Talk:Napoleon/Archive 2

message: I have made substantial changes today to the article, in an effort to make it more factual and complete.  I have been working on this project for weeks (it took much longer than I had imagined when I started!) and had only gotten up to 1806.  Serendipitously, anonymous user 211.27.144.67 came along and rewrote the sections after that date!  Thanks!!  Anyway, I have reorganized this Discussion page so that anyone who wants to comment on the new version of the article can do so in this section, and these comments will be distinct from ones relating to older versions. RussBlau 02:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
*I've archived the older comments. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
**The part about a "psycho" named Rostopchin setting Moscow on fire because he hated the French is absolute BS (pardon my French :)). He was ordered to do so by the military council headed by Kutuzov. The fire got out of hand due to numerous circumstances (I may write an article named Moscow fire of 1812), but Rostopchin was following orders. I got some material in Russian and will write an article about this guy and will change this part of the article. KNewman 18:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
***There is new evidence about the stomach cancer theory.   68.238.7.26 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Rewrite 

message: The article now states, "Just days after his marriage, Bonaparte took command of the Army of France and led it on a successful invasion of Italy." It used to say, "…Bonaparte took command of the Army of the Army of Italy…" I believe (but do not know, and do not have a source handy) that what he took command of was, indeed, known as "the army of Italy". Can someone more knowledgable please comment one way or the other? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
:This seems to be a recurring source of confusion. The organization over which he took command was indeed the "Army of Italy."  That was the name of a unit of the French military, much as the U.S. Army had an organization in the Civil War called the "Army of Virginia."  In each case, the army was named after its area of operations, not after the country it served.  But to avoid any future confusion, I've changed the text to read 'the French "Army of Italy".' RussBlau 14:55, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
The factoid in this section "a term reflecting his camaraderie with his soldiers, all of whom he knew by name" sounds preposterous to me.  I could believe that a company, or even a battalion commander might know the names of their charges, but I would imagine the Army of Italy to be comprised of some tens of thousands.  We can do better than this.  Drogue 02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigns in Italy and Egypt 

message: I've added a section on the misconception of his height.  I think the text is somewhat badly written, and
might be placed better as well.  Can anyone help?  Csl77 09:35, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I've re-written this section a bit, compressing the text somewhat and making it more concise.  Hope you like it.  It's my first edit ever and I still have to learn how to re-position sections within an article.  I'd suggest placing it between "burial" and "legacy".  --Vyrus724 21:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone please convert Napoleon's height to metres? Also I believe that Napoleon himself would give his height in that units (as metre was invented in France). Przepla 22:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The metric height should be given, but so should the imperial.  We 'mer'kuns can't understand your wacky metric system.  One would add that the metric system didn't exist for the first part of Napoleon's life. john k 22:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My intention was to suggest stating height in metres with imperial units in parenthesis. (As the policy generally suggest Imperial units being primary in US topics while metric in European). I have long time ago given hope of converting Americans to the rest of the world ;-). Przepla 22:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: You know, If 2.71 cm is accurate for the French inch, his height was 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in), rather than 1.69 m (62 × 2.71 = 168.02). Naturally, all conversion should be done from the original value in  old French units. --Anshelm '77 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I checked it from the French units of measurement article, and the exact value seems to be 2.707 cm, and not really changing the figures I gave: 62 × 2.707 = 167.834 – a little closer to 5 ft 6 in Imperial mark. --Anshelm '77 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it to Misconceptions About Napoleon's Height. I think that's somewhat of an improvement, but if anyone can come up with a better title, feel free to change it. Funnyhat 20:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the section on Napoleon's height not because it wasn't interesting -- it was quite interesting and well-written, too. I removed it (as part of a very long edit) because I think that Napoleon can be a featured article, but that it is very, very long at present, and adding what amounts to trivia (and I'm not using that in a perjorative sense: again, I find it all very interesting) is making the article too long. In my view, the article needs yet another pass through for cleanup and consistency, and little details like "(in Corsican, Nabolione or Nabulione)" must be excised or, better yet, sent to a daughter article. Misconceptions about N.'s height has daughter article written all over it. I say this because, while it is true that many people believe Napoleon to have been abnormally short, it is not essential to our understanding of who Napoleon was or what he did. Nor, I might add, is there a scholarly citation saying, "Napoleon wasn't as short as everyone thinks he was; therefore, attempts to portray him as suffering from "small man's complex" are inaccurate." And even if such a citation could be found, there are a thousand other interesting facts we could include as well. The important thing for an article this long is to keep everything organized and findable. I'll go ahead and leave the section in for now while people give thoughts. IronDuke 00:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm new to this site, so rather than delete it, can you place this in it's own article? I'll be content with that. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; I posted a link to this article just several days ago and it seems to have been up there (judging by the posts here) for several months. It is an important fact to me, so I'd like it preserved. You may indeed have a point concerning this section. It does seem the least important, but important nonetheless.  In actual fact, I found it linked across a Wikipedia entry about Napoleon Complex. It is important to that part of the site, more so than it is here, but is too broad for that entry. Dwayne2005 16:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a new entry under Napoleon's height http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon%27s_height I hope that's the way to go about it. Dwayne2005 17:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that just redirects to this article. Or, more precisely double-redirects. Yes, it would be reasonable to factor out to that title and have a see-also link to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I have no idea what I'm doing. [sigh] Dwayne2005 09:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconception about his height 

message: I feel some mention should be made of the opposing views in France and England:
"In Britain he is remembered as a despot, the prototypical dictator, on which Hitler modelled himself. This difference in anglo-french perception reflects a deeper divide in outlook. He is remembered in song (e.g. 'Boney was a warrior') and poem, and as the grand enemy threatening the gates. wkp 30th April 2005.
Why are views in England more notable than views in Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, &c.? john k 13:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: I've added a painting of the retreat from Moscow, from a 1902 history book. The same book also has some other art that might be relevant:
* The Sunken Road at Waterloo by Stanley Berkley (color)
* Napoleon at Wagram, by Horace Vernet (b/w)
* Napoleon on Board the Bellerophon, by W. Q. Orchardson (b/w)
If they seem like they'd be useful, please give me a holler on my talk page,a nd I'll scan them and post them. --Bcrowell 00:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paintings 

message: I recently read about a "supernatural" experience that Napoleon was supposed to have alluded to - August 12, 1799 in the Pyramid of Cheops. Does anyone know anything about this? McPhail 21:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Egyptian Expedition of 1798–99

message: The article on Napoleonic Wars is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote for this article there if you want it to be improved. --Fenice 12:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I've read Murder at St Helena and would like to clarify a few things.
:* First, the arsenic poisoning theory presented says Napoleon was weakened with arsenic and finished off with standard medecine. Over a few years, Napoleon would have been given concentrated but non lethal doses of arsenic at periodic intervals. Larger doses were given him towards the end. Once he was in a very weak state, his doctors administered the medecines that finished him off.
:*Second, Ben Weider didn't develop the theory, he championed it. The theory was initially developed by Dr. Sten Forshufvud in the 1950s.
:*Third, the theory has been floating for a few decades, not centuries. Napoleon's valet, Louis Marchand, kept diaries which were only published in the 1950s. These diaries described in detail the deterioration of Napoleon's health. From these diaries, Dr. Forshufvud, an amateur expert on poisons, suspected arsenic. 
:*The Science & Vie article refuting the assasination theory did not address the issue of varying concentration. They explained the presence of arsenic in Napoleon's hair with hair tonics and with compounds from the wallpaper in Napoleon's bedroom. However, this would imply that the arsenic was distibuted uniformly over the length of the hair. The fact is that the arsenic appears in spikes along the length of the hair, strongly suggesting that it was ingested in discrete doses. 
That's it. I personally found the book convincing and the Science & Vie refutation unconvincing. However, I don't think the issue is settled. More sleuthing is needed. As for the argument that if the English wanted him dead, they could simply have executed him, well not if they wanted to avoid a European revolution. Keep in mind two things: Napoleon had charisma and he ran a meritocracy (except for a few top positions he reserved for his family). He had popular opinion on his side, even after decades of war and the disaster of 1812. Napoleon had to be gotten rid of discretely. Vincent 08:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: While reading this section I noticed a few sentances that do not flow with the rest of the text.  This may be due to some rule of the english language that I am unware of.  If so feel free to revert my edits.  The following sentances were changed slightly.
:"He describes Napoléon in the months leading up to his death, and led many, most notably Sten Forshufvud and Ben Weider, to conclude that he had been killed by arsenic poisoning."
This excerpt uses both the present tense and the past tense in the same breath.
:"The group suggested that the most likely source in this case was a hair tonic. Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, arsenic was also a widely used treatment for syphilis. This has led to speculation that Napoleon might have suffered from that disease."
I have two problems with this block of text.  The first and most conspicous is the awkward final sentance.  I cannot think of way to replace it however I do want to bring it to the attention of others.  The second and far more serious problem is this completely unsourced claim.  WHO THE FUCK IS THIS GROUP? IF you would like to complain about my outburst feel free to do so.  I however see it as entirely acceptable.  This is the equivelent of wikipedia kindergarden.  If you want to claim something please provide a god damn source.
Foolishben 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sloppy

