Thomas Babington Macaulay was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 2, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 25, 2017, December 28, 2017, and October 25, 2020. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The German version is *FAR* more complete and should really be translated to replace the English one.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Why is it absurd? Dont forget that Indias poverty is, in the cycles of civilizations, a relatively new phenomenon - really a colonial and post-colonial condition. For most of history and certainly before British conquest, India had the most highly complex, developed, and productive economy in the world. It is precisely why control of Indian ports was the key factor in the rise and fall of the Dutch empire, and subsequently the British empire. So, in an emphatic speech and slightly hyperbolic speech, saying such things is far from 'absurd'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadsworth08 ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is everyone closing a transparent conversion so quickly. He might have said something like this and could have interpreted slightly different. Modern historians may not agree with the facts. This might have been a real letter sent by him to the parliament. Again without enough proof or documentation one cannot conclude.--22:36, October 31, 2007 User:90.200.14.11
I heard in one of the lectures of Dr. N. Gopala Krishnan, Honorary Director of Indian Institute of Scientific Heritage, Thiruvananthapuram that Max Muller wrote to Macaulay that "I am going to mis-interpret Vedas and other Scriptures of Sanatana Dharma Traditions whereby the Hindus (especially, the elite who were following English Education) would loose respect for the Vedas and Vedic Traditions. When the Hindus would loose respect for Vedas, there would be a vacuum created in their (the elite and leaders of India) minds and it is your duty to fill that vacuum with Christianity and its traditions through English Education". This letter in original is available in Kerala University Library in Thiruvananthapuram.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.194.223 ( talk • contribs)
I think this letter actually displays the British policy of "Dive and Rule" and that he Macaulay supported it. I found some people here think that Indian society or culture was actually helped by Brits....no way...guys remember they spent a lot of fortune, efforts and time to find an alternate path to India, why do you think they did it? Was it charity to help Indians to evolve, nah... it was for there own selfish motive. They always intended to have connections with India and tried every way to have supremacy over the sub-continent . Also someone was surprised to read that there were no beggars in India...its true, even today in the Sikh sect you wont find a single beggar. Gopalan said that Brits helped India develop by westernizing, dude please check the history, just a small example of Indian advancement in near past, Tipu Sultan had developed Rockets which no one in the world had never even thought of till that time. So the point is, maybe we don't have enough evidence to prove that Macaulay wrote such a letter and that is because the letter would be with Brits who might not make it public to avoid the embarrassment that for both the nation and Macaulay. Bmayuresh ( talk) 05:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
×LINK to Macaulay's speach on the Exclusion of the Jews - links to a Casino page in Spanish 86.17.152.129 12:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir Winston Churchill, in his school days, once won a prize for reciting the 'Lays of Ancient Rome'. Gopalan evr ( talk) 08:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If any one knows for sure that he won the Chancellor's Gold Medal at Cambridge, pls could you put it on this page with the date. Thanks
Macaulay won the medal in 1819 for "Pompeii". He also won in 1821 for "Evening". Pompeii is still readable. "Evening" is probably what inspired Macaulay to later write, "in general, prize sheep are good for nothing but to make tallow-candles, and prize poems are good for nothing but to light them."
(A collection of all the medal winners is in an 1859 book, findable on Google; it's also referred to in the Letters of Thomas Babington Macaulay, in the biography by Sir George Otto Trevelyan, and the poem is usually included in Macaulay's miscellaneous works -- sometimes bound with the speeches).
˜˜˜˜
Oz Childs —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.142.86.14 (
talk)
21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The ODNB has him winning the Chancellor's Gold Medal in 1821, I have added this with the reference. The ODNB website is accessible to most people with a British local authority library card, and many public libraries elsewhere will have subscription. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any purpose served by the section on the coat of arms? Rjensen ( talk) 09:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This spurious speech has turned up again. Since it is clearly widely known, it ranks as notable in itself. Furthermore, people may be inserting it in good faith, so it would be good to have a clear statement in article space of its falsity. I'm suggesting that it could beome an article on its own, called something like The spurious Macaulay India speech, and the whole story of its history and demonstration of its spuriousness can be stated in an easily accessible way. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this section - or at least its title - justified, as it features just one quotation and provides no further argumentation? Zonder ( talk) 10:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Coemgenus ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I'll start this review today. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a good start, but could benefit from some fleshing out of the text. Here's what I have so far:
The problem with the writings of Macaulay is the word 'India'. It gets a feeling that there was a nation called India. The word 'India' was basically a geographical expression used to denote the geographical area known as the Indian peninsula. It was just a huge land mass consisting of around 650 kingdoms of various sizes, and more than 2000 small and big rulers and kings, of various domains.
Again, the word 'Hindu' is also huge mistake. The Brahmanical religion connected the term 'Hindu' was not the religion of others. In fact, only in the early decades of the 1900s did the other castes be accepted as Hindus. Till that time, the other castes had their own gods, and traditions which were not at all connected to Hinduism. Before this time, the huge number of populations outside the Brahmanical religion was not allowed to enter any Hindu temple. If they did enter, many of them would have been quartered.
As of now, everyone of these castes have been forcefully joined into Hinduism, and they have no complaints. Many of them now consider Hindu gods as superior to their own traditional gods, or claim that their own gods are just mere 'avatharams' of Hindu Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.253.169 ( talk) 09:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Though proud to have helped pass the Reform Bill, Macaulay never ceased to be grateful to his former patron, Lansdowne, who remained a great friend and political ally.
God bless every one who contributed positively to this great profile. That's a true Lord. Realtimesongs ( talk) 15:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
উনিশ শতকের শিক্ষা সংস্কার এ অবদান 2409:4060:2E08:A756:A198:42AE:DD1E:69B0 ( talk) 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
No mention of Macaulay’s review (1831) of Croker’s edition of Boswell’s ‘Johnson’ in which Macaulay rubbished not only Croker, but Boswell himself such that ‘Johnsonian biographers are still trying to undo the damage.’ See Volume VIII of The Works. ~ 60.240.70.52 ( talk) 08:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thomas Babington Macaulay was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 2, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 25, 2017, December 28, 2017, and October 25, 2020. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The German version is *FAR* more complete and should really be translated to replace the English one.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Why is it absurd? Dont forget that Indias poverty is, in the cycles of civilizations, a relatively new phenomenon - really a colonial and post-colonial condition. For most of history and certainly before British conquest, India had the most highly complex, developed, and productive economy in the world. It is precisely why control of Indian ports was the key factor in the rise and fall of the Dutch empire, and subsequently the British empire. So, in an emphatic speech and slightly hyperbolic speech, saying such things is far from 'absurd'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadsworth08 ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is everyone closing a transparent conversion so quickly. He might have said something like this and could have interpreted slightly different. Modern historians may not agree with the facts. This might have been a real letter sent by him to the parliament. Again without enough proof or documentation one cannot conclude.--22:36, October 31, 2007 User:90.200.14.11
I heard in one of the lectures of Dr. N. Gopala Krishnan, Honorary Director of Indian Institute of Scientific Heritage, Thiruvananthapuram that Max Muller wrote to Macaulay that "I am going to mis-interpret Vedas and other Scriptures of Sanatana Dharma Traditions whereby the Hindus (especially, the elite who were following English Education) would loose respect for the Vedas and Vedic Traditions. When the Hindus would loose respect for Vedas, there would be a vacuum created in their (the elite and leaders of India) minds and it is your duty to fill that vacuum with Christianity and its traditions through English Education". This letter in original is available in Kerala University Library in Thiruvananthapuram.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.194.223 ( talk • contribs)
I think this letter actually displays the British policy of "Dive and Rule" and that he Macaulay supported it. I found some people here think that Indian society or culture was actually helped by Brits....no way...guys remember they spent a lot of fortune, efforts and time to find an alternate path to India, why do you think they did it? Was it charity to help Indians to evolve, nah... it was for there own selfish motive. They always intended to have connections with India and tried every way to have supremacy over the sub-continent . Also someone was surprised to read that there were no beggars in India...its true, even today in the Sikh sect you wont find a single beggar. Gopalan said that Brits helped India develop by westernizing, dude please check the history, just a small example of Indian advancement in near past, Tipu Sultan had developed Rockets which no one in the world had never even thought of till that time. So the point is, maybe we don't have enough evidence to prove that Macaulay wrote such a letter and that is because the letter would be with Brits who might not make it public to avoid the embarrassment that for both the nation and Macaulay. Bmayuresh ( talk) 05:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
×LINK to Macaulay's speach on the Exclusion of the Jews - links to a Casino page in Spanish 86.17.152.129 12:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir Winston Churchill, in his school days, once won a prize for reciting the 'Lays of Ancient Rome'. Gopalan evr ( talk) 08:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If any one knows for sure that he won the Chancellor's Gold Medal at Cambridge, pls could you put it on this page with the date. Thanks
Macaulay won the medal in 1819 for "Pompeii". He also won in 1821 for "Evening". Pompeii is still readable. "Evening" is probably what inspired Macaulay to later write, "in general, prize sheep are good for nothing but to make tallow-candles, and prize poems are good for nothing but to light them."
