Talk:Sir Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet

Untitled

The figure depicted in the statue is in the correct position for an ancient stirrupless rider or current amateur bareback rider but not the accepted position for good riders today. Even bare back, to ensure correct stirrup riding, the ear-shoulder-hip-heel alignment should be straight and vertical. I would conclude either this statue is patterned after an old Roman one. Or Munro rode like this and didn't care (it works well, it's just not good for your normal riding form) or the sculptor rode like this. But, the statue is not just a rider with the saddle missing. http://www.cha-ahse.org/teaching%20articles/bareback_jg.htm 66.105.244.3 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)hhhenry

Contradiction

How can a person born 1773 be the grandfather of a person born 1761? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Munro's grandfather was a tailor, who invested in American tobacco and developed a prosperous business. This gave Thomas' family a foundation for a marginal gentility, which enabled four of Alexander Munro's sons to enter the British East India Company's service. However, the American Revolutionary War destroyed that business and ruined Alexander's finances.Fconaway (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Munro died 6 July, 1827, yet the infobox says he was Governor of Madras from 16 September 16, 1814 – 10 July 1827. The same ending date appears in the list of Governors of Madras. Can this be correct?Fconaway (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge Proposal of Statue of Thomas Munro

I do not understand why the Statue of Thomas Munro has its own article. Is the statue really that notable as to be considered separate from the person it depicts? --dashiellx (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: Merger of Statue article with the person's article is good. The statue article anyways talks more about the person than the statue itself. Only the fact of being Stirrupless is mentioned a couple of times to extend it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  I created those two sections on Munro's life as I wanted to get this article to a WP:GAN. Anyway, even if you remove the sections which speak of Munro's life, still you have four sections "Construction of the statue", "Architecture", "Peculiarity", "Historical references" and "Removal" on the statue alone.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 14:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The merged article can also go for GA Review. That would be even better one. The original article about Munro isnt that big either. Even if the statue is "notable", its gonna remain that even after the merger. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is why should an article be merged if the subject is notable enough. And Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet is poorly sourced compared to the Statue of Thomas Munro.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 14:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did not add the stuff on Munro's life to make the article big. Please care to check out Wikipedia:Good article criteria which says that the article should be broad enough in its coverage. I also suggest that you have a look at WP:Notability-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 14:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I've been around for five years and I know pretty well about Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. I created this article only after ensuring that the subject is notable. When there are articles on other statues like the Statue of Liberty and Statue of Zeus at Olympia can you please tell me why Munro's statue is not notable, especially when it is considered to be one of the symbols of Chennai city and the article has so many references. Atleast, the subject is more notable than Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, etc.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 14:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Wedding dress of Kate Middleton should not be its own article. But just because something it "notable" does not necessarily mean that it needs its own article. For example from recent news, there is no separate article on Amanda Knox as her notability is linked to the Murder of Meredith Kercher and is included there. Additionally, I do not think the comparisons to the articles on the Statue of Liberty or Zeus as Olympia are equal. This statue is of a historical person and was built to commemorate his life. The Statue of Liberty and Zeus at Olympia were created for different purposes.--dashiellx (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I am not talking about the purpose behind the creation of this article. I, only meant that the Statue of Thomas Munro is as much a symbol of Chennai as liberty is of New York. I agree that the two statues have been created for different purposes and in terms of international popularity, Munro comes nowhere near the Liberty. And then, if you make a quick search on the web, you will observe that Munro's statue is more widely known in India than Munro himself.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The statue is notable on its own and finds detailed mention in every book on the history of Madras. It is a minor tourist attraction in Chennai. (disclaimer: came here after Ravi asked me to comment, but i havent worked on the either of the articles)--Sodabottle (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The statue serves as an important landmark in the heart of chennai. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Governorship term

In this article, Munro died on 6th July 1827 and was Governor of Madras till 10th July. Please correct it. --Vssun (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)