message: My "anon" edits under 208  Aug 14 were meant to be signed in. Regrets,  Kyle Andrew Brown 23:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In First Consul am I correct to describe Britain as a democratic constitutional monarchy?Kyle Andrew Brown 04:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Edits 

message: "However, it has also been speculated that Napoleon's invasions of Germany and Italy contributed to the cultural and political unrest that would eventually lead to the development of fascism in those countries." No citation. Seems like a very remote effect, if relevant at all; both Germany and Italy unified some 45 years after Napoleon, and fascism came another 60-70 years later. If someone has a citation for this—some significant scholar who has made this case—great. Otherwise, this should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've allowed enough time for a response to this. No citation has been forthcoming. Removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: I evidently overlooked the fact that this article was nominated for FA status earlier this month, and rejected.  Considering that Napoleon (like him or not) was one of the most significant historical figures of the past two centuries, Wikipedia really ought to have a "feature-worthy" article on him.  We have a good group of regular contributors on this page; I'd like to suggest that we all make it our collective goal to improve this article over the next month or two so that it can once again be nominated, and this time approved, as a Featured Article.  --Russ Blau (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article nomination 

message: According to this  article Napoleon led an assault on the town of La Maddalena in 1793, while he still used his Italian name. I don't see it mentioned in this article anywhere, perhaps it is worth adding. (I will do it if no-one else has in few days). nick 08:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Maddalena 

message: It seems like there should be a better way to word the following, as it is quite repetitive:
:He ended the lawlessness and disorder spawned by the Revolution; in modern terms, he was a "law and order" ruler.
Firestorm 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Svest 20:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better wording? 

message: I just completed a long edit over the whole article. Many stylistic changes were made for clarity and readability. I made some changes which I assume will be controversial, such as eliminating much of the discussion about arsenic (although I believe it is valuable, it should have its own article) and some trivia about Napoleon (again, interesting, but the article even after my edit may be too long). IronDuke 23:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous user just reverted my changes without explanation. Am reverting back. Please, everyone, feel free to engage me on these changes. I think this ought to be a featured article. IronDuke 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision 

message: The article, as it stands of this writing, is 47kb long. 32kb is the recommended maximum. Obviously, some things have to be pared down. I plan to start ruthlessly paring down some of these sections, eliminating a lot of colorful detail. Some things may be spun off into their own articles. I just took a look at Julius Caesar, which was a FA at 59kb. I think the Napoleon article is in many ways already superior to the Julius Caesar article, but we need to get it shorter (even though the Caeser article is huge) and make sure the writing is as crisp as it can be. Anyone have any thoughts on this before I dig in? IronDuke 19:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruthless Edit in Service of Feature Article status 

message: Some guy is about to add that some part of the world thinks Napoleon is crazy. Try to stop him.--Mac Simms 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon: Stop Shocking Change 

message: I have suspicions that the new article Infernal machine is a translation of some ofd french text about "La machine infernale". Please napoleon experts, try to figure this out. mikka (t) 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infernal machine 

message: Sorry about the multiple reverts – with the serial vandalism that this article attracts, it's sometimes a challenge to find a clean version to revert back to. -- Kbh3rd 16:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infernal vandalism 

message: How did Napoleon manage to escape Elba?
The article is missing a lot of critical details, but is also too long  and summary-ish. paradoxically, this article needs to be both shorter, and more detailed.  we need to achieve a high level of quality for such important historical figures.
Nick 11:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer - without much trouble at all. Napoleon was not under arrest, there was no garrison to imprison him. At the time nobles would typically be granted the courtesy of being kept under what amounted to house arrest if they gave their word that they would not attempt to escape. Napoleon had given his surrender. Putting him under guard would imply that his word could not be trusted, which of course it could not. --Gorgonzilla 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escape from Elba? 

message: It seems to me that the longish hunk of a speech recently added to section Exile in Elba, return and Waterloo is excessive. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  It's a nice speech and all, but not so notable that it needs to be quoted at length in what is supposed to be a brief capsule biography.  --Russ Blau (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cut. It can be found online at http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/speeches/c_speeches13.html Since it is old enough to be public domain, anyone should feel free to copy the speeches there (but not the copyrighted elements of the site!) to Wikisource. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need a speech? 

message: At the very bottom of the "Early life and military career" section, there is the sentence (simply this and nothing else): "Napoleon also liked duckies." Is this a joke that someone hasn't deleted yet, or a name for something (a food or whatever) that I'm not familliar with? There's no context whatever, so I can't even guess. Could somebody please tell me what is going on here (and what 'duckies' have to do with his military career)?
WAS 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries - this user has a history of trolling. Thanks for removing that nonsense. Cheers Jbetak 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duckies?! Pardon my French, but '''WTF?!''' 

message: The article feels hagiographic in places. It seems very odd that the kidnap and 'murder' of the duc d'Enghien, an action held at the time and still by many historians today against Napoleon is not mentioned. Just as perhaps I might have expected mention of the provision in his will that paid a very handsome sum to Cantillon - the would-be assassin of N's (by then bitter rival) the Duke of Wellington. Or perhaps the mention of either the massacre of 4,000 prisoners at Jaffa in 1799 or the proposed 'killing' of sick French soldiers with opium during a following plague outbreak.
The section on Elba seems unclear when it says "Whilst there, with a small cadre of followers, he dictated his memoirs and criticized his captors." He spent his time producing accounts of his wars and why he was never to blame for his defeats and blaming 'traitors' or a string of marshals for any and every failure. The accounts, loyally recorded by his acolytes, are filled with obvious errors (for instance over troop numbers and positions - both French and Allied)Alci12 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia. If you see obvious errors or ommisions, fix them (preferably adding sources - I'd like to know more about the Opium story (this might just be enlightened thinking - "they're dying anyways, so let's make it painless" or ruthless utilitarianism ("let's get rid of them, they slow us down"))). In modern context, it might need ...erm...context ;-). --Stephan Schulz 12:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Normally I would have amended but as several of the above posts are endevoring to reduce the article size I was a little reluctant to undo their good works by adding a new section off my own bat. I hoped collectively we might decide how to go forward. The opium incident is mentioned in the better biographies. (see David                      Chandler, The Campaigns of Napoleon p241 iirc) or for an American audience Bonaparte in Egypt by Herold) It was due to the wish not to leave the sick to suffer ill treatment at the hands of the turks. It also made the army more mobile , obviously militarily advantageous.  I might suggest it was also a function of the French army tending not to ever have sufficient transport and supplies for its goals. You see something of the same in Spain later where the reliance on foraging rather than proper supply trains sees tens of thousands starve. Either way we will no doubt need contextAlci12 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences & Actions 

message: I think that this article needs to be revised for word choice. Things like chasing a "hooligan", and "With that, the seeds of a hero were sown." make the article sound kind of... old fashioned or silly, or like a fictional book. When I say fictional book, what I mean by that is that I'm pretty sure the phrase "seeds of a hero were sown" is something like a metaphor (I don't know the name for it) which shouldn't be used in encyclopedia articles. And just to take an objective stance (I think he's a pretty cool guy, but:), some people probably don't think of Napoleon as a hero.†Sƒ 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  word choice 

