![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The page currently contains the following material:
Speculation on Dodgson's sexuality[edit] Dodgson's nephew and biographer Stuart Dodgson Collingwood wrote: And now as to the secondary causes which attracted him to children. First, I think children appealed to him because he was pre-eminently a teacher, and he saw in their unspoiled minds the best material for him to work upon. In later years one of his favourite recreations was to lecture at schools on logic; he used to give personal attention to each of his pupils, and one can well imagine with what eager anticipation the children would have looked forward to the visits of a schoolmaster who knew how to make even the dullest subjects interesting and amusing.[73] Despite comments like this, and the fact that his pictures of children were taken with a parent in attendance (many in the Liddell garden),[39] modern psychological interpretations of Dodgson's friendships with young girls and of his related work—especially his photographs of nude or semi-nude girls—have led some late twentieth century biographers to speculate that he was a paedophile, including Morton N. Cohen in his Lewis Carroll: A Biography (1995),[74] Donald Thomas in his Lewis Carroll: A Portrait with Background (1995), and Michael Bakewell in his Lewis Carroll: A Biography (1996). All of these works more or less assume that Dodgson was a paedophile, albeit a repressed and celibate one.[page needed] Cohen, in particular, claims Dodgson's "sexual energies sought unconventional outlets", and further writes: We cannot know to what extent sexual urges lay behind Charles's preference for drawing and photographing children in the nude. He contended the preference was entirely aesthetic. But given his emotional attachment to children as well as his aesthetic appreciation of their forms, his assertion that his interest was strictly artistic is naïve. He probably felt more than he dared acknowledge, even to himself.[page needed] Cohen goes on to note that Dodgson "apparently convinced many of his friends that his attachment to the nude female child form was free of any eroticism", but adds that "later generations look beneath the surface" (p. 229). He and other biographers[who?] argue that Dodgson may have wanted to marry the 11-year-old Alice Liddell, and that this was the cause of the unexplained "break" with the family in June 1863,[26] an event for which other explanations are offered. Biographers Derek Hudson and Roger Lancelyn Green (Green also having edited Dodgson's diaries and papers) stop short of identifying Dodgson as a paedophile, but concur that he had a passion for small female children and next to no interest in the adult world; in the last ten years[dated info] several other writers and scholars have challenged the evidentiary basis for Cohen's and others' speculations regarding this interest of Dodgson. In addition to the biographical works that have drawn the foregoing conclusion, there are modern artistic interpretations of his life and work that do so as well, in particular, Dennis Potter in his play Alice and his screenplay for the motion picture Dreamchild, and Robert Wilson in his film Alice. In a 2015 BBC programme The Secret World of Lewis Carroll experts indicated their belief that a photograph of a naked teenage girl, was the oldest Liddell girl Lorina, and was the work of Dodgson. The programme speculated that this was the possible cause of the break in the relationship between him and the Liddell family. Will Self in the same programme called Dodgson 'a heavily repressed paedophile. Without a doubt.' [75][76]
Note the abundance of footnotes. How much of this should be retained? Tkuvho ( talk) 09:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
So I think possibly Cohen's view could be restored, even moved further up into the section. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we please attempt to keep this relatively professional? Yes, Dodgon's sexuality is a topic of some major interest in reliable sources. The BBC report is not one of those sources, and certainly not some cherry-picked juicy quote from Will Self. (Why should we even care what he has to say about it??) We need to rise above this kind of tabloid trivia. We aren't here to give every celebrity with an opinion equal airtime: we'll leave that to the BBC. In the mean time, we have our own reliable sources at hand that need summarizing. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Why do we not remove all the speculation and just say "Dodgson made many photographs and drawings of female children in the nude.". Leave it at that. JRSpriggs ( talk) 07:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed, and become increasingly alarmed, