Talk:The Princess (Tennyson poem)

Gilbert and Sullivan connection

Given Gilbert and Sullivan's Princess Ida is the primary reason the poem is still remembered today, shouldn't we do a little more than haughtily dismiss it, then raise our nose and be glad that's over with? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 20:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means: Feel free to add whatever research you feel is helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Major Original Research

For information to be allowed into a page about a poem, it must directly deal with the poem or a work deals with both the poem and the information. You -cannot- talk about the foundings of schools after Tennyson by merely linking to when they are founded. This is original research of the highest kind. Furthermore, they have -nothing- to do with the text. The poem has -nothing- to do with anything else but that his friends worked at a girls school. There are -no- Tennyson sources that allow for such outrageous original research, and it was inappropriate that it was put in under the title "copy edit". If the original research is put back in once again, I will ask for blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, use of "college" by Tennyson is in the traditional sense that was used to refer to high schools. It has nothing to do with "higher education", and it is highly inappropriate to make such introductions to the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and I don't think you know what WP:OR is about. The background information that you keep deleting is appropriate and well-referenced. At this point, I am having a hard time believing that your reverts are in good faith. If you have a substantive point to make, please explain yourself. Also, please stop posting to my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This persistent deletion of relevant and properly-referenced material seems to me to border on sabotage. The asseveration that there is WP:OR is manifestly inaccurate. If this, presumably, well meaning but, me judice misguided editor wishes to pursue the point with an arbiter I have no doubt what the outcome will be. Tim riley (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that to claim a source discusses something which it does not violates multiple policies. To introduce Mary Wollstonecraft in that manner goes against original research and both of you are violating major policies. Only sources directly mentioning Tennyson can be used. This line from WP:OR makes it 100% clear you guys were violating the policy: "Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem is here. The edits made by User:Ssilvers seem to me to be factual, well sourced and well referenced. If any editor has a problem with the article then bring the discussion here and work it out rather than just keep reverting. Jack1956 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They aren't factual because Tennyson is not within a history of Wollstonecraft and Mills. Tennyson's sources were 1. his friends working at a girl's school and 2. his conversation with Jane Carlyle. The article doesn't give a background on Tennyson, but a background on everything else with a claim that it involves Tennyson which is not in any sources. This is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction to opening of entry:

I can't see how to edit that section, but I would certainly like to correct the statement that says the Princess "finds a university ..." when it should say she "founds a university ..." Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.60.245 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References