Jump to content

Talk:Napoleon/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Napoleon, Italian?

He is listed at List of Italians, I don't think it's right. Remove? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks i would take it to the talkpage for that article. I wouldn't say he was Italian in the sense that Italy didn't exist then. I notice from the article there seems to be quite a wide definition for 'italian' including many people from before Italy existed, cheers Tom B (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As Tpbradbury pointed out, there was no Italy at the time of the birth of Napoleone di Buonaparte. The question should not be whether he was Italian, but Genoan.[1] But, whatever he was, he was not a "Gaulois"[2] !
--Frania W. (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Since I don't feel it would be right to call him Italian in this article, I'm going to remove the mention at List of Italians and ask for citations, since he's also in the list of French people. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely he wasn't Italian. Corsica was officially part of France, wasn't it?? Guard Chasseur (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Corsican is not only an Italian dialect, it is more Italian than any other because, whilst being based on Tuscan (Central Italy), it shares lots of phonetic features with Southern Italy and underwent heavy influences from Genoese, i.e. from Northern Italy. --Davide41 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Talking about "Italians" in 1769 is an anachronism. Plus, Corsica became a part of France almost one year before Napoleon's birth, so he can't even be said to have been born a Genovese national. Thus, calling him "Italian" or "of Italian descent" is nothing short of a complete aberration. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon himself was Corsican, and as such his mother tongue was the Italian dialect spoken in Corsica. As a teenager he was admitted in a French military school, the other pupils laughed at him because of his heavy Italian accent. His mother tongue was not Corsican because his family, formerly known as Buonaparte, were minor Italian nobility coming from Tuscan stock of Lombard origin set in La Spezia. --Davide41 (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but matey at Talk:List of Italians is gonna be hard to convince. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was wrong. After one last conversation with himself (!) on his userpage, he decided we are all wrong and has now left WP.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Source. ... And twenty-five years of teaching. --Davide41 (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..."Italian" isn't merely a nationality, but an ethnicity; we say without any controversy, for instance, that every pope from Clement VII to John Paul I was Italian, even though the first one born in the modern country of Italy was Pius XII. As to Napoleon, I'm not sure. His father's family was Corsican going back a long while, and I'm not sure whether one should consider Corsicans to be Italian; his mother's family, however, was originally Genoese. Members of the upper classes on Corsica, to which Napoleon's family certainly belonged, spoke Italian as their primary language. Napoleon was also himself King of Italy. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say Napoleon was Italian, but I don't think it would be unreasonable not to say that, either. john k (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

01. Original Italian: Napoleone Di Buonaparte

02. Casa Buonaparte :

03. Born to parents of Italian ancestry. Source: Napoleon I." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

04. Carlo arranged for Napoléon's education in France. He entered a military school at Brienne-le-Château, a small town near Troyes, on May 15, 1779. Napoléon considered himself an outsider, not learning French until age 10; accusations of being a foreigner would dog him throughout his life, especially since he spoke French with an Italian accent. Source: Napoleon Bonaparte - Definition.

In short terms. He was born Italian but later on became a French Emperor.

[...] Napoleon Bonaparte is technically Italian. End. --Davide41 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Other Sources:

01. New World Encyclopedia. " Napoleon Bonaparte".

02. World Book Encyclopedia. " Napoleon Bonaparte". --Davide41 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it may be worth in this discussion, here is RE Napoléon Bonaparte's "acte de naissance"[3]
  • Analyse: Acte de naissance de Napoléon Bonaparte, en italien. Extrait des registres de l'état civil de la ville d'Ajaccio, déposé à la mairie le 9 juillet 1806, et sa traduction en français. Un feuillet présentant le contenu de ces actes a été joint au dossier.
  • Noms de lieux: France ; Corse (France - région administrative); Corse (France - collectivité territoriale) -- ancien territoire gênois ; Ajaccio (Corse-du-Sud) ; Corse-du-Sud (Corse - département) ;
As transcribed from original, it says "ancien territoire gênois", not "ancien territoire italien".
Also, Italian wiki - I know one is not supposed to use wikipedia as "proof", but here it is anyway as you can look at its references:
  • Napoleone Bonaparte nacque ad Ajaccio, in Corsica poco più di un anno dopo la stipula del Trattato di Versailles del 1768 con il quale la Repubblica di Genova[4] lasciava mano libera alla Francia in Corsica, che fu così invasa dalle armate di Luigi XV ed annessa al patrimonio personale del Re.
again, no mention of Italy.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Grands documents de l'histoire de France ; Florilège

Acte de naissance de Napoléon Bonaparte, en italien.

Extrait des registres de l'état civil de la ville d'Ajaccio, déposé à la mairie le 9 juillet 1806, et sa traduction en français. --Davide41 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks Frania W. " It is not wrong. " " Issue closed " --Davide41 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So, according to Davide41's reasoning, anyone born in Sudak could also be considered Italian. Great. At a stretch we could say that Napoleon was Italic, but the Mediterranean islands do not seem to come under that umbrella term. The language used in his birth certificate is undoubtedly Italian, though. Thanks to Frania for linking such an interesting and valuable slice of history. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

?? Sudak ?? ( ! )

  • While most Corsicans spoke the Corsican dialect at home, until the first half of the nineteenth-century Italian was the language most publicly spoken and written on the island ( Nine centuries ). Sudak ( ! ) --Davide41 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Davide41, don't you understand that having your birth certificate in Italian does not mean that you are automatically Italian? Can I also remind you that it is customary to add new comments under the latest ones? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Minute, Davide41! My purpose was to show that the Republic of Genoa is mentioned & never Italy. Napoléon's birth certificate was written in Italian because that was the language spoken in Genoa. People born in French-speaking Belgium, Switzerland, Québec... are not French que je sache!
--Frania W. (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --Davide41 (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To summarize: Napoléon Bonaparte was a Frenchman born in Corsica one year after Corsica became a part of France. Corsica had first been a part of the independent Republic of Genoa, which later became a part of Italy. Natives of Genoa spoke an Italian dialect. Corsicans speak Corsican, and now also French. Napoléon Bonaparte spoke French with a strong Corsican accent just as people from Marseille speak French with a strong accent from Provence, which does not make them less French (Bonjour, Fernandel!). When writing French, Napoléon Bonaparte made many mistakes, as Louis XIV did, and still do thousands of French baccalaureate candidates, which is no ground to take away their French citizenship.
In a nutshell: Voilà!
--Frania W. (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Pure French blood. --Davide41 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And so that of the kings of France, Nicolas Sarkozy and the undersigned.
--Frania W. (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

duc d'Enghien controversy

I think, to make the article more neutral, it should state that although the duc d'Enghien was allegedly not in the second Cadoudal, he had still verbally stated that "he had sworn implacable hatred against Bonaparte as well as the French; he would take every occasion to make war on them." (Cronin 1994, page 242). In addition, when questioned, Enghien stated that he had been received 4,200 guineas a year from Britain "in order to combat not France but a government to which his birth had made him hostile". "I asked Britain if I might serve in her armies, but she replied that that was impossible: I must wait on the Rhine, where I could have a part to play immediately, and I was in fact waiting."

I think that the text: "On the advice of Talleyrand, Napoleon ordered the kidnapping of the Duke of Enghien, in violation of neighbouring Baden's sovereignty. After a secret trial the Duke was executed, even though he had not been involved in the plot."

Should be replaced by: "On the advice of Talleyrand, Napoleon ordered the kidnapping of the Duke of Enghien, in violation of neighbouring Baden's sovereignty. After a secret trial the Duke was executed. Although not involved in the daggers conspiracy, he had stated his hostility to France and stated he received funds from Britain.[1]"

I'm not how sure that is in terms of neutrality, but the current text should perhaps try to bring out a more balanced view of a controversial action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.19.17 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He specifically stated that he was not hostile to France, based on your quote. At any rate, the current language models that of most sources I have read. It should not be surprising that an exiled Bourbon would be hostile to Napoleon, nor is that generally a crime. john k (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks John. 74, thanks very much for being constructive and bringing this suggestion to the talkpage. i think there are two problems with the rephrasing, firstly it removes the Mclynn ref and we'd normally want to keep that and then add any reference like Cronin. Secondly and more importantly, I think the rephrasing looks as though it is trying to excuse Napoleon's actions i.e. "he killed this guy but this guy had threatened France". From my reading, even a historian like Mclynn, who seems relatively sympathetic to Napoleon, singles this case out, out of many controversial actions, as definitely outrageous. As John k and Mclynn both say it was no secret that Enghien was hostile to the French regime but this didn't justify moving across the border to kidnap and then the nature of the trial. From my understanding Cronin is one of the most pro-Napoleon historians. i think any rephrasing would need to say something like that whilst Enghien, like all exiles was hostile to the French regime, the kidnapping and execution had no legal basis/was unjustified etc. Tom B (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for the response. I will do more research on the controversy in terms of whether it had not legal basis or was unjustified. I still do not feel that the passage is neutral on the controversy, but perhaps my rephrasing is not neutral either. I still believe that the phrase should perhaps give light to both sides of the controversy, leaving the reader to decide what he/she thinks of it.

-Talon (forgot to sign my name, don't want to be known as 74 now!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.186.129 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Pyramids

Bonaparte article contradicts Battle of the Pyramids article, to which it links.

Bonaparte: General Bonaparte's forces were greatly outnumbered by the Mamluks' cavalry—20,000 against 60,000—but he formed hollow squares with supplies kept safely inside. Three hundred French and approximately six thousand Egyptians were killed.

Battle of the Pyramids: Chandler asserts that Napoleon's 25,000-strong army outnumbered Murad's 6,000 Mamluks and 15,000 infantry. Napoleon reported a loss of 29 killed and 260 wounded. Murad's losses were far heavier, perhaps as many as 3,000 of the irreplaceable Mamluk cavalry and unknown numbers of infantry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.76.109 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks very much, you've spotted a significant discrepancy, i've corrected the article Tom B (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Surname

Why is his surname a different spelling to his fathers'? MrTranscript (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When Napoleon moved to France he changed his name from the Italian Buonoparte to the more French sounding Bonaparte Jpjacobs.00 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The height problem

I am convinced that Napoléon was short compared to the average in his society. Contemporary eyewitness accounts describe him as either short or of average height. Portraits can be considered eyewitness accounts as well provided the artist really met the portrayed person shortly before or during the making of it. As with written testimonies we have to think about idealization. During the Empire style period (roughly 1790 – 1830) a special kind of beautification was also fashionable. It worked by depicting the distances between the person's chin, mouth and nose as shorter than they really where. Fortunately, different artists minimized these distances to the same degree and some did not do it at all. Especially skilled artists like Jacques-Louis David could even choose if they would use this type of beautification or not. I can usually tell if an artist used this kind of beautification because the distances the person's chin, mouth and nose appear disproportionately small. (Although there are people which have shorter between their noses and chins than between the lower end of their noses and a line drawn between the centre of their eyes these always have the same shape of face as Genevieve O'Reilly.) Consequentially, the most realistic portraits of Napoléon are those in which the exact distances between the features of the face match people alive today. There are at least five such portraits of him. Three of them depict him with the same shape of face. These can be found here, here and here. The last portrait can be used to estimate his height based on how much of his full length his head consists.

I started with Magnus Uggla who is said to be 168 centimetres (5 feet 6 in British measurements). From this photo I can tell that his head consists 1/7 of his height. As such his head is 24 centimetres (9 2/5 inches) tall. Based on this calculation it is possible to calculate someone’s height using either a photo or a realistic portrait of him or her standing in full-length. I have tried this with the following persons:

¤ Napoléon Joseph Charles Paul Bonaparte’s height was estimated from this photo. He was 7 1/4 “heads” tall which equals to 174 centimetres (5 feet 9).
¤ Charles Jean Baptiste Bernadotte had a relatively realistic full length portrait made of himself at the age of 47. From this painting I have estimated his height to 176 centimetres (5 feet 9). This is close to his historically recorded height of 178 centimetres (5 feet 10).
¤ Ian Holm’s height was estimated from a photo taken in connection with the shooting of the first Alien movie. His head consisted 2/7 of his height which means that he was 156 centimetres (5 feet 1) back then. Before I made this estimate I already knew from his body proportions that he was less than 160 centimetres (5 feet 3). However, he is so old by now that he has probably shrunken a few centimetres. But 156 centimetres would have been his height until he started to grow noticeably old.
¤ Napoléon III’s height has been estimated from a photo as well as a realistic portrait. In both cases his head consisted 1/7 of his height. As such he was 168 centimetres (5 feet 6).
¤ Elijah Wood was estimated to be 165 centimetres (5 feet 5) based on a full-length photo of him found in a Lord of the Rings merchandise book. This was later confirmed by a person who had met him personally.

Finally, I have tested this method on myself and my dad. Both estimates where made from a photo taken in an Ames room at the Escher Museum in Hague. My head consists 3/14 of my height which is consistent with my measured height of 162 centimetres (5 feet 4). My dad’s head consists only 2/15 of his height which was unexpected since I know him to be 180 centimetres (5 feet 11). However, if I calculate with a head of 26 centimetres (10 1/4 inches) the equation ends up with a height of 182 centimetres (6 feet). I was later confirmed that he does have a larger head than me. He has a cowboy hat which fits him perfectly but which is too large to me. Please note that if my method of estimating people’s height had been fundamentally flawed it would not have given consistently credible results. If Magnus Uggla had been less than 168 centimetres all estimates would have been taller than would be sensible. If he had been taller than that all estimates would have been shorter. If human head size varied wildly the estimates would have been inconsistently unreasonable. (Although human brain size varies considerably this does not correspond to any marked difference in head size.) I draw the conclusion that my method is rather reliable with an error margin of perhaps 2 centimetres (4/5 of an inch).

Let us apply my method of estimating heights to this portrait of Napoléon. The portrait shows him to have been approximately 5.7 “heads” tall. Yes, I did take into account that he is leaning forwards! With a head of 24 centimetres (9 2/5 inches) this equals to only 137 centimetres (4 feet 6). Napoléon may very well have had a large head. Yet even with a head of 26 centimetres (10 1/4 inches) he would have been no more than 148 centimetres (4 feet 10) tall. In order to calculate a height of 168 centimetres (5 feet 6) a 31 centimetres (one foot and 1/5 of an inch) head would be required. Such a head would definitely be pathologically large. His death mask shows no sign of such pathology.

In order to depict things realistically you need three abilities. First, you need a keen sense of the proportions of things. Second, you need a good fine motor ability. Third, you need a sufficient level of training in depiction. I have a keen sense of the proportions of things. But my motor ability is noticeably impaired and I don't have much training in artistic depiction. Fortunately, my high level of spatial intelligence helps me to judge if a depiction may be realistic or not.

It has been suggested that Napoléon seemed shorter than he was because he was seen together with his Imperial Guards which where at least 180 centimetres (5 feet 11). However, this “surrounded by tall men” argument does not work on me. Imagine that you see a man of average height at some distance with tall men standing around him. In such a situation I could well mistake him for shorter than he is. Then image that you walk up to him to shake hands (or any greeting ritual involving touch). If I would stand near enough to touch him I would never misjudge his height with as much as two or three decimetres (8 inches or a foot)! As such a good artist would not be fooled if he or she was physically close enough to touch him. There are four ways to make me change my mind about Napoléon's height:

¤ Explain to me why he would have been portrayed much shorter than perceived. The explanation has to be sensible. This means no reference to claimed desperation of his enemies (Napoléon had several weak points), no conspiracy talk, and no claims about the human mind which would not be accepted modern cognitive scientists.
¤ Tell me the normal range of variation regarding the height of the head in adult humans. The numbers has to be medically sensible. They also have to be in the metric system since my calculations are made in it. Then I can recalculate my estimates.
¤ Measure Napoléon's death mask and tell me how large it is. Many death masks are claimed to be that of Napoléon. To my knowledge the only authentic one is the death mask kept in Longwood House on Saint Helena. The reasoning behind its authenticity can be found [§ here]. As previously, the measurement has to be sensible and in the metric system. I will deduct half a centimetre (1/5 of an inch) to compensate for his open mouth. Then I can make a more accurate estimate.
¤ If his grave is ever opened, show me photos of his mummy. In his unintentionally mummified corpse turns out to have other body proportions than the portrait shows I will admit that it is misleading. But in such a case the drawing still needs a credible explanation.

Please note that I don't consider Napoléon to have been a dwarf. His body proportions don’t mach any type of dwarfism I know about. He did not suffer any of the ill health effects which follow from dwarfism either. In fact he was rarely ill as adult unless deliberately poisoned. People are not necessary dwarves just because they are less than 150 centimetres (4 feet 11). Think about it this way: your genes allow you to become a little more than 150 centimetres. However, due to malnutrition or severe infections or both you end up a little less than 150 centimetres. Does this mean that you are a dwarf? Absolutely not, since dwarfism is a hereditary condition. During an individual's lifetime genes don't change in response to the environment, they change either randomly or not at all! Even without those suppressive factors there is some overlapping in height between dwarves and non-dwarves. The world's shortest population is the Pygmies which has an overage height of only 144 centimetres (4 feet 9). Yet most Pygmies don't suffer from dwarfism in any pathological sense. No, I don't think Napoléon was a Pygmy either! (In my opinion such reasoning would constitute racism.) Napoléon and his younger brothers Lucien and Jérôme where most likely about the height of an average Pygmy. (Napoléon and Lucien where both thin while Jérôme was chubby.) But they looked like typical Europeans in all other ways. It is true that Napoléon – and probably his siblings – never had to starve. I see no reason to think that there was any larger deficiency in their diet either. However, they got their share of severe infections due to their filthiness during their upbringing. To the extant the three brothers are known to have bathed and washed themselves I think they acquired those habits no earlier than their late teens. By then they had not much left to grow before reaching their adult height or had already reached it. Non-dwarves of about the same height can still be found among Europeans today. But they are probably harder to find than blonde Corsicans.

Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. (213.114.153.12) 16:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Title

  • I propose that this article be moved to just 'Napoleon' as that is the name more commonly used (supported by a simple google test). I skimmed the archives and nothing about this was posted since the big revision (or i did not see it).

Alek2407 (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with Jpjacobs. There were numerous Napoleons, therefore to seperate them, this should remain Napoleon I. That would be like saying "Henry" instead of "Henry I". Differentiation is important. Vyselink (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's what disambiguation is for. I, too, think the title of the article should be Napoleon, which redirects here anyway! Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should use the most common name of the subject and I think it can be proven easily that most people will use "Napoleon" and not "Napoleon I" to refer to this subject. Even Napoleon Bonaparte is probably more common that this. Regards SoWhy 14:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical error?

The opening sentence says "Napoleon Bonaparte was [...] Emperor of the French as Napoleon I [...]". Shouldn't it say that he was "known as" Napoleon I? Or perhaps this is an unusual sentence structure that applies to titles? Lambtron (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be various conventions on titles here at Wikipedia, it might sound a bit odd but this might be how you describe people with titles, Tom B (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the "as Napoleon I" is more accurate as it really reflects his title in France more than his name. For instance, Barak Obama is the US Presidents name, but we say President Obama, not "the man known as President Obama".Vyselink (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He was not "known as" 'Napoleon I' in his own time . . . It is quite unusual to refer to as "X the First" in his own time, because until there is a "Second", what's the point of the distinction? Queen Elizabeth I only became "Elizabeth the First" when there came to be an "Elizabeth the Second", for an Englishman up to 1950, she was simply "Queen Elizabeth". In contemporary material, Napoleon's referred to in many ways: "General Bonaparte", "The First Consul", "The Emperor"; he was also styled "Napoleon-le-Grand" (eg, "Napoleon the Great").

Very generally, there's no "correct" answer to the question of just what to call someone who went by many names, but there are wrong ones, and "Napoleon I" is a formulation that was preferred by his nephew, who styled himself "Napoleon III". Until there was a "Napoleon III", there never was any reason to refer to "Napoleon I" (Napoleon II refers to his son, who died young and was referred to in his lifetime as "the King of Rome" -- by his father, and the "Duke of Reichstadt", after the fall of Napoleon). Because "Napoleon III" was so vested in the glow of the "First Empire" (which of course wasn't called "First" Empire until there was a Second) he had printed mammoth editions of his uncle's works, all bearing titles referring to "Napoleon I"; thus the use of that term should be considered a Bonapartist affectation and neither historically accurate (in that it wasn't used by the man himself) nor NPOV.

Crocodilian (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleonic Propaganda

I think there should be a section or perhaps a separate page on Napoleon's use of propaganda. Specifically with regard to his use of medallions.FREV2010 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Frev, there's a reference to his setting-up of newspapers in the article. In terms of going into detail on this, it maybe better to put a section in the Napoleonic Wars, or another, different article or indeed a new article on this. Philip Dwyer's biography on Napoleon has quite a lot on his propaganda, Tom B (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. I'd generalize it to "Propaganda of the Revolution and Napoleonic Wars", and include the anti-French publications of the enemies of the Revolution and France. Its important for several distinct reasons

1) significant to understanding the international politics of the the conflicts with France 1790-1815 2) its the really the "birth of political spin" as we know it. There's a direct appeal to the political sentiments of the masses, with the emerging popular press. So its important in the history of journalism 3) its important as an example of Napoleonic statecraft. He's the first "modern dictator", making use of propaganda tools with the same fluency as his military and economic.

I would include the Revolutionary period, because its really then that you first see the idea of French ambition as an international phenomenon, and many of the publications born to promote or attack the Revolution continue into the Consulate and Empire.

Happy to contribute to such a page, I'm familiar with a lot of the scholarly sources

Crocodilian (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion?

Why isn´t there anything about his religion? What did he believe in? And please not some tipical answer like "whatever suited him". What was his religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.149.133 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

His religion is given in the infobox. --Frania W. (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Although he formally belonged to the Roman Catholic Church he was most likely an agnostic.

2011-01-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

... who died in the rites of the Catholic Church (pp. 145/154)[5] in Napoléon à Paris: ou translation de ses cendres sous le dome des Invalides by the Étienne Léon de Lamothe Langon. Napoléon may have been an agnostic, but that's not for us to say, as beliefs are personal & not always shared with others and, unless you come up with something he wrote to that effect, all we can go by is that Napoléon Bonaparte was born in a Catholic family, was baptised in that faith & died after having received the last rites of the Catholic Church, which is the way for most Catholics. Now whether during their life they believe, doubt, or whatever is not for Wikipedia to debate & decide.
--Frania W. (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon's God was . . . Napoleon. He was "Catholic" but that must be considered more of a tribal and political affiliation than a theology. In behavior, he happily employed an excommunicated Bishop as his Foreign Minister (Talleyrand), and personally humiliated the Pope, and seized the lands of the Church for his own Empire. The Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent, very long article on Napoleon. Very roughly, they'd call him a Catholic, but with many controversies; they don't speculate on his philosophy, but he was clear enough, famously: ""As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them." Crocodilian (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Adieux de Napoléon à la Garde impériale (photograph)

I do not understand what is missing in the usage of this picture that makes it non-acceptable in en:wiki, while it is used in thirty-six (36) instances globally.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't undestand either. As no argument was given on the talk page, i'll replace the picture. UltimaRatio (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no source on the image page Tom B (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, here is the image, representing a 19th century painting, which is at Versailles. a file from the Wikimedia Commons: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Montfort_-_Adieux_de_Napoleon_a_la_Garde_imperiale.jpg

It says:
  • This file is lacking source information. Please edit this file's description and provide a source.

However, the picture was downloaded (up?) by user Frank Schulenburg on 01SEP05, as can be seen in File History:

Are UltimaRatio & myself missing something???

Cordialement, comme toujours !

--Frania W. (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have left a msg[6] at Frank Schulenburg's talk page inviting him to join the discussion & help us out.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for contacting me. I don't see why this file should not be used. Montfort died in 1884, so this picture is clearly public domain. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
As Frank Schulenburg had the courtesy to get back to us, I am reinstating Montfort's painting. If there is something missing in the uploading of the picture, like the date of the taking of the photograph & the name of the author, I am sure that Mr. Schulenburg will take care of these details + my personal opinion is that in the meantime the Earth will keep on turning while Napoléon is saying Adieu to his men. Cordialement,
--Frania W. (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The painting would appear to be in the public domain but there is still no authentic source for the photo on the image description page, in fact there is no source on the image description page. Wikipedia:Images#Uploading_images Even if it is used on 100 wikipedias we are working on the basis of the English Wikipedia criteria, cordialement Tom B (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added a source for the photo, same resolution, as well as some additional info on the painting. See here. Hope that's alright and that we can add this beautiful image back to the article.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death

I have written a summary of the present-day state of knowledge on the issue. It can be found here. I am not an expert just an ordinary sceptic with a reluctant fascination for Napoléon. As long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks on me questioners will be answered to the best of my ability.

2011-01-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Waiting for "suite" on the life & death of his first wife, his son & his nephew, then your spill on Louis XIV's illegitimacy (who was his bio father, selon vous?), Marie Antoinette & Fersen, Louis XVII. However, as you have already told us much on all the above, what I am awaiting with impatience is your analysis on the conception, life & death (and life after death) of Jeanne d'Arc - her conception in priority, and how she landed in Lorraine.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Image overload?

There are a TON of pictures on this page (some sections have 2 or more). Any way we could pair these down? Not every picture of the Emperor needs to be included. Vyselink (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but let's take one problem at a time & settle the situation with Napoléon's adieu à la garde impériale before rearranging or removing picture.
--Frania W. (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The substitute theory

In the May 6, 1979 issue of Columbus Dispatch on page E-12 there was a Random Time Machine article by Doane R Hoag titled "Grave Prompts Mystery of French Hero's Death" where the idea that one of Napoleon's doubles (The aticle list his name as Eugene Francois Robeaud) may have been exchanged for the real Napoleon. This theory was repeated with variations in the 2003 book The World's Most Mysterious Murders By Lionel Fanthorpe, P. A. Fanthorpe. Is it worth noting or is it fringe?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say distinctly fringe. john k (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You also find the theory in De Caunes's film "Monsieur N". Definitely fringe.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 21 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Napoleon I → Napoleon — See the section #The Title above. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should use the title that is most common for the subject. In this case, it's the name without the "I". Also, Napoleon is already a redirect to this article, so moving it there will not remove any current page with that name (and the existence of the redirect shows that there is no disagreement that one should find this subject under the name "Napoleon") Regards SoWhy 23:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: Redirecting Napoleon here is essentially the same as having this article named "Napoleon". Whether this subject is at Napoleon or at Napoleon I does not change anything for Napoleon III because he will in both cases be linked via hatnote. As for historical accuracy, our policy on article names is about the most common used name in reliable sources. To quote: The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. (emphasis added). As such, neither the argument by The Celestial City nor by Alexandru Demian are backed by policy. Vyselink's argument is basically against the current naming policy. Albrecht's argument would be persuasive but I cannot find any policy that says royalty and nobility are to be treated differently. As for Frania Wisniewska's argument, other articles are irrelevant to the decision about this one. I'm actually surprised about the number of oppose-!votes here but I'd still like to request that those in opposition cite policies and guidelines for these !votes (as it says in the box: Remember to base arguments on article title policy). Regards SoWhy 09:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look here. It clearly states: "Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France." As Albrecht explained the "of France" has been dropped for an number of reasons, including for the fact that it was historically inaccurate, so you need to connect this info with paragraph 3, bullet 2.4, which states: "In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted, because it is unnecessary, against usage and possibly problematic: Napoleon I (rather than "Napoleon I of France")." "Napoleon I" is the accurate encyclopedic entry for the person born on 15 August 1769 under the name Napoleon Bonaparte.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I knew there was one guideline I couldn't find. I have to disagree with you though. Napoleon was not royalty for all of his life, so he should not be treated similar to those who were. If we can argue that the "of France" is superfluous, then we can also argue that the "I" is.
Also, one has to remember that guidelines such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) are not meant to generally trump other related policies and guidelines, especially not a policy like Wikipedia:Article titles which was designed with such cases in mind where the official title is less common. Even Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) says that It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English after all. Regards SoWhy 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Emperor Napoleon I was not born Emperor and that he was not royalty for all his life cannot be an argument to justify renaming the page "Napoleon". Henry VII of England was not royalty for all of his life either. Then, I believe your argument about royalty is mainly derived from the theory of Divine Right and fails to account for what was happening in France at the time, at an ideological level. France had moved away from the divine right theory and towards a type of Monarchy in which the Monarch's power was offered by the people. Napoleon had wide popular support and was validated as Emperor through plebiscite, under the name Napoleon I.
Additionally, given that there was a widespread European coin called Napoléon (20 Francs gold coin), that there is a Code of Laws called "Code Napoléon" as well as two other sovereigns called "Napoléon", renaming this article would prove to be a huge source of confusion.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hoping my comment goes thru this time as I keep on getting into edit conflict with the above two users.
SoWhy: in order to defend your position, you are citing wiki policies & guidelines, your job as the proposer, while those opposed to your proposal are giving the reasons for their opposition, their job. This is a discussion page, not a forced march.
Comment on your last comment: Napoléon Bonaparte may not have been "royalty" all his life, but became the head of a new dynasty as Napoléon I, Empereur des Français, which stopped at Napoléon III, Empereur des Français. It really baffles me that en:wiki could give a list with a number 2, then a number 3, but omit number 1 : arithmetically speaking, it is awfully weird - but who am I to speak such silly nonsense? - only a compatriot of Descartes[7]...
--Frania W. (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's hardly nonsense to omit the ordinal for the first item in a series. See, e.g.: Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II. Powers T 16:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
In music, I have never seen Opus (no number) followed by Opus 2, Opus 3 ... and all pieces with same name by same composer are numbered, starting with n° 1 spelled out.
My Webster's has Napoleon I or Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon II, Napoleon III.
--Frania W. (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Outdent In line with Frania's earlier comment: the Dictionnaire Napoléon, standard work for any Napoleonic scholar, written by the fine flower of the French Napoleonic scholars (a few dozen authors) and supervised by Jean Tulard of the French Institute - calls the man Napoléon I. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There are thousands of people with the first name Napoleon. Noel S McFerran (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: SoWhy, "of France" is not "superfluous," only inaccurate (see Alexandru Demian's fine post above.) If the regnal and most common names were vastly different (i.e. "Napoleon" versus "Napoleonicus Rex Maximus"), I would admit the utility of the move. But since they are nearly identical, and a redirect is already in place, I don't see any benefit that would justify stripping the Emperor of his regnal title. Also, it should be abundantly clear from scores of articles that "the only issue" is not WP:COMMONNAME; proper regnal names generally take precedence in the case of monarchs (otherwise, Henry VIII of England would be Henry VIII, Catherine II of Russia would be Catherine the Great, etc., etc.) Albrecht (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    Wikipedia of course has no power to strip the emperor of his regnal title. This discussion is about what his proper Wikipedia title should be. And as I said above - WP:COMMONNAME suggests "Napoleon", while WP:NCROY allows it. Dohn joe (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: "WP:NCROY allows it." It's funny, the rule of thumb devised by WP:NCROY is "Richard the Lionheart," which also happens to be used about 14 times more often than "Richard I of England." Quoth WP:NCROY: the common name would have to be so ubiquitous "that it would be surprising to omit the epithet," and "'Richard I' is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England." Et sic de similibus; "Napoleon I" is not unusual (though, naturally, shortened to "Napoleon" on subsequent reference), so he is at Napoleon I. Whatever the merits or flaws of the proposed move, it patently cannot be said that "WP:NCROY allows it." Albrecht (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
For "Henry VIII" versus "Henry VIII of England," the difference is by an order of magnitude of 41 times. Clearly a much more flagrant violation of WP:COMMONNAME, and I heartily urge you to take up your cause over there and start the irresistible domino effect that will surely wipe away the offending ordinal on this poor article. Albrecht (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I was actually not referring to the cognomen exception of WP:NCROY. The issue of using "Napoleon" versus "Napoleon I" is not covered, strictly speaking, by the nine enumerated paragraphs of the convention. Paragraph 2 deals with cognomens - but "Napoleon" is not a nickname; it was his actual name. Paragraph 3 deals with whether or not to append "of Country" to an article title. "Napoleon I", of course, is cited as an exception to the general rule of that paragraph.
Given that "Napoleon I" is already excepted from the specific guidance of NCROY, I was looking at the opening paragraphs of the guideline, which urge that it "is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". In this case, that's "Napoleon". That's what I meant by "WP:NCROY allows it." Dohn joe (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Dohn joe, with respect, I believe you are merely obfuscating the issue at this point. The distinction between a nickname and a given name is immaterial to the application of the guideline. WP:NCROY sets a regnal formula as the default name for monarchs and outlines the conditions for its abrogation. I believe I have shown that precedent vastly prefers regnal names to any putative "most common name" (Henry, Catherine etc.). And I have yet to encounter any argument for the move not deriving from some arbitrary application of WP:COMMONNAME.
Moreover, the claim that "'Napoleon I', of course, is cited as an exception to the general rule [of WP:NCROY]" is highly misleading. The article is exempted only from the nobiliary phrase "of France," not from having a regnal name altogether (as proposed here and championed by you). As a reigning and titular Emperor and the founder of a dynasty, Napoleon is defined by his ordinal. There might yet be good reasons to replace it, but I'm afraid WP:COMMONNAME isn't one of them. Albrecht (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

aribtrary break

It is not surprising that "Napoleon" shows up more often than "Napoleon I" in a count on google books. Behind this statistic is a simple fact: after Jesus Christ, Napoleon is the human being about whom writers have written the largest number of books. The number of books written about Napoleon I actually surpasses the number of days that have passed since his death. However, in a book about Napoleon I, the author would call the man Napoleon more often than Napoleon I; this is logical, since the reader would know which Napoleon it is. However, Wikipedia is NOT a book, it is an encyclopedia and the true question is what is the correct encyclopedic entry for this person. Assuming that Wikipedia does not try to reinvent the wheel, we would have to take a look at what other encyclopedias use as an entry name, and the answer is Napoleon I. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What you say is true for the first search. But if you look carefully at my search terms, the second search completely excluded "Napoleon I". Which means that there are over 3.5 million results that mention "Napoleon" that do not mention "Napoleon I" at all. Dohn joe (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Alexandru, RE your assumption that Wikipedia is not trying to reinvent the wheel: at times, I believe that it is striving to make it square - and it may even succeed with enough "Google hits" in its favor.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
See the comments above about Emperor of the French. Napoleon was not "Emperor of France", which would be implied by such a title. walk victor falk talk 22:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Alexandru Demian's oppose above ("Napoleon I was Emperor of the French and as such must be maintained under this name"). That's the core of the argument in favor and it is completely wrong. We use common names in English, not dignities. The argument about other people named "Napoleon" doesn't wash either; there were more notable people named "Julius Caesar" than there ever were notable people named "Napoleon", and we don't disambiguate that name except with a hatnote. If we did need to disambiguate, Napoleon Bonaparte would be the best move target, but plain "Napoleon" is superior to that. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Gavia Immer: If you do use common names (and only common names) in English, as you say, would you then call Queen Elisabeth II, plain Elisabeth? Better still, would you call her Elisabeth of Windsor? Why not Lizzie? Furthermore, I think you are missing the main point of this debate, which is what should the correct encyclopedic entry for this character be. When consulting reputable encyclopedias, we can easily see that their naming convention regarding this character is Napoleon I.
Wikipedia might be trying to become a ground-breaking, innovative encyclopedia for the masses, but trying to innovate where no innovation is needed would only lead it to becoming inaccurate. I believe everyone is aware that wikipedia is something of a joke in many academic environments, because of its inaccuracies and perceived lack of academic rigour. Opting for the entry Napoleon instead of Napoleon I would be a big step in the wrong direction.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
We don't call Elizabeth II "just plain Elizabeth" because there are so many other "just plain" Elizabeths out there and so her name requires disambiguation. Even "Queen Elizabeth" is ambiguous. We don't call her "Elizabeth (of) Windsor" because nobody would think to look for here at that name. We use "Elizabeth II" because it is an expected and understandable form of her name that readers will be able to find, and not as a dignity. To the extent that NCROY does not conflict with these principles, there's nothing bad to say about it in the case of Elizabeth II. In the case of Napoleon, there are not many other notable people out there by that name, and exactly zero people with equal notability. Only Napoleon III even comes close. Since the individual in question is commonly known as just "Napoleon", and just "Napoleon" is not ambiguous - the one other Napoleon of note always gets that "III", to disambiguate him - plain Napoleon is the right place to have the article. To the extent that NCROY conflicts with this advice, it has always been garbage.
As to the second part of your comments, speaking of "reputable encyclopedias" and "something of a joke in many academic environments" - that is one big "no true Scotsman" fallacy and nothing else. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Concrete examples of reputable encyclopedias can be found in previous posts, so I will not repeat them. That wikipedia is not regarded as being "serious" by many academic circles is no mere unfounded opinion of mine, but a wider opinion that's out there. I've read comments about this at least twice during the last couple of weeks, one in an article of The Economist. I am actually not at all interested in wikipolitics, I just want wikipedia to keep providing an adequate framework, to which encyclopedic rigour is, in my view, a prerequisite.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
We don't title the article about Elizabeth II as "Liz", because common in this context doesn't mean "plebeian" or "vulgar", but rather "frequent". Wikipedia generally tries to find the title of the subject that is most frequently used, with certain exceptions, in an effort to make the encyclopedia more accessible to its readers. (And "accessible" does not equate with "dumbing down".)
In this case, looking at other encyclopedias is certainly helpful, but look at the sources actually used to write the article. I count 26 sources that use the name of Napoleon in their titles. Exactly zero of them use "Napoleon I". If these sources are rigorous enough to use for the content of the article, why not use them to see what the title of the article might be? Dohn joe (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Authors who write encyclopedias that contain articles named "Napoleon I" are also aware that book that constitute their sources contain "Napoleon" , rather than "Napoleon I" in their title. Yet, they do not name the entry "Napoleon". "Napoleon I" is an encyclopedic convention and just that.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Napoleon I" is an encyclopedic convention. It is not the only encyclopedic convention, however. Some use "Napoleon Bonaparte". Wikipedia has tried different conventions, including "Napoleon I of France", and now "Napoleon I". There is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about plain "Napoleon", and it identifies the subject quite nicely - which is why Napoleon already redirects to this article. Dohn joe (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
... And some reputable other encyclopedias (1 2, plus the ones above, plus others we didn't think of) use "Napoleon I". --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I agree - some (probably most, even) encyclopedias use "Napoleon I", and some use "Napoleon Bonaparte". My only point being, there is no "official" encyclopedic title for Napoleon, and WP is free to determine its own, in accordance with its own policies. Dohn joe (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about plain "Napoleon", and it identifies the subject quite nicely... (as would the title "le petit caporal"), coming right on the heels of there is no "official" encyclopedic title for Napoleon, and WP is free to determine its own, in accordance with its own policies, leads me to believe that maybe - just maybe - there is nothing inherently "encyclopedic" about Wikipedia...
I cant't understand why we should try to do all kinds of Olympic twists to try to give to an article the title that fits the least. Napoléon/Napoléon Bonaparte is known as Napoléon I because he was the first in the line of succession and was followed by Napoléon II and Napoléon III. Trop simple & logique pour être acceptable.
--Frania W. (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"We use common names in English, not dignities." This is sorely and demonstrably false. Royalty and nobility are given names according to the conventions on royalty and nobility. Overturn that guideline and you might have a case here. Albrecht (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. In English, Napoleon is the normal way of referring to this man, and unless qualified in some way, that's what Napoleon means. I'm quite fascinated that there's so much discussion. Andrewa (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: In In English, Henry VIII is the normal way of referring to Henry VIII of England, Catherine the Great is the normal way of referring to Catherine II of Russia, et al ad nauseam. This plainly doesn't wash. Albrecht (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but you might want to see what happens when you click on Catherine II of Russia.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, suggest Napoleon Bonaparte (someone may already have done so: TLDR). We generally feel that surnames or forenames alone are incomplete (we don't have articles called Einstein or Hitler, even though these are probably the most common, and sufficiently precise, ways of referring to those men). But a forename+surname is perfectly normal, and in this case surely more people recognize him as Boney than as "the First". --Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Napoleon Bonaparte would be a fine suggestion had said individual not been coronated Emperor of the French. Albrecht (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
... thus becoming Napoléon I. --Frania W. (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
So he called himself Bonaparte for about twice as much of his life as he called himself "the first". And we are more concerned with general English usage than the subject's own - and here (I speak only from personal experience) I would suggest that he is significantly more commonly called Bonaparte than "I" (of course the original proposal is undoubtedly correct in that he is most commonly of all simply called Napoleon). --Kotniski (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not how these things work, though. Edward VIII of the United Kingdom was Edward VIII for less than a year. By contrast, he was "the Duke of Windsor" for 35 years, "the Prince of Wales" for 25 years, and some variant of "Prince Edward" for 17 years. Length of time is now how we determine titles. john k (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you read anything I wrote apart from the first sentence? That wasn't the thrust of my argument.--Kotniski (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
What Napoleon "called himself" is immaterial. (Although, if we were being honest, we'd come up with rather different figures. I doubt Napoleon was "calling himself" anything coherent at age 2; even ages 10 or 15 are of little interest. Of his public, adult life, he assumed the name Bonaparte for some 15 years (1789-1804) and the name Napoleon for roughly 18 years (1804-1821).) What matters is this: Napoleon was elected and crowned Emperor. As such, his name should follow the same formula as other monarchs. Since the only difference proposed here is to remove the monarchical signifier (thus adding nothing in clarity or comprehensibility), the move is illicit and should be rejected. Albrecht (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think more people would correctly surmise who the article is about from the title "Napoleon" (which everyone knows him as and knows him to be the primary topic for) than "Napoleon I" (which many non-specialists would not immediately associate with that Napoleon), so in fact it does add clarity and comprehensibility. The same applies, I suspect, to "Napoleon Bonaparte". It's certainly not true that every monarch's article on Wikipedia contains a numeral (Akihito, for example), and it wouldn't bind us in this case even if it were. --Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
"I think more people would correctly surmise who the article is about from the title "Napoleon" (which everyone knows him as and knows him to be the primary topic for) than "Napoleon I" (which many non-specialists would not immediately associate with that Napoleon)..." -
Come on, Kotniski ! Is the role of Wikipedia that of lowering encyclopedic standards to those of "non-specialists" ? Isn't it about time that a reader who does not know that Napoléon/Napoléon Bonaparte/Napoléon I is the one & same personage should learn it? Spreading knowledge does not mean watering it down. Titles of article should be correct, not reworded for the least knowledgeable. Historical reality is that there were three "Napoléon", hence Napoléon I, Napoléon II, Napoléon III.
Again, Webster does not list any Napoleon alone but:
  • Napoleon I or Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon II, Napoleon III.
--Frania W. (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
So even Webster acknowledges that "Napoleon Bonaparte" is correct. The fact is that none of the proposed titles is incorrect; they are all perfectly reasonable and available to us; we are to choose the best one. To me, it's quite clear that the one that best fits Wikipedia's general practice on choosing the titles of articles is the one with Bonaparte.--Kotniski (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
No, Webster consider it as one of the encyclopedically-acceptable names. They also consider Napoleon I to be encyclopedically-acceptable. Not Encyclopedia Britannica though. So, the common denominator is Napoleon I, which is the name we should maintain.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That really is nonsense. Do you think Britannica never uses the name "Napoleon Bonaparte"? Do you think the editors of Britannica consider it incorrect to refer to the man by that name? Of course not; they have their own standards for introducing their articles, which don't correspond to our titles (they don't use Tony Blair or Bill Clinton there either).--Kotniski (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying that they are not calling the man Napoleon Bonaparte. Of course they use "Napoleon Bonaparte", with regards to the period when he was a general or First Consul. Yet, these reputed scholars have chosen the encyclopedic entry Napoleon I and so should we. Do you really think that a layman out there will google for info about Napoleon, go to to wikipedia and somehow FAIL to find him, because wikipedia uses his correct name of Napoleon I??--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Our titles don't correspond to Britannica's entry headings. Not for people, at least. Like I say, look up Blair and Clinton in EB. (I mean in the books, not on the Web.) No, of course the layman will find him, but exactly the same is true if we substitute "his correct name of Napoleon Bonaparte" into your argument.--Kotniski (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Problem is that Napoleon Bonaparte is NOT his correct name.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
That's back to nonsense again. I don't know how you reach that conclusion, so I don't know what I'm supposed to say to demonstrate that it's utterly false (just as it would be false and nonsensical to say that "Napoleon" or "Napoleon I" is not his correct name - unless you think "X is his correct name" entails "X is his only correct name", in which case it is your statement that "Napoleon I is his correct name" that becomes false.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec, to Alexandru Demian) Nonsense. He lived 51 years, and for 35 of them he never used any name other than "Napoleon Bonaparte". He styled himself Emperor for only 11, not counting his second captivity. Claiming that the name he used for most of his life is "not correct" is, well, not correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
To Gavia immer: You know very well, I think, that this isn't a valid argument. If it were as you say, then why do we call this guy as we do? He was king for a year or so and not a king for about 15 years. Dozens of other examples exist.
To Kotniski:Well, that makes two of us, because I don't know either what I should add to demonstrate that this whole discussion is a huge waste of time for everyone. There is just too much evidence in the various posts from Albrecht, Frania and others that Napoleon I is the best encyclopedic entry for the man. And now, if you will excuse me, I will get back to writing articles, about the period of Emperor Napoleon I. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

  • Oppose. The current title is satisfactory. This has been discussed at least four times before; search the [index] for "move". All the points discussed above were made before, and there has been no consensus to change the title. I personally favored "Napoleon Bonaparte" but there was no consensus for this proposal. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title clearly disambiguates him from his nephew, among other things. The idea that "non-specialist" would not associate "Napoleon I" with "that Napoleon" is an assertion, not an argument. And article titles are designed to be recognized not by average laymen, but by people familiar with the subject. If you want to fight on behalf of names that will be understood by the average laymen, I'd suggest that, say, articles on plants would be a much better place to start than here, where we have a perfectly comprehensible title. john k (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    I'm unsure as to why you believe that. Our policy on article titles clearly says that the more common names are to be preferred, not the ones that experts would recognize. If other articles use names that are inconsistent with that policy, you can always rename (or argue to rename) them as well. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    From WP:AT: an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. The argument other people have been making is not that "Napoleon I" is less common, but that it is less recognizable. As to most common name, "Napoleon I", "Napoleon" and "Napoleon Bonaparte" are all very common; at that point, I think the task of figuring what is "most common" should be secondary to seeing which title best fits our other criteria. I think "Napoleon I" fits best - it is just as recognizable as Napoleon, it is more consistent with other articles on monarchs, it is just as natural, it is more precise, and it is only very slightly less concise. john k (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    In this case, the average layman is familiar with the subject. We've all heard of Napoleon, if they still teach history in schools then we all know quite a lot about him, but I would surmise that not so many people will recognize the title "Napoleon I" as "Napoleon Bonaparte", that's all. Since they are both perfectly good ways of referring to him, I don't see any reason to adopt the less recognized name (assuming I'm correct in my surmise).--Kotniski (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    Why should we base our article titles on what you agree is a surmise? That being said, I wouldn't especially mind Napoleon Bonaparte, although might make it worth considering renaming Napoleon II. My basic position here, though, is that the current title is perfectly recognizable; it is more precise than any other name of similar length (more precise, indeed, than "Napoleon Bonaparte"), and it is more consistent with other articles on monarchs, including his successor Napoleon III (who clearly should be at that title based on "common name" principles). This is one of the only monarch articles that is actually titled in the most natural way - why mess with it? john k (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Nous tournons autour du pot, and it would be great to have such a discussion in a café in Paris, arguing thru the teenie weenie hours of the night. It seems to me that we all agree that Napoléon Bonaparte, Napoléon, Napoléon I are correct & each one could be the title of the article. However, since le petit caporal, empereur des Français was followed by two other Napoléon designed as Napoléon II & Napoléon III, then why don't we go with the logical solution of keeping the first one as Napoléon I?
If you don't mind, I am going back to the analogy with musical compositions, to which, in addition to an opus number, the composer gives a number - n° 1, n° 2, n° 3..., when he has composed several of the same type, while when there is only one, no n° is given. For instance, Chopin's waltzes, préludes, études, mazurkas, polonaises, sonatas... all have a number, while his Barcarole, Berceuse, Boléro, Fantaisie, Tarantelle do not because he composed only one of each. Why can't we follow the same logic with our three Napoléon? - logic used with 18 kings of France named Louis, 10 Charles, 4 Henri, 2 François.
Or is the policy of Wikipedia(ns): Pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué?
--Frania W. (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
You both seem to be basing your arguments on surmising, just as much as I am - you're surmising respectively that the average (English-speaking) person would find "Napoleon I" the most natural, or simple, way to refer to this man. You may be right; but my experience of British usage at least tells me that this is actually the least natural of the three options. I'm not saying it's a particularly bad title (I think those we use for Wellington and Nelson, for example, are worse), but it doesn't seem to be the best one. (To take the Chopin analogy, would you want to retitle Minute Waltz to Waltz in D flat major, Op. 64, No. 1 (Chopin), just because that would help to produce a numerical sequence of titles?)--Kotniski (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Answering Kotnitski's comment: (To take the Chopin analogy, would you want to retitle Minute Waltz to Waltz in D flat major, Op. 64, No. 1 (Chopin)
Yes ! Because it is not the title Chopin gave it and, above all, because that title is totally misleading! In that instance, Chopin's publisher meant a "short" waltz, not one to be played in one minute - an insane exercise in speed that destroys the musicality of the piece.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The title isn't misleading; that's the point. Someone who wants to read about the Minute Waltz sees that title and immediately knows he's at the right article. That's the exact opposite of misleading. Only the most dedicated musicologists know that Chopin's Waltz in D-flat Major is the Minute Waltz, and that's not for whom this encyclopedia is written. Powers T 16:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
By "misleading", I meant "as to be performed", because people have translated the word "minute" into "60 seconds", which is not the length of time playing of the waltz should take, and it is in that sense that I employ "misleading". As for Wikipedia vs "the most dedicated musicologists" -or historians, for that matter, that's another story.
Anyway, better get back to Napoléon le Grand.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I know exactly what you meant; the problem is that you're assigning a task to the article's title that we don't usually want it to undertake. We report what the waltz is called, and what it is called is the "Minute Waltz". It is not the task of the article's title to clear up any misconceptions that may arise from that cognomen; the title is only there to tell the reader (in a recognizable and commonly-understood manner) the subject of the article. Powers T 17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Consequently, let's keep the title Napoléon I because "Napoléon" by itself can lead to confusion → most of my American friends think that Napoléon is a cake.
--Frania W. (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that while "Napoleon" by itself theoretically might lead to confusion, it does not lead to confusion in practice - this is why Napoleon redirects to this page. Of course, anyone who disagrees is free to propose moving Napoleon (disambiguation) to Napoleon.... Dohn joe (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
One way in which it might cause confusion is that it implies to people that Napoleon was his complete name, something like Akihito (since it's not Wikipedia's practice to use just forenames or just surnames as article titles). Though I suppose different versions of that argument could be advanced against any of the three options.--Kotniski (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'd refer you to my response below - what about Michelangelo? There are just a few figures throughout history who have in fact been known by their first name. Dohn joe (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would support a move to Napoleon Bonaparte because (i) as a republican leader and military figure he can be treated in the same way as, say, and American president and I see no reason for us to prefer, as Wikipedia's editors, his imperial status, (ii) that "Napoleon" is merely a first name I take to be common knowledge (because of Napoleon III and because of Napoleon Dynamite) and so using it as an article title is recognisably unusual (see Cyrus, which is not Cyrus the Great), and (iii) "Bonaparte" is the most natural disambiguation, more natural than "the First", even if it is not really a disambiguation since it is only a surname. In sum, I would rather treat him as the primary meaning of "Napoleon Bonaparte", and not as a monarch, primarily since I believe he does not exist in the popular imagination primarily as a monarch but as a general and conqueror. All that said, the current title is acceptable. Srnec (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    As to your point (ii), isn't Michelangelo merely a first name? Donatello? I agree that using a first name as an article title is unusual, but there are a few figures for whom it's appropriate. Again, we already recognize that by redirecting Napoleon to this article, rather than to a disambiguation page. Given that, then point (iii) is moot, because "Napoleon" does not require any disambiguation, whether "the First" or "Bonaparte". Would you agree? Dohn joe (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    Not quite fair to compare Nap with Michelangelo or Donatello - with those names there is nothing you could extend them by while still leaving them recognizable to their public, while there is with Napoleon (he's well known as N. Bonaparte).--Kotniski (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    Kotniski anticipates my response. "I take to be common knowledge" was meant to modify the point about his first name, that's why I said "and so". I do not take it to be common knowledge that either Michelangelo or Donatello is a first name and that the artists also had surnames, partly because they are earlier figures and it is common knowledge that surnames did not develop in Europe until the late Middle Ages. The fact that Napoleon is readily recognised when called "Napoleon Bonaparte" argues my point. Is there any other figure whose full name is widely known but whom we only call by his first name? I'm not sure, although I'm not opposed to it in principle. Srnec (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    But, of course, the reason we refer to him as "Napoleon" rather than "Bonaparte" is not because he's like Prince. It's because he crowned himself emperor. Calling him "Napoleon" is no different than calling Queen Elizabeth I "Elizabeth" or calling Frederick the Great "Frederick." Of course, unlike most royalty, Napoleon had a normal surname before making himself a monarch. But even that is not without precedent. Witness Charles XIV John of Sweden. That still leaves us with a choice. Agustín de Iturbide, for instance, is there, rather than at Agustín I or Agustín I of Mexico. But I still think the current title is preferable. On the whole, I find the focus on an article that is actually at an okay title rather incomprehensible when we still have things like Frederick II of Prussia and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. "Napoleon I" is, again, perfectly comprehensible, and the name most in line with our naming conventions. It also creates the best parallels with Napoleon III, who will remain where he is regardless. It wouldn't be a particular tragedy to move to Napoleon Bonaparte, but I don't see how there is any urgency to such a move, or why it would be preferable to the current title. (And if we do that, why not Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who is almost certainly better known as "Bernadotte" than by his royal title, which you cannot say of Napoleon. john k (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm abstaining, but I would support a move to Napoleon Bonaparte; AFAIK that is his common name as far as the English language is concerned. Flamarande (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:TITLE is quite clear: "shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones.", and, "titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article ". Of course the proposed title is more concise than the current title (and thus preferred), and does anyone really believe readers are more likely to search for this article with "Napoleon I" than just "Napoleon"?

    Also, the name the topic of this article is most commonly known by is just "Napoleon", and this subject is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Napoleon". I understand the argument in favor of Napoleon Bonaparte, but that's even less concise. If this person was not well known as just "Napoleon", then other names could be considered, but this seems quite obvious to me.

    By the way, this discussion is still quite alive and should not be closed until there is at least 24 hours of no discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And WP:AT and WP:PRECISION tell us that titles should "not too long, not too short" and to be "as precise as necessary, but no more than necessary, just so, like Goldilock". walk victor falk talk 08:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle, I'm curious what your opinion is concerning how to deal with Napoleon III, less so Napoleon II? Obviously redirects pretty much take care of the problem concerning (NB I) but how does this renaming the article alleviate explaining the issue of N2, and N3? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I am intrigued by that question as well. walk victor falk talk 09:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The text of articles explains things like that. Article titles never will, whichever ones we choose.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done: "...and Emperor of the French as Napoleon I..." walk victor falk talk 12:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand that comment, victor. What was "done"? Dohn joe (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It means "Gotcha!". You say "The text of articles explains things like that" and the article answers "...and Emperor of the French as Napoleon I...". (: walk victor falk talk 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
But that very sentence begins "Napoleon Bonaparte...was a military and political leader...", which only bolsters Kotniski's point that whether the article is titled Napoleon, Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon I, or That guy who always put his hand in his vest, it's the text of the article that explains who he is - the title merely identifies him (as all four of those titles do). Dohn joe (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Gotme! :) So the article lets us choose between Napoleon I and Napoleon Bonaparte. Here's why I think Napoleon Bonaparte is a non-starter. I'll just let WP:NCROY#Other_royals speak for me: 6. Do not apply an ordinal in an article title for a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX, for the legitimist pretender to the French throne. 7. Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchical title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Glücksburg,. And that's exactly what Napoleon was, a deposed monarch and not a pretender. walk victor falk talk 05:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As already described, there were other Napoleons. I wouldn't be concerned about "primary topic" and all that, I would be if we were using some complex and weird name instead. "Napoleon" and "Napoleon I" are basically the same thing to read, and it shouldn't take much history insight to figure it out that this is "the" Napoleon by seeing the name among other article titles. Even more, if someone starts writing "Napoleon" in the search box, "Napoleon I" is the first result that appears in the autofilled text. MBelgrano (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't care for the present title, but I don't see how this is an improvement. Deb (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing revert

I reverted the close of this move request. The closing editor gave no rationale for the close, and when I asked for one, said that it was "quite obvious" that there was "almost zero support" for the move, which is clearly not true. As I noted on the closer's talkpage, 7 editors expressed support for the move, 3 others supported "Napoleon Bonaparte", and 12 opposed any move. That hardly seems like "almost zero support" - in fact, it's almost a 50-50 split. I again requested the editor to provide a rationale, and none has been forthcoming. Whatever the outcome, I think the spirited discussion on this page over the last few weeks deserves a more thoughtful close, and so I'm asking for one now. Dohn joe (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was opposed to a move. But I do find the closure of this move request by User:Ruslik0 to be unsatisfactory. "Keep" is not a sufficient summary for a decision. When an editor asks for an explanation, he deserves more than "There almost zero support for the move, which is quite obvious." I have never seen a revert of a move request closure before. It is highly inappropriate for User:Ruslik0 to remove related comments of other editors from this talk page, and not to give any explanation for his actions. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As this discussion has lasted more than a week, it was a correct action to close the discussion, but incorrect to close as "keep". It should have been closed as "no consensus". ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A discussion doesn't have to be closed just because it's been going more than a particular length of time (it can be relisted if there's still life in it). Anyhow, I would say close the present proposal as failed, but leave open the possibility of continuing to discuss the Bonaparte idea if someone wants to propose it formally.--Kotniski (talk) 22:04, 4 February 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.

Dealing with Napoleon II and III

I'm copying this out of the above closed discussion since I did not get a chance to respond before it was closed:

Born2cycle, I'm curious what your opinion is concerning how to deal with Napoleon III, less so Napoleon II? Obviously redirects pretty much take care of the problem concerning (NB I) but how does this renaming the article alleviate explaining the issue of N2, and N3? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am intrigued by that question as well. walk victor falk talk 09:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The text of articles explains things like that. Article titles never will, whichever ones we choose.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether Napoleon II and Napoleon III are the titles that best meet the principle naming criteria at WP:TITLE for those articles should be decided independently from whether Napoleon or Napoleon I best meets the criteria here.

That said, I would say that as long as the subjects of those articles are best known as Napoleon II and Napoleon III in reliable sources those articles are named appropriately. But the father and uncle respectively of these two is clearly best known as just Napoleon, not Napoleon I, and I still contend we are doing a disservice to our readers by implying to the contrary with the current article title. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to Napoleon Bonaparte

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was Close pending. (This will take a while.) moved. to Napoleon. There appear to be two competing principles out there, one that supports the use of Napoleon or Napoleon Bonaparte, and the other that supports the use of Napoleon I. In support of Napoleon or Napoleon Bonaparte is our WP:COMMONNAME policy which encourages us to use the name "which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". In support of Napoleon I is the WP:NCROY guideline that is designed to deal with the fact that Western monarchs "share much the same stock of names". I'm considering, in main, these two principles and ignoring arguments along the lines of accuracy or the necessity to identify him as an emperor because our naming policies are based more on recognizability, precision, conciseness, and consistency than it is on accuracy (see WP:AT). Clearly, there is no question that WP:NCROY is an important and useful guideline, without which we would have a hard time sorting out the many less known monarchs who use the same name within and across the boundaries of the various kingdoms and boundaries that define Europe. However, the purpose of the guideline is not to ensure historical accuracy, nor is it to neutralize any pov issues, or even to somehow attach a royal label to an individual (though I seriously doubt that anyone needs to be told that Napoleon was an Emperor), but rather it is to help sort out the multiple uses of the same name by various monarchs. And there are times when we come across a monarch who transcends his or her regnal name, is so easily recognizable that he or she has no need for disambiguation and orderly placement in a regnal sequences, and Napoleon, or Napoleon Bonaparte is clearly one of these. WP:NCROY asks us to consider using the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English, and, as a guideline, urges us that it should be "best treated with common sense". The common sensical solution is clearly to use the common name of a person as well known as Napoleon.

Now to the second question. Should the title be at Napoleon or Napoleon Bonaparte, My initial reaction was to close this as 'move to Napoleon Bonaparte because the move request originates from a previous, 'no-consensus', request to move it to Napoleon. However, I notice that some of the opposition to Napoleon Bonaparte is actually based on a preference for Napoleon, and the latter title is acceptable to some of the opposers. Also, I can't help but notice that Napoleon already redirects to this article, which sort of defeats the purpose of most of the arguments for Napoleon I (Napoleon is better on the first 4 principles listed in WP:AT). Moving it to Napoleon Bonaparte makes little sense when Napoleon is available and fits well. Therefore, I'm closing this as 'move to Napoleon'. --rgpk (comment) 19:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


Napoleon I → Napoleon Bonaparte — There seemed to be some support for this in the previous move discussion. Using his full name both removes any potential ambiguity, and seems a more common way of referring to the man than with his ordinal. (In most sources, he's either just "Napoleon" or "Napoleon Bonaparte"; adding the ordinal seems quite rare.) --Powers T 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's why I think Napoleon Bonaparte is a non-starter. I'll just let WP:NCROY#Other_royals speak for me: 6. Do not apply an ordinal in an article title for a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX, for the legitimist pretender to the French throne. 7. Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchical title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Glücksburg,. And that's exactly what Napoleon was, a deposed monarch and not a pretender. walk victor falk talk 05:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

walk victor falk talk 14:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
But this is clearly not meant to prohibit the use of alternative names by which a monarch is better known - the guideline explicitly allows the use of such names, and it would be perverse to prohibit such use just because the monarch happened to be deposed before his death. (Anyway, we aren't compelled to follow the exact wording or even the intent of guidelines if they seem inappropriate to a given situation.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is no confusion whatsoever with Napoleon I. We have Napoleon II and Napoleon III, all of whom bore the surname Bonaparte.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as done on previous proposals & for same reason given by Jeanne Boleyn. There are more "Bonaparte" than this one Napoléon I since it is the surname of the family. --Frania W. (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - From a NPOV point of view, there is little to choose between the alternatives. From a MOS point of view, he was a one-off: he styled himself as "Napoleon Emperateur" on his coins, but was referred to at the time as "Bony", "Bonaparte" or "that upstart Bonaparte" in England. I therefore suggest that the status quo be retained. Martinvl (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Known to history as Napoleon or Napoleon Bonaparte, but almost never as Napoleon I. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

talk 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. I just don't see any evidence that this figure is particularly well known as "Napoleon I". I agree with Gavia that Napoleon would be better (more concise than "Napoleon Bonaparte" and known as well by either). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment When sources call him "Napoleon Bonaparte", they refer to the period before his crowning, as general or first consul. As emperor, he is referred as "Napoleon I" or simply "Napoleon". This is an accepted convention. walk victor falk talk 19:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support As said above, "Napoleon I" simply is not the name people most often use when referring to this individual. The Ghits provided by victor falk do not prove anything, there are actually more GScholar hits for "Napoleon Bonaparte". And of course much more for simply "Napoleon". The best solution would have been a move to Napoleon since that is used to refer to both his name before and after his crowning but Napoleon Bonaparte is still better than the current name because people still refer to him that way even after crowning (examples: [8] [9] [10] [11]). Regards SoWhy 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. However much I may share Beethoven's sentiment regarding his ascension to the throne, WP:COMMONNAME is superseded by WP:NCROY and "the law is the law", as it were. WP:NCROY: "Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title." There are other monarchs better known by various names rather than their royal titles. Alexander I of Yugoslavia, e.g., is far better know as "Alexander Karageorgevich". "Napoleon" is particularly out of the question (indeed even more so than "Napoleon Bonaparte").
    This is indeed a non-starter. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, I hope the closing admin will not make the mistake of bowing to popular sentiment (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually no, you're very wrong here. COMMONNAME is policy, while NCROY is a guideline. NCROY even says "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Wait just a minute here. WP:NCROY are naming conventions for this specific type of article. Naming conventions are by definition there to "supplement and explain" Wikipedia policy WP:TITLE. WP:COMMONNAME is not "policy" on its own, but in essence a general guideline of WP:TITLE, while WP:NCROY is also a guideline, but one that specifically interprets WP:TITLE for this type of article. Further, The fact that WP:NCROY applies here and in all similar cases, rather than simple commonname, is evidenced by the titles of virtually any and all royalty articles on Wikipedia. I am not "very wrong", in fact I'm not "wrong" at all. It just happens that WP:COMMONNAME is general enough to be listed on the main page of WP:TITLE, while the very specific application of WP:TITLE for these articles is (naturally) listed on a separate page (hence leading you to believe that one is "policy" while the other is a "guideline"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
        • No guideline can possible account for all possibilities. This is one of those cases where an exception ought to be made to account for how the man was and is known. Slavishly following the letter of NCROY without regard to a) its spirit, b) its applicability to a man who is known for much more than being a monarch and to a much wider audience than the average historical monarch, is not in the least in the spirit of Wikipedia. Powers T 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes yes, but when we strip this debate of its pretty phrases ("Slavish Devotion", "The Spirit of Wikipedia") it still gets down to WP:COMMONNAME vs WP:NCROY. Both guidelines make sense and both can be advocated and their arguments listed in perpetuity with successively increasing eloquence on the part of the advocates. The question is: "which one do we follow?". The answer: "WP:NCROY, it was designed for monarchs".
            In other words, if that is your argument, then would you agree that WP:COMMONNAME should always supersede WP:NCROY? Because the same can be said for a number of other monarch articles who could be renamed to their common name but for WP:NCROY. I feel that if we have naming conventions in place, and if all of Wikipedia is written in accordance with them, then it is nonsense to demand they be disregarded because in this case it "feels right" to ignore policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
            • From WP:COGNOMEN (emphasis mine): "Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title." The " unambiguously" part must be interpreted in light of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which suggests that it is not absolute ambiguity that is important. Jean-Bédel Bokassa is another civilian ruler cum emperor, like Napoleon. Srnec (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is one thing cannot be called it's "civilian". know very well this comparison is not historically accurate. The US and all European powers except Britain recognised him as emperor. Bokassa was recognised only by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. walk victor falk talk 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - commonly known as "Napoleon Bonaparte" or "Napoleon" to most people in the world. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Policy documentation is descriptive, not prescriptive. Everything on Wikipedia follows consensus; if we find a consensus that "Napoleon Bonaparte" is a more natural, more recognizable title than "Napoleon I", then the article should be moved, and to hell with what NCROY says. NCROY provides us with guidance only, not an inviolable law that must be followed. Powers T 13:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some of the most prestigious encyclopedias out there, such as Larousse Britannica, Webster's etc. use "Napoleon I". Encyclopedias specialised in Napoleonic history: the Dictionnaire Napoléon written under the supervision of Jean Tulard of the French Institute, "Histoire et Dictionnaire du Consulat et de l'Empire" by Tulard, Palluel-Guillard and Ferrero or "Dictionnaire de la Grande Armee" by Alain Pigeard also go for "Napoleon I". Furthermore, counting book title 'hits' on google or other sites is irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a book, but an encyclopedia.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - not sure where these prestigious encyclopedias are coming from, but I can't recall the last time I've read a reference to "Napoleon I". "Napoleon", "Bonaparte" and "Napoleon Bonaparte" are widely used, but "Napoleon I" seem to be the least-commonly used term from my experience. And there would be a redirect from "Napoleon I", so links including that (i.e. lists and such) wouldn't be bothered. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The average Joe will recognise who "Napoleon Bonaparte" is, but I do not believe he will recognise "Napoleon I" without being told. In fact, I don't think he'll even know that Napoleon (old French military guy whose picture he would immediately recognise) was an emperor. The Britannica, I would note, also uses Louis of Portugal, but I got booed for proposing that move. Srnec (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
To The Bushranger: these encyclopedias are standard work. The fact that you tend to find other names than 'Napoleon I' is probably because you are referring to books, rather than encyclopedias. As I've said before, wikipedia is not a book, but an encyclopedia, so it should seek to inspire itself from the standards of encyclopedias when searching for encyclopedic entries.
To Srnec: since I can see that we're doing the "what's my opinion" forum here, rather than looking at what solid evidence we have from other encyclopedias, I must say that, having lived in an English-speaking country, I found that Napoleon I did ring a bell, so I would have to disagree with you on the "Average Joe" rationale.
I would just like to take a moment and invite the users to reflect on this entire process, which I see as pointless: Would anyone in the world fail to find the wikipedia article about Emperor Napoleon just because it is called "Napoleon I"? Furthermore, once on the article page, would anyone fail to recognise that the character called Napoleon I is actually the exact same person as the one they used to know as Napoleon Bonaparte?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
So we could also argue in favor of the move because noone would fail to recognize the emperor Napoleon I even when the article is not titled that way. Referring to other encyclopedias is a good idea sometimes but then again, they are per our definition tertiary sources. But the WP:NOR policy also says that "secondary" sources should be what articles rely on, e.g. those books you mentioned. I mentioned a couple of such books in my comment above. Regards SoWhy 09:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy. I see what you mean, but what I am saying is that since encyclopedias go for Napoleon I (and for good reasons) and there is virtually no risk that the random reader might have the person confused with someone else while called Napoleon I, there is no point in moving it. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand your argument but the point is that it can be reversed and be equally valid. Also, should we really strive to impersonate other encyclopedias? Or shouldn't we rather follow our own guidelines and policies, even when other encyclopedias do it differently? Regards SoWhy 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
How does Alexandru know the reasons behind Britannica's naming conventions, that they're good ones? Sounds like just his opinion. Srnec (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
SoWhy, I really agree with you in principle and I very much value the fact that Wikipedia has its own way, which is one of the reasons why I contribute here. However, I don't think that Wikipedia should make an objective out of being "different" than other encyclopedias, but rather spot their weaknesses and to try to do things differently. But I do fail to see how renaming this article would improve anything.
Srnec: of course, I don't actually know their reasons, but I can make an educated guess.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Napoleon Bonaparte is the common name for this person (as in WP:Commonname). Napoleon I is rather uncommon. Napoleon Bonaparte is used in computer games (e.g: Total WAR - please watch the trailer carefully), TV documentaries (e.g.: [12]), etc. Flamarande (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Do we actually see video games as serious sources for writing history articles on Wikipedia?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course we don't use video games "as serious sources for writing history articles on Wikipedia". But video games help us to find the common name of the subject. I'm unable to remember any video game whatsoever using Napoleon I. Flamarande (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I remember that none of the reputable encyclopedias we talked about uses Napoleon Bonaparte. Frania said that Webster's encyclopedic entry is "Napoleon I" and after this they say something like "also known as Napoleon Bonaparte". But their first choice is Napoleon I. And the other encyclopedias we mentioned prefer Napoleon I, without Napoleon Bonaparte.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Here are the encyclopedias that I cited last time that use "Napoleon Bonaparte": [13] [14] [15]. More use "Napoleon I", but you cannot say that no reputable encyclopedias use "Napoleon Bonaparte". Dohn joe (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that you cited them. I do think that they are much less reputable than the ones I was talking about, so that's why I didn't quote them. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So, the Encyclopaedia Judaica is not reputable? Hopefully other editors will be able to see that Napoleon Bonaparte is in fact used by some "real" encyclopedias. Dohn joe (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I will put it this way: "Bonaparte" was a general in the French Revolutionary army who campaigned in Italy and Egypt, and a politician who headed the Consulate for four and a half years. "Napoleon" was a French emperor who ruled for a decade and lived in exile for six years, toppled monarchies, redrew the map of Europe, and led military campaigns of world-historical importance. When one refers to the general in 1796 or politician in 1799, one says "Bonaparte;" from his coronation and into posterity, one says "Napoleon." As a unified figure, it makes about as much sense to call him "Bonaparte" as to call George I of Great Britain Georg Ludwig. Moreover, as I believe I have demonstrated (having never heard a convincing argument to the contrary), the argument-from-common-name simply does not hold water, as every monarch could then benefit to lose part of his or her monarchical title. "Henry VIII" is about forty times as widely used as "Henry VIII of England," yet obviously no one has clamoured to rename that article—apparently a title obtained by divine right holds more credence with Wikipedia editors than one bestowed by the people (let alone the French people!) Albrecht (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You may choose to believe that "you have demonstrated that the argument-from-common-name simply does not hold water". However you're mistaken: Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, Queen Victoria, etc. Are these articles using the monarchical titles or are these articles using the common names? Should we always use monarchical titles or should we decide this matter case-by-case? Flamarande (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I have or would have voted in support of those, because they reflect the common name while still being historically accurate. Calling this article "NB" is a historically incorrect statement, just as "Napoleon I of France" would be historically incorrect walk victor falk talk 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of an article title is not to be historically accurate. The purpose of the title is simply to identify the subject of the article, while being at the most recognizable name possible. Dohn joe (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my point, which is that WP:COMMONNAME is not, in itself, sufficient reason for a move—the same proposal could be levied against every monarch whose given name is not ambiguous (conceivably hundreds), which would entail the complete liquidation of WP:NCROY. The exceptions your list are actually covered in WP:NCROY for personalities overwhelmingly better known by some other epithet, to the point where it would be surprising to encounter the formal title (i.e. Victoria's formal title rather lamentably fails the Google test.) The occurrence of "Napoleon" versus "Napoleon Bonaparte" is patently not this disproportionate and to suggest the contrary by invoking these exceptions is disingenuous in the extreme. In fact, in this case there's really no conclusive way of demonstrating which name is more widely used; even a source which predominantly uses "Napoleon" will contain at least a passing reference to "Napoleon Bonaparte" to indicate the subject's early life or career. And as I (and, thankfully, several others) have pointed out, "Napoleon Bonaparte" refers specifically to the young Napoleon's early civil and military career (or else is used by English propagandists to delegitimize his rule, as we all know). Virtually every scholar of the Napoleonic era and early modern Europe observes this distinction; to name the article "Napoleon Bonaparte" is to imply that it deals primarily with the private individual and not the monarch, which is patently not the case. Albrecht (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This is what I said in earlier comment [16], but better said. When historians talk "Napoleon Bonaparte", they talk about the man before his crowning (unless they're contemporaries one that want to emphasis its dynastical legitimacy or lack thereof ) 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More or less what Albrecht says. An article called "Napoleon Bonaparte" should be about a man we refer to as "Bonaparte." An article about a man referred to for the most part as "Napoleon" should be at "Napoleon I". john k (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, I would've thought that an article about a man referred to for the most part as "Napoleon" should be at "Napoleon" - but that wasn't the consensus view. But as you are aware, no doubt, a great many people (including authors and encyclopedias of repute) continue to refer to this fellow as "Napoleon Bonaparte".
    "Napoleon" would be acceptable, but I think adding an ordinal which eliminates all ambiguity is superior. Of course he is sometimes referred to as "Napoleon Bonaparte," but generally only for the 1769-1804 period. What are your reputable encyclopedias that use "Napoleon Bonaparte" for article titles? john k (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    @Albrecht: I don't understand your argument. You oppose the loss of monarchical titles, citing the fact that we have "Henry VIII of England" rather than "Henry VIII". But this article is currently at "Napoleon I", not "Napoleon I, Emperor of the French". How can you approve of "Napoleon I", and disapprove of "Henry VIII"? Dohn joe (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
For the same reason as we have Louis XIV of France. Leaving out the "Emperor of the French" reflects better the sui generis properties of the napoleonic monarchy . It is also more in line with wp:at & wp:precise, "use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary ". walk victor falk talk 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Few people nowadays know Napoleon III, and even fewer know Napoleon II or any other members of the House of Bonaparte. In addition, as Napoleon's career covers both the Republican and the Imperial periods, it is not improper to have the full name stand for him. He made his name as a republican general after all, and is best known as a military genius. He was arguably most commonly referred to both as "Napoleon" or "Napoleon Bonaparte" even in his lifetime, as well as today. Both Napoleon and Napoleon Bonaparte either way redirect to Napoleon I, so the fact that these terms are most commonly associated with him is not really in question. Along with others, I'd prefer plain "Napoleon", however "Napoleon Bonaparte" is equally valid. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Do a poll of non-historians and almost no one will know Napoleon II or Napoleon III. Wikipedia is for the readers, who will be predominantly out of that non-historian/layman category that knows him by "Napoleon Bonaparte." Include the information about him as "Napoleon I" and links to the other Napoleons to educate them, but put the article where most people will look for it. Spidey104 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
That's what redirects are for: taking the reader from an inaccurate but more widely known to the correct title.


  • Victor, I never said to exclude historians from editing the page, because that would be stupid, like your comment was by misinterpreting my statement. I said that the general layman knows him as Napoleon Bonaparte and since Wikipedia is for the readers it would make more sense for the article title to represent the layman's term for the subject. John k brings up a good point, but I would disagree with that (unless there is a specific Wikipedia rule that no one has mentioned so far) because readers are more important than editors. Spidey104 23:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Phew, I was worried for a while. Thank you for clearing that up. Our first duty to readers is provide them with correct information. As editors we have to balance factors against each other. Data from previous moves show that "Napoleon I" is in wide use, both in general and by specialised scholars. "NB" is partially misleading, as it does [edit]doesn't make clear that he was a sovereign. That's the whole point of wp:ncroy, to make the name of monarchs recognisable as such. As I and others have commented, exceptions (Alexander the Great, Queen Victoria, Elizabeth II) are still clearly the name of monarchs. Napoleon I is more than sufficiently recognisable (go on, say "Napoleon the First!" in a loud and stentorian voice, and I dare you of not thinking of that guy with his hand in a grey coat) to be this article's name. walk victor falk talk 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
"NB" is partially misleading, as it does make clear that he was a sovereign. That doesn't make it misleading at all. Where's the logic?
I actually checked with two people who in matters of history I consider "average Joes". They both recognised the names "Napoleon" and "Napoleon Bonaparte" and knew that they referred to an old French military guy. Neither knew he was an emperor. (One even said, "I don't want to say he was an emperor. . . ") This method is hardly scientific, but it confirms me in my position: Napoleon is widely known by regular people who never read history books (I think they'd even recognise his image), but most people do not know that he was an emperor. For this reason, the current title fails. It does not tell them that this is the Napoleon. They will wonder, "Who was Napoleon II? Is this the Napoleon? Oh wait, there's his picture! Yep, same guy." Srnec (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Typo. "does" => "doesn't" . Thanks for noticing. To reiterate: ""NB" is partially misleading, as it doesn't make clear that he was a sovereign" . As you say, most everybody will immediately realise they arrived at the right page as soon as they see the picture, whatever they typed. Therefore it is important that the title be as accurate as possible, while still being recognisable. "Napoleon I" does just that. That they may begin to suspect that perhaps a second, and yes, even more tentatively a third Napoleon existed, is yet another way of slyly and deviously increasing our users historical knowledge. walk victor falk talk 06:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
How low is Wikipedia supposed to stoop in order to get readers to read its articles? And what is this saying about Wikipedia's rather arrogant view of its eventual readers that we think them to be so ignorant that they are unable to find their way through the napoleonic maze? Reading from "Napoléon I" through "Napoléon III" makes it obvious that there was no "Napoléon IV".
--Frania W. (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Napoleon I" refers to a part of his career as well, doesn't it? So your argument is basically "the emperor part is more important than the part before, so let's refer to that in the name"? But how can you measure what readers will consider the "more important" part of his career? Regards SoWhy 13:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The title of an article on an individual who became a sovereign and the head of a new reigning house includes that person's title as a sovereign. That's why the title of this article is not and or should not be Napoleone di Buonaparte or General Bonaparte.
--Frania W. (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
SoWhy, I fear you've allowed yourself to become a little disingenuous: By any standard, Napoleon's imperial rule, institutions, conquests, diplomacy and legacy are vastly more important than their (brief) civil equivalents. I consider this to be d'une évidence pure and will not argue the point, which anyway has no bearing on our wider decision. But, as I'm sure you've deduced, the implications of the two names are not at all symmetrical: "Napoleon (I)" does not preclude an earlier career (history is rife with examples of monarchs who won the throne by the sword), while "NB" implicitly erases his monarchical reign; one expects a person who became a monarch to be called by his/her title (a title which, contrary to popular belief and possibly to your belief as well, was never renounced nor revoked). I notice the proponents of the move have quietly withdrawn from the policy terrain (where your claims are dubious at best) and are arguing from the new strategic high ground of the "common-sense exception (for the reader's sake!)," though here again you've run into a number of obstacles:

From WP:AT: an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. The argument other people have been making is not that "Napoleon I" is less common, but that it is less recognizable. As to most common name, "Napoleon I", "Napoleon" and "Napoleon Bonaparte" are all very common; at that point, I think the task of figuring what is "most common" should be secondary to seeing which title best fits our other criteria. I think "Napoleon I" fits best - it is just as recognizable as Napoleon, it is more consistent with other articles on monarchs, it is just as natural, it is more precise, and it is only very slightly less concise. john k (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree "Napoleon I" is just as recognizable as "Napoleon". Unqualified Napoleon clearly refers to the Napoleon, just as "Oprah" clearly refers to the Oprah. "Napoleon I" is not so clear. For anyone who does not know, perhaps there was a Napoleon prior to "the" Napoleon who is known as "Napoleon I"? So, "Napoleon I" is not as clear a reference to the Napoleon is as is plain "Napoleon". That said, "Napoleon Bonaparte" is not as good as "Napoleon" in this respect, but probably better than "Napoleon I". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course you are right about the purely conceptual or hypothetical difference, but these are questions of magnitude and I suspect john k would answer that in practice the difference is so marginal as to be immaterial to our discussion (or at least that, on balance, the advantages of NPI in terms of accuracy and consistency amply outweigh this drawback.) To apply what I am tempted to call the Victor Test: "Go on, say 'Napoleon the First!' in a loud and stentorian voice, and I dare you not to think of that guy with his hand in a grey coat!" I find I cannot, in good faith, disagree. After all, if we stumble even further down your epistemological slippery slope, what certainty does our reader hold that even "Napoleon Bonaparte" is "the Napoleon?" (Apart from being familiar with the House of Bonaparte, of course.) When I search "George S. Patton," how do I know I've reached the right article without reading "United States army officer" or catching sight of that chest full of ribbons? Besides, we at Wikipedia would be pulling a particularly nasty trick if we redirected "Napoleon" (what 99% of readers are no doubt searching for anyway) to some frère ennemi who is not "the Napoleon!" Albrecht (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Once again, titles are to be recognizable to people familiar with the topic. People who do not know that this Napoleon was Napoleon I are not people familiar with the topic, and their potential confusion can be ignored - it will be cleared up by reading the article introduction, in any event. john k (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I disagree, John. I suspect most people are familiar with the topic of this article, and know him as "Napoleon" or "Napoleon Bonaparte". Further, I suggest most of those people (and here I'm excluding folks like Albrecht who use phrases like "epistemological slippery slope" in casual conversation) would not know that "Napoleon I" necessarily refers to that person. Sure, someone like you or Albrecht is unable to not think of "that guy with his hand in a grey coat" when you hear "Napoleon I", but I suggest neither of you is the typical person, nor even the typical person familiar with the topic of this article.

Here's a test you can try on colleagues, friends, and family members:

In the following list, circle all names that refer to the famous emperor of France:
  1. Napoleon,
  2. Napoleon I,
  3. Napoleon II,
  4. Napoleon III,
  5. Napoleon Bonaparte.
Then watch, and ask, where they hesitate.

My point is most will know without little or no hesitation to circle (1) and (5) (thus indicating familiarity with the topic), but many will be unsure about which of (2), (3) or (4) to circle. But the least hesitation will be with (1). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose per GBooks searches for "Napoleon I" and "Napoleon Bonaparte". Even when skipping through to the end of the results (less than 30 pages each), Napoleon I wins by enough of a margin to discount "Napoleon. I said..." returns. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    Would you mind showing links to your searches? My English-language GBooks searches show 274,000 for "Napoleon Bonaparte", and 216,000 for "Napoleon I". Further, this ngram shows NB beating Nap the 1st for most of the last 200 years. Dohn joe (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    That was fascinating -- never saw ngrams before. In any case, just take those two searches, and keep clicking the links at the bottom -- 10, 19, 29, etc. You'll run out of pages a lot sooner than you expect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    While looking at ngrams, check this one out. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think john k put it best, but I would also add that the argument that readers would be somehow challenged by using the current name because they don't immediately seems rather antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia, especially given that we've already established that a) whichever name is chosen, the other will still exist as a redirect and b) readers are not presented with articles, they search for them for the purpose of learning more about the topic. The argument presented above by Born2cycle and Srnec (essentially the same, through framed differently) seems especially weak in this light. siafu (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic.

If you disagree with that part of the policy, fine, but my argument is, essentially, that both "Napoleon" and "Napoleon Bonaparte" would do a considerably better job of confirming, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, "that the article is indeed about that topic.", than does "Napoleon I". Do you disagree with that? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no doubt whatsoever that readers arriving at this page with the title will have no confusion at all as to what the subject is; there will be a redirect (as mentioned above), there's a large portrait right up top, and the name Napoleon Bonaparte is not only how the very first sentence of the lead begins, but it's also in bold. Certainly, this is the most famous and recognizable individual named Napoleon (and the title still says "Napoleon", not "Henry Q. Dalrymple" or something unrecognizable as Napoleon), but quoting this policy when there are conflicting policies isn't getting us anywhere at all. In short, I think your concern is not only irrelevant, but also a bit silly-- you seem to be suggesting that it's somehow bad for readers to find out that Napoleon was in fact Emperor of France as Napoleon I, and that, gosh, there were multiple emperors with this name. This article already manages to confirm that this is the "right" Napoleon; if we were merely confirming what readers already know, this would be a rather poor excuse for an encyclopedia. siafu (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, FYI, I thought it would be obvious from the fact that I referenced other comments, but I did indeed take the time to read the discussion before commenting; restating a policy that's already stated in one of the arguments I referenced makes it look an awful lot like you're not giving other's comments much consideration here. siafu (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
First, please understand that I'm ignoring the argumentative and derogatory aspects of your comments.

I too have no doubt that readers arriving at this page will have no confusion at all as to what the subject is for the reasons you cite: the redirect, the portrait, and the opening sentence. But that's true regardless of what the title is, and is not what I asked you about. What's at issue here is which title best confirms what the subject is, and what I asked you was whether you disagree that "Napoleon" and "Napoleon Bonaparte" confirm the subject to the reader considerably better than "Napoleon I". What is implied there, but I thought obvious, was "independent of other factors" (like redirects, the portrait, and the opening sentence).

You indicate that you believe there are conflicting policies. Which ones conflict with WP:TITLE here, and how do they indicate a title other than Napoleon or Napoleon Bonaparte? (by the way, WP:NCROY is not policy, if that's what you're thinking about). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I find this latest invocation of WP:TITLE as some master document or commandment a little disconcerting. My suspicion (for which I may be corrected) is that, far from incidental, this new tactic suggests a strategic manoeuvre aiming to circumvent or evade the most applicable guideline, WP:NCROY, under which your claims are much weaker:

More importantly, editors need to follow the most relevant advice. A broadly worded policy page, intended to provide only the most general outline of the goals, is not necessarily a better source of advice than a guideline that directly and explicitly addresses the specific issue at hand.

But to return to your question: for readers who are familiar with the topic, all three names are more than adequate in confirming the subject: once we are satisfied that the current title meets this standard, other factors (some decisive, as I have argued) come into play. It is a gross distortion of the policy to suggest that all other considerations must bow and submit to this supreme criterion. In other words, I sense that we're being asked to sacrifice rather major benefits (historical accuracy, conformity with Napoleon's successors and monarch articles more generally) for a negligible added value. Albrecht (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I would rather strongly dispute that the alternate titles would confirm the subject to the reader considerably better than the current title. I also think that whatever slight advantage in confirming the subject to the reader might be held by the alternative titles is more than made up by corresponding disadvantages: "Napoleon" is imprecise; "Napoleon Bonaparte" either explicitly excludes the last 17 years of his life or else is a POV assertion that he was not a legitimate monarch. My position is similar to Albrecht's: all three titles are very common and perfectly recognizable to anyone who is familiar with the topic, and at that point we should look at other criteria like precision, consistency, and the like. john k (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
If you had said that "Napoleon Bonaparte" was ambiguous in the same way "Napoleon" is, you'd have a point. But to say that it "explicitly excludes the last 17 years of his life or else is a POV assertion that he was not a legitimate monarch" just doesn't follow. Was you proposal to move Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor to Frederick Barbarossa "a POV assertion that he was not a legitimate monarch"? And why doesn't "Napoleon I" explicitly exclude the first 35 years of life? I am rapidly losing interest in what this article is titled, or slowly, since I proposed a move back in 2007. Any of the three titles we've considered in the past few months is acceptable, but my personal preference, and I won't claim it is much more than that, is for "Napoleon Bonaparte". Srnec (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Because nobody that calls Frederick "Barbarossa" does it to deny he was an emperor. Further, "Barbarossa" is a cognomen and thus part of an acceptable regnal name. "NB" is not a regnal name. If you know anything at all about the Napoleonic times you know that the legitimacy of the imperial regime was a central part of the conflict. Anti-bonapartist propaganda was systematic in calling him names emphasised he was an usurper, and "NB" is one of them. walk victor falk talk 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not required to name an article after the subject's regnal name. And are we really go to hash out two-century-old propaganda to decide on an article title? If "NB" is propaganda, then "N1" is surely just as much so. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • wp:ncroy is a whole guideline dedicated to regnal names. If you don't care about history, why do you care about the title of an historical article? "Napoleon I" is not propaganda because modern scholars agree he was emperor under that name. walk victor falk talk 03:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


"Napoleon Bonaparte", as an article title, says nothing about the legitmacy of his monarchical title. All it says is that English-speaking people today are likelier to recognize the subject of the article by that name. Was Catherine the Great great? Depends on your point of view. But that's where the article is titled, because that's how she's known today. With our French friend, there is evidence from this ngram that "Napoleon Bonaparte" is used more often in books than "Napoleon I" (although as B2C pointed out, "Napoleon" alone blows everyone else out of the water). And for the anti-French conspiracy theorists, this French ngram shows that "Napoléon Bonaparte" is more popular than "Napoléon I" even amongst francophiles. Dohn joe (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
First, if you don't want to get an argumentative response, a good strategy would be to read and take some time to comprehend the comment you are responding to, instead of simply vigorously moving to challenge all opposing viewpoints, which is very much how you came across here. Secondly, the invocation of WP:TITLE here is a bit of a canard; all three titles clearly pass the criterion you are citing, as there is no serious concern about readers not being confirmed in their finding of the correct page. There are, indeed, quite a few potentially valid article titles that would fail this criterion- Napoleone di Buonaparte, for example, since very few people at all know this name- but none of them are under consideration. As a result, I see no reason why we should be concerned about whether or not this title, or any of them, pass this particular policy point; it seems quite a bit likely this is just quoting of policy for policy's sake. Because we have already easily passed this policy by by what is really quite a wide margin, as john k pointed out (the very reason I referenced his comment in the first place), other concerns are much more pressing. These other concerns are best handled by the guideline that has been extensively quoted. siafu (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Albrecht, I had to use google to find the source of your quote above... an essay! When you quote something, please cite the source. Anyway, the lack of established consensus support for anything that essay (or any other one) says aside, while I agree that in cases where a policy page gives broad (and thus vague) advice, but the guideline gives more precise guidance that does not conflict with what the policy says, the guideline should be followed. But that is not the case here at all.

As to your suggestion that using WP:TITLE is a "novel tactic" and "a strategic manoeuvre aiming to circumvent or evade", please see my user page, my FAQ, and countless RM discussions. Invoking WP:TITLE for guidance on how to name articles is common practice, and has been for years. In general, I think it's safe to say that following specific guidelines when the indicated name conflicts with WP:TITLE is becoming less and less common, and within the last few months this practice has begun to apply finally to articles about royalty, though apparently there are still some holdouts. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support He was never recognised as an emperor by the British which is why they refused to sign the treaty of Treaty of Fontainebleau in 1814, consequently to this day many British sources continue to refer to him as Napoleon Bonaparte. When he came back from exile almost no other state but France recognised him as Emperor of the French, most of them subscribed to the idea that he was an outlaw. Perhaps if Napoleon Bonaparte is not acceptable, we could go for the article title Napoleon (outlaw) as a disambiguation ;-) "Boney was a Warrior" -- PBS (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest Napoleon (usurper) as more precise per WP:PRECISE. Or perhaps The Corsican Ogre. That was definitely his WP:COMMONNAME among British kindergarten children of the times. walk victor falk talk 04:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I don't know what you're reading in WP:PRECISE, but Napoleon (usurper) would be the epitome of "more precise than necessary" per that.

And it should go without saying that the most common name used by British kindergarteners at the time is irrelevant here.

You're grasping, man. You might have the numbers among those who happen to be participating here, but you sure don't have the arguments. I hope the closer takes that into account. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - before anyone else gets in a huff. B2C - that was a joke/sarcasm by Victor. And at the moment, the support !votes actually outnumber the opposes 15 to 11. Dohn joe (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
He may be considered to be an "outlaw" in la perfide Albion, but his civil code[17] has been adopted & adapted in several countries. Not bad for an outlaw !

!--Frania W. (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think someone brought up this argument in the past. Actually, Great Britain was an exception in not recognising Napoleon as Emperor. But what I find funny about the entire comment is that Napoleon actually had more legitimacy not only than any of the British sovereigns, past and present, but also more legitimacy than most of Prime Ministers throughout British history, up to the reforms at the beginning of the XXth century. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. It's really good to see so much relatively high quality debate. I probably should have supported the move to "Napoleon". This is the English Wikipedia and 99% of English-speaking people have never heard the term "Napoleon I". This makes the Wikipedia article both informative at title level, but then counter to standard usage and recognisability for almost every English speaking person. I know the reason some people oppose a move away from the monarchical "Napoleon I" is that they're good-hearted fans of Napoleon and point out that the English establishment regarded him as usurper and pushed that propaganda. I think this concern is mostly overidden by COMMONNAME but given the existence of Napoleon III, "Napoleon Bonaparte" seems incongruous despite the fact it is recognisable whereas "Napoleon I" has never been heard of by 99% of English speaking people. Even though Napoleon was a legitimate emperor I don't think the article should be titled "Napoleon I" because recognisability could be more important than technical legitimacy. I would support a move to "Napoleon" as this is simple, which is always good, recognisable, which is a key criteria, but does maintain some monarchical legitimacy. Tom B (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • What is the basis for the contention that "Napoleon I has never been heard of by 99% of English speaking people"? I have to say I absolutely don't understand the argument that "Napoleon I" is potentially confusing. It is a name used as the title of many of his biographies. It's what many other encyclopedias use. Beyond that, again, we need a name that is familiar to people familiar with the topic, not all English-speakers. john k (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • We need a name for people unfamiliar with the topic because this is an encyclopedia. People have used the argument that Napoleon is more recognisable than Napoleon I because it is, surely this is understandable? That is the basis for the contention. Tom B (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
        • But the guideline is to use names familiar to people familiar with the topic, not names familiar to people ignorant of the topic. At any rate, my basic point throughout has been that there are a number of concerns at play in article naming, and that recognizability is only one of them. "Napoleon I" may be very slightly less recognizable than the other names suggested, but it is still perfectly recognizable - it's not like calling the article on George Orwell Eric Blair, or something. That being said, "Napoleon I" offers numerous advantages not held by other potential titles - it is consistent with the titles of the later French rulers, it doesn't only properly refer to the earlier part of his life, it is utterly unambiguous. john k (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - it's marginally more helpful than the present title. Deb (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCROY, and other reasons already mentioned. I would support a move to simply "Napoleon" though. This is what, the fifth time we've had this debate? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If we didn't have Napoleon II & Napoleon III it might fly, but we do have II & III. As for the "Average Joe" argument, maybe "Joe" will learn something new by leaving the title as Napoleon I. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    What does having Napoleons II and III have anything to do with how we name this article? We have Catherine I of Russia, but Catherine the Great instead of Catherine II of Russia. This is a similar situation - in a line of monarchs, there is one that is better known other than by his regnal title. Here, "Napoleon" would be best, but "Napoleon Bonaparte" is better than "Napoleon I". Dohn joe (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It seem some editors are not so much for "Napoleon Bonaparte" than against "Napoleon I" at whatever cost, for reasons I cannot entirely fathom. walk victor falk talk 21:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but for me, I've tried to make clear the reason that "Napoleon I" is not the best title: simply put, this person is more widely known as "Napoleon" or "Napoleon Bonaparte". There may not be a tremendous amount of confusion with "Napoleon I", but there is some. And any increase in the recognizability of an article title is an improvement for Wikipedia and its readers. Dohn joe (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll reply to your question to Dr. Dan first. If this article were named "Napoleon Bonaparte", then the article about the man who reigned would not have a regnal number, while that of the one who did not reign, Napoleon II would have one. This unnecessary confusion is easily avoided by naming it something other than "Napoleon Bonaparte", Napoleon I for instance. This is a much greater source of potential confusion than between "Napoleon" and "Napoleon I", which I believe is vanishingly marginal, and that you yourself admit is "not tremendous". And even if it was a more than marginal, it would not be acceptable if it came at the price of historical accuracy walk victor falk talk 22:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There is nothing inaccurate about Napoleon Bonaparte, or more accurate about Napoleon I. They're both just names, and accurate ones. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This has argued at length and in many different discussions. Napoleon I (or any form of regnal name) conveys the information that he reigned (as emperor), which "Napoleon Bonaparte" does not, so it is more accurate. They're not "just names", and a name change is far from being as innocuous as some appear to naively believe. The use of the latter is reserved as a historiographical convention for his life before he became emperor. To use it as the title for an article about his entire life could be construed as an attempt to de-emphasis his emperorship and a form of historical revisionism. walk victor falk talk 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, this is where the problem is. An article title is not supposed to convey anything other than how the topic is most commonly, normally, and naturally referenced. Conveying that the subject of the article is a person, much less one of royalty, is not something a title is supposed to do. By your argument President Abraham Lincoln is "more accurate" than Abraham Lincoln because the former conveys he was a president while the latter does not, so should be preferred. But "more accurate" in this context is not about whether it conveys some characteristic of the topic (like whether he was an emperor or a president), but whether it accurately reflects how that topic is commonly, normally, and naturally referenced.

      Trying to convey anything beyond how the topic is commonly named or referenced, including something about what the topic is, is opening up a can of worms that should remain tightly shut for every single article title in WP, expect when necessary and appropriate for disambiguation from other uses of the same name (and when there is no primary topic, which is not the case here) --Born2cycle (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I think some supporting the move (like me) agree that it's not the perfect solution but still think that "Napoleon Bonaparte" is better than "Napoleon I". The best solution would have been "Napoleon", but since consensus was against it, the second-best option is still better than the current one. I'm not objective of course but if consensus is that "Napoleon" would be preferable after all, the closing admin can always close the discussion that way. After all, people on both sides of the debate expressed that "Napoleon" would have been a better title. Regards SoWhy 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The British, for a generation, perpetrated myths about the "Corsican Ogre". Vilifying him, and creating a POV that still exists in many modern sources. "Napoleon Bonaparte" was part of that anti-Napoleon campaign, it was part of an attempt to deny the legitimacy of his reign. While most English speaking people do indeed know him by that name, it is because of centuries propaganda. To continue to reference him by the name just perpetuates that propaganda. This is part of the very reason that NCRY was created. Royalty should be called by their regal name and cardinal. The only alternative to this title that fit the policy is "Napoleon I". To go outside of the policy "Napoleon" is the only neutral option. Napoleon I is the only non-policy\guideline violating option. As all three titles redirect to this article anyways, it really makes no difference in any event. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Wondering what unearthed arguments will be brought up next time...
--Frania W. (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Without wanting to slight you, I think the decision whether it's "pretty clear there is no consensus" should not be made by someone who actively opposed the proposal. ;-) Regards SoWhy 15:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken. :) I agree a neutral party should close the thread. I was merely hoping to hasten that event, the debate is over a week old now. We can keep going, but I doubt consensus will be found. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Scorecard

For those interested in numbers, here's how the !vote stands (please update this list as necessary):

  • Support - 16 !votes, of which 5 indicated a preference for plain "Napoleon".
  • Oppose - 15 !votes, of which 2 indicated a preference for plain "Napoleon".

Of course, this tally does not take into account the relative merits of any of the arguments - that's for the lucky closing admin to evaluate. Dohn joe (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Further Discussion

Regardless of how this goes, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that the current title does not enjoy consensus support.

I suggest that regardless of whether the article is moved to the proposed Napoleon Bonaparte or stays at Napoleon I, there will be no consensus support, but I would bet that if the closing admin had the cajones to boldly change the name to Napoleon, within a few months that title would clearly have consensus support, effectively for all time.

This is because there are legitimate and strong arguments to be made about moving from Napoleon I orNapoleon Bonaparte to Napoleon (see above), but the arguments to move Napoleon to either of those two names are very weak at best. This is also why those who support Napoleon I are so desperate to keep it here - they know at least instinctively that if it is ever moved to Napoleon, there will be little if any hope of it ever moving back.

Unfortunately, most closing admins these days seem to prefer the easy route and simply close discussions like this as "no consensus", and so we are never lifted from the quagmire. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be really getting ahead of yourself there. I for one, strongly support that the article be maintained as Napoleon I, but I am not at all "desperate to keep it here". Furthermore, your claim that "arguments to move Napoleon to either of those two names are weak at best" is presumptuous and fails to account for the fact that the current title is:
  • in accordance with naming conventions of some of the most reputable and scientifically-accurate encyclopedias out there (both generalist and specialised ones);
  • the correct title of a monarch, whose accession to power was legitimized through plebiscite, a practice that was highly democratic for the beginning of the XIXth century;
  • clear and several editors noted that they fail to see how someone who does not know that "Napoleon I" is the "Napoleon" would actually fail to find the article if it remains named Napoleon I. This is not the same as Catherine II of Russia/Catherine the Great, where confusion or difficulties in finding the actual person are possible. Furthermore, those who say that wikipedia should stand up to its status as an encyclopedia believe that wikipedia might educate the people who actually don't know that "Napoleon I" is the "Napoleon".
  • in clear accordance with wikipedia policies for royalty and sovereigns.
These are just examples of arguments opposing the move. The admin who will close the discussion will note, however, that other arguments against the move have been formulated.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, to avoid confusion: WP:NCROY that is cited to oppose any move requests is actually only a "naming convention", not "policy". It contains a large box at the top that says it should be "treated with common sense" and that "occasional exceptions may apply", so it's not in itself an argument against the move since those in support have expressed sufficient reasons why common sense warrants an exception to the rule. If you want to argue against them, you cannot re-cite the same rule, you need to demonstrate that no exception is warranted. Saying that "others do it the same way" is equally a non-argument (an argumentum ad populum to be precise]] as is pointing out that it's the title of a monarch (but unlike most other monarchs, Napoleon's life before accession was of great historic interest as well). Also, arguing that people "will find it" is a straw man: Changing the article's title will not change it's content and readers will still find out that "Napoleon I" is the "Napoleon". The change to the title would neither make it more difficult to find this article nor to find out facts about this subject. Regards SoWhy 09:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Having an interesting life before coronation is not argument enough for an exception; by that logic Charles XIV John of Sweden should be moved to Jean Bernadotte. At least the French marshal is arguably more famous than the Swedish king, but you can't say the emperor was less known than the general.
  • Regarding using "Napoleon" alone, I'd like to repeat what I said to some that wanted to omit "the Great" in Talk:Cnut_the_Great#Requested_move:

See my ngrams in the RM !vote above. Whether Cnut or Canute is chosen, "the Great" should be included in the title. Only people with one name and one name only should have a one-word article title: Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Anaxarchus, Anaximenes, Anaxilas, etc. Also, Indonesian_names#Example_1:_Single_word_name, like Sukarno and Suharto. Cnut had a patronym, Sweynsson as son of Sweyn Forkbeard, in addition to his "Great" nickname/epithet/cognomen. Notice how common they were: Forkbeard, Bluetooh, Fairhair, Bloodaxe, the Old, the Brash, the Victorious, and so on, so that all kings are identified by either an epithet or patronym and a a first name. WP:NCROY follow this logic: no monarch is identified by first name alone; there is no just Victoria but Queen Victoria and no plain Elizabeth but Elizabeth I. walk victor falk talk 23:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me where NCROY demands we use regnal numbers for everyone who reigned as a monarch? It seems like some people are insisting that "Napoleon I" is the only possible title for this article because Napoleon was an emperor. Where does this notion come from? Powers T 15:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexandru, you've listed several points against moving Napoleon I to Napoleon. That does not refute my point about there being no strong arguments for moving this article from Napoleon (assuming it is moved there first, of course) to Napoleon I.
Victor, let's not conflate article titles with titles of people. There is no requirement for an article title about a person with a title to reflect that title. In fact, except when that person also happens to be best known when referred with that title, using the title (be it a regnal name or not) is arguably contrary to the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia article titling, as spelled out at WP:AT.

Since in this case the subject is clearly better known as Napoleon than as Napoleon I (not to mention that the former is more concise and natural), and is the primary topic for Napoleon, the article should be at Napoleon. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon is best known as the emperor with that name, therefore the article should reflect that, balancing accuracy, precision, recognisability, consistency, and conciseness per wp:at (first section,"deciding on an article title"; you can click on either one of the two links you conveniently provided). Napoleon I does a much better job of that than "Napoleon Bonaparte". walk victor falk talk 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Victor - how do you feel about "Napoleon"? It's the most recognizable and concise title. It's accurate (unlike the other two options, "Napoleon" accurately refers to the man's entire life). It's precise (as shown by the fact that Napoleon redirects to this article). The only thing it lacks is consistency with Napoleon II and Napoleon III. But as we know, there are other examples of dropping the ordinal (Frederick the Great, William the Conqueror, et al.). What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
See my reasoning about Cnut in the quote box above. walk victor falk talk 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. But would you agree that "Napoleon" at least satisfies the qualities mentioned - accuracy, precision, conciseness, and recognizbaility? And what do you say to articles like Michelangelo (whose full name was Michelangelo Buonarroti)? Dohn joe (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You mentioned Michelangelo in the earlier discussion [19]. I agree with the replies. They're not comparable: Michelangelo (and Donatello!) are exceptions that confirm the rule; whether only experts and people with special interests know their last names, or even that they had a last name, people even with very limited knowledge about "Napoleon" know it was a first name (Hence all the jokes of the type "I hereby proclaim myself Emperor Dohn the First and rule that emperors shall be known by their first name and their first name only and nothing but their first names." Or Emperor Norton :). walk victor falk talk 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see where it's written anywhere that people who were monarchs must have article titles that clearly indicate that they were monarchs. Powers T 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the pretty much the gist of the whole of ncroy. Did you know that many micronations celebrate January 8 as "Emperor Norton" Day? walk victor falk talk 04:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
NCROY doesn't trump WP:COMMONNAME, and nothing in there says it does. And what does Emperor Norton have to do with anything? Powers T 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Napoleon may also be included in the list of Italians ?

  • Napoleon was of Italian parentage. [As: Giuseppe Buonaparte (Grandfather) or Carlo Maria Buonaparte (father)]
  • The Italian language was his mother tongue.
  • Modern military art and science are of Italian origin, and Napoleon Bonaparte, the great captain, was born an Italian, and of an Italian stock, and, though Emperor of the French, was never a Frenchman. This was Napoleon Bonaparte, a man from the island of Corsica, of Italian parentage, but a French citizen, for the island had been forcibly the annexed to France shortly before his birth. He always spoke French with a marked Italian accent.

Sources :

10 Ten historians.

Napoleon was himself an Italian, and showed his sense of his origin by the particular care which he always took of that nation, where whatever benefits his administrations conferred on the people, reached them both more profusely and reached them bmore directly than in any other part of his empire. [...]

Horne, Richard H. The history of Napoleon Bonaparte. G. Routledge and Sons, 1878. Page 1.
"He also inquired how the Christian name of his son, Napoleone, could be translated into French. At that time Napoleon's father was the representative of Corsica at the Court of France. He sent a reply from Versailles, saying the Republic of Genoa had, two hundred years previously, given to one of his ancestors, Jerome, the title of Egregiitm Hieronium de Buonaparte, and that the article de had been omitted because it was of very little use in Italy; that Napoleone was Italian; and that his family name was "Buonaparte," or "Bonaparte." The Bonapartes are of Tuscan origin. In the middle ages they were eminent as senators of the Republics of Florence, San Miniato, Bologna, Sarzana, and Treviso; and as prelates attached to the Court of Rome. They were allied to the Medici, the Orsini, and Lomellini families." Web. 03 Mar. 2011.

Is correct put Napoleon on both lists. --Davide41 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He was not born an Italian; however, maybe he should be included in category of "French people of Italian descent": his nephew Napoléon III is included in that category. By the same token, Napoléon II should be in that category also.
--Frania W. (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the same thing. A Frenchman. Then? Other opinions? --Davide41 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He was ethnically Italian, but French in nationality. Corsica, the place of this birth, was part of France and is still part of France today, and the inhabitants are French, not Italian. So I agree with the previous comment, he is both French and Italian. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There are at least six credible sources (in English) who say that Napoleon was Italian.

As: Napoleon an Italian. The first point which Taine brings out is that this mighty despot, who ruled France as she had never been ruled before, was not even a Frenchman. Thomas Power O'Connor, Napoleon, 1896. But... --Davide41 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Davide41, I honestly doubt that these sources that you are quoting are mainstream. I remember reading at least a dozen biographies of Napoleon throughout the years, of which perhaps the most reputable are the ones by Tulard, Lefebvre, Castelot, Andrew Roberts, Tarle and Max Gallo. I don't remember to have read anywhere in these books that he was an Italian. I agree with Frania's comment, in that we could state that he was French of Italian descent, but no more. You have to remember that a 10-year old Napoleon left Corsica for France and only returned years later and each time for brief periods. His military training was very much French and his military genius cannot be ascribed to anyone other than himself, although he did consider himself to be a student of Caesar and Frederick the Great; so his ties with Italian military science is loose at best. As a chief of state and reformer, Napoleon was self-trained and highly cultivated, but, again, Italian influence here was relatively minor: he read extensively, mostly French illuminists and some German philosophers. During his first Italian campaign, he did enjoy a fine Comedia dell'Arte from time to time, but, again, no more. Throughout his life, he adopted French habits and repeatedly stated his love for his country and pride of being French. Not the same thing can be said of his Italian origins and he was at times disdainful towards Italian and Neapolitan military prowess, stating that the Kingdom of Italy never provided the number of regiments that he expected and the Neapolitans fought badly. Not really the kind of words you use when talking about a nation with which you identify and to which you believe that you belong above any other. So, IMHO, Napoleon was French, of Italian descent, but no more.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Good sources. All teachers. Napoleon was much more an Italian than a Frenchman. His father and mother were Italians, his ancestors were Italian, and Italian was his mother-tongue. His family and Christian names were Italian. He always spoke French with the strongest Italian accent. I repeat my previous comment: " He was born Italian but later on became a French Emperor. Napoleon Bonaparte is technically "Italian."(1) " --Davide41 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) The Italian language, i.e. Tuscan or Roman, was a sort of lingua franca among the Genoese, Tuscans, Corsicans, Venetians, Neapolitans, Umbrians, Romans, and Sicilians who met outside of their common homeland, which already had a well-defined traditional and literary identity, but no political unity. --Davide41 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's my personal point of view. Correct. Absolutely. But I accept. --Davide41 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Davide41,
Napoléon I and Alexandre Dumas:
Napoléon Bonaparte was born in Corsica, which had become French one year before his birth, he was thus a French citizen - and only French - at birth, although no one is arguing that he was not 100 percent of Italian blood. No one disputes his ancestry anymore than anyone would dispute the fact that French writer Alexandre Dumas had African blood running through his veins. Yet, Alexandre Dumas is known as a French writer, not African, and is in Wikipedia category of "French people of African descent", as Napoléon I, II & III should be in the category of "French people of Italian descent".
Another example would be with French people from Savoie, which was annexed to France in 1860. Would you say that the couturier Pierre Balmain (1914-1982), the writer Henry Bordeaux (1870-1963) or the architect Maurice Novarina (1907-2002), all of them pure Savoyard-blooded, were not French because born in Savoie?
--Frania W. (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem is we are conflating ethnicity with nationality. Savoy has always been more or less ethnically French, so obviously people born in Savoy after 1860 are simply described as "French." Napoleon, on the other hand, was certainly born a subject of Louis XV, and thus "French," but was also ethnically Italian, and of course Corsica itself had only just become French at the time of his birth - his older brother Joseph could arguably be called Genoese. I do think that "French people of Italian descent" makes the most sense here. On the other hand...Napoleon was, in addition to being Emperor of the French, King of Italy. Does that make him ex officio Italian? john k (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Quoting John k: Napoleon was, in addition to being Emperor of the French, King of Italy. Does that make him ex officio Italian?
Maybe, but he was not born "King of Italy" and, at time of birth, was a French citizen (of Italian descent, which would not show on his birth certificate).
--Frania W. (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Napoleon was also Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine and Mediator of the Swiss Confederation (Napoleonic). Also, he annexed the Kingdom of Holland and Catalonia into the French Empire. If we say that he was Italian ex officio because he was King of Italy, then we would have to say that he was also German, Swiss, Dutch-Belgian and Spanish.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
A protector and a mediator are rather different from a king. john k (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The French critic and historian Hippolyte Adolphe Taine, even he does not deny that Napoleon was "Italian," his exact words being: "Napoleon, far more Italian than French, Italian by race, istinct and imagination" and that "Considers in his plan the future of Italy." [ Two books ok Napoleon; Taine's New and Last Volume. The modern regime. By Hippolyte Adolphe Taine. Translated by John Durand. Vol. II. mo. ] --Davide41 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But... Many sources...

  • At least 20 Historians
  • Credible sources

There are enough sources "out there..." to at least make an arguable case for inclusion here. Because he is on the French list does not automatically exclude him here, Wikipedia has to deal with contradictory sources all the time, and often, the best thing for an encyclopedia to say is that the sources do not agree. --Davide41 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Moi, Italiano? The tediousness of arguing

Mine and Davide41's edit warring at List of Italians has now reached tedious level.

Just checking: as I understand it the consensus is that N was French, but of Italian origin. This means he cannot be included in the list of Italians, but he can be on a list of people of Italian origin, or of French people of Italian origin. If, as Davide41 seems to suggest (and I'm not trying to put words into his mouth, I just have difficulty understanding his writings), sources do not agree on N's nationality, this needs to be addressed or discussed in the main body of the article (cannot cite the exact policy), or else dismissed as misinterpretation, original research, POV editing, or fringe theory.

If a different consensus is not reached, and as I understand from WP's policies, Davide41 could then be warned (and eventually barred from editing for not complying) if he/she continues with this trend. Thoughts? Egg carton (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Napoleon was much more an Italian than a Frenchman. His father and mother were Italians, his ancestors were Italian (is essential to remember, had not a drop of French blood in his veins) and Italian was his mother-tongue. His family and Christian names were Italian. Always fluent in his native Italian, Napoleon learned French as a second language, speaking it with a heavy accent and unable to write it grammatically. The spelling of the name was changed from the Corsican-Italian form Buonaparte only in 1796. His manners, gestures, and mode of speech were Italian; he was Italian in his fierce explosions of rage; Italian in his declamatory eloquence [...]
  • These are historically certain facts.

original research, POV editing, or fringe theory.

  • At least 20 Historians
  • Credible sources

The historical journal « Storia In Rete » (whose documentaries are used by broadcasters: RAI and La7) included him in list of the most influential figures in Italian history. Scientific Committee:

Other Historians : Hippolyte Taine, Walter Scott, John Holland Rose, Etc. Outside of specialized studies, many authoritative figures in science and in letters have had the occasion to express their convictions regarding an Italian Napoleon (or rather, more an Italian than a Frenchman): Thomas E. Watson, Sir Winston Churchill, Richard H. Horne, Etc.

"Sources do not agree." Is correct put Napoleon on both lists.

Go read dear child --Davide41 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean when I was talking about tendentious editing? The same over and over again. Plus name calling. Egg carton (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources. Is needless to argue with you. You are biased. End.--Davide41 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that Napoleon was ethnically Italian or that Italian was his native language. He was, however, born and lived his entire life up to 1814 in France, with the exception of his military campaigns. Corsica, where he was born, was ethnically Italian, but part of France at the time of his birth. Your citations are irrelevant because none of them is saying any more than that Napoleon was ethnically Italian, something nobody is disputing. The question is, what does it mean to say someone is "Italian"? I don't see how the case here is any different from that of an Italian-speaking Swiss person. Would you call a German-speaker from South Tyrol German or Austrian? john k (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous move result

Should I have just not voted, then waited until it was time to close and closed the move vote however I felt like it? Because that's what just happened. We had a move discussion a month ago as to whether to move to Napoleon. That position was fairly strongly rejected. Then we just had another move discussion deciding between Napoleon I and Napoleon Bonaparte, which was pretty much equally divided. The upshot? Closing admin comes along and moves to the location that was strongly rejected just one month ago. If RegentsPark thinks that Napoleon is the best location for this article, that's fine. But I don't see why he has any power to decide on such a move given the obvious lack of any consensus. Admins aren't gods. We don't get to simply decide to move pages to the location we like best. Our role is to use our tools to implement consensus, and there was nothing even vaguely close to consensus here. If RegentsPark feels strongly that the article should be at Napoleon, then he ought to have voted in the move discussion, not closed the move vote and moved to a location for which there is no evidence of consensus support. RegentsPark has no more right to unilaterally decide where the article should be than anybody else. john k (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that I am strongly, strongly inclined to reverse this move. john k (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree; where the hell did this come from? A few commentators noted that they preferred "Napoleon", but it was easily the least desired of the three options. siafu (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a bold move, to be sure, but I suggest only time will tell if it was the right or wrong decision. I suggest we leave it as be for at least six months. If there is consensus to move from Napoleon in six months, I hereby pledge my time and efforts to have it moved accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, you would suggest that, given that it's what you wanted all along. You know very well, of course, that we'll never get a proper consensus for any of these three options. But the article should remain where it is until such a consensus can be found. john k (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the theory that as long as there is no consensus to move, that the article should remain at A, even though there is obviously no consensus to keep it at A. The problem is that even though there is no consensus to move to B (or C or D), that does not mean that B (or C or D) won't gain consensus support once the article is moved there.

If there is obviously no consensus to keep an article where it is, then it should usually be moved to a title for which there is support (though perhaps not yet full consensus support), to see if consensus support for that other title develops with time.

This lesson should be well known by anyone involved with U.S. city debacles. For years many major cities like Chicago, Illinois, San Francisco, California, Los Angeles, California, etc. did not have consensus support to be at their titles, but consensus could not be established to move them to their more concise names either, though the moves were proposed fairly regularly. Finally when the great AP city compromise was achieved, they were moved, and nobody has ever even proposed moving any of them back to their previous names since. The current names are clearly stable. I do believe the same will occur with Napoleon, but here too only time will tell for sure. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But there actually was consensus, or at least super-majority support, for the AP city compromise. There was nothing of the kind here. john k (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there was consensus support for the AP city compromise, and that's why the articles were finally moved. But my point is that once moved they were stable, and I suggest that's not because of the AP city compromise, but because they are inherently the "natural" names for those topics, just as "Napoleon" is the "natural" name for this one.

In general, specific naming guidelines are very useful for cases where there is no clear well-known natural name for the topic in question. But when there is a natural name, following the specific guideline instead of the natural/obvious name usually ends up being controversial (especially if the topic is particularly well-known), and rarely has consensus support, until the article is finally moved to the natural name, as was just done here, finally. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the guidelines but their over-application; and the solution is not to push for "natural" names regardless of circumstances.


  • I respect Regent's Park for his attempt to cut through consensus to achieved a desirable outcome. Though need it being said, it's important to land on your feet on the right side of the line. I also disagree with the redirect argument; sometimes they point at the right title, sometimes not, this must be judged case by case. More importantly I disagree with this interpretation of wp:at:
  • Recognizability Without reading any further than the title, one is more certain to have reached the article about the man and not the gold coin or the cognac or the man from UNCLE or whatnot.
  • Naturalness There is nothing less natural about "the First" than about other monarchs. John I, Ethelred I, Arthur I, those are unnatural-sounding names.
  • Precision much more descriptive, see "recognizability"
  • Conciseness Saving one character, two if count the space, is such a pitiful miser that even a Dickensian avaricious character would hardly bother about it. On the other hand, this single character conveys a of information with a very high signal-to-noise ratio.
  • Consistency Here we all agree it fits better with II & III.
Basically, all arguments for moving boil down to "it's an unusual surname". Yes, but it is not sufficient in and by itself. If he had been called "Joseph, " "Louis" or "Charles" we wouldn't be having any arguments.
Now that I look the new lead, it feels unfocussed the three different names(the title plus the two in bold). That the "I" comes first in the middle of the long sentence, it seems like an afterthought, something not really important, when we all know what role the Empire meant both for him personally and for Europe politically.
On more thing: just as "Napoleon Bonaparte" can be seen as a derogatory put-down, "Napoleon" emphasises his uniqueness and this could construed as viewing him as some kind of übermensch. walk victor falk talk 01:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ûbermensch, that is exactly what it is trying to convey. But no one is mentioning that Napoléon himself decided that he would be number one when he divorced his first wife, and married his second one only in order to have a son who would succeed him, and that son, whom he named Napoléon, would become Napoléon II, implying that, after becoming Emperor, Napoléon Bonaparte considered himself to be Napoléon I.
Of course, that was before Waterloo and... Wikipedia.
--Frania W. (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

Born2cycle has rewritten the first sentence to begin "Napoleon...", citing WP:LEAD#First_sentence. I reverted once, and still think that beginning with "Napoleon Bonaparte..." is fine. For policy, see the second bullet of that guideline: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, including variations... For examples, see articles like Petrarch, which begins, "Francesco Petrarca..."; or Björk, which begins, "Björk Guðmundsdóttir..." Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that Srnec already changed it back. So this will at least serve as a policy-based rationale for doing so if it's challenged again. Dohn joe (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

B2C - look again at the second bullet point of WP:LEAD#First_sentence. Further, note that for biographical articles, WP:LEAD directs us to WP:NAMES. Look in particular at WP:NAMES#Names, where its says, While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version. (emphasis added) Dohn joe (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion.

I have no objection to following WP:NAMES in terms of giving the full name in the lead paragraph, and my latest change did that. My objection is to using the full name as the grammatical subject of the lead sentence, which goes against the "the page title should be the subject of the first sentence."" guidance given at WP:LEAD#First_sentence.

This is especially problematic with this topic because using the full name to refer to this particular person is not done as consistently in reliable sources as it is typically done for most other people. For example, here is a biography about him that does not even mention the name "Bonaparte" until an appendix. I don't think we should incorrectly imply that the subject of this article is universally referred to by his full name in reliable sources, which we would be doing by using the full name as the subject of the lead sentence.

He is referred to most commonly, even in reliable sources, not by full name, but by just Napoleon. That's why the article title is what it is, and the subject of the first sentence should reflect and reinforce this point, while at the same time also giving the full name per WP:NAMES. That's exactly what this sentence does:

Napoleon (French: Napoléon Bonaparte [napoleɔ̃ bɔnɑpaʁt]; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), also known as Napoleon I, Emperor of the French or his full name Napoleon Bonaparte, was ...
That version follows all of the pertinent guidance. What is your objection to it? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I tend to think we should give "Napoleon I" as his full name, and then Napoleon Bonaparte as his birth name. He is never formally known as simply "Napoleon" - that is a shortening of either "Napoleon I" (in the way that you'll often see Louis XIV called "Louis", or Napoleon III called "Napoleon") or, less correctly, a short or familiar way of referring to Napoleon Bonaparte. john k (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
But Napoleon Bonaparte is not his birth name. It is an Anglicisation of a Gallicisation of his Corsican Italian name. His regnal name, Napoleon I, is just his good old first name. He did not change his name like George VI or John Paul II. This is why I believe my proposed intro is the least misleading (although I would add dates for his imperial reign). Srnec (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I tried out a new first sentence along those lines. B2C, I think my sentence also follows WP's guidelines.
  • From WP:LEAD: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, including variations...
  • From WP:NAMES: the article should start with the complete version (of the subject's name, which in this case could be either "Napoleon Bonaparte" or "Napoleon I") Dohn joe (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't have an issue with the guidance about using "the complete version of the subject's name". My point is that in common usage Napoleon alone is "the complete version". "Napoleon I" and "Napoleon Bonaparte" are also used, to be sure, and should be mentioned, but they are not used as often as simply "Napoleon". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      It's actually fairly common for the subject of the first sentence to differ from the article title, when the article title is a single name. For examples, I mentioned above Petrarch and Björk. There's also Michelangelo, and many others. Doesn't this article fall under the same category? Dohn joe (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      If biographies and biographical articles about these figures often refer to them exclusively by first name without mentioning a more complete name, then they do fall in the same category, but I don't believe that's the case. For example, in the first book I searched on Michelangelo, his full name is mentioned only once, but it's at the beginning of the book. I suspect Napoleon is a fairly unique case, but not unprecedented. For example, the subject of the lead sentence in Cher is Cher. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      I'm not sure I understand you. I have yet to find a book on Napoleon that doesn't mention "Bonaparte" as well. The book you cited above has over 100 instances of "Bonaparte". And in the first Michelangelo book I found on Google Books, the only mention in the text of "Michelangelo Buonarroti" is in a translation of his signature from Latin. I would venture that "Napoleon Bonaparte" is much more commonly found, relatively speaking, than "Michelangelo Buonarroti", and yet that article does not begin with plain "Michelangelo". Can you help me understand your position? Dohn joe (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
      "Most common name" is absoluely in no way a principle in what title you use at the beginning of the article. We have "Anthony Charles Lynton 'Tony' Blair" rather than "Tony Blair," but we can't have "Napoleon I" because of some bizarre interpretation that "Napoleon" is his full name? No, it's not. He's not Cher. He's called Napoleon because he was a monarch, not because he dropped his last name. You basically want us to imply that his name is more like Cher's than it is like Louis XVI's. That is pure nonsense. john k (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Napoléon Bonaparte is neither Cher nor[20]→→→[[21]]
--Frania W. (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the reason and logic is indisputable. I stand corrected on several points. Accordingly, I now support using Napoleon Bonaparte as the subject of the lead sentence, per all the arguments above. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
[22] --Garfield

Edit request from IvanImperator, 21 March 2011

ENGLAND'S WARS AGAINST NAPOLEON By John Tarttelin, MA (History)

John Abbott said he "admires Napoleon because he abhorred war, and did everything in his power to avert that dire calamity..." 1 What to some may seem revisionism can, nevertheless, be the truth. The mis-named Napoleonic wars were caused, fostered and prosecuted by England against Napoleon. Not only were they expensive in terms of human life and British gold, they were not even necessary. Napoleon wanted peace with England and he tried repeatedly to get the British Cabinet to come to terms. But fate shot Napoleon's Fox. Had that illustrious statesman lived a little longer, England and France would have become friends and allies.

War was inevitalbe as the power elites of Europe could not accept the Republic's example on their doorstep (especially post-Terror). Even if leaders in England worked against war, their allies would have dragged them in eventually. Nonetheless it is true Napoleon wished to avoid war and his first priority was a secure French republic, not victory against any particular enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronsdavis (talk • contribs) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[... text deleted by User:Martinvl ]

Pitt must have been looking in a mirror. Here is a case of physician heal thyself, of the Greek 'know thyself', and perfidious Albion being described in the apparent ravings of a lunatic.

IvanImperator (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The above text was deleted by another editor. I have reinstated it, but trimmed out all save the first and last paragraphs as it is a direct copy of the webpage that can be found here. Would IvanImperator please register and then be more explicit as to why he posted that article here. Martinvl (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Why is the title just "Napoleon"? The page for Adolf Hitler isn't just "Hitler" and the page for Elvis Presley isn't just "Elvis". The name change seems really bizarre and unnecessary/ --80.5.222.104 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous IP 80.5.222.104: Please take the time to read ALL the debates on the naming of this article, because if you expect a simple answer... you asked the wrong question.
--Frania W. (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

edit request concerning the retreat from Russia

Does anyone else think "badly damaged" understates the plight of the French army in retreat from Moscow? I've heard estimates of up to 500,000 legionnaires killed in the Russian campaign. Possibly "almost completely destroyed" would be closer the mark. After all, casualties of up to 50% are commonly described as catastrophic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronsdavis (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks it would to get some quotations from sources. My understanding was that there were were extremely severe losses in the campaign, including in the retreat but that Napoleon rebuilt his army relatively quickly, albeit with inexperienced officers. Tom B (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

edit request from IP

Can someone correct the caption under the photo of the gold Napoleon coin? French for emperor is EMPEREUR, not EMPERERUR. Merci. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

good spot thanks fixed. to be honest there's a bit of image overload around there so we may have to remove some of the images Tom B (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Tom. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I'm pretty sure Napoleon was a freemason although I don't have references to sources that support this claim. Shouldn't we include a few sentences about his masonic life? If I'm correct he wasn't a very active mason, but he was very much inpired by the symbolism of masonry. It would be interesting to read a little bit about how freemasonry inspired his "code" example. Also his views on the state, religion and humanity in general reflect masonic thinking of his time (especially taken together; seperately, all of his views can be found elsewhere too). Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I could add a sentence or two. 129.125.216.127 (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

According to http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/napoleon.html, there is no clear agreement on whether or not Napoleon was ever a Freemason.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Mackey thinks he was -- http://books.google.com/books?id=CgETAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA507&dq=ARS+QUATUOR+CORONATORUM+napoleon --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
And there's a detailed analysis at http://www.iowamasoniclibrary.org/webforms/Downloads/Napoleon%20I%20and%20Freemasonry.pdf. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Napoléon (with accent)

WP:TITLE#Special characters states: 'Sometimes the most appropriate title will contain diacritics [...]' Therefore, shouldn't the main article title be Napoléon? Others (including Napoleon) could then redirect to Napoléon. Joséphine de Beauharnais is just one example of this convention. There are also inconsistencies in use of the name within the article. I was going to change them all to Napoléon but then spotted the title issues, so thought I'd ask here first. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

But that's only if the "most appropriate title" (emphasis added) contains such diacritics. It does not say that a title with diacritics should be used. In this case though, WP:COMMONNAME says that the title should be "Napoleon", since that's how it's usually written in English. As such, the section you cite would only be relevant if the correct name contained the diacritics which it does not in this case. Regards SoWhy 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I see. I did check the archived talk before posting and couldn't find any relevant discussion. At least it's all explained here now for editors in the future! --Trevj (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Encounter with an "infernal machine"

I've just come across a very odd reference to Napoleon, and in an unlikely place, Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (5th edition, 1954), in the article on Ignaz Pleyel (Vol. VI, p. 829). It's talking about a performance of Joseph Haydn's oratorio The Creation at the Paris Opéra on 3 Nivose (24 December) 1800. Pleyel's connection with this event is explained there, but it's not necessary to go into details here.

In relation to Napoleon, it says: "The evening of the concert ... was a memorable one, since on his road to the opera-house, in the Rue Saint-Nicaise, Bonaparte nearly met his death from an infernal machine".

That's it, no other explanation. What, pray, was this "infernal machine"? Is this incident known to historians, and was it really as life threatening as it appears? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The infernal machine was an explosive device (if memory serves me well, it was made of gunpowder barrels arranged in an unconspicuous peasant cart, drawn by a single horse). The device was built by royalist conspirators aiming to kill First Consul Bonaparte, although for quite a while, the Jacobine party was Napoleon's primary suspect. The machine was positioned along Bonaparte's route to the opera and its ill-time explosion happened only after Bonaparte's carriage had passed. Had it happened only a couple of minutes earlier, it would have been able to claim his life. As it were, it killed and wounded a large number of bystanders. Historians sometimes claim that after this incident, Napoleon became aware of the fragility of his rule and started thinking that only a dynastic form of rule would secure the conquests of Revolutionary France. In 1802, following a successful plebiscite, Bonaparte alone became the Consul of France for life and was granted the right to appoint a successor. So, it was a significant event by any standard and it had some major political consequences.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating, and thanks for such a quick and thorough response, Alexandru.demian. I'm amazed I've never heard of this before now, because it seems like the Napoleonic counterpart of the 1944 Adolf Hitler assassination attempt, which is extremely well known. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article.

Though Napoleon was not Roman Catholic, that would be equal to stating Barack Obama is Muslim which grossly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Question and comment

What is the etymology of the name "Napoleon"?

It is said that Napoleon's teacher said that Julius Caesar burns in Hell because he was not a Christian. How the heck (pun not intended) can Julius Caesar have been a Christian when he died before Jesus was born? JIP | Talk 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Late changes in Napoleon's view of Jesus

I think the section Napoleon and religions is missing an important change in Napoleons conception of Jesus in his last years. During his studies on St. Helena, he became convinced that Jesus was divine. See e.g. Philip Schaff. One important primary source for this seems to be the book Napoleon Bonaparte I., Conversations avec General Bertrand à St. Helena (I don't have this book, but you can find quotes from it on many places on the internet). --Tbleher (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I think the movie of napoleon that name is Empire napoleon and it has more effect on our information.Then we can find out the name of jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArashLone (talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

name of article

Why is this article named "Napoleon" when there was I-III? If dynastic name is not wished for, then at least this should be called "Napoleon Bonaparte". Gryffindor (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See recent talk archives, there have been some major debates about the 2 alternatives you describe. I would always look at talk archives for questions like this Tom B (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The name was chosen against consensus by an admin in the last discussion. That's why we're stuck with it. siafu (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The last move discussin is here, and yes, the move was done by an administrator without consensus. See here: Talk:Napoleon/Archive 5#Move to Napoleon Bonaparte.  Andreas  (T) 19:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Change the name to "Napoleon I"

That would be more proper. There were 3 Napoleons. Napoleon II, the son of Napoleon I. And Napoleon III, also leader of France for a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that. If thats the case then it should be changed.Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The current simple, clear title works for everyone--and covers much more than the period he was Emperor. Rjensen (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
So does Napoleon Bonaparte. The British never recognised him as as an emperor leaving of his family name implies he was regal. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The title should have remained "Napoleon I" per well established Wikipedia naming conventions, I'm only sorry I wasn't here to oppose the renaming. Whether the English recognized him as a monarch or not could not be less relevant. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The most common name used to refer to this topic is "Napoleon" and this Napolean is clearly the primary topic for "Napoleon". The current title answers our naming criteria questions better than any other. The current title is ideal for this article and this situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions on monarchs overrule simple commonname. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Should remain as it is, per WP:COMMONNAME.--JOJ Hutton 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
As I said, commonname applies only if specific naming conventions do not. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the specific naming convention then?--JOJ Hutton 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:NCROY, of course. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I opposed the renaming at the time when it was changed from 'Napoleon I' to 'Napoleon' and I won't restate my rationale for that again. For me, the fact that the article is not called 'Napoleon I' is an encyclopedic aberration. --Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, WP:NCROY states, "Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title.". "Napoleon" is the name by which this monarch is "clearly most commonly known" - and it identifies him unambiguously because no one else is called just Napoleon. So the current title is in complete compliance with WP:NCROY.

It's not that NCROY "overrules" COMMONNAME, it's that NCROY is needed for those articles for which the our principal naming criteria does not clearly indicate a title. That's not the case here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • @Alexandru.demian. The issue is not the personal preference of individual users, but whether the article title is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. In other words, your rationale does not seem to be based on policy.
  • @Born2cycle. Um.. a "cognomen" is a nickname, such as "the Great", "the Pious", "Charlemagne" etc. I can't imagine anyone could seriously claim that "Napoleon" is this man's cognomen under any definition - it is plainly just the name of the monarch without the ordinal, which is against Wikipedia naming conventions. Furthermore, if we choose to ignore the ordinal, then the current title is still off and should be "Napoleon, Emperor of the French" ("When there is no ordinal, the format John, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain is recommended."). Mind you I would not support that, since the ordinal is clearly necessary.

I can't believe this title passed in an RM. There must have been a real collective inclination to follow the English example and "not recognize" him as Emperor. This article title actually carries quite a bit of political meaning. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if you're going to put forward arguments based on WP:NCROY, I suggest you read it more carefully than that. Read it again. The cognomen clause has nothing to do with this, as it does not apply. It says, "Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known ...". Like I said, "Napoleon" is the name by which this monarch is "clearly most commonly known".

A reasonable objection to the title cannot be based on NCROY, as NCROY calls for the current title. This is why it was selected in the RM discussion. Now, since your objection cannot be based on NCROY, what is it based on? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See also: Catherine the Great and Peter the Great. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I did read WP:NCROY, there is no need for snide comments. Again, "Napoleon" is not "another name" as compared to "Napoleon I", that's an incredible stretch - its just his name without the ordinal for pete's sakes. I can't believe you'd consider "Napoleon" as "another name" of Napoleon I :). The proposition that "Napoleon" is to "Napoleon I" what "Charlemagne" is to "Charles I" imo makes very little sense.
I'm sure you'll find a great many monarchs who were the first of their name are referred to far more commonly without their ordinal, but Wikipedia almost universally uses it nevertheless to disambiguate (provided they weren't the last as well). As is explained in WP:MOSAT, naming conventions overrule commonname if they produce clear benefits such as disambiguation - for example between Napoleon I, Napoleon II, and Napoleon III, but also between Napoleon IV, Napoleon V, Napoleon VI, and Napoleon VII. This is a textbook example of an article that warrants application of WP:NCROY. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to sound snide, but I'm really not sure what to say when you make points that are clearly based on misreading what NCROY says. You just did it again, as a matter of fact.

First you latched onto the irrelevant "cognomen" clause, and now you're inexplicably assuming that "another name" (which isn't even in the text, but that's a nit, as "other name" is there) means "name other than the name in their title", or something like that, when "or other name" in "a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known" clearly means "name other than a cognomen (by which they are clearly most commonly known)", which of course "Napoleon" is for this topic. For the third time, "Napoleon" is the name by which this monarch is "clearly most commonly known".

And you're still not quite done with the cognomen red herring as revealed by your trying to compare the use of "Napoleon" here to "Charlemagne", which is the quintessential cognomen. "Napoleon" is not a cognomen for this monarch; it is the most common name by which he is known! That's the reason WP:NCROY says "Napoleon" should be used as the title here.

As to your new WP:MOSAT argument, here too you misread, or, actually, apparently completely ignore what it says... "This practice of using specialized names ... should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names". You have not demonstrated any "clear benefits outweighing the use of common name". Yes, Napoleon is ambiguous - but that's why we have the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, to determine whether one of the multiple uses of a given name is so well known and recognized in English as compared to all the other uses, that it warrants putting the article about that use at that name. If the topic of this article is not the primary topic for "Napoleon" (if that's your argument... is it?), then no ambiguous name can have a primary topic, which clearly is a position that goes against broad consensus at Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is such a weird discussion.. "Napoleon" is not a different name than "Napoleon I" - you're just excluding the ordinal. It is contrary to the spirit of NCROY to say "Napoleon" was an alternative name (or "other name" or whatever) for "Napoleon I". It is misinterpretation to use a provision devised for alternative names (such as "Charlemagne" for Charles I or "Skanderbeg" for George Kastrioti) to remove the ordinal from the name of a monarch. I'll say again, this is so weird I can't believe its on. It looks as though this person was one of those people with only one name, like Teller :).
From whatever perspective you look at it, the reasoning behind the current title is flawed. I mean I'm sure Barack Obama is far more commonly referred to as "Obama" than "Barack Obama", so should we rename that article as well? I mean if you aren't going to refer to him as "Napoleon I" as WP:NCROY proscribes, then Napoleon Bonaparte is the only other option. The idea that this person's actual first name should stand alone, without a surname or ordinal or royal title, because it was naturally "the most common name" makes no sense, and I've never seen it anywhere in all my years on Wikipedia. Of course people refer to him more frequently with one word rather than several - this is the case with virtually every single other person in the world. I mean if that's your argument than you'd best get busy renaming articles like Ernest Hemingway to "Hemingway" and the like. And it isn't just me, I cannot find a single other Wiki out there that uses this silly title. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to break this down for you, one more time. The statement in question is: Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known. Now, if we ignore the cognomen part, we get: Some monarchs have a name by which they are clearly most commonly known.

To see if that applies to a given case, like this one, the appropriate question to ask is: Does this monarch have a name by which they are clearly most commonly known? The answer to the question is, yes, and that name is "Napoleon".

Why you think it's relevant to point out that "Napoleon" is not a different name than "Napoleon I", or to say that it is contrary to the spirit of NCROY to say "Napoleon" was an alternative name (or "other name" or whatever) for "Napoleon I", is beyond me. No one is saying anything to the contrary of these obvious points.

Ah, I see you believe we're talking about a provision "devised for alternative names", by which you mean alternatives to the monarch's title. Yes? Well, that would be the correct interpretation if the statement in question said this: Some monarchs have a cognomen by which they are clearly most commonly known. But, of course, it doesn't say that. It's not restricted to only cognomens. That's why it says, Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known.

Our debate is really with respect to what "other" refers to here. You seem to think it means "a name other than than that which is the monarch's title", but I think it's clear it means "a name other than a cognomen". In any case, my interpretation is much better supported by naming policy, and, thus, by community consensus.

Now, your second paragraph is starting to a resemble a reasonable argument, but Napoleon, being much better known by this one name than by full name or even title (everyone who has heard of him would know "Napoleon" refers to that famous short French emperor, but "Napoleon I" or "Napoleon Bonaparte" is not as well known), is pretty unusual, so there isn't much precedent, especially among royalty. But there is Madonna. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stupid User:Born2cycle, nor is my argument, so I would appreciate it if you did not treat me as such. You're misinterpreting WP:NCROY. If we remove "the cognomen part", waht you get is "Some monarchs have (an) other name by which they are clearly most commonly known." Why you get the idea that the word "other" should be removed is beyond me, but regardless, examples such as "Charlemagne" and "Skanderbeg" illustrate the meaning quite clearly. "Napoleon" is not another or different or alternative name for this person than "Napoleon I", you are simply removing the ordinal.
As for the second paragraph, I believe I made my point quite clearly. Napoleon is by no means unique in being most commonly referred to by a single word, such as his first or last name. In fact, virtually every single person on this earth is more commonly referred to by either his surname or first name. By your interpretation of policy, the articles of these persons should be renamed to accommodate you. Off the top of my head, "Obama" [23] is three times more common than "Barack Obama" [24], "Sartre" [25] is twice as common as "Jean-Paul Sartre" [26], "Nietzsche" is three times more popular than "Friedrich Nietzsche" [27], and I could go on and on and on (Einstein, Hemingway, etc.). And I don't care which test you use. "Unusual"? Who do you think of when I say "Hitler"? William Patrick Hitler? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, your interpretation of that statement from NCROY makes no sense given the context in which it is written. You say the result of removing the cognomen part is, "Some monarchs have (an) other name by which they are clearly most commonly known. A name other from what, exactly? That's like saying, "Some singers have another name by which they are clearly most commonly known." A name other than what? There's no assumption in that section that we're defaulting to "Name Ordinal", and so other name means a name other than the "Name Ordinal" title.

You say it's beyond you why I think the word "other" should be removed, despite the fact that I clearly show it should be removed because it's one of the terms in the cognomen part. I'll try one more time, by referring to the wording from 2005: If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name.[28]. This person is best known "by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above"... and that is "Napoleon".

I suggest Napoleon is close to unique because while people like Hitler are of course well known as just Hitler, they are equally as well known by their full names. That's where Napoleon is different. He is not as well known as "Napoleon I" or "Napoleon Bonaparte" as he is well known as just "Napoleon". That's the difference. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@"A name other from what, exactly?" WP:NCROY points no.2 and 3 read as follows:

"(2.) Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. Examples include Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc. Less commonly used cognomens are not used as article titles; for example Edward I of England is used rather than "Edward Longshanks". (3.) Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France."

"Other name" from the first sentence refers to another name than the first name of the monarch (which is illustrated by the examples, and frankly, demanded by common sense).
I think I've demonstrated that people like Hitler are not equally well known by their full names, but are several times more frequently referred to by either their name or surname separately. Are you saying people know Hitler's name was Adolf Hitler, but don't know Napoleon's name was Napoleon Bonaparte? :) Forgive me, but I don't share you conviction in that respect. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
All of the examples are cognomens. None are examples of "other names". In fact, by your interpretation "or other name" is redundant, because all names other than the first name of the monarch are cognomens. This is how we know my interpretation - "other name" means "a name other than a cognomen" - is correct.

Yes, I think very few if any English speakers don't know that "Adolf Hitler" and "Hitler" are one and the same, but I'm quite sure many don't know that "Napoleon" and "Napoleon Bonaparte" are the same person. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am for the name "Napoleon" is changed to "Napoleon I." The English can not afford to be independent as an article on the same person as the other languages. Napoleon reigned, and it is universal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHOLLETQuentin (talk • contribs) 13:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Napoleon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

better citation plange 05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
now has better citation, Tom B (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 21:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cronin 1994, page 242).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Napoleon/Archive_5&oldid=1137034703"