Talk:Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield

NPOV
To say of Chesterfield that he 'was selfish, calculating and contemptuous; he was not naturally generous, and he practised dissimulation until it became part of his nature' is an extraordinarily one-sided way to begin an analysis of his character. It reflects a moralistic C19th indictment of Chesterfield (following Cowper + Dr Johnson). He had a bastard son and (unlike so many others) he wasn't a hypocrit about it. More balance needed!! --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tone
To add to the comment above, the article is full of sections like these:
 * The Letters are brilliantly written, full of elegant wisdom, of keen wit, of admirable portrait-painting, of exquisite observation and deduction.

These and other inappropriate value judgements appear to be remnants of its original source (Britannica). Although well-written, the tone doesn't match Wikipedia and is anything but neutral.

Lacking an account I'm hesitant to go in with simple removal of objectionable phrases like these (reverts are just around the corner), so I'll just have to be lazy and point it out. 31.169.57.1 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

More Dr Johnson re Lord Chesterfield
Johnson could often contradict himself. On one occasion he said this of Lord Chesterfield's letters. "Lord Chesterfield's Letters to his son would make a very pretty book. Take out the immorality and it should be put in the hands of every young gentleman." From Boswell's "Life of Dr. Johnson", pp.36, 1949 edition, for the year 1776. 47.232.145.208 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)