Talk:George Byron, 6th Baron Byron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Core	This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Langlit article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

. I'm pretty sure the link in this article is pointing to the wrong William Blake. The one being referred to is obviously a later critic of Byron, but the one being pointed to died a year before the poet did. Am I right, and if so, how do we disambiguate? -- Paul Drye

I read it as saying that later criticisms of poets like Blake... etc. The link is correct even if the stub is very terse. Blake died in 1827 AFAIK. But, as you say, disambiguation is a big issue and taxonomy is going to become a massive issue at some stage. sjc

Ahhhh, that reading I get now. However, as written then there's no reason for the other poets to be mentioned then in the context of Lord Byron! I'm editing that down to make it less confusing. -- Paul Drye

Should not the page be, conforming to the well-established conventions in use for other Barons and members of the British peerage, be at George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron? -- Lord Emsworth 22:26, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

See User:Matthew Stannard/My Byron Page for prospective rewrite of this page. Stan 09:09, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me. john 19:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 note 2 Article Name 3 Catherine Gordon 4 Chronology 5 Use of 'Lord' 6 Don Juan 7 Redundancy 8 Father 9 Goddamn? 10 Incestual relations 11 Annoying edits 12 Mother in law 13 Lady Beaumont 14 Contradictions 15 Search 16 Byron redirect 17 Locking this article from vandalism 18 Same-sex relationships 19 Atheism 20 Noel-Byron 21 Orient? 22 =Bipolar 23 Accent 24 BBC versus Wikipedia 25 claims needing citation 26 Boatswain epitaph 27 Byron as British/English/Anglo-Scottish Poet? 28 Cultural depictions of George Byron, 6th Baron Byron 29 Requested move 29.1 Survey 29.2 Discussion 30 'Lord Byron' reverts - suggested compromise 31 Missolonghi/Messolonghi 32 Polis

[edit] note

Just a note on the references to modern entertainment media where Byron has appeared- he's also been in comics, including Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles." While it may not be a great idea to attempt to include references to individual appearances in comics (I don't actually know if there are any others, or if so, how many) it might be a good idea to mention that he has been seen in that medium. -Mike

[edit] Article Name

It appears this page was moved here and was originally titled "Lord Byron". Per the Wikipedia naming conventions, it seems that "Lord Byron" should be the preferred title. A quick check of what articles point here confirms that the majority of links are already redirecting from "Lord Byron". Do people really prefer the current title?--Jkiang 04:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was about to suggest a move to "Lord Byron". Others are arguing over "Bill Clinton" versus "William Jefferson Clinton"; "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" is ridiculous.

Lord Byron is not a name, but a title. I strongly object. Normally I try to be reasonable about article titles - but having the title of an article about a person at a peerage title location is just bad. Obviously "Lord Byron" should redirect here, but every other encyclopedia has its article on Lord Byron exactly where we do, and this is standard format. john k 04:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that where other encyclopedias have their entry has a whole lot of bearing on where the Wikipedia article should be. The convention specifies that articles should be at their common name. "Lord Byron" is universal, "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" is practically a Tongue-twister. Anyway, I'm relatively new here and have no desire to rock the boat. A spot check of other notable peers supports the existing article name. To me it seems a bit nonsensical, but oh well.--Jkiang 22:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, others should weigh in, of course, but I'd strongly oppose it. It opens the door to all kinds of articles at [[Lord Suchandsuch]], which can get really problematic. john k 22:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ultimately with the redirects, the argument is academic. I can't agree with the "opens the door" argument though. "Lord Byron" is clearly a special case. No other "Lord Suchandsuch" even approaches the recognizability. Alfred Lord Tennyson or Lord Kelvin is probably next and those are way behind. This one seems like a no-brainer to me. --Chinasaur 05:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Really? Lord Kelvin is at about the same level, I'd say. Lord Rayleigh too, maybe. Lord Nelson? Lord Kitchener? There are hundreds of people known primarily as "Lord Suchandsuch". Lord Byron is perhaps better known in general than these others (although this is questionable - it certainly depends on what your areas of interest are), but he is not better known as Lord Suchandsuch than any of several hundred other people (at least). john k 06:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd stick by what I said. I had to look up Lord Nelson to be sure this was the same person as Admiral Nelson (this is another point; for some people it becomes complicated because there are several "popular" names, as for Admiral Nelson or Lord Tennyson, but for Byron there's just the one). I don't know who Lord Kitchener is, and I'm not all that ignorant. I can't make a real argument though, since my bias towards the poetry and science people is strong. I suppose need more contributing opinions to make an argument of this kind. Like I said above though, overall I consider the argument academic. I think what you're doing here is against the wikipedia standard, but I don't really disagree with it, and as long as the redirects are there I don't see that it really matters. --Chinasaur 06:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we're not really disagreeing all that much. Lord Kitchener was a late 19th century British general, BTW. At any rate, the point isn't whether you, or anybody else, has heard of the person. The point is whether they are better known as "Lord Suchandsuch" than by any other name. Political examples might include Lord Palmerston and Lord Salisbury. At any rate, I'd agree that this policy is not in line with typical wikipedia policy with respect to names - but I think this is a necessary exception when the "name" by which a person is best known is not actually a name, but a title which has been held by numerous people (several of whom have frequently been of note - although this is not particularly true in the case of Byron). john k 13:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with john k, the standard format should be maintained. --24.229.32.118 16:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with John K (over a year after the fact, too!). The standard should indeed be maintained—the standard for all articles, not for just a specific few of them. The entire point of always going with the most popular name. Thousands of biographical articles on Wikipedia are named for things that aren't at all the person's name, but are just what the person's come to be known as! I'm not just talking about nicknames; a vast number of people are known primarily by honorifics, things they were associated with, works they created, etc. Moreover, as pointed out above, this article is being kept here even though there are no remotely-near-as-significant-"Lord Byrons" to confuse the guy with just as a matter of principle to try to keep all the other Lords out there from being changed. This strikes me as a poor way of running things, akin to biting off the nose to spite the face; why not keep the articles in their full-name, peerage and all, format only where necessary, and not do it whenever it's not necessary and the shorter name works better? Wikipedia's not supposed to have consistent names for every person of a single group, the only consistent thing about Wikipedia's biographical names is supposed to be that they're consistently whichever name the individual person is best known by, whenever it's possible for practical purposes (i.e. when one considers other people who might also be identified with that name, and whether such people are noteworthy or obtrusive enough) to do so. In this case, with this article, "Lord Byron" is more than obviously the most commonly known name, and there is little to no risk of anyone being confused if this article is named such, and naming it such will make this page hugely more convenient to access and link to because it'll reduce a 36-character name by more than two thirds, down to a 10-character name. All that adds up to make moving the page just common sense. -Silence 06:37, 6 November 2

This article shall be called"George Gordon,Lord Byron".-User:Agoodperson

[edit] Catherine Gordon

Article for Catherine Gordon listed on Vfd 23 Feb to 26 Feb 2004. High consensus (6 v 2) to merge. Discussion:

• Catherine Gordon. Any reason why this person needs to be kept as a separate page? RickK 01:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Either expand or redirect to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron Saul Taylor 01:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any reason why this person shouldn't be kept as a separate page? Anthony DiPierro 04:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: literary biography. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Her son's biography is a literary biography. She has no such claim to fame. Why can't this info be merged into his page? RickK 01:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Byron's ancestors, on both sides, were interesting people, one might say charitably. Here's what an online essay [1] says about Catherine: "Byron's mother was a Scotswoman, Catherine Gordon of Gight, the last descendant of a line of lawless Scottish lairds. After her husband died (Byron was then three), she brought up her son in near-poverty in Aberdeen, where he was indoctrinated with the Calvinistic morality of Scottish Presbyterianism. Mrs. Byron was an ill-educated and almost pathologically irascible woman who nevertheless had an abiding love for her son; they fought violently when together, but corresponded affectionately enough when apart, until her death in 1811." There's not much in the Catherine Gordon article now, but it's clear to me there is room for a lot more material. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge, doesn't seem like much else can be said about her. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete (that order makes more sense :-) ) Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Fixed. How about merge and redirect? I just did that, and it didn't require any sysop superpowers, or any listing on VfD, or any votes, and surely took less time the previous votes above. Fixed! -- Toby Bartels 22:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

I am building a detailed chronology of Byron's life, month by month, so it is quite long. Suggest it is candidate for a separate article. Simple question is how to link. Are there precedents in Wikipedia for the most elegant way of linking such an article to the main article? Ideas I had are:

George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (chronology)

George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron/chronology

Lord Byron (chronology)

Lord Byron/chronology

List of events in Byron's life

What's best? Matt Stan 07:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What ever you do don't create Subpages (ie. page with a slash in the title like "Lord Byron/chronology"). I don't think that having a month by month acount of someones life is really something we should have here (although other Wikipedians might disagree and remember to be bold). Saul Taylor 01:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

P.s. You're probably more likely to get an answer to questions related to Wikipedia in general rather than to particular answers if you post them to the Village pump. Saul Taylor 01:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you still plan to do so, I'd suggest a series article, like History of Germany or History of Croatia, with a templated box that links the articles together. --denny vrandečić 19:00, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Use of 'Lord'

'Lord'ifying the entire page strikes me as overkill. It makes this material unnecessarily repetitive, it requires regular policing, and it doesn't reflect modern usage (in which the 'Lord' is dropped as often as not - or used only once, and then taken as understood). It doesn't even reflect Byron's *own* usage. [2], [3], [4]

IMHO, it would be more desirable to add a usage note in the introduction - "Although properly referred to as 'Lord Byron' (add discussion as applicable), he is often called simply 'Byron', a usage he himself favoured." Then leave it as 'Byron' in the rest of the article.

--Calair 05:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calair, I believe that your examples of Lord Byron's "own usage" have been incorrectly applied. All instances you cite are of signatures in letters. The usage of just the title in letter signatures is not unique to the 6th Baron Byron; rather, "Lord" (or "Duke of," etc.) is dropped in the signatures of ALL peers. -- Emsworth 19:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that; my copy of Byron's letters is in a box somewhere, so I settled for Googling, and those were the first few instances of self-reference I found. If thoroughness is required, Project Gutenberg[5] has plenty of contemporary letters to, from, and about Byron; from those, while the "Lord" is often used, it's also often omitted. A common usage seems to be to use "Lord" just often enough to remind readers that he *is* a lord, and no more; IMHO that would be a good usage for this page to echo.

From his mother[6]: "You may well be surprized... that Byron is not returned to Harrow." Also, "Byron is really so unhappy that I have agreed, much against my inclination, to let him remain in this County till after the next Holydays."

Thomas Moore[7]: "...from Southey's, Wordsworth's, and Byron's, that they had no ears for [music]." Also [8] "We, I remember, went in Lord Byron's own carriage... then, Byron, myself, Frank, and all the waiters that could be found, were vigorously engaged in parting them... to the great regret of Byron... for Byron was no more a friend to drinking than myself... Lord Byron sent his carriage for him... Few people understood Byron; but I know that he had naturally a kind and feeling heart, and that there was not a single spark of malice in his composition."

Augusta Byron[9]: "...I know you are so partial to Byron and so much interested in all that concerns him..." Also [10] "I wished, as the most likely means of doing this, to mention the subject to Lord Carlisle, who has always expressed the greatest interest about Byron and also shewn me the greatest Kindness... it is now of the greatest consequence to Byron to secure the friendship of Lord C."

William Harness[11]: "A coolness afterwards arose, which Byron alludes to... Lord Byron was then at Cambridge... It was reported to Byron that I had, on the contrary, spoken slightingly of his work and of himself... a mutual friend of Byron and myself... Whatever faults Lord Byron might have had towards others, to myself he was always uniformly affectionate."

Francis Hodgson, same section: "When Byron returned... Many tales are related or fabled of the orgies which, in the poet's early youth, had made clamorous these ancient halls of the Byrons... Byron was retouching, as the sheets passed through the press, the stanzas of Childe Harold... Byron, from his early education in Scotland, had been taught to identify the principles of Christianity with the extreme dogmas of Calvinism."

Byron himself, to John Pigot [12]:"When you begin your next [letter], drop the "lordship," and put "Byron" in its place."

And at that point, about halfway through volume 1 of the text, I'll stop. Anybody who wants to go through the rest of it is welcome to do so, but it should be clear that "Byron" was used not only as a title (which it was), or a family name (which it also was[13]; see also his frequent references to his mother as "Mrs Byron"), but as a cognomen. He was both "Lord Byron" *and* "Byron".

This may well be an irregular usage - in which case it might merit some explanation on the main page - but it *is* an established usage, as demonstrated above by many of his contemporaries and elsewhere by many of ours. --Calair 00:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this is a form used by all peers, and is not unique to Byron. Thus, it would be appropriate to refer to "Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson" as just "Tennyson" instead of "Lord Tennyson," or the Duke of Wellington as just "Wellington." Since both "Lord Byron" and "Byron" are acceptable, and I see that the consensus is for dropping Lord: I shall not oppose the removal of the word. -- Emsworth 10:44, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The use of the title alone was a form of familiar reference until quite recently - close associates at that time always referred to each other by their surname along, and with peers the title was used instead. It was the equivalent of being on first name terms in modern British society. One of your quotations illustrates this: "When you begin your next [letter], drop the "lordship," and put "Byron" in its place" - Byron was instructing someone to consider him a friend, and so use his title alone, rather than the respectful "My Lord" or "Your Lordship". I agree, though, that the use of "Byron" is the same as "Wellington" or "Salisbury" - perfectly usual in a biography, and equivalent to "Blair" or "Bush". "Lord Byron" should probably be used occasionally, though, mainly for variety - perhaps at the beginning of each section or something. Proteus (Talk) 11:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree: the current wording is excessive (and, worse, tin-eared). Markalexander100 06:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done Matt Stan 14:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Don Juan

"is the most important poem published in England between 1667, when Milton's Paradise Lost came out, and 1850, when Wordsworth's magnum opus The Prelude was issued." Why the mention of The Prelude? I could understand "Don Juan was the most important poem published in English since Paradise Lost", but why make it appear as merely a stopgap for a work that is, as far as I can tell, generally considered inferior? Magicalsausage 16:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

hmm...the whole bit seems POV - who's to say that, say, Pope's Rape of the Lock, or some such, wasn't important? At the time, Don Juan probably wasn't even considered Byron's most important poem, what with the popularity of stuff like Childe Harold... john k 23:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

By my count, the version Proteus reverted to refers to the man as 'Lord Byron' six times in the text, plus a link to Lord Byron (chronology), plus a picture captioned 'Lord Byron'. IMHO, if eight instances aren't enough to tell a reader that the man was commonly known as 'Lord Byron', then there's no helping them ;-) --Calair 13:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This has been policy for some time. If someone wants to change it please discuss it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. It is completely redundant and pointless to put "commonly known as Lord Whatever" on the pages of peers. All peers (with the exception of Dukes) are commonly known as Lord suchandsuch, just as commoners are generally known as "Mr Whoever". Mintguy (T) 21:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I was *agreeing* that it's redundant to spell out "commonly known as Lord Byron" when the article already refers to him that way no less than eight times. --Calair 23:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know. I'm sorry. I see that it looked like I was adressing you. But I was addressing the same audience that you were. I've changed the wording somewhat. Mintguy (T) 05:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Father

(thanks to Byron's father, Captain John “Mad Jack” Byron)

The link seems to be trying to point to Captain John 'Mad Jack' Byron, but instead refers to Lord Byron's grandfather, Admiral 'Foulweather Jack' Byron.

I think the linked page is intended to cover both John Byrons; it just doesn't have very much information on Mad Jack, probably because he was less famous and successful than his father. As it stands there's not really enough content on Mad Jack to be worth separating the two. --Calair 05:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goddamn?

What is this? "She inspired one of his best and shortest poems, Caro Lamb, Goddamn."

First of all, this just sounds like a joke. Secondly, I can't find any other references to a poem by this title. I don't know how to fix it, however - should this line simply be removed or should the poem title be changed to something else?

It's actually an excerpt from Byron's Versicles (see here for the whole poem, about four pages from the top). That couplet is often quoted on its own, but AFAIK Byron never offered it as a poem in itself, so the passage needs correcting. --Calair 00:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incestual relations

The article seems to imply that the relationship between Byron and Augusta is somehow up for debate. It's a fact. --Chadamir 00:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The matter is still debated - see e.g. [14], or for an older instance [15]. There's a great deal of suggestive evidence, but Byron never admitted to a physical relationship, and some take the stance that the whole thing was cooked up by Annabelle Milbanke and Caroline Lamb - by all accounts a rather erratic personality - following the failure of the marriage.

I think it would be reasonable to strengthen the wording to something like "generally believed to have been an incestuous relationship", but it's certainly not universally acknowledged as such. Short of something like DNA evidence I'd balk at calling it proven fact. --Calair 00:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sources you provided are far from scholarly. Hoper's essay ammounts to little more than a rant about biographies that are nearly 30 years old. The man also has not published a journal article in over 20 years. I'm not trying to be an intellectual snob because certainly many unpublished people have made valid points, but I dont think in this case that's true. Read a more recent biography such as Eisler's and you will see that I'm very much correct. The second source provided also dealt with books over thirty years old. By the logic you're proposing, we should go in and add a warning about everything in the shakespeare article.

No need - there's plenty in there already. See William_Shakespeare#Identity_and_authorship, which links to a longer discussion at Shakespearean authorship, which in turn links also to Oxfordian theory. I'm not suggesting the arguments against incest need anywhere near that level of coverage, but when such a question has been the matter of significant controversy it bears discussion in Wikipedia. Even if that controversy has since been resolved among the knowledgeable, it's worth describing *how* it was resolved. --Calair 01:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No matter what the facts are, theres always going to be a fringe element that tries to argue against them. I have never heard of this Lamb Milbanke conspiracy theory.

See e.g. [16] (which I offer not as a scholarly argument for the theory, but only as demonstration that it exists): "...for a legal separation to take place, Lady Byron needed proof that the poet was actually unfit to be a husband or father, and she hesitated. Her proof came in the form of Lady Caroline Lamb. Still furious and still stark-raving crazy about Lord Byron, Caroline was to exert her final piece of revenge on the poet that scorned her... She spread rumours around the social circles about the relationship between Byron and his half-sister Augusta Leigh, whilst offering her support to the poet. However, Byron was quick to suspect her duplicity, and he was disgusted by her behaviour. Next, Caroline arranged a meeting with her cousin Annabella... She described a 'criminal intercourse' between Byron and Augusta, suggesting that Medora Leigh, who Augusta had given birth to on 15 April 1814, was actually the daughter of Byron. Caroline also mentioned the relationships that Byron had had with fellow schoolmates during his time in Harrow. Whether the incestuous relationship that Caroline had described between Byron and Augusta was actually true is hotly debated. It was true that Byron and his half-sister were exceptionally close, even carving their names into a tree. Byron often hinted in his letters to his confidante, Lady Melbourne, that Augusta and he were closer than they outwardly appeared. However, Byron's feelings towards Medora Leigh, the supposed daughter, was not the same as all the other children he had fathered, even though Augusta had named her after Byron's heroine in The Corsair. She was just another child. Also, Lady Caroline Lamb, still pent up with rage that Byron did not love her like she did him, may have spread the rumour as a final act of vengeance."

As conspiracy theories go, it's no more bizarre than many of the other things Caroline Lamb did during and in the wake of her affair with Byron. She certainly wasn't overly scrupulous - note the incident in which she forged Byron's signature on a letter to Murray to get hold of a portrait of his - and she knew Annabelle well; it's entirely in character for her to have used the separation as an opportunity to revenge herself, and to have embellished if she lacked material. --Calair 01:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you read the letters between Leigh and Lady B, the relationship between Leigh and Byron is very clear.

Specific passages? It's been a long time since I read them, and I may not have read all of them, but my recollection is that while they indicated a powerful emotional relationship between the two - strong enough and unconventional enough to have been a cause of shame in itself - they said little or nothing about how Byron and Leigh acted on those emotions. That there was a physical relationship, and Medora was Byron's daughter, certainly seems the simplest and most likely explanation of what we have, and should be presented as such - but not as incontrovertible fact. --Calair 01:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If anything, the arguments against should in a separate section since they are not the primary and pretty much established view.--Chadamir 20:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. I have no argument with presenting the incest as a generally accepted view, and the arguments against as a minority viewpoint, but I don't think they should be entirely excluded. If we can acknowledge and discuss the theory that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's works, as we do, we can give a few lines to this. --Calair 01:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying edits

Can anything be done to stop people from defacing this article constantly? It's a terrible annoyance.

Not much, unfortunately :-( Sometimes anon vandals can be blocked by IP address, but these ones can be used by schools across NSW, so there'd be a lot of collateral damage. If the vandalism is promptly reverted when it happens, they usually lose interest in a few days' time. --Calair 23:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mother in law

I have removed the following paragraph from the Life section as it did not seem to fit with any other informatioj there. Perhaps someone could return it with some context.

When Byron's mother-in-law died, her will stipulated that her beneficiaries must take her family name in order to inherit. Lord Byron added it and became George Gordon Noel Byron in 1822.

Who was this mother in law? Neither of Byon's wives had this name. Lumos3 13:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Byron was only married once, to Anne Isabella Milbanke, daughter of Lady Judith Milbanke, whose maiden name - i.e. her own family name - was 'Noel', as mentioned on Annabelle's page. I don't see what the ambiguity is here. --Calair 01:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Lady Beaumont

I've found very little information about her anywhere, despite the fact that she seems to take a role in the life of a good few of the bigger names(Byron and Wordsworth come to mind). Am I just searching for the wrong thing? I'm fairly sure her and Byron had some carnal relations, but I'm trying to find out more about her as a central figure to a greater literary circle. --Chadamir 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions

There are two places where this article contradicts itself. To wit;

1) "...the family's ancestral home that Byron sold in 1818 for £94,500 to pay his debts " contradicts "In 1817 he was in Rome, whence returning to Venice he wrote the fourth canto of Childe Harold. In the same year he sold his ancestral seat of Newstead, and about the same time published Manfred, Cain, and The Deformed Transformed".

2) " In 1821-22 he finished Don Juan at Pisa, and in the same year he joined with Leigh Hunt in starting a short-lived newspaper, The Liberal, in the first number of which appeared The Vision of Judgment" contradicts "His best-known works are the narrative poems Childe Harold's Pilgrimage and Don Juan. The latter remained incomplete on his death."

I don't know what the correct information is and consequently I have not made any edits. Can someone who does know please correct these contradictions?

--Morgan Leigh 09:21 AM, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Don Juan was indeed complete on his death, but he wrote a large chunk of it in 1822, which may have been what the editor there was thinking about. I've corrected that section accordingly.

For the sale of Newstead, there are multiple sources online for both the 1817[17] and 1818[18] dates. Maybe this was a "signed in 1817, settled in 1818" deal, or maybe somebody just got it wrong; for now, I'll make the wording vaguer and leave it to somebody with better sources to improve on. --Calair 23:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Search

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia, but this article is hard to find using the search. I typed in Byron and Lord Byron and George Byron and I couldn't find it until I typed in George Gordon Byron. Is there anyway I can fix this so that it appears when searched for under Lord Byron (a name many people know him by)? hdstubbs

The first link at Byron is a link to this page. I've created George Byron as a redirect to this page. Lord Byron already redirects here. Jkelly 04:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that this article seems to violate Wikipedia naming conventions. The article's beginning can give his proper, full name, but the article's title is always supposed to be whatever name he's most commonly known by, which is obviously Lord Byron. This would also solve the problem that "Lord Byron" is mentioned nowhere near the top of the page at all (except in the image caption; nowhere in the text), so that some coming to this page for Lord Byron might be briefly confused. Why is it necessary for this specific page to not use the most common name, especially since that's also a vastly shorter name, and thus will make things much easier not only on readers looking for this article on search engines and all that, but also on the many editors out there who don't like linking to a redirect page and so are forced to type out "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" every single time they want to link to Lord Byron? Kind of unnecessarily inconvenient, don't you think? -Silence 06:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Byron redirect

It seems to me that Byron should redirect to the Byron (disambiguation) page, not to this article. The whole point of disambiguation is to be the root of common use of a name... Any other thoughts on this? Doc 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think if it is so commoly associated with a particular person, it should redirect to them eg. Elvis. As long as a link to the disambig page appears here, then I see no problem. Again, that is what happens with Elvis. Ben davison 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Up until yesterday Byron was a disambiguation page with a link to this article at the top. I made the change after disambiguating a few links to the Byron page and noticing that almost all were meant to be for Lord Byron. Doc thinks I should have sought consensus for this and he's probably right.

The options are:

1. Byron to be a disambiguation page (as it was until yesterday)
2. Byron to be a redirect to here, with a pointer at the top of this article to a new Byron (disambiguation) page in case the reader wanted Byron, Illinois instead. (as it is now)

Any opinions?--Spondoolicks 11:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Byron should redirect to Lord Byron, which is where this page should be. No one is ever going to search for 'George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron' in any Wikipedia or Google or other search engine trying to find this, probably less than one out of every hundred people who know the name "Lord Byron" are even aware of the longer name, and there are no other "Lord Byrons" significant enough to merit having this page break the "most common name" rule; even if there are enough other noteworthy people known as "Byron" to merit having a disambiguation page there, the very fact that "Lord Byron" redirects to this page shows how silly having the actual page at the full-name version is. If the "most common name" rule is so dominant above all else that not only is Publius Vergilius Maro shortened to "Vergil", but actually listed under the common error "Virgil" due to its prevalence, then having a Lord Byron page surely isn't too much to ask. -Silence 12:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I must say it doesn't seem as important to me now, as it did at first. I guess I was just a bit shocked to see it happen, not expecting it and I've been working on articles on four congressmen from Maryland by the last name of Byron. Whatever, but in any event the links should all be direct pipe links to this correct article page. I'll be out of town for the next three days, so will only be responding critical issues. Doc 22:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there three disambiguation links up there? There are a _bunch_ of Byrons, why choose a couple to be listed as well as the Disambiguation link? I think there should only be the disambiguation link and nothing else. I disagree with Doc; WP:D:

"Primary topic

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." Byron is clearly dominant, is it not? Dryden, however, links to the disambiguation page. I'll change that unless it is established that Byron should lead to the disambiguation page. Rashad9607 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are three dab headers because the dab page is for Byron, the play and the peerage are Lord Byron.
• I tend to agree that the poet is the primary use of "Lord Byron"; but if this change is going to stick, it will have to be a full WP:RM proposal. There is strong sentiment at WP:PEER that peers should be under full name and title; Lord Palmerston is therefore a redirect to Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, although his ancestors are less notable than Byron's. Septentrionalis 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locking this article from vandalism

It hasnt been so bad recently, but does anyone else think it's a good idea? --Chadamir 09:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be a good idea? If at all possible, no article on Wikipedia would ever be locked, since it completely paralyzes the colloborative editing process which makes Wikipedia what it is. Vandalism is a trivial nuisance that's easy to revert in mere seconds; locking the page would do it much more harm than any vandalism ever could. -Silence 12:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism is irritating, but not really enough to justify locking it. --Calair 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

By lock, I mean not allowing it to be edited by anonymous and new users like they just did with certain articles. I do not mean totally locked.

You could ask on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, but I doubt it'll fly. The semi-protection policy restricts it to pages facing "a serious vandalism problem". We've had about half a dozen incidences of vandalism in the last two months - a bit over one per fortnight. Unless it's happening on a daily basis, easier to just revert as it occurs. --Calair 09:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Though if the current spate of vandalism doesn't stop soon, semi-protection may well be in order. Any admins able to check IPs to see whether 69.248.60.68 is the same as recently-blocked Ruler-of-all? --Calair 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote for semi protection, because vandalism on this page gained a daily character. --Armatura 17:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than protecting the page, it would be more beneficial to block those who vandalise this page, as was done with Markus 29. Also ArcticKun's only 2 edits are vandalism on the Byron page. --Nev1 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The page becomes more and more vandalised, and sometimes the changes are so small and so often that are not being detected in time (i.e. changes by User:24.105.215.23 (talk)). Voting for semi protection one more time... Armatura 19:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same-sex relationships

This speculative approachm, sensationalism, is generally frowned upon. If Byron was Oscar Wilde, his barony would have been lost. If one can prove the allegations, then Wikipedia will allow definitive statements about his behaviours and orientation. 68.110.9.62 15:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be easily settled. "Biographers A, B, and C have concluded that Byron had a sexual relationship with X, Y, and Z." (Bonus points for "...based on the testimony of D".)

I would not be in the least surprised if Byron had had all the alleged relationships. But between an acrimonious divorce and people's natural fondness for claiming famous names as 'one of us', there's also plenty of opportunity for false claims to be made. Readers will have more confidence in this article if it identifies its sources on these matters. --Calair 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, About the same time he began his intimacy with his future biographer, Thomas Moore is unhelpfully ambiguous, since 'intimacy' has a wide range of meaning. From edit context I'm guessing the intended meaning was 'sexual intimacy' - in which case, citation needed - but one way or another, it ought to be clarified. --Calair 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What I have been trying to say, is that the article was being used as a vehicle for using contentious allegations as truth. 68.110.9.62 14:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For instance: While it is universally accepted that Lord Byron was a British Giacomo Casanova, there is not universal recognition that he was anything else. The universal accalim I mention above, is why so many female readers have adored his writings. 68.110.9.62 15:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Louis Crompton, here has much to say about Byron, including Thyrza's being falsified to make it seem addressed to a woman (and not to the boy Edleston), discussion of Marchand's biographical work unearthing Byron's secret code for corresponding about his homosexual affairs with his gay friends (like Hobhouse), his love for Giraud and Lukas, and much else. As for the censored comments on Don Leon, there are more thoughtful alternatives. Try Halsall: "The poem is one of the strongest apologies for homosexuality of the period, militant in its arguments in defence of it, scathing in its condemnation of society's hypocrisy and its condemnation of what the poet calls "natural passions." It is unfortunate that User:68.110.9.62 has chosen to resist the publication of reputable historians' work, opting presumably for a neater, simpler reality in which sodomites were hanged, un point c'est tout. Haiduc 16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite sources outside the gay community, who would not use him as a champion to their cause? 68.110.9.62 16:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite sources outside of the hetrosexual community to support your contentions? It is not our place here to disqualify academic sources because we do not like who they go to bed with. Please study the topic a bit more closely, your edits seems to be based on a great deal of emotion, and that is not fair to those of us here who research the topic and try to provide accurate information. Join in if you are able, but don't try to shape things without a valid foundation. The material here was not made up because I thought it sounded good, I spent time drawing together other's work, and summarized it. You are just coming in and deletinmg things wholesale. It will not work, it is not right, and you are just wasting your time and ours. Haiduc 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Only the sources YOU agree with, are the ones you are pushing. You are one to promote the gay agenda, so don't lecture me on ethics. 68.110.9.62 16:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You have sources that disagree? Bring them in, add them to the mix, it would be great. But all you do is delete, delete, delete, and keep on repeating something about a "meme" - but you misspell that. It is not "meme" you want to say, but rather "ME!" "ME!" and spit out foul language at those who disagree with you, and behave generally like a tinpot despot. I will not lecture you, others will. Haiduc 16:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Huff and puff, but you will not blow my house down. I have too much respect for both the Wikipedia and Lord Byron himself. 68.110.9.62 16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

But would Lord Byron respect you? ;-) Fulcher 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Then play by the rules. Haiduc 16:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When you can step away from your pulpit, then come back to the Wikipedia. 68.110.9.62 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc is doing nothing more than including facts on wikipedia that I have verified are widely reported in academic volumes as fact (a google book search of "pederasty" and "byron" should suffice). If you have competing academic sources which contest those that Haiduc has included, please add yours and be sure to include your references. Accusing people of making edits in support of a political agenda assumes bad faith, which is against wikipedia policy. It's also a quick way to lose credibility. Corax 16:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Columbia University mentions that it is believeable in their opinion"There is considerable evidence that he also had several homosexual relationships.", but Manhattan is notorious for its pro-gay reputation and as such, would believe such allegations automatically. Columbia did not substantiate their agreement with the allegations either. Because the University of Colorado at Boulder allows Ward Churchill to teach, means that I have lost respect for and will not worship "institutions of higher learning". 68.110.9.62 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That argument is really quite breathtaking and comes close to paranoia. Can you identify a source whom you would accept as being qualified to say that Byron did have homosexual relationships? Or would you automatically class anyone who said so as being biased? David | Talk 16:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See? You leveled a personal attack at me here. You are not above reproach. The only "evidence cited" was from gay sources. This is just like when the Neo-Nazis infiltrate the Wikipedia. 68.110.9.62 17:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks. I criticised your argument. The point I was making (which you don't tackle) is that (a) it seems that you automatically discount the views of anyone who disagrees with you as biased, and (b) just because someone happens to have views that differ from yours, doesn't mean their scholarship is in some way suspect. David | Talk 17:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of paranoia instead of WP:AGF. A: No, I welcome people to enlighten me whenever it comes. B: Not if their position is firmly ingrained in a special interest community(friends or enemies), to the practical exclusion of general society. NPOV please. 68.110.9.62 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I described your argument as paranoid. Which it is. Your response at B is quite bizarre: what "neutral point of view" means is that everyone's point of view is valid, where as you seem to think it means "special interest points of view are worthless". David | Talk 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You are just upset I was upset at you making a breach of the Queen's peace in Westminster. How about them apples for asserting from a paranoid viewpoint? When the "special interest" groups dominate and colour the otherwise neutral information, then it becomes automatically suspect. 68.110.9.62 17:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am just fine with the present edit a la Corax. If you include the website sources, gay or whatever in the external links, then that would be a plus! See? I'm not unreasonable! 68.110.9.62 17:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I find your behavior of removing sourced information from academic references, on the grounds that they are "biased" totally unacceptable. Your opinion is that they are "biased," but wikipedia's content should not be decided by your or my or anybody else's opinions. It should be dictated by scholarship. On the question of Byron's sexual habits, there are academics who have gathered sources which lead them to believe he had an amorous interest in adolescent males. If you find people who question the validity of these sources, feel free to cite them. But removing academic sources and the corresponding information gleaned from them is totally outrageous. Corax 18:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since User:68.110.9.62 appears to have lost interest in further involvement with Wikipedia, the argument may be over for now, but I very much doubt he's the only one who'll have trouble accepting these particular claims.

Fortunately, we don't have to argue about whether the Crompton article on glbtq.com is any less reliable for coming from a 'gay source' - because it's not original research. Crompton's claims about Byron's sexuality are sourced from Marchand and Knight (along with a couple of hints that can be found in Byron's own works) and the article would be best served by cutting out the middle-man and citing Marchand & Knight directly. I presume somebody here has a copy of Marchand's bio?

Reliable or not (back to that in a moment), Marchand was a well-known and influential Byronist who is often cited by other scholars. As such, his claims about Byron's sexuality are significant and would merit discussion here even if they were false.

Marchand's claims are not uncontested, e.g. [19] (which concedes that Byron probably 'did as the Greeks did' on his travels, but challenges Marchand's claims about specific relationships e.g. that with Edleston). Some mention of that should also be made, but I don't know the lie of the land well enough to say where the academic consensus lies these days (if there is one).

IMHO, the article would be best served by including the contentious portions of the bio in a single subsection that discusses its pedigree and the state of the debate. I agree that 68.110.9.62's approach was belligerent and unreasonable, but even a stopped clock is occasionally right; contentious material, even if known by scholars to be true, ought to be accompanied by explanation. Don't leave readers scratching their heads and asking "how do they know this?" --Calair 23:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out that 68.110.9.62 didn't "lost interest" so much as have it taken away from him: he was blocked for 48 hours for vandalism yesterday. I would expect he will be back at the end of the block. David | Talk 09:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the comment at the top of his talk page ("I have decided to follow in the footsteps of...") to mean that he was leaving Wikipedia altogether. But now I check the page history I see that comment was made several days ago, before many of his edits here and elsewhere, so it can't have meant what I thought it meant. I guess we'll see soon enough. --Calair 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

I disagree with the assertion that atheism would be 'not important enough for the article, not important enough for a category (even assuming its true)'. In Byron's time, atheism was an unusual and controversial stance - his friend Shelley was expelled from Oxford for publicising his own atheism.

That said, I'm not aware of evidence that Byron was an atheist, so I'm not arguing for re-adding the category, just against the rationale. --Calair 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noel-Byron

Reverted hyphenation, since I've never seen a source that hyphenated these names. AFAIK, this was not a standard double-barrelled surname formed by marriage - that would presumably have been 'Milbanke-Byron' - but the addition of a middle name. --Calair 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it was a double-barrelled surname. (And see Annabella Byron, 11th Baroness Wentworth as to why it wouldn't be "Milbanke-Byron".) Proteus (Talk) 10:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that identifies him as "Noel-Byron"? If this was in fact the correct usage, I would expect to be able to find examples fairly easily; so far I've come across a great many sources that identify him as "Noel Byron", but not a single "Noel-Byron" except for Wikipedia and mirrors. For instance:

• Columbia Encyclopedia names him as "Byron, George Gordon Noel Byron, 6th Baron".
• 1911 Britannica (may require plug-in to view) makes no mention of his name change at all, continuing to refer to him as 'Byron' - which would make more sense if 'Noel' was a separate name than part of a hyphenated surname.
• Harriet Beecher Stowe's Lady Byron Vindicated refers to 'Lady Byron', and indicates that Annabella signed herself "A. I. NOEL Byron".
• Similarly Ethel Colburn Mayne's bio.

As for Byron's own words:

• This archived description refers to an "Autograph Letter Signed ('N.B.')... with address on the reverse and the full signature 'Noel Byron'". (It includes an image, but not of the relevant side of said letter.)
• Transcript of letter to Moore: "Yours ever and truly, N.B. P.S. - You see the great advantage of my new signature; - it may either stand for 'Nota Bene' or 'Noel Byron'"
• Same site, letter to Disraeli: "I have the honour to be, truly, your obliged and faithful Servant, NOEL BYRON". Letters to Beyle, Coulmann, and Clare also use "NOEL BYRON".

Obviously, these are transcriptions of the originals; I had no luck in finding scans that would confirm that the hyphens were missing from the original. But this still seems to be better evidence for "Noel Byron" than anything I've seen for "Noel-Byron". Sources, please? --Calair 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cracroft's Peerage, for one (in which he's named as "George Gordon [Byron later Noel-Byron], 6th Baron Byron"). I must admit, I'm intrigued as to how you think it could be a middle name when it was used by his wife. (And you seem confused as to the distinction between peerages and surnames. His title was "Baron Byron" — he would be referred to as "Lord Byron" and "Byron" even if his surname were "Montagu-Douglas-Scott", so references to him as such hardly provide evidence of his surname.) Proteus (Talk) 17:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, mea culpa on muddling peerages and surnames; point taken.

Looking through a volume of Byron's letters (Byron: A Self-Portrait, ed. Peter Quennell), starting at the beginning of 1821 and going through to his death, I count the following signatures:

• No signature: 23
• End of letter lost: 1
• 'BYRON' or 'B': 18
• 'NOEL BYRON': 9 (Incidentally, the first of these is in a letter dated November 17, 1821, which would seem to contradict this article's claim that he adopted the name in 1822.)
• 'N. B.': 19
• 'N. BYRON': 1
• 'N. B^N' or 'N. BN.': 2

I'm not disputing the fact that 'Noel' came from his wife's family, or that his wife was also referred to as "Noel Byron". But AFAICT, the usage of the time - both Byron's and that of others who knew the family - was consistently "Noel Byron", not "Noel-Byron". Maybe it was a double-barreled surname - albeit one adopted nearly seven years after the marriage and six after the separation - but if so, it was not one that used a hyphen.

If - as evidenced above - Lord Byron did not hyphenate it in any of the four different signatures that acknowledged the 'Noel', Lady Byron did not hyphenate it, their contemporaries did not hyphenate it, and the vast majority of modern usage does not hyphenate it, that seems like a fairly convincing argument against hyphenating it in this article. --Calair 09:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Complete Peerage cites Lady Byron's will for "Baroness Noel-Byron"; but says Byron, like his father-in-law adopted plain Noel (as a surname, his title was of course unchanged.) Septentrionalis 20:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for digging that up. Given that standardised spelling didn't completely take hold until the early 20th century, I wonder if surname conventions might also have been less exacting then than they are now? --Calair 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Her naming history was a real mess; I've added a note to her article. Septentrionalis 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the Complete Peerage's assertions on Byron's name; they seem reasonable, and are consistent with, but less ambiguous than, the statement by several biographers that "he assumed the name Noel". Cokayne had the background and interest to get it right, and access to the relevant records. The first line of the article is therefore wrong, but it is difficult to phrase correctly without being misleading. I would suggest:

George Gordon Byron (later George Gordon Noel) was 6th Baron Byron of Rochdale (dates)

which slightly diverges from WP convention, but I would be happy to see something better. Septentrionalis 15:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Plus "assuming" a surname for an aristocrat generally means adding it, not replacing the patronymic with it, especially given the quotes above of Byron using "Noel Byron". (And the Complete Peerage often makes mistakes, as it has done with his title.) Proteus (Talk) 21:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course assumption is ambiguous; but this claim would be all the better for some evidence, or a source. Septentrionalis 00:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at a dozen biographies of the pair, the following seem undisputed.

• The normal reault would have been the hyphenated name byron-Noel, as his grandsons became King-Noel when they inherited.
  • This is not what happened.
• The Milbankes changed their names to Sir Ralph and Lady Noel, not Milbanke-Noel.
• They hated the name of Byron, going so far as to request the Barony of Wentworth be confered on their daughter when Lady Noel was still alive.
• Lady Noel had the power to make her will conditional on any reasonable change of name.

So much is undisputed; and provides motive, means and opportunity for Lady Noel to have compelled Byron to beocme "Goerge Gordon Noel".

• No biography, of the dozen I have seen, asserts unambiguously that Byron's surname became "Noel Byron".
• Cokayne says it became "Noel" only, and provides the date of the Royal license by which he did so.

[edit] Orient?

The section "Travels to the East" first claims that Byron travelled to the Orient, but then only discusses travels through southern Europe. Did he go further to the east than to Greece or not? Qwertyus 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Matter of definition; he did not go to Syria or Egypt, but he did get to the coast of Asia Minor. Septentrionalis 20:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider that oriental, but calling the section "Travels to the East" is still rather exaggerated. Qwertyus 21:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's how he referred to it; and it's the justification for the oriental color in Childe Harold. Albania was very Eastern then. Septentrionalis 21:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way nowhere in this article it is mentioned about the time he spent in the court of Ali Pasha. Who the f*** writes this stuff? {—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.88.88.240 (talk • contribs) 28 apr 2006 18:06.

If you know something that is not in the article, please be bold and add it. But please save us your abuse and don't write your comments inside somebody else's (I moved your comment out of Sep's). Qwertyus 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =Bipolar

The category Category:People with bipolar disorder is specifically for people with documented histories of BPD, so I agree that it should not be used here; it's a fairly plausible theory, but probably not solidly enough substantiated to be presented as fact.

The claim that Byron was bipolar is common enough that it probably ought to be acknowledged in the article, as it has been. But it would be nice to have a better citation than 'many people'. I've come across plenty of sources that claim him in passing as bipolar, but one that actually presents arguments rather than treating it as a given would be preferable. --Calair 05:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, anybody here read Finnish? --Calair 05:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accent

Please excuse, gentlemen, but are there any veritable descriptions of Lord Byron's voice? I assume that his accent was predominately Scottish.--Anglius 20:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anglius, there's an article here that makes mention of Byron's accent, with an apparent instance of him being rather offended when it was suggested to him that he sounded slightly scotch. :http://englishhistory.net/byron/moorebyron.html Bazarov 23:59, 16 May 2006

I thank you, Mr. Bazarov.-Anglius 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC versus Wikipedia

I am watching Byron the television serie at the moment. I see an enormous difference in the tone between this article and the television serie. The Wikipedia article gives a slight notice of Byron as a rebel. But what does it mean with it? Byron the television serie gives an image of a rebel who would be considered as vile even today (Something i regard as very positive). Why is this article so idiotically worthy?--Daanschr 20:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The article already mentions the 'mad, bad, and dangerous to know' line, the fact that he was one of the few to defend the Luddites, the scandalous affair with Caroline Lamb, the suspicion that he committed incest with Augusta, the ugly separation from Annabella, his 'unconventional and controversial' reputation, his fondness for writing rebellious characters. Keeping in mind that the BBC series is a dramatization, what verifiable things does it contain that the article lacks? --Calair 23:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what verifiable things the BBC serie has. Things which hasn't been mentioned in this article, if which i don't know the verifiability are: suicidal tendencies; the feeling of being damned, without being a christian; a deeply rooted sense of the meaningless of life. According to the BBC serie, Byron went to Greece because he didn't knew what to do else, because everything in life was useless to his opinion. Shelley, was in favour of Greek independance, so Byron did what his friend would have done, helping Greece. When Shelley died, he was burnt instead of buried. He was burnt besides the sea. Byron tried to commit suicide at that occasion by walking in the sea, but he returned. Also the collection of pubic hair in a book of all the women Byron slept with hasn't been mentioned as well.

This article has a strong modernist tendency to mention insignificant details. It would be more romantic and byronic to mention the feelings instead of the abundance of insignificant facts of life. I would prefer an article burning of desire and loss instead of cold representation of facts. Byron hated Bacon and Newton and their whole scientific revolution with its classifications. That list under poetic words is to modernist for this article. For people who want to know what romanticism is, it wouldn't be wise to look at this article to my opinion.--Daanschr 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the things you mention here would be fine in the article if they can be verified; the nature of dramatisations is that they make things up to flesh out the story. Sometimes that can be very useful to give a sense of somebody's personality that can't otherwise be easily conveyed (as Neil Gaiman put it, "This never happened... and yet it is true!") But it is also useful sometimes to know what is confirmed fact, and that is what Wikipedia is about. Any medium has its limitations, and sometimes it's easier just to go to another medium for what you want rather than looking to one place to do everything. --Calair 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia should be factual. The slogan, "This never happened... and yet it is true!", wouldn't be mine. However it is not true that Wikipedia is only about the representation of facts. Instead, Wikipedia is about the representation of views. Even if these views are non-factual (Wikipedia: npov). Verification is important indeed. Views as expressed in widely referenced or highly esteemed books. I am not going to research for this article, since i am busy graduating. I know it is not very nice to critisize without changing the article myself. However, i consider the talk page as an integral part of the article, so i think i already contributed to this article by editing the talk page.--Daanschr 12:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] claims needing citation

Removed the uncited sexual claim from section Byron in Italy and Greece: In Kefalonia he met a Greek boy, Loukas Khalandritsanos, whom he employed as a page and with whom he developed an emotional, and possibly a sexual, relationship.[citation needed]

Removed this uncited claim from section Character: which have often been taken by later commentators as evidence of bipolar disorder, commonly known as manic depression.[citation needed] If it's often taken, there must be a commentator to cite. -213.219.162.201 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boatswain epitaph

Made some minor changes here to match the text that's actually on the monument (verify here). The date of November 18th on the monument disagrees with Byron's letter to Hodgson (also dated November 18th, 1808), in which he says that Boatswain 'expired in a state of madness on the 10th', but I'm not sure the article needs quite that much detail. --Calair 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byron as British/English/Anglo-Scottish Poet?

In recent years, more attention has been paid by literary critics to the national affiliations of writers. Many consider Byron a Scottish poet, and I think it's problemmatic to descibe him as English. British would be fine, as would be Anglo-Scottish (it's a bit clumsy, but becoming more common). Here's a website of Famous Scotts to illustrate (http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfambyron.htm), though more formal academic conferences and publications also support his "Scottishness." Here's another site from the University of South Carolina (http://www.sc.edu/library/scotlit/timeline.txt). He also appears on the program at these Scottish (http://ies.berkeley.edu/cbs/scottishromanticism/sessions.html) and Irish-Scottish (http://www.englit.ed.ac.uk/isai/programme.htm) literary conferences. I realize that technical issues come into play here (categories being developed/eliminated), but surely that must not affect accuracy. I would hope that this changing back and forth between/among English/British/Anglo-Scottish might be resolved soon.

[edit] Cultural depictions of George Byron, 6th Baron Byron

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

• Completely and utterly ridiculous this is. A victory for the politically correct and a blow to common sense. I suppose we should rename Byronic hero to George Byron, 6th Baron Byronic hero? Meh, you win some, you lose some.--Lairor 02:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and just to comment on john k's long list of names: the people you listed were all political figures (many of them prime ministers) who lived during a time when nobility had much influence over the matters of government. Byron, on the other hand was a poet (he did dabble in politics, but he is hardly known for that) and did not grow up famously rich and largely earned his fame/infamy via his writing and his antics, not his hereditary position. Also, Alci12, I don't know about you but I've heard many people refer to her as "Diana, Princess of Wales" but I've never seen or heard "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron" outside of Wikipedia. That's really all I have to say. Oh, and I suppose I should do the good thing and point you towards the articles of two of Byron's decendents that aren't conforming to the rules: Ada Lovelace, Lady Anne Blunt and also the aforementioned Grace Kelly.--Lairor 02:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily check both articles the second looks very easy to explain. She lived for 80 years and was known for 79.5 years as Lady Anne Blunt. She only inherited the peerage just before her death. Alci12 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be a stickler here, but both the Library of Congress and the British Library catalogue Byron under "George Gordon Byron, Baron." Surely, we can follow what seems to be rather firmly established precedent among the world's preeminent research institutions. Antonio Giusti 06:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Antonio Giusti

[edit] 'Lord Byron' reverts - suggested compromise

I don't really care whether or not the introduction says "...better known as Lord Byron", but the back-and-forth is getting tedious. By my understanding, the main argument against this statement is that it's a tautology, and the main argument for it is that it's not obvious to everybody who reads the article (cf Wikipedia:State the obvious).

It seems to me that it should be easy enough to convey this information without tautology, for instance:

"George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (22 January 1788 – 19 April 1824), was an English poet and a leading figure in Romanticism. Among Lord Byron's best-known works are the narrative poems Childe Harold's Pilgrimage and Don Juan. The latter remained incomplete on his death. He was regarded as one of the greatest European poets, and is still widely read." If that's not enough, something like "the most famous of the Lords Byron" could also be worked in pretty easily. Would this be an acceptable compromise? --Calair 06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not going to cause any problems because it's standard form already in every article about 'the earl of marquess of X' where lord x or x is used after the initial introduction. Alci12 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that would be better than nothing but I honestly don't see it as tautology. Yes, I accept it's two different names for the same person. If you take a gander at a Wikipedia article on a plant or an animal, it will state the common name most likely followed by the scientific Latin name. Is that tautology? I suppose I'm still disappointed over the failed article move so to me the "better known as" was a compromise. I'm just saying before I started editing this page I had no idea the titles of "baron" and "lord" went together and from the title and opening sentence of this article I glean it's about a man who most people know as "George Gordon Byron" or "Baron Byron" which you must admit, simply isn't the truth. And honestly, I'd rather read something obvious than not know what's going on. Just my thoughts.--Lairor 07:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lairor, the common name of an animal does not follow of necessity from the scientific name. Canis lupus does not mean "Gray Wolf," it means "Wolf Dog." The reason this is a tautology is that anyone who is Marquess, Earl, Viscount, or Baron of X is "better known as Lord X". [[Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston" is better known as Lord Palmerston; Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury is better known as "Lord Salisbury," etc. etc. etc. "Lord X" is the shorthand for "Earl of X" or "Baron X" in all cases, at least since the 17th century or so. john k 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a tautology; it can be false. Consider the 2nd Earl of Guildford, who is not better known as Lord Guildford, but as Lord North. And if readers are having the level of difficulty evidenced here, there is no reason not to make it easier for them, in this article. Septentrionalis 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, in such cases we ought to specify that he was not best known as Lord Guilford. But such cases are the exception. Are you suggesting that every article about someone who was Earl, Viscount, Marquess, or Baron X and is best known as Lord X should include a notice to that effect? I'd prefer the solution proposed by Calair. john k 01:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, John, you've made it clear that YOU know that. But if I go down to the local oatmeal factory and ask Jimmy George, you're 100% confident he knows that too? Because that makes me feel really stupid because according to your logic for the longest time I was the only person in the world that didn't know that these people were better known as "Lord X".--Lairor 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone stop with the "Let's go down to the pub and ask random idiot - if he doesn't know the answer, we have to do X" line of argument? The point isn't that everyone should know this. The point is that this article isn't the place to get into the issue. We have articles on peers and how they are called, which deal with the issue. john k 01:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No! This is exactly the place to get into it. If I want to learn about a poet named Lord Byron I'm not going to go to some article about peers because I don't care about some dumb peerage system I'm a fan of poetry or whatever. Many people named "James" are better known as "Jim" but should we just leave that out because you could presumably find that information at the "Jim" article?--Lairor 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No!!!!! This is exactly not the place to get into it. Otherwise we would have to mention this in every single article about a peer who is best known as Lord X. The article refers to him as Lord Byron throughout. This article does not exist to explain standard usage. Lord Byron also redirects here. I don't see what exact confusion is being caused here. Certainly there is not confusion for a reader. We should be careful to distinguish between confused caused to an editor and that caused to a reader. No reader is going to think "Why are they calling him Lord Byron?" and be confused as to whether or not this is the poet Byron. john k 12:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we probably should mention that in every article. Is the adding of five extra words ("better known as Lord X") that monolithic of a task? And yes, readers are going to think that because while to you "lord" and "baron" might mean the same thing, to an outsider they're two different that might have nobility connotations but they don't sound the same. Please be reasonable: you got to keep your ridiculous article and I'm okay with that but if we omit that line we're leaving out a valuable piece of information. Anyways, I have work to do so I'll be back later to presumably rehash the same arguments I've been making over and over again.--Lairor 12:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this point is fully covered elsewhere and by redirects and only User:Lairor has a problem with it because he disagrees with the conclusion reached. - Kittybrewster 12:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that he's being deliberately obtuse in order to irritate people and cause disruption because he's annoyed that his requested move failed. This would also explain why he's going around tagging various articles on peers for speedy deletion. Proteus (Talk) 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He probably is; but he is also, by existing, evidence that "Lord Byron" is widely known, by that phrase, to people who don't understand the peerage at all. In this, he is quite rare; even Palmerston is less well known, and probably more often simple "Palmerston". I do not support a general rule; but a few words, in this exceptional case, are harmless. Septentrionalis 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how it's an "exceptional case". Lord Salisbury (and pretty much any other peer you can name) is widely known, by that phrase, to people who don't understand the Peerage at all. In what way is Byron different from him or any other peer? Proteus (Talk) 14:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Because readers have heard of "Lord Byron" in parts of the English-speaking world where Salisbury is the name of a steak. But I hope Calair's idea is enough for most readers. We shall see. Septentrionalis 03:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, to address Kittybrewster's point, Septentrionalis brought up some similar points, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people who supported moving the page would also support the inclusion of those five words.

Now to address Proteus and I suppose you too, Septentrionalis: It really annoys me when people think they just *know* what I'm thinking and what I'm doing. It's really not necessary. Any editing I've done off this page is completely unconnected to this page and is, like all the edits I've ever done, in good faith. Please try to make a constructive point instead of just sputtering weightless accusations.

And finally, why should this page include those five words? Well, observe this guideline about stating the obvious. The example used is a Ford Thunderbird and it is stated that it should be pointed out that a Ford Thunderbird is automobile. Well, according to the logic I've been hearing here that would be unnecessary because all Fords are automobiles and that can be seen on the main article so the Thunderbird article pointing this out would clearly be tautology. Maybe you agree with that, in which case you should probably go take it up on that guideline's talk page. I've also noticed that a couple of you are British and that john k studies European history so naturally you're going to assume this is common knowledge. But over here in Canada it isn't. And it probably isn't either in Belize or Sierra Leone or any number of countries for which English is the official language. Maybe a worldview tag is warranted. I guess the only thing I can say is that if by this point you still refuse look at my logic then you never will and there's an unfortunate cloud of ignorance that that surrounds your editing process. And then in that case, I'd have to take back my taking back of an earlier comment I made because it's no longer being uncivil, it's just the gospel truth: you truly are a posse of peer lovers. Shalom aleichem.--Lairor 14:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go and have a tea, coffee or something. Massadds for speedy when they obviously don't meet speedy criteria and an uncivil tone do not help wiki improve Alci12 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that one editor sees no merit in including minor baseball players, another would delete minor peers, a third is baffled by Pokemon characters, and yet another has no interest in early Macedonian scholars, and so it goes on. So let all these articles survive for those who are interested in them. - Kittybrewster 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well wiki has to have policies and some articles do need deleting in order to maintain quality. But there are ways to do this (Afd) and generally not speedy. After the earlier dispute i'm hardly suprised some saw it as vandalism. Alci12 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missolonghi/Messolonghi

I realize the name of this city can be spelled both ways, but as you can see from the Messolonghi Byron Society website (http://www.messolonghibyronsociety.gr/), they use "e," not "i."

~~Antonio Giusti~

I would prefer not to have the long debate over transliterating Demotic again; but Missolonghi is English usage, especially in this context. We can mention both, but we should use the customary name. We are not here to confuse our (English-speaking) readership. Septentrionalis 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new here. Since you see some sections of this text as unchangeable, perhaps you might use the computer to lock those changes into place and identify the settled sections as such. That way, we won't all be wasting our time discussing matters that have apparently been settled; we can use our time more wisely, more efficiently, to discuss those parts of the entries that might be changed.

~~Antonio Giusti~~

Ah, I didn't mean to bite a newbie; I apologize. But we have had a run of complaints over many articles that Greek names must be transliterated and pronounced precisely as in Demotic, down to complaints about indicating that English-speakers pronounce the mathematical п like "pie" and that we don't write about Kadmos in Evvoia.

But we have also considered certain matters already; and there is rough consensus on some general approaches, including using English so as to be recognizable. How it applies in this case is of course open to discussion; but I have gone through much of the Byron scholarship for this article, and I have seen Missolonghi almost always so spelled. Evidence that this has changed in English generally would be welcome. Septentrionalis 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Glancing at Eisler, Marchand, and Quennell, they all use the "i", so perhaps I was seduced by the "authenticity" of the Greek Byron Society using the "e". ~~Antonio Giusti~~

[edit] Polis

Friends, does anyone know which Greek city called "Polis" Byron have been in? In Cyprus or in Crete? If you know, plz corect the link to Polis in "Byron and the Armenians" section--Armatura 09:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most likely this refers to Constantinople which is "the City" of the Hellenic world. But I have no proof. I don't know if Byron ever went to Constantinople.Argos'Dad 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but nope, it surely was not Istanbul, but a city in Greece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Armatura (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC).