Talk:Alfred, Lord Tennyson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

His "True Love"

After "...this may have been one of the reasons why Tennyson was so late in marrying." I am cutting out "Or it could be because he was still lamenting the loss of his true love, Hallam. (Note that he never wrote an epic about his wife.)" This seems rather speculative, and the logic is faulty. If he had outlived his wife, perhaps he would have spent 17 years writing a poem for her also. We'll never know... 24.23.141.156 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The line as you left it is equally speculative, and struck me as being more of a grasping at straws -- Tennyson's feelings for Hallam are a much more reasonable explanation. I'd be for pulling the line entirely or reverting it to its original construction. It's no more speculative and the logic is not faulty. --Kstern999 04:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dying Swan

In the article for “The Dying Swan,” there is a full listing of the poem. I’ve marked it as a candidate for inclusion in Wikisource, but since I’ve never done anything with Wikisource before, I’m mentioning it here to get some more eyes on it before I do anything drastic. Advice is welcome. --Rob Kennedy 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A Poet Laureate?!

This should certainly be the Poet Laureate; a Poet Laureate makes it sound as if there is more than one at the same time! For the sake of peace I have edited it back to just 'Poet Laureate'; common usage.

--Waring 07:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Tennyson as "Poet Laureate" is rather suggestive that he was the only person ever to have that distinction, or who has it now! Emended to give his dates, and the date of his appointment as laureate. Fixlein (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Clayton

The link for Elizabeth Clayton is obviously wrong as it links to a modern businesswoman, not an ancestor of Tennyson. Dudleymiles (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Direct Contradiction

This article states Lord Tennyson is the second most quoted person in the English language after Shakespeare. The Dr. Johnson article says he is the most frequently quoted person in the English language. I don't know if this matters, as both facts are cited, and Wikipedia holds that they are thus both true. I would like to point out, however, that I could also cite from a logic textbook that (A • ~A) is a logical contradiction; as well, it is unencyclopedic (as no 'professional' encyclopedia would allow a blatant contradiction between two articles). I am not sure how to resolve this dispute; any ideas? Chris b shanks (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that Tennyson has the second highest number of entries in the ODQ after Shakespeare, whereas Johnson is the writer whose words are most often used by other authors (after Shakespeare). Not sure if we need to make this explicit... Tevildo (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Recordings

Edison made a handful of recordings of Tennyson reciting his own poetry. I think it would be an invaluable addition to this article if we could provide some links to some samples of these recordings. Can anyone help with this?76.117.2.182 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you can have recordings of Tennyson on wikipedia even if over 100 years old because the remastering itself would be more recent and so there could be copyright issues. The above comment about Tennyson and Hallam is in the wrong section by the way. 155.247.166.29 (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Idylls of the King most famous piece?

Surely The Charge of the Light Brigade is Tennyson's most famous poem? Even on an academic level In Memoriam is more famous. Idylls of the King could only possibly be recognised as such in terms of length; certainly not in terms of quality or fame.--Waring 07:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget Ulysses. He's got a lot of famous ones. --Marlow4 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but I was just looking at the line which says that Idylls of the King is his most famous. This, I think, is misleading.

--Waring 07:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's a misleading statement. Tennyson has plenty of famous poems to his name. Maybe somebody should just cut it out.

I agree. There are quite a lot more note-worthy poems. I don't know if I'm allowed to alter the article but I would recommend the inclusion of a handful of poems (e.g. "Ulysses" and "Tithonus") in the first paragraph. EmilyWien (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Poet Laureateship

I feel as if I read somewhere that Alfred Tennyson was reluctant to take on the laureateship and in fact turned it down a few times and had to be convinced before he finally accepted it. Is there any truth to this? I can see his reasons for turning it down. He's really private and shy and being poet laureate makes you the most famous poet in the country. His poetry after he got the laureateship isn't as good as before.

I'm pretty sure he did turn down the baronetcy several times before finally accepting it. It probably means he has to sit in the House of Lords which a shy man like him wouldn't want to. So I can see him doing the same with the laureateship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillofWorchester (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The lady of Shallot...

The lay of shallot is an amazing poem it has a great tone of mood and tone and has a very creative way of words! It is very moving including the way The lady of Shallot dies a sad death of having a curse which she breaks and she then dies in lancelots arms although there are 2 versions both by Tennyson but it is said that before that someone ese ad written a poem called the lady of shallot and that is what he based it on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.135.122 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree it's a killer poem. i really like both the rhythm of the poem too. the poem can be interpreted in so many different ways. that's how you can tell how great a poem is, when there is no one simple clear interpretation. the lay of shallot is totally one of them.

there are a tonne of awesome pre-raphaelite paintings that are entirely based on the lay of shallot poem by alfred tennyson. there are at least four of them by john williman waterhouse and another by william holman hunt which is also excellent. you should take a look at them.

Whoops!!! I forgot my signature.--Heretodae (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

i just want to add. for those who don't know this poem or if you aren't familiar with it. here's an very brief paragraph on it that i took from the lay of shallot page.

The Lady of Shalott" is a Victorian poem by the English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892). Like other early poems— "Sir Lancelot and Queen Guinevere," and "Galahad"— the poem recasts Arthurian subject matter loosely based on medieval sources and takes up some themes that would become more fully realized in Idylls of the King where the tale of Elaine is recounted.[1] Contents

Waterhouse's The Lady of Shalott Looking at Lancelot

Tennyson wrote two versions of the poem, one published in 1833, of twenty stanzas, the other in 1842 of nineteen stanzas. It was loosely based on the Arthurian legend of Elaine of Astolat, as recounted in a thirteenth-century Italian novella entitled Donna di Scalotta (No. lxxxi in the collection Cento Novelle Antiche), with the earlier version being closer to the source material than the later.[2] Tennyson focused on the Lady's "isolation in the tower and her decision to participate in the living world, two subjects not even mentioned in Donna di Scalotta."[1]

"In a more general sense, it is fair to say that the pre-Raphaelite fascination with Arthuriana is traceable to Tennyson's work" (Zanzucchi). Tennyson's biographer Leonée Ormonde finds the Arthurian material is "introduced as a valid setting for the study of the artist and the dangers of personal isolation".

Some consider "The Lady of Shalott" to be representative of the dilemma that faces artists, writers, and musicians: to create work about and celebrating the world, or to enjoy the world by simply living in it. Others see the poem as concerned with issues of women's sexuality and their place in the Victorian world. The fact that the poem works through such complex and polyvalent symbolism indicates an important difference between Tennyson's work and his Arthurian source material. While Tennyson's sources tended to work through allegory, Tennyson himself did not.

--Heretodae (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jordie's addition

After seeing Jordie's addition, I don't see any problems except that it was unsourced. Why was it just removed? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The reversion was right. The comments were in the wrong place - messed up the introduction and repeated a lot of what had already been said in the article. Some of the mentail illness stuff I agree is of interest but needs to be properly put into the article and sourced. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The reversion was not right. The right thing to do was move the information into the appropriate places. Whole sale removing of correct information on the topic is really not a great way when there is a need for the biography to be improved. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues, but still things that are missing. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the onus is on the person who makes the contribution. It would not be fair to expect someone else to sift the material and decide what was right to stay and decide where. A lot of it repeated what was already there. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. There is an onus on everyone. There is no given right to revert anyone for anything because you say so. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're argumentative for the sake of it. And can I remind you that it wasn't I that reverted anything on the basis of my 'say so'. The addition was rubbish, it was in the wrong place, and it repeated what was in the rest of the article. Perhaps you should leave that to sink in before you post yet again with your thoughts. Individuals should make constructive additions to an article rather than dump what's in their head at the time. The onus is on the individual to contribute in a constructive way. There was nothing constuctive about that - parts of it didn't even make sense. If you think it was so great then why don't you yourself put the right bits in the right places. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please follow standard formatting instead of constantly unindenting? And the addition was not "rubbish" if you know the topic. The addition was a copyright violation, but no one determined that because there was never a conversation. Reverts require notes on talk pages. There was none. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you stop complaining about everything? I'm tired of repeating so I'm not going to bother anymore. But it is clear that you do not just put a huge chunk of text and insert it into the summary paragraph at the top of the article. Let's be grateful that someone spotted it was in the wrong place, as it's saves us then having to remove it anyway for copyright violation. And don't presume everyone is less informed about the topic than yourself. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Contaldo, we need to have discussions about those things. If you simply revert, then you will never find out why the text shouldn't belong. If its just a style thing, then it needs discussion. Clearly, this was copyright violation spam, which can get someone blocked over. That would be needed to know so we can check their other edits. As such, I will investigate to see if they should be blocked. Ottava Rima (talk)

New file File:Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson by George Frederic Watts.jpg

Recently the file File:Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson by George Frederic Watts.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 04:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bicentenary celebrations

Lincolnshire will be celebrating with events up and down the county. On 16-20 July, the Tennyson Society will be holding its bicentenary conference at the University of Lincoln. Tel (UK) 01522 886407 if anyone is interested.

Of note is that the Tennyson Research Centre, run by the council at Lincoln Central Library, has the worlds largest collection of Tennyson items and is open all year round.--BSTemple (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with paper

Hi I need to write a final paper for my English class on this poem by Alfred Tennyson called Maud. I'm feeling very lost and I don't know where to begin. My prof says the poem Maud was a semi-autobiograpic poem but I don't know anything about Alfred Tennyson so that doesn't help me any. I don't want to ask for someone to write my paper for me but I'd like any kind of help would be really awesome. If you can lead me in a direction and give me some pointers or what to look out for. I need to have a 7 to 10 page paper double spaced by Thursday. Here's the poem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SceneandHeard (talk • contribs) 05:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

<<Note: (Poem was given and has been removed due to space)--BSTemple (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)>>

We can't help you with your homework. If you don't know anything about Tennyson then you should read some books about him — maybe get a start with this article. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions: 1.) Do your own work. 2.) Don't leave it until two days before a 7-10 page paper is due to write it. 3.) If you haven't done #2, plan on taking the course over again. 4.) Next term, when you find yourself writing this paper again, start by reading some basic biographical information. See if you can find what authorities have written on the poem you're addressing, to place it within a critical context. Don't be afraid to interpret it differently, but support your assertions with examples from the poem and/or Tennyson's life, and discuss how your interpretation differs from the traditional interpretations. Eceresa (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally forgot all about this after I posted my message. Heh! You guys were absolutely not help at all so it makes no difference. I wasn't asking you to do my work for me if you read my message above. I was asking for some pointers in the right direction was all. I think that's pretty ligit. And Etcetera, you grouch, if you really are a high school teacher, you can't be so naive to think your students don't regularly pull out a term paper in the couple days before its due do you? Hell, most people I know do it all the time and get by. I didn't need any of your help after all cuz my friends were much nicer and helped me out where to look. I didn't get much sleep those two days but I still got a b+ in the end which was pretty good considering where I was starting at! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SceneandHeard (talk • contribs) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read my message above, I did point you in the right direction. And while I've been doing this long enough to know that some of my students try to do projects that are supposed to take weeks in days, I've also been doing it long enough that most of them don't manage a B+ if they do it that way. Eceresa (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Peerage

Should the page not be titled in the format used for other peers, namely: Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson? -- Lord Emsworth 22:47, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

I would argue that Alfred is an exception to that rule. He is *always* called Alfred Lord Tennyson, so it makes sense to locate the article here. I suggest making Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson a redirect --Raul654 23:43, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But, if Alfred Tennyson is always Alfred, Lord Tennyson, why is the page at Alfred Tennyson rather than Alfred, Lord Tennyson? -- Lord Emsworth 11:27, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Good point - if I had to do it, I would have done it that way. Obviously, someone else did it differently. The arguement is academic though - both of those pages (Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson) are redirects, so it really makes no difference. --Raul654 13:01, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The modern tendency to credit all his works to "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" notwithstanding, he wrote most of them when he was just plain Alfred Tennyson. About the only really famous thing he wrote after he became Baron Tennyson was "Crossing the Bar". I don't know that that's why this article is Alfred Tennyson, but it seems a plausible explanation. —Paul A 02:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard is to exclude official, aristocratic and reverential titles from pages names; for example: King George I of Great Britain, Saint Francis of Assisi, President George W. Bush and so on. I am therefor moving this page back to Alfred Tennyson. - (unsigned)

• That hasn't been the standard for some time. Peerage titles are routinely included in article names. But if that were not the case, the rule would be "Use the most common name", which would be "Alfred, Lord Tennyson". No one calls him "Alfred Tennyson". - Nunh-huh 08:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not true - my OUP collection of his works says "Alfred Tennyson" in the one place where it doesn't say just "Tennyson". I think Oxford University is a little authoritative, eh? Stan 14:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New Fangled Innovators that Oxford U! What's next, Betty Windsor?<G>- Nunh-huh 17:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is not practice to exclude aristocratic titles: note all the articles on hereditary peers. Some time ago, there was a poll done, which determines that peerage titles should generally be included, unless they are almost never used (e.g. Robert Walpole). -- Emsworth 01:08, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Google shows about 2-to-1 for "Alfred Lord Tennyson" over "Alfred Tennyson". Apparently OUP doesn't pay attention to Google statistics. :) Stan 02:46, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not getting into which of the two again, but it seems clear this article should be either at Alfred, Lord Tennyson or Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson. - Hephaestos|§ 02:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Generations of English literature students would thank us if it were returned to "Alfred, Lord Tennyson". -- Nunh-huh 02:50, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The poll on peerage titles indicates that in this case, "Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson" would be appropriate. -- Emsworth 22:29, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the rule on Wikipedia is for articles to be titled by the most commonly-referred to name. In this case, "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" No? Djdickmutt (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the title, it is absurd that the article contains no reference to the name by which most readers know him, nor any explanation of why a different one is used here. 97.96.160.215 (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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 moved GrooveDog FOREVER 01:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually moved by me. Page didn't move, no idea why. ~fl 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson → Alfred, Lord Tennyson — As stated in the article's own lede, Tennyson is "much better known as 'Alfred, Lord Tennyson,'" so that's where the article should be under our "use common names" guideline. This is also in line with WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British_peerage, which says "When individuals inherited or were created peers but are best known to history by a courtesy title use that. Examples: Frederick North, Lord North (not 'Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford'), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not 'Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry')." The new title is thus perfectly in line with both WP:UCN and WP:NCROY. Powers ^T 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. I think the shorter title is more commonly known. LovesMacs (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Naturenet | Talk 16:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Lord Tennyson is not a courtesy title; it is one phrasing of Baron Tennyson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Make this Support; the guidelines are not intended to oppose this - and should in any case be ignored when not useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't specifically object, but surely plain old Alfred Tennyson would be equally valid and more technically correct? Deb (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per naming convention - long standing community wide consensus. Commonly known does not apply and "Lord" is an honorific and not acceptable for use. Library of Congress classifies him as Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson (i.e. 1st Baron Tennyson), which is his official name used in thousands of libraries and by thousands of publishers. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support rename to either Alfred, Lord Tennyson or Alfred Tennyson - Wikipedia should (and does) use most recognizable names, not "official" names. --Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing lengthy discussion for readability

Please read the above link. This is very applicable here. Not only are honorifics completely not allowed in titles (thus, negating any "Lord" in the name), his "most recognizable name" is his official name. You want to search for Tennyson, that is the name you get. Tennyson is found in libraries and in academia. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Nothing is "not allowed" in titles - where did that idea come from? And when I search for, let's say, "Tennyson poet" in Google, the name you claim is the "name I'll get" appears only once in the first seventy results. So sorry, it's the shorter names that are used in the real world, even if the longer form appears in some more obscure and official contexts. We should only really be discussing which of "Alfred Tennyson", "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" or "Lord Alfred Tennyson" to use.--Kotniski (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) There are many things explicitly banned from titles. Honorifics are one. We aren't allowed to use "Saint" in names either, even though saints are well-known as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC) What utter nonsense. Saint Peter. Powers T 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Augustine of Hippo, Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, etc. All people known by "St" and not allowed in their titles. There are thousands more. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) No, we don't use "Saint" to title every article that covers a saint. But that doesn't equate to "We aren't allowed to use 'Saint' in names" which is what you said. Powers T 16:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC) One exception does not prove your point. Moreover, there was probably some discussion on the matter or people did not realize that the rest were changed. Apparently it was and was at Simon Peter to conform to our standards. People even pointed out that use of "saint" is against our conventions. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC) That just means that our conventions on saints (and these ones about nobility) ought to be either changed or else ignored far more often. (They are only guidelines, you realize - they specifically say at the top that there will be exceptions.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing as how both Library of Congress and Google Books classifies him as Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson, I don't see how there can be an exception in this case. There are multiple guidelines - on honorifics and on nobility that apply here (not just one). Also, individual talk pages are not the place to change standards. Village Pump, an RfC at the guidelines, etc, would be a place to start. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Making what is perceived as an exception to the written rules doesn't mean that the standards have changed - just that the written rules don't document the standards as well as they might.--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing as how the Library of Congress, Google, and academia (we need reliable sources) classifies him under Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson, there would be no grounds for an exception. The exception on the page states that the other name has to be unanimous. There is no unanimity. By the way, Norton and other books that serve as text books for student label him as Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Will you please stop making stuff up? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Already provided links to the LoC catalog, the Google Books author summary, and I can provide a low res image of various Norton table of contents if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC) ...none of which is relevant to "unanimous".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) The guidelines clearly state that an exception can only be made in unanimous cases. Pointing out a major library classification system, an online classification system, and a practical and popular classroom textbook all showing that they are not in agreement verifies that there is no "unanimity" here, thus, an exception cannot be made. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) How do you get from "best known to history", the exact wording of the guideline, as pasted above, to "unanimously known to history"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Here is the specific statement from the peerage guideline: "for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names". There is no "unanimity" with his name, seeing as how every library, google books, and British Literature textbooks would state Baron Tennyson. As such, there cannot be an exception and it must default to his proper and well known full title. Regardless, your statement would require the page to be moved to Alfred Tennyson, Lord Tennyson. No one above has proposed that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) That's two sentences before the exception we're dealing with. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Outdent. I am confused how you can say "That's two sentences before the exception we're dealing with." There are only two proposals put forth - Alfred Tennyson or Alfred, Lord Tennyson. The clause you refer to says that it would have to be Alfred Tennyson, Lord Tennyson, with "Tennyson" repeated. No one has put forth this proposal. As for Alfred, Lord Tennyson, that has been pointed out to be incorrect based on the guideline and for Alfred Tennyson, it must be universally accepted, which the evidence above shows that it is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to quibble with you on "Saint". Suffice it to say that "Saint", like "Lord", is not prohibited in all cases, as evidenced by numerous examples of both. The guidelines you keep quoting are not absolutes; they are made to be broken when it betters the encyclopedia. Powers T 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I can show you where pages breach BLP, but that does not mean that it is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) BLP is a policy. This is getting tiresome. Powers T 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I object to the full honorific title. Alfred Tennyson is fine. You can add the rest somewhere in the intro if needed. Shorter names are 'real world' I agree and 'most recognisable'. Also agree about "Not Allowed" being waved about like a cudgel. It seems like shouting. Spanglej (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Google suggests that "Lord Tennyson" is almost an order of magnitude more common than "Baron Tennyson", so the "peers better known by a courtesy title" clause would seem to apply.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See above about "Saints" and honorifics. Rationale have to be within standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See further above for Frederick North, Lord North. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the case if Tennyson wasn't listed in academia by his full name and known under such. By the way, you never said Alfred Tennyson, Lord Tennyson, which is a big difference. Google suggests you are wrong - [1] Baron Alfred Tennyson Tennyson is Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson. Using a non-academic search (which the above is), you are including in unreliable sources. Unreliable sources can never be used in such a way. Google makes it clear which name they stick with. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Common name rationale is correct. For instance, this author is listed as 'Alfred, Lord Tennyson' in the New Oxford Book of English Verse and 'Alfred Tennyson, Lord Tennyson' in its predecessor. In my opinion 'Alfred, Lord Tennyson' is the commoner version. The point of the 'no honorifics' rule is that we don't have 'Sir Winston Churchill', 'Dr Albert Schweitzer' etc, but it can safely be ignored in this case. William Avery (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Tennyson, Lord Tennyson and Alfred, Lord Tennyson are two very different names. Your statement above provides that there is no common name because both have appeared equally. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to prove anything. Merely stating my opinion. William Avery (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

But you have to explain your reason within our standards, and your statement contradicts itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've explained my opinion to the best of my ability. Sorry if it's not up to your standards. William Avery (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bah. What I was stating is that you were using your text book as a rationale. However, you pointed out that the previous edition had another name. How do you rationalize this? Do you think that the newer edition reflects some kind of newer form? Or what exactly is it? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, my original posting adequately conveyed my reasoning. You have not convinced me otherwise .William Avery (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. How does this help resolve anything? Spanglej (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support (See remarks in discussion below.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  I am not sure how you say "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography have Alfred, Lord Tennyson as page name," because the online version does not it has "Tennyson, Alfred, first Baron Tennyson (1809–1892), poet" --PBS (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, Because I think people are mixing first and last name ordering in other encyclopaedias and projecting that onto the proposed name. If the article is moved to any other name then it should start with Alfred Tennyson with or without the addition of ",Lord Tennyson" . -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support as unique case and a justified exception from normal naming conventions for peers. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly makes it a unique case? As Philip Baird points out, even the ODNB has 1st Baron Tennyson. Norton's works have Baron Tennyson, and the Oxford Anthology of English Literature have Baron Tennyson. It was already pointed out that Google Books and the Library of Congress organize all works by Tennyson under Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The widespread and default use of the form "Alfred Lord Tennyson" (with varying punctuation) makes it a unique case. The fact that there exist some sources which abide by their own strict naming conventions does not impeach the fact that the form "Alfred Lord Tennyson" is far more frequent. This was the name under which his works were published during his lifetime. I have checked the British Library Catalogue and find 469 works which use "Alfred Lord Tennyson" in either title or author. There are a tiny number, less than ten, which use "Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson". Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

According to that theory, since 90% of books on John Keats have statements like "Keats's ____" then the page should be Keats and not John Keats. And could you please link to the British Library Catalogue, because I linked to the Library of Congress, which is the most extensive collection in the world and what set the standard for most library systems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the discussion section. I've stated my opinion in a survey, not put myself on the stand for cross-examination. The British Library Catalogue is here: Integrated Catalogue. Click on 'search the integrated catalogue', put in 'Alfred Lord Tennyson' in the box, tick 'Yes' on exact phrase, and you're away. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Tennyson, Alfred Tennyson, Baron, 1809-1892" Sorry, but that is what the catalog states. for example. Your evidence contradicts you - their official listing is the same as the Library of Congress. Do you have any other evidence to support your claim above? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1629 entries under "Tennyson, Alfred Tennyson, Baron, 1809-1892" in the British Library system for anyone who is counting. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the name of the author used when the book was published and the titles of books about Tennyson's life and work. That's the significant thing to check: what publishers and authors used, not what the library choose to use on their own internal index. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of author used when books are published are not the same as the card catalog name. The blue underlined bit after "author" in official entries are how the name is categorized. You must remember that Tennyson spent a very long portion of his life publishing under "Alfred Tennyson" and that there are many variations of his named use. However, there is only one official card catalog entry, which is the same as the Library of Congress and Google Books author listing. This is a key point in the discussions of authors that are also nobility. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Any explanation for that claim? There are over four major variations of his name. Libraries have chosen to classify all variations under one heading. Each of the major library systems and even Google books uses the same card catalog heading. Oxford's anthology, Norton's anthology, and others use the same title. "No it isn't" doesn't fall within policy and this discussion is based on points within policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What it means is that I have stated my view. It is not evidence on which I am open to cross-examination. Tennyson's poetry was published under the name "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" and authors of books about him usually call him "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" and that's enough to justify an exception from normal naming conventions. Can I ask you not to further attempt to engage in challenging my opinion? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read above where it spells out that polling is not a substitute for discussion. If you don't want to discuss and if you don't want to provide another rationale when factual errors are pointed out, why bother responding? And Tennyson's poetry was published under Alfred Tennyson. You do realize that he was publishing for a very long time before he became a Baron, right? And authors of books do not usually call him that. As I already pointed out, people refer to him as "Tennyson" in books, just as they refer to John Keats as "Keats". Your reasoning is unsound on Wikipedia because we do not refer to people and label them simply by their last names. You can ask all you want about not being challenged, but you are not acting according to the premise of this whole thing. This is not a vote and a "majority" does not win. You have to provide evidence within our policy and you have yet to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Now this must be my absolutely last contribution or else I shall have to make an appointment to see a stress therapist. This is a survey where people are asked to state their views and reasons. In my view the fact that Tennyson's poetry was normally published under the name "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" justifies an exception from naming conventions for peers. That's just the view that I offer as part of a wider discussion. If your view is different, then offer your view, but please don't go around accusing me of "unsound reasoning" and demanding the production of evidence in a form that will satisfy you. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - "In my view the fact that Tennyson's poetry was normally published under the name "Alfred, Lord Tennyson"" "Lord Tennyson" was created in 1884. He had only 4 major works published after that time. His most famous works, "Lady of Shalott", Idylls of the King, and In Memoriam, to name a few, were all published under "Alfred Tennyson". So, how can he fall under an expect for "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" when 99% of his work was not published under such a name? Nor do any libraries classify him as such (per LoC and British Library system). By the way, if you haven't noticed, some of his most famous works, such as Mariana were printed as authored by Alfred Tennyson for 54 years before he could ever have claimed the title "Lord Tennyson". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

unbelievable! Spanglej (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment I've been asked to weigh in here (as a veteran of some contentious name changes on other pages). Let me point out some issues here:

• Page history: The page has mostly had its current title as page name. This would favor retaining the current name.
• British peerage: The hereditary British titles naming convention also supports retaining the current name.
• Tertiary sources: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Tertiary sources have certain naming conventions. There is often no logic to them, but they are widely observed. It doesn't matter how authors of text books, monographs, or learned articles refer to Tennyson or for that matter how library catalogs, such as LOC or Copac, refer to him. It is other tertiary sources that carry the maximum weight. Until not too long ago, the Wikipedia naming convention (people) page had a box up top which advised editors to examine other encyclopedias, adding that the evidence would usually be overwhelming.

  "Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English."

In this case the tertiary source evidence is overwhelming. Not only do Britannica, Literary Encyclopedia ("Alfred, Lord Tennyson was born plain Alfred Tennyson in 1809 ...), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (<--corrected per PBS post below) have Alfred, Lord Tennyson as page name, but a Google search for all books with "Encyclopedia OR Encyclopaedia" in the title brings up 634 references for Alfred, Lord Tennyson and only 8 references for Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson OR Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson. The editors here need to decide which criterion carries more weight for them. (My first and last post here.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The hereditary British titles naming convention allows us to use a different name if it is more widely known, so I disagree that it necessarily supports retaining the current name. Powers ^T 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Google books official authors list has Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson, with 3,264 works attributed to him. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way "Baron Tennyson" and "1st Baron Tennyson" are interchangeable. Many drop the "1st" in cases of the "1st" to save some space in indexing. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The indexing used in references like the ODNB need to be interpreted to be in the format that we commonly use for example Tennyson returns :

• D'Eyncourt, Charles Tennyson- (1784–1861), politician [also known as Tennyson, Charles] Click here to see image
• Tennyson, Alfred, first Baron Tennyson (1809–1892), poet Click here to see image
• Tennyson [née Sellwood], Emily Sarah, Lady Tennyson (1813–1896), secretary and manager for her husband, Alfred, Lord Tennyson Click here to see image
• Tennyson, Frederick (1807–1898), poet
• Tennyson, Hallam, second Baron Tennyson (1852–1928), biographer and governor-general of Australia Click here to see image
• Turner [formerly Tennyson], Charles (1808–1879), poet

or Byron

1. Byron, (Augusta) Ada [married name (Augusta) Ada King, countess of Lovelace] (1815–1852), mathematician and computer pioneer Click here to see image
2. Byron, George Gordon Noel, sixth Baron Byron (1788–1824), poet Click here to see image
3. Byron, Henry James (1835–1884), playwright and actor Click here to see image
4. Byron, John, first Baron Byron (1598/9–1652), royalist army officer Click here to see image
5. Byron, John (1723–1786), naval officer
6. Byron, Sir Nicholas (bap. 1596, d. 1648), royalist army officer
7. Byron, Robert (1905–1941), traveller and writer on art
8. Byron, Sir Thomas (c.1610–1644), royalist army officer

because many tertiary sources use the format "FAMILY-NAME, FIRST-NAME(s)," while we do not we place names "first-name family-name" this would suggest that if we do not use this guideline then we should consider placing the name under Alfred Tennyson, but note the ODNB has as the start of its its first paragraph:

Tennyson, Alfred, first Baron Tennyson (1809–1892), poet, was born on 6 August 1809 at Somersby rectory, Lincolnshire, the fourth child ...

Which is closer to Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson than the proposed Alfred, Lord Tennyson. --PBS (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Hi Philip, I did make a mistake in quoting Oxford DNB. (For some reason that day, I couldn't access DNB; after emailing them about why my password was not working, I searched the web and happened upon this, which in my hurry, I construed (from its "Further reading") to have the impramatur of DNB.) OK, I'll grant you one more for Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron .... but my point remains, tertiary sources, especially "encyclopedias" (rather than thinking men's Whos' Whos, such as ODNB), are almost completely unanimous in having their page names either "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" (with 636 links) or "Alfred Tennyson" unadorned (603 links), the latter includes roughly 50% references to Tennyson in other pages, rather than the page names themselves. In contrast, there are a mere 8 for "Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson" OR "Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson" OR "Alfred Tennyson, first Baron Tennyson" (now 9 with DNB). Its really "no contest." It was on the basis of tertiary precedent that the Wikipedia page "Mahatma Gandhi" was changed to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, all other arguments never went anywhere. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind what other encyclopedias have as primary page name. It is neither Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson, nor Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson. Whether or not you want to give that statistic any weight is your prerogative, but there is no doubting its accuracy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

PS I forgot to mention Encarta, which of course, has been discontinued, but whose primary page name for Tennyson was again Alfred, Lord Tennyson with 1st Baron appearing as an alternative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the comparison for books with "dictionary" in their titles: 622 titles that have "Alfred, Lord Tennyson", and 13 titles that have "Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson" OR "Alfred Tennyson, first Baron Tennyson" OR "Alfred Tennyson, Baron Tennyson" (these 13 include the Oxford DNB). To be sure, not all in either group are dictionary entries (they could be references), but the contrast is staggering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is always a problem relying on third parties because the net is not available, I've been having that problem with looking at Google News which I wanted to search for another article :-( The point I was really making is that one can not put in pattern matches and ignore the word ordering, we choose to use the format "first-names second-name" for western names, rather than the that of many tertiary books which use "second-name, first-names" so AFAICT this is more a question of do we just use Alfred Tennyson or do we include a title in the name of the article. It is usual in English texts to put "Lord" rather than "Baron", so it is likely that all but the most formal entries (like the ONDB) will use Lord. For example the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica in the "Great Rebellion" article will call someone "Lord Byron", but they will include the rank in the first line of the article on that person with their backwards naming convention, BYRON, JOHN BYRON, 1st BARON (c. 1600-1652). (was his name John Byron Byron, 1st Baron Byron of Rochdale or was it John Byron, 1st Baron Byron of Rochdale and I wonder if it is hard being a Baron in Rochdale?)-- PBS (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

:) That's funny. In fact in my Google search, I carelessly typed Baron Byr, and received a query: "Do you mean Baron Beer?" My own sense is that encyclopedias follow tradition up to a point, but they also have conventions that have developed by watching each other. It is sort of like how all the gas stations on one street—if they want to survive—have more or less the same price per gallon. (Isn't that way with the prices in grocery stores, or even supermarkets.) If you do "Last name/First name" search for "Tennyson, Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron," you get 12 links, mostly to Britannica (from 1911 up to the early 70s). But Britannica has changed. Britannica 2009 has simply Alfred, Lord Tennyson; Byname Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Byron, though, is quite different. The 2009 Britannica page name is: George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron; By name Lord Byron. And, for the Byron page I would not be comfortable asking for a name change to Lord Byron. Anyway, I think I've had my say. Thanks for the lyrics. (Just remembered that I forgot to reply to you post on British India ... Sorry!) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:14, 22 November 2009 (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.

"First English writer raised to the peerage"

Does Benjamin Disraeli (author of Vivian Grey, Coningsby, etc, and created Earl of Beaconsfield in 1876, eight years before Tennyson was created a Baron) not count? Or does the article mean "first English writer raised to the peerage for being a writer"? Opera hat (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect so - a world where Disraeli got his peerage for his novels would be an interesting one indeed! Perhaps "the first man to recieve a peerage as a result of his writing", or the like, would be a better way to phrase it. Shimgray | talk | 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And one with a lower standard of novels ;->: Dickens and Thackeray got nothing. But Disraeli was not the first successful politician to write; consider the first Lord Halifas, the Trimmer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

a late comment on the move

It's too late to do much of anything, but I have very mixed feelings about this move. On the one hand, it's certainly true that this is the name under which his work is most often published (although certainly not the name under which his work was most often published in his lifetime, since he only became a peer in the last decade of his rather long life, after virtually all of his important work had already been published (except for the end of Idylls of the King, apparently). On the other hand, it's a form that we don't use for any other articles on peers - we never omit the surname in article titles, even when it is the same as the peerage title. Furthermore, we never use the form "Lord X" for substantive peers - we always include the ordinal and the proper peerage rank. (Frederick North, Lord North is a different case, where we are using the courtesy title he bore for most of his life instead of the substantive title he bore for only a year). I agree that Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson was an awkward and unattractive title. All the options have some flaws, but I think that by some margin the best solution would probably have been a move to Alfred Tennyson. This was the name he bore for his first 75 years, and there is considerable precedent for simply ignoring peerage titles on occasion (see Francis Bacon, Benjamin Disraeli, and Bertrand Russell for older, contemporary, and newer examples of this). I would also note that the appeal to Britannica for supposeldy having its article at "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" is just completely wrong. The general google search seems to suggest that's what the article says, but if you get access to the actual Britannica, the article is actually at "Tennyson (of Aldworth and Freshwater), Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron". The first line then notes "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" as a "byname", and "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" is what appears at the top of the browser, but the article itself is rather clearly titled more or less the same way as this article used to be. john k (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

But Russell is not called Earl Russell, even now; Tennyson is called Lord Tennyson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that Powers's original move request shows a lack of understanding of the peerage naming conventions. In support of this move, he quotes the line When individuals inherited or were created peers but are best known to history by a courtesy title use that. But that has nothing to do with this. A courtesy title is a title held by the eldest son (or eldest son of the eldest son) of a peer, usually a junior title of the peer. So Lord North was the eldest son of the Earl of Guilford, and Lord Castlereagh the eldest son of the Marquess of Londonderry. Both succeeded to their father's title, but only in the last year of their life, and so are much better known by the courtesy title they bore for the vast majority of their life, rather than the substantive title they bore only briefly (and, in North's case, long after his days of political prominence were over). As such, we make an exception to the normal rule that peers are listed by their highest title, and list them under their courtesy title. But "Lord Tennyson" was not Tennyson's courtesy title. It was his substantive title - a less formal way of saying "Baron Tennyson". This part of naming conventions provides no support whatever for the move - it is specifically about courtesy titles, which has nothing to do with Tennyson, who had no courtesy title at any point in his life. john k (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a confusion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit like the case with cognomens for royalty (as discussed recently at WT:NCROY). The convention probably ought to be modifed just to say "some other (unambiguous) name" in both cases. If people are much better known by some other name than the one implied by the convention, then the other name ought to be used - no reason to act differently depending on whether the other name is classed specifically as a "cognomen" or "courtesy title".--Kotniski (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lord Tennyson is neither a cognomen nor a courtesy title; it is an informal expression of his actual title. This is why different phrases are used; attempting to legislate with a meat ax is not helpful, especially if wielded (as this comment would suggest) in ignorance of the actual issues involved. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand that comment - I know "Lord Tennyson" is neither of those things, yet we have decided to use it and rightly so (since it's such a well-known designation of the man - although I would be equally happy with plain Alfred Tennyson). There must be other royals and nobles with designations that are not cognomens/courtesy titles, but which are common and unique names for those persons which editors could legitimately wish to use as article titles. I'm merely suggesting we reword the guideline so as not to state that we limit ourselves to particular classes of alternative designations (and the Tennyson case is good evidence that we indeed don't).--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding the use of the phrase "courtesy title", but I don't think such a distinction needs to be made in any case. The principle still applies, even if the specific situation called out does not, strictly speaking. Powers ^T 20:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The art of Tennyson's poetry

There doesn't seem to be a lot in here about Tennyson's artistry as a poet, which seems a pity. I offer this text for people's consideration - I'll leave it a few days and if nobody wants to tweak it I'll post it:

Tennyson used a wide range of subject-matter, ranging from mediaeval legends to classical myths and from domestic situations to observations of nature, as source material for his poetry. The influence of Keats and other Romantic poets published before and during his childhood is evident from the richness of his imagery and descriptive writing. For example, compare Now sleeps the crimson petal, now the white from The Princess with Keats' Eve of St Agnes. However, he also handled rhythm masterfully. The insistent beat of Break, Break, Break emphasises the sadness and relentlessness of the subject matter. Tennyson's use of the musical qualities of words to emphasise his rhythms and meanings is sensitive. The language of I come from haunts of coot and hern lilts and ripples like the brook in the poem and the last two lines of Come down O maid from yonder mountain height offer a most beautiful combination of onomatopoeia, alliteration and assonance:

The moan of doves in immemorial elms

And murmuring of innumerable bees.

Tennyson was a craftsman who polished and revised his manuscripts until they were perfect. Few poets have used such a wide variety of styles with such an exact understanding of metre. He reflects the Victorian period of his maturity in his feeling for order and his tendency towards moralising and self-indulgent melancholy. He also reflects a common concern among Victorian writers in being troubled by the apparent conflict between religious faith and scientific discoveries. Like many writers who write a great deal over a long time, his work is very variable in quality and he can be pompous or banal. However, the energy and beauty of his best work has ensured its survival.--Guinevere50 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement that Tennyson's use of blank verse, "rare in its day", was due to his tone deafness suggests the author is confusing blank verse and free verse. If Tennyson couldn't hear poetic rhythms he would not have been able to write metrical poetry (which blank verse is). Besides, as others have commented, whatever his ear for music was like, his body of verse as a whole shows an incomparable ear for metre.144.124.16.28 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporal lobe epilepsy?

Did Lord Tennyson suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy? Proof Reader (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

See List of people with epilepsy#Misdiagnosis by association. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Homo-eroticism

Why does a very poor reference and section which needn't be included, be allowed to ruin the whole page. Im proposing it be removed altogether as the reference and also the quotation professing homosexuality embedded within, is very sparse in connection. CorrectlyContentious 15:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)