message: I realise that Wikipedia is more of a fact-based initiative than an analytical one, which is why it surprises me that the opening paragraph claims that Napoleon did little that was innovative - I would have thought that his use of artillery, use of tactics such as le mouvement sur la derrière etc. would count for new....
Madmatt52 14:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, from what I've read he was less good at keeping up with new technology as times changed. Durova 19:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of Napoleon 

message: The article contained some rather large copyvios from this site; I've reverted to the last pre-copyvio version (which, unfortunately, is this one, from January 28).  —Kirill Lokshin 05:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large sections of copyvio 

message: ===death from cancer and claimed weight loss needs explanation and citation===
there is no proper citation given for NB's claimed weight loss prior to his death. It says 'multiple forensic sources' or something of the kind. What does this mean? How can such definitives be given for a man long dead?  WE need much more info or this is as partisan as the earlier stuff about poisoning.
--Dee-Dee 16:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section about his death reads like Alex Cockburn's joke about the "balanced" discussion between the person who thinks that cannibalism should be unregulated and the one who is concerned that the FDA ought to inspect the meat before it is eaten. I don't know much about this, so I'm not taking on editing it, but obviously ignorance did not deter whoever wrote the current version. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This part of the article appears to be regularly edited to peddle a partisular theory about the cause of death that has failed to gain support from historians beyond the two proponents. Each time they come up with a minor modification of the basic claim the article is edited to claim that this is the last and final word. All mention of previous exposures of their sloppy scholarship is removed from the article. As a temporary measure I have removed the part claiming that the rat poisoning theory has been proved beyond all doubt, it has not. I suggest that we return to the earlier version of this part of the article which contained the links to the debunking. --Gorgonzilla 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I took a look back through the history. The conspiracy theory has been eliminated and reverted several times. I do not think it is acceptable for the article to claim that there is 'no question' on this issue. The theory is very recent and there has not been time for a rebuttal. The theory certainly does not appear to be accepted widely amongst historians of the period. Given the medical practice of the time that made copious use of poisons including arsenic it is impossible to be sure what the motive was even if arsenic was detected in hair samples. Medical malpractice was one of the leading causes of death amongst the nobility at the time. --Gorgonzilla 04:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death contradictions 

message: there is no proper citation given for NB's claimed weight loss prior to his death. It says 'multiple forensic sources' or something of the kind. What does this mean? How can such definitives be given for a man long dead?  WE need much more info or this is as partisan as the earlier stuff about poisoning.
--Dee-Dee 16:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section about his death reads like Alex Cockburn's joke about the "balanced" discussion between the person who thinks that cannibalism should be unregulated and the one who is concerned that the FDA ought to inspect the meat before it is eaten. I don't know much about this, so I'm not taking on editing it, but obviously ignorance did not deter whoever wrote the current version. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This part of the article appears to be regularly edited to peddle a partisular theory about the cause of death that has failed to gain support from historians beyond the two proponents. Each time they come up with a minor modification of the basic claim the article is edited to claim that this is the last and final word. All mention of previous exposures of their sloppy scholarship is removed from the article. As a temporary measure I have removed the part claiming that the rat poisoning theory has been proved beyond all doubt, it has not. I suggest that we return to the earlier version of this part of the article which contained the links to the debunking. --Gorgonzilla 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I took a look back through the history. The conspiracy theory has been eliminated and reverted several times. I do not think it is acceptable for the article to claim that there is 'no question' on this issue. The theory is very recent and there has not been time for a rebuttal. The theory certainly does not appear to be accepted widely amongst historians of the period. Given the medical practice of the time that made copious use of poisons including arsenic it is impossible to be sure what the motive was even if arsenic was detected in hair samples. Medical malpractice was one of the leading causes of death amongst the nobility at the time. --Gorgonzilla 04:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: death from cancer and claimed weight loss needs explanation and citation

