Talk:Favell Lee Mortimer

message: I don't know anything about this woman and she hardly matters now, but there are always two sides to a story. The writer of this article was only interested in one of them. Edton 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not meant to slur the character of the individual, if it does that I would welcome your edits to bring out the other side of Mortimer. The lead in intro was garnered from information captured from other sources and authors (such as Todd Pruzan) who have examined her work. Notice this reference from Kwak Attack, I'm not subscribing to the beliefs and thoughts of this website, but one can garner the inference to the bigotry displayed in her work. HJKeats 14:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I came to this page while trying to link Project Gutenberg authors back to project gutenberg. Mortimer only has one work at Projet Gutenberg. Based on a very brief sampling of this work, It's easy to see why Pruzan (from the perspective of the 21st Century) says what he does about Mortimer. It might be nice to try to find a c.a. 1900 analysis of Mortimer. or at least some other perspective. Alas, Wikiopedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, so we are supposed to rely on secondary sources such as Puzan. We can hope that readers who find this article will jump to Gutenberg and decide for themselves. -Arch dude 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I re-arranged teh article to put non-disputed stuff at the top, followed by a separate paragraph for the POV stuff. I still don't like it but we wil need another source to do any better. -Arch dude 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the article, incorporated material from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is usually considered authoritative, and removed the POV template. The DNB makes no reference to her husband's cruelty nor to her having travelled any further than Scotland, so I added two "citation needed" tags. I removed the section on Pruzan and tried to incorporate some of his critique into the main article. Really, from the sounds of it, she was not all that unusual if compared with other 19thc evangelical children's writers; certainly the DNB article contains no indication that she was outside the norm for her time and place. She is not a writer I know and I am certainly prepared to find out that I am wrong; my edits are based on the DNB and its general trustworthiness. scribblingwoman (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edited to include material from Audrey Bevan's History of the Bevan Family and correct the impression given by Todd Pruzan that her marriage was unhappy. Also added material about her importance to the development of Cardinal Manning's religious beliefs. Apologies that as this is the first time I've edited Wiki material I have not got the format of the references quite right. Would appreciate if someone can correct this - thanks. Incidentally I am also sceptical about the reference to her ignorance of foreign affairs, though I think she was not widely travelled, the Bevan family circle was a wide one and her knowledge of the world probably no worse than many women of her class at the time.Esmeralda1985 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  Further addition of some early history and influences drawn from Audrey Gamble nee Bevan.Esmeralda1985 (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  Tracked down the article by Rosalind Constable which makes clear that references to sadism refer to changing attitudes to the preaching of the threat of hellfire to small children.Esmeralda1985 (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality