Talk:James Morisset

This site attemps to be way too "even handed". By that I mean, it gives one example, from thousands, of Morisset's cruelty; and one example, from his discredited supporters, and gives them parity. For the overwhelming majority of relevent historians, this man is a cruel, possiably perverted tyrant. He is not at all like George Arthur, a disputed historical figure. Its almost akin to giving one anti-Hitler opinion and one pro-Hitler on the Adolf Hitler page...hardly a resonable, unbiased portrait. --Aaronsdavis (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the overwhelming majority of historians, we would need a few citations more to make that claim. Hughes paints him as a cruel tyrant, but Champion and Parsons only call him a reputed disciplinarian. He's a minor figure, there's not a huge body written work. In the article's history we have anonymous editors defending him, with a tone similar to that used by Ronald and Margaret Thompson in the letter to the editor I found. Given the circumstances, I think it's best to stick to the citations and attribute the views to the people who wrote them. Even Hughes notes his overreliance on the account of Lawrence Frayne, "the only convict to leave a first-hand account of life under Morisset." -- Tim Starling (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)