Jump to content

Talk:Napoleonic Code/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comparable articles

We have a large number of articles on actsof legislationThey are in the conventional lawyer's format: short title, capitalized, followed by the year when usual (or, as it often is, necessary for disambiguation), whether the law is British, American, French, or Australian:

We should do the same here. The supposed parallels for lower case are in a different format because they are different things: the "Salic law" is not legislation at all; common law, like civil law or canon law is a common noun, like French law, a whole field of law, often not created by any legislative act. JCScaliger (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Many official sources do not capitalize, as here. And what do you make of this search or this one? Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Dicklyon - Your first example is a government report in which "homestead act" seems to be de-capitalised in order to look harmonious on the page with "homestead law" and other references to "homestead; compare, as to the same statute (or at least the same statute name), JCScaliger's example above, Homestead Act. In your second example, "code" is lower case in the summary (which the author might not have written or which might have been rewritten by an editor - though in the English version it is capitalised) but is always and many times capitalised in the body of the actual article (search it for "code"). Your third example is twofold. In the first item, "Code" is capitalised for both English and French. In the second item, on the page that you cite it is capitalised for codes from several countries; and this is a specialist book of 1837 on the Belgian Penal (or Criminal) Code and in it "Code" is capitalised throughout (though, in titles, it is simply all in capitals). Thank you - --Wikiain (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
In the first, looking harmonious on the page may be a style issue, certainly suggesting that the officials don't regard Homestead Act as a proper name, even before it referred to at three different acts. In the second, yes, Code is capitalized, but "of offences and penalties" is not. The third shows a different translation, sometimes not capitalized, further suggesting that the translated term is not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, one has to keep in mind that capitalization of the names of acts as proper nouns was not consistent in American English prior to the early 20th century. However, since 1900, there has been a complete consensus that they should be capitalized. Thus, early federal cases refer to the process act of 1789, but 20th century cases refer to the Process Act of 1789. So early references to the "homestead act" aren't really relevant here.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

By the same logic, French Penal Code of 1791 should be at Penal Code (1791) or some similar title; there have been too many Penal Codes to use the undisambiguated title. I have so proposed, and the discussion may be of interest to other editors here; it is the only section of Talk:French Penal Code of 1791. JCScaliger (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that WP had adopted "lawyer's format" into the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
So? JCScaliger (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

[Please continue voting and main discussion in the main section ABOVE, not HERE or in subsequent sections or subsections. NoeticaTea? 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)]]

On "specialists" and capitalization

I have argued numerous times, elsewhere, that "specialists" (as some of the editors in this discussion describe themselves) are the problem, not the solution, in capitalization questions. The astronomers capitalize "comet" in Halley's Comet, because the IAU recently adopted that style for the things in their specialty (astronomical objects). The dog fanciers capitalize "retriever" in Labrador Retriever, because the AKC has adopted a style of capitalizing the names of breeds that they officially recognize. Now the lawyers want to capitalize laws, because that's what they hold dear and like to distinguish, and that's standard "lawyer style". But WP style is to only capitalize proper names, and what's a proper name can only be judged by looking at usage outside the specialties that like to capitalize their own stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Salinger, sorry, our guidelines say "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation". Game over. Tony (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Dicklyon, that's sort of how I feel when French people refuse to capitalize and they decide to insert a space before a closing punctuation mark ! I appreciate your examples as a charming part of American heritage (though perhaps not British) . -SusanLesch (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes , very Charming ! Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason why lawyers capitalize the names of particular enacted statutes is that they are proper nouns, because one is referring only to one particular object. For example, just as there is only one Barack Obama, there is only one Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On the other hand, one can recognize patterns of similar statutes that are enacted in many different jurisdictions, and those are referred to in the lower case as with any other class of objects. Thus, one can refer generically to three-strikes laws or Good Samaritan laws. This is not that hard.--Coolcaesar (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So CoolCaesar, has OED got it wrong? Must every expression that refers to only one entity be a proper name? How about "the tallest man in the world"? Should we make that "The Tallest Man in the World"? Your reasoning appears to require that we do. In fact, anglophone lawyers' usage is developed not solely on the grounds you suggest. It is the result of an evolution toward settling on certain conventions, which is no doubt a good thing in the drafting of laws, and in legal writing generally. Whether and how any of that tradition carries over into the legal historiography of 19th-century France is a more complex matter. Experts differ; and OED makes a judgement favouring "Napoleonic code", for this specific unique entity: "a legal code established by Napoleon I and based on Roman law, which was introduced in 1804 and still constitutes the French civil law code".
NoeticaTea? 06:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Code" in OED online (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition 1989 with draft additions) at 2011-10-14

Fair use is claimed for the material in this subsection, in that it is not part of an article but is introduced by way of a note in support of discussion in the section "New request to move". Contributors please add only to the material above.--Wikiain (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

("code, n.1"; OED, Second edition, 1989; online version September 2011. <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/35578>; accessed 12 October 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1891.)

[Do not continue discussion or voting here, please. Use the main section, some distance above. NoeticaTea? 11:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)]

"Napoleonic" in OED online (Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition 2003 and in progress) at 2011-10-15

Fair use is claimed for the material in this subsection, in that it is not part of an article but is introduced by way of a note in support of discussion in the section "New request to move". Contributors please add only to the material above in the main section. --Wikiain (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

[Do not continue discussion or voting here, please. Use the main section, some distance above. --Wikiain (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)]

Is le Code Napoléon a book?

It seems not. Rather, the term is used to refer to a body of codified law. Though commonly capitalized, being "a book title" is not the reason. It's more a "style" thing according to this book. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is promulgated in a book (which in any case originally bore a name resembling the present title rather less). See my detailed reply above to Wikiain's recently developed argument, where he or she traded on the code's supposed identity with the book in which it was presented. NoeticaTea? 23:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
But there's no real "it" here even. As the linked encyclopedia says, "the practice grew up of using the term Code Napoleon as a short description of the whole of French codified law." The "it" being referred to keeps shifting, whether it's promulgated in a book, or five books, or what. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to circumvent my plea to someone else today and far above, Dicklyon, but I'll respond to this point very factually and in isolation. When I search for "code napoleon" in that encyclopedia as linked, I get the plural, "Codes Napoleon", (p 122) as a chapter or section header and in the body of a page the singular, "Code Napoleon" (p 190), apparently referring to the Code civil - which is my "book" and which was never promulgated in more than one book (although some editions of it might have had more than one volume). There's a "q.v." cross-reference after the latter, so apparently the search isn't getting everything (and "codes napoleon" gets the same results). I don't get the passage that you quote (and Google doesn't find it): did they really say "Code" or did they say "Codes"?
However, it can also be noted that the encyclopedia is old, dated 1907. At that time, it might have been justifiable to refer to the existing French codes collectively as the "Codes Napoleon". But today there are many more codes, forming a range far beyond what Napoleon and his contemporaries envisaged - and I don't recall seeing that usage of "Codes Napoleon" in any more recent work. A list of all French codes, both currently in force ("VIGUEUR" = en vigueur - in force) and repealed ("ABROGE" = "abrogé" - repealed) can be found here. (The repealed Code du vin might have made pleasant reading.)
The Missouri Bar Association link gives, for pages 142 and 143, only "Code Napoleon" and, although I can see only snippets, in both cases the reference appears to be solely to the Code civil. Moreover, this work is even older: 1884. --Wikiain (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, at one time that code was referred to that way. But sources about how the referent of the term changed over time show that it is not "a book", but an evolving body of law. Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Phony offenses

We quote Le Peletier as saying that he abolished "phony offenses, created by superstition, feudalism, the tax system"; phony (late 19th century slang in English) is jarring. If Le Peletier used jargon, we should say so, and give the French word; if not, can we find a more suitable translation before we source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCScaliger (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Done - that's just what he said. --Wikiain (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
factices, I see. "Artificial" would be better. JCScaliger (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Factice" means "artificial" in the sense of "fake", so "phony" is also an option (Collins Robert French Dictionary). In the context, a passionate speech urging radical law reform, "phony" seems just right to me. Not "fake", however, because these were real offences - what was fake in them was their alleged basis. --Wikiain (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Presumed guilt?" "Must prove innocence?"

I have found a lot of references, written by people with an axe to grind, that refers to the modern versions of the Napoleonic Code as deriving from Roman Law which "presumes guilt" (which I couldn't find either) - the accused must prove that they are innocent. Some sort of statement about this needs to be made someplace IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

See the article Presumption of innocence, which shows that the presumption was already in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789. --Wikiain (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
1) The Rights of Man pertained only to the revolutionary government. The Napoleonice Code superceded it.
2) The Presumption of guilt is linked in this (NC) article and an attempt to explain their way out of it. It is redirected to the Presumption of Innocence. This redirect (merger?), which I'm sure made sense to the editors at the time, seems misleading IMO. That link is worth breaking. Piping is at least slightly more honest!
3) The Presumption of innocence is not explicitly linked in here.
4) There is no link from the Presumption of innocence/guilt to this article. Student7 (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. The Declaration was revised, but never superseded. The codes had no effect on it, either because it was not counted as law at all or, if it was (and then it would have been constitutional law) the codes are subordinate to and dependent on constitutional law
  2. The preambles to successive French constitutions have referred to the Declaration, so that the Declaration could be seen as incorporated by reference.
  3. In 1971 the Constitutional Council clarified the position by affirming that the Declaration forms part of French constitutional law as a whole. (This is clear in fr:WP, which I will try to incorporate in en:WP - I have read the Council decisions that are referred to in fr:WP.)
  4. As the article Presumption of innocence makes clear (and I hope a bit clearer since I worked on it yesterday), the presumption of innocence is also spelt out - twice - in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is separate from the Napoleonic Code.
  5. The present article is about the Napoleonic Code, i.e the Code Napoléon (aka Code Civil). Other French codes seem to be mentioned here only because they were created later with the Napoleonic Code as their model. The exception here is the lengthy bit on the Code of Criminal Instruction (now superseded by the Code of Criminal Procedure), which IMO belongs in a separate article. Moreover, IMO it is rightly tagged as lacking references. Especially, to reference a presumption of guilt solely to an opinionated newspaper article of 1895 is not good enough. I am minded to cut most of this bit out, but will leave it until the RM over "Code" is resolved.
  6. Did France ever have a presumption of guilt? In art 11 of the Code of Criminal Instruction (1808-1929) there is a a presumption of guilt (présumés coupables) for relatively minor offences (contraventions de police) - though this might not have been so minor for the person convicted, since it included offences punishable with up to five days in jail (art 137). No presumption at all appears in the jurors' oath (art 312), but it looks like these minor offences were not eligible for jury trial anyway. But it appears that a presumption of innocence remained for greater offences.
  7. But none of that is in the Napoleonic Code, which does not deal with criminal law.
  8. So there is no need for this article to refer to presumptions of guilt or innocence. In that case, there would no issue about linking to material on them. --Wikiain (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.
Napoleonic C/code is torts, etc., as I understand you.
For the record, rightly or wrongly, lots of countries beside France claim the c/Code Napoleon.
Roman Law (and probably Greek) was torts only, even for criminal stuff (which was a defect that modern countries have remedied but that is another story). Student7 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The C/code is mostly about persons, property and contracts. It says very little (arts 1382-1386) about what in common-law countries is known as "tort" - although the recent additions on product liability (arts 1386-1 to 1386-18) are partially "tort". Yes, the French took the Code Napoléon in their imperial baggage and many of the places where they left it, in Europe and elsewhere, were glad to keep it or imitate it. And I agree with you about Roman law - and that, indeed, it is here another story. --Wikiain (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Sources

I added two sources to this article in the "Codes in other countries" section and the "Contents of the Napoleonic Code" Section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamdenAl (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Inherent sexism

The Napoleonic code was a backward step for women, as addressed by Guy Maupassant and even French wiki. This is not addressed in the English Wiki version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.73.107 (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

1791 France: Equal inheritance rights (abolished in 1804)

1792 France: Divorce is legalized for both sexes (abolished for women in 1804)

France: Local women-units of the defence army are founded in several cities; although the military was never officially open to women, about eight thousand women were estimated to have served openly in the French army in local troops between 1792 and 1794, women were officially barred from the army in 1795

1793 France: The question of women's right to vote is discussed in the Parliament of France; women's right to vote is acknowledged as a principle, but it is still put aside with the explanation that the time is not right to make this a reality and is therefore postponed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.73.107 (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was considered a step forward? Smooth alligator (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

napoleonic codes

Do these laws of the napoleonic code show that napoleon was a man of enlighten or not? Why? Stêph-Annię päigęz (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Napoleonic Code. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Napoleonic Code. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Louisiana was never governed by the Napoleonic Code

The Code Napoleon was codified in 1804. Louisiana became one of the United States in 1803. Precisely speaking, Louisiana was never subject to le code Napoleon; rather, Louisiana law is an amalgam of les cotumes de paris (French law prior to the Code Napoleon) and Las Siete Partidas (the Spanish civil code). This is perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions about Louisiana law. Davisbi (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Why Stêph-Annię päigęz (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Look at this : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_civil_louisianais

(talk) 13:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CamdenAl.

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Napoleonic_Code/Archive_2&oldid=1234846187"