Talk:George Trenholm

Removing single-sourced theory
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)


 * A controversial matter is proper material for inclusion in Wikipedia, irregardless of how many sources one can find to support it. Note my text described it as a "claim", which tells the reader that it is not a well-documented matter.  I'm not making a POV statement.  You didn't address the Georgiana matter, but that is documented in the Gerogiana article.  Have a look before you delete properly referenced material.  I have reverted the text.  Please don't delete it again. --Zeamays (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Knock off the weasel word crap, and changing the name of a topic I created on this discussion page. This article is a biography, not a playgroud for "maybe he did" crap and the like. Jim (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate appropriate language in your comments. How something is presented in Wikipedia is crucial to its acceptability.
 * This is a controversial topic, like it or not. A claim has been made in published books.  You seem unaware of Wikipedia policy regarding controversial topics, which is that they should be presented, but fairly and evenhandedly.  Just because you doubt it is true doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not mention the claim.  I have described it fairly as a claim, not a fact. The original reference was from a publisher's website, not a blog. I added two additional published references to the claim, one from the University of South Carolin Press. Have a look. --Zeamays (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2009 (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)


 * On the contrary, fictional characters based on an actual person are of interest to the reader. Many Wikipedia articles mention them. See for example the articles on Alice Liddell, Huey Long, Sidney Reilly, and Eugène François Vidocq. You would do a disservice to the reader by not including them.


 * This topic is not a conspiracy theory, by reasonable definition. It it is an historical hypothesis. Note that Ian Flemming rejected the claim that James Bond was based on Sidney Reilly, but it still is of interest as an hypothesis, since despite the denials it may have been true.


 * You first claimed to have rejected inclusion because there were insufficient sources, but when I provided addditional references, including one in a book published by the state university press, you found new reasons. Please halt unreasonable deletion of this material.  I have re-titled this talk section to eliminate POV in the previous title. I have also requested mediation on this dispute. --Zeamays (talk) 13:05, 27 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)


 * I have changed your title because it is POV. As for your 1st point, Wikipedia isn't a peer reviewed journal, and many materials in it have only one source. We only know about many events in ancient and medieval history except from single sources, sometimes highly prejudiced ones.  I have no problem with including the material about Mitchell's character with a disclaimer statement that Spence is the only source of original research. Read my points about controversial theories, and examples of existing biographical Wikipedia articles that mention fictional characters.  I'm not connected to Lee Spence in any way, so save your argument about Mr. Spence inserting the mention. I am reporting a claim, a theory, not confirming it. --Zeamays (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The title of this section was based on an action I took, almost one year ago. I removed a single-sourced theory. That is what I did, and that shall remain the title of this section.  Jim (talk) 14:30, 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)


 * I have re-inserted the claim, in accord with the views of Blippy above, using only the third-party references he recommended. --Zeamays (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Challenging the “reliable third party” sources provided.
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)


 * The point I have repeatedly made is that these are controversial claims, not that anyone has confirmed or denied them. Otherwise, you'd not have invested so much time deleting these independent references.  What is your reason for taking this much interest in burying this fascinating hypothesis?  --Zeamays (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Blippy suggested that what was needed was "...the author has been published elsewhere in reputable third party sources pertinent to the matter in question." Surely the State University Press book satisfies that requirement. He didn't write that the source had to substantiate the claim, just that someone else took it seriously enough to repeat. --Zeamays (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I think there are two issues here.  One is whether "it has been claimed" that Butler was based on Trenholm.  The second is whether it is reasonable/true.  I think the two additional sources are WP:RS and speak to the first but not the second issue.  So the fact that two RS's have mentioned that "it has been claimed/rumoured" substantiate the first fact.  It would be entirely reasonable to add a further comment about the veracity of this claim e.g. however this appears little more than a rumour.  It seems to be a minor point in the life of Trenholm, and of dubious authenticity - but what is not dubious is the fact that the rumour exists, per the two RS.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Having said that, I've just had a squiz at WP:UNDUE and the following is relevant: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." So I guess it's a matter of establishing just how 'tiny' this claim is.  I am completely unfamiliar with this field, so have no idea how a mention in two RS compares, however given the size and scope of the existing article on Trenholm, it seems reasonably substantial.  On this basis I'd be inclined to stick with my previous comments, but if it can be demonstrated that there is an ocean of George Trenholm literature out there then I'd say the claim/rumour should be dropped per WP:UNDUE.  Sorry if I haven't been much help.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings Blippy…also, the sources do not reveal where the information (claimed/rumored) was gleaned from. The authors could have gotten their information from the internet (Wikipedia), Spence’s book or who knows.


 * To muddle up such an iconic persons biography with this trifle is a great injustice. There should be extra helpings of reliable sources to validate the text. I think the likeness of George Trenholm was used in a Simpson’s episode. You surely would not expect to read about that in his biography. Jim (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi JimBobUSA. You seem to be right that Spence is the source of the rumour/claim, but I have just come across at least two more RS that repeat the claim  .  I think that given the prevalence of the claim, it is probably reasonable that it be included in the article - even if it all stems from Spence originally.  If there are that many RS willing to repeat Spence's work, then it constitutes sufficient notability in my view.  Hope that helps.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:10, 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)
 * Hi JimBobUSA. If you scroll down to "Historical Basis" in that second reference you'll find Spence quoted. The point here is not that Spence is the source, but rather these other sources are willing to publish his claims - however shonky they are. If you got your Simpsons theory published by all these other sources then I would argue that it too should be included in the article. WP isn't about truth, and on balance, however unpleasant or disagreeable, Spence has succeeded in making his (?) claim widespread enough for inclusion - if only to have it mentioned as a fraudulent claim (if you've got the sources for that). Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:36, 1 July 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


 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Jim (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi JimBobUSA. I don't think the issue here is the veracity of the claim, just the notability of the claim. I may well be wrong, but in my view the claim seems notable enough to warrant a mention. The bit you've quoted from WP:UNDUE speaks to the claim itself, not it's notability, and for good or ill Spence has been cited in more than an ancilliary article. I'm very happy for you to chase it up further and would appreciate hearing the result - especially if I'm incorrect!! Not much point offerring unhelpful 3O's is there! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:51, 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)
 * 1) The theory is mentioned (without criticism) in an historical book published by the University of South Carolina Press, so academics have, in fact, recognized it (see Confederate Charleston by Robert N. Rosen, p 151.)
 * 2) For the sake of argument, one could equally well take the view that "no news is good news": Since the theory has not been opposed in print, no scholar has publishable evidence against it.
 * 3) Why would Margaret Meade's using Trenholm as a model for a fictional one be a taint?  Fiction is just that, fiction.
 * 4) Why does it make any difference if Trenholm was noble or not?
 * It seems to me that this should be treated as info about Gone with the Wibnd rather than Trenholm, as a literary theory. In that context the theory may be sufficiently notable and well-soruced for inclusionMartinlc (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. The edit when it is included in this article seems to fall in WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe. When the edit is relocated to the Gone with the Wind article page it is my believe that the WP:UNDUE issue disappears as the edit falls into another speculation about said fiction. The WP:fringe issue will remain no matter where the edit resides. So as an uninvolved editor I recommend moving the edit to the Gone with the Wind article page. Just my 2 cents.--LexCorp (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I have removed the theory, once again  Jim (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and more work needed
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)

Self-published sources are not RS
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)