Talk:Napoleon/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Recent edits

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr and EnlightenmentNow1792: We're not about to start an edit war, are we? Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm utterly confused. Yes, I am a n00b, but I was under the impression I was restoring long-standing material. And Bryn was deleting without bothering to respond to my attempts to engage him in discussion. His justification was "puffery". To my mind, one of the least controversial or exaggerated things you could say about Napoleon would be: "he was one of history's greatest military leaders". Of course, I am aware of the Connelly's "Blundering to Glory" polemic, but it's decidedly fringe, was ignored by other eminent scholars, and is brought up at all in academic papers in order to be shot down. I would've thought the addition that his famous battles and tactics are taught in military colleges would also be a fairly incontrovertible fact, although it is a question of style as to where or if it should fit in the lede.
If I look over to Frederick the Great's lede, I see "He then became an influential military theorist whose analysis emerged from his extensive personal battlefield experience and covered issues of strategy, tactics, mobility and logistics.... Nearly all 19th-century German historians made Frederick into a romantic model of a glorified warrior, praising his leadership, administrative efficiency, devotion to duty and success in building Prussia into a great power in Europe. Frederick remained an admired historical figure through Germany's defeat in World War I...Regardless, historians in the 21st century tend to view Frederick as an outstanding military leader and capable monarch, whose commitment to enlightenment culture and administrative reform built the foundation that allowed the Kingdom of Prussia to contest the Austrian Habsburgs for leadership among the German states."
Puffery? Perhaps, but entirely suitable for such a singular character I would've thought? Even though recent scholarship may be more inclined to shift him into the "ever-so-slightly overrated" category, I don't think there's much you complain about with that lede.
Now, Napoleon's? What say you Bryn Mawr? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@EnlightenmentNow1792: - It's good that you are putting forward your arguments here. I'd rather see issues thrashed out at talk than find it necessary to block editors for warring. Lets see what Fountains of Bryn Mawr has to say. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
What say you Bryn Mawr? EnlightenmentNow1792, talk pages are not argument clinics, hence the reason I deleted you off my talk page and told you to keep article discussions here. Before you think another editor is singling you out (or before you single out another editor) have a look at the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, somebody already thought this out. For example this edit matches the negative example given at MOS:PUFFERY. Superlatives attributed to one author or another which may not be universal should be covered with attribution to the opinion in the body of the article and not placed in the lead in Wikipedia's voice (see WP:YESPOV). Leads should also only summarize material from the body of the article, re: there is nothing in the article about "campaigns are studied". There is description of other nations historically learning "Napoleonic warfare", but its short and may or may not belong in the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
So, let's leave aside the teaching in military schools bit for a moment, and let me get this straight... you are arguing, that with or without any citation/s, referring to Napoleon - this is Napoleon Bonaparte we're talking about here - as "one of the greatest commanders in history" in the lede, is MOS:PUFFERY? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Some well credentialed historians regard Napoleon as often having under-performed and/or stress his role in starting agressive wars that ended in ultimate disaster for France. The 'Criticism' section discusses this, so making such a claim in the lead does not reflect the body of the article and is not in line with WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk)
I have read ever major work by every "well credentialed" historian writing in English starting at least as early as Rodger's 1964 classic "The War of the Second Coalition, 1798 to 1801: A Strategic Commentary", and all 1100 pages of Chandler's 1974 epic "The Campaigns of Napoleon". And of course the biographies praised in more recent times such as McLynn's and Roberts'. And countless others besides. But never have any of those historians or biographers - particularly the ones focused on his military campaigns - ever dared to suggest that he was not one of the most capable military commanders in world history.
Nor have I seen anything cited in this article to that effect (I may be missing something, it's been a long day). All of the aforementioned writers have leveled the very obviously fitting criticism of Napoleon the megalomaniac of limitless ambition, who yes cost the lives of at least some hundreds of thousands over his last decade. But they are criticisms of his psychology, his mental/emotional, and in many cases moral state - again, especially in his older years. I mean, that's such conventional wisdom its practically a cliche.
I would ask Nick-D that you show me a well-credentialed source - well, it would have to be more than one though wouldn't it - that explicitly casts doubt on his military standing amongst's history's most celebrated commanders. I think you'll find it challenging. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
See the section of the article I noted for starters as it notes multiple historians holding this opinion. Correlli Barnett's book noted there, for instance, argues that Napoleon is over-rated as a military commander. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
"British military historian Correlli Barnett calls him "a social misfit" who exploited France for his personal megalomaniac goals. He says Napoleon's reputation is exaggerated." And no page number is given. So I guess I'll have to do it for you, as I expected. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, this is my longlist for looking for a noteworthy number of credentialed historians whose words could be construed as being opposed to the characterization of Napoleon as one of history's greatest military commanders. (I can't believe I am being obliged to do this)

Britten Austin, Paul, 1812-Napoleon's Invasion of Russia (London: 2000) Broers, Michael, Napoleonic Imperialism and the Savoyard Monarchy, 1773-1821 (Lewiston, NY: 1997) Burton, R. G., Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, 1812 (London: 1914) Butterfield, H., The Peace Tactics of Napoleon (Cambridge: 1929) Casaglia, Gherardo, Le Partage du monde-Napoleon et Alexandre a Ti/sit, 25 juin 1807 (Paris: 1998) Casse, A. du, Memoires du Roi Joseph (2 vols; Paris: 1854-5) Castellane-Novejan, Marshal B. L.A. de, Journal (5 vols; Paris: 1895-7) Castle, Ian, Aspern and Wagram, 1809-Mighty Clash of Empires (London: 1994) ---, Austerlitz, 1815-The Fate of Empires (Oxford: 2002) ---, Eggmuhl, 1809-Storm over Bavaria (London: 1998) Caulaincourt, General A. A. L. de, Memoirs (3 vols; London: 1950) Chair, S. de, Napoleon's Memoirs, Vol. I (London: 1947) Chandler, David G., The Art of Waif are on Land (Harmondsworth: 2000) Atlas of Military Strategy-The Art, Theory and Practice of War, 1618-1878 (London: 1998) ---, Austerlitz, 1805-Battle of the Three Emperors (London: 1990) ---, The Campaigns of Napoleon (3 vols; London: 2002) ---, Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars (London: 1999) ---, The Illustrated Napoleon (New York: 1990) ---, Jena, 1806--Napoleon Destroys Prussia (London: 1993) ---, Napoleon (London: 2000) ---, On the Napoleonic Wars (London: 1994) ---, Waterloo--The Hundred Days (Harmondsworth: 2002) Christophe, Robert, Le Marechal Marmont, due de Raguse (Paris: 1968) Clausewitz, K. von, La Campagne de 1796 en Italie (Paris: 1899) Clery, R. de, Lasalle (Paris: 1899) Colin, Commandant J., Etudes sur la campagne de 1796--1797 (Paris: 1898) --, L'Education militaire de Napoleon (Paris: 1900) --, Les Grandes Batailles de l'histoire (Paris: 1915) --, The Transformations of War (London: 1912) Collins, Irene, Napoleon (London: 1986) Comeau, Baron S. J. de, Souvenirs des guerres d'Allemagne (Paris: 1900) Connelly, Owen, Blundering to Glory-Napoleon's Military Campaigns (Wilmington, Del.: 1987) Cornwall, J. H. Marshall, Napoleon as Military Commander (London and Princeton: 1967) Creveld, M. van, Command in War (London and Cambridge, Mass.: 1985) Dictionnaire Napoleon, ed. by Jean Tulard (Paris: 1987) Duffy, C. J., Austerlitz, 1805 (London: 1977) --, Borodino (London: 1972) Dupont, M., Napoleon et la trahison des marechaux, 1814 (Paris: 1970) --, Napoleon et ses grognards (Paris: 1945) Earle, E. M., The Makers of Modern Strategy (Princeton: 1943) Esdaile, Charles J., The Peninsular War-A New History (London: 2002) --, The Wars of Napoleon (Harlow: 1995)' Europe against Napoleon, ed. by Antony Brett-James (London: 1970) Fain, Baron A. J. F., Manuscrit de 1822 (2 vols; Paris: 1908) ---, Memoires (Paris: 1884) ---, Napoleon-How He Did It: The Memoirs of Baron Fain, First Secretary of the Emperor's Cabine (San Francisco: 1998) Fairon, E., and H. Heusse, Lettres des grognards (Paris: 1936) Falls, Captain C., The Art of War from the Age of Napoleon to the Present Day (London: 1961)1 Gates, David, The Napoleonic Wars, 1803-1815 (London: 1997) Gey!, P., Napoleon (London: 1946) Griffith, Paddy, The A rt of War of Revolutionary France, 1789-1802 (London and Mechanicsburg, Pa.: 1998) Hall, Christopher, British Strategy in the Napoleonic War, 1803-1815 (Manchester: 1992)2 Hayman, Peter, Soult-Napoleon's Maligned Marshal (London: 1990) Haythomthwaite, Philip J., Die Hard! Dramatic Actions of the Napoleonic Wars (London: 1996) Herold, J.C., The Age of Napoleon (New York: 1963) --, Bonaparte in Egypt (London: 1963) --, The Mind of Napoleon (New York: 1955) Histoire militaire de la France, ed. by Andre Corvisier (5 vols; Paris: 1992 et seq.) Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France, 1799-1815, ed. by Owen Connelly et al. (London: 1985) Hofschroer, Peter, 1815-The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory (London: 1999) Hollins, David, Marengo, 1800 (Oxford: 2000) Holtman, R. B., The Napoleonic Revolution (Philadelphia: 1967) Home, Alistair. Napoleon, Master of Europe, 1805-1807 (London: 1979) Horricks, Raymond, Marshal Ney-The Romance and the Real (Tunbridge Wells: 1982) Howard, J.E., Leners and Documents of Napoleon, Vol. I: 1769-1802 (London: 1961) Howard, Michael, Clausewitz (Oxford: 1983) Hudson, W. H., The Man Napoleon (London: 1915) Jourdan, Marshal J. R., Memoires militaires (Paris: 1899) Kemble, James, Napoleon Immortal (London: 1959) Lefebvre, G., Napoleon (2 vols; Paris: 1953)' Markham, David J., Napoleon's Road to Glory-Triumphs, Defeats and Immortality (London: 2003) Massena, Marshal A., Memoires (7 vols; Paris: 1848-50) Nafziger, George, Imperial Bayonets-Tactics of the Napoleonic Battery, Battalion and Brigade as Found in Contemporary Regulations (London: 1996) Napoleonic Military History-A Bibliography, ed. by Donald D. Horward (London and New York 1986) The Oxford Companion to Military History, ed. by Richard Holmes Nosworthy, Brent, Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies (London: 1995) Pigeard, Alain, Les Etoiles de Napoleon (Paris: 1998) Reiche, General L. von, Memoiren (Leipzig: 1857) Reichel, Daniel, Davout et /'art de la guerre (Paris: 1975) Reinhard, M., Avec Bonaparte en Italie (Paris: 1946) St Cyr, Marshal G., Memoires (4 vols; Paris: 1829) Vachee, Colonel A., Napoleon at Work (London: 1914) Weider, Ben, and Emile Gueguen, Napoleon, the Man who changed Europe (Staplehurst: 1997) Schorn, Alan, Napoleon Bonaparte (New York: 1997) Remusat, Mme C. de, Memoires (Paris: 1893) --, Memoirs, 1802-1808 (London: 1895) Richards, D. S., The Peninsular Years (Barnsley: 2002)Small text

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying the issue

The issue is the removal of the second last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, citing MOS:PUFFERY as the reason. For background, the subject sentence has existed for at least abot 5 years and 1,500 edits.

  • He won most of these wars and the vast majority of his battles, building a large empire that ruled over continental Europe before its final collapse in 1815. One of the greatest commanders in history, his wars and campaigns are studied at military schools worldwide. Napoleon's political and cultural legacy has endured as one of the most celebratedwell known and controversial leaders in world history.[1][2]

Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Him being "one of the greatest commanders in history" seems like an appropriate summary of Napoleon's reputation (whether said reputation is entirely correct or a wee bit exaggerated does not change that much). Changing "celebrated" to "well-known" (but keeping "controversial") seems like an unhelpful euphemism, using a very bland "well known" instead of the existing term. Additionally, as it stands, removing the "greatest commanders" sentence would be in blatant contradiction not only to the sentence which it precedes ("He won most of these wars and..."); but also with the body of the article (which is what the lead is supposed to summarise), which unambiguously describes that "His opponents learned from Napoleon's innovations." and that he had a profound effect on the conduct of warfare - surely, not something done by something who doesn't have a clue... Him being "overrated" according to some historians does not mean that the whole of the relevant sentence needs to go (i.e. you can be overrated as "the greatest X" will still actually being a "great X"). If this is a significant view which can be properly summarised here (with the usual considerations of WP:SUMMARY and appropriate depth of detail), then surely it would be more helpful to the readers to devote a paragraph or two to it in the body of the article, and add a corresponding sentence (or maybe, even just a few words to clarify the existing sentence in light of this) in the lead.
Per this, and per WP:CONSENSUS, I have re-instated the previously standing status-quo, as changes to long-standing content which are objected to require consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
On top of that, no rule is absolute (WP:5P5), and I don't think that going into needless euphemisms or having to add verbose detail to the text is an actual improvement. Some people are indeed considered the "greatest" or "most influential" in their disciplines (modern historiographical tendency for moderation in such claims notwithstanding). Should we also go to Johann Sebastian Bach and remove "Since the 19th-century Bach Revival, he has been generally regarded as one of the greatest composers in the history of Western music."? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon was both a political and a military leader. Acknowledging Nick-Ds comments, much of the criticisms leveled against Napoleon (in the article) appear in the political context rather than the military. I think it is a fair statement that he has been considered one of the great and inspired military commanders in history, notwithstanding that he has also been heavily criticised for his failures. The question here, is what and then how the article should comment on this, while recognising MOS:PUFFERY. There are several issues with the subject sentence. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The lead should summarise the article. The article should avoid making such a claim in a Wiki voice. It would be much better if such a claim were actually supported (at least more clearly) by the body of the article Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you there are literally dozens of "exceptional sources", books (usually a series of books) written by the acknowledged authorities (one to several) on their specific aspect of Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars. The subject has been researched to pieces, from the very decades following the wars. I could paste dozens of quotes right now just from the most famous French and English historians. But, as you say, such quotes should be in the body. Stating that he is widely regarded as one of history's most illustrious military commanders shouldn't need a source for the lede. Whether it's N. or Frederick the Great or Augustus Caeser or Maurice De Sax, whoever. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, look, there's no citation in the lede on Prince (the musician) when it says he "pioneered the the Minneapolis sound"! Hmm.. "pioneered", too puffery? "Prolific output" is also unsource. Somebody better get on that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:CONTENTAGE are not really valid reasons to keep something. There is a consensus guideline, MOS:PUFFERY, that says this type of language introduces bias. Differing views about Napoleon and his record can be presented with attribution in the body of the article, we should simply follow the guideline. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
No we shouldn't blindly "simply follow the guidelines". We're not goddamn robots. The MOS is very much lower in the pecking order than giving an accurate reflection of the widely held view on the subject of this article ("If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it"). This is very much why we also say the same thing of Bach and music, or of Caesar or Frederick (you have not shown how this is a false equivalence, beyond making vague waves at alphabet soup): WP:NPOV does not forbid "bias", it forbids bias which is contrary to the sources; and you haven't presented/quoted [note: difference btwn. "quote" and "cherry-pick"] any source which directly contradicts the idea you dispute (a WP:CITEBOMB, of apparently mostly offline sources, without even page numbers, is not proof of anything). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure who is being talked to here but I see no dispute about citations, this is an MOS discussion and we have clear MOS here about how we write about something, not whether it should be included. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
MOS is rather low in the pecking order. This is an issue of NPOV (as you seem to yourself hint at with "differing views about Napoleon and his record"). If you want to enforce the MOS as though it were the Verbum Dei, you're free to try, but I've already told you that we don't "simply follow the guidelines" - each article is a case-by-case matter, and there are legitimate exceptions where describing someone as "[amongst] the greatest X" (such as a well known, literally-changed-the-world-as-we-know-it historical figure, like, I wouldn't know, Napoleon?) is the most accurate statement to make, and this can't be dismissed with a mere appeal to authority-like handwave at some MOS alphabet-soup. Go read WP:5P5. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This is also hinted at in the page you're citing, which says, quite explicitly, The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. [Nor does it mean that every occurrence of a word which is listed on that page is automatically verboten]. I see no justification for applying it as rigidly as you suggest here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of categories

Creation new section for new discussion that has been appended to #Clarifying the issue - Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Only one category Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences is concerned here. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why Napoleon, Bach, Caesar, Frederick the Great are being discussed together: it seems WP:UNDUE and WP:OFFTOPIC (see #Clarifying the issue above).

I also don't see why the Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences was removed. There are over 1,200 entries; this is a completely minor and uncontroversial issue. There is properly sourced content on the French Academy of Sciences and its history. Previously called the Royal Academy of Sciences, election for non-scientists was permitted when the name changed. Napoleon became a member in 1798 and 3 years later became President as a result of the Napoleonic Campaign in Egypt, which involved well-known scientists.[1] Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I have no idea why you did not start this in a new section (as it should be, being indeed entirely off-topic to the previous one), nor why you're following my edits around, nor why you are saying that "Napoleon is not particularly well known as an academic" then complaining when I remove the corresponding category. Whether it is well sourced or not is not the issue. There are plenty of "well-sourced facts" which may not be category-worthy in any given article. Is this an essential characteristic of Napoleon? Something that most people would think of when thinking of Napoleon? Something that you would put in a three-line "Who's who?"-style entry? I reckon the answer to all of these is a clear and unambiguous "no". Categories are supposed to be defining (the number of times I've quoted it, you must know very well what I'm referring to, so I'll abstain from giving you the WP shortcut link). Napoleon is not defined by being a "Member of the French Academy of Sciences", even if that happens to be a verifiable fact, the same way Handel is not defined by being a student at Halle University, even though that is also a verifiable fact. And, please, for the love of everything on God's green Earth, no deflections about Graupner or Handel or whatever else you can come up with this time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me. Collecting together abstruse/random topics such as Caesar, Frederick the Great, Bach, Handel, Graupner, etc, is WP:UNDUE and WP:OFFTOPIC. It seems like a bewildering stream of consciousness, having almost nothing to do with Napoleon (see #Clarifying the issue above).
As mentioned above, facts about Napoleon's campaign in Egypt are supported by WP:RS; some of the scientific advances were in Egyptology and the discovery of the Rosetta Stone by Bouchard.[1] That kind of content is fairly straightforward. On the other hand the transport of antiquities from Egypt back to France is still contentious (cf recent requests for repatriation of artifacts). The only relevance at the moment is Napoleon's Presidency amongst Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences. The edit here[1] has an edit summary naming me as a user despite never having made edits to that article or its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The category of Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences is relevant since his membership is directly discussed in the article. However, shouldn't it be "Category:Officers of the French Academy of Sciences"? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cinderella151. Since he was President, the category Category:Officers of the French Academy of Sciences is more important and should replace Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences. Do you agree with that? Regards, Mathsci (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Mathsci: You wanted to have a discussion per BRD, so I pinged to make sure you noticed my reply. I asked for no more deflections. Since you seem unable to do that, and do not seem to otherwise acknowledge my arguments (here or at other pages), I'll give you three simple, yes/no questions:
  1. Is the fact that Napoleon was a member of the French Academy of Sciences an essential characteristic of Napoleon (somebody without which a concise description of him would be incomplete, i.e. to take an example you know well, omitting that Bach was an organist would be a fundamental error...)?
  2. Is said membership something that most people would first think of when thinking of Napoleon?
  3. Is said membership something that you would put in a three-line "Who's who?"-style entry?
To take the format of jury instructions, if the answer to all of these questions is "no", you must find that this is not a defining category. If on the other hand you think that at least one of these questions would be answered by a yes, then state so, state which one(s), and feel free to add your reasoning about this, so we can have a discussion about the validity of including Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences in this article (i.e. not a discussion about the Egyptological consequences of his campaign there, which had other motivations too). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: It might be factually correct, but the whole sum of "discussed in the article" is a single sentence mention. WP:DEFCAT states that A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having, giving the example of Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement. Could you similarly (and accurately, without putting undue prominence on it) describe Napoleon as "Napoleon, a French statesman and military commander who was a member of the French Academy of Sciences"?
For comparison, Britannica has "Napoleon I, [...], French general, first consul (1799–1804), and emperor of the French (1804–1814/15), one of the most celebrated personages in the history of the West."; and the article as it stands has "[...] was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the French Revolution and led several successful campaigns during the Revolutionary Wars." That is why, although being factually correct, this is not an appropriate category for this article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A lot of WALLS OF TEXT for such a simple matter as Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign, its scientific success and his subsequent Presidency of the French Academy of Sciences. Part of the scientific aspect was propaganda.[1] Otherwise please keep the reflist at the end of the section. Mathsci (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    We are not discussing Napoleon's Egypt campaign, which is already discussed in the article anyway. We are discussing one, specific category, which is clearly non-defining, but which you don't seem to want to address the arguments about, and are instead talking about something else (indeed, that something else being the Egypt campaign). There would be far less walls of text if you bothered to reply (or at least, acknowledge) to my arguments and not act as though they didn't even exist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    Cinderella151 has already suggested changing the category to Category:Officers of the French Academy of Sciences and I agree (for the single-sentence reason given). The next step is to seek consensus between the many editors active on this article. That could take a while. Mathsci (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree, obviously. If you think I'm wrong, it would be best to answer to the concerns I have, instead of rudely dismissing my response as "TLDR" (the segment addressed to you only has 233 words, which at a typical native adult speaker reading rate, is about one minute, hardly the thing to complain about "walls of text". There are even plenty of paragraph breaks to make it easier for you, just in case). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    Cinderella151 suggested replacing the cat by Category:Officers of the French Academy of Sciences and I agree [one-line reason]. Now seek consensus from other editors involved in this article. Mathsci (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    Two persons in a three person discussion; where one of them stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge the reasons given to them (a problem which is not unique to this page), and the other has not yet answered, is not "consensus". You persisting in refusing to participate in a discussion (as opposed to presenting your monologue on Napoleon's Egypt campaign) does not help form a new consensus (since consensus is not a !vote and your "one-line reason" is not convincing in light of the usual and logical way things should be done). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    Please concentrate on content not editors. Mathsci (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    Well I tried to tell this to you nicely at your talk page but you keep dismissing it, so there you have it. End of parenthesis. Now, please, go read my short, 233-word comment addressed to you instead of stubbornly refusing to do so, and flamboyantly flipping me off by pointing at "TLDR". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    See WP:TPG. Mathsci (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break

  • OK, if you want more opinions, I think the category in question is fine. WP:CATDEF is applied extremely loosely in practice. Frankly, how many people are "defined" by the year of their birth or death? Yet nearly every biographical article on Wikipedia contains those two categories (well, except for living people in the latter case, of course). Of the 36 categories in which this article is placed, why single out just this one? I can find at least seven or eight others that wouldn't pass a strict interpretation of WP:CATDEF. Talk about a tempest in a teapot.... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    @R'n'B: There's already a few others which were removed, apparently without controversy. So this one isn't being singled out. Why are you giving the exact same strawman as BD4212? Birth/date years are indeed "commonly and consistently" given by sources (the full first sentence from Britannica, quoted earlier [emphasis mine], goes: Napoleon I, French in full Napoléon Bonaparte, original Italian Napoleone Buonaparte, byname the Corsican or the Little Corporal, French byname Le Corse or Le Petit Caporal, (born August 15, 1769, Ajaccio, Corsica—died May 5, 1821, St. Helena Island), French general, first consul (1799–1804), and emperor of the French (1804–1814/15), one of the most celebrated personages in the history of the West., unlike random details like the one being objected to here.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    Category:People from Corsica and Category:People from Ajaccio also has the Bonaparte family. They're still there. These knee-jerk deletions have not be made in a rational way. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    You can't expect me to go patrol each category for every problematic inclusion it it. Go and WP:FIXIT instead of accusing me of "knee-jerk deletions". Two wrongs (two articles having the same wrong categories) do not make a right. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    No rush. (I just remembered I had edited Victor d'Hupay in 2007, a figure from that period.) Mathsci (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:CATDEF and WP:CATSPECIFIC actually contradict each other, where the latter states: Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. I think the point being made by R'n'B is being missed, given what is stated at WP:CATDEF. Yes, bios give a date of birth and death but a person is not defined by these but rather, by what they did in between. Napoleon is notable for many things but some of these are overshadowed in any brief summary where, in another (lesser) person such achievements would be sufficiently defining and notable without question. One should also consider the relationships created by categories. In this case, it is not simply that there are persons within a category but these persons are related to a primary article that defines the category. Consequently, the population of a category can (and does here) have more than one relationship dimension to consider. The importance of including Napoleon in the category probably rests more with the French Acadamy rather than with himself. This is the reality of many categorisations. RandomCanadian would cite WP:IAR in the above discussion. I think that WP and our readers are better served by retaining this particular category. If the primary aim is to reduce the number of categories, there are others that might still be removed without controversy, that are less useful and/or are not supported by citation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b c Alder, Ken (2002), The Measure of All Things – The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error that Transformed the World, The Free Press, ISBN 0-7432-1675-X

Question: How do I cite the authors?

Hello, I am new to college, and I would like to cite from Wikipedia,however, it does not list the authors names. Using an APA or MLA format how would I find this to cite the source? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.168.9 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

At the college level, an encyclopaedia isn't an acceptable source. Unless, of course, your topic encompases the encyclopaedia itself. For other topics, a reasonable process is to use encyclopaedias as springboards: they can help you identify sources (published papers, books) which others found valuable. At the bottom of each Wikipedia article, is a list of references. These are the materials you should read and, potentially, cite in your paper.
— Black Walnut talk 17:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. You can cite “Wikipedia editors” as the author. I think the above post makes an assumption that might not be true for you. I have cited Wikipedia in presentations and lectures. It depends on the specific use whether Wikipedia is a proper source, but that’s a question for your instructor, not for us. You should always cite your sources when using somebody else’s ideas, text, or images. Jehochman Talk 02:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Uaryal141.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte not just Napoleon

Why is the article only referring to Napoleon Bonaparte only by his first name? He certainly never legally dropped his surname and people know both his first name and last name. The article in most of the other languages use his first name and last name. I suggest that the English version does the same.FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

His name as emperor was Napoleon (no surname). Later Napoleon I, since there were two more. Being emperor is his major claim to fame. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Please add this template to the bottom of the article:

67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 05:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Please add the category Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Short stature

I believe this reversal again corrupted the cited source. If that source gives his height as a bullying issue, that must remain in the article. I will reinstate it soon unless someone can convince me here not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Born as"

The article starts by saying Napoleon Bonaparte (born Napoleone di Buonaparte...), apparently because some editor in 2014 "supposed" that's how an Italian parish priest would record his name. He was however born as Napoleone Bonaparte or Buonaparte (both spellings are used in his baptism certificate), without the "di". Therefore, please remove the "di" in his birth name. See the baptism certificate at e.g. https://art.rmngp.fr/fr/library/artworks/fac-simile-de-l-acte-de-bapteme-de-napoleon-redige-en-italien_carton or https://www.corsicatheque.com/Histoire-personnages-historiques/Napoleon-Bonaparte-1769-1821/Napoleon-Bonaparte-acte-de-naissance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1810:b414:7900:3187:21e0:f02f:3a8d (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Note that this is also supported by the Encyclopæpia Britannica. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  21:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte............ 2409:4053:494:DFA4:0:0:682:A8A4 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon why not another name

His name as emperor was Napoleon (no surname). Later Napoleon I, since there were two more. Being emperor is his major claim to fame. Thus this make historians confused 🤔 but the name Napoleon 1,2,3 helps to recognise the ruler. 2409:4053:494:DFA4:0:0:682:A8A4 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, the question of what to name this article has come up 6 times since the article's creation. I would recommend you look at previous discussions (which you can find links to at the top of this talk page) before deciding whether it's worth having another discussion on the topic again. Thanks! SamWilson989 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"With men like you, our cause was lost ..." NOT!

The article quotes from David Bell's translation of Napoléon's 1814 Adieux à la Garde, but Bell's translation contains an error. The original reads "Avec des hommes tels que vous, notre cause n’était pas perdue", i.e. "With men such as you, our cause was not lost". Bell's translation omits the "not", and so makes no sense. Clearly, this needs fixing. Should we quote a different translation? Modify Bell's text? What say you all? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Add the French regnal name

I should think to add his regnal name in French, which will appear like this:
"Napoleon Bonaparte[a] (born Napoleone Buonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), and later known by his regnal name Napoleon I (French: Napoléon Ier), was a French military and political leader..." -- Phaisit16207 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Napoleon". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.

Napoleon or Napoleon Bonaparte

Why is Napoleon Bonaparte’s surname not used as part of the title of the article? He never formally dropped his surname and was and is certainly referred to as Napoleon, Bonaparte or his full name Napoleon Bonaparte. I have plenty of books with and the titles of them use his full name. Many other languages on Wikipedia use his full name, why does the English version only just his first name?--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see anything in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) article which would warrant omitting Napoleon’s surname from the title of the article, see WP:SINGLENAME.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You already asked the same question on 23 February 2022, Talk:Napoleon/Archive_7#Napoleon_Bonaparte_not_just_Napoleon. On 24 February SergeWoodzing gave an answer. Also in the article the alternative spelling of "Napoleone Buonaparte" has been given fairly recently. I hope this answers your question. Mathsci (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I would like for there to be a discussion about this topic again. I think “Napoleon Bonaparte” is much more appropriate. How do I go about asking for other people’s opinions?--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Napoleon Bonaparte is obviously the more appropriate title. Arguing that just "Napoleon" satisfies WP:COMMONNAME because it is used more often does not make sense - the same argument could be used to move Julius Caesar to just "Caesar", Abraham Lincoln to just "Lincoln", Donald Trump to just "Trump" etc.
WP:SINGLENAME supports "Napoleon Bonaparte": "Similarly, don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used". Teranthrix (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason why it shouldn't be Napoleon Bonaparte, Naming the article Napoleon is like naming the Joseph Stalin article "Stalin".≈≈≈≈≈

Stalin was not royal. None of the examples given are relevant in this case. "Napoleon" (alone) is by far the most common way this man is referred to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, he wasn't, but Napoleon unlike many other royals,isn't usually referred to as just "Napoleon" , He's one of the few who are exceptions.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.89.182 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2022

In citations 241 a, the wrong man is tagged. The france organist Louis Marchand from the 17th century is tagged as Napoleon valet, but it was Louis Joseph Marchand: he has a page on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Joseph_Marchand 2A01:6F02:40D:6F91:1:0:6955:7F4C (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch! Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

History

Place to which napoleon was exiled 47.15.195.85 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

The previous sentence of "Widely considered one of the greatest military commanders of all time, his wars and campaigns are studied at military schools worldwide." should he added back to the end of the first paragraph. This was removed back in December 2021, however, if one looks at Alexander the Great's page or Wellington's page, similar statements are made about both of them. RushedStormTrooper (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Number of siblings

"He was the fourth child and third son of the family. He had an elder brother, Joseph, and younger siblings Lucien, Elisa, Louis, Pauline, Caroline, and Jérôme." In the Early Life section, it's not clear that his other older brother, Napoleone, died at birth. As such, you can easily get confused and wonder how he was the fourth child and third son even though you're only quoting one older brother. 213.122.174.194 (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add a title. 213.122.174.194 (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Add back of historical recognition

Late last year, the following text was removed from the page: "One of the greatest commanders in history, his wars and campaigns are studied in military schools worldwide."

Looking for consensus to add this text back. We see similar language on the pages of military leaders such as Alexander, Wellington, Nelson, etc. Numerous books, websites consistently rank Napoleon as one of the greatest military commanders in history. RushedStormTrooper (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon's Military Exploits

1.Britain declared war on France in 1803 and the Battle of Trafalgar gave the British control over the seas but Napoleon defeated Austria and Russia , the allies of Britain in Austerlitz . The Arc de Triomphe was built to commemorate the victory. Nazmunaramoon31 (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead name

Probably a nitpick, but I don't get the "Napoleon, also Napoleon Bonaparte" intro. Isn't that a bit redundant? Most articles I've seen have the full name as the first sentence. Tintero21 (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Article's name comes first, like it or not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The name of this article is the subject person's royal name. That's what we have consensus on. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead redundancy

Originally, the lead gave Napoleon's full name in French and Italian followed by his regnal name, Napoleon I. However, in an edit dated 12 July, SergeWoodzing inserted another "Napoleon" at the start of the article, giving "clarity" as his reason. He has since overruled all attempts to remove the redunant name from the lead, stating that the "article name [comes] first". I personally can't see any reason why the subject's name should be repeated four times in the first sentence, and it'd be nice to see a better justification than this three word response. Zacwill (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to royalty, it is especially appropriate to use their regal names. That does not include a surname. It is especially inappropriate not to follow common Wikipedia practice, with the article name first in the lead, in such cases. If not, it should be weathered whether or not the article should be moved to another name. The current article name is the best one, in my opinion. Changing the lead sentence over and over and over so as not to reflect that is not constructive, especially when the talk page section is ignored time and again. The article name is not a redundancy,
I would support a move to Napoleon I. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings about the article name; either "Napoleon" or "Napoleon I" would be fine in my book. My problem is with the clumsily written lead. There is no need to name Napoleon four separate times. Zacwill (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Four well-known name varieties can appropriately be in there. Anything people might look for under N or B. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Let's change T. S. Eliot's lead to read "Thomas Stearns Eliot, also known as Thomas Eliot, Thomas S. Eliot, or T. S. Eliot..." Why write anything concisely or intelligently? Just dump the same information on the reader over and over again. Zacwill (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
If he was well-known by all those name forms. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion. Given that multiple people besides myself have tried to undo your alteration to this article, it doesn't seem like it's a popular one. Zacwill (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy (not just my opinion) is to use bold type for all name forms by which a person is well known in reliable sources. Another guideline is to discuss *article content* on article talk pages, not other editors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"Napoleon, also known as Napoleon Bonaparte (born Napoleone Buonaparte), and later known by his regnal name Napoleon I" - this is an unnecessary mess… Hopefully someone will fix this soon. Gaelicbow (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: How many people need to revert your edit before you will concede that you don't have consensus to mangle the lead in this way? Zacwill (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Consensus is not reached by reverting edits but by discussing issues on talk pages. Nobody, as far as I can see, has discussed the issue yet. Just a lot of comments about a "mess" etc etc. Nothing constructive. Making a discussion personal isn't constructive either. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The issue is that repeating Napoleon's name four times just looks redundant. There is no need for a "Napoleon, also Napoleon Bonaparte" because, well, there is already a "Napoleon" there. Articles names do not always come first (John F. Kennedy's lead doesn't say "John F. Kennedy, also John Fitzgerald Kennedy". You say the article's name is the person's royal name, but his regnal name was "Napoleon I", not "Napoleon". Tintero21 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Names in frequent use are in bold type. All of them. Yes it looks a bit odd in this particular case, but that's not the issue. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this edit and was also reverted by SergeWoodzing. The current version is against MOS:NAME which states "The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information". Furthermore, I count four editors (including myself) in favour of removing the redundant text and one opposed, so there is a clear consensus for this change which I will now reinstate. ITBF (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If anyone would like to start a move request to call this article Napoleon I I will support that. I would also support removing bold from "Napoleone Buonaparte" which is insignificant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have always seen his name referred to simply as Napoleon, only getting the designation Napoleon I when historians bring up his son and nephew. The other names are ok for me but maybe less distracting if not bolded. BogLogs (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for not ignoring the article's name, which has been ignored by just about everyone else here. Ignoring the article's name is a great way to confuse WP's readers. Its also a new method of changing an article's name, in practice, without having a traditional move discussion (real name change) get in the way. So-called consensus decides how an article should begin, what should be in bold text, with no regard whatsoever, anymore, for the article's name. I've been logged in since 2008. Less and less excellent policies and guidelines are being followed. They are being circumvented in cleverly destructive ways more and more. I'm seeing it all over English Wikipedia. It's sad. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Article name

Why is the name of this article (presumably one of our most important articles?) not in bold type in the lead? Simple question looking for a reasonable answer. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

I want to add Marie Wales ka mistress of napolean in poland It's ajay nayak editor (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A Contradiction Regarding Toulon?

The current text reads: "Bonaparte and his family were compelled to flee to Toulon on the French mainland in June 1793 because of the split with Paoli." However, this seems contradictory. If Bonaparte had fled to Toulon in June, how was he able to participate in the capture of Toulon in September of the same year? --Csomorkány (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC) This is the "opinion" of the OpenAI :-) :"It is certain that in June 1793, Corsican nationalists attempted to arrest Napoleon's brother after the family had carried out measures to prevent Genoese attacks threatening the revolution. After this, the Bonaparte family went into hiding with Corsican relatives and friends, and eventually were forced to leave Corsica. However, their destination is not entirely clear. Some sources suggest they went to Marseille, while others suggest they headed towards Italy. According to some historians, during the Bonaparte family's flight, they encountered the French army stationed in Toulon on their way, which may have been the reason why Napoleon later ended up in Toulon. Overall, the details of the Bonaparte family's flight are still debated among historians, making it difficult to provide a clear answer as to where they went exactly."--Csomorkány (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC) (and OpenAI)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Deletion of the phrase "but between three and six million civilians and soldiers perished in what became known as the Napoleonic Wars" from the first paragraph. The criticism section (9.1) already notes the death toll from the Napoleonic Wars. RushedStormTrooper (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The lede summarizes the article itself, so being mentioned in the lede is not an unnecessary duplication of the content that's expanded upon further in the article. Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the deletion, it is not worth to mention on the first paragraph, it is a "but..." besides in deepth the responsabilities of those deaths can hardly being attributed to the defender.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Also agree with the deletion. It is hard to lay blame on Napoleon since more wars were started against him and France than he started himself.
This phrase would make more sense in the first paragraph on the article of the Napoleonic Wars, but it does not fit it in here (at least not in the first paragraph). JL393 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Corsica ceded date wrong

In the "Early Life" section, it states that Corsica was ceded to France the year of Napoleon's birth, but it was actually the year before. In the book that is cited for this fact, it states "French encroachment reached its apogee the year before Napoleon's birth, in 1768..." Paranormalsupernova (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The Sea Wolf; Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald

I wondered why there's no mention of the earl in this article at all? Thomas, nicknamed 'le Loup des Mers' (The Sea Wolf) due to his ruthless and precise attacks, which helped Britain defend itself from the invading French forces, so successful in his commands that he was a catalyst in ending Napoleon's rule, so I find it very odd that he's not mentioned. Hogyncymru (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Editing dispute in a related article

Over at Military career of Napoleon Bonaparte there's currently something of an editing dispute regarding whether or not all battles with Napoleon present should be included, or only those where he was the supreme commander. Since this article is related, and because there aren't near as many watchers, I thought I'd ask here if anyone wants to go over to its Talk page and help us resolve this issue. Thank you! Imonoz (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment at NCROY

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#RfC:_Should_the_guideline_explicitly_accept_Elizabeth_II,_Carl_XVI_Gustaf,_etc_titles? would be appreciated. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fix it

1st there is not his title of sovereign of Elba, and his birth name was Napoleone Buonoparte 2600:6C4E:F7F:4AA:7884:8280:E583:AA54 (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Length

At over 18k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I mean, come on, it's an article about one of the most Influential people in history. 2600:6C58:41F0:7660:83FC:305B:9E64:9F0B (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
It is marginally overlength, but as noted above, this is very major figure. We can discuss this further here, but there is really no need to tag the page in the meantime: this is stable A-class content. It is still high quality. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately we're not looking at a high-quality article "marred" by tagging, nor even an article that is "marginally overlength". The article is well over, and has more than doubled in size since its A-class review in 2008. Those additions include content that is closely paraphrased from copyrighted sources on the one hand, and on the other poorly sourced or unsupported by sources. It was delisted as a GA in 2021 - a ranking that is meant to be less stringent than A-class. This may still hold an A-class ranking, but it isn't A-class content. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Huh. Ok. That's odd. I didn't realize an article could be delisted as a GA, but still be A-class rated. Is that a mislabeling here, or just a quirk of the system? That it is double its A-class size is a bad sign. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
It's a system quirk - those rankings are assigned through different processes, and a removal of one doesn't automatically trigger a removal of the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
But there already are numerous subarticles. Obviously any text may benefit from a better economy of style, but here the length will always reflect the humongous amount of sources dedicated to the subject. Entire libraries have been filled with them and each day dozens of new publications appear. Pure length reduction will not result in a stable article.--MWAK (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It is really long. Even just scrolling down it takes a while. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Why don't we make a smaller condensed and summarised version of his life in a separate article therefore leaving the original article the same length as it is now so that people can still read the more detailed version of his life? 185.130.156.207 (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has not edited the article but dislikes top-clutter on articles of this quality, I'm just offering an outsider's impression. The length of my own comment here should indicate that I'm not concerned about length as such, but I would like to see that length alarm gone as an unnecessary distraction to the reader.

  • A couple of sections that share titles with main articles can be condensed. These are War of the Third Coalition and War of the Fourth Coalition, which arguably contain more details of military history than the general reader might need.
  • Other battle narratives mid-article might be condensed as well in favor of a general summary of operations or innovations that characterize Napoleon as a strategist. A lot of the "Rule of France" section is consumed by military history rather than biography. Is it possible that this points to a need to corral military campaigns in their own section instead of peppering them throughout?
  • Alternatively, Military career of Napoleon Bonaparte is more or less a table, so it doesn't really cover his "career" as a subject of military history in the way that, for example, Military campaigns of Julius Caesar aims to. Military career of Napoleon Bonaparte would benefit from having a good bit of military history diverted from the main article, which (useful to keep in mind?) is a biography.
  • Most sections after the battle narratives are of readily digestible length. If they are all needed, then they do not make the article too long. Length of individual sections matters, but the number of sections needed to cover the topic indicates its scope and irreducible complexity.

Condensing the battle narratives obviously requires an editor with expertise in the topic because it can't be done by machete. (The attitude that length = poor quality does not inspire confidence, since the information presented here seems to be sound.) We're supposed to consider attention span, but whose attention span? If the introductory section is a good summary, let's be honest: that's all most people read anyway. The people who keep reading by definition want to know more. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

EXACTLY! I think we should make a separate more condensed article using the main introduction perhaps slightly lengthening the introduction to a more detailed summary. Therefore leaving the original article as it is now so that the readers wanting more detail can find it easily and the school kids/ students can use the summarised edition for homework/class projects. 185.130.156.207 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thanks all, I agree there's too much detailed military history and it needs to be condensed. We have consensus that it's too long over several years, so grateful for anyone who wants to start pruning. I'll see if I can get to it. It'd be great to get it back up to GA quality in time for the film and the massive increase in readers who'd benefit from a good quality article, Tom B (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

LENGTH!

The length of this article is huge! I appreciate the info in it as he is one of the most influential people in history but still it is really long. I was wondering if it could be condensed into a smaller separate article which is a less detailed summary of his life which would then mean that the original article could stay the same. Anyone agree? 185.130.156.207 (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No. I've read this article plenty of times and should be left at the length it is. 2604:2D80:4302:5D00:64E6:FDFC:6CD3:761 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Napoleon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Its now been a matter of months and the issues aren't sorted. While length itself is not a GA issue, when it does get above 100kb it suggests there are failures in using summary style. Either way the presence of multiple citation needed tags is reason enough to delist this article. Aircorn (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Previous GAR was 5 years ago, and there seem to be some significant issues to adress.

  • Article is too long, with a readable prose size of over 18,000 words, almost twice the recommended 10,000. As noted by Jehochman on the talk page, more content should be moved to subarticles and replaced by summary style.
  • The lead, too, is way too long, consisting of 5 lengthy paragraphs. The expositions of his wars and campaigns should probably somehow be condensed. There's also a balance issue, with the last paragraph extolling Napoleon's achievements - including a direct quote from a historian taking up more than half the paragraph - without mentioning any negatively viewed aspects of his legacy, e.g. reinstating slavery in the Caribbean. An additional paragraph focusing on the latter was recently added, though not in an optimal way, and has since been removed again. See also Talk:Napoleon#Lead: length and recent addition.
  • There are six {{citation needed}} tags, five of which date back all the way to 2016.
  • Reference errors as noted by Jehochman at Talk:Napoleon#Citations.

There might be additional issues that I'm unaware of. The ones above seem altogether sufficient to justify a GAR, especially for such a vital and prominent article. Lennart97 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  • You may be intrested in the discusion held before on the talk page, in wich i proposed a way to cut the lead to five shorter paragraphs, so far i have proposed it, but i would want to hear your opinion, and how to improve it. (we are talking about the lead). we talked about this. So far we need consensus, and focus on the problem itself.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the proposal of a new lead. It's definitely shorter, that's good. Apart from needing a lot of copy editing for grammar/spelling, I'm not personally sure whether it's up to GA standards. Others' opinions on this are very welcome. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I was notified of this GAR - but I have no real interest, experience or expertise with the article,a dn am not currently writing on Wikipedia. However the concerns expressed are clearly something that someone should be able to fix in a matter of days, expending about the same amount of energy as a GAR would take. Why not fix it instead? By the way, excessive length is really a silly object to an article's quality, some topics need to be longer than the standard article to provide sufficient coverage of the relevant literature - without having read this one, I'd not be surprised if this is a such a topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I notified you only because you were involved in the previous GAR, hope you don't mind. I nominated the article for a community review because I'm not personally able to fix the article's problems, it's as simple as that. More specifically, per the guidelines at WP:GAR, I 1) don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and 2) [am] not confident in [my] ability to assess the article - thus a community reassessment seems like the correct choice.
    • You may have a point about the article length, but isn't that what spinning off content and using summary style in the main article is for? I'm pretty sure I've seen length considerations in GA reviews, anyway. Maybe Jehochman who first noted the length as an issue wants to comment on this as well. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • . I hope the issues can be corrected within the scope of this review. Summary style is not hard to do, nor does it take very long. I fixed the worst reference issues. Some that remain may require an editor with more reference expertise than my level. @El C: might know who to contact. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Appearance and image

Hello all

As part of the project to produce a more concise article written in summary style I have removed all unsourced information from this sectionand rewritten the rest more concisely. I have changed the heading from "Image" to "Apprearance and image" because most of the content is descriptions of his appearance rather than his media image etc.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Personality

Hello all

I have slightly expanded this section to give a more balanced view of important observations on the topic. I have partly compensated by consolidating repeated information in the "Appearance and image" section and by summarising information which says much the same thing.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Hello all,

In the interests of reducing the size of this article relatively painlessly, I removed this section because it simply stated that we don't know whether Napoleon was a Freemason. The only source was a website from a local lodge in the US.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

Hello all,

I have severely cut back this section in the interests of reducing the length of the article while retaining key information. I have summarised information and written it more concisely. I have also cut sentences of little value and some passages which aren't criticisms of Napoleon. I have added a wider range of critiques of Napoleon's rule in a summary form.

For example, a couple of the sentences I cut were:

1 "The large and growing historiography in French, English, Russian, Spanish and other languages has been summarized and evaluated by numerous scholars." [This tells us nothing that isn't in the Historiography section of the bibliography.]

2) "French scholar Jean Tulard provided an influential account of his image as a saviour."[True, but it's already in the bibliography. What does Tulard say? Shouldn't it be briefly summarised and put in the propaganda and memory section?]

Given that this is a radical re-write I would be happy to discuss any specific objections you might have. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

Change ‘duel nature’ to ‘dual nature’ in Personality section, paragraph 6 209.6.250.168 (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for pointing this out.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Hello all

I have made some size-neutral changes to the lead. I have written it more concisely to save space. I have added some information to better reflect the content of the article and provide more balance. Specifically, I have mentioned Napoleon's authoritarian rule, his mixed record on civil rights, the debate over the degree of his responsibility for the Napoleonic wars, the long term stimulus to the development of the nation state, and exploitation of conquered territories. I have replaced "liberal reforms" with "modernising reforms" or simply "reforms." The consensus of modern scholarship seems to be that Napoleon's reforms were more aimed at creating efficient, centralised states than with liberalism per se. Please let me know if anyone has objections.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oxford spelling?

Hello all

This article is in British English but the notice doesn't specify Oxford spelling. I checked the verbs and the -ize spelling dominated, although there were a few -ise verbs. I therefore standardized the spelling to the -ize form for the sake on internal consistency. I propose that we put a new notice in specifying Oxford spelling. Does anyone have strong views either way?

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would have made the correction the other way around. Few people consciously consider the variant they should be using. It can easily change over time to be as you have found. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Reforms

Hello all

I have significantly reduced this section by writing it more concisely, cutting repeated information and moving some information to a more appropriate section. For example, information on the influence of the Napoleonic Code in Europe and the world repeated information in the Long Term Impact outside France section. I have added information specifically on the Napoleonic Code.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Further to this: I have reduced the section on warfare by writing it more concisely and cutting some technical detail. I have added some more opinions on Napoleon's innovations as a military leader. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Education

I added some information on important educational reforms. I also added information on female education which was absent from the previous version. As a result, the section is slightly longer than the previous one, but this is more than offset by an overall reduction in the length of the Reform section.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Overall, my impression from all the changes you have been introducing here is that you apparently does not count yourself at all among the historical admirers of the guy. Am I wrong? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Whether you or I are admirers of Napoleon is beside the point. My aim was to improve the article by making it more concise and presenting more information which reflects recent scholarship. It's a fact that that scholarship does not go in for unqualified praise of Napoleon. If you think the article isn't written from a NPOV, then I would be happy to discuss any concerns you might have. I do think the article has a structural problem. For example, the section "criticism" probably should be renamed something like "historical debate" and present some common counterarguments to the criticism. But I don't think there would be many historians who would argue that Nap's rule wasn't authoritarian,that his reintroduction of slavery was a good thing, and it was great that women lost a lot of rights under his rule.
I would also rename the section on "Wives, mistresses and children" something like "Private life" and talk more about his family issues. But I haven't had a close look at that section yet. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Warshy In light of your comment, I have cut two quotations from Napoleon which show him in a poor light. I used them because they were the ones in the sources, but I suppose historians can quote selectively to prove whatever they want. It also saves space. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I would go ahead with all the changes you are proposing above in this section. Happy editing! Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 21:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox section Titles and positions

Why most of the titles have been removed from napoleon's infobox at the minimum there should be a collection of titles at the bottom of the page there many pages of monarchs with multiple titles on the infobox Charlemagne , Louis the Pious , Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor , Canute Friendlyhistorian (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In the section above #Proposal to shorten infobox a consensus was reached to shorten the infobox to the present version. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
So you are saying there is nothing I can do Friendlyhistorian (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Cause you told me go seek consensus on the talk page Friendlyhistorian (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
You have read the discussion above? I said: See TP discussion re infobox and gain consensus for changes. You can always ask the question. Consensus can change. However, you should judge for yourself why the infobox was significantly reduced and whether there is likely to be a will to change the infobox from its current form. My own opinion is that a significant change is unlikely - but that is my opinion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
So you are gatekeeping the article be honest also your position is not consistent . Why napoleon must have the short infobox based on a discussion that very few people partook in while ignoring all the examples i mentioned . Do you thing that being the President and king of Italy is unimportant . At the bare minimum the least you could do i have the regnal titles at the bottom of the page . Gutting an article is not improvement Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Also the french and greek wikipedia have the in the infobox that Napoleon was king of italy Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I never said we should keep it the same i just wanted to offer a compromise also you say that i should judge for myself why the infobox was significantly reduced well my Judgment is that people here just don't want to read and want short notes and facts not an encyclopedia articleFriendlyhistorian (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Reforms, Administration

Hello all,

I have changed the heading from "Metric System" to "Administration". I have added content on two major administrative reforms: the introduction of regional prefects and the establishment of the Council of State. Most sources list these as major reforms. I have also added content on his abolition of the Revolutionary calendar. The result is a slight increase in size, but this has been more than offset by other cuts I have made to the reform section.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Comma error

I do not believe that there was a council consisting of 500 people named Roger Duco. There should be a comma after hundred in that sentence to show that "Roger Ducos" was the Speaker of the Council of the Five Hundred. 50.125.92.170 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

A clumsy sentence. I did a copy-edit to address this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

About negative aspects of his rule.

There is a long leading section were all Napoleon's accomplishments were struck down into one single footnote, yet now they added a the negative aspects, as part of the text, that would be a contradiction, if someone want to talk about it then it must be done like in his achievements. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the sentence about selling Louisiana, which is hardly one of his great achievements, and summarizing the last sentence to: "his exploitation of conquered territories and mixed record on civil rights adversely affect his reputation." A footnote can then be added listing some of the things he has been taken to task for: including the reintroduction of slavery, reduction in civil rights for women, ending direct elections, looting, mass shootings of POWs etc. When I get the chance I also intent to rewrite the Ctiticism section to make it more balanced. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes that was my intention, however the women civil rights is a myth, as they do not lost anything they had before, something that many historians had said, direct elections were also over with the directory, the looting is part of the war debate and the mass shooting of Pows in anachronistically and related to one incident, not being the only one to do it, as his rivals did. The main thing is the reassurance of slavery on the territories gained by the Amiens peace treaty Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
It must be noticed that the ban on Mulattoes and Blacks was temporal, also the exile of political opponents was not uncommon for his predecessors and his successors, so that is not a change or something of his authority, and the women and children rights were never scaled back as Pierre Branda noticed, as well as many others, there are no sources or evidence, and by far there were no rights for women before Napoleon, so it was neither of his authority, besides all of this is discussed in the criticism section, it should be shortened and more about his own marks. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The rights of women to own property, to seek divorce, to retain their dowry to publish, etc were severely restricted according to the vast majority of sources. All the other statements are supported by the majority of reliable sources. If you wish to challenge this you will need to start a new section on Talk and cite your sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon Wars History

Napoleon did not engage with Russia until 1812 and faced defeat shortly after the invasion. The article erroneously states that he defeated Russians in 1807 at Friedland. The reference to the Prussian city of Königsberg is misleading, as it only became part of Russia in 1946 after World War II. Therefore, in 1807, there were no Russians in that area for Napoleon to confront. At Friedland, he actually defeated Prussians, not Russians. TGVerdi (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The French defeated the Russians in 1807, and before in 1805, they were in Prussian territory in 1807 and in Austrian territory in 1805. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Nepoleon

He was a kind of both types of emperor 2409:408A:2D40:C094:4B3E:D5E0:F831:1FDB (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

I propose we add his house and his parents to the infobox. Векочел (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? See discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Nearly every biography on a monarch will list their parents and their royal house. Векочел (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
N didn't inherit his title from his parents and there was no "royal house". He was officially emperor of the French Republic. Whatever that means. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Even if there was legally no house, I would argue that the House of Bonaparte is nonetheless notable because of Napoleon, his siblings, and his nephews. If we do not list Napoleon's parents, then perhaps we shouldn't list his spouses and his children either. Векочел (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
No but his title was hereditary for the Imperial Family of France as confirmed by the Constitution of the Year XII, and that family was to be solely composed of the House of Bonaparte which was made clear in said constitution. Sebmg16 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

House

I see the past discussions about removing his house from the infobox BUT one of the biggest problems I have with it is Napoleon's listed as the founder of the house which makes him notable enough to have his house included. Additionally, he's the only monarch I've seen without their house listed in the infobox on Wikipedia. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the infobox, there is a distinction between notable and key significant. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not of itself a substantive argument. It was removed with a rough consensus that it was not key significant information. I am of that view. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Exile on Saint Helena

Hello all

I have substantially rewritten this section. I have rewritten the section on the arsenic poisoning theory which has been thoroughly discredited by recent scientific studies. I have cut some dubious trivia about the card games Napoleon allegedly played. I have moved some information about what others thought of Napoleon to the propaganda and memory section. I have added some sourced information to make the events and chronology of the exile more comprehensible. I have largely relied on Dwyer's (2018) study of the exile. The result is a slight increase in the size of the section but I plan to offset this with cuts elsewhere. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the result, of course, is a large reduction in size as I have cut most of the trivia and discredited information on the poisoning theory. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Gramar change on Siege of Toulon

Under Early career -> Siege of Toulon, on the final sentence of the paragraph it says "After this campaign, Augustin Robespierre sent Bonaparte on a mission to the Republic of Genoa to determine that country's intentions towards France."

Please change this be "After this campaign, Augustin Robespierre sent Bonaparte on a mission to the Republic of Genoa to determine the country's intentions towards France." as it is a more natural sentence structure. Xeofd (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon II should be listed as a successor

I've noticed that the only successor to Napoleon listed in the Wikibox is Louis XVIII, despite the fact that Napoleon both times attempted to abdicate in favor of his son, Napoleon II, who served as the disputed Emperor of the French in 1814 and 1815. I think that he should be added to the Wikibox as the successor to his first and second reigns, and predecessor of Napoleon's second reign. WorldMappings (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one but Bonapartists recognised him as Emperor. There is a consensus to simplify the Infobox so it doesn't seem the place to put disputed information. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The infobox is not the place for nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Italian campaign

Hello all

I have moved some detailed information about Napoleon's general military strategy and comments on military matters to the article on Napoleonic weaponry and warfare. There is already a section in this article about Napoleon's contributions to military strategy and tactics where the same points are made more concisely. This in in accordance with the consensus that this article needs to be shorter and more readable. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox titles

I know that most of Napoleon's titles have been removed to shorten the infobox, but I think it would make sense that ”Emperor of the French” be viewed as the primary title and thus be moved above that of ”First Consul of the French Republic”. Looking at the infobox now it would seem at first glance that he was first and foremost First Consul, which in the end was not the case. Sebmg16 (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The terms are presently in chronological order from oldest to newest, including his two terms as Emperor. This is quite logical and, given the absence of other clutter, I don't see much weight in the first glance argument. Let's see what others have to say. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I can understand that argument, but is that how it is done with other pages as well? I believe the common practice is to have the most recent title first. Two examples are, first, George W. Bush who has his most recent title/office of president first and his previous position as Governor of Texas as second, the second example is Napoleon III with his most recent title of emperor first and his previous title as president second. Though I may be wrong to think that it makes more sense that way, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this as well. Sebmg16 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

link to village of austerlitz is wrong

The link to the village of Austerlitz links to the Dutch village Austerlitz that was named after the battle. But is should link to Austerlitz in Czech republic 84.199.69.49 (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Kids

Why were his kids removed from the infobox? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

See the discussion, "Proposal to shorten the Infobox" above. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wives, mistresses and children

Hello all

This section repeated a lot of information which is already in the article and the linked articles on the people named (the information on Josephine, for example.) I cut this back to focus on Napoleon's children - legitimate, illegitimate and adopted. I have renamed it to reflect the new focus. This is in accordance with the consensus that the article needs to be cut back for readability.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Height?

The article presently says "Consequently, Napoleon was routinely bullied by his peers for his accent, birthplace, short stature, mannerisms, and inability to speak French quickly"; there's a reference. I could believe he was bullied for those other things, but I've heard that he really was average height. What I've heard previously was that most people who saw him saw him from a distance, and he was always with his extremely tall hand-picked guards. Today in the Guardian there's this: "Do you think Napoleon was short? Well, it’s a myth. Britain’s great satirist James Gillray didn’t just caricature the French leader relentlessly, he also pulled off arguably the greatest cartoon coup of all time, convincing the world even to this day that he was pint-sized. It was all based on a mistranslation (and no doubt a little mischief). Since French inches were bigger than British ones, Napoleon’s recorded height of 5ft 2in would have worked out at around 5ft 7in on the other side of the Channel. Not a giant, but taller than the average Frenchman of the time."

Of course he still could have been short as a child and grown later, but the whole "Napoleon complex" height thing is at best questionable.2600:6C50:800:2787:C067:7A43:F1F3:82F (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is explained in the article under the "Appearance and Image" section. He was 168-170 cm (5 ft 6 in to 5 ft 7 in) tall. Although of average height, he possibly would have been shorter than the well-fed aristocrats at the school and military academy. The "Napoleon Complex" is probably nonsense but is in the article because it was once taken seriously by some. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
You say "French inches were bigger than British ones"? I wonder do have any source(s) for that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

I’m aware a discussion occurred in which it was decided to remove a lot of information from the infobox. I don’t mind the removal of his numerous titles, it was frankly way too many. But, the removal of essential information from the infobox such as his parents and his children seems odd to me. It’s common practice to have parents and issue listed in the infobox. Also, the succession boxes are different from most monarchal succession boxes. Almost all include the coronation date (if the information is available). Other things such as his royal house could also be added, that info doesn’t really take up a lot of space and is quite common to have said information in the infobox. I completely understand the need to cut down the lengthy infobox, but, it looks to me as if it was cut down a bit too much. Kind regards, ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that which parameters to include is decided on a per-article basis rather than based on what other articles may do, could you elaborate on why you believe the datapoints you identify to be key facts? Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe parents and children are key facts of any individual. Napoleon’s spouses are listed. His parents and issue are just as important. I’d understand not adding his illegitimate children, but at least Napoleon II should be added. Kind regards, ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 23:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of an infobox is to give key information of the individual. Birth, place of birth, death, place of death, spouses, issue, and parents are said key information. The fact that almost every infobox has that information proves the point that it is such. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 23:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Long term influence outside France

Hello all

I have reduced this slightly by writing it more concisely and cutting some information which was already in other sections or which was quite dubious; for example, there was no way Napoleon was trying to make his dynasty the oldest in Europe given that it was only 10 years old while the Romanovs were 300 years old. The result is a modest reduction in size which is in accordance with the consensus that the article is too long to read comfortably.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda and memory

Hello all

I have written this more concisely and have cut some detailed information which is already in the article and the linked article on Napoleonic propaganda. I have added a small amount of sourced information to bring the coverage up to the 21st century. The net result is a modest decrease in word count which is in accordance with the consensus that the article is too long.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Birth name

Hello all

An editor changed Napoleon's birth name to Napoleone Bonaparte and cited a website as the source. The website is unreliable because it is a commercial site (an "antique" dealer) and the image is of a postcard, not the original certificate of baptism. According to Dwyer (2008) Napoleon was born Napoleone di Buonaparte. I have added the citation.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon movie inclusion in the "Memory and evaluation" section

Recently, Ridley Scott directed and released a Biopic on Napoleon's life. I tried to reference this movie in the memory portion of the article and was told it was an "Unnecessary detail." Contrarily, it is the first modern Biopic about the emperor and quite the box office trend. Recency bias aside, there has not been any commercial film alike it in the box office, and is worthy of recognition in this article as it pertains to the Emperor's life. EvanTeaches (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this:
1) The consensus is that the article is already too long so we need to avoid adding tangential material to it.
2) According to Hervé Dumont, there are over a 1000 films about Napoleon. So why should this one be included and not the others? Your argument boils down to "because it is a new Hollywood blockbuster that's in in the news." This is a classic example of recentism.
3) Adding recent films about Napoleon risks an outbreak of "In Popular Culturism" where editors add their favourite film, documentary, novel, computer game, etc that mentions Napoleon in some way. There so many that the article would be little else but a list of these.
The article already states, "In the 21st century, Napoleon appears regularly in popular fiction, drama and advertising." For a general article like this, that's all we need to say.
If you are interested in films about Napoleon you might like to create a new article on that topic. It would certainly be a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

War of the Third Coalition

Hello all

I have significantly cut the length of this section by writing it more concisely and removing detail which is covered in the linked articles. This is in accordance with the consensus that the article is too long to be easily read.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

War of the Fourth Coalition

Hello all

I have rewritten this section with more concise wording. I have moved some detail to the main article on the War of the Fourth Coalition. I have removed some dubious anecdotes with dubious sources. I have added some political context with reliable sources. The result is a decrease in word count which is in line with the consensus that the article is too long to read comfortably.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Peninsular war and Erfurt

Hello all

I have rewritten this section with more concise wording. I have summarised some detail which is in the main article on the Peninsular War. I have replaced some dubious sources with recent scholarship. I have added some context with reliable sources. The result is a decrease in word count which is in line with the consensus that the article is too long to read comfortably.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2023

Add a period to the end of the sentence after the link to the Inquisition in the second paragraph of the section on long-term influence outside of France. Baba5barn (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

War of Fifth Coalition and Consolidation of Empire

Hello all

I have summarized the military detail which can be found in the linked main article. I have added more content on the political consolidation of the Empire under a new sub-heading "Consolidation of Empire". I also removed one image which was causing overcrowding. The result is a reduction in word count which is in accordance with the consensus that the article is too long to read comfortably.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you, you need to add the full doyle ref into the references? I'd take a shot at good article, when you think it's ready. What's the gap between this and GA? Tom B (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Doyle should be Dwyer. Corrections made. I am reading Doyle on the French Revolution and got myself confused. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Structure consolidation

I asked ChatGPT 4 to produce an outline

Detailed outline collapsed

User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on Napoleon in wikimarkup 

== Early Life and Background ==
=== Birth and Family ===
Date and place of birth, family background, and early years.
=== Education ===
His schooling and military education.
== Early Military Career ==
=== Early Service ===
Initial military experiences and assignments.
=== First Italian Campaign ===
Key battles and strategies, impact on his rising fame.
== Rise to Power ==
=== Role in the French Revolution ===
Napoleon's involvement and actions during the Revolution.
=== Coup of 18 Brumaire ===
The events leading to the coup and its aftermath.
== Governance and Reforms ==
=== Consulate Period ===
Political changes and reforms during the Consulate.
=== Emperor of the French ===
Coronation, reforms, and policies as Emperor.
== Military Campaigns and the Napoleonic Wars ==
=== Major Battles and Campaigns ===
Overview of key military engagements (Austerlitz, Jena, etc.).
=== Continental System ===
Economic strategy against Britain and its impacts.
=== Decline and Defeats ===
Factors leading to military decline, including the Russian campaign.
== Exile and Final Years ==
=== Exile to Elba ===
Circumstances and life in Elba.
=== Hundred Days and Waterloo ===
Return from exile, the Waterloo campaign, and its significance.
=== Saint Helena ===
Final exile and death.
== Legacy and Historical Perspective ==
=== Political and Cultural Impact ===
Napoleonic Code, administrative changes, and influence on European politics.
=== Historical Assessments ===
How historians view Napoleon: debates and differing perspectives.
== In Popular Culture ==
Overview of Napoleon's portrayal in literature, film, and other media

They're similar, because ChatGPT uses Wikipedia, but it looks across more sources and so provides ideas. i've looked at this for several articles and ChatGPT highlights bloat in longer articles, when i've done a side-by-side comparison. Do we need a level 2 section on religion? Perhaps, but there is rationalisation/consolidation possible in these later level two sections. Some of the reforms section overlaps with the long-term influence sub-section? do personality and appearance, need separate level 2 sections? Tom B (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the section structure can be rationalised. The main problem I have is that the article is structured around his military campaigns rather than domestic policy and the social context. Reforms should go into the 1799-1803 period and include religious reforms. Appearance and Image coud be combined with Memory and Evaluation. I am strongly against a section on In Popular Culture because this will inevitably encourage random editors to pop in and add their favourite graphic novel, computer game, pop song, TV show, movie etc. that mentions Napoleon.
I am still working on summarising information within the current structure and will have another think about the structure when we get the article down to a manageable size. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
you make a lot of good points thank you, Tom B (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon's family

I have noticed that we have deleted Napoleon's parents and children from the infobox but we are listing his wives. I see no reason why we should list Napoleon's wives, but not his parents or his offspring. My preference would be to list all three, otherwise to delete all three. Векочел (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Your logic is impeccable. My preference would be to remove wives, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Unlike the parents, and children, the wives have prominent mentions in the article and can reasonably be considered "key information" per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
And how exactly are his parents and children not pertinent or key information? Any biography discussing Napoleon's early life will make at least some mention of his parents, and I think Madame Mère is indeed quite notable. Векочел (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I still think this issue needs to be addressed via an RfC. Nobody seems to agree on what the correct form is. There are those who bring up the "key elements" issue and those who argue in favor of consistency with the infoboxes of other monarchs. Keivan.fTalk 23:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
The former argument is reflective of the relevant guideline; the latter is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Even when considering the "former argument" opinions vary. There are some who consider family as key parts of any person's biography and then there are those who don't. It depends on what your definition of key information is. Keivan.fTalk 00:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: ... purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... It is the article which determines what the key facts are, by the weight given them. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Most articles mention an individual's parents or children (or even spouses) once or twice. That does not mean that those people are not an integral or key part of the subject's life. And given the fact that they are mentioned in proper context, we would not be supplanting anything. Keivan.fTalk 20:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Parents and children are key information that should be in the infobox. I believe it’s odd to include his spouses in the infobox but not his parents and children, it doesn’t make sense. And I agree with your point, just because his parents aren’t constantly mentioned in the article doesn’t mean they aren’t key information. I would support an Rfa to discuss this. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fact

The fact that napolean had been a major factor in multiple wars. 2601:285:8800:1AB0:ECDE:C992:FD1B:B0C8 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear to me what you're asking (or saying). Delukiel (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

About reverting my edit

Hello there, in my edit, I was referring to the influence of Maliki Fiqh on the Napoleonic Code. It has been highly underaddressed because of its Islamic roots. Also, I have provided proper citations for that. Napoleon did order the translation of Maliki books into French. I never claimed that the whole Napoleonic Code was based on Maliki Fiqh; I was simply pointing out the influences. That was not an objective edit but rather a scholastic opinion and possible influence. Marjukur Rahib (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You added: "It [the Napoleonic Code] was heavily influenced by the Maliki rite of Islam. Napoleon took an interest in the Maliki school of teaching after his invasion of Egypt, ordering the translation of multiple Maliki Fiqh books from Arabic to French."
This is an exceptional claim because None of the major scholarly works on the Napoleonic Code state that it was influenced by the Maliki school of Islam. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. WP:Exceptional. Your sources are one article in Turkish, a youtube video and an unpublished PhD thesis. This is not enough to overturn the consensus of eminent scholars in the field. If sometime in the future a consensus emerges that the Napoleonic Code was indeed influenced to some extent by the Maliki school of Islam then we can mention it in this article. But at the moment the consensus of editors is that the article is already too long so there is no room to include fringe theories. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Invasion of Russia

Hello all

I have removed some content already covered in the article. I have replaced content that was poorly sourced or did not accurately reflect the cited source. I have added content based on more reliable sources, particularly Dwyer (2013) and Esdaille (2007). I have summarised other content. The result is a slight reduction in word count which is consistent with the consensus that the article is too long to read comfortably.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Napoleon/Archive_7&oldid=1221515739"