The map should be changed back. If someone wants to make a map showing the full extent that would be fine too, but the map should be accurate to some point in history which the current one is not. Loera 714 (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not particularly active. Pinging @Amuseclio, the last user to ever substantially contribute to the article's introduction, back in June, for a second opinion. Thanks. Loera 714 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)