This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
George Trenholm 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Removed single-sourced theory that George Trenholm was the historical basis for a fictional character in the novel Gone with the Wind. No —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory in question is about a character in a novel (fiction) written by Margaret Mitchell. The novel Gone with the Wind has absolutely nothing to do with the biography of George Trenholm. Including this theory is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, it does not meet the requirements of Wiki’s notability requirements. Jim ( talk) 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Again...stop changing the title I created. George Trenholm had nothing to do with the novel, Gone with the Wind. There are no reliable references, let alone any peer-review supporting the issue.
I think 3O comes before mediation. Jim ( talk) 13:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out, that this controversial theory was injected into this article by none other that the creator of the theory, Lee Spence. Wikipedia is not the place to try to publicize an unknown or controversial belief, let alone in the biography of a historical figure. Jim ( talk) 13:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys. I thought I'd have a crack at providing a third opinion for you. There seems to be a bit of ill-will splashing around here, but I think the nub of the issue comes down to WP:RS. It seems that the book in question that is the source for the inclusion is a self published document. I noted that the article on the website that was cited is actually a sub-page of the book's publisher, and that it seems this is the only book that publisher has published. As I understand it, WP:RS states that self-published sources are ok provided the author has been published elsewhere in reputable third party sources pertinent to the matter in question. So I guess it comes down to finding one of these reputable third party sources for Spence. If that can be secured then I think a modest inclusion of that reference and the self-published book would be acceptable. I saw at one point there was a bigger section about the theory than about the man in question!! If the suitable source is found I'd suggest the one liner would be the more appropriate version. I hope that helps! Cheers, Blippy ( talk) 15:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Confederate Charleston by Robert N. Rosen…page 151..”There are those who believe that Margaret Mitchell based her fictional hero, Rhett Butler, on Trenholm”
It simply reports, “ There are those who believe”. This statement does not validate if the fictional character, Rhett Butler, was George Trenholm.
Ashley Hall, SC by Iieana Strauch…page 10…”Trenholm was a man of charm and is rumored to be the man after whom Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind as modeled”
That is the only mention of Rhett Butler in the entire book. “Rumored to be…”
Sorry, but neither of these books have done any studies to see if the fictional Rhett Butler was modeled after George Trenholm. These books are simply repeating hearsay and rumors. They do not validate the extraordinary claim made in the article. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable...hearsay and rumors fall short of that request. Jim ( talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Greetings again, Blippy. I reviewed the link you presented to highbeam dot com. It posts a partial editorial (or interview) from the Chicago Sun Times. I do not quite see how this editorial/interview can be considered a reliable source, as it is coming from the source itself. This is confusing, using the source itself as the reliable source?
Your second link, I found no mention about the topic of our discussion. Jim ( talk) 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Blippy...I cannot find your source. Please use a specific URL. Also, I find it hard to swallow using the same repetative source (the creator of the theory) as a reliable reference. What happened to using a source other than the original research? You don't think there are some OR issues here? Should we request more input from the RS boards....or the OR boards? Jim ( talk) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Also this, from WP:UNDUE
Jim ( talk) 02:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being so understanding, Blippy. I am having a hard time understanding why such an obscure theory, that evidently has no support from recognized scholars, academia or historians should taint such a noble person, as George Trenholm. Even from your own research, I believe you have came to the same conclusion, that this theory is generated by one person, and only published in his self-published book.
Big storms abound us right now. I will post my queries in WP:OR and WP:RS later today. Jim ( talk) 10:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
JimBob: You wrote, "I am having a hard time understanding why such an obscure theory, that evidently has no support from recognized scholars, academia or historians should taint such a noble person, as George Trenholm." You need to consider these points,
I think you have confused several issues here. The most important one for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, and I am convinced this theory has passed the test. -- Zeamays ( talk) 14:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
References
I cleaned this up yesterday and today, and don't know when I can or will get back to it. Given other matters I need to attend to, I can't travel to Richmond nor even the Library of Congress to look at the sources in the bibliography, nor did I look at this talk page while updating a computer yesterday and starting this task. Since I used many online resources without page numbers, that cleanup's obvious. So is finding the death dates of his children, and whether any served in the Confederate armed forces, as well as the exact dates of his legislative service (and predecessors and successors). More subtle would be tracing any linkage between Trenholm and the Lost Cause movement which led to the Democratic victories in many states (and the rise of Jim Crow laws) around the time of Trenholm's death. IMHO, this Rhett Butler thread is nearly a red herring, or perhaps Gone with the Wind is characterized somewhere as the height of or last gasp of the still-controversial Lost Cause. Jweaver28 ( talk) 17:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, self-published sources by authors not otherwise established are not to be used as Reliable Sources, but can only be listed for "Further reading". The two books by Ethel Trenholm Seabrook Nepveux cannot be used as RS, and cites to these books have to be removed, and other sources found. She had only one article about a village published by the SC Historical Society. Given the scale of Trenholm's financial dealings during the Civil War, he has probably been written about by academic historians. Parkwells ( talk) 18:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
George Trenholm 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Removed single-sourced theory that George Trenholm was the historical basis for a fictional character in the novel Gone with the Wind. No —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory in question is about a character in a novel (fiction) written by Margaret Mitchell. The novel Gone with the Wind has absolutely nothing to do with the biography of George Trenholm. Including this theory is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, it does not meet the requirements of Wiki’s notability requirements. Jim ( talk) 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Again...stop changing the title I created. George Trenholm had nothing to do with the novel, Gone with the Wind. There are no reliable references, let alone any peer-review supporting the issue.
I think 3O comes before mediation. Jim ( talk) 13:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out, that this controversial theory was injected into this article by none other that the creator of the theory, Lee Spence. Wikipedia is not the place to try to publicize an unknown or controversial belief, let alone in the biography of a historical figure. Jim ( talk) 13:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys. I thought I'd have a crack at providing a third opinion for you. There seems to be a bit of ill-will splashing around here, but I think the nub of the issue comes down to WP:RS. It seems that the book in question that is the source for the inclusion is a self published document. I noted that the article on the website that was cited is actually a sub-page of the book's publisher, and that it seems this is the only book that publisher has published. As I understand it, WP:RS states that self-published sources are ok provided the author has been published elsewhere in reputable third party sources pertinent to the matter in question. So I guess it comes down to finding one of these reputable third party sources for Spence. If that can be secured then I think a modest inclusion of that reference and the self-published book would be acceptable. I saw at one point there was a bigger section about the theory than about the man in question!! If the suitable source is found I'd suggest the one liner would be the more appropriate version. I hope that helps! Cheers, Blippy ( talk) 15:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Confederate Charleston by Robert N. Rosen…page 151..”There are those who believe that Margaret Mitchell based her fictional hero, Rhett Butler, on Trenholm”
It simply reports, “ There are those who believe”. This statement does not validate if the fictional character, Rhett Butler, was George Trenholm.
Ashley Hall, SC by Iieana Strauch…page 10…”Trenholm was a man of charm and is rumored to be the man after whom Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind as modeled”
That is the only mention of Rhett Butler in the entire book. “Rumored to be…”
Sorry, but neither of these books have done any studies to see if the fictional Rhett Butler was modeled after George Trenholm. These books are simply repeating hearsay and rumors. They do not validate the extraordinary claim made in the article. Wikipedia articles must be verifiable...hearsay and rumors fall short of that request. Jim ( talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Greetings again, Blippy. I reviewed the link you presented to highbeam dot com. It posts a partial editorial (or interview) from the Chicago Sun Times. I do not quite see how this editorial/interview can be considered a reliable source, as it is coming from the source itself. This is confusing, using the source itself as the reliable source?
Your second link, I found no mention about the topic of our discussion. Jim ( talk) 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Blippy...I cannot find your source. Please use a specific URL. Also, I find it hard to swallow using the same repetative source (the creator of the theory) as a reliable reference. What happened to using a source other than the original research? You don't think there are some OR issues here? Should we request more input from the RS boards....or the OR boards? Jim ( talk) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Also this, from WP:UNDUE
Jim ( talk) 02:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being so understanding, Blippy. I am having a hard time understanding why such an obscure theory, that evidently has no support from recognized scholars, academia or historians should taint such a noble person, as George Trenholm. Even from your own research, I believe you have came to the same conclusion, that this theory is generated by one person, and only published in his self-published book.
Big storms abound us right now. I will post my queries in WP:OR and WP:RS later today. Jim ( talk) 10:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
JimBob: You wrote, "I am having a hard time understanding why such an obscure theory, that evidently has no support from recognized scholars, academia or historians should taint such a noble person, as George Trenholm." You need to consider these points,
I think you have confused several issues here. The most important one for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, and I am convinced this theory has passed the test. -- Zeamays ( talk) 14:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
References
I cleaned this up yesterday and today, and don't know when I can or will get back to it. Given other matters I need to attend to, I can't travel to Richmond nor even the Library of Congress to look at the sources in the bibliography, nor did I look at this talk page while updating a computer yesterday and starting this task. Since I used many online resources without page numbers, that cleanup's obvious. So is finding the death dates of his children, and whether any served in the Confederate armed forces, as well as the exact dates of his legislative service (and predecessors and successors). More subtle would be tracing any linkage between Trenholm and the Lost Cause movement which led to the Democratic victories in many states (and the rise of Jim Crow laws) around the time of Trenholm's death. IMHO, this Rhett Butler thread is nearly a red herring, or perhaps Gone with the Wind is characterized somewhere as the height of or last gasp of the still-controversial Lost Cause. Jweaver28 ( talk) 17:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, self-published sources by authors not otherwise established are not to be used as Reliable Sources, but can only be listed for "Further reading". The two books by Ethel Trenholm Seabrook Nepveux cannot be used as RS, and cites to these books have to be removed, and other sources found. She had only one article about a village published by the SC Historical Society. Given the scale of Trenholm's financial dealings during the Civil War, he has probably been written about by academic historians. Parkwells ( talk) 18:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)