Talk:Napoleon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Name change

Shouldn't the name of the article be chanded to Napoleon Bonaparte? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusyBlacksmith (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions about this issue above and in the discussion archives, for example at Talk:Napoleon/Archive 5#Move to Napoleon Bonaparte. If you have anything new to add to the discussion, come back here.  Andreas  ^(T) 18:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

All references to Napoléon on wikipedia should at all times include the accent above the e as that is how his name is properly spelt. Just as André Masséna's name includes them so should Napoléon. Before there is a discussion on whether the article should be named either Napoléon, Napoléon Bonaparte or Napoléon I of France you should first get the spelling correct. His name is French and should be treated as such. In regards to which of the 3 names should be used he should be always referred to by his first name. He is first and foremost Napoléon I, Emperor of the French. Whether the United Kingdom recognised it or not is irrelevant. He was the legitimate leader of the French nation as was his coronation that made him Emperor. This needs to be corrected as it is a misrepresentation of his name.

Edit request on 8 January 2012

I would like to edit this page, so i can add some valuable information and sources and fix an error. 69.255.229.178 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific edits, if you'd like to be able to edit it yourself you'll need to register an account (takes 30 seconds) and then become autoconfirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Napoleon was a Corsican born in France.

Napoleon was born right when Corsica became from Italian to French land. The Corsican Bonapartes' (Buonapartes') originated from minor Italian nobility of Lombard origin, and i believe it should be put he was a French born corsican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric5575 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Napoleon was a Corsican born in France.

Napoleon was born right when Corsica became from Italian to French land. The Corsican Bonapartes' (Buonapartes') originated from minor Italian nobility of Lombard origin, and i believe it should be put he was a French born corsican.Ric5575 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric5575 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

French born Corsican

Napoleon was born right when Corsica became from Italian to French land. The Corsican Bonapartes' (Buonapartes') originated from minor Italian nobility of Lombard origin, and i believe it should be put he was a French born Corsican.(Ric5575) (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric5575 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed above (Talk:Napoleon#Corsican not French), and given the repeated reverts by multiple users, there is no consensus so far for this distinction to be made in the opening sentence. Await a favourable consensus before making the change. Benea (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am neutral on this. The only thing I am trying to prevent is further edit-warring against present consensus, which is not to include the "Corsican" descriptive. If despite all this discussion edit-warring resumes I am afraid this is not going to end up well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course, he was from Corsica, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. On the other hand, we already have a prominent sentence in the introduction that says "Napoleon was born in Corsica to parents of noble Genoese ancestry and trained as an artillery officer in mainland France." How many times do we need to repeat the same fact? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Acre corresponds to hectare (not square kilometer)

The phrase "three cents per acre ($7.40 per km²)" should really be "three cents per acre (7.4 cents per hectare)". The "hectare" is the SI metric analogue for the "acre". The "square kilometer" corresponds to the "square mile". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.151.158 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Corsican not French

http://www.corsica-isula.com/faq.htm

http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/51/Travel_to_Corsica.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/78nov/corsica.htm

Don't you think French should be removed?

For starters he was Corsican by birth, and ethnically he was fully Italian.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

N. was born in 1769, Corsica bcame part of France in 1770; N. spent most of his life in France and in the service of the French state. Ethnicity is a complex concept. Many influential Americans were like Arnold Schwarzenegger were forn abroad but still are considered American.  Andreas  ^(T) 02:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon was born (15 August 1769) as a subject of the king of France, in the French province of Corsica (Corsica was ceded by Genoa by the Treaty of Versailles (1768), one year before Napoleon's birth). After the Revolution, Napoleon became a French citizen, like every other former "subjects of the king". Was U.S. president Eisenhower not American, because he was ethnically German ? Was U.S. president Roosevelt not American, because he was ethnically Dutch ? That's nonsense. Napoleon was French by birth, by law and by choice. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I Agree with Jimmyson1991. Napoleon was ethnically Italian not French. Ethnically speaking, Corsicans are a subset of Italic people. Casa Buonaparte: Maria, Giuseppe, Antonio, Maria LOL --93.147.196.217 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I disagree with maria because I'm sure about that napoleon is already a french man.because these things cant change the society's mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArashLone (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Maria. Napoléon is french. the only reason you doubt is the anti-French racism in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.102.142.48 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-French racism? Is that a joke? Last I checked, French is a nationality and maybe an ethnicity, but not a race. Last I checked, also, most people from the US couldn't care less about the French. 76.114.129.249 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Napoléon is ethnically corsican not italian because insulation of corsica modify the Physical appearance. The corsican is small but more strong. I am corsican and I'm proud to be french. Sorry for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.150.7.180 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon was a French subject from birth. By definition that makes him French. You can clarify that he was a Frenchman from Corsica or whatever, but you can't say he was not French. 12.239.145.114 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Corsica became French in 1768 (although it was formally annexed to France only in 1789), and Napoleon was born a year later. The Buonaparte family originated from Tuscany, and Corsica was until 1768 (and for several decades after the annexation to France) fully (linguistically and culturally) integrated in the Italian world. As everywhere in Italy, Napoleon spoke at home his "dialect" (Corsican) and the first "official" language that he learned at school was Italian (when he was in Brienne his fellows made joke about him because of his poor knowledge of French). So one can say that he - as his younger brothers and sisters of his family - was born and grew up as a Frenchman of Italian culture. Alex2006 (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

France and Italy are nation-states, nothing more. There are countless different ethnicities in both countries. The diverse populations range from Italics, to Celts, Normans, Basques, Germanics, Jews etc. For instance, a French of Basque heritage does not have the same genetics as a French of Germanic heritage. Yes, they are each Caucasoid/European, but they are different. Same goes with the people in Italy. The two nations' borders are political entities that encompass various groups. There is even cultural differences within them as well. Northern Italy is not like Southern Italy. Northern France is not like Southern France.

Napoleon is Corsican, Italian, and French. It all depends on what model for his identity you are appealing to. He was born in Corsica. So in that way he is Corsican. The vast majority of Corsicans trace their genetics to the Italian regions of Liguria and Tuscany (Napoleon being no exception). So genetically Napoleon descended from people we would consider to be "Italian." Thus in this way he is Italian. Yet he was a French national (having been born in a territory recently transferred to France) and adhered more to French culture as an adult. So in that way he was also French. He is all three identities. It is just relative to what context one is discussing -- genetics, territory, nationality, or culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyCallMeTheEditor (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. The words "French" and "Italian" refer to the respective Nations, they have nothing to do with ethnicity or genetics. Nation is a group of people which speaks the same language and share the same history, culture and traditions. Of course Italy has been invaded a lot of times since the first invasion, the indo-European one. But all these invaders (Germanic tribes, Normans, Arabs, etc.) melted together creating the Italian identity. Of course this identity in Italy's case did not cancel the differences between north and south, seaside and mountain, city and country, which are particularly strong in the case of Italy, but it constitutes the least common denominator that let identify a person with the Italian nation rather than with another one. Napoleon was born as Italian not because his genes came from Tuscany (which are the Tuscan genes?) but because he learned Italian in the school and used it as official communication language, ate pasta, and so on, as his parents and grandparents did before him. The Corsican of 18th century which could afford it attended university in Pisa, and if you go to Morosaglia and visit the home of Pasquale Paoli, and see his books on display there, they are Italian books, included the Constitution of Corsica. The island in that period (and until the first half of 19th century) belonged culturally to the Italian nation. Of course Napoleon was born as a french subject, and during his life he became more and more french, but this is the destiny of all the people born in a culture and living in another. Alex2006 (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

A necessary edit must be made to this page. The div tags creating scroll boxes in the notes/references section have to be removed. If you view {{Scroll box}} you will see that it affects the printability of the page and is discouraged.130.91.93.243 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing the style guidance to our attention. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin

I have removed the citation to a Geni.com project. Projects on Geni may be created by any user, regardless of credibility. They cannot be used here as credible sources published by experts in their field and fact-checked by editors. Because they are not.Wjhonson (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Napoleon and Joseph Fourier

Fourier went with Napoleon Bonaparte on his Egyptian expedition in 1798, and was made governor of Lower Egypt [2] and secretary of the Institut d'Égypte. Cut off from France by the English fleet, he organized the workshops on which the French army had to rely for their munitions of war. He also contributed several mathematical papers to the Egyptian Institute (also called the Cairo Institute) which Napoleon founded at Cairo, with a view of weakening English influence in the East. After the British victories and the capitulation of the French under General Menou in 1801, Fourier returned to France.

1820 watercolor caricatures of French mathematicians Adrien-Marie Legendre (left) and Joseph Fourier (right) by French artist Julien-Leopold Boilly, watercolor portrait numbers 29 and 30 of Album de 73 Portraits-Charge Aquarelle’s des Membres de I’Institute.[3] In 1801[4] Napoleon appointed Fourier Prefect of the Department of Isère in Grenoble, where he oversaw road construction and other projects. However, Fourier had previously returned home from the Napoleon expedition to Egypt to resume his academic post as professor at École Polytechnique when Napoleon decided otherwise in his remark ... the Prefect of the Department of Isère having recently died, I would like to express my confidence in citizen Fourier by appointing him to this place. [4] Hence being faithful to Napolean he took the office of Prefect[4] . It was while at Grenoble that he began to experiment on the propagation of heat. He presented his paper On the Propagation of Heat in Solid Bodies to the Paris Institute on December 21, 1807. He also contributed to the monumental Description de l'Égypte.[5] Fourier moved to England in 1816. Later he returned to France, and in 1822 succeeded Jean Baptiste Joseph Delambre as Permanent Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences. In 1830, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. In 1830, his diminished health began to take its toll: Fourier had already experienced, in Egypt and Grenoble, some attacks of aneurism of the heart. At Paris, it was impossible to be mistaken with respect to the primary cause of the frequent suffocations which he experienced. A fall, however, which he sustained on the 4th of May, 1830, while descending a flight of stairs, aggravated the malady to an extent beyond what could have been ever feared.[6] Shortly after this event, he died in his bed on 16 May, 1830.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier ThiagoBarbosaSP (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should we copy huge chunks of the Joseph Fourier article into the Napoleon article? ==R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Napoleon stripped of rank ?

The article states that Napoleon was promoted Captain in July 1792, but Napoleon was already Lieutenant colonel since April 1792 ! Was he striped of his rank of Lieutenant Colonel and latter promoted captain ? I don't think so, I think someone made a mistake... At least, it needs to be clarified. By the way, someone removed my edits which were explaining why Napoleon abandonned his Corsican nationalist views to embrace French Republican views. Soon I will source this with Jean Tulard's Napoleon. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I revised that paragraph to make it clearer. In 1792, Napoleon was a first lieutenant in the regular French army (on leave of absence), but also a lieutenant colonel in the Corsican National Guard. Two different services, two different ranks. After returning from Corsica, he was promoted to captain in the regular army. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Academic review? and too long

Article over 11 000 words, there's a very good case for cutting down. Can move stuff to other articles if not already there. We should be ruthless on duplication. If anyone wants to start this and not use hatchet then it's a wikiworld! In particular the later sections seem unwieldy e.g. Reglions and propaganda. the titles section has no references.

A couple of years ago i asked an academic to review the article but he was busy writing a Nap biography, got no answer from another so if anyone's got any good ideas on this front... Grateful for thoughts Tom B (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bourgeoisie society

I reverted changes where the word "Bourgeoisie society" were repolaced by "Middle classes". The paragraph concerned has remained stable for at least the last five years - See an old version here. I do have a problem with the citation in the current version - the book cited was published in 2008 and the WIkipedia text concerend dates back to before 2007.

Back to the current issue - if noted contemporary historians used the word "bourgeoisie", then we should repeat the word, not try to clarify it or to change it. An entry for the historian concerened can be found in the German version of Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My problem is that the word bourgeoisie can be POV, marxist, and vague. According to The Free Dictionary bourgeois can mean "A person belonging to the middle class." or "A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class." or "In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist." and can be a disparaging term, such as "a mediocre, unimaginative, or materialistic person" or "a member of the middle class, esp one regarded as being conservative and materialistic or (in Marxist thought) a capitalist exploiting the working class". Merriam Webster and Dictionary.Reference both have similiar definitions. Unlike bourgeoisie, middle-class is not vague. The Free Dictionary states it is "The socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class, usually including professionals, highly skilled laborers, and lower and middle management." Likewise, wikipedia describes the middle class as "the broad group of people in contemporary society who fall socio-economically between the working class and upper class."

I don't see the relevance of it being unchanged for 5 years. Refering to it as middle-class is completely NPOV. --Goalisraised (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The historians concerend must have had reasons to use the word "bourgeois" - your argument reeks of WP:OR. Leave it as it is. Martinvl (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you say the reason the historians concerned had to make the word "bourgeois" instead of "middle-class"? Either way, middle-class is completely NPOV, bourgeois isn't. The word should be changed. --Goalisraised (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it should not. The term "Bourgeoisie" defines a social class in the historic context of the Enlightenment, of the french revolution, of the Napoleonic age until the end of the (long) nineteenth century: that is, the Age of the Bourgeoisie, not "the Age of the middle class". Alex2006 (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alessandro57. In the article, the historian Langewiesche was describing the events that led up to the unification of Germany (1815 - 1871) which is probalby why he used the word "bourgeois" rather than "middle class". Martinvl (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's also reject the claim that "Either way, middle-class is completely NPOV, bourgeois isn't." Either one of them could be used in a POV way, depending on the context and on what the sources say. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

... and Langewiesche was cited as using the word "bourgeois", so unless you have Langewiesche's (de:Dieter Langewiesche or fr:Dieter Langewiesche) text in front of you and and can claim that he was mis-quoted (or mis-translated as he was probably writing in German), then it is WP:OR to replace "bourgeois" with "middle-class". Martinvl (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Popular belief or true?

Remembering that Wikipedia is not censored, can anyone find a source on (be it confirming or refuting) the idea that he had a below-average-sized penis? Does anyone know where to find such a source for this Article? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it relevant to give people a first understanding of who was Napoleon? Remember that Wikipedia is not a tabloïd, nor a list of trivia per WP:TRIVIA. Indeed, you could write millions of books of trivia about a personage like Napoleon, and that would not only make the reading of the article impossible, but also drown the important information.

Bear in mind that the main goal is to enable the readers to get within minutes an overall idea of the subject, before immersing themselves into the scholar litterature to get details.

Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree: that information if it even exists is completely superfluous.

2012-08-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Cause of death

I have written a summary of the present-day state of knowledge on the issue. It can be found here. I am not an expert just an ordinary sceptic with a reluctant fascination for Napoléon. As long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks on me questioners will be answered to the best of my ability.

2012-08-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.151.180 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 November 2012

I'd like to add this page in LINKS at the bottom for Napoleon enthusiasts to edit and add on to the "Napoleon Tour in France" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Tour_in_France) so that all of us can experience Napoleon's history there as this may be the only such complete collection and I personally did this tour myself (and compiled it myself) so I'd love to share it and have others experience and share it. Zorianr (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: The page you have linked to is being considered for deletion as an orphan, with no citations. Please resubmit your request when/if the target page is improved to a state in which it is likely to be kept as an article under Wikipedia deletion policies. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 03:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

With or without citations, the travel guide you have written is not really appropriate for Wikipedia, since this is an encyclopedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, is in the process of starting a sister project called WikiVoyage that is specifically intended for travel information. You might want to check that out as a more suitable home for your work. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Napoleon's Name

The substitution of the name of Bonaparte in Italian with the Corsican version is a (politically hyper-corrected :-)) anachronism. In 1769 Corsica's "high culture" was totally Italian, and it remained prevalently so for another 3 - 4 generations (the co-ufficiality of Italian and French in the island was abandoned during the third Republic). Of course people spoke at home a Corsican dialect (one of the many) but - when they needed an academic education - they sent their children to study in Pisa's University. School lessons, official acts like baptism documents (like that of Napoleon), laws as the "Costituzione del Regno di Corsica" (a copy is on display in Casa Paoli im Morosaglia), all gravestones in the churches, all toponyms were (and most of them still are) written in Italian: and this situation lasted at least until 1850. All this happened because at that time Corsica fully belonged to the Italian Nation, and situation not unlike that of Umbria, Toscana or other Italian regions. The "rise" of status of the Corsican from dialect to language with the birth of a literature in Corsican is a process which started much later than Napoleon's age, and was propelled by political and historical reasons. There are many books which describe well this issue: for example, "Le guide de la Corse" by Georges Ravis-Giordani, Ed. La manufacture, 1991, which has wide history, culture and language sections. Back to Napoleon(e): I think that we can add his name in Corsican, but without removing the Italian one. Last but not least: if we will do so, we need a good reference for his name in Corsican: in fact, the Corsican versions of "Napoleone" are "Napulione", "Nabulione" or "Napujone" :-) Alex2006 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Date of Birth called into question

I believe there has been several legitimate sources that state Napoleon was actually born in 1770. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopyEditor998 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Tactic

He used a rapid and heavy offensive, used widely in warfare, one could call it a Bonaparte Sequence. He like all Generals, relied heavily on morale. He did not study the opponent or have any defensive measures.A weakness. One could call him a War Minister but his courage earns him the title, General Bonaparte

The Bonaparte Sequence does not work on defensive opponents or those who are well fortified and hold reserves. e.g. Old British.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.158.214 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 

Napoleon "the Great"

His nicknames really need to be mentioned, including "the Great". Please see the discussion at User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Napoleon_the_Great where Mr. Connolley recommends we discuss it here first. As you can see, litterally hundreds of French and English books and images refer to him as either le Grand or The Great. That is more than enough to justify that he is referred to as such on multiple occasions. See also, [1] where he "Napoleon Magnus" a la Pompey Magnus, or [2] where is Napoleon le Grand on a coin, or [3] where he is referred to as "le Grand" in a book title. Merci! --24.112.187.219 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

lllllalflsdjf apofowijfkakhffjhfllsfifhlfh iasifaisfpwpqp[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.46.88 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel that there may be some copy-editing needed in this article...

