This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Byng article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 14, 2006, March 14, 2007, March 14, 2008, March 14, 2009, March 14, 2011, March 14, 2014, March 14, 2015, March 14, 2017, and March 14, 2021. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are several good sources about John Byng and the Battle of Minorca available on the web. [1] (dead link, but archived here) is from The Royal Navy: a History from the earliest times to the present, published in 1897 (if I understand correctly [2]), so it's probably in public domain. There is also an article from the British Royal Naval Museum [3] (also dead, archive copy here), and a text about the painting from the National Maritime Museum [4]. Google [5] returns namy more useful sources. Zocky | picture popups 12:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"The severity of the penalty and the suspicion that he was used as a scapegoat led in time to a reaction in favour of Byng. It became a commonplace to say that he was put to death for an error of judgment. The execution was also satirized by Voltaire in Candide."
We have the above then a section in aftermarth with the same statement. One or other should be removed as it feels like 'deja vu' at the moment Alci12 18:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The notes here are fantastic and I applaud whoever added them all; perhaps, however, there is a way to shrink the font or link to a source where they're collected in the same manner? I offer it as a purely stylistic suggestion. 142.177.124.155 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is a joke, was it written by his descendents? How about some unbiased facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.147.12 ( talk) 06:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Byng, an admiral since 1745, was then serving in the Channel. He was ordered to the Mediterranean to relieve the British garrison of Fort St Philip (Port Mahon). Despite all his protests to the Government, he was not given enough money or time to prepare the expedition properly. Even his sailing orders were inexplicably delayed by 5 days, and this turned out to be crucial to the lack of success of the expedition. So he was forced to set out with only ten unseaworthy ships that leaked and were inadequately manned. Then Byng was in particular much aggrieved because his marines were landed to make room for the soldiers who were to reinforce the garrison, and he feared that if he met a French squadron, he would be dangerously undermanned. His correspondence shows clearly that he left prepared for failure, that he did not believe that the garrison could hold out against the French force, and that he was already resolved to come back from Minorca if he found that the task presented any great difficulty. He wrote home to that effect to the Admiralty from Gibraltar. The governor of that fortress refused to spare any of his soldiers to increase the relief force.
aristotle1990 ( talk) 19:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
To address the comment which opens this section: The article contains an implication of sloth directed against Byng (from the 1911 EB article); it also quotes the views of N.A.M. Rodger and Warren Tute that the execution did powerfully "encourage" later RN officers to do their utmost. These views are not those of a partisan of Byng. In what way are the facts in this article biased? I propose to remove the NPOV tag. Any objections? Kablammo ( talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The language needs tidying up.
Amandajm ( talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
A good article. The phrasing "a well-established Admiral with a rising and stellar career" needs to adopt a single focus. Perhaps the verbatim repetitions of the material in the precis could be expanded rather than repeated. -- Wetman 10:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The dates and age cited in the introduction to this article appear incorrect. John Byng's date of birth is stated as 29 October 1704, and he is supposed to have joined the navy at the age of 14 (that is, some time after 29 October 1718). However, it states that he took part in the Battle of Cape Passaro, which occurred on 11 August 1718 (when he was still 13). Presumably, as he would have joined as an Ensign, and required some training before being posted, either his date of birth is wrong (unlightly but possible), he joined the navy at 13, or he never took part in the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myversion ( talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I deleted an inline link to HMS Surprise - a frigate* simulator for Windows because it's: (a) a self-published source; (b) a computer game and (c) based on the excellently researched but fictional Aubrey–Maturin series of novels. This falls within WP:NOTRELIABLE criteria. It's now been reinstated because "The 1911 reference that replaced it was bogus". That's a startling claim so, to counter it, I propose strengthening the contested reference with the relevant passage from the cited work: Neither must it be forgotten that in the previous war in 1745 an unhappy young lieutenant, Baker Phillips by name, whose captain had brought his ship into action unprepared, and who, when his superior was killed, surrendered the ship when she could no longer be defended, was shot by sentence of a court-martial. That seems to sum up the point in the WP article quite nicely. If anyone else wants to suggest that EB1911 is "bogus" that would make an interesting topic to take to the experts at the WP:RSN. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 22:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Half the page seems a little excessive. 201.230.79.114 ( talk) 05:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Per 1911 EB: "The number of contemporary pamphlets about his case is very great, but they are of no historical value, except as illustrating the state of public opinion." Encyclopædia Britannica/Byng, John That said, the state of public opinion is important, and the inclusion of these publications does no harm. Kablammo ( talk) 15:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel unqualified to edit a Wiki article, but I should draw attention to my book, INJUSTICE, Sutton Publishing, 1996 in which I argue that the court-martial seriously misunderstood the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lake rudyard ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
No. It is ISBN-10: 0750940212 ISBN-13: 978-0750940214 which can be found at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Injustice-State-Trials-Socrates-Nuremberg/dp/0750940212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332879510&sr=8-1 LakeRudyard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lake rudyard ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
EB 1911 says John Byng was the fourth son of George Byng, [6] as does our article on the father. [7] The Royal Naval Museum says he was the fifth. [8] Can anyone state which is correct? Kablammo ( talk) 23:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The article says Byng was shot by Marines Royal Marines in 1757. My neighbor (a retired Commander on submarines) claims to have been a Marine in the Navy before they were Royal. However, Wiki appears to contradict my neighbour: "The Royal Marines were formed as part of the Naval Service in 1755." (2 years before the execution) and "Titled "Royal Marines" in 1802 "Corps of Royal Marines" in 1923. Ref. /info/en/?search=Royal_Marines Or did the navy have some Marines that were not Royal Marines?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.230.181 ( talk) 17:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the long list of contemporary pamphlets is of no great use, except to show public opinion at the time. I no longer believe that the list belongs in the article, as conclusions about the state of public opinions should come from secondary sources. I therefore have removed the list, which can nevertheless be accessed in the history of this article here. Kablammo ( talk) 19:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The "On this day" hook is blatantly false. Byng was not court martialled on the 14th of March. DuncanHill ( talk) 10:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Byng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
By this edit, 146.66.32.129 inserted the following text:
Strong evidence of the firing squad execution is contradicted by an engraved wine glass [21]of the time. This suggests that Admiral Byng was hung and that public sympathy for a miscarriage of justice resulted in a commemorative glass. The original source of this attribution is unclear.
Cited is Bickerton, Leonard Marshall (1986).
Eighteenth century English drinking glasses: an illustrated guide (Second Revised Edition ed.). Antique Collectors' Club. p. 299.
ISBN
0-907462-61-8.
OCLC
906516430. {{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help) I do not see that the cited page of this source is freely available online.
There is another source available which mentions either this piece of stemware or one like it:
Lord Torphichen has a curious example, with the stem formed of outer spirals of three and one alternately round three wavy perpendicular cords, all air lines; the bowl is engraved with a man hanging from a gibbet, with the initials “ A B.”, and the words, “THE COWARD’S REWARD” (Fig. 225). The initials indicate that this glass is in vulgar allusion to the unfortunate Admiral Byng, who was sacrificed to political clamour, and shot for cowardice in 1757. Posterity has amply vindicated both his courage and his honour.
Albert Hartshorne, Old English Glasses: An Account of Glass Drinking Vessels in England, p. 290. London: Edward Arnold 1897. The accompanying image shows a piece of stemware, with the gibbet and hanging form bracketed by the initials. As quoted above, the author acknowledges that Byng was shot.
Aside from this wineglass, is there any reliable source, anywhere, that asserts (a) that the admiral was executed by any means other than a firing squad, and (b) that his body was exposed? There is no such evidence, and the glass may be nothing more than a sardonic commentary on the event, with license taken in depicting the mode of execution, perhaps for the simple reason that the gibbet is vertical while an image of a firing squad shooting its victim would be more horizontal and likely would wrap around the object.
I propose to remove the recent edit. Kablammo ( talk) 15:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing here about his (supposed) escape attempts, which seem to have been rather notorious at the time.
See page from "A Political and Satirical History of the years 1756 […] 1760": https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SsIUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false The explanation of this is given here (note that "cole" = money). The blanked-out phrase is presumably "Bung Hole" (= anus): https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=e47WAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1007#v=onepage&q&f=false
Previous entry in latter has details of supposed attempts.