Talk:John Byng

Merging
"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 momentAlci12 18:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographic notes
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)

NPOV
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)
 * Yes, there are indeed some severe NPOV issues here. I've tagged the article as such so that this is cleared up, among many other things:


 * The article appears to be orginally based on the 1911 Britannica article, as shown by the link appearing at the bottom. The text (including that above quoted above) has been edited since, and more information and cites have been added to the piece.  (And it could use more.)  If there are specific factual disputes about the information quoted above, then appropriately cited text should be added, or the dispute discussed here.  Are there specific facts in issue?
 * The article should not be tagged to require a "clean up" of text which is based on a reliable secondary source, unless the assertions are in question. If the article is felt to present a biased version of the facts, it would be helpful if who hold that belief identify the disputes.  Kablammo (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the facts so much as the language, especially under "Battle of Minorca". I've just fixed some of it. aristotle1990 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The 1911 EB does tend to use more colourful language than we're used to.  Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 20:10, 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)
 * Support. I've gone over the article and fixed up some other stuff. I think we can take it off now. aristotle1990 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Kablammo (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment "higher officers of the navy...showed great [leniency] to men of their own rank" has been included, quite properly, in the article. It's sourced from 1911 EB but, in view of the doubts here, I've added a tag as "commentary". --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment seems not to apply as a new-found ref indicates that it was the Lords Justice of Appeal who lacked the leniency. Deleted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this really what you mean?
The language needs tidying up.
 *  Despite his protests to the contrary, he was not given enough money or time to prepare the expedition properly. 
 * What this actually means is that Byng protest "contrary" to the statement you have made ie: he protested that he was given enough time and money.
 * Is that what you mean? It seems hardly possible!


 *  ....since he failed to pursue the superior French fleet to protect his own.
 * This reads that "pursuit" of the French fleet would "protect his own". That is the exact opposite of what is intended here. The order in which words are placed is important, and the conjunction need to define exactly what you mean. The words "in order" need to be put in there.
 * .....he, in order to protect his own fleet, failed to pursue the French.
 * etc etc....

Amandajm (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I reworded these, to "Despite his protests, he was not given enough money or time to prepare the expedition properly" and "he chose not to pursue the superior French fleet to protect his own." Better? Muad (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

comment
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)
 * Elaborated dates: seems he was 13. Midshipmen trained "on the job". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Computer game, based on fiction, used as source
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)
 * OK, no dissenters: the self-published source reverted in favor of EB1911. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reading section
Half the page seems a little excessive. 201.230.79.114 (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excessive or obsessive? Looks like the result of a lot of research and hard hard effort, though, unless it's copied from the bibliography of some other work. How could we cut it back? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The quantity is huge; the quantity as a proportion of the article is starting to turn into a joke. If someone has really read and recommends all of those works, maybe we can persuade them to flesh out the page here. This is currently more of a reading list than an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.79.114 (talk) 14:18, 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." |1911 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)
 * Now deleted, as discussed below. Kablammo (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

the court-martial
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)
 * It's good when editors with good knowledge of a topic contribute to the project, but needing to avoid WP:COI restricts you from using material from your own published works. (I wonder how Joseph Heller would have got on!) Suggesting the book on the talk page and leaving it to another contributor, as you have done, is the right way to go about it. Is ISBN 9780750940214 the one you are suggesting? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:45, 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)
 * That's a yes, then, as they have the same ISBN.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fourth son of George Byng, or fifth?
EB 1911 says John Byng was the fourth son of George Byng, as does our article on the father. The Royal Naval Museum says he was the fifth. Can anyone state which is correct? Kablammo (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * John was the fifth (5th) son of Admiral George Byng, 1st Viscount Torrington.
 * 1st son: Pattee, 2nd Viscount, d. 1747;
 * 2nd son: Matthew, d. 1714;
 * 3rd son: George, 3rd Viscount, d. 1750;
 * 4th son: Robert, Governor of Barbados, d. 1740;
 * 5th son: John, Admiral of the Blue, d. 1757.
 * source: Burke's Peerage
 * ChessieClio (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Difficult, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, in their respective articles, state that George had 15 children; 11 sons and 4 daughters. Of these John was the fifth surviving son. The History of Parliament however has him as the fourth son. The presence of Matthew Byng in the list may suggest a reason for the discrepancy. Given that Matthew died young, probably barely in his teens, he may be being omitted from some sources in the counting of George Byng's children. I'm not entirely convinced by this explanation myself however. If you have an authoritative source that names Matthew as the second son, and given the ODNB is usually pretty authoritative itself, I'd be inclined to change the articles to have John as the fifth son, but with a note explaining that some sources have him as the fourth. Benea (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks and . I have changed to text to "fifth", and left a hidden note referring editors here. An explanatory note may also be helpful, but that probably should contain the cites to the other sources, which I don't have. The article for Robert Byng also is incorrect; I will change it, but without citation. Kablammo (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Marines or Marines?
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * Tute (the cited source) does not mention Royal Marines but the source linked at footnote 19 does. I will remove the "Royal".   Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Further reading section, part II
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)

"On this day" hook
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)
 * thanks for spotting this, as you mentioned at the errors page it's been wrong for years. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029001336/http://www.wrothampark.com/history.htm to http://www.wrothampark.com/history.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/memorials/m4085

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Method of execution
By this edit, 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  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)


 * I say remove, a wineglass is not a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , you are absolutely right. I had been thinking of WP:UNDUE but the reliable source policy is directly on point.
 * I did come across a mention somewhere that Byng was originally sentenced to hang but demanded to be shot instead. I have not verified this, but the Britannica article on Byng quotes Newcastle as follows: "he shall be tried immediately; he shall be hanged directly."  That, and the popular ballad sung at the time ("to the block with Newcastle, and the yard-arm with Byng") could well be the inspirations for the legend on this glass.
 * I had thought of leaving this for a week to give the original poster an opportunity to weight in, but as WP:RS is clear, I will revert now. Kablammo (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And done. Kablammo (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Escape attempts?
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.

—porges 07:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)