Talk:Baron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

Whoever started adding the external website links needs to come back and complete them. The Baron of Grove Park, Atlanta, Ga. - William B. Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.144.250 (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could Someone with knowledge of Baron look at Barron[edit]

You will need to look at the history and look at the major changes that User:Tradin2 did to this disambiguation page. If there is anything worthy then think of moving it to this main article. Cheers --Lethaniol 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does this have?[edit]

A Baron can also be known as somebody that is hardcore at what they do best. Mainly linked with gaming, (see EXAMPLES below) can also be linked with an activity.

EXAMPLES

"Fancy a baron?" - Translation: Fancy playing computer? "You are a baron!" - Translation: Congratulations on doing something hardcore. I am impressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.182.29.76 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fictitious Barons[edit]

I tagged the "Fictitious Barons" section with an {{importance-sect}} tag, as I fail to see how this is relevant to the article at all, however didn't want to unilaterally remove the entire section. If somebody thinks this section is even remotely encyclopedic, please explain here and remove the tag. Else, if there is substantial agreement, let's get rid of the thing. I think the article may benefit from expansion, but not by inserting clutter and/or cruft. --Storkk (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I am removing the list. --Storkk (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--you people are out of your minds! 72.164.117.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Etymology[edit]

The etymology seems either wrong or very confused; see here and here and here and here and here, all of which are consistent with each other and say nothing about Latin liber, "free," as the root of the word. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

albanian origine of word "baron"[edit]

Baron is a specific title of nobility. The word baron comes from Old French baron, itself from Old High German and latin (liber) baro meaning "(free) man, (free) warrior"; it merged with cognate Old English beorn meaning "nobleman.




"Bur", "Burr" or "Burri" in today and old Albanian language mean "Man". "Bari" in albanian christian terminology mean shepherd of souls or a spiritual leader. "Bari" also mean shepherd. "Bur i lire" in Albanian mean "freeman". Latin word "Liber" seams to have the origine from albanian phrase "bur lir" or "lir bur" as "freeman". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.81.141 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title in Belgium?[edit]

I observe from their respective articles that Eddy Merckx and Paul Janssen were created barons as part of an honours system in Belgium. No mention of it in the article. Anyone know anything about it? Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sealand advertising?[edit]

look like principality of dsealand is advertising the selling of the barons title this in my opinion is wrong to do so i removed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.101.84 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the Principality of Sealand has made more barons than exist in the rest of the world. Seems like it deserves a mention, without an endorsement. Perhaps pair the mention with a skeptical reference. 67.252.74.71 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Years of parliamentary acts[edit]

I have added a link @Feudal Tenure Act", just to say I did spot the 2 year difference of dates. Need an authoritative look. RalphHinton (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Searching for Baroness redirects to this page. The semantic sexism aside, there is a popular progressive/sludge metal band called Baroness which I believe it would make more sense for Baroness to direct to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.45.117 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The term is by far the most notable as a title of nobility. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term is also most notable in referring to females, where the article on barons generally does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.45.117 (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Recent edits to page Baron by 193.164.162.125 (talk) have been reverted owing to incorrect information. The baronage of Scotland survives beyond 2004, a fact that can be readily ascertained from the web site of the Court of the Lord Lyon (www.lyon-court.com), see e.g. http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/536.html. In addition, Lord of Parliament is still a term used for Scottish peers. See the parliamentary web site, e.g. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lord-of-parliament/. Editor8888 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Agreed.[reply]

British vs continental barons[edit]

Any justification for this article to locate the section on barons in the British Isles before the section on barons of the continent of Europe? FactStraight (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

The infobox appears to have made the common mistake of ranking a prince above a duke. The infobox gets it half-right by ranking sovereign prince below a [sovereign] duke, but then puts prince above duke again. Princes as members of royal families rank above others. They do not rank above Dukes because they are princes (prince is a lower title), but because they have higher precedence as royalty in much the same way the The Earl of Wessex ranks above a Duke - because he's royal, rather than because he's an Earl.

