Talk:Thomas Babington Macaulay

message: 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)
replies: text: He is very frequentlycalled either "Thomas Babington Macaulay" or "Lord Macaulay".    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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It's Baron Macaulay, of Rothley. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His title 

message: ×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)
thread_title: Casino page

message: 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)
thread_title: Churchill

message: 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)
thread_title: Chancellor's Gold Medal

message: Is there any purpose served by the section on the coat of arms? Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  coat of arms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The spurious Inda quotation again. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Anti - Hindu Approach" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Errors in word definitions 

message: 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.
:Not clear what this means. Did Lansdowne oppose the Reform Bill? Valetude (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I would imagine the supposition is that anyone helping to pass the 1832 Reform Bill would/might have done so from motives so pure as to be opposed/ungrateful to anyone (even a Whig proprietor) who had previously been so mired in corruption as to have owned a pocket borough.  I would think that supposition dubious, given that the 1832 bill did not set out to abolish pocket boroughs (just cut them down to size) and actually created new ones, such as Huddersfield, but others might think different. Rjccumbria (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with Lord Lansdowne 

message: God bless every one who contributed positively to this great profile. That's a true Lord. Realtimesongs (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good one 

message: *https://caravanmagazine.in/reviews-essays/biography-macaulay-unwritten-tell-us ∯WBGconverse 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: উনিশ শতকের শিক্ষা সংস্কার এ অবদান 2409:4060:2E08:A756:A198:42AE:DD1E:69B0 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  উনিশ শতকের শিক্ষা সংস্কার এ অবদান 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Boswell?