message: Can anyone find any info on Napolean's reintroduction of Slavery that had been abolished during the foundation of the Republic.  I heard the slavery issue was the reason why the commemoration of the battle of Austerlitz was played down.
- Anon 08:25, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
:I don't have the sources in front of me, but I believe it had a lot to do with Josephine and her associates.  She was born in the Caribbean. Durova 19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is well covered in C.L.R. James The Black Jacobins (about the Haitian revolution), but it's a long time since I read it. I don't believe that the Republic ever effectively abolished slavery in Saint-Domingue (later Haiti) by law; slavery was effectively abolished by Black revolutionaries claiming, originally, the rights of French citizens and later (in the face of Napoleonic and planter repression) fighting for independence. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reintroduction of Slavery 

message: Reference to this weightlifter under "The Egyptian Expedition" are added by anon poster who has vandalised many other pages, including the Battle of Waterloo. I'm not 100% certain, but I'd say 99% that the sentence is complete vandalism. I'll remove it soon if no objections.--DreamsReign 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oscar Benitez

message: Charles the Bald may have been Emperor and ruled in France, but surely he never used the title "Emperor of the French"!  --Russ Blau (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I will replace it.–Whaleyland 23:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New succession box 

message: a large passage that had been removed by a vandal was placed here by (Deng 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uhm alot has been deleted I checked against some older versions and this has been deleted

message: This nomination is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: for a 62K article it should have more than 6 footnotes and the 6-7 "citation needed" tags need to be fixed, and the footnotes should be in a standard cite php format, right now they are a mishmash. The cite needed tags need to (preferably) have cited footnotes made or less preferably the text can be reworded so the citation isn't needed. Rlevse 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GA failed due to items not fixed after 7 days. Rlevse 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: Apparently nobody in Wikipedia is talking about the bestselling novels based on Napoleon's life by Max Gallo, which is strange because of the fact that they were selling like hotcakes in Europe. Anyway I was wondering how accurate the novels are. Are they really as real as it gets?
And oh yeah, for those Napoleon fans out there who haven't heard about the novels here are their titles:
*Napoleon: The Song of Departure
*Napoleon: The Sun of Austerlitz
*Napoleon: The Emperor of Kings
*Napoleon: The Immortal of Saint Helena
InGenX 09:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Novels

message: This line in the introduction seems appropriate to me, but POV without a balancing statement, perhaps: "while others consider him to be a mere despot."  Gabrielthursday 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is POV. The man was considered in a similar light to Adolf Hitler in the early 19th Century. He was a monster. Pray that no one like him again darkens the earth. Wallie 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your changes is less POV? Carl Logan 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. I guess we all have some POV. However, I do stand my comments. Can you not imagine that if someone like Napoleon got power now, with today's weaponry...  The thought is to horrible to contemplate. 20:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In a blog that would be commendable, in a encylopedia less so. Carl Logan 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Carl, thanks for removing the englightened despot line (it was you, I think?). Gabrielthursday 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why thank you, I don't think that Napoleon can be included in the enlightened despot category. More correct is to include him in the Popular monarchy category. What do you think Gabrielthursday? Carl Logan 20:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carl Logan, I am sure that your ideas are more blogs than mine. I doubt hardly anyone at the time Napoleon was living considered him a "popular monarch". Beethoven had an even worse opinion of him than I did. And I trust Beethoven's judgement over yours, that's for sure. These were people who lived and mostly died under his merciless tyranical rule. This article needs to be put into the proper perspective. Wallie 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot agree that Napoleon was a "popular monarch".  To the French, perhaps, but the French had just suffered through one of the worst times for any traditional monarchy and the Terror.  The Duc d'Enghiens episode sealed his reputation with me, aside from the atrocious politics he embodied.  There are, imho, remaining subtle POV aspects to the current article.  Gabrielthursday 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A popular monarchy doesn't need to be popular as a enlightened despot isn't necessarily enlightened. The definition of a popular monarchy is "a system of monarchical governance in which the monarch's title is linked with the people rather than a unitary state." Which a think Napoleon was because he adopted the title Emperor of the French rather than Emperor of France. Check out the article on Popular monarchy. Carl Logan 04:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Napoleon was a monster. Period. This is not POV. It was widely thought especially around the 20s. I see you have not responded to my comments about Beethoven. Napoleon made life hell for Germans, including Beethoven, plus Austrians, Russians and anyone else in his murderous path. He had no reason to cause all that misery. Wallie 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected on the notion of popular monarchy.  However, it rather begs the question as to whether Napoleon should be considered a monarch at all, or rather a dictator.  Certainly he intended to establish a dynasty, but his means of attaining power was far from that of a monarch, his mode of governing unlike that of a king, and his relationship with other centres of power in France again unmonarchial.  In short, I think dictator better suits Napoleon than monarch.  Gabrielthursday 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Beethoven composed the Eroica in Napoleon's honor, but when he'd seen him and his works at closer quarters, he changed his views. I believe that at one point he refused a command performance (I don't know the details and could be wrong, does someone know more on this?). - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly at least a factor. And I agree that the comparisons to Hitler are absurd. But as I'm sure you've noticed, reductio ad Hitlerum is a big sport around here. - Jmabel | Talk 07:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlightened Despot? 

