Talk:Thomas Arnold

Bibliography

Made additions to the bibliography from Copley's Bibliography in Black Tom; primarily added texts by Arnold. Also added the Stanley, Strachey, and Hughes texts alluded to in the main body of the article. Mddietz 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Death

He can't have died of angina, because that is, by definition of necrotic cardiac tissue, a myocardial infarction. Sounds like he had a massive one, too. Wee Jimmy (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Further refs

A number of works may be useful over at WikiSource, especially this essay s:Eminent Victorians/Dr. Arnold -- billinghurst (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Blillinghurst, this essay is quite relevant to Dr. Anrold. Although, Strachey had his own agenda and does a real hatchet job on Arnold which is not entirely justifiable, nonetheless, this is an important essay and providing a link to it here would seem to me to be very appropriate. I notice that it is in the list of items that comes up with the wikisource Thomas Arnold link. So am I right in assuming nothing more need be done? And by the way, Arnold's "History of Rome" may eventually make it into wikisource,-- very cool. Thanks, Mddietz (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Arnold and Charles Thomas Arnold at Wikisource

I was queried about my merge of the two names. I was basing the statement on someone else's initial work with the A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and m.. where it states in the list of writers that one is C. T. A. one of the masters of Rugby. Following the query, I have done some in depth research on Arnold, and can confirm that they are separate people. I will be adding specifics for the different authors at s:Author:Thomas Arnold and s:Author:Charles Thomas Arnold. Sorry for any confusion. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Billinghurst, thanks. I had the impression the problem might have started in the wikisource entry. I can see how easy it might be to confuse the two, but Arnold was never "a master at Rugby" but rather came in as "headmaster," and there is quite a difference between being only "a master" and being "headmaster." And, of course, Charles was not his first name. Thanks for clearling this up and sorry my first posting was so short and elliptic. Mddietz (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The references to Arnold's response to the Marlborough Revolt must be spurious, since the event apparently took place in 1853, eleven years after his death. See this article and the article re Marlborough College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.133.200.240 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have raised a citation need to encourage an objective investigation. (You only say it 'apparently' took place in the year you mention.) I would be disinclined to call Marlborough School 'nearby' to Rugby when the two were not in adjacent counties.Cloptonson (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Having read information from Marlborough College used in citation on discussion on the wiki article on that public school, I have decided to delete the reference. The Marlborough 'Rebellion' actually occurred in November 1851 but still after Arnold's lifetime. A Rugby master was sent to replace the Marlborough head who had resigned (coincidentally to be succeeded by another Rugby master).Cloptonson (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnold family of Lowestoft, does it belong?

I'm inclined to think mentioning the connection to the Arnold family of Lowestoft doesn't belong unless there is some other significance. For instance if they supported or influenced him in some fashion. Thoughts? Erp (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Added gentry, as the possibly relevant aspect of the Lowestoft lot. Bmcln1 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)