Talk:Napoleon

GA Reassessment

Napoleon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

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

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

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

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

• You may be intrested in the discusion held before on the talk page, in wich i proposed a way to cut the lead to five shorter paragraphs, so far i have proposed it, but i would want to hear your opinion, and how to improve it. (we are talking about the lead). we talked about this. So far we need consensus, and focus on the problem itself.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the proposal of a new lead. It's definitely shorter, that's good. Apart from needing a lot of copy editing for grammar/spelling, I'm not personally sure whether it's up to GA standards. Others' opinions on this are very welcome. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was notified of this GAR - but I have no real interest, experience or expertise with the article,a dn am not currently writing on Wikipedia. However the concerns expressed are clearly something that someone should be able to fix in a matter of days, expending about the same amount of energy as a GAR would take. Why not fix it instead? By the way, excessive length is really a silly object to an article's quality, some topics need to be longer than the standard article to provide sufficient coverage of the relevant literature - without having read this one, I'd not be surprised if this is a such a topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I notified you only because you were involved in the previous GAR, hope you don't mind. I nominated the article for a community review because I'm not personally able to fix the article's problems, it's as simple as that. More specifically, per the guidelines at WP:GAR, I 1) don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and 2) [am] not confident in [my] ability to assess the article - thus a community reassessment seems like the correct choice.
  • You may have a point about the article length, but isn't that what spinning off content and using summary style in the main article is for? I'm pretty sure I've seen length considerations in GA reviews, anyway. Maybe Jehochman who first noted the length as an issue wants to comment on this as well. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• . I hope the issues can be corrected within the scope of this review. Summary style is not hard to do, nor does it take very long. I fixed the worst reference issues. Some that remain may require an editor with more reference expertise than my level. @El C: might know who to contact. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Length

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

@Nikkimaria I mean, come on, it's an article about one of the most Influential people in history. 2600:6C58:41F0:7660:83FC:305B:9E64:9F0B (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It is marginally overlength, but as noted above, this is very major figure. We can discuss this further here, but there is really no need to tag the page in the meantime: this is stable A-class content. It is still high quality. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately we're not looking at a high-quality article "marred" by tagging, nor even an article that is "marginally overlength". The article is well over, and has more than doubled in size since its A-class review in 2008. Those additions include content that is closely paraphrased from copyrighted sources on the one hand, and on the other poorly sourced or unsupported by sources. It was delisted as a GA in 2021 - a ranking that is meant to be less stringent than A-class. This may still hold an A-class ranking, but it isn't A-class content. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh. Ok. That's odd. I didn't realize an article could be delisted as a GA, but still be A-class rated. Is that a mislabeling here, or just a quirk of the system? That it is double its A-class size is a bad sign. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a system quirk - those rankings are assigned through different processes, and a removal of one doesn't automatically trigger a removal of the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

But there already are numerous subarticles. Obviously any text may benefit from a better economy of style, but here the length will always reflect the humongous amount of sources dedicated to the subject. Entire libraries have been filled with them and each day dozens of new publications appear. Pure length reduction will not result in a stable article.--MWAK (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It is really long. Even just scrolling down it takes a while. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we make a smaller condensed and summarised version of his life in a separate article therefore leaving the original article the same length as it is now so that people can still read the more detailed version of his life? 185.130.156.207 (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

EXACTLY! I think we should make a separate more condensed article using the main introduction perhaps slightly lengthening the introduction to a more detailed summary. Therefore leaving the original article as it is now so that the readers wanting more detail can find it easily and the school kids/ students can use the summarised edition for homework/class projects. 185.130.156.207 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks all, I agree there's too much detailed military history and it needs to be condensed. We have consensus that it's too long over several years, so grateful for anyone who wants to start pruning. I'll see if I can get to it. It'd be great to get it back up to GA quality in time for the film and the massive increase in readers who'd benefit from a good quality article, Tom B (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal to shorten infobox

I think the infobox on this page is excessively long due to including so many of Napoleon's titles and offices, particularly since most of them are of lesser importance; his power and influence, as well as his legacy, comes from being ruler of France, not the other titles he granted himself. So I think the infobox would do fine with First Consul and Emperor, with everything else at the bottom of the page (indeed, not all his titles are even in the infobox to begin with). But at the very least, we could tuck these other offices and titles under collapsible sections: that would reduce the length and focus attention without getting rid of them entirely.

Here's what I mean:

Infobox, tucked away here due to length

Napoleon
The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries, by Jacques-Louis David, 1812
Emperor of the French
1st reign	18 May 1804 – 6 April 1814
Coronation	2 December 1804 Notre-Dame Cathedral
Predecessor	Louis XVII (disputed) or Louis XVI (as King of France) Himself (as First Consul of the French Republic)
Successor	Louis XVIII (as King of France)
2nd reign	20 March 1815 – 22 June 1815
Predecessor	Louis XVIII
Successor	Napoleon II (disputed) or Louis XVIII
First Consul of the French Republic
In office 12 December 1799 – 18 May 1804
Co-Consuls	Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès Charles-François Lebrun
Other regnal titles King of Italy Reign 17 March 1805 – 11 April 1814 Coronation 26 May 1805 Milan Cathedral Predecessor Charles V (1556) Successor Victor Emmanuel II (1861) Emperor of Elba Reign 11 April 1814 – 20 March 1815 King of Spain (interim) Reign 6 May – 6 June 1808 Predecessor Ferdinand VII Successor Joseph I Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine In office 12 July 1806 – 4 November 1813 Prince-Primates Karl von Dalberg Eugène de Beauharnais Predecessor Francis II (as Holy Roman Emperor) Successor Francis I of Austria (as Head of the Präsidialmacht Austria)
Other republican titles Provisional Consul of the French Republic In office 10 November 1799 – 12 December 1799 Co-Consuls Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès Roger Ducos Predecessor Louis-Jérôme Gohier (as President of the Directory of the French Republic) President of the Italian Republic In office 26 January 1802 – 17 March 1805 Vice President Francesco Melzi d'Eril
Born	Napoleone Buonaparte (1769-08-15)15 August 1769 Ajaccio, Corsica, Kingdom of France
Died	5 May 1821(1821-05-05) (aged 51) Longwood, Saint Helena
Burial	15 December 1840 Les Invalides, Paris, France
Spouses	Joséphine de Beauharnais ​ ​ (m. 1796; ann. 1810)​ Marie Louise of Austria ​ ​ (m. 1810; sep. 1814)​
Issue Detail	Napoleon II Charles, Count Léon Alexandre, Count Colonna-Walewski
Names Napoléon Bonaparte Regnal name Napoleon I
House	Bonaparte
Father	Carlo Buonaparte
Mother	Letizia Ramolino
Signature

What does everyone think: remove offices, collapse them or just leave it alone? — Kawnhr (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Would support removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There are other problems with the info box. Napoleon's main titles were First Consul and, later, Emperor of the French Republic. The current info box has Louis XVI as Napoleon's "predecessor" as Emperor and Louis XVIII as his "successor". But "Emperor of France" was an entirely new institution created by Napoleon. There was no predecessor and no successor until Napoleon III. Napoleon did not consider himself a successor to Louis XVI and to suggest he was would have been a crime against the Republic. Similarly, the legitimists would have been outraged if anyone suggested that Louis XVIII was a successor to Napoleon, rather than the legitimate King who had been in exile. The problem is that historical facts have been distorted to fit a preconceived info box format rather than an info box tailored to accurately summarise historical facts. Rather than removing the other titles which Napoleon bestowed on himself (some of which, as far as I am aware, were recognised by other major powers in binding treaties) I suggest we remove all the information about predecessors and successors whenever a position held by Napoleon was a new institution created by Napoleon. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That is a separate discussion. Feel free to start that instead. — Kawnhr (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The discussion is about making the info box more concise and we might as well consider all the related issues at once. I am suggesting we keep all Napoleon's titles but we don't "leave the info box alone". We remove the incorrect information about the Napoleon's predecessors and successors. It is posiible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

When the conversation is so slow moving, I think it is best to keep it as focused as possible so that it doesn't turn into a situation of five people suggesting five different things, giving us a conversation where no consensus can be found. This is especially the case when proposing something relatively bold: listing de facto successors, for when offices are abolished and replaced, is common if not universal practice, so you're unlikely to find quick and easy consensus for your idea. That's why it'd be better as a separate discussion. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what others think. As for saying Napoleon was the de facto successor of Louis XVI do you have a reliable source for that? Or a WP policy stating that falsifying history is common practice? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kawnhr I apologise for the cranky tone of my last comment. I still think the easiest way to make the info box more concise is to include a documented list of his actual titles rather than filling it with unsourced assertions regarding disputed predecessors and successors. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is it an either or issue? It can be collapsed and discussions on the titles can still continue. Napoleon had so many titles, that, one way or another, they are going to bloat the infobox if left uncollapsed, even with some concerted efforts towards paring down the more dubious entries. The predecessor/successor stuff under 'emperor' is indeed dubious though. Either that section needs to be "Ruler of France", and contain kings as predecessors and successors, or the kings need to go. It shouldn't say 'emperor' and have kings as predecessor and successor - because they are not those things to that specific title. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Support collapsing. It leaves the infobox a lot cleaner, as it should be. Big improvement. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, it's a month later and only a few people have weighed in, but since they were all both in favour or reducing the size in some fashion, I'm going to be a bit WP:BOLD and make the infobox collapsible. If anyone disagrees, feel free to resume the discussion. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key information from the article. Key information is not just important but the most important. It also advises than less is often better. Just because an infobox has fields that can be filled, does not mean that these should be filled. We should remember that an infobox is a supplement to the lead and that it is unsuited to capturing nuance - eg such as the distinction between emperor and king. Also, my understanding is that drop-downs do not work on mobile platforms, so collapsible lists are not a good solution and create accessibility issues. My view is that we should be ruthless when it comes to what is or isn't in an infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete proposal to shorten the info box? I still say it is incorrect to say that King Louis XVI was Napoleon's predecessor and most of the pedecessor/successor stuff should be removed. I would be happy to start another topic on this, but I think we can probably reach a consensus on it here if people are prepared to say yes/no to the idea. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Just posted a WP:BOLD proposal to the article. You will see that I left Louis XVIII as successor reported after the first reign as Louis XVIII (as King of France). I didn't think it was necessary to add (as King of France) the second time. I thought it better to place First Consul of the French Republic first, to reflect the chronological order. The name stuff is pretty redundant as it appears in the first sentence of the lead in bold. His parents names are not the most important of information. If there are any questions re the rationale for the decisions I made, I would be happy to answer these. I expect my changes will not be to everyone's taste but they are consistent with P&G and (I think) a good starting point. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I support your changes. There is a b> symbol though after first reign. I'm not very good at source editing so might make things worse if I try to fix it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I also support your changes. I made a couple small edits, though: I think only mentioning (as King of France) once gives the impression that Louis took the Emperor of the French title the second time, so I restored the note, but as a footnote instead — takes up less space. I also removed the notes of his exiles, because Edward IV of England and Henry VI of England don't have similar explanations for their two reigns, so I figure Napoleon can do fine without it too. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Kawnhr, the king stuff is fine but I think the exiled stuff should be retained. It indicates succinctly why there were two reins. The where to is also pretty important IMHO - obviously Elba wasn't far enough. It is the sort of thing that every schoolboy/girl used to know. WP:OTHERTHINGS is never a good argument of itself. One needs to indicate why the other thing is better or worse. I don't see a field to give such an explanation (exiled or something else) perhaps this just didn't occur to those that fashioned the infobox for those two kings. The benefit and significance by far exceeds the decrease in concision by two lines - IMHO. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, but I can't find a single example of an infobox listing this information. Louis XVIII doesn't mention his first reign ended after his flight during the Hundred Days. Ferdinand VII of Spain doesn't mention the circumstances that ended his first reign, nor do Constantine I of Greece, George II of Greece, Michael I of Romania, Mustafa I or Norodom Sihanouk. The editors on all these pages thought this information could be better covered in the body. I'm not making an appeal to "other things exist", but pointing to precedent and aiming for consistency. Some stuff exists for a reason, if you will. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If some stuff exists for a reason, I'll respond with two questions. Is there a good reason why this isn't done elsewhere that also applies to this instance? Is there a good reason why this is a bad thing to do here? The editors on all these pages thought this information could be better covered in the body. We do not know what these editors thought. Perhaps a good way to add something similar did not occur to them or there was no good way in the other cases. The last dot-point at WP:Some stuff exists for a reason also applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: His parents names are not the most important of information. This is what you wrote when proposing to shorten the infobox, which could be true. While your efforts are greatly appreciated I fail to understand how adding literally two lines to the infobox is going to have an adverse effect on the article in general. This is a trivial matter considering the other issues found within this page. He was a French monarch and for every single monarch before or after him the names of the parents and their royal/noble house is given. I would not be opposed to omitting the "House" parameter, but it's just ridiculous to remove his parents' names while keeping those of his wives and children. What is it exactly that gives his wives from whom he was separated more prominence compared to his mother or father? Keivan.f^Talk 22:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't support adding his parents names. We need to reduce the info box to the most important information. Nap didn't inherit any of his titles from his parents, he earned them himself. And if everyone says, "It's only two more lines" we will end up with an unwieldly info box again. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

His wives and children did not help him earn those titles either. What is the justification for keeping their names there exactly? Keivan.f^Talk 22:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

His wives were Empresses of the French. His children were heirs to his titles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Two of those children were illegitimate and were not heirs to anything. His wives were empresses via marriage, a title bestowed upon them solely because they were his wives. His mother was also called "Madame Mère" (Madame Mother) and had a place at her son's court. Why should she be excluded and those two included? Keivan.f^Talk 23:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You've had your say. We will see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a voting contest. If no one can come up with a solid reason as to why the names of his wives and children should be there then they can be removed. That makes the infobox even shorter which was the aim of this discussion anyway. Keivan.f^Talk 00:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you need to seek a consensus for such a change. WP:BRD. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a solid consensus for removing his parents' names either. Three users agreeing to remove something that had been in the article's body for years does not qualify as a universal consensus. Only an WP:RfC could achieve this. And we are already discussing the matter so for now I'll wait and see what the other two users have to say. Keivan.f^Talk 01:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ping Kawnhr as your input has been requested. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think they should probably stay; it's standard in infoboxes, and only two lines anyway. I appreciate the willingness to take a machete to the infobox, but I think we've more or less solved the problem of length. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As you noted, I don't think that his parents are sufficiently important information to add to the infobox. However, my main point in challenging your edit was to have it discussed to achieve a specific consensus (or not). My view is that his partners and progeny are more important but not tonight Josephine Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

References

I don't care that much about infoboxes in general, but I just looked again at the current infobox on the page, and it does not look too long to me at all. It looks to me to be pretty reasonable and standard, and pretty much fine as it is. I wouldn't support adding his parents names to the current infobox. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just don't understand why we are giving more prominence to the wives and children. There's just not a single argument that could explain why any of them (other than Josephine perhaps) is more prominent than either of his parents. The view that his wives were empresses and as such should be named does not make sense. Letizia was the mother of an emperor, much in the same way that Margaret Beaufort (who was not a queen) was the mother of England's Henry VII and a prominent figure in his court. If the aim is to shorten the infobox, fine, by all means do it, but do it without prejudice against certain family members. Keivan.f^Talk 23:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Editing dispute in a related article

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

Request for comment at NCROY

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

Fix it

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

LENGTH!

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

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

Appearance and image

Hello all

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

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

Personality

Hello all

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

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

Freemasonry

Hello all,

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

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

Criticism

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

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

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

Lead

Hello all

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

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

Oxford spelling?

Hello all

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

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

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

Reforms

Hello all

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

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

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

Education

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

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

Overall, my impression from all the changes you have been introducing here is that you apparently does not count yourself at all among the historical admirers of the guy. Am I wrong? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether you or I are admirers of Napoleon is beside the point. My aim was to improve the article by making it more concise and presenting more information which reflects recent scholarship. It's a fact that that scholarship does not go in for unqualified praise of Napoleon. If you think the article isn't written from a NPOV, then I would be happy to discuss any concerns you might have. I do think the article has a structural problem. For example, the section "criticism" probably should be renamed something like "historical debate" and present some common counterarguments to the criticism. But I don't think there would be many historians who would argue that Nap's rule wasn't authoritarian,that his reintroduction of slavery was a good thing, and it was great that women lost a lot of rights under his rule.

I would also rename the section on "Wives, mistresses and children" something like "Private life" and talk more about his family issues. But I haven't had a close look at that section yet. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Warshy In light of your comment, I have cut two quotations from Napoleon which show him in a poor light. I used them because they were the ones in the sources, but I suppose historians can quote selectively to prove whatever they want. It also saves space. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would go ahead with all the changes you are proposing above in this section. Happy editing! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)