message: I had written a couple of paragraphs, sourced and all about his disenchantment with Christianity and some of his leadings with Islam, and someone just removed it.
thanks.
129.173.95.1 13:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The anon contributor made the error of taking something Napoleon did indeed write, or at least directed to be written over his name, and assuming that every word of it corresponded precisely to his personal beliefs.  That is a very dubious assumption for this subject!  I would suppose that, when Napoleon told his valet in the morning what he wanted for breakfast, there is a good chance that he honestly meant it, although even in that case I would be open to considering evidence to the contrary.  Beyond that, the presumption swings the other way! :) Russ Blau (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: On completely unrelated note, I think the picture a anonymous user removed should be remained removed. My reasons is: it is a bad copy of a bad picture, it is in the wrong section and there is already to many pictures in the article. Carl Logan 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure which of the several quotes there you are referring to; because Napoleon was all over the map in his remarks on religion, he could have said any of these things. If you don't trust the site, I'd seek more primary sources. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one. "Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne" and from then on. Its not that I distrust this site, but rather I was suprised to find pro-religious quotes by him. I had always thought he purely saw religion as a tool, but its just an interesting quote, since it was near the end of his life.  74.137.230.39 23:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  napoleon and religion 

message: I'm confused a bit: The article says "His last words were: “Tête d’Amrée!” (Head of Army!)", yet the article on Joséphine de Beauharnais, Napoleon's wife, gives them "the Emperor's last words on the Island of St. Hélena were "France, the Army, the Head of the Army, Josephine." So is one in need of extension or is the other one wrong?
84.50.128.79 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Josephine article is right; "Josephine" was his last word (and the others are correct too).UberCryxic 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were half a dozen witnesses to Napoleon's death, four of whom kept diaries (Bertrand, Montholon, Marchand and Antommarchi). Only Montholon records "Josephine" as his last word - the others all record “Tête d’Amrée!” Laurenticwave (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last words 

message: Can anyone cast any light on the claim that Napoleon might have been the father of Eugenie Mayer? Her mother was undoubtedly Fanny Mayer (nee Kreilsamner) of Alsace, but she always claimed that the father was an unknown French soldier called Louis Mayer who had left her and died somewhere in Africa. What is the evidence for any connection with Napoleon? Where does this idea come from?Mattbrett 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right, I will remove Eugenie Meyer until there is a creditable source. Carl Logan 15:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegitimate Children 

message: My impressions of this article are that it is heavily pro-Napoleon. The Legacy section in particular is ridiculously one-sided. I'm hesitant to go out there and make changes because I don't want to compromise the work of previous individuals, but we do need to restore some balance to this article. Napoleon was not all that great, even though he did have many admirable qualities.UberCryxic 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say at times the reverse! The entry opens by stating that "In the first decade of the nineteenth century, he turned the armies of France against almost every major European power" whereas I would have said "In the first decade of the nineteenth century, he defended the nascent French Republic against almost every major European power". Given that virtually all the monarchies of Europe had declared "a war of extermination" (Pitt's words) against the French Revolution, one can plausibly argue that Napoleon acted in self-defence. Laurenticwave (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations