Talk:Napoleon

Forced abdication

Napoleon was forced by the victors to abdicate; he didn’t want to. The way it’s worded currently implies he had a choice, therefore I think we need forced at the beginning of the term. Country&Rockabilly54 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You will need to show that the majority of reliable sources call it a forced abdication, then add that descriptor to the relevant section of the article, then discuss whether it should also be added to the lead. The relevant section of the article outlines the series of events that led to his abdication. Note: "On 2 April the French Senate passed the Acte de déchéance de l'Empereur, which declared Napoleon deposed. Meanwhile, Napoleon was in Fontainebleau with an army of 40,000 to 60,000. He contemplated a march on Paris, but on 4 April his senior commanders persuaded him to abdicate in favour of his son.." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Confusingly short phrasing and placement of reversal of slavery abolition

Another page's tone has a very different message:

Napoleon re-introduces slavery in sugarcane-growing colonies.

than the last-minute mixin mention at the very end of the criticism section on this page:

His role in the Haitian Revolution and decision to reinstate slavery in France's colonies in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean adversely affect his reputation.

And the downfall of Napoleon being followed up by a coalition of countries declaring decision to abolish slavery (again). Ybllaw (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Napoleon and Jefferson conspired over Haiti and the Louisiana Purchase

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

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

Relatives in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

Writings on Napoleon

Hello all

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

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

The problems are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Lede and Context

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

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

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

References

Self-proclaimed emperor

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

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

2) The article says this.

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

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

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

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

rue de la Huchette

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

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

Suggested wording:

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

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

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

Suggested edit.

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

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