Put simply the sovereign ranks go as follows: prince -> duke -> Grand Duke -> King -> Emperor -> Pope. So the noble/royal family ranks derived from them follow the same pattern. Remember that a sovereign of any rank is higher than a noble of any rank. So a sovereign prince ranks higher than a royal archduke who is not sovereign. The infobox needs to delete prince from its rank above duke. I am also not sure that a vidame ranked as a vicomte, as I understand it was a position of minor untitled noblility. I'm not familiar enough with the rank of vidame to comment further though. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Margraves and Landgraves rank(ed) with sovereign dukes, but as these are/were sovereign titles based upon the rank of count I can see why they may have been included in that category. Marquis and Marquess as far as I am aware have only ever been noble titles. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus to move. A variety of opposition reasonings given, from historical significance of the male versions, to the possibility of a fork if one wishes to have female versions. But overall I see a consensus not to move. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've changed the close changed from "Not moved" to "No consensus to move" following a query on my talk page. On looking at this again, the nomination and the "support" votes do have some merit in the argument of pursuing non sexist language, and precision in defining what the article scope is (i.e. including the female versions), but the oppose votes (which outnumber supports), clearly have good reasoning as well, including the historical significance of the male titles, as detailed above. So with valid arguments on both sides, and no move towards a compromise position, I would say it's a no consensus. But either way the article is not moved. Several people expressed a desire to see explicit separate female versions of the articles; that might be a good way forward. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– I consider WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in featuring a male version of term without parallel presentation of a female presentation of a term. There might similarly be bias in having a stub article for feminine terms when there is a comparatively expansive article in reference to the male term. However, in accordance with current usage, equivalence can be considered. Placing all the content for each unified topic may also facilitate the presentation similarities and differences in use. GregKaye 08:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It is one thing to reform sexist word usage, quite another to re-write history and blur its sexism. In the vast majority of cases, past and present, men and women have obtained, borne and exercised the prerogatives associated with these titles differently: most males inherited their titles and exercised prerogatives associated with them (membership in Parliament, fief ownership, sovereignty) in very different ways and to different degrees than females who held the equivalent title, most of whom held and hold titles as the spouses of males. Indeed, most of what the male and female versions of these titleholders share historically is status and style, rather than position and power. While change is long overdue and in progress, Wikipedia's role is to reflect trends, not advance them. Moreover, there is no prevalent Wikipedia practice of double naming (as distinct from inclusion of differentiating information within) articles to indicate that there are male and female versions of nouns: Why, when it comes to article titles, couple viscount or emperor when we don't do so with, e.g., He, Hers, Deaconess, Chairwoman, Daughter, Midshipman, Rooster, Sister, Alderman, Mare, Maid, Priest, Tiger, Yeoman, etc. Such far-reaching change should be addressed by Wikipedia systemically, not piecemeal. FactStraight (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Baron and baroness are two sides of coin and are described in the article. But historicaly, main was baron, baroness was his wife or daughter. We cannot change historical facts. --Yopie (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yopie No one is wanting to change facts. Clearly, when in a position of relative power, some barons may have even have had the choice to have a baroness, an otherwise designated spouse of any series of other relationships. The article can still fairly present history. FactStraight should we then split the article Monarch to King and Queen?
The other option would be for parallel contents to be developed and, perhaps, the presence of the RM references might pique an interest. there are articles Prince and Princess GregKaye 11:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently neutral. Just out of interest, why are you proposing disambiguated titles? Zarcadia (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zarcadia Something needs to be done NPOV wise. I don't have a background in understanding so called nobility to develop additional articles on these themes. I've posted at Wikiproj:Discrimination and Feminism. Maybe someone will either develop a section of the male titles or write a new content. Maybe support will be given to the existing proposal. The issue has now been raised. Maybe something will be done. GregKaye 20:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'd possibly support, for example, moving Baron to Baron and Baroness, but never Baron to Baron and Baroness (noble titles). By the way, I do appreciate the thought you've put into these proposals but I'm still undecided at this point. Zarcadia (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose for no other reason than WP:CONCISE. There's no nice term like "monarch" to use. (Not that queen even redirects to monarch, anyway.) Red Slash 14:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see how it'll hurt things. The article concerns both sexes after all. Maybe the name change will encourage more content on what it meant/means to be a baroness.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A clumsy solution looking for a problem. —  AjaxSmack  01:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The best solution here would be separate articles, like the aforementioned Prince and Princess. As has been pointed out, the histories of these titles are significantly different from each other, as for centuries, it was uncommon for women to hold these titles in their own right, rather than through marriage. The pre-modern women who did reign as an empress would probably get more focus in an article specifically on empresses. The current article doesn't discuss empresses, reigning or not, all that much at all. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is interesting quesiton. i think that it is not that important. i come from language with no gender, so no problem there. in english tho there are always these problems. i come from nominators other requests. he seems to make good change. this is good, maybe, but long title. who would to type that? when i think, i think of baron and baroness as sepereate things. two articles. two articles is best idea, because these are different. one wears dress and one wears high collar, you know. for now oppose Togashi Yuuta (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly favor. Debretts uses this formula. For the most part, wherever there has been a baron there has also been a baroness. It would help the article if both the men and the women are included, if only in the title. It is hard to see how Margaret Thatcher, for example, is any less important than most of the (extremely unimportant) barons that have found their way into Wikipedia simply through being related to their (maybe important) fathers. I, too, support moving Baron to Baron and Baroness, but never Baron to Baron and Baroness (noble titles). Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because of the differences between Baron and Baroness mentioned passim above. I could envisage, without great enthusiasm, separate articles on Baron and Baroness (+ other titles similarly) but I don't really think there's much justification for change.Eustachiusz (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No justification for a change? Well, a baroness is not a baron; there is one right there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. My badly-expressed point was that, however significant the difference, it still doesn't seem to me to lead to the article title suggested here, which is simply clumsy. Two separate articles might be a possibility, if the difference is great enough, but far better is the status quo, since the male titles in any case imply the female ones. In short, I agree with the comment above this is a solution looking for a problem.Eustachiusz (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding the above closure, there is additional comment at User_talk:Amakuru#Talk:Baron.23Requested_move_7_April_2015. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Titled by marriage?[edit]

I am an American, ignorant in these matters. Is the wife of a Baron a Baroness, and the husband of a Baroness a Baron, or does the title pass though only one side of a marriage? If the latter, is the partner still referred to as Lord or Lady? 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:39B2:835F:D7A3:14EA (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baron. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baron. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness[edit]

The etymology section lacks crucial information about why the female form is "baroness". Although it might look French, it isn't. The French word has always been "baronne". --2001:16B8:3124:F900:E2:9D2C:A061:4CE4 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baron&oldid=1216544616"