(A collection of all the medal winners is in an 1859 book, findable on Google; it's also referred to in the Letters of Thomas Babington Macaulay, in the biography by Sir George Otto Trevelyan, and the poem is usually included in Macaulay's miscellaneous works -- sometimes bound with the speeches).
˜˜˜˜
Oz Childs —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.142.86.14 (
talk)
21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The ODNB has him winning the Chancellor's Gold Medal in 1821, I have added this with the reference. The ODNB website is accessible to most people with a British local authority library card, and many public libraries elsewhere will have subscription. DuncanHill ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any purpose served by the section on the coat of arms? Rjensen ( talk) 09:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This spurious speech has turned up again. Since it is clearly widely known, it ranks as notable in itself. Furthermore, people may be inserting it in good faith, so it would be good to have a clear statement in article space of its falsity. I'm suggesting that it could beome an article on its own, called something like The spurious Macaulay India speech, and the whole story of its history and demonstration of its spuriousness can be stated in an easily accessible way. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this section - or at least its title - justified, as it features just one quotation and provides no further argumentation? Zonder ( talk) 10:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Coemgenus ( talk · contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I'll start this review today. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a good start, but could benefit from some fleshing out of the text. Here's what I have so far:
The problem with the writings of Macaulay is the word 'India'. It gets a feeling that there was a nation called India. The word 'India' was basically a geographical expression used to denote the geographical area known as the Indian peninsula. It was just a huge land mass consisting of around 650 kingdoms of various sizes, and more than 2000 small and big rulers and kings, of various domains.
Again, the word 'Hindu' is also huge mistake. The Brahmanical religion connected the term 'Hindu' was not the religion of others. In fact, only in the early decades of the 1900s did the other castes be accepted as Hindus. Till that time, the other castes had their own gods, and traditions which were not at all connected to Hinduism. Before this time, the huge number of populations outside the Brahmanical religion was not allowed to enter any Hindu temple. If they did enter, many of them would have been quartered.
As of now, everyone of these castes have been forcefully joined into Hinduism, and they have no complaints. Many of them now consider Hindu gods as superior to their own traditional gods, or claim that their own gods are just mere 'avatharams' of Hindu Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.253.169 ( talk) 09:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Though proud to have helped pass the Reform Bill, Macaulay never ceased to be grateful to his former patron, Lansdowne, who remained a great friend and political ally.
God bless every one who contributed positively to this great profile. That's a true Lord. Realtimesongs ( talk) 15:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
উনিশ শতকের শিক্ষা সংস্কার এ অবদান 2409:4060:2E08:A756:A198:42AE:DD1E:69B0 ( talk) 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
No mention of Macaulay’s review (1831) of Croker’s edition of Boswell’s ‘Johnson’ in which Macaulay rubbished not only Croker, but Boswell himself such that ‘Johnsonian biographers are still trying to undo the damage.’ See Volume VIII of The Works. ~ 60.240.70.52 ( talk) 08:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)