Talk:Napoleon

Napoleon and Jefferson conspired over Haiti and the Louisiana Purchase

Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/987274

Title: Jefferson and the Nonrecognition of Haiti SmallPneumatic (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relatives in infobox

Regarding what should be included in the infobox, it was pointed out in Talk:Napoleon/Archive 7#Infobox that other articles such as US presidents link the subjects’ notable parents and children in the infobox. Illini11 (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@S200167 Please seek consensus your your proposed additions to the info box. This has been discussed many times on Talk and so far the consensus has been to maintain a minimalist info box. There is an invisible note to this effect on the info box. You are very welcome to make your case here and if a new consensus emerges then so be it. Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no need to include Napoleon's parents just because articles on US presidents include their parents. Each article is unique and editors collectively decide what goes into the info box and whether there will be an info box at all. The info box is supposed to briefly summarise the most important facts. Editors are always going to disagree on what constitutes key facts. I would say that Napoleon's brothers are more important in Napoleon's public life than his parents because he made his brothers kings and they were key advisers and members of his regency council. So why not include his brothers as well? And his illegitimate children? And his major battles? And his "House"? And all the other things that editors from time to time think should be in the info box? I would argue we shouldn't do this because we would end up with an enormous complex info box which is trying to cram Napoleon's entire life into a box. That's what the article and the lead are for. As for his supposed "Royal House" what does "House of Bonaparte" tell us that his name Napoleon Bonaparte doesn't? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, could the prior infobox discussion be linked somewhere on this page? Because as it currently stands, if one wishes to see prior consensus, they would have to comb through the archive pages, and since there where multiple discussions, it's not immediately apparent which one had the consensus. Illini11 (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

what's the point of removing the information of the date of coronation? Shourjya Gayen (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Writings on Napoleon

Hello all

I have removed the following passage which was just added to the lead:

"Napoleon remains the most written-about non-religious figure in history, with a total bibliography rivaled only by major religious figures like Jesus. This extraordinary level of interest was famously captured by academic Jean Tulard, "the master of Napoleonic studies", who noted that more books have been written about Napoleon than days have passed since his death."

The problems are:

1) It is not an accurate summary of the body of the article. The article does discuss the issue but with better sources and without the hyperbole.

2) It is dated. The comparison with Jesus dates from a news article in 1969. This isn't recent scholarship.

3) The factoid from Jean Tulard is just a bit of trivia. For all we know there might be thousands of people who have had more books written about them than the days since their death.

4) it is written in a sensational journalistic style rather than an in encyclopaedic language

Rather than adding headline grabbing and unverifiable claims in the lead, I think the way the issue is handled in the article is more encyclopaedic.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@French Thutmose III Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@French Thutmose III. Please see my compromise wording. I think this gets the point across more concisely than your suggestion. However, I would still prefer that the sentence was taken out because it is stating the obvious and the article already exceeds the length recommended under policy. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Lede and Context

@Aemilius Adolphin I get the worry about the length, but I think some context is necessary for the 1813 campaign. It jumps from his defeat in Russia right to him being defeated in Leipzig leaving out the fact that, although he was still achieving these major victories, these basically failed to halt the growing coalition against him, instead of making it seem as though he was just one and done at Leipzig right after Russia. I tried to make it pretty concise, but if it can't be squeezed in, won't push it. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. The full context and list of battles is in the main body of the article and in more detailed articles. In the lead we only include the most decisive battle of each campaign. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the point about focusing on the decisive battle, but I think some context is important here. Like Gallaher for example describes Lützen and Bautzen as victories that restored confidence in the French army and briefly revived the "legend" of Napoleonic invincibility, while Dresden was another major victory that was ultimately neutralized by defeats elsewhere despite nearly destroying the allied army. Anyways, point wasn't to list the battles for the sake of it, but to show that he was still winning major engagements before Leipzig, yet those victories failed to stop the growing coalition. Reaper1945 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Self-proclaimed emperor

I have reverted two attempts by an editor to add the words "self proclaimed" to Napoleon's official title of emperor in the info box. The reasons are:

1) It was the French Senate that proclaimed Napoleon Emperor of the French.

2) The article says this.

3) Such a change is controversial, contrary to the facts and should not be in the info box which is supposed to contain key facts. The key fact is that he was Emperor of the French.

4) It doesn't matter what other articles say. This article is correct; if other articles are wrong they should be corrected.

5) Napoleon did indeed crown himself; but that's an entirely different thing from being proclaimed Emperor under the constitution.

@Plumber Happy to discuss. Please note that it is up to you to gain consensus for disputed content: WP:ONUS Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

rue de la Huchette

Hi, the article notes Napoleon’s rapid rise in 1795, but it might be worth adding one small detail about where he was living just before 13 Vendémiaire. According to the Fondation Napoléon, he lodged modestly at the Cadran bleu in the fr:rue de la Huchette, near the Pont Saint-Michel, before later moving to the headquarters of the 17th Division in the fr:rue des Capucines.

This would give a useful sense of how quickly his circumstances changed in the course of 1795.

Suggested wording:

“During this period, Bonaparte lodged (at the modest Hôtel du Cadran bleu) in the rue de la Huchette, near the Pont Saint-Michel. After 13 Vendémiaire and his appointment to command the Army of the Interior, he moved to the headquarters of the 17th Division in the rue des Capucines.”

Source: Fondation Napoléon, “Rue de la Huchette : les ombres de l’Histoire.”~2026-50911-13 (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The article is already very long, and I don't think there is any need to record this level of detail about where he lived at this stage of his military career. The relevant paragraph of the article already makes it clear that he rose rapidly after the events of 13 Vendémiaire. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggested edit.

Three quarters down the third paragraph, referring to "the House of Bourbons" . (In England Bourbons are a chocolate biscuit ) This should be "House of Bourbon" ~2026-52085-07 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Links and other edits

Hello all

I have reverted a series of recent edits that were marked as minor for the following reasons

1) They were not minor as each one was either plain wrong, questionable, not in accordance with policy, or not supported by the cited source.

2) There is no need to link common words and the names of well known countries and places. MOS: OVERLINK. I therefore removed links to "Italy", "Italian" "French" etc. The article, especially the lead, is already turning into a sea of blue.

3) Mainland France does not equal metropolitan France. Corsica was part of metropolitan France, even though it is an island.

4) In British English there is no need mark off a short introductory phrase of time or place with a comma. Eg "In May Napoleon ate breakfast" not "In May, Napoleon ate breakfast".

5) St Helena isn't "near mainland Africa".

@Chemasterwinz Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Aemilius Adolphin, I absolutely now agree on not adding “near mainland Africa.” for Saint Helena, or Metropolitan France for mainland France isn’t correct, but my arguement, on not adding country names like U.K. next to Saint Helena, is something I disagree on, as the island quite literally belongs to Britain, so adding UK would be logical, like France is added next to Corsica in the info box, not only that, but adding link to languages spoken, like French or Italian, makes it distinct and clear for the reader to understand what exactly is meant when those words are used in a certain paragraph, and not everyone is a native English speaker either, so there that as well on confusion, with Italian or French etc. also adding link to the house of Bonaparte literally is a logical choice, when “the Bonapartes” is mentioned, so that’s another thing I disagree on, if you have a arguement in opposition to any of this, pls discuss Chemasterwinz (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I have again reverted your edits for the above reasons. Please stop trying to impose your preferred version. As previously discussed if an editor objects to your changes and gives sound policy reasons for this, the onus is on you to seek consensus. See WP:ONUS. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

1) Adding the "British Island of Saint Helena" is in my view unnecessary because we already say Napoleon was taken into British custody and the wikilink to Saint Helena explains its rather complicated imperial history. I am not even sure it was strictly part of the UK at the time. But I am open to discussion on this.

2) Adding "the French Island of" Corsica is unnecessary in the lead because it requires a detailed explanation which is given in the text. There is a long history of edit wars on this article regarding the status of Corsica. There is no reason to reignite it among drive by readers who only read the lead.

3) Links to languages such as French and Italian are unnecessary for the reason given above. The English language wikipedia is not meant for people with poor English. There are foreign language Wikipedias and a simple English wikipedia. This one is written in formal encyclopaedic English and it would be tiresome to have to explain every word someone learning English might not understand.

4) There was no House of Bonaparte before Napoleon. There wasn't even any Bonapartes. They were Buonapartes and not French.

5) In British English, there is no need to add commas before short introductory phrases of time or place. It doesn't matter what an American grammar checker says. I already explained this. If you want to change this article from British English you will need a broad consensus. See MOS:ENGVAR.

Now let's take a break and see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Memory, and Evaluation and Criticism

I have reverted some recent edits to these sections for the following reasons.

1) "Most modern critics [reject the comparison to Hitler]" was changed to "Even modern critics reject [etc]." The introduction of the word "even" created an emphasis which is contrary to a NPOV. It also does not make sense: why "even"? 19th century historians of Napoleon had never heard of Hitler.

2) "He introduced tariff policies which promoted French trade at the expense of allies and satellite states" was changed to: "He also introduced discriminatory tariff policies which promoted French trade at the expense of allies and satellite states". The introduction of the word "discriminatory" is unnecessary: if they promoted French trade at the expense of allies and satellite states they were discriminatory.

3) "Many historians have criticized Napoleon's authoritarian rule, especially after 1807, which included censorship..." was changed to: "Napoleon reigned in criticism and silenced radicals of the far-left revolution through censorship...". This is wordier and not supported by the cited sources. It wasn't just far left radicals Napoleon reigned in, it was most critics of his regime

4) "His reintroduction of an hereditary monarchy and nobility remains controversial" was changed to "His reintroduction of a traditional hereditary monarchy and nobility remains controversial". This in unnecessary and plain wrong. The traditional monarchy was Bourbon kings. Napoleon's monarchy was new: a hereditary Empire founded by a non-traditional, supposedly self-made, Emperor.

@AadamentAardvark Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Lead

@UltraCobson I reverted most of your changes because the previous version looks better to me. Is there any reason why you want to remove the sentence: "As a statesman, he implemented numerous legal and administrative reforms in France and Europe." His regnal name was "Napoleon" and it isn't worth mentioning because the article is called Napoleon. His supporters only started calling him Napoleon I when Louis-Napoleon started calling himself Napoleon III. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin The introduction should kick off the rest of the lead. It is bad practice to cram everything about the subject into the paragraph that's supposed to simply explain why they're notable. If we opt for a lead structure that goes as follows: introduction → early life and rise to power → reign → legacy, in simple, sturdy, clean and informative prose, then I believe that would serve the average reader better than having multiple vague and needlessly wordy statements repeated, explicitly stating things that are already implied in the article text, and generally having an odd, uneven structure throughout the article. UltraCobson (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

It's notable that as a statesman, he implemented numerous legal and administrative reforms in France and Europe. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin Wouldn't it be better to directly mention some of his legal and administrative reforms later in the lead than use weasel words? UltraCobson (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

And your sentence: "He emerged as a general in the French Revolutionary Army, leading a series of military campaigns across Europe and the Middle East in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and establishing the First French Empire" doesn't make sense: he emerged as a general during the French revolutionary wars and then went on establish an empire.

Also the restored version: "He was Emperor of the French from 18 May 1804 until his first abdication in 1814, with a brief restoration during the Hundred Days in 1815" is clearer in meaning than your proposed, "He was Emperor of the French from 1804 to 1814, and again from March to June 1815, during the Hundred Days." Because it could be read as meaning that it was the first period that is known as the Hundred days. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin I don't see those two sentences being interpreted in the ways you've described though. They seem to me to be in very plain, understandable, basic English. I don't think a reader could see 1804–1814 and think that is close to a hundred days, and I think I described his rise to fame as a general, his military campaigns, and his establishment of the French Empire fairly plainly without requiring extensive nuance. It's technically true as a statement, but incomplete. That's what you have the rest of the lead for. But we'll see if someone objects. UltraCobson (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Currently we have: "He rose to prominence as a general during the French Revolution and led a series of military campaigns across Europe and the Middle East during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars."

You wanted to change it to: "He emerged as a general in the French Revolutionary Army, leading a series of military campaigns across Europe and the Middle East in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and establishing the First French Empire".

The first sentence is better written. He didn't "emerge" as a general like a chicken from an egg. He was promoted to brigadier general in 1794 and rose to prominence as a general. Your sentence also mixes up his rise to prominence during the French revolution and much later events. He didn't establish the first French Empire while emerging as a general which is the implication of your wording. It's also more important to get an early link to the French Revolution rather than the French Revolutionary Army. Napoleon was a child of the French Revolution. Sure, he rose to prominence in the army, but we already convey that by saying he was a general.

Your other proposed sentence "He was Emperor of the French from 1804 to 1814, and again from March to June 1815, during the Hundred Days." has the commas in the wrong places. Better would be: "He was Emperor of the French from 1804 to 1814 and again from March to June 1815: during the Hundred Days." Or simply: "He was Emperor of the French from 1804 to 1814 and again from March to June 1815." But I prefer the current wording because it explains why there were two reigns.

In summary, I don't think your changes are improvements. I also think it's more important to fix some of the long and tangential sections in the article than fiddle with the wording of the lead. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Re: civil rights

The end of the lead seems almost a comically generous read; what precisely is mixed about his record on civil rights with a list like this? A mixed record as opposed to who, Leopold of Belgium? Someone who reinstated slavery in the colonies, eliminated free press, violently repressed political resistance, imprisoned his enemies, and reinstated hereditary nobility is a poor candidate for "a mixed record". Can anyone chime in on what I might be missing? ~2026-58069-54 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You are missing this: "He established a system of public education, abolished the vestiges of feudalism, emancipated Jews and other religious minorities, abolished the Spanish Inquisition, enacted the principle of equality before the law for an emerging middle class, and centralized state power at the expense of religious authorities." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

References