I didn't really take a good look at the whole article, but just glancing at it doing some fact-checking, I did notice this seemingly glaring inconsistency in how the date was placed right here (towards the top of the last paragraph before the first subsection). It just doesn't seem to read right at the beginning of the sentence "The 1 April 1810, ...". I virtually never see dates written like that anywhere, on or off of Wikipedia (I also found that phrasing to be in conflict with WP:DATEFORMAT, looking at the first bullet on what isn't acceptable). 67.174.75.217 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for noting. I changed it to "On 1 April 1810". Will that be OK? I haven't looked at the rest of the article either.Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2013

The Wikipedia page for Napolean Bonaparte has a verifiable error in the section "Napolean and Religions." The text states that Napolean doubted the divinity of Jesus but published letters from Napolean refute that claim. Please remove "and doubted the divinity of Jesus, stating that it is absurd to believe that Socrates, Plato, Muhammad and the Anglicans should be damned for not being Roman Catholics." and change the text to "Later in his life, however, Napolean reflected strong Christian convictions. In a conversation with General Bertrand on the island of Saint Helena during his second exile in 1820, Napolean demonstrated a clear embrace of Christianity and affirmed his belief in the divinity of Jesus stating, "I know men and Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity . . ." Napolean concluded by stating, "If you do not perceive that Jesus Christ is God, very well, then I did wrong to make you a general." In addition, remove the word "However" at the start of the next sentence.

Rodeysl (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done It is NapoleOn not NapoleAn. The current version is sourced and therefore can not be removed. Your sentence is not sourced. Blaue Max (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Minor grammatical error under "Personality"

"... He was an innovation is using the financial, "

Should read something like "He was an innovator in using the..."

I'd fix this minor error myself, except that for some reason I am not allowed.

Thank you in advance,

gnotsie (the grammar nazi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnotsie (talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for correcting. Only "auto-confirmed" users may edit this article. You probably have a bit too few edits to be auto-confirmed. I am not sure exactly how many edits it takes, but you should be very close. It happens automatically. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Short error?

Under personality it says: "although short...", isn't this kind of wrong considering he was above average height at the time? It kind of continues the fallacy and British propaganda that he was short (for his time). Hope this isn't stupid to ask about, but yeah. Good day to all anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bksekfsodsf (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

looks like someone has changed on article, thanks Tom B (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

map clarification

Resolved

Next to the heading "Invasion of Russia" is a .png of a map of Europe titled "First French Empire at its greatest extent in 1811". The are several marked in varying shades of blue with a map key denoting their status. However, there are also several countries marked in bright green with no indidication as to why. Anybody know? - thewolfchild 01:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes someone changed map recently, probably to make it clearer rather than different shades of blue. i've changed key, thanks for spotting Tom B (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Combined Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars map

I was looking at some similar maps of those wars and I thought there ought to be a combined map of them. They were almost continuous and involved the same countries/people like Napoleon for instance. I'm thinking it'd look something like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RevolutionaryandNapoleonicWars.png Am I correct in thinking that Denmark was the only country that wasn't on the allies side before defecting/being conquered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lojalist (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on 15 June 2013

There is a huge error concerning Napoleon and his religious convictions. Napoleon Bonaparte was a very strong believer in Jesus Christ. Please, this is a very serious error. The source sited for this section's error is not creditable. A book written by John S.C. Abbott, History of Napoleon Bonaparte, was written much earlier then this other source and is much more historically accurate; taken direct qoutes from letters and conversations had by Napoleon and General Bertrand.

I myself, don't have the knowledge on how to cite or edit this properly. But know this: the current state of the Napoleon article, the section of Religions, is grossly and gravely inaccurate and must be changed. Please, someone must be able to do this. I'm simply addressing the problem, do not dismiss it because of my incompetence to abide by all the rules and properly correct it.

Here's a link to a portion of the book: http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/abbott/bonapart_38.html

And a link to google books of the actual text (please excuse my bluntness): http://books.google.com/books?id=NYdJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA612&lpg=PA612&dq=Napoleon+replied+:+“I+know+men,+and+I+tell+you+that+Jesus+Christ+is+not+a+man.+Superficial+minds+see+a+resemblance+between+Christ+and+the+founders+of+empires+and+the+gods+of+other+religions.+That+resemblance+does+not+exist.+There+is+between+Christianity+and+whatever+other+religion+the+distance+of+infinity.%22&source=bl&ots=eBFtvKnzrC&sig=zXVxdV3jRjBt7nz0OZw9fnfxjqU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ITS9UeGWBY-60QGu04CIBQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Napoleon%20replied%20%3A%20“I%20know%20men%2C%20and%20I%20tell%20you%20that%20Jesus%20Christ%20is%20not%20a%20man.%20Superficial%20minds%20see%20a%20resemblance%20between%20Christ%20and%20the%20founders%20of%20empires%20and%20the%20gods%20of%20other%20religions.%20That%20resemblance%20does%20not%20exist.%20There%20is%20between%20Christianity%20and%20whatever%20other%20religion%20the%20distance%20of%20infinity.%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTD (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A small portion of what it is written:

Napoleon replied : “I know men, and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religion the distance of infinity."

“It is not so with Christ. Every thing in him astonishes me. His spirit overawes me, and his will confounds me. Between him and whoever else in the world there is no possible term of comparison. He is truly a being by himself. His ideas and his sentiments, the truths which he announces, his manner of convincing, are not explained either by human organization or by the nature of things. “His birth, and the history of his life ; the profundity of his doctrine, which grapples the mightiest difficulties, and which is of those difficulties the most admirable solution ; his gospel, his apparition, his empire, his march across the ages and the realms—every thing is, for me, a prodigy, a mystery insoluble, which plunges me into a reverie from which I can not escape—a mystery which is there before my eyes—a mystery which I can neither deny nor explain. Here I see nothing human."

“The Christian religion is neither ideology nor metaphysics, but a practical rule, which directs the actions of man, corrects him, counsels him, and assists him in all his conduct. The Bible contains a complete series of facts and of historical men, to explain time and eternity, such as no other religion has to offer. If this is not the true religion, one is very excusable in being deceived ; for every thing in it is grand and worthy of God. I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, or any thing which can approach the gospel. Neither history, nor humanity, nor the ages, nor nature offer me any thing with which I am able to compare it or to explain it. Here every thing is extraordinary. The more I consider the gospel, the more I am assured that there is nothing there which is not beyond the march of events, and above the human mind. Even the impious themselves have never dared to deny the sublimity of the gospel, which inspires them with a sort of compulsory veneration. What happiness that book procures for those who believe it ! What marvels those admire there who reflect upon it !

Please, a little research and effort will confirm my plead. Do not let this grievous inaccuracy go uncorrected. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Wikipedia is a great source of information, I wish for every article to be as accurate as it can be :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTD (talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon admired Jesus Christ--lots of non-Christians also did so--but that does not make Napoleon a "believer" (that is, a Christian) -- that would require his belied that Christ was a) God and b) Napoleon's redeemer from sin..... We don't see much evidence of adherence to the Nicene Creed: "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, ... we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." Rjensen (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't just a mere admiration. Napoleon said, “What a proof of the divinity of Christ ! With an empire so absolute, he has but one single end, the spiritual melioration of individuals, the purity of conscience, the union to that which is true, the holiness of the soul."

“Such is the fate of great men ! So it was with Caesar and Alexander. And I, too, am forgotten. And the name of a conqueror and an emperor is a college theme ! Our exploits are tasks given to pupils by their tutor, who sit in judgment upon us, awarding us censure or praise. And mark what is soon to become of me ; assassinated by the English oligarchy, I die before my time ; and my dead body, too, must return to the earth, to become food for worms. Behold the destiny, near at hand, of him who has been called the great Napoleon. What an abyss between my deep misery and the eternal reign of Christ, which is proclaimed, loved, adored, and which is extending over all the earth. Is this to die ? Is it not rather to live ? The death of Christ ! It is the death of God.”

For a moment the Emperor was silent. As General Bertrand made no reply, he solemnly added, “If you do not perceive that Jesus Christ is God, very well, then I did wrong to make you a general.”

Please carefully read the links I've provided. You'll question if this is the same faith of the same napoleon which is so inaccurately portrayed in the article.

the problem is the word "believer" -- it means a devout Christian and that Napoleon never was. Historians say he was a deist who believed in a mechanical God, no a personal Savior. Rufus Griswold says, "Napoleon himself, though a firm deist, was not a believer in the facts of the Christian religion." Flynn says, "His defeats represented a final break with providence, and so he ended his days similar to Washington, as something of an unbeliever."Matthew J. Flynn; Stephen E. Griffin (2011). Washington and Napoleon: Leadership in the Age of Revolution. p. 189. Scott says, "We can scarce term him even a deist, and he was an absolute stranger to every modification of christian belief and worship." As for supposed interviews---historians rely more on the thousands of letters Napoleon actually wrote, with no "believer" in them. For example reading his letters Atkin & Tallett state: "Personally, Napoleon had little need for spiritual nourishment... [he was] profoundly skeptical of the claims of revealed religion....in exile on St Helena in 1816, he argued that there was no historical proof of the existence of Christ."Nicholas James Atkin; Frank Tallett (2003). Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism, 1750 to the Present. p. 71. Rjensen (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not forget Napoleon was Catholic, he was in fact a very strong believer:

In the evening the Emperor was alone with Count Montholon.  The Count was not a religious man.  He has frankly said, “In the midst of camps I forgot religion.”  Napoleon, with great joy, informed Montholon of his intention to attend mass the next day.  He then uttered the following remarkable confession :

“Upon the throne, surrounded by generals far from devout, yes, I will not deny it, I had too much regard for public opinion, and far too much timidity, and perhaps I did not dare to say aloud, ‘I am a believer.’ I said, ‘Religion is a power—a political engine.’ But, even then, if any one had questioned me directly, I should have replied, ‘Yes ! I am a Christian.’ And if it had been necessary to confess my faith at the price of martyrdom, I should have found all my firmness. Yes ! I should have endured it rather than deny my religion. But now that I am at St. Helena, why should I dissemble that which I believe at the bottom of my heart ? Here I live for myself. I wish for a priest, I desire the communion of the Lord’s Supper, and to confess what I believe. I will go to the mass. I will not force any one to accompany me there. But those who love me will follow me.”

And in this source http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10687a.htm

There he remained until his death, strictly watched by Hudson Lowe, and dictated to General Montholon, Gourgaud, and Bertrand those "Mémoires" which entitle him to a place among the great writers. Las Casas, at the same time, wrote day by day, the "Mémorial de Sainte Hélène", a journal of the emperor's conversations. In the first of his captivity, Napoleon complained to Montholon of having no chaplain. "It would rest my soul to hear Mass", he said. Pius VII petitioned England to accede to Napoleon's wish, and the Abbé Vignali became his chaplain. On 20 April, 1821, Napoleon said to him: "I was born in the Catholic religion. I wish to fulfil the duties it imposes, and receive the succour it administers." To Montholon he affirmed his belief in God, read aloud the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the acts of the Apostles. He spoke of Pius VII as "an old man full of tolerance and light". "Fatal circumstances," he added "embroiled our cabinets. I regret it exceedingly." Lord Rosebery has attached much importance to the paradoxes with which the emperor used to tease Gourgaud, and amused himself in maintaining the superiority of Mohammedanism, Protestantism, or Materialism. One day, when he had been talking in this strain, Montholon said to him: "I know that your Majesty does not believe one word of what you have just been saying". "You are right", said the emperor. "At any rate it helps to pass an hour."

Napoleon was not an unbeliever; but he would not admit that anyone was above himself, not even the pope. "Alexander the great", he once said to Fontanes, "declared himself the son of Jupiter. And in my time I find a priest who is more powerful than I am." This transcendent pride dictated his religious policy and utterly vitiated it. By the Concordat, as Talleyrand said, he had "done not only an act of justice, but also a very clever act, for by this one deed he had rallied to himself the sympathies of the whole Catholic world." But the same Talleyrand declares, in his "Mémoires", that his struggle with Rome was produced by "the most insensate ambition", and that when he wished to deprive the pope of the institution of bishops, "he was all the more culpable because he had had before him the errors of the Constituent Assembly". This double judgment of the former Constitutional bishop, later the emperor's minister of foreign affairs, will be accepted by posterity. By a strange destiny, this emperor who travelled all over Europe, and whose attitude towards the Catholic religion was in a measure inherited from the old Roman emperors, never set foot in Rome; through him Rome was for many years deprived of the presence of the remotest successor of St. Sylvester and of Leo III; but the successor of Constantine and of Charlemagne did not see Rome, and Rome did not see him.

Clearly Napoleon confessed his faith more than enough times at St. Helen. Please do not dismiss this because of my failing to properly reference and cite information. I'm providing evidence that this article is incorrect, I cannot change it. I'm hoping someone will perform more thorough research and consider what has been presented. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTD2 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on June 17th 2013 (still waiting for reply)

(the problem is the word "believer" -- it means a devout Christian and that Napoleon never was. Historians say he was a deist who believed in a mechanical God, no a personal Savior. Rufus Griswold says, "Napoleon himself, though a firm deist, was not a believer in the facts of the Christian religion." Flynn says, "His defeats represented a final break with providence, and so he ended his days similar to Washington, as something of an unbeliever."Matthew J. Flynn; Stephen E. Griffin (2011). Washington and Napoleon: Leadership in the Age of Revolution. p. 189. Scott says, "We can scarce term him even a deist, and he was an absolute stranger to every modification of christian belief and worship." As for supposed interviews---historians rely more on the thousands of letters Napoleon actually wrote, with no "believer" in them. For example reading his letters Atkin & Tallett state: "Personally, Napoleon had little need for spiritual nourishment... [he was] profoundly skeptical of the claims of revealed religion....in exile on St Helena in 1816, he argued that there was no historical proof of the existence of Christ."Nicholas James Atkin; Frank Tallett (2003). Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism, 1750 to the Present. p. 71. Rjensen (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not forget Napoleon was Catholic, he was in fact a very strong believer: In the evening the Emperor was alone with Count Montholon. The Count was not a religious man. He has frankly said, “In the midst of camps I forgot religion.” Napoleon, with great joy, informed Montholon of his intention to attend mass the next day. He then uttered the following remarkable confession : “Upon the throne, surrounded by generals far from devout, yes, I will not deny it, I had too much regard for public opinion, and far too much timidity, and perhaps I did not dare to say aloud, ‘I am a believer.’ I said, ‘Religion is a power—a political engine.’ But, even then, if any one had questioned me directly, I should have replied, ‘Yes ! I am a Christian.’ And if it had been necessary to confess my faith at the price of martyrdom, I should have found all my firmness. Yes ! I should have endured it rather than deny my religion. But now that I am at St. Helena, why should I dissemble that which I believe at the bottom of my heart ? Here I live for myself. I wish for a priest, I desire the communion of the Lord’s Supper, and to confess what I believe. I will go to the mass. I will not force any one to accompany me there. But those who love me will follow me.” And in this source http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10687a.htm

There he remained until his death, strictly watched by Hudson Lowe, and dictated to General Montholon, Gourgaud, and Bertrand those "Mémoires" which entitle him to a place among the great writers. Las Casas, at the same time, wrote day by day, the "Mémorial de Sainte Hélène", a journal of the emperor's conversations. In the first of his captivity, Napoleon complained to Montholon of having no chaplain. "It would rest my soul to hear Mass", he said. Pius VII petitioned England to accede to Napoleon's wish, and the Abbé Vignali became his chaplain. On 20 April, 1821, Napoleon said to him: "I was born in the Catholic religion. I wish to fulfil the duties it imposes, and receive the succour it administers." To Montholon he affirmed his belief in God, read aloud the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the acts of the Apostles. He spoke of Pius VII as "an old man full of tolerance and light". "Fatal circumstances," he added "embroiled our cabinets. I regret it exceedingly." Lord Rosebery has attached much importance to the paradoxes with which the emperor used to tease Gourgaud, and amused himself in maintaining the superiority of Mohammedanism, Protestantism, or Materialism. One day, when he had been talking in this strain, Montholon said to him: "I know that your Majesty does not believe one word of what you have just been saying". "You are right", said the emperor. "At any rate it helps to pass an hour." Napoleon was not an unbeliever; but he would not admit that anyone was above himself, not even the pope. "Alexander the great", he once said to Fontanes, "declared himself the son of Jupiter. And in my time I find a priest who is more powerful than I am." This transcendent pride dictated his religious policy and utterly vitiated it. By the Concordat, as Talleyrand said, he had "done not only an act of justice, but also a very clever act, for by this one deed he had rallied to himself the sympathies of the whole Catholic world." But the same Talleyrand declares, in his "Mémoires", that his struggle with Rome was produced by "the most insensate ambition", and that when he wished to deprive the pope of the institution of bishops, "he was all the more culpable because he had had before him the errors of the Constituent Assembly". This double judgment of the former Constitutional bishop, later the emperor's minister of foreign affairs, will be accepted by posterity. By a strange destiny, this emperor who travelled all over Europe, and whose attitude towards the Catholic religion was in a measure inherited from the old Roman emperors, never set foot in Rome; through him Rome was for many years deprived of the presence of the remotest successor of St. Sylvester and of Leo III; but the successor of Constantine and of Charlemagne did not see Rome, and Rome did not see him.[2] Clearly Napoleon confessed his faith more than enough times at St. Helen. Please do not dismiss this because of my failing to properly reference and cite information. I'm providing evidence that this article is incorrect, I cannot change it. I'm hoping someone will perform more thorough research and consider what has been presented. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTD2 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC))

I would still like someone to consider the above ^ thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTD2 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Simply repeating the above, over and over, will not make it any more persuasive. The problem with your request is fundamental to the nature of Wikipedia. Please see WP:OR for a more complete discussion, but, basically, it is not the role of an encyclopedia to weigh the primary sources and draw conclusions about their significance. That is the role of historians; Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, reports and summarizes the conclusions reached by historians. Analyzing the various quotations you have attributed to Napoleon would require extensive research, first just to determine whether they are authentic, then to determine how they relate to the rest of the body of sources and fit in to the pattern of Napoleon's behavior over his entire life. That's not our role. If there is a significant body of opinion among recognized historians (not necessarily a majority view, but not just one lone author, either) that Napoleon was a faithful, fervent Christian throughout his life, then that historical conclusion -- not the primary sources on which it is based -- should be mentioned in the article. But what you have done is asked us to substitute our own opinions for those of historians, which we should never do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

before modern historians began to get persnickety about citations, the rule was anything goes. Recently Professor Boler, a leading historian & expert on fake quotes said this particular one is almost certainly apocryphal Paul F. Boller Jr. (1989). They Never Said It : A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. Oxford University Press. p. 99. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I wasn't repeating it to reinforce my request. I'm new to editing pages, and I recently forgotten my account information; I was afraid when I went on to present my evidence in the new account, it would've gone unrecognized, so I repeated it in the hope I would get back a response being the section (I think that is the term) creator.

