Talk:Lord Byron

^{–Superscript text}

Byron's impact

Byron influenced many romantics and continental philosophers and writers. The best example is Nietzsche. Byron certainly influenced Nietzsche and yet it's not indicated. For Proof see Russell's History of Western Philosophy,Byron. --Arash Eb (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Byron and Philosophy

Links to Romanticism are mentioned, but not Philosophy. Just as Goethe strongly influenced German Idealism, Byron was a tremendous influence on Irrationalism on the Continent, esp. Nietzsche. RS - Bertrand Russell, Chapter XXIII, History of Western Philosophy.

Personal Life and POV matterial

It seems that there is a problem with the article about his sexual life. One web article from The Independent site http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/on-the-trail-of-the-real-lord-byron-603280.html is used as a source in order to support that Lord Byron pursued young boys. As it seems the article at a point reviews a book of Fiona MacCarthy (Byron Life and Legend).Has actually anyone have read the book? Is this an established view among the historians or it is only a view of Fiona MacCarthy?
Also no were the article suggests that the archive of John Murray, Byron's original publishers is now open to study? Indeed Murray has probably controlled information but no were it seems that MacCarthy had actually access in Murray archive (unless she says it in her book but without passages from her book we can not really tell). I have moved the part about Murray, his archive and Fiona MacCarthy views at the end of the paragraph. If anyone has read her book, please make sure to add properly cited material.

I have also removed some materiel which seem to be completely original research and even POV. Almost all the material I removed is not properly cited, is based either in out of context part of letters or from completely irrelevant letters.( some editor added that "Byron's travels in the Ottoman Empire confirmed his attachment to things Turkish" based entirely in a passage from a letter of his his estranged wife!!) It is incredible that according to the editor who added those views Byron became hero of Greece because of a twist of fate!
If however any editor manages to find and secondary sources from proper historians please feel free to add any material back.
Seleukosa (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Did Byron serve as a regional leader of the Carbonari?

This claim has three problems. First, it appears only in the lead and not in the article itself (esp. 5.3 where it should appear, if anywhere). Second, it has no citation. Third, John Galt directly contradicts it - "I did not, however, take part in their intrigues, nor join in their political coteries; but I had a magazine of one hundred stand of arms in the house, when everything was ripe for revolt". see Life of Lord Byron, http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/jgalt/bl-jgalt-byron-35.htm. This seems to indicate a rather minor, supporting, role in the organisation, not that of a leader of any sort. Added "citation needed". Suggest deleting or substantially editing this claim. Yabti (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Early Life

I think this pic of Byron in his late teens might go good in the early life section/page. I'll see about adding it if no one objects. I'd like to add the cropped one with a caption. I put the uncropped image here so people can be sure it's really Byron. This note is on both discussion pages.-- I Never Cry 10:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let us once again try to rename this article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Rough consensus is that Lord Byron is the common name as well as the primary topic. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

---

George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron → Lord Byron — The last discussion was, admittedly, rather contentious, but I'm hoping we can avoid such unpleasantries this time.

In support of the move, I offer the following:

1. Lord Byron already redirects to this article, firmly establishing that it is the primary topic for that title.
2. WP:COMMONNAME suggests we use the most common form of the subject's name. In this case, it is clearly "Lord Byron"; that is what his author line reads on most printings of his works, how most of his biographies are titled, and certainly how the majority of the public knows him.
3. WP:NCROY is not absolute and makes exceptions for cases in which a member of the nobility or royalty is known by something other than his or her full name and title. This is an obvious candidate for such an exception.

