Talk:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay

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.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

The German version is *FAR* more complete and should really be translated to replace the English one.

[edit] Location of article

Normally a peer is listed with their peerage title and in Macaulay's case he is often referred to as "Lord Macaulay". I can't see a reason to exempt him from standard practice. Also his middle name is often used on his books, with "Babington" the far more common version. So I propose a move to Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay. Timrollpickering 19:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a Bad Idea (tm) as he is by far more widely known and refered to as Thomas Macaulay, with the references to his name with full peerage not even having a meaningful minority. It would thus make far more sense to simply supply a redirect from Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay to the present location. Realisticly, 99% of people coming to look up data on him in Wikipedia would look for "Macaulay" or "Thomas Macaulay" rather than something else. Sander 17:47, 23 January 2005 (UTC)

He is very frequentlycalled either "Thomas Babington Macaulay" or "Lord Macaulay". [1] [2] It is very rare to see a book credited to "Thomas Macaulay", and Wikipedia policy is not to use "Lord ..." as a page title but the correct peerage title. This is not a case of someone who is so well known without their peerage, the qualifier for not using them. Those search terms still lead to this page. Timrollpickering 18:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Babington should be in. I'm not sure that the peerage title should be in the article title. This seems a relatively similar case to Bertrand Russell - but I'm not sure either way. john k 18:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "Thomas Babington Macaulay", and strongly disagree with the current title ("..., 1st Baron Macaulay"). First of all, "1st" is a barbarism. Second, the repetition of "Macaulay" does nothing for the article title; we can find out his peerage title by reading the article itself. He may be called "Lord Macaulay", and in that case there should be a redirect at Lord Macaulay, but I assure you that Macaulay is never referred to these days as "Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay". I've just put in a request for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson to get the same treatment. (Cf. Walter Scott and Arthur Sullivan, where Wikipedia doesn't even mention the "Sir" in their titles.) But I see that Alfred, Lord Tennyson gets the same treatment, so maybe I'm too late. --Quuxplusone 15:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names lists the current conventions followed on this. Timrollpickering 16:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] His title

The article says twice that his title was Baron MacaulEy, but the article's title gives it as Baron MacaulAy. Which is correct? 66.92.237.111 07:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's Baron Macaulay, of Rothley. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The quotations need citing. In particular, are they all by Macaulay? The first one looks more likely to be about him (it fits well, anyway), and often the Quotations sections of pages contain both.

What a bizarre article. It seems to be fixated on Macaulay's attitutes to India, to the exclusion of everything else he did - which was a heck of a lot! Paul B 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The title is exactly correct.

The article has been much improved, but it seems to me there are quite a number of errors, especially towards the end. For instance, Macaulay spent his final years at Holly Lodge, Campden Hill, London, not in Thames Ditton, he was re-elected to Parliament from Edinburgh in I think 1850 and gave a memorable speech to mark the occasion, etc. I have Macaulay's letters and several biographies, and will try to post an edit in the near future.

The India stuff is pretty good, but suffers from a few technical defects -- any corrections I make in that part will be limited.

Oz Childs

[edit] India quotation

The following quotation has several times been added to this article. Please note that it is wholly spurious.

On 2nd February, 1835, addressing the British Parliament he quoted "I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."

The date given refers to the Minute on Education, which does not contain the above words. Nor is it to be found in Hansard. It is, of course, absurd. He never saw a beggar in India? There are no thieves in the entire country? Yea, right. Paul B 21:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is absurd. But he still might have said it. Perhaps, if someone could cite a reliable source.... – Agendum 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It completely contradicts what he does say in the 1835 Minute. If it were true that he said it in parliament it would be in Hansard.Paul B 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On 2 February 1835, Macaulay was in India preparing his immortal minute that laid foundation for the modern India. He could not have appeared before the British Parliament and spoken those lines. Those lines are unlike of Macaulay. See his vision here:[[3]]. He was never spiritually inclined, and he never considered India as a spiritual land. And he cannot be faulted: anyone who witnessed a Spanish Inquisition is bound to misunderstand Christianity, and anyone who saw the India of 1820's and 30's was bound to misunderstand Hinduism. I am Indian, and I was educated a hundred and fifty years after Macaulay devised his education system. And I hold him to be the single most influential man who redirected India into the modern world. -Gopalan evr 08:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC), 12 October 2006 (IST)

Thank you, Gopalan Evr - that helps put it into proportion. Putting the alleged quotation into Google, it has been oft repeated (over 100 hits) and the source for these would appear to be "The Awakening Ray, Vol.4 No.5, (The Gnostic Centre) Reproduced in Niti issue of April, 2002 at p.10 - a periodic publication of Bharat Vikas Parishad, Delhi." For what it's worth. – Agendum 12:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a misattribution, see Koenraad Elst's article. utcursch | talk 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)