Talk:Edward John Trelawny

Survivor

Who's putting in things like 'If there is one word, which best describes Edward John Trelawny, it is that he was a “Survivor” ' and 'there is no telling how long he might have lived'? It sounds silly. And 'Survivor' with a capital 'S' signifies either he was a victim of the Shoah or the TV series. Mikething (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Some people use very old sources or their general impressions, disregarding matters of wiki-style. Some of the language that you cite may come from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.Josh a brewer (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Man's most basic instinct is "Survival." If you read Edward Trelawny's biography, you would understand --- from childhood on --- he sought to survive --- and "survive" he did. Sometimes it is necessary to disregard wiki-style to make clear something as important as in this case --- Trelawny's obsession with "Survival." If it should be put in bold italics, then so be it!!!! Sirswindon (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia, and its contents are meant to be objective in tone, so if you can find a passage from Adventures of a Younger Song or in some of his writing about Byron or Shelley, then quote it. Otherwise, leave it out. 'Man's most basic instinct is "Survival,"' indeed. That's just the sort of sentiment that we should avoid. Josh a brewer (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a British English Page?

Hi, I made some minor improvements in places where the article sounded choppy. There is also a section Philosophical Radicals where I changed the pronouns referring to the group from their to its. This agrees in number with group which is a singular noun.

However, I later noticed "criticise" spelled in the British manner (spelt? ha ha) and it occurred to me that using group as a collective noun might be correct British usage. I know it's common to say things like "Microsoft released a new version of their operating system" whereas in the USA we would say "Microsoft released a version of its...". So, someone familiar with the rules of British usage should double check my work.

Cheers,

Dave [[WP:NPP|You can help!]] (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what happened was an American tried to write this article in British English. So yes, this definitely needs someone who knows British English to check it out. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is grossly misleading

Whoever wrote this article on Trelawny has relied too much on one of the few biographies of Trelawny that presents him in a favourable light. Almost everything that Trelawny wrote, especially about Byron, is riddled with errors and downright fabrications - this is not opinion but simply fact when you compare his letters with original documents, dates and so on. It has been dealt with by serious biographers such as Doris Langley Moore. This article, however, seems to take Trelawny's demonstrably fabricated statements at face value and present them as fact. Although the general level of wikipedia articles as regards balance and accuracy is, in my opinion high, I have to say that this is one of the most erroneous and misleading I have read. It needs to be gone over by a specialist of the period who can look at the facts of the case and present Trelawny as he was - a Romantic figure, but an entirely untrustworthy biographer who's writings are nowhere trusted as source facts by academics unless they can be substantiated by other sources or original documents. 4wight (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)4wight.

This Wikipedia article was written by scholars who relied on everything written by-and-about Trelawny. Much of the article did come from a biography of Trelawny by a respected scholar, William St Clair, whose dislike of Trelawny is well known (see: Trelawny --- Fact or Fiction by Donald Prell (Strand Publishing, 2011 Edition). Massingham wrote in his biography of Trelawny: “There are plenty of dubious deeds in Trelawny’s life for the moralist to dwell upon.” However, 4wight exaggerates with: “Almost everything that Trelawny wrote, especially about Byron, is riddled with errors and downright fabrications.” It is unfortunate that 4wight relied on Doris Langly Moore, a biographer of Byron --- but not of Trelawny. Almost all of the so-called errors and exaggerations made by Trelawny have been covered by St Clair, Prell and others. If 4wight feels: “Almost everything that Trelawny wrote” is “riddled with errors and downright fabrications” he should point them out in the Wikipedia article, giving citations other than Moore. 4wight wrote: “this is one of the most erroneous and misleading [articles] I have read, It needs to be gone over by a specialist of the period who can look at the facts of the case.” The fact is that this article was written by specialists of the period and is considered to be an objective presentation of a very controversial individual. Moore’s book was written in 1961, whereas St Clair’s was written in 1977. St Clair included Moore in his references, but in his account of the event he did not include Moore’s claim that Trelawny could not have seen Byron’s dead body because her account was pure speculation, not fact, as 4wight suggests. Since 4wight seems to have relied primarily on one author (Doris Langley Moore), who titled her chapter on Trelawny: “Lord Byron’s Jackal” --- it would be helpful if 4wight would also cite other Trelawny biographers. St Clair disliked Trelawny, but his biography is well researched and objective (except for a few areas which lack citations). Moore’s short nineteen page biography is her statement of why she disliked Trelawny; it is a random mixture of fact and speculation, not once does she make a positive statement about her subject, making it obvious her love of Byron totally clouded her objectivity concerning Trelawny.Sirswindon (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Millais painting

Note: the woman depicted in the painting was a professional model: from John Guille Millais's biography of his father: "the female figure was painted from a model, who also posed for the picture Stitch, Stitch, Stitch, painted in 1876." (Life and letters, vol. 2, p.52.) Paul B (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Edward John Trelawny/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article about Edward John Trelawny is so poorly written the only comment I can make (without totally rewriting it) is ignore it and go elsewhere to find something more reliable. Try: http://www.enotes.com/nineteenth-century-criticism/trelawny-edward-john Many biographies have been written about Trelawny, so unless you are serious about wanting to try to know and understand what he was about, I would suggest reading “Trelawny – The Incurable Romancer” by William St Clair (John Murray, 1977). It is not perfect (I have pointed out to the author several errors) but it is the most objective of the lot. Sirswindon 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious why Sirswindon is so defensive as this article is very poor plagiarism of a weak source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:413E:3148:3112:7CB8:CB56:C1E6 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)