-- Powers ^T 18:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Our common name policy clearly supports Lord Byron as the title of this article. And, as the move proposer states, it is already clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: "Lord Byron" is clearly the common name for this man. Ucucha 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, by both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't want to throw a spanner in the works, especially as the proposal is a vast improvement, but I would have thought the common name was simply Byron which, coincidentally, is also a redirect to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps true, but only in the same sense that "Obama" is the common name for the current U.S. President. I think -- although I'm amenable to evidence otherwise -- that most references that use just "Byron" would not do so on first usage but only on subsequent usage after introducing the subject. Powers ^T 11:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Not here in the United Kingdom. It is customary to refer to Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley, Coleridge and Keats. Here's an example from the The Independent, another from the Peak District National Park Authority and, from across the pond, one from USA Today
• Support Per older ≠ wiser. GcSwRhIc (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, naming policy should be as consistent as possible. Note that no encyclopedia or comparable reference work lists him as Lord Byron. This really would open up a can of worms. If Lord Byron, why not Lord Palmerston or Lord Melbourne or Lord Kelvin? Not a single peer is best known in the form George Johnson, 6th Earl of Earlerson. What about Byron makes him a worthwhile exception to the naming convention used for every other peer? john k (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ummm, that if you asked any educated person who "Lord Byron" was he would be able to identify the subject of this article readily and without ambiguity. it doesn't bear equivocating that with figures less able to stake a solid claim to being the primary subject of their short titles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support for all the usual and obvious reasons - and in reply to John K, I'd be very happy to see Palmerston, Melbourne et al. follow suit (and we already have Tennyson at his common name). Consistency shouldn't be used as an excuse to use unrecognizable names.--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  Unfortunate on Tennyson. If you don't like Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson he should just be at Alfred Tennyson, his name for the vast majority of his life, and which is perfectly consistent with wikipedia naming convention. At any rate, the names are not unrecognizable, they are the standard way every reference work besides Wikipedia refers to these people. At any rate, the model of Alfred, Lord Tennyson suggests George Gordon, Lord Byron, which I would not oppose so strongly. john k (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be preferable to the current title, but still it doesn't seem to be a commonly used form, compared with plain "Lord Byron" as proposed. (Unlike "Alfred Lord Tennyson", which for whatever reason is commonly used.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The new name is confusing, failing to note that there have gbeen several Lord Byrons. "Every reference work besides Wikipedia" often doesn't has to disambiguate between articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lord Byron redirects here, so changing the title will be no more confusing. Powers ^T 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Most reference works other than wikipedia actually use some variant of the current title, not Lord Byron. john k (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The "several Lord Byrons" argument is irrelevant - there have been several Michael Jacksons and Barack Obamas, but that doesn't stop us applying the title to the most prominent holder of the name.--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Long, long, long overdue. The present guidelines on the naming of English peers enforce a foolish consistency indeed, when such obscurities as the current title of this article neglect that the subject is far and away the most obvious owner of the title "Lord Byron" in any cultural sense. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the usual reasons per john k above; I don't see why Byron is an exceptional case any more than others. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So why not move Byron and the others? (I mean those of the others who - like Byron - are clear primary topics.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what "others" you mean. Do you mean "other nobles who are better known by "Lord so-and-so"? Or "all other nobles"? If the former, then you can look to Alfred, Lord Tennyson for precedent and rest assured that others may be moved in the future. If the latter, the reason is because Lord Byron is very widely known by that form of his name, and not as widely known as "George Gordon Byron". Powers ^T 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yes! I approve!--Lairor (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace

His birthplace is problematic. Mayne *states* it, citing a now non-existent source. My opinion is that we cannot rely upon that. Dallas however states a different birthplace, and this from his own recollections. I have expounded the full citations with lazylinks in the Early Life article. It would appear to me much more likely that Dallas is here correct and Mayne is wrong. Wjhonson (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Credibility

Jeffrey D Hoeper exists on Wikipedia, solely, in this article, and yet is cited numerous times. I am suspicious that adequate credibility can be established for this author to speak as an authority on Byron. I am tempted to expunge all references to this paper as non-notable.Wjhonson (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality/bisexuality

Why there isn't much about this in the main article? All it says is that one of the reasons he left Britain for was to search for homosexuality experiences. I would like to know more about that and I am sure many people would as well. Especially as there are not that many historical figures officially known as homosexuals/bisexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.18.138 (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the French WP we talk about his bisexuality and his many boyfriends... And you are right, it's important to talk about that. Best regards.--Axagore (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The lack of information on this aspect of Byron's life is strange indeed. It was a major aspect of his life and his influence. It is a great oversight. Jamila iSchool (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)