Anyhow, my point is I believe wikipedia hastily accepted the view on Napoleon's religious beliefs; are you to tell to me that this extensive and tedious research has already gone into that section of the article? I certainly wouldn't say so. Now the conclusions drawn about Napoleon presented in the article, as it is now, is more expected then historically accurate. And from what I see on the page, the opinions are also drawn from the research of a single historian and a single book, (written much later than the one I presented, I might add). And the point, the greatest of all, his napoleon's CONFESSION (lack of better expression) of his faith while being exiled on the island of St. Helena. I would agree, he certainly did not show the attributes of a good Christian during his campaign of power, but that does not mean he didn't possess them! This isn't theological debating over whether Napoleon was a good Christian or not, I merely persist that he was (a Christian), and scarcely believed any of the drivel which wikipedia insists were his personal convictions. Are you telling me wikiepdia holds it's own opinions, and the sources have no merit? I have the letters and authors to back this information up, is it not good to also present this information in wikipedia, which as you said is an encyclopedia?

I have come across that book written by professor Boller, and I'm skeptical with his stance. He insists that Vincent Cronin stated that the source of the, jesus-not-a-man qoute, to be unreliable. When it comes to Cronin, I hardly question when it comes to Napoleon, but I've yet to find that supposed statement made by him (it possibly exists, but again, it's he said she said). Like the wikipedia article, I believe Boller's belief is mainly fueled by precedent thoughts and backed merely by open and more famous qoutes.

Thanks, what I'm glad most about is that this is being addressed and debated — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTD2 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I'm digging more and more into this than I have in recent years. It would seem others have already done far more research than I. I'm starting to doubt myself.

I apologize this issue won't be brought up by me again  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.38.172 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 

Inaccurate map

The last editor noticed some errors on the map that was incorporated into this article. He flagged the errors in Wikimedia commons and also deleted the map from this article. The first action was correct, however the latter action is incorrect - how will the person who corrects the error know where to reinstate it. Moreover, once the error in Wikimedia is corrected, the correction will ripple through to this page.

User:Kpalion would do better correcting the map in this article than ripping it out. The same applies to maps that he has ripped out elsewhere. For this reason I have reinstated the maps here and elsewhere. Martinvl (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Martinv. At Wikipedia perfectly accurate maps are like perfectly accurate articles = rare. The job of editors is to spot negatives and fix them. Rjensen (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Grammar fix

I am italian, and in Italy we say "Napoleone Bonaparte", not "Buonaparte". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.67.102 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Under "Personality", it currently reads: "He was an innovation is using the financial, bureaucratic and diplomatic resources of France." I propose modification to "He was an innovator in using the financial, bureaucratic and diplomatic resources of France."

Edit: Alternatively you can say "He was innovative in(when?) using the financial, bureaucratic and diplomatic resources of France."

Problems with references

A not inconsiderable number of references in this article simply redirect back the the article itself. Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference for another article, but using the same article as a recursive reference for itself has to be a complete no no. However, it occurs to me that the references intended may be genuine but are somehow formatted incorrectly so that they don't link to the source intended but back to the article. I do not know how to fix this, and so will have to entrust the task to someone who does. If it does not get fixed within a reasonable time period, I will have to delete the references as failed verification and {{refimprove}} tag the entire article. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

which references are at issue? Rjensen (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of them, but the first I tried was [188]. Clicking the link simply redirects to the top of the article. The reference itself at the bottom is nothing more than a word (name?) and a year. It links to another reference [199] which is equally cryptic and in turn links to [211] which is a reference that has nothing to do with either of the preceeding two. Also finding the references [199] and [211] and clicking them also simply redirects to the top of the article as do countless other references. I am not prepared to list them out because the article takes an eternity to load. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The source for note 188 reads "<ref>Dunan 1963</ref>". It does not "redirect to the top of the article", as it does not contain any links at all. The "^" carat mark at the beginning of each reference note is supposed to link back to where the note appears in the article, and when I click it, it takes me to that point, not to the top of the article. (Possibly your device or operating system isn't capable of interpreting the links correctly.) It does not mean that the note is referring back to the article as the source of the information. "Dunan" refers to the source authored by Dunan, which is listed (alphabetically by author) in the "References" section of the article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon article - grammatical correction

In the section entitled "Personality", please replace "whomever" by "whoever" because the nominative case is required here. 178.191.89.158 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Y You're right, of course, but it's a bit colloquial in any case. I've rephrased it. --Stfg (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Napoléon

The French Wikipedia spells his name Napoléon, with an acute accent. I don't suggest this should be the spelling throughout, but it should be at the top where it says "French: Napoleon". Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, although É and E are not cosidered different letters in French. I am quit precis about this myself as I try to write personal names in the person's own language. Or at least a language which he or she spoke.

2014-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Cause of death

I have written a summary of the present-day state of knowledge on the issue. It can be found here. I am not an expert just an ordinary sceptic with a reluctant fascination for Napoléon I. As long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks on me questioners will be answered to the best of my ability.

2014-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.157.228 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 January 2014‎

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. Your research is of no use to us. (And please note that talk page posts must be signed - in the case of unregistered contributors, with the IP address. If you do not do so yourself, a bot will add it. Please do not remove such signatures). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

Please change Napoleon's religion from "Roman Catholicism" to "Roman Catholicism (1769-1809 [Excommunicated])" Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church 197.87.74.44 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have made the edit on the page after verifying. Thanks for suggesting the edit! Why don't you take the time to create an account? Just saying. Ethically ^(Yours) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Height

His height was actually about 175 to 179.

Are you serious? You're easily 10cm too high. The idea of Napoleon being 5' 10.4" in height is hilarious though.TL36 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

The last sentence of the introduction has a comma splice. Please fix it, either by making "some scholars..." a separate sentence, or replacing the comma before "some scholars" with a semicolon, or by adding "and" before "some scholars". 2001:18E8:2:1020:111B:FF1C:2E91:2977 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, while you're at it, please change "in" to "into". France is divided in 59 dioceses and 10 ecclesiastical provinces in an image caption. 2001:18E8:2:1020:111B:FF1C:2E91:2977 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This Week's Article for Improvement: French Revolutionary Wars

French Revolutionary Wars has been nominated by WP:TAFI. All contributions improving this article welcome! Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

General

Napoleon had a rank, he was not just some civilian who became an emperor. He spent some time in a military academy and was a lieutenant and from his actions at Toulon got promoted to general. So in this article there should be the words Rank: General in the info about the person box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.133.149.244 (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Significance

If you cannot see the significance of this section, I have doubts of you understanding history. Details from lesser known facts can explain a lot. In the article the word conscript is not mentioned anywhere, although it is a key to what happened in Western-Europe under Napoleon. The same is true for Den Helder, according to Napoleon the Gibraltar of the north.

End September 1811 Napoleon visited the former Kingdom of Holland; he arrived in Vlissingen, a strategic city he had visited twice before (in 1803 and 1810). In Antwerp he met with his wife. Then they traveled north to the fortified cities of Willemstad and Hellevoetsluis. He met with general Dirk van Hogendorp, who would become a friend (and later mentioned as one of the few in Napoleon's will). On 9 October he arrived in Amsterdam, the third capital of his empire and stayed a fortnight in the Royal Palace of Amsterdam, used by King Louis Bonaparte who had to leave Holland in 1810, forced by his brother. He visited several wharfs, the fortifications on Pampus, the Trippenhuis and Den Helder, changing the port in the most important naval base in the north. Because of a lack of funds earlier that year 4.000 Dutch fishermen were forced (through conscript) to join the fleet. Vice-admiral Jan Willem de Winter joined him to Texel, and discussed the possibilities to keep the English away from the Dutch coast.

Taksen (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, in what you write I cannot see any explaination, just a personal attack to myself in the first sentence. I repeat the question: why should we insert in a general article about Napoleon particulars as his visits to dutch fortifications, a sojourn in the royal palace of Amsterdam, etc. ? These infos can find their place in a biography of the Emperor, or in an article devoted to the relation between Napoleon and Holland (the same subject of the book that you referenced). During his life the emperor was everywhere in Europe (just yesterday night I was reading about a visit of him on the Lake of Lugano, important in the swiss context, but certainly not worth of being reported here), so that inserting this info here is just giving undue weight to it with respect to other trips, sojourns in buildings, etc. The info about the conscript system can be inserted in the article in a general context. Alex2006 (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• There is a lack in the article about the year 1811. It goes almost straight from his marriage to Russia. Napoleon, as a army commander, was highly interested in any kind of fortifications. I don't think I have to explain that. I prefer facts to show that.
• I am interested in details not in general information. Den Helder, Van Hogendorp, Napoleon's brother Louis, king of Holland, seem not important enough, so the article stays superficial.
• Please mention the conscript somewhere in the article, a key element, which caused riots and protest, not only in Holland. I hope you will be able to find more information on that subject. The Wikipedia article has only one sentence on the subject, very superficial. Taksen (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I already understood that you are interested in details, :-) but this is the exactly the problem: the fact that we write "details" between his marriage and the expedition of Russia, gives automatically to these details (which, as I wrote, could find their place in a more focused article) undue weight with respect to other happenings, whose historic significance is enormous. And cannot be reason enough to insert these details in the article, the fact that in Napoleon's life there is a "hole" in year 1811: the same "holes" occur more or less in each biographic article.

The main problem is that this is a general article, and as such it should concentrate on the most important facts: but there is always the possibility of write ancillary articles. About the conscript system, for sure it deserves a place: I just read that in Switzerland the Eidgenossen shortly before Russia had to contribute to the French army with 40,000 men, an enormous number which explains the hostility against France. Let's now wait for the opinion of some other user. Alex2006 (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex2006 is right. we have strict limits on how much we can cover. Additional details appear in the biographies which each run 500 or more pages (Dwyer 2013 is the latest at 1500 pages--he only gives 7 pages to 1811 because the 365 days that year were not very important for Napoleon --not compared to 1812, which get 60 pages). Most bios of Napoleon have over 10x the space we have here. So we select info from the top down. We ALSO look at what the many reliable biographers have chosen to write about. Did he visit your hometown--how nice and you can add that into the article on that town. Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Alex and Rjensen; an encyclopedia article is different from a biography. Even a biography cannot include every incident in the subject's life, and an encyclopedia article cannot include every incident that any biographer has seen fit to mention. Are we going to list every trip Napoleon ever took throughout his life in this article? Are we going to describe every time he went to the theatre, what show was performed, and who was in the lead roles? (Napoleon was quite an avid theatre-goer, so that would be a long section.) We have no reason to believe that this particular visit to Holland was especially significant relative to other incidents in his life, and we should not give it undue emphasis. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies

Why is the lead first sentence not following WP:FULLNAME in this bio? We don't have Francois Mitterand (French: François Mitterrand), why should this article be different.

Secondly, what do we record the birth name as? Italian (in use on Corsica), Corsican or later French version. I see Nabulione di Buonaparte cited as Corsican birth name is some sources. Lepage French Fortifications, 1715-1815: An Illustrated History p.17 "Nabulione di Buonaparte (in Corsican), who later adopted the more French-sounding Napoléon Bonaparte, was born in Ajaccio (Corsica)...", but is there such a thing as a Ajaccio parish church birth/christening registry for Bonaparte? One would assume that if the family had land a parish priest on Corsica would record the name per Italian Napoleone di Buonaparte - which seems more likely from an Italian Lombard family, and should be in better sources than the above. Whatever whether French, Corsican or Italian he wasn't born English, so the current lead is out of step with WP:FULLNAME. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

More in line with MOS BIO then would be: In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Napoléon Bonaparte (born Napoleone di Buonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821) was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the latter stages of the French Revolution and its associated wars in Europe.

Requested move 16 September 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move per WP:SNOWBALL and WP:CONCISE, among others. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Napoleon → Napoleon Bonaparte – Instead of just "Napoleon", shouldn't this article be titled to reflect his full name? It is more specific, and most of our history articles have a person's first and last name. Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose - as it stands it is an English mononym related to his name as emperor which puts him in the royalty naming conventions. But if we were moving to civilian full name per WP:FRMOS it would be his full name Napoléon Bonaparte like the other French Napoléon (disambiguation) such as Jérôme Napoléon Bonaparte and Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte. Which is how full-font modern English sources treat the full name: Boyron The Constitution of France: A Contextual Analysis "Napoléon Bonaparte turned to ancient history for inspiration." etc. In ictu oculi. ...even France For Dummies has "Napoléon Bonaparte". If it does move to Napoléon Bonaparte per WP:FRMOS, then Napoléon and Napoleon should still direct to this article. (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose because we use for monarchs only first names (regnal names)--Yopie (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and move to Napoleon I, as we have Napoleon II & Napoleon III. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually that may well be a good idea. The current title looks highly amateurish, almost childish, like having an article entitled "Lenin", at first sight mild support for Napoleon I as a WP:NATURAL improvement in precision. As long as Napoleon still redirects there. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and move to Napoleon I as he was known during the height of his power. Blaue Max (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and keep the way it is. That's how scholars and general readers know him. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose he would be Napoleon I if you followed other French monarchs; WP:UCN he is Napoleon without "Bonaparte" or "I", and for which we don't have to choose between "Bonaparte" or "I" -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any move. Napoleon is the common name. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Mon Dieu! Contre, Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source?

"He won the large majority of his battles and seized control of most of continental Europe in a quest for personal power and to spread the ideals of the French Revolution."

Can we get a source for this qualification? 82.217.116.224 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's standard in the textbooks such as 1) Wallbank Civilization--past and present - Page 134: "Motivated primarily by personal ambition, Napoleon was the unwitting instrument for the spread of French revolutionary ideals throughout Europe." 2) Loubere Nineteenth-century Europe Page 23 "there was still the war to win and enlightened ideals and institutions to spread abroad. ... mission that Napoleon assigned himself when he became the first consul in 1800 and, then, in 1804, the emperor of France. As he moved from one military victory to another, his missionary zeal diminished while his personal ambition grew." Rjensen (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014

In "War of the Sixth Coalition"

I find: "The British wanted Napoleon permanently remove;"

Please add "d" to "remove".

128.63.16.47 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Biblioworm 21:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

edit war on lede

copied from RJensen talk page:

Napoléon Bonaparte (French pronunciation: [napɔleˈɔ̃ bɔnaˈpaʁt], born Napoleone di Buonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821) was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the latter stages of the French Revolution and its associated wars in Europe. As Napoleon I, he was Emperor of the French from 1804 to 1814 and again in 1815. He implemented a wide array of liberal reforms across Europe, including the abolition of feudalism and the spread of religious toleration. His legal code in France, the Napoleonic Code, influenced numerous civil law jurisdictions worldwide. Napoleon is remembered for dominating European affairs (1799-1815) while leading France against a series of coalitions in the Napoleonic Wars. He won the large majority of his battles and seized control of most of continental Europe. One of the greatest commanders in history, his campaigns are studied at military academies worldwide. He remains one of the most studied political and military leaders in all of history.

Hello,
As I understand it, the first paragraph of the lead (see above) is about Napoleon Bonaparte as a Republican general and the second paragraph is about Napoleon as Emperor of the French. I really don't see the need to disrupt this structure with redundant informations that can be found a bit further in the lead. Plus, the writing style is not encyclopedic (100-days instead of Hundred Days) and Anglo-centred (The British and the others...). This is why I removed your contribution. Blaue Max (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of discussion that belongs on the talk page not in an edit war. Your proposed opening is a disservice to readers because it does not tell the key facts. The article is about one person--not two people--even if names and titles vary (as they often do with monarchs). It is not Anglo-centered (the British were by far the chief critics). You leave out the 100 days and Waterloo, which is unfortunate. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's fuse both paragraphs. Problem solved. Blaue Max (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"In 1815, he escaped and returned to power for hundred days"

Shouldn't this be "the Hundred Days" as described in the article linked in the text? The period was not exactly a hundred days and it has a specific name.

Alternately, the time period should be indicated as "approximately 100 days" or something along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uffda a la mode (talk • contribs) 11:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

the text works. every understandard that "a hundred" is an approximation

Napoleon 1806 flintlock pistol- Worth a stub article?

Anyone know if Napoleon 1806 flintlock pistol satisfies the WP:GNG or otherwise merits its own article? --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

negative-- it has no historic importance in my opinion (it was a matter of dress, not to be used). Rjensen (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

notes

Semi-protected edit request on 13 Feb 2015 "Escalating tensions over the existence of a Polish State and the Continental System lead to renewed enmity with Russia." The paragraph is set in the past tense. Therefore "lead" should read "led". Gray Fielder (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Blaue Max (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article too big and missing the following subjects

Hello I'll like to ask the opinion of fellow editors if the article Napoleon is not very big, around 16,000 words and that some information's like the details of the battles should not be transfer to their own articles for details, I think the article should be around 10,000 words. Thank you very much, I hope for consensus and collaboration.Aubmn (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's an official rule on the number of words an article should contain. That said, I agree that this article is perhaps longer than it should be, but I don't agree with the material that you specifically deleted. To be honest if we're going to start chopping material left and right I'd rather see the Religion section go, with its content integrated into the rest of the article.UBER ^(talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not too big for probably the most famous and written about political and military leader in world history. He was involved in a vast variety of activities, of which only the important ones are actually covered. Take religion. He was not at all religious, & only a sentence is needed to cover that. However he made major policy decisions regarding religion that And the bitterness of the French Revolution and shaped France for another century. The article attracts a great deal of attention, and no one is forced to read every paragraph in every section. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the battles are too much described in details, these informations are available in each article about the battles, look I know he is probably one of the most political and military leaders in world history and he is one of my favorite heros but it is too long. About religion this man who was not religious in his private life, restored for social reasons religion in Europe and this fact should be mentioned like the others in a limited paragraph not a very big one but lets wait about other opinions, I want consensus on the subject or arbitration.Aubmn (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of the battles and campaigns that are described in this article were historic, in the sense that they changed the course of history. And since Napoleon personally commanded during these campaigns, of course they're going to be mentioned in some detail. Why don't you list some concrete examples of what you want to shorten here on the talk page? Then we'll go from there.UBER ^(talk) 22:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We know as a fact that The article is been looked at 660,000 times in the last three months, see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Napoleon and only one person has said it's too long. Military history is a long suit at Wikipedia, and writing about but a battle from Napoleon's point of view is quite different from writing about a battle in general terms. Those are two different perspectives and both are necessary and are highly desired by the Readers of military history. Only a handful of Napoleon 60 most important battles get covered here in more than a sentence, so the editors have been highly selective. Rjensen (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

For Example the battle of Ulm and Wagram are discussed in details while Waterloo is mentioned shortly...in addition talking about military tactics in details among other subjects.Aubmn (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the editorial decisions that Aubmn has been making. His policy is to delete material, not to summarize it. His weak skills in English indicate that he would have a hard time paraphrasing or shortening text. Here are nine of examples Chosen almost at random of edits of his in the last two days that I think are very wrongheaded: The text that he deleted it is in bold.. I note that he often sees an analytic statement regarding Napoleon's motivations and simply erases it. Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1. He immediately went on the offensive, hoping to defeat the forces of Piedmont before their Austrian allies could intervene.
2. Alarmed by the French thrust that reached all the way to Leoben, about 100 km from Vienna, the Austrians finally decided to sue for peace.
3. . If he could not use his favourite envelopment strategy, he would take up the central position and attack two co-operating forces at their hinge, swing round to fight one until it fled, then turn to face the other.
4. During the campaign, Bonaparte became increasingly influential in French politics; he founded two newspapers: one for the troops in his army and another for circulation in France.
5. He decided on a military expedition to seize Egypt and thereby undermine Britain's access to its trade interests in India.
6. Napoleon assured the Directory that "as soon as he had conquered Egypt, he will establish relations with the Indian princes and, together with them, attack the English in their possessions."
7. Bonaparte, on discovering many of the defenders were former prisoners of war, ostensibly on parole, ordered the garrison and 1,400 prisoners to be executed by bayonet or drowning to save bullets. Men, women and children were robbed and murdered for three days.
8. [at Ulm] Napoleon swung his forces to the southeast and the Grande Armée performed an elaborate wheeling movement that outflanked the Austrians positions.
9. The Ulm Campaign is generally regarded as a strategic masterpiece and was influential in the development of the Schlieffen Plan in the late 19th century.

Aubmn, you make a great point that Waterloo is not described in great detail compared to some of his other battles and campaigns. Do you know what the solution is? To describe Waterloo in greater detail. You can do it yourself if you'd like, go ahead. I actually had plans to write more about Waterloo, but I have not had the time to sit down and start rewriting that section.

As for what was shown by Rjensen, I might be ok with removing the part about the newspapers. I have strong hesitations about the rest, largely because it's content that's related to context (ie. makes sense of other things in the article).UBER ^(talk) 23:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen I won't argue with you because of personal attacks, Uber I respect your position, it is true some other articles are big on Wikipedia, know I checked Hitler 15,600 words, so you have convinced me partially, I wish you remove some of the informations like newspapers and perhaps some comments, can we find a middle ground, let 's say between 15,000 and 16,000 words. I might give some limited input to this article but frankly it is a very good article.Aubmn (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What are missing here are good reasons to reduce the article in size. It is a bad reason to say that the information on XYZ is covered in other articles. That means a person interested in Napoleon and XYZ will have to read articles X, Y and Z, none of which focus on Napoleon, to piece together fragments of information that belong in this article in the first place. If the goal is to save on the number of words a person reads, then we definitely do not want to send them to to other articles. Many people just want the basic facts. Those can use the lead and they don't have to read any further. A second group includes people who are really interested in Napoleon. They should read the whole article – it is far shorter than any of the biographies. The most recently published biographies (Roberts and Dwyer) run 1000 pages or more. A third category is people interested in specific aspects. The article is well organized by sections, and people in this category can easily choose the sections Of interest. What I do not see is a mysterious fourth category of people who would benefit from a shorter article. Rjensen (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is big, because other editors did not participate in this debate perhaps there is no consensus to change it but I think the following changes should happen: First either reduce the battles or we must talk in details about all the battles like Waterloo. Second missed subjects from this article, not in a total way but no paragraphs about them, the social-economic and financial policy of Napoleon and a detailed paragraph about the continental blockade. I think these two subjects should be added in details if we are keeping the battles.Aubmn (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn now explains he was chopping down the article because it had an inadequate treatment of the battle of Waterloo and financial topics. All Wikipedia articles should be considered a work in progress, rather than the final product. People who are frustrated by the absence of coverage of specific topics should bring that matter to the attention of the editors on this talk page, rather than cutting out serious material that is included in the article. Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No Rjensen, many editors said the article to big, go to the history of Edits, even Uber acknowledge this, if I wanted to continue removing non essential informations, I could do it or even seek arbitration, I 'm trying to be positive but frankly for a PhD teacher, you are showing negativity and impatience. I speak about cooperation and you have only negative comments.Aubmn (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You can take this all the way to the UN Security Council for all I care. You're missing the point: the fundamental problem isn't the length of the article, it's what information you want to cut out or leave in. You wanted a shorter article and I agreed. I gave you suggestions on what to cut: the Religions section, and I'll even throw in the Middle Eastern alliances section. Both seem useless to me, but they might have value to someone else.

Welcome to the impossible task of writing a good encyclopedic article about Napoleon that will satisfy everyone.UBER ^(talk) 20:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Calm down UBER, don 't loose it, I 'm telling you if you want to keep the battles with no changes, and you want to remove other sections vital in Napoleon history, that 's not consistent but for consensus I'll agree to keep the battles, I told you I'm ok with keeping the informations but let's make the article consistent first in talking about all the battles, second let's mention even shortly the financial policy and the continental blockade.Aubmn (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I just sliced off 4000 bytes by trimming all sorts of gossip and useless speculation and duplication. I don't think I left out anything of importance. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that's represent positive collaboration, the spirit of Wikepedia.Aubmn (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the recent changes by Rjensen.UBER ^(talk) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Biased editing on religion

The recent changes by Aubmn, trying to portray Napoleon as a heroic defender of the Catholic faith while minimizing his role with other religions, are absolutely ridiculous. For many reasons:

1) Napoleon hardly ever saw Catholicism as anything more than a political tool, just like Judaism, Islam, or any other faith he encountered in his life.

2) Napoleon imprisoned the Pope. Last time I heard, not something a good Catholic tends to do.

3) He expressed agnostic and atheist views towards the end of his life in St. Helena.

Unless there's dominating consensus on here to whitewash history, I think we need to be careful about how we approach Napoleon and religion. The present version of the article at least aims at some balance, even if it's incomplete.UBER ^(talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I 'm not representing him as a Catholic hero, I kept the party where he was excommunicated by the Pope, I know he imprisoned the Pope following a politic of secular supremacy but he did signed a concordat restoring the Catholic Religion in France and large parts of Europe, that is an historical fact and mentioned in this article, like it or not. Second he took confession before he died and that's also a fact, also mentioned in this article. In his testament he declares:" I die in the Roman Catholic Faith in which I was born" but I 'm not using this knowing that in his whole life, he was ambivalent to say the least about his religion and yes he have materialistic ideas ; but that is not the point, by signing the concordat for his own reasons and policy, he benefited the Church and Catholicism more than 100 Popes.Aubmn (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No consensus on making the article smaller but on completing the informations and organizing the article in a better way

First no consensus on making the article smaller to about 10,000 words. Some editors are against reducing the battles so it was agreed to better organization by talking about all battles like Waterloo.

Second other important information's specially about administration, education, finance, social institutions and the continental blockade should be added to make the article complete about Napoleon.Aubmn (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

1815

Napoleon didn't surrender because of the British blockade, he decided to surrender with panache. Indeed, his brother Joseph purposed to hide him in a barrel and he refused. Then, it is true that he was betray by the British government and treated as a common prisonner. (Andre Castelot's book). [Sorry for my English]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHOLLETQuentin (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Did Europe really not witness this level of political consolidation since the Roman Empire?

"By 1811, Napoleon ruled over 70 million people across an empire that had near-total domination in Europe, which had not witnessed this level of political consolidation since the days of the Roman Empire."

Can that really be said about Napoleon's reign since it lasted just ten years(or less than that in some countries)? It just seems a little odd to compare ten years of rule or less to the Roman Empire.Aesthetics101 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015

change
and settled at Josephine's former palace in Malmaison (on the western bank of the Seine about 17 kilometres (11 mi) east of Paris)

to
and settled at Josephine's former palace in Malmaison (on the western bank of the Seine about 17 kilometres (11 mi) west of Paris) 90.213.131.87 (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it biased to say that Napoleon was a great military leader?

Is it bias to say that Napoleon was one of the greatest generals in history? one editor seems to think so. I suspect that editor the leaves that "bias" means to say something favorable about a person. That is not the way Wikipedia works. According to the Wikipedia rules WP:POV, bias means to leave out a serious opinion that is well represented in the reliable secondary sources. What we're supposed to do is tell the readers what the consensus of reliable sources (RS) says. I don't think anyone will challenge the notion that In the field of military history there is a consensus that he was one of the greatest generals in history. Is there a minority viewpoint to the effect that he was Not all that good? I an editor is using some reliable secondary sources to that effect, they should be added in as a minority viewpoint. What we do not do, is say that the consensus of the RS is a "bias" And then remove it. Notice to their quite a few historians, especially from England, who strongly dislike Napoleon. Yes but they also say that it's one of the great achievements in British military history that they managed to defeat the guy. Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Simply calling someone "great" would be biased without quotes or any form of attribution to someone's opinion per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

To the last comment by SNUGGUMS: we do attribute a source to that claim, just look at the citations at the end of the sentence. Anyway, the claim that Napoleon was a great military leader is 'biased' in the same way that claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun is biased. In other words, truth is always biased to someone who doesn't happen to like it. But I understand that it's not the job of Wikipedia to determine what 'the truth' is, which is why we rely on the opinions of experts and reliable sources.

And what do those tell us? Rjensen mentioned the British, who were his enemies. I'm so glad he mentioned his enemies. Here are some of their opinions:

Historian Andrew Roberts (whose book is cited in the lead): "Napoleon Bonaparte was...one of the great conquerors of history."

Duke of Wellington: "In this age, in past age, in any age, Napoleon" [Responding to a question on who he thought was the greatest general ever]

Clausewitz, probably the greatest military theorist ever, called Napoleon "the god of war" and pretty much settled the subject in the minds of many if not most military historians.

Views to the effect of his poor judgment later on in his career are already covered in the article, in one way or another. So I don't think anything additional is needed regarding this particular subject.UBER ^(talk) 19:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

To All,

Little old me, who is no genius, military or other, dare not say whether Napoléon was a great military leader or not & will keep my judgment to myself.

However, I will bring to the attention of the participants of this discussion (if you're still here since this conversation ended on 27 March 2015), that Napoléon's military tactics are one->several of the subjects taught at the US Military Academy at West Point:

• http://www.westpoint.edu/history/SitePages/Napoleonic%20Wars.aspx

Below are some of the books recommended to West Point's next crop of US Army Officers:

• Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, 1789-1815, The Campaigns of Napoleon, Chandler, David G., New York: Macmillan, 1973.
• Napoleon’s Wars: An International History, 1803-1815, Esdaile, Charles, New York, NY: Viking Press, 2007.
• The Art of War in the Age of Napoleon, Rothenberg, Gunther E., Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1978, paperback.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015

napoleon was a corsican born-french 86.166.118.148 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 21:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

napoleon an arberesh?

was this another edit from insecure albos? these guys just dont stop haha! (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

references to other articles

I would like to see an additional section 'See also ...'; for example, giving a reference to 'List of Napoleonic battles'.HuPi (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Puffery

@UberCryxic: Wrt this edit: 06:24, 2 October 2015‎ UberCryxic (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (165,559 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (restoring this part of the sentence, unsure why it was removed)
It was removed, as I said in the edit summary, because it's redundant puffery. It's redundant because the end of the sentence says that "he remains one of the most celebrated and controversial political figures in Western history." It's puffery per WP:PEA. Please do not re-insert. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't actually. The claims are different, and the one you removed less certain than the one you left. See also the section currently at the top of the page. The claim is referenced (apart from being common knowledge) and removing it unbalanced the sentence. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't read the MOS that way, but I'm not going to argue about it. YoPienso (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ref/note errors

I see red-text error messages mentioning "Gates" and "Roberts". Can anyone here fix the error? I can format the references, but the page is kinda long and difficult for me to carefully edit. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "Grab". By the way, I was able to fix errors, but some pages are still needed. --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Did Napoleon "dominated European affairs for over a decade and had a long-lasting impact on Western culutre" or did he just "waged war with much of Europe" ?

Regarding this edit [4], a discussion is currently ongoing on the talkpage of France, it may interest you "specialists of Napoleon". See Talk:France#Napoleon. Blaue Max (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin

@UberCryxic: As my Italian source says, his dad had also a partial Arbereshe origin. My sources are well-known scholars, but don't worry about that. I have found additional historians who explain that an ancestor of Napoleon, was of Arbereshe origin. My Italian reference explains that it is always said Napoleon was of Italian origin, but is forgotten he had also some Arbereshe ancestry.XMMCx (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm under time pressure now so I can't give a very detailed response. I only want to make a very basic point and give you this link to Britannica about the Bonaparte family. The point is this: the Arbëreshë are predominantly Albanian refugees who fled the initial Ottoman invasions in the 15th century and went to Italy. Other Albanians also fled from Ottoman rule over the following centuries. On the other hand, the origins of the Bonaparte family in Florence date to well before the 15th century, hence there's no way they could have been Arbëreshë in any meaningful sense (ie. they did not originate with Albanians, although it might be possible, but difficult to prove, that Albanians later entered into the Italian line of the family in significant numbers).

Second, and I say this as a born-and-raised Albanian, it's very common among Albanians to 'claim' famous historical figures as their own (whether it's Napoleon, Alexander, and a million others). I'm well aware of arguments like the ones you're trying to push because I've seen them on Albanian news outlets and social media. I always thought they were very humorous, but not much more. You seem to have made the mistake of taking them seriously.UBER ^(talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@UberCryxic: It's not a claim made by Albanians. Petta is a well-known Italian scholar. As for the term Arbereshe it's used in many contexts. Sedaj, who is an Albanian scholar, says he was an Arbereshe. It's worthy to note that Albanian scholars usually use the term Arbereshe when talking about Albanians in Medieval Italy, including cases where they weren't really part of the Arbereshe community. For example, they refer to Pope Clement Albani (a Pope of Albanian origin) as an Arbereshe when in reality he wasn't. Maybe this is the reason why Petta doesn't say Arbereshe but just Albanian.

As for your comment about the Albanian news outlets and social media, they are really useless and not helpful. I haven't used social media claims as a source, but well-known scholars. I could find other sources, but I tried to choose the best and the serious ones. However, I'm going to give some additional sources about Napoleon's origin.XMMCx (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE you gotta find the claim here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is this Paolo Petta, where does he teach? Alex2006 (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: We don't need your personal comments. You have to speak only with sources. Your link doesn't speak about Napoleon's origin. There is almost no discussion about his origin. See here: [5] or here: [6]. Unfortunately scholars have been always focused on Napoleon's achievements considering his family's origin, their history in Tuscany etc as of little importance. He is considered of Italian origin and he really was, but as sources explain, he had also Albanian origin. I have been editing other language Wikipedia (German, French, Italian etc) since a long time and I don't have any reason to make Fringe history a part of my contribution history. Nuray Bozbora says: In fact the "Muslim Bonaparte" didn't know anything about Napoleon's distant Albanian origin. Ali knew that Napoleon was very interested in southern Albania and northern Greece, as they were the an important key to the French agenda in the Balkans. The Albanian pasha used this interest for his own profits, but the Albanian origin of Napoleon's father would help pasha in his war against Sublime Porte (I translated from Turkish) Nicola Guy says: In that time Napoleon saw a major interest in Epirus, a historical region inhabited by Greeks, Albanians and Pindus Aromanians. Searching his family's ancestry, scholars have found Albanian origin to one of Napoleon's ancestors. It is certain that Napoleon knew something about his origin, but we can't say he talked to anyone about his ancestors. In fact, he needed to look like a "French" because of his political interests.

Epirus was very important in his objective to control the entire continent.XMMCx (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but @Fountains of Bryn Mawr: is right: you should read carefully WP:FRINGE and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Afterr that, if you have some spare time, you can also go through the notes of the (very well done) Italian Wikipedia article about the house of Buonaparte. You will find the only hint about an alleged Albanian origin (with reference). Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

received by shock and grief

In the intro, shouldn't "received by shock and grief" be "received with shock and grief"? 174.47.29.50 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead too long?

Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be no more than four paragraphs. Currently, it's five. --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

that is a general guideline for all 4 million articles. Wikipedia has no firm rule on the matter, only suggestions that apply in most cases. The opening of wp:lead says " Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. This is one of the obvious exceptions. Is this lead too long for users? I think not. Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What about WP:LEADLENGTH? From what it says, a lead too short is unsatisfactory, and a lead too long is intimidating, hard to read, and less interesting. Five isn't that "too long" to general readers, is it? --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

people can skip paragraphs easily if they don't want to read it. It just barely covers the main points as it is. Napoleon was a very busy man. Rjensen (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What if most readers skip some paragraphs, especially in intro? As a reader, I'll try not to doze off from it with five paragraphs. Hopefully, it is a summary of the article and not too much. --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The lede is far too long. Napoleon was only a successful figure for less than twenty years and most of his achievements did not survive him. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC))

Agree with Rjensen, and others here. I've removed the tag. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article is complicated. The size of the lead reflects those complications.UBER ^(talk) 05:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most users above. Napoleon was a very busy man in a very complicated period and had a lasting impact on western culture. Nothing is superfluous in this article, although it could be tightened. Blaue Max (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed from the lead the sentence which stated that "Napoleon dominated European affairs during the Revolutionary Wars". It is not true. During the Revolutionary Wars, he was a famous general, a close friend to many republican leaders, but he had no political power in France until Brumaire and certainly no power outside of France (except maybe in Egypt where he ruled as a pasha, but that's not what the original sentence referred to).Blaue Max (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I also put a list of Ñapoleon's reforms in note. As noted by many users, the lead is already too long ! Adding a slightly POV list of some of his reforms is burdening unnecessarily the article. Blaue Max (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

For ledes in general, I started latest discussion at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Allow fifth paragraph of lede?" --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is the summary of this article a detailed chronology of the man's lifetime? The opening summary is actually a virtual play-by-play of his life's events in 5 very large paragraphs. Shouldn't it be a summary or a synopsis? It is probably one of the largest, least necessary summaries in Wikipedia. In many instances of the opening, these are not contextual details meant to provide a proper understanding of the historical personage but a compendium of facts that ought to be distributed throughout the article where the details can be elaborated on. There is too much unnecessary information in this summary and it ought to be reduced... Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

Height in infobox should be 5'7" rather than simply 5'7 Andreimikheyev (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Template:Infobox royalty, which this article uses, actually doesn't have a "height" parameter. Although |height=5'7 existed in the page's source, it wasn't actually displayed in the infobox because the template doesn't support it. Thus, I have removed the parameter entirely. Thank you for your suggestion, however. Best, Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling?

In the article of "French Empire" There seems to be a spelling error. It says Lauching, but I think it should stand Launching.

I'm new here so I may have screwed up with this talk thingy

Equinity (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Greatest controversially celebrated commander to ever be taught in military schools worldwide?

One of the greatest commanders in history, - greatest is an opinion. That shouldn't be on any article unless in quotations and cite a source that says so.

his wars and campaigns are studied at military schools worldwide. - I'm not sure if that can be verified or not, but some veterans will tell us they learn about Civil War and World Wars at military schools.

He also remains one of the most celebrated and controversial political figures in human history. - Celebrated? I've never heard of Napoleon Day. Controversial? According to whom?

Does anyone else agree with me / get the point? It's just that I don't think Wikipedia should praise or demean anything unless it's in quotation and reliable sources saying that are cited.

Perhaps we can reach a consensus on this. --Turkeybutt (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear if Turkeybutt thinks historians believe there are greater military commanders, or whether he complains about the cites. The statements are sourced at the end of the paragraph to two leading RS (Roberts & Messenger) -- but Turkeybutt provides zero RS of his own -- instead he invents sources (eg some veterans will tell us they learn about Civil War and World Wars at military schools.) ANyone in doubt should look at the websites of places like West Point. or that of Sandhurst instead of inventing mystery "veterans" Rjensen (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Also, this is a good article. One should open a discussion on the talkpage before they start tagging, especially if they intend to tag the lead. Dr. K. 03:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone reverted one of my neutralizing revisions saying that dictionary.com (the first of the two sources cited in a row) is unreliable.

So I revised it by doing the same neutralization thing again (and this time without the dictionary.com references) and it got reverted.

We need to verify that lots of military schools do indeed study Napoleon. Napoleon may be the greatest commander to someone and an imperialist tyrant to someone else.

Hitler can be considered to be an evil dictator or a post-Depression war hero. But that doesn't mean that either statement should be mentioned in the articles as if they were facts.

Wikipedia strives for neutral and fair perspectives on both sides with undue weight, and should not praise anything as terrific or demean anything as terrible. Opinions should be cited in quotation, and what may be truth may be nonsense to someone else, so whatever factoids are put on articles must be verified. Wikipedia should not state that anything is true or wrong. --Turkeybutt (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it should. When multiple reliable sources, establishing an academic consensus, assert a given fact about Napoleon, or about any other subject, then that fact can be stated in the article without qualifications. This article is also a WP:Good article. This means that editors here have checked it for NPOV and reliable sources. Tagging it at the lead without first coming to the talkpage to discuss the tags is not helpful. Dr. K. 15:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agreed with Dr K. the NPOV rule is a rule for Wiki editors not to take sides between competing reliable sources. When the RS are in agreement, then Wiki reports the consensus --which means we have RS to verify it. Yes a person can be a great military genius and a controversial political tyrant at the same time. All the RS I have looked at agree that 1) Napoleon was one of the world'd greatest military commanders and 2) he was politically controversial. History has lots of examples of military success making political tyranny possible. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The general consensus from reliable sources is that Napoleon was one of the world's greatest military commanders. I think it's especially noteworthy that this consensus also existed among his enemies, including the British and the Prussians. But even recent historical opinion hasn't changed; the great British historian David Chandler thinks Napoleon was the greatest commander of all time. If you don't care about reliable sources and are more inclined towards popular opinion, then look at pretty much any online list ever made on the greatest commanders in history. The only two that are included in almost every single list are Alexander and Napoleon. The rest usually vary by national taste.

The OP seems to be American, yet still not aware that West Point covers Napoleon extensively in its curriculum. It is difficult to imagine a military school which does not teach his campaigns, as the man is mostly responsible for the organization of modern armies and the strategies of modern warfare. Teaching the history of warfare without Napoleon is like teaching Christianity without Jesus. Does. Not. Compute.

As for the celebrated/controversial sentence, that too is thoroughly cited later throughout the article, from all kinds of different authors. But I wasn't aware that someone had to have a specific day in order to count as being celebrated. I guess Americans don't really celebrate the likes of FDR that much since there is no 'FDR Day.' There are other measures to highlight his fame and popularity, like the fact that more biographies have been written about Napoleon than anyone in the last thousand years. Or the millions who visit his mausoleum at Les Invalides. Or the regular reenactments of his battles across Europe. You get the point.UBER ^(talk) 15:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

Franceschinaccio (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2016 (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. Cannolis (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge of Napoleon's father's history of stomach cancer at the time of the autopsy

Although the source cited in the article claims that Napoleon's father's death from stomach cancer was not known at the time of the autopsy performed on Napoleon, there are sources to the contrary. In particular, William Hazlitt's six-volume history of Napoleon's life has the following (Grolier edition, volume 6, p. 100) as Napoleon's own words to Antommarchi:

"The vomitings which succeed each other without intermission lead me to suppose that the stomach is the one of my organs which is the most deranged ; and I am inclined to believe that it is affected with the disease which conducted my father to the grave, I mean a cancer in the lower stomach."

Unfortunately, Hazlitt does not give his sources, so this needs further research and confirmation. Poihths (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt

There should be a section about the assassination attempt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:A920:70F8:4096:8C63:29F (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 

Image on plate says Caligula

Its a bit confusing that on a portrait of Napoleon the artist should have added the caption 'Caligula'. If model is indeed napoleon, it would be useful to some explanation for this other name?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.7 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Good catch. The description of this piece on the website of the Victoria and Albert Museum confirms that it depicts Caligula, and makes no mention of Napoleon. It shall be removed from this article forthwith. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

under the Image section, about his height: The text says: Confusion about his height results from the difference between the French pouce and British inch. He was reported as being 5 ft 2 in in French units, which is 5 ft 6 in British Imperial units or 1.68 cm — an average height for a man of that period.[note 8]

This should be which is 5 ft 6 in British Imperial units or 1.68 m or which is 5 ft 6 in British Imperial units or 168 cm

5 feet 6 inches is 1.68 meters or 168 centimeters. Anuj.datar (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

let me edit there are so many lies about the Napoleonic wars! 104.204.50.31 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK _Discuss 23:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Napoleon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108025218/http://www.napoleon.org/en/magazine/presse_review/files/dinard_callforpapers.asp to http://www.napoleon.org/en/magazine/presse_review/files/dinard_callforpapers.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929024236/http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/files/480813.asp to http://www.napoleon.org/en%5Creading_room%5Carticles%5Cfiles%5C480813.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

People Were Tiny Back In the Day

Apparently, Napolean was 1.68 cm tall, "an average height for a man of that period" (ref. section "Image", paragraph 2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomrlax (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean 1.68 m tall; 1.68 cm is about 0.66 inches! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpaniello (talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

how tall was Napoleon--what yardstick did he carry with him to St Helena?

he was measured at 5 feet 2-inches at his death. Owen Connelly (2006) has the best and most recent analysis. he says:"On the assumption that his corpse was measured with a French yardstick, which is longer than the British ... some historians have decided the Napoleon was 5'6" tall.... Since the French had been on the metric system since 1793, however, and since Napoleon had used all means to make the French convert to it, it is doubtful that his entourage carried a yardstick from the old regime. Thus, it is almost certain that he was measured within English yardstick." see his footnote Owen Connelly (2006). Blundering to Glory: Napoleon's Military Campaigns. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 7. Using the English yardstick gives 5 feet, 2 inches. Rjensen (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a weak source, at best. It admits to being an assumption. The article should be worded to state there is no clear evidence of his exact height, because there isn't. We have no idea how likely it was that his entourage had an English yardstick rather than a French. 96.239.59.182 (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

We have explicit evidence that he was measured as 5-foot 2 inches. So we can just say that. Rjensen (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Exile on Saint Helena

The section on Napoleon's exile on Saint Helena was much more developed and detailed in the past, with interesting information on his life on the island, discussions in Britain about his living conditions and detention, and plots to rescue him. Why has all this info been removed? Lucretius (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I found the article comprehensive and interesting, but would also really like to know more about his days on Helena. Kind regards. 93.165.146.58 (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks !

Thanks to the one who has redirected this article to Napoleon - not Napoleon I. Although his son somehow became "Napoleon II" (but never ruled), only his brother's son, Napoleon III has ruled France (1848-52 as President , second Republic, 1852-70 as Emperor). But Napoleon (1804-14 and 1815) had no number. Not then. Not now ! There's no confusion about that. Thanks again ! Boeing720 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

5 feet 2 inches (1.57 m) OR 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 m)

In the Personality section it says, "At 5 feet 2 inches (1.57 m), he was the average French male but short for an officer."

In the Image section it says, "He seemed to be of an average height for his time – 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 m), but beginning in 1803, with a caricature from James Gillray, he was mocked in British newspapers as a short tempered small man."

This conflict is problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastofthetribe (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

historians now agree on 5'2 -- as measured in a British medical clinic using an English yarstick (rather than an ancient French one--Napoleon had replaced all the old French measurements with metric.) Rjensen (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the G-R-A-M-M-A-R (just I case you did not know how to spell that)on Reign of Terror and the S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.214.185 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discrepancy is due to the use of the old French inch, which equaled 1.066 British inches, by his French entourage at his death. See the Units of measurement in France before the French Revolution. The French Wikipedia puts his height at 1.687 meters. It should also mention his policy of recruiting tall men for his personal guard.Vgy7ujm (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Political status at birth

As per BRD, I'd like to reach a consensus here for my edits. I have added this edit in order to clarify the political control of Corsica during the late 1700s. Cheers. LivinRealGüd (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Already better from my point of view. However, when I said obfuscated links, I meant things like "in 1768" linking to French conquest of Corsica, which is counter to MOS:LINKCLARITY. (Hohum ^@) 20:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Will change. LivinRealGüd (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@LivinRealGüd: - a diff would have been better in your opening post. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

The island of Elba is not near Rome, therefore please change: "He was exiled to the island of Elba near Rome" to "He was exiled to the island of Elba off Tuscany's coast"

thanks Luca 138.40.67.207 (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Marcus^(talk) 15:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Italian ancestry??

The article says that Napoleon was of Italian ancestry. As Italy did not exist until 1861, shouldn't it say he was of Genoese ancestry? Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well of course Italy existed before 1861, there are many articles on its earlier history. It was just unified into a single state in 1861. Almost all historians/biographers refer to his Italian heritage, and given that Wikipedia works on using reliable sources, I don't see why we would need to start calling him Geonese, that would be very... revisionist? Of course, his Geonese ancestry could be mentioned, but not used as an alternative to Italian. — Marcus^(talk) 11:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Almost all historians/biographers refer to his Italian heritage - it's the same problem as historians/biographers saying the British Royal Family have German roots. The German Empire didn't exist until 1871. They are of Hanoverian ancestry. What is now Italy before 1861 was the Kingdom of Sardinia, Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Papal States, Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia etc, plus free cities such as Trieste. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I must agree with Mjroots, Italy did not exist as a nation-state before 1860, Corsica is not part of the geographical Italy and when Napoleon was born nationalties where loosely defined, so we should used them with great care for the periods before the 19th century. By example, in the Middle Ages, the English and German nations were considered a single nation by the university of Paris (see picture). Blaue Max (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It's sad to see this nonsense turning up again. This simply reflects how the university chose to divide up its foreign and regional students at the time, no doubt reflecting their relative numbers. It is wholly wrong to apply this scheme to anything wider. Germany and Italy, more or less with their current borders, were universally understood as linguistic/geographical concepts in the Middle Ages, and derive from essentially the same concepts in classical antiquity. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really an argument. One university's opinion does not equal a consensus. I mean, before Darwin's theory of evolution all humans were considered the creation of some god. We don't all have to subscribe to a singular opinion, no matter who formed it. But as I said, if you want to change the article you MUST provide reliable sources or you WILL be challenged. This is the PRIMARY rule of Wikipedia – source everything or don't expect it to stick. I have a dozen Napoleon biographies sat on my shelves, I could probably cite from the majority of them that Napoleon had some form of "Italian" heritage. Can you do the same? It's not a matter of who you agree with or what your personal opinion is, this isn't Conservapedia, there can be no bias or adherence to political correctness, so I must insist that you source your edit forthwith. This is an article of great importance about one of the most influential men who ever lived, so there's not much flexibility when it comes to following the rules on referencing your claims. It's as simple as that. — Marcus^(talk) 13:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bonapartes were actually of Tuscan origins (which is not the same thing as being of Venitian or Neapolitan origins). The Tuscan adjective is more precise and historically accurate than the vague Italian adjective, so let stick with "Tuscan origins".Blaue Max (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What Marcus said. We cannot call him "Italian" or "Genoese" or "Tuscan" or "Martian" or anything else just because we as editors think it is an appropriate term; it has to be supported by a reliable source. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"The Tuscan adjective is more precise and historically accurate than the vague Italian adjective" – according to who? Source, cite, reliable ref. please. — Marcus^(talk) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly agree with everything Marcus said here so far. As for mentioning the Republic of Genoa in his ancestry, the same paragraph already says that Napoleon was born in the same year (1769) as the Republic ceded possession of the island of Corsica to France (though maybe the exact wording and style of that sentence can be emphasized based on how I just wrote it here). Napoleon was born in Corsica, and Corsica has longstanding historical ties to Italian culture to this day. But as Marcus also already said, as long as additions to sentences or paragraphs are made based on agreed upon reliable sources, not on an editor's opinion, they can certainly be considered. Even the "Tuscan origins" just mentioned, would also need a reliable academic source that uses it. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

But which came first, Napoleon's birth or the ceding of possession of Corsica to France? Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just taken a glance at about half-a-dozen Napoleon biographies, and I am actually surprised at the result. Thought it best to share my findings. Whilst all the authors mention the Bonaparte family's Corsican, Tuscan, Geonese or Italian background, with varying levels of emphasis, virtually none have committed to refering to Napoleon himself as being any of those. There seems to be a collective hush on trying to label him as anything definite, and they generally refer to his parent's heritage without attributing much of it to Napoleon directly. That makes it all the harder to draw conclusions, but we should not be quick to label him based on our own beliefs of Italian geography. — Marcus^(talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As the article says, Napoleon himself was French. That is not what we are discussing here. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You're completely wrong there. The article says he was a French statesman and military leader. That means "of the French" not as a natural Frenchman, since by birth he was not a French citizen. I'm perfectly aware of what we are discussing here, since I raised the point that "we" are discussing. Please don't lead the conversation down the wrong alley, it only leads to unproductive threads. — Marcus^(talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I saw this discussion. Please continue to discuss here towards a conclusion rather than edit-warring over this. It's a nuanced topic, and one that can bring out the worst in some people so please bear that in mind and try to be civil. --John (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with John, let's thrash this out on the talk page. then edit the article iff there is consensus to make a change. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see this discussed as well. Do note that Napoleon's birth has nothing to do with his ancestry. He could have been born on the moon for all it matters. I am interested in seeing if indeed he came from an Italian background. From what I can surmise from Republic of Genoa, his parents were from an independent state tied to the Kingdom of Italy. I am currently looking at the Roberts biography which seems to indicate that he was of Italian ancestry. LivinRealGüd (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Italy ceased to exist with the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the Republic of Genoa was a fully independent country after that.Blaue Max (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed as I look to the biography once more it does say: "the Italian city-state of Genoa had nominally ruled over Corsica for two centuries." Later noting Napoleon as "a Corsican of Italian extraction". LivinRealGüd (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If you read the whole article carefully as it is right now, you see that the "Italian ancestry" generic assignment, can be qualified further to "Tuscan ancestry," then "Ligurian ancestry," and then the birth itself to the local lower nobility in Ajjaccio. I believe that the "Italian ancestry" generic assignment is good enough for the reasons posited by Johnbod and MarcusBritish (above? below?), but it could be qualified further in a note qualifying it to "Tuscan ancestry" by the way of Liguria/Genoa. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I had the same discussion a few years ago with someone who wanted to label as "German" anything from the Holy Roman Empire [7]. Calling retrospectively someone "German" or "Italian" would be a dangerous bias for Wikipedia. Was the Neanderthal man, discovered in Belgium in 1829, "Belgian" ?Blaue Max (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you above, "Germany and Italy, more or less with their current borders, were universally understood as linguistic/geographical concepts in the Middle Ages, and derive from essentially the same concepts in classical antiquity." Belgium is of course different. Unfortunately Wikipedia is full of editors, mostly American, who are reluctant to understand that these terms are often correct as geographical or ethno-linguistic descriptors for periods long before the nation-states with the same names arose. You really need to do some reading on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but you probably need more reading than me. By example, the adjective "German" attached to the expression "Holy Roman Empire" is a 19th century addition by nationalist historians who saw in the Holy Empire, the predecessor state of Germany. It is not so, the Holy Empire saw itself as the continuator of the Roman Empire, not the forerunner of a German ethno-state. As for the ethnic definition of the peoples, it is also a pure product of the 19th century, before that, ethnicity was a very fuzzy concept.Blaue Max (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

These mentions of "German" Royals and Neanderthal Man are whataboutisms that really don't help further the conversation towards a solution. Let's focus on Napoleon, and put aside other articles that bear to relevance to this one. — Marcus^(talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Excerpt from page 47, chapter "Corsica", of Napoleon on Napoleon – his autobiography, dictated in his own words: "The Bonapartes are of Tuscan origin. In the Middle Ages they figured as senators of the republics of Florence, San Miniato, Bologna, Sarzana, and Treviso and as prelates attached to the court of Rome. They were allied to the Medici, the Orsini, and Lomellini families. Several of them engaged in the public affairs of their native states; others employed themselves in literary pursuits at the period of the renaissance of literature in Italy." — Marcus^(talk) 17:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with the wording "The Bonapartes are of Tuscan origin". Blaue Max (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's from the horse's mouth, so to speak. We should state this as a fact and ignore historians who have put a modern nationality on an ancient stated. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus here ? Blaue Max (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My main concern is the phrase "Corsica was under Italian rule for 200 years". This sentence is imprecise at best, misleading at worst. An uninformed reader will think that Italy possessed Corsica since the 1650s. It is not so, the Republic of Genoa exclusively possessed the island since the treaty of Westphalia and Corsica was part of the Holy Roman Empire before that. Blaue Max (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So find a reference saying as much. — Marcus^(talk) 18:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Blaue Max: do you think you could have the courtesy to bring things to the discussion that are being disputed, before making edits? In this instance you cited page 6 of Frank McLynn's book as supporting that Corsica had been under Genoan rule for 200 years (since you specifially changed "Italian" to "Genoan"). However, that book makes no such assertion. It only supports the earlier clause of the sentence in the article which states that control of Corsica was ceded to France in 1768. It makes no mention of Corsica's early history. Perhaps Andrew Robert's biography provides a more accurate telling, in his Napoleon: A Life (aka Napoleon the Great) he states: "The Italian city-state of Genoa had nominally ruled Corsica for over two centuries, but rarely tried to extend her control beyond the costal towns into the mountainous interior where the Corsicans were fiercely independent." A couple of comments back you stated "Republic of Genoa exclusively possessed the island" – I feel that you're over-playing Genoa's actual governance of Corsica and we should include the word used by Roberts: "nominal" to give a more accurate "after 200 years under nominal Genoese rule." Edits made "per talk page" are usually made once a consensus is reached, not before. I'm also not sure why, but Roberts' is referenced at the end of that "200 years rule" line without a page number. In Napoleon the Great on page 5, Roberts says Genoa reluctantly sold the island to Louis XV for 40 million francs because they weren't prepared to fight Paoli and his nationalists. — Marcus^(talk) 23:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you contest that Corsica belonged to the Republic of Genoa ? No.

Did you contest that Corsica was under "Italian" rule during 200 years ? Never.

Now that I've merged the two sentences into a more precise and accurate one, you contest it ! I don't understand this nonsense...

As far as I'm concerned, we can purely delete this sentence, as it doesn't bring any vital information and, astonishingly, provokes fierce controversy. But i'm open to suggestions, we can write that "Corsica belonged nominally to the Republic of Genoa", if it pleases you... Blaue Max (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The "nonsense" is that you've edited the article about 3 or 4 times in the last week to replace "Italian", or so-called "anachronisms", with some alternative wording and that it's starting to come across as POV-pushing, especially when you won't wait for this discussion to reach a conclusion. You're full aware of what is being contested, so there's little point in asking and answering your own leading questions. This isn't about you or your preferences. Nor is it about mine, hence why I'm actually providing sources instead of just my own opinion. You don't need to remain open to suggestions either, the final decision isn't yours. Leave some breathing room, will you, so we can consider the issue without you jumping the gun every few hours to put in your own interpretation of what is right. — Marcus^(talk) 11:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the usage of the word "nominal"; it seems appropriate to me (as per Roberts pp. 5, and McLynn chp. 14). LivinRealGüd (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point of adding "nominal", which will confuse people. The Buonapartes lived in Ajaccio, the capital, where presumably government control was strongest. That bandits and others held sway in the hills hardly matters here. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. According to Encyclopædia Britannica's entry on the History of Corsica, the island was controlled by Genoa against challenges from Pisa (in and around 1284), and Aragon (1297 to 1434). From 1434 to 1453 there were internal struggles between Genoese administrators and Corsican aristocracy, and there was even a French occupation from 1553 to 1559. Further difficulties with political control lasted from 1729 to even after the birth of Napoleon. So it is need true that the island of Corsica was under Genoese rule "nominally" (i.e. "existing in name only") for some two centuries (as per Roberts pp. 5).

Anyways, perhaps Talk:Napoleon/Archive 5, Talk:Napoleon/Archive 6, this discussion, and Talk:Napoleon/Archive 4 might assist in Mjroots in his inquiry? LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: If they're "confused" (which I very much doubt) they can always look it up in the referenced source book. That is why we have referncing, afterall, as a "go to" for in-depth reading from which information is given. Regardless, it's a matter of balance. Corsica wasn't fully governed from Genoa, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Further, please read Pasquale Paoli, specifically: "Paoli's government claimed the same jurisdiction as the Republic of Genoa. In terms of de facto exercise of power, the Genoese held the coastal cities, which they could defend from their citadels, but the Corsican republic controlled the rest of the island from Corte, its capital." According to Ajaccio, Napoleon made Ajaccio the capital in 1811. Corsican Republic confirms that Corte was its capital, also. So that kind of screws up your theory and reinforces the necessity for "nominal", since Paoli's proclamation made Corsica virtually independent from 1755 to 1769, even if Genoa technically owned the island. — Marcus^(talk) 20:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we certainly don't adopt that attitude - the "let them eat cake" approach to encyclopedia-writing! You will see from Ajaccio that it was a Genoese powerbase, that the republic left alone; one of the coastal cities mentioned in the quote you give. As far as the Buonapartes were concerned, which is what matters here, they were fully under Genoese rule until the end. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The word "nominal" is self-explanatory. It doesn't require further detail in a biog. about Napoleon. There are wikilinks to various other articles, such as those I gave above, where readers can find more background about Corsica's history and geography. It's not "let them eat cake", it's "here's a fact, to learn more go to..." (wikilink or source) which works for almost every article on-site, because encyclopedia's cross-reference, they don't pack as much undue detail into each page as possible and overload the reader with trivia and background. And at the same time they shouldn't ignore facts for the sake of making the article more convenient. If we say "Genoa ruled Corsica", it's a lie. If we go into full detail about how Genoa had more control in some places and less in others it's true but probably undue. If you summarise it into the word "nominal" it's accurate and concise, plus it's supported by a source. Or does that form of writing not make sense to you either? The Bonaparte's may have lived in Ajaccio, but there's no reason to assume that they restricted all their business to that one town alone. In fact, given that they were involved with Paoli, Napoleon's father being his secretary and assistant, we know they didn't isolate their affairs. Therefore they lived and worked in and outside of Genoan ruled territory and I doubt the Genoan's attempted to interfere in their affairs. Ergo, "nominal" still works well to sum up their history on the island as a whole, and does not distort the truth. In short, I still don't agree with your conclusions, because the facts don't support your claims. — Marcus^(talk) 01:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Added "nominal" since both myself and User:LivinRealGüd agree with the term and only User:Johnbod objects, despite it being a sourced description. — Marcus^(talk) 09:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Napoleon's personality

The article on Napoleon, under the heading of "Personality" says the following: "In the nine month between arrival in Nice and the end of 1776 he sent more than eight hundred letters and despatches, covering everything from where drummer-boys should stand in parades to the conditions under which the 'Marseillaise' should be played." The Marseillaise was not composed until 1792, therefore this claim is impossible.Tchaikovsky'sNemesis (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

he was born august 15, 1769 on Corsica. Loved his mother. Hated France2600:1700:8FB0:9F50:45F3:6DBC:9B6C:D478 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

Troublesome quote

Early life. "Napoleon was born the same year the Republic of Genoa, a former commune of Italy,.." - but "Italy" as a country or nation didn't exist before Garibaldi (Quote from our article on Italy "On 17 March 1861, the Parliament proclaimed Victor Emmanuel King of Italy..." ). This is the date when Italy was born. The Roman Empire as well as the Italian language are both different issues. Suggest change to "Napoleon was born the same year the Republic of Genoa, a former commune in what after 1861 became Kingdom of Italy," or something in line with that. Readers who just read this article gets the impression that an Italian state existed already a century or so earlier. Boeing720 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need the reference to Italy at all? A reader who doesn't know what or where the Republic of Genoa was can just click on the link to find out. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Italy did exist in name, and the word "Italy" was commonly used at the time. See Name of Italy for more etymology. Historians refer to the Italian campaigns of the French Revolutionary Wars, France had an "Army of Italy", Napoleon formed a Kingdom of Italy. 1861 saw the unification of Italian states into a single nation, the Kingdom of Italy, which became today's modern Republic Italy, as of 1946. The Republic of Genoa was within the Kingdom of Italy of the Holy Roman Empire. The article is not disputing when modern Italy was formed or even claiming that the word applies to the entire Italian peninsular, it simply uses the word "Italy" which was not uncommon in Napoleon's era and is used by many historians. Bearing in mind that "Italy" is the Anglo term for "Italia" which was used throughout Italy and France in the 18th century. Historians also use the word "German" for the independent states in Central Europe, such as German Campaign of 1813 despite Germany not being formed until 1871. I'd suggest that the situation is much the same – 18th century Italy and Germany were a bunch of independent states with their own names, but collectively are called "Italy" or "Germany" by historians, even for periods before either became a nation-state. Why? Because the etymology of Italia and Deutscher generally supports it, by as far back as 2000–3000 years. So, with that knowledge, I think "a former commune in what after 1861 became Kingdom of Italy" is an inappropriate addition, since that term applied from 1861–1946 only, and only adds more confusion than clarity. I think the simplest change we need would be to change "a former commune of Italy" to "a former commune of the imperial Kingdom of Italy" which matches what is said in the lead of Republic of Genoa and is more relevant to the period itself than what Italy would become – personally, I see no need in making undue future references beyond "modern day X" to provide clarity for when a region once had a totally different name. — Marcus^(talk) 17:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I expressed myself clumsy. Sorry. I fully agree with you that "Italy" (Italia) by name was used also before 1861, referring to an area including several Italian speaking countries, states and free cities. But during the 18th century those areas were not parts of the Holy Roman Empire. South of the Alps that Empire didn't survive the Middle Ages. What Italy later would become is irrelevant, yes. But also what it had been a long time ago. It's a question of how it was at the time of Bonaparte's birth, I think.

I'm questioning two things. First - that we by combine formalities like "Republic of Genoa" and "commune of Italy", causes "Italy" to be seen as an existing country already in the 1760's - and not in the informal and vaguer sense. Can you see this problem ? But neither my hasty suggestion was good. I agree. But could just "Napoleon was born the same year the Republic of Genoa transferred Corsica to France", be good enough ? Apart from how "Italy" is interpreted by our readers, in our current version especially the word "former" confuses me, former as of when ? Of today ? (insignificant) - "as of that time former" (a slight significance perhaps, but significant enough ?)- or as "former in a remote past already at his birth" ?? This is still not optimal in either case, I feel. But thanks for your efforts. Boeing720 (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Whenever you see words like "former" in a historical text, it's almost always relative to the period of history being discussed, and never to "now", since – logically – all of history is "former" to today. Therefore, having to clarify the word "former" would just be extraneous wording, which would most likely confuse English-speaking readers. The suggestions you made, adding words around "former", to try to define it, appear clunky and unnatural to me. What else would "former" mean other than a time before the event/period mentioned in the sentence/paragraph in question? In the same manner, I don't see why "Italy" would need to be "interpreted" – everyone knows where Italy is (and was) geographically on a map, whether it's considered a region, a peninsular or a country, so I'm not understanding why there is need to give extra meaning to the word; as with "former" the use of "Italy" is contemporary to the period covered. I mean, in everyday discussion people just say "America" – 99% of the time they mean the United States, they don't have to clarify that they don't mean Canada, Mexico, or even Brazil or Argentina. I think the word "Italy" is a case of WP:BLUE. No one generally questions it as deeply as you think is necessary. The mention of it in relation to his birth is so brief that trying to give Genoa further historical context just seems excessive. I don't want to call your suggestions pedantic, as that sounds a bit rude, I'm just of the opinion that Napoleon's life has been written so many times, by so many biographers, that there's little to be gained from trying to redefine his well-established background to any degree, as there are too many sources to cite which can simply negate any effort to do so. As I said previously, I'm not opposed to tweaking the content to make Genoa's relationship to Italy more accurate, I just don't feel the need to define the wording because it can result in clutter and distract readers from what is being expressed. — Marcus^(talk) 11:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Split into Rise of Napoleon

I think that parts of this article, especially from the section "Early career", should be split into a new article called Rise of Napoleon. It is a highly notable subject, thoroughly studied by scholars. Other articles that already exist on the rises of individuals are Rise of Joseph Stalin, Rise of Neville Chamberlain, and Adolf Hitler's rise to power.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The period involved is only a few years, and did not shape him in a way comparable to those others. Rjensen (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. I agree with Rjensen's argument above. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment. The timeline of many leaders rise to power are a crescendo of events which require seperate articles to give context to their growth and explain the relationship between events. Napoleon's rise was less of a climb and more of a steamroll. I certainly agree that his early career is well-studied and interesting, but the Egyptian Campaign is not hugely notable in and of itself, and isolated events such as 13 Vendémiaire weren't really part of any "plan" to achieve power. Only the Coup of 18 Brumaire was an actual politically-motivated power-grab, everything else was military duty within the French Revolutionary Wars period and his limited military role doesn't really flesh out as much as Hitler or Stalin's more direct influences on government and power. To suggest that all of Napoleon's early career was part of a co-ordinated "rise to power" is subjective at best and could be seen as a synthesised opinion. Napoleon was an opportunist who made a few impulsive decisions that worked well more out of luck than with the use of force or sustained terror campaigns. To offer an analogy: Napoleon's rise was more like a subtle drip in a lake with far-reaching ripples, whereas Hitler and Stalin literally stomped in puddles and set the world alight to become ruthless dictators. — Marcus^(talk) 05:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dammmmmnnnnnn...! Marcus just laid out the facts stone cold. Forget Napoleon, whose gunna draft Rise of Marcus? LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree and disagree. It's wrong label, but certainly he had a rising. But not as "Napoleon". Rise of general Bonaparte would be correct. Not even himself had any thoughts of calling himself "Napoleon" until after many months after the Battle of Austerlitz. (In the French 2002 TV-series Napoléon (miniseries) in four long parts with John Malkovich as Tallyrand and Gérard Depardieu as Fouché, the idea of becoming Emperor was his older brother's, for what that might be worth. The series was alleged to be based on reality, also in details). In most general historical literature he is referred to as "Bonaparte" until 2.December 1804 (or in France at those days, 11.Frimaire XIII, according to a program called "Calendar Magic"). Statements like "Bonaparte forced the Alpes" are very common. Boeing720 (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If somebody wants to write it, then write it (I'm not volunteering). Articles often grow and split just because they've got too long (which is what happened with Neville Chamberlain, mentioned above) or because somebody wants to research and write about a detailed aspect of the subject which they find interesting. Some historians have certainly flagged up his little-known early escapades in Corsica as a formative experience - not only because he was arguably a Corsican mafioso at heart ("more Corleone than Alexander" as somebody put it to me recently) but because, in more prosaic terms, like many people who are spectacularly successful in their careers, it was because he had met with initial disaster and had to start again and take it more seriously when he got another "break".Paulturtle (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

External links

Could someone look at the "External links" section for possible trimming or integration? This article seems to be working it's way "down" the list of article classifications and seventeen links is overly excessive, even for a "Start-class" article, possibly approaching "King" of link farming. Otr500 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Hid several links to trim per above. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct use of decimated

In the phrase "A series of artillery barrages and cavalry charges decimated the Austrian army", decimated is incorrect, unless 1 in 10 of the Austrians were killed. I would suggest "smashed", "crushed", "broke" as words that are more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.133.202 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Using "decimate" to mean "kill one in every ten" is a historical definition. The mordern meaning is "to kill, destroy or remove a large proportion of". So it's not incorrect. — Marcus^(talk) 16:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Women's Rights Reversed Under Napoleon

The lead paragraph should include that:

"Napoleon reversed ideas of gender equality articulated by some, such as the Girondins and Olympe de Gouges, in the French Revolution. Through the Napoleonic Code, the legal right of men to control women and the basis of the French Constitution in Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen was affirmed. This contrasted significantly with the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which did/does not use the word "man" at all and was based in "rights and responsibilities of person". In the United States, a "head and master" marriage law (a.k.a. a "master and servant" marriage law) deriving from the Napoleonic Code was still in place in Louisiana in the 1970s until it was repealed by Supreme Court ruling in Kirchberg v. Feenstra, interpreting the "rights and responsibilities of person" of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as prohibiting it.

References

Actually, all this seems to be falsified History : these rules existed since the Roman Empire at least... according to History books, so that could even be considerably older. From my point of view, everything since the pretended "French Revolution" is highly subject to caution and anything older than that is probably not better. (By the way, I still wonder why someone once qualified me _a somewhat regular long time unemployed person_ as a "Viscount", one more recent occurrence of such an anachronism was from Alexandre Benalla's affair _see actuality, this is a crunchy story of police violence by someone actually not in any official police force but part of the President close team_ and directed towards the Senate president, if I remember correctly, qualified as a "Marquess", think of the possible implications). --2A01:CB11:13:D700:A8C3:C1AF:E7B4:2B90 (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018

Change "an influential of his image" to "an influential account of his image" in the section on "Criticism" under the main heading Memory and Evaluation. Dmill1951 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2018

Dear Wikipedia,

I suggest you add in external links the official link to the foundation that takes care of Napoleon's last exile house.

http://www.napoleonsthelena.com/en/

Regards Barthlays Barthlays (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

What value will this link add to the article? Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Not much value in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Poisoning troops at Jaffa

Revision is needed of 2.2. "To speed up the retreat, Bonaparte ordered plague-stricken men to be poisoned with opium; the number who died remains disputed, ranging from a low of 30 to a high of 580."

The allegations of Napoleon poisoning his own men in the aftermath of Jaffa are a highly disputed topic - there is insufficient evidence for this to assertion to be made with such certainty, particularly without adequate citation. It must also be considered that this subject is plagued by contemporary rumour - see, for contrasting examples, Emmanuel Las Cases' Memoirs of the life, exile and conversations of the Emperor Napoleon (1836) and François-René Chateaubriand's Portrait of Bonaparte (1814).

Either; the debate on this matter should receive adequate discussion in the article, this sentence should be heavily qualified and appropriately cited, or it should be removed entirely in the meantime. Joelj7 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Napoleon's second wife .

She is described as of German royalty. In fact, she was the daughter of Joseph II, emperor of Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.220.194.49 (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Name conventions

It may be technically correct, but referring to him in one-seventh of this (18,000-word) article as Bonaparte, when he's universally known in our era as Napoleon, is off-putting and odd. Sca (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No worse than using "Wellesley" before he became "Wellington". Sticking with what is technically correct or conventional prevents wikipedia being accused of revisionism or anything like that, which is more off-putting for academics who want accurate terms rather than contemporary or politically correct ones. He was Bonaparte pre-Emperor and Napoleon thereafter. Most historians use that format also, because Emperor is a royal title and royals are almost always called by their first name, which means it's coming from sources not modern concepts. Using Bonaparte upto 1804 is a matter of decorum: General Bonaparte, First Consul Bonaparte, Emperor Napoleon I of France (with WP:SOVEREIGN letting us just use Napoleon). — Marcus^(talk) 06:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

He was Bonaparte pre-Emperor and Napoleon thereafter.

– Reality check: He was Napoleon before, too, in general usage and understanding. This "technically" correct differentiation between the two doesn't serve the vast majority of readers, who will only be confused. Historians and other academics will already know the general outline of N's career (not to mention his full name). Sca (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing, due to your ignorance, that you don't realise it meant He was [formally known as] Bonaparte pre-Emperor and Napoleon thereafter. I hope you don't need everything spelled out to you. — Marcus^(talk) 14:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I gather from the disparaging tone of your comments that you are are ill-mannered snob. Please review WP:CIV, WP:NPA. – Sca (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Reality check: Nothing to review there, your own condescending tone determined the manner of my reply. Suck it up. BTW, calling someone a "snob" is an uncivil attack. Hypocrite. Please review WP:GFY. — Marcus^(talk) 23:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that was a typo. Sca (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

But articles shouldn't cater to a specific audience over the majority of others. This isn't a peer-reviewed journal paper or academic history book, it's an encyclopedia for everyone. Also, Marcus, you could have been a lot more civil about that. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

So? When literally the first line of the page explains that Bonaparte is Napoleon's last name, non-academic readers aren't going to be confused. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:MarcusBritish and User:Scrooge MacDuck this an encyclopeadia. Using such distinctions will help educate the readers into the usage they will find in reliable sources, and, if school pupils, help them attain better marks in their history essays. In fact the section "Hundred Days" should refer to him as Boneparte because apart from his adherents no one else recognised him as emperor but as an outlaw and/or userper (see s:Declaration at the Congress of Vienna). -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Portrait de Napoléon Ier

Bitte, Can you change the chosen picture of Napoléon Ier to the one that illustrate this page Viele Danke.LeDernierConsul (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Removing the "of Italian descent" from the intro

This unecessary part that was added by an Italian sockpuppeteering user in early May should be removed. This has nothing to do in the introduction and is explained just as needed in the "Early life" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.119.68.246 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done MOS:ETHNICITY: 'Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.' Renamed user 2563edsdasdvas1d (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

He sold Louisiana to the United States, and he attempted to restore slavery to the French Caribbean colonies.

corrected to:

He sold the Louisiana_Territory to the United States, and he attempted to restore slavery to the French Caribbean colonies.

Reflects the fact that Napoleon sold the Louisiana territory, not the state of Louisiana. This fact is correctly reflected later in the text: "Seeing the failure of his colonial efforts, Napoleon decided in 1803 to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States, instantly doubling the size of the U.S." Tanayvparikh (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation

In the Memory and Evaluation section it would be great to include an objective assessment of his military prowess. According to mathematical models, he was by far the best general ever, surpassing Julius Caesar and Hannibal. See https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.44 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Medium (website) cannot be used as a reliable source as it is self published. See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggested Grammar Correction in Cause of Death

There is I believe, a minor grammatical correction to be made in the second sentence of the following passage: Arsenic was used as a poison during the era because it was undetectable when administered over a long period. Furthermore, in a 1978 book with Ben Weider, noted that Napoleon's body was found to be well preserved when moved in 1840. The preposition 'in' should be omitted from: Furthermore, in a 1978 book with Ben Weider, noted that Napoleon's body was found to be well preserved when moved in 1840. Suggested correction: Furthermore, a 1978 book with Ben Weider, noted that Napoleon's body was found to be well preserved when moved in 1840.

--HugeNed (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Although you are correct that the previous version of the sentence was wrong, your proposed correction was also grammatically dubious. Based upon the sentences before and after the one you wanted to edit, it is apparent that the name of Weider's co-author was missing. I've remedied this omission. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Height

The text on his height is a bit confusing. This is probably due to paragraphing. In any case, it needs changing. "At 5 feet 2 inches (1.57 m), he was the height of an average French male but short for an aristocrat or officer (part of why he was assigned to the artillery, since at the time the infantry and cavalry required more commanding figures).[254] It is possible he was taller at 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 m){Huh Why write this HERE?] due to the difference in the French measurement of inches.[255][Shouldn't this be in the same paragraph as what follows]

"Some historians believe that the reason for the mistake about his size at death came from use of an obsolete old French yardstick (a French foot equals 33 cm, while an English foot equals 30.47 cm).[254] Napoleon was a champion of the metric system and had no use for the old yardsticks. It is more likely that he was 5 feet 2 inches (1.57 m), the height he was measured at on St. Helena...." 37.99.48.115 (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The flaw is that the British doctors at St Helena would not have an obsolete French yardstick ubn their moden medical toolkit. --nor would Napoleon himself use a pre-metric yardstick of the sort he made obsolete. Indeed, there is no evidence it was a French yardstick--and where did disappear to at a time when any item associated with N was a valuable collector's relic?. Rjensen (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

height ? Andrew Roberts [2014] says "small" (p 75), "short" (pp 177 and 717). Philip Dwyer [ 2007] says "little" (p166) "small" (p 198), "puny" (p 198); Patrice Gueniffey (2015)( " a small man" (p 791). Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

5 foot 7 Joel-Loum (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Napoleon's holograph will

Hello, National Archives propose to create a link to File:Testament de Napoléon Ier. Page 5 - Archives Nationales - AE-I-13-21a.jpg This document can illustrate this section : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Death Thanks --Archives nationales (France) (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Napoleon → Napoleon I – The current title and lead introduction look strange.

Additional disambiguation is usually added to the title, just as we have "Clovis I" and "Justinian I" rather than plain "Clovis" or "Justinian"... ("Charlemagne", of course, is already a disambiguation in itself)

There's no doubt that the subject of the article is best known for having been emperor of the French (even the lead image shows him during the time he was emperor), yet the first sentence completely eludes this. Instead it starts with Napoléon Bonaparte (not mentioning the contradiction between "di Buonaparte" which is currently in the first note and "Buonaparte" in paragraph 2), only then another sentence mentions his becoming emperor, then there is another flashback to "Napoleone (di?) Buonaparte"...

It would be much simpler to present this way:

Napoleon I (/nəˈpoʊliən/; French: Napoléon I^er [napɔleɔ̃ pʁəmje]; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821) was a statesman and military leader who had risen to prominence during the French Revolution and led several successful campaigns during the French Revolutionary Wars, becoming Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814 and again briefly in 1815 during the Hundred Days. Napoleon dominated European and global affairs for more than a decade while leading France against a series of coalitions in the Napoleonic Wars. He won most of these wars and the vast majority of his battles, building a large empire that ruled over much of continental Europe before its final collapse in 1815. He is considered one of the greatest commanders in history, and his wars and campaigns are studied at military schools worldwide. Napoleon's political and cultural legacy has endured as one of the most celebrated and controversial leaders in human history.

He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte (Italian: [napoleˈoːne di ˌbwɔnaˈparte]), gallicised as Napoléon Bonaparte (/ˈboʊnəpɑːrt/; French: [napɔleɔ̃ bɔnapaʁt]), in Corsica, which had been newly acquired by France, to a relatively modest Italian family from minor nobility. He was serving...

References

PS: I've corrected above the French pronunciation of Bonaparte to [bɔnapaʁt]. 92.184.104.127 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Merriam-Webster says "Napoléon I" while American Heritage, Columbia Encyclopedia, Random House, Collins, Oxford Dictionaries, and Chambers Biographical Dictionary say "Napolean I." Add. WP:SPELLING uses Chambers to represent British spelling and Merriam-Webster to represent American spelling. Colin Gerhard (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose specific title. If we were to move the page, Napoleon Bonaparte would be the more likely target. O.N.R. ^(talk) 03:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, especially as the redirect Napoleon I has had more views during the past month than Napoleon Bonaparte 92.184.117.174 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Napoleon I? Is "I" his surname? Or the first part of a movie series about Napoleon? Your title and introductory paragraph indicates nothing. If it is a title, then Napoleon I of what? Is his whole title going to be spelled out in the title? Most people in the English-speaking world have heard of Napoleon, but not many people would recognize "Napoleon I". Indeed, I would be hard pressed to find common usage books in English which would casually use "Napoleon I" rather than "Napoleon" to refer to him. Admittedly the current title is a little awkward, but I'd much prefer to move it to "Napoleon Bonaparte". Walrasiad (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. What a bizarre move request. Your edits to the article itself may be good, but why should we then move our article from its common name? Red Slash 02:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • For the reasons explained above if you would read. 92.184.107.136 (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Charlemagne is known and recognized by any encyclopedia reader in any language, anywhere in the world (and by the way, the Charlemagne page is not a disambiguation; it is a direct link that has also a disambiguation link at the top). So is Napoleon, and that is why his page is called precisely that: Napoleon. It could be called, if there was the need for an alternative, Napoleon Bonaparte, but I don't believe this alternative is needed. warshy ^(¥¥) 02:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Charlemagne is in itself a disambiguation, as his real name was Carolus, or Charles. FYI, Charlemagne means "Charles the Great". 92.184.107.136 (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The "I" is not disambiguation. The subject is listed as "Napoleon I" in every major encyclopedia and dictionary. Why they do this is really neither here nor there, but there was also a Napolean III who ruled in the 1860s. Colin Gerhard (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above discussion and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Common name and clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is normally referred to as Napoleon, or Napoleon Bonaparte. I've never heard or seen Napoleon I Wandavianempire (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose; keep or move to Napoleon Bonaparte Napoleon is not just primarily known for crowning himself. He is also known for being a military genius. Moving the page to "Napoleon I" would place excessive emphasis on his status as a monarch. Though I disagree with some of the other 'oppose' rationales, as I see "Napoleon I" all the time.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Nobody's denying that Napoleon I is often seen in lists of French rulers, but it's still nowhere near as common as simple Napoleon in normal usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Overwhelmingly WP:COMMONNAME Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020 - very low priority question about "warned London" in death section

Thanks for the article--"warned London" under the Death section: I was uncertain about the reference to London. I'm not very familiar with Napoleon's history, so this could be obvious to others and not require a clarification. 2605:A601:AB5C:1900:89B:1E01:6AA2:C2F6 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There doesn't seem to be an edit request here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Early life" suggestion.

I think that the last paragraph:

On completion of his studies at Brienne in 1784, Napoleon was admitted to the École Militaire in Paris. He trained to become an artillery officer and, when his father's death reduced his income, was forced to complete the two-year course in one year.[31] He was the first Corsican to graduate from the École Militaire.[31] He was examined by the famed scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace.[32]

should be edited so that the second 'ecole militaire' is also a link, and so that the first 'ecole militaire' also has a link to the citations page. Heyhey3 (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

When "he stated later in life"

Well, after sixty battles. I don't think that is an important question, if it is a confirmed saying with a good source, and can be left as: He stated later in life... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

After publishing the latter comment I found a liveabout page:'When most people hear the word "petite," they assume it means "tiny." "Petite" does literally mean small. However, in the fashion world, petite refers to a size range of clothing that is made to fit people who are 5 feet 4 inches or under' Probably wrong but YOLO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

. ithout

should be without Rakzcs (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Napoleon's height is 5'7' not 5'2' as listed on this page!

The Napoleon Bonaparte Wikipedia page was recently incorrectly edited by someone listing his height at 5’2”. His real height as proven by historians was at least 5'5' if not 5’7” in modern measurements. Please update this massive fallacy of an important figure on the page. French measurements at the time differ from modern measuring as shown in the following passage from History.com:

"In fact, he was probably of average height. According to pre–metric system French measures, he was a diminutive 5′2.” But the French inch (pouce) of the time was 2.7 cm, while the Imperial inch was shorter, at 2.54 cm. Three French sources—his valet Constant, General Gourgaud, and his personal physician Francesco Antommarchi—said that Napoleon's height was just over ‘5 pieds 2 pouces’ (5’2”). Applying the French measurements of the time, that equals around 1.69 meters, or just over 5’5”. So at 5’5” he was just an inch or so below the period’s average adult male height."(History.com, 1)

Other sources state he was in fact around 5'6 or 5'7 in modern centimeteric measurements:

The truth? Napoleon Bonaparte was between 168 and 170 centimeters, or 5’6” – 5’7” in height. (rodenberg, 2)

Please update his height immediately

Please see the following secondary sources. https://www.biography.com/dictator/napoleon https://mrodenberg.com/2013/10/24/how-tall-short-was-napoleon-bonaparte/ https://www.history.com/news/napoleon-complex-short

these are popular sources and not in line with latest scholarly biographies--which say he was as short as the average poorly fed peasant--but he dealt with officers and aristocrats who were much taller than peasants so he was the shortest man in a meeting. Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a small note; popular sources ARE allowed for usage on WP articles according to WP:HISTRS but if scholarly are available then those should get more importance. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The legend persists that he was apparently a relatively short man. Malnutrition of French peasants? I doubt it. I don't think I would trust British measurements of the great Napoleon at his last banishment place by the same British military men in the far away little island of St. Helena. But whatever the case, there is no doubt that he was still the great Napoleon, as great as very few men in human history, maybe close in historical stature to Alexander the Great (who some argue was gay or bi-sexual). In terms of the sizes of the empires they were able to conquer, these two really seem to stand head and shoulders above all others. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if people are aware but much of his clothing survives to this day and is were historians get his height LOOK AT ME.--Moxy 🍁 19:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. He was nicknamed by his own men a "Le petit corporal" because in French "petit" means "tall". Walrasiad (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Try again - small - petit, faible, modeste, limité, léger, modique

little; petit, peu de, faible, court, sans importance, pygmée; short court, bref, petit, faible, de courte durée, à court terme 50.111.0.9 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential error

I may be wrong but using a translator I found, contrary to your 'because in French "petit" means "tall"' comment, petit means small. This may be silly, sorry if it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a joke. Azaan Habib 16:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"became notorious as an artillery commander"

Surely "notorious" would suggest to most readers that he somehow got a sinister reputation? I believe "notorious" can in some contexts mean simply "well known", but it's rather unusual. Wouldn't it be better to write something like: "attracted attention by his abilities as an artillery officer"? Or did he somehow really become "notorious"? METRANGOLO1 (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

I note the citation needed on the sentence "He created eighteen Marshals of the Empire from among his top generals to secure the allegiance of the army on 18 May 1804, the official start of the Empire.[citation needed]"

I've located a published and verifiable source for the latter claim (the official start of the Empire).

Thanks,

Jake JakeGrowley (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello JakeGrowley, could you tell us which source? (Until you have made 10 edits here, the only way to add content to this page is to request additions on the talk page) – Thjarkur (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thjarkur,

Ah, didn't realise that - apologies. The paper is '‘Citizen Emperor’: Political Ritual, Popular Sovereignty and the Coronation of Napoleon I' by P Dwyer (DOI: 10.1111/1468-229X.12089).

Thanks,

JakeGrowley (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amkgp 💬 15:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead length

This article has changed quite a bit since the GAR in 2016. The most obvious change is the lead, which has become pretty terrifyingly long. Can we revert it back to some earlier version, such as this one? It seems to give a much better overview. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

Change "an historic" to "a historic" in the third paragraph of the intro to the article.

https://grammarist.com/usage/an-historic/ https://www.lexico.com/grammar/a-historic-event-or-an-historic-event

Alsetmusic (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Alsetmusic (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

plagiarism or sloppy copying

In the "Early Life" section, this phrasing stood out to me: "This was as true of the Buonapartes as of anyone else related to the Genoese and Tuscan nobilities by virtue of titles that were, to tell the truth, suspect." Upon research, I find that this exact sentence comes, verbaim, from page 22 of the book "Bonaparte" by Patrice Gueniffey. This is, at least, sourced properly. That is not what concerns me. What is bothersome is that it is a complete cut-and-paste from the original source-material, and should be completely re-phrased for inclusion; else it be considered little more than plagiarism at worst, or sloppy copying at best. Neither are acceptable for an article of "Good Quality," as indicated by the green "+" at the article header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vital problems, potential good article reassessment

This is a well-written article, but there are TEN [citation needed]-tags! This has to be fixed by someone competent about Napoleon or else I am not sure if the article can keep its good article status. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

Sleetimetraveller (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Napoleon Bonaparte is considered to be one of the most influential people who ever lived.

 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. Aasim (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Mixed usage of accented name

It seems rather strange that this article uses a mix of name with, and without, accents. In other articles, this is usually corrected to the subject's preferred spelling for most if not the entire article (that is, with accent marks), unless non-Latin letters are used (in which case, the Latin spelling is merely supplemental to the non-Latin spelling). I'm under the impression that this may have been a point of contention for this article in the past, but I didn't notice such a discussion on the Talk page. Could we have a consensus on whether the historical spelling, or non-accented English, shall be the accepted form of address for this article? Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I found mention in the Talk archives (I'm accustomed to seeing this as an {{Archives}} box, not part of the Talk header): Talk:Napoleon/Archive 3#Napoleon vs Napoléon; it doesn't appear the question was responded to. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

My vote would be for non-accented, I think that's more common in English but happen to be corrected if e.g. academic sources universally use the French spelling. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Roberts

Who is "Roberts" mentioned in the first paragraph without reference? 2600:8807:2308:9800:E089:7CC7:6B0B:5437 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Roberts (historian). I've replaced "Roberts says..." by "Historian Andrew Roberts says...". Not sure if such a lengthy direct quote is justified in the lead in the first place, though. Lennart97 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Cause of death

Can we assume that "... and confirmed evidence of peptic ulcer and gastric cancer as the cause of death." in the last sentence of the section is not cited in the reference given, but only the first part about poison? Seems impossible after hundreds of years that a stomach illness could be "confirmed". May I change that word to "supported"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Citations

I fixed a passel of citation errors, but there are many, many problems remaining with the citations. There is no consistency. I recommend converting them to {{Harvnb}} when feasible. If there are multiple works by an author in the same year (commonly a book and journal articles), remember to attach a disambiguation letter to the year for each reference to distinguish them. e.g. Dwyer 2008a is the book, and Dwyer 2008b is the journal article. Jehochman ^Talk 11:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead: length and recent addition

The lead is clearly too long, sufficiently so that I felt justified in slapping {{lead too long}} on it, unfortunately.

Part of that is caused by today's addition by GA Weber of a new paragraph (paragraph 6) about the negative aspects of Napoleon's legacy, in particular the reinstatement of slavery in the Caribbean colonies and the invasion of Haiti. I absolutely think this is an essential aspect that should be included in the lead, and I appreciate this attempt at including it, but the current phrasing isn't right. For example, the statement Napoleon's extensive wars of conquest, estimated to have cost as many as 1.7 million lives, his re-establishment of slavery, and his efforts to establish himself as an absolute ruler-for-life in France, support the view that Napoleon was, in fundamental respects, a destructive tyrant. is not supported by the cited source, which doesn't say anything like this. What's more, the sourcing here shouldn't rely on magazine and newspaper articles when there is an abundance of scholarly literature on the topic. Actually, the lead shouldn't normally use citations at all as it merely summarises the main body anyway.

The lead, however, was already too long even before this addition. It stands out to me in particular that over half of paragraph 5 is taken up by a direct quote from a historian, which seems excessive. Maybe cut that quote and then merge that paragraph with a condensed and improved version of paragraph 6, to have a single paragraph about the various aspects of Napoleons legacy? Apart from that, maybe some detail can be trimmed from the paragraphs on his rise to power and military campaigns, although I do appreciate there's simply a lot of essential stuff that needs mentioning.

All this is just my two cents, I'm basically hoping that an experienced editor well-versed in this topic is willing to attempt a bit of a re-write of the lead. An article this prominent (and nominally a GA, too!) definitely deserves better. Lennart97 (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lennart97: Hi, I have created a new, shorter version of the lead in my sandbox. I do not want to publish it without your OK. Can you read it and give me a feedback? Ruedi33a (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The page could be edited on good faith but the recent edits, actually comit the same blunder, the most controversial topics, are taken from not so reliable sources, as newspapers, magazines, articles of opinion, and not Academic books, also it put enphasis on his wrongdoings.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

About the Sandbox so far, it is actually justifying an unsourced edit, and in my opinion only worsned the page. As it became more a reasons to why not like him, than something, more formal or academic.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Also the paragraph in question is flawed, first because the slavery was actually never abolished at Martinique, neither reinstated at Saint Domingue, and most important, "A historian claims who he is like the Füher", is not the best to follow. That source must be taken out. and the late paragraph be revised, it was a one time editer who only wrote that. It is not objective, but we shouldn't find a way to made it sense of it, rather, correct some mistakes. Also there is a myth there, because when it literally said fought against coalitions is clear who was the agresor, almost always.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruedi33a: I think it's a good attempt, though not quite it. The first paragraph, for example, feels rather disjointed in how it combines unrelated statements. In the last paragraph, I don't think putting so much content in an 'explanatory note' is the right solution. It does a decent job at somewhat shortening the paragraphs in between, though. Lennart97 (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the article as a whole is much too long. It should be parceled into sub-articles with a shortened summary left in place of the long expositions on several topics. Additionally, there a numerous errors with the references. I think we should try to tackle these problems step by step. I am sleepy now, but may look at this again in the morning. Also, I took off the maintenance tag because our discussion here is sufficient. Any reader can see that the lead is long, and the article is much longer. The maintenance tag just adds more unnecessary words to the page which is the exact opposite of what we are trying to accomplish (fewer words, crisper prose). Nonetheless, thank you very much for raising the issue and taking an interest in improving Wikipedia. Let's work together. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman: You're right that the lead is definitely not the only issue. Actually, it seems unlikely that the article is still in any way up to GA standards - would a GA reassessment be a good idea? Lennart97 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman:@Lennart97:What about mantaining the first 4 paragraphs, as they have been there before without problem. And maybe a 5 paragraph with some description of his works?. (without citing directly a quote neither cite amarillist sources, as the latest introduction paragraph is full of the later) And then we could shorten the article in the page body.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Nuevousuario1011 are you being serious!!! So leave all the love letter paragraphs, and only remove the last one that explains the negative impact he had!! And you dont like a source so remove that as well, again for no reason. And dont mention the slavery at all. Sorry, you must be a troll2A00:23C0:211:4F01:658D:59F8:DD7D:7110 (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. A GA reassessment might trigger many improvements. I was thinking that myself. Jehochman ^Talk 10:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Would you like to start the GAR process? I think you have a better overall view of the problems with the article than I do. In the meantime, would it be best to leave the lead as it is for now, pending potential GAR input? Lennart97 (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead is basically a love letter to the subject, with a few words at the very end explaining the negative aspects of him. We have a massive quote from ONE pro subject historian for some reason, while all others (especially critical ones) are ignored! This should not be in the lead at all, and we all know it. "one of the greatest commanders in history" with no sources. Worded so it sounds like all these collations were the aggressors, not Napoleon, over and over. Other love letter sayings "annihilating the Russians", "decisive victories", "dominated European and global affairs", "quickly knocked out Prussia", "Napoleon had an extensive and powerful impact on the modern world", and these are just in the lead!! Even when he loses, it is blamed on his marshals not him, even though he is in overall control. Then a chaotic campaign and a large opposing army are blamed for him losing at Leipzig! So when he wins it is his genius, when he loses not his fault at all, the others were the invaders and aggressors and the man is a saint! Hardly any mention of the slavery he forced on whole cultures, the mass killing he committed time and again. The constant aggression to other nations for years and years. Dictatorship and tyrant. Trying to force a whole continent to do what he said Caused millions of deaths and uncounted harm to millions more. And again, THIS IS JUST IN THE LEDE!!! Joke of an article2A00:23C0:211:4F01:658D:59F8:DD7D:7110 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You are partially right but emotions are not needed. I suggest this as the first paragraph to visualize his controversial character in every sentence:

Napoléon Bonaparte (15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), usually referred to as simply Napoleon in English, engineered successfully a coup during the French Revolution towards a dictatorship and reorganized France as its First Consul from 1799 to 1804. He crowned himself as Emperor of the French and ruled as Napoleon I from 1804 until 1814 and again in 1815. He won the vast majority of his battles in the Napoleonic Wars, building a large empire before its final collapse in 1815. His Coalition Wars and campaigns caused the death of more than 4 million people but are still studied at military schools worldwide. He established the Napoleonic Code as the French Civil Code but tried to re-establish slavery in the Haitian revolution. He remains one of the most known but controversial political figures in human history. Ruedi33a (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph should not be modified, first because what it says already is enough, second because to explain the things in more deepth there is an article below, and third, because a modification there will make a presedent to everyone editing what they want. Please do not take it personal, but look at what i have proposed please.

Also remember that we are not changing neither seeking new sources, but we should shorten the introduction and take out amarillist articles, and personal views. Remember who this article is a very important and controled one anyways. There are also in your proposal some issues, like by puting an emphazis on the controversial side of him it risks to become in a contrast pointing he did that but did this other thing, during the entire paragraph. Also is important to remember, "dictatorship", for example is a point of view, also "enginered the coup", is not actually true, as that would be Seyes. "His coalition wars", lirerally fall on a contradiction. The issue here is to replace the point of views, and become more informative rather than a "controversial article". If we are also going to mention the slavery issue so early, we also should mention all the other things, like the end of the feudalism, abolition of the inquisition, emancipation of the jews and religious minorities, decriminalization of homosexuality, protecting the middle class, etc. And the issue over slavery in Haiti, would also be a kind of missleading issue, as Haiti was already with that problem from years before, but it should point broadly to his "suportive actitude towards it's reinplementation, (ironically not on Haiti). My most sincere apreciation and apologies, cordially regardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lennart97:@Jehochman:@Ruedi33a::What about mantaining the first 4 paragraphs, as they have been there before with some modifications in order to shorten them a bit, And maybe a 5 paragraph with some description of his works?. (without citing directly a quote neither cite amarillist sources, as the latest introduction paragraph is full of the later) And then we could shorten the article in the page body.

In the second paragraph something like this

Born Napoleone di Buonaparte on the island of Corsica not long after its annexation by the Kingdom of France, Napoleon's modest family descended from minor Italian nobility. An early suporter of the French revolution he rose rapidly in the army with his early victories against royalists and British troops. In April 1796 he begun his Italian Campaign wich triumph effectively ended the war of the first coalition.

And also on the third paragraph something as follows:

He then comanded an expedition towards Egypt and at his return took part of a coup in November 1799 and became First Consul of the Republic. resentment in Europe meant that the French were facing a Third Coalition by 1805. Napoleon shattered this coalition with decisive victories at Ulm, and a historic triumph at Austerlitz, which led to the disolution of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1806, a Fourth Coalition took up arms against him because Prussia became worried about growing French influence on the continent. Napoleon quickly defeated them, then marched the Grand Army deep into Eastern Europe, annihilating the Russians in June 1807, and forcing the defeated nations of the Fourth Coalition to accept the Treaties of Tilsit. Two years later, the Austrians challenged the French again during the War of the Fifth Coalition, but Napoleon solidified his grip over Europe after triumphing at the Battle of Wagram.

And the fourth paragraph as something like this:

Hoping to extend an embargo on Britain, Napoleon become involved in a six years war, on Iberia, featuring brutal guerrilla warfare, and culminated in a defeat for Napoleon's marshals as The Spanish and the Portuguese revolted with British support. Napoleon launched an invasion of Russia in the summer of 1812. to enforce the treaty of Tilsit, however as Napoleon's Grand Army begun a chaotic whitdrawal, shattering it, it encouraged his former enemies to switch sides by 1813, in a Sixth Coalition against France. culminated in a large coalition army defeating Napoleon The coalition then invaded France and captured Paris, forcing Napoleon to abdicate in 1814. Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba, between Corsica and Italy. In France, the Bourbons were restored to power. However, Napoleon escaped from Elba in February 1815 and took control of France, "without spilling a drop of blood" as he wished.[5][6] The Allies responded by forming a Seventh Coalition, which ultimately defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815. The British exiled him to the remote island of Saint Helena in the South Atlantic, where he died in 1821 at the age of 51.

Here are my toughts, i hope you apologize any mistake, and altought it still long, it is much more resumed without loosing cohesive order. Cordially regardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

And fifth Paragrapgh who summarizes his politics. Something like this:

Napoleon had an extensive impact on the modern world, bringing liberal reforms to the numerous territories that he conquered and controlled, especially the Low Countries, Switzerland, and large parts of modern Italy and Germany. He implemented fundamental liberal policies in France and throughout Western Europe. He established a system of public education,[7] abolished the vestiges of feudalism,[8] emancipated Jews and other religious minorities,[9] abolished the Spanish Inquisition,[10] enacted legal protections for an emerging middle class,[11] and centralized state power at the expense of religious authorities.[12] as well as Legalization of Homosexuality, and Helping Poland to regain a state. However he also supported an attempt to reinstate slavery in some colonies, wich remain controversial to this day.

That is how i believe it could go. RegardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A four or five paragraph lede is a good idea. Then we have to discuss wording. What you preserve still contains POV, which should be neutralized. As just one example, "extensive and powerful impact" could be "extensive impact". Jehochman ^Talk 11:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for your answer and apreciation, and yes some changes also should be done there but as you said, without personal POV's, and grammar probably, so i will change the powerful section as you said, because i agree, of the emphatic way used there. And i recognize wording is not my strenght. Cordially RegardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

References

"Page needed" tag deletion

I've been able to determine that source no. 21 makes specific reference to page no. 43 of the relevant source (i.e. Napoleon: A Life by Roberts). Thus, the forementioned tag could be removed by adding the page to the relevant source. Instead of editing it straight away, in a bid to make the article as consistent in its formatting as possible (which right now, by the way, does not always seem to be the case), I've decided to point this fact out here so that another fellow Wikipedian, perhaps more familiar with the article than I am myself, can come in and make the edit in my stead. Thank you all in advance.--NicolaArangino (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

At the very end of the Personality section, there is a badly formatted quote with no source, explanation etc. It should be removed. 90.253.58.238 (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. It was recently added, thanks for spotting it. Lennart97 (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Height

Why is he listed at 1.57 meters when it is well known that he was 1.7 meters tall? He was 5'2" in the French measurement which is 5'7' in English, slightly above average for French men at the time.

meeting with diplomats and generals he was usually the shortest man in the room. Rjensen (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Use of word “greatest” is subjective

It says on his page that he is one of the “greatest” and that is subjective and not an objective fact. Some people find think he was horrible. Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tonyjohnsonhere: I assume you're referring to the lead section, which describes him as One of the greatest commanders in history — and indeed, it's safe to say that he is widely regarded as a great military leader. "great" here refers to his military skills, not to him personally, about which opinions are indeed more divided, as the next sentence states: He remains one of the most celebrated and controversial political figures in human history. Lennart97 (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what i am referring to. The way you just phrased it is a more objective way of phrasing it cause it doesn’t seem very objective to claim he is one of the greatest but if you say widely considered then that is more objective cause he definitely is considered that by reputation People’s view of even his skill as a commander might be altered by his use of propaganda, such as founding his own newspaper & writing articles on himself, plus hiring artists & having them paint flattering as opposed to accurate images of him in battle. For example, one famous one is him leading the army on the stallion when the truth was he followed a day later on a donkey. Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon and Islam

Napoleon said that Islam is less ridiculous than Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egon20 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Which doesn't make him a muslim, of course. Still interesting though, and something could definitely be said for adding a small, carefully sourced subsection about Napoleon and Islam in the Religion section. Lennart97 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

He said this in his exile, when he lost everything in saint helen, so he had nothing to gain or lose, and anyway in Egypt admitted converting to Islam even if it was for political gains. He was also Christian and Atheist, but he criticized Christianity after he lost the rule forever, so it's more accurate than whatever he said years ago. Also read these. Egon20 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon was a very canny politician (as well as an excellent general). He understood the impact of his words on a Muslim audience. However, he was never a practising Muslim. He definitely had a sceptical view of Christianity. Yet he was quoted as saying that "were he obliged to have a religion, I would worship the sun - the source of all life - the real god of the earth" (see Andrew Roberts, "Napoleon the Great", pgs 271-272, Penguin Books, 2015). Napoleon was also quoted as saying he "liked the Muslim religion" but that was as far as it went.Chewings72 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

He said the shahadah in Egypt, which makes him a Muslim, and saying that he didn't practice it is not a good excuse. Eventually he said that Islam is less ridiculous than Christianity when he was alone on an island, where he couldn't deceive anyone because he was no longer an emperor, so his words are sincere when he criticized Christianity. Egon20 (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Egon20 You are entitled to your point of view. Let us see what other Wikipedia contributors have to say. I look forward to the views of other contributors to this debate given that Napoleon and his life and beliefs are of such a great interest to so many scholars and historians. Chewings72 (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I have to point out is that Napoleon changed his opinions many times, just like you can see quotes that talk good of christianity and others that say all religions are false, so we should look at his latest statements and at facts, like the fact that he said the shahadah in Egypt, which unavoidable makes you Muslim, regardless if you don't pray five times a day, not go to mosques, not fast during ramadan etc. Egon20 (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be worth considering if there were even one secondary reliable source stating explicitly that Napoleon was a Muslim. If not, it's original research. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not about the source, it's about showing that I'm not making this up, and for instance the reconciliation in 1821 it's not because he truly cared about Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egon20 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It is about the source. See WP:V and WP:RS, and the aforementioned WP:OR. There's not much of a point in further discussion unless you understand these core policies. Lennart97 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll still be here to wait for others to talk. Egon20 (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon's religion is difficult to determine, as he was a revolutionary figure, we also should make an emphasis on his attacks on Christianity were from a philosophical point of view, and also more against the structure of the "catholic church", (Inquisition, Mistreatment of the Jews and protestants, as well as Muslims, as well as their counter revolutionary activities) nevertheless, he never made a personal statement against the christianity, but more on how the religion was used by the privileged people. Napoleon was probably what we could call a Dehist, (someone who believe in a god but without worshiping any particular religion (and who was common with the revolutionaries back then) nevertheless it also must be pointed who from a objective point of view, Napoleon saw the Islam as a great religion, and praised how the Prophet leaded the peoples from "nothing to everything", however again that is more his personal opinions based on what he wrote and said, rather than of any particular feeling. (But if you ask me what Napoleon views were, it will be someone who followed Judaism and Islam with a kinder view than any other "Western Ruler", without even mentioning the rights who he give to them, while he have rifts with the catholic church dogmas, yet this way of "Free thinking" probably show who he was more a Deist than someone who followed a religious doctrine with blind eyes, and his opinions were based more on a facts maded in a critical analysis over the facts and history than the Quoran or the Bible, of course he noted who the Bible was 100 years after christ, but he speaked of Jesus conquered with love, while on the Islam he even wrote an extent piece were he stated facts on how the Arab society went thanks to the Islam from a tribe to the "greatest civilization in the world", and also on the Judaism, he remarked for example, who "People with such a memory and history are destined to greatness"). Regards, and sorry for my "hurried english",Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Nuevousuario1011, What about his letter in Egypt? Egon20 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

Reforms

Under Reforms/Napoleonic Code, this article says: "Napoleon reorganized what had been the Holy Roman Empire, made up of about three hundred Kleinstaaterei, into a more streamlined forty-state Confederation of the Rhine; this helped promote the German Confederation and the unification of Germany in 1871.[292]" This should be changed insofar as "Kleinstaterei" is the *system* of many small states (kingdoms) existing, it is not something that can be counted. So "three hundred Kleinstaterei" should be changed to "three hundred Kleinstaaten".

97.119.225.166 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)