Talk:Lord Byron/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old discussions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Catherine Gordon 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Don Juan 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: :(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)
thread_title:  Father 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Goddamn? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Annoying edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mother in law 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lady Beaumont 

message: 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 and 1818 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)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Search 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Atheism 

message: 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)
thread_title: =Bipolar

message: 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)
replies: text: I thank you, Mr. Bazarov.-Anglius 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  BBC versus Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  claims needing citation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Boatswain epitaph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of George Byron, 6th Baron Byron]] 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was No move Duja 11:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is indeed an extreme case, where rules-lawyering should not outweigh common sense on naming issues. We should not name articles based on principle, or to set a good example, but for purely practical reasons, and practice dictates that the simpler name is more valuable to our readers. -Silence 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *No biography article on Wikipedia ever has been or ever will be named based on the legality of a certain variant. Wikipedia chooses the most common and widely-known name, not the most technical one. -Silence 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *The "redirect" argument is an exceedingly weak one, because by that logic any article could be given any name, since we can "just redirect from the other name anyway". You need better justification than that for ignoring common-use here in such a clear-cut case. Consider, also, that there are many search engines which only (or primarily) look for the main article title in question. If you search for "Lord Byron" on Google, for example, the only reason you won't bep resented with the Wikipedia article immediately is that we have the article misnamed. Consequently, this is not just an academic issue: we are actually directly denying thousands of readers important information about history because we're too stubborn to bend the rules a little when it is clearly merited. -Silence 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * No, you just don't like the Grace Kelly example because it points out where your title system is ridiculous.--Lairor 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *The slippery slope is one of the weakest arguments in existence. Have any real reasons?  No one other than you and your posse of Peer-lovers would ever search for Byron under "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron".--Lairor 02:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Posse of Peer-lovers"? Please try to be a bit more civil. grendel|khan 04:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alright, I'll admit that last comment was out of line. But I don't think the civil link was really necessary either. Sorry.--Lairor 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Unlike, "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron", "George Gordon, Lord Byron" is indeed a name I have seen to refer to the poet.  While I would still prefer simply "Lord Byron", "George Gordon, Lord Byron" would probably be my second choice.--Lairor 22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, it seems an interesting bit of timing that immediately below the request for comments on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage page is a note about Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson being up for a featured article review.  If there is a second to Byron in the "known as" department, Lord Nelson would be it.  Yet it seems that his current article title is sufficient.  Laura1822 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Britannica, among others, indexes as Byron, George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron By the logic of lairor we'd have to move lots of articles 'Princess Di' a title she never held beats Diana, Princess of Wales hands down. Alci12 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Britannica does not have an article or list of every peer.  Wikipedia is the first resource that purports to do that.  Therefore Wikipedia must have a consistent, if arbitrary, naming system for articles about peers.  I'm actually not fond of the current naming convention we are using, but think it's more important for it to be consistent than perfect.  Laura1822 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  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.
*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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support - See "Discussion" section. Additionally, WP:PEER is NOT a governing convention, it's just some random user project that is not a policy like WP:NC.  Also, many peers are chiefly famous for that very reason: they're peers.  Lord Byron is a very famous poet who just happens to be a peer.  Let's not let an encyclopedia be ruined by a few people who had bad experiences with poetry in high school.--Lairor 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is indeed an extreme case, where rules-lawyering should not outweigh common sense on naming issues. We should not name articles based on principle, or to set a good example, but for purely practical reasons, and practice dictates that the simpler name is more valuable to our readers. -Silence 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *No biography article on Wikipedia ever has been or ever will be named based on the legality of a certain variant. Wikipedia chooses the most common and widely-known name, not the most technical one. -Silence 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *The "redirect" argument is an exceedingly weak one, because by that logic any article could be given any name, since we can "just redirect from the other name anyway". You need better justification than that for ignoring common-use here in such a clear-cut case. Consider, also, that there are many search engines which only (or primarily) look for the main article title in question. If you search for "Lord Byron" on Google, for example, the only reason you won't bep resented with the Wikipedia article immediately is that we have the article misnamed. Consequently, this is not just an academic issue: we are actually directly denying thousands of readers important information about history because we're too stubborn to bend the rules a little when it is clearly merited. -Silence 03:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * No, you just don't like the Grace Kelly example because it points out where your title system is ridiculous.--Lairor 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *The slippery slope is one of the weakest arguments in existence. Have any real reasons?  No one other than you and your posse of Peer-lovers would ever search for Byron under "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron".--Lairor 02:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Posse of Peer-lovers"? Please try to be a bit more civil. grendel|khan 04:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alright, I'll admit that last comment was out of line. But I don't think the civil link was really necessary either. Sorry.--Lairor 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Unlike, "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron", "George Gordon, Lord Byron" is indeed a name I have seen to refer to the poet.  While I would still prefer simply "Lord Byron", "George Gordon, Lord Byron" would probably be my second choice.--Lairor 22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, it seems an interesting bit of timing that immediately below the request for comments on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage page is a note about Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson being up for a featured article review.  If there is a second to Byron in the "known as" department, Lord Nelson would be it.  Yet it seems that his current article title is sufficient.  Laura1822 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments:
I formally propose (as it has been done so many times before) that this page, George Byron, 6th Baron Byron be moved to Lord Byron.  My rationale is as follows: 
*The current title is a tongue-twisting name which few would use in everyday conversation and also one that only garners 100 hits on Google, most of which are Wikipedia-derived.
*According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28common_names%29 we should use the most common name of a person. If one were to search "byron" at Amazon.com and browse through the book covers of the resulting entries you'll find that the person in question is more often than not referred to as simply "Lord Byron".  Also note that note once is he billed as "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron".
*It is true that there are exceptions to the above rule, such as Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29, under which this article does fall. It states that a style similar to what is currently used should be employed except in such cases as the persons "are known exclusively by their personal names".  Now I realize that "Lord Byron" is neither a personal name nor a name that the person in question is exclusively known by but I have what I believe to be adequate further reasoning: The poet's personal name "George Gordon Byron" brings up under 200,000 hits on Google. The name currently being used "George Byron" brings up fewer than 90,000 hits on Google. "Lord Byron" however brings up nearly 3,000,000 hits, thus far exceeding the current title or any of the poet's personal names.  Allow me to direct your attention to the Wikipedia article on Grace Kelly.  By Wikipedia standards that article should be named Grace, Princess of Monaco, a name that is widely recognizable thus the princess is not exclusively known by her personal name.  However, her personal name is far more common in usage and it would be absurd to rename the article.  (On another note, I seriously hope the extremists don't spring onto that article after shutting me down.)
*Furthermore, Byron and Lord Byron already redirect here so anyone who actually types out "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron" in search of this page (which I highly doubt anyone would do unless they already know the page's title) can be redirected as well.
*All Wikipedia standards and guidelines aside, I do not believe it is our position to make up new standards of addressing people, that being something that veers dangerously close to original research.  Go ask an English Lit professor, a bookstore owner, or a librarian who wrote Don Juan and if they honestly reply "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron" I will be dumbfounded.
Let's be reasonable folks, I call him "Lord Byron", you call him "Lord Byron", everyone calls him "Lord Byron". No one calls him "George Byron, 6th Baron Byron".--Lairor 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica, among others, indexes as Byron, George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron By the logic of lairor we'd have to move lots of articles 'Princess Di' a title she never held beats Diana, Princess of Wales hands down. Alci12 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Britannica does not have an article or list of every peer.  Wikipedia is the first resource that purports to do that.  Therefore Wikipedia must have a consistent, if arbitrary, naming system for articles about peers.  I'm actually not fond of the current naming convention we are using, but think it's more important for it to be consistent than perfect.  Laura1822 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  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.</div>
*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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  In 1810 Byron & Hobhouse did visit the Dardanelles 'Troy' & Constantinopolis and, imitating Leander, swam across the straits; according to John Cam Hobhouse's diary  at http://www.hobby-o.com/smyrna.php M@T arragano 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have now added information about Chaworth.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polis 

message: I've removed the following line : "Byron's influence also extends as far as infamous British singer-songwriter and poet Pete Doherty who has cited Lord Byron as having a significant impact upon his moral philosophy, poetry and lyrics." 
It is surely a stretch of the imagination to label Doherty (a rock musician who, according to his wiki article, has no listed writings outside his song lyrics) a poet and philosopher, especially when it seems to be only he himself who is claiming this.  If he has claimed it, such trivia should appear under the Doherty article (with appropriate citation) and not under Byron. I don't know immediately know who to suggest, but I am sure there are umpteen better-known and more-clearly-influenced parties who can be mentioned to demonstrate Byron's wide influence.  Tobermory 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doherty