Talk:Napoleonic Code/Archive 1

message: The sentence under History: "The reaction to the Civil Code and other subsequent codes resulted legislative role by judges protesting royal decisions—to protest excesses of royal power or, in some occasions, to defend the privileges of the social classes to which the judges belonged." is confusing as to meaning.  Please re-word or correct this.  Thanks.  Tony (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded.  --Wikiain (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I've also had a go at much else in the early sections, drawing particularly on the equivalent article in French Wikipedia (see external link to it).  The word "customal", which I have used, won't be in most dictionaries - but it is used by legal historians to translate "coutume" where that refers to, and often is in the title of, a published collection.  A movement toward collection and codification was in train before the Revolution, notably in the work of Pothier. --Wikiain (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: I don't understand the idea that there was a "legal unity of continental Europe that had existed since the Middle Ages".  The law was the same across all of Europe in the medieval period?  Vestiges of the Holy Roman Empire?  Culturally, via feudalism and the aristocracy spanning multiple countries - thus the culture (and lfghaw) of the nobles was common across the continent?
This "legal unity" really refers to the fact that the medieval use of eclesiastical law that preserved "Roman law" was taught without change throughout most of the so-called "dark ages" in various church controlled universities. What needs to be clarified is the development of the local customs or coutumes as they were called, a body of law that developed in various municipalities that dealt with issues that were not specifically covered by roman law. Alex
:Right. I'm not an expert on old French law, but I remember reading several times that there were lots of local customs, local privileges etc. David.Monniaux 07:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now incorporated.  Roman law was preserved in two ways:  continuously, through canon law; and, through medieval "reception" by rulers from the 11th century on, as secular civil law.  The latter, however, remained more a resource than effective as everyday law.  For one thing, it was in Latin;  for another, it was rarely transformed into national codes.  Actually, it is doubtful how much effect it had had even in Justinian's Constantinople (Byzantium), since contemporary historians hardly mention it.  In Justinian's day, Latin was the language of higher administration and, within that, the legal system - but the lingua franca in most parts of the eastern empire was Greek. --Wikiain (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal unity 

message: Somebody inserted "European". What were non-European countries with a civil law system? David.Monniaux 07:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other civil law countries 

message: "the Napoleonic Code ... formed the basis of the private law systems also of ...  Spain, Portugal and their former colonies."
Clarification requested -- My understanding is that the Napoleonic Code is the basis of the legal systems in many or all Latin American countries. Can somebody clarify this in the article? Thanks. -- 30 October 2005
: I think so too (apart from Brazil, which recently enacted an entirely new code), but we would need someone knowledgeable to confirm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.63.186 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America 

message: Under Penal Code someone inserted the line
IP ADDRESS 170.158.177.80 > LIVERPOOL
I'm to assume this was not part of the article, but it confused me enough I thought I should make a note here.
Liastnir 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penal Code graffiti? 

message: I restored some deleted parts (now it makes sense). Also, I deleted some crap, including something about a "Code de Rohan, Malta, 1782" (or '92); it may be real, but I searched and all I get is the fictional nation of Lord of the Rings.
If there are further vandalic edits, please remember not only to delete the vandalic content, but also check if something was deleted, cuz there was stuff there that didn't make sense without stuff I restored from older versions. Always compare with older versions! And the last one is not enough, try with older ones too. --Neuroghost 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "Code de Rohan, Malta, 1782" does exist. New searches (e.g. Structure and Organization of the Order of Malta)show that it was a constitution for the Knights Hospitaller and still has some force for that order.  But it does not appear to be comparable with the Napoleonic Code and, if so, is rightly omitted from this article.  You might like the idea, Neuroghost, that its author, Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc, was a knight born in la Mancha. --Wikiain (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Sweden, Lebanon ... appear in the what links here, should not thet be added in the relevant section ? -- DLL   .. T 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries linked 

message: This page has been vandalized several times.  Perhaps it should be locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentfever (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Just a note for someone with more knowledge on the topic - the Penal code section contains a reference to Cambacérès influencing the statutes on same-sex acts, while the article about him contradicts that.  I have no idea which is correct, just wanted to point it out.  
Schmatt 18:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambacérès contradiction 

message: Shouldn't this be at "Napoleonic Code", not "Napoleonic code"? Kuralyov (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalised throughout. --Wikiain (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization? 

message: Addressed the lede tags, minor tidying up on this page. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  some cleanup 

message: Hi Vegaswikian (no relation, to my knowledge), you conclude that there has been no consensus. But opinion for the move was running 3:1 in favour (counting Kuralyov from back in "Capitalization") and included two people who have a specialised interest (Kuralyov and myself). The single user against has interests remote from the topic and also hasn't responded to my reply. Could you please at least re-open the discussion? --Wikiain (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what Wikian said. The majority are in favor of move, and the one opposed doesn't appear to be knowledgeable on the topic. I'm doing work on Napoleon at the moment and off the top of my head I can't remember any historian whose work I refer to using a lower-case c over a capital C for the Code. Kuralyov (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Vegaswikian. We seem to have sufficient agreement that the name should be capitalised. Could you do that, please? --Wikiain (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the discussion was 1 to 1.  If you add the comment immediately above it was 2-1.  The close was based on the comments about the move.  I did not read all of the talk page and I don't believe that is required.  If there is now a consensus, feel free to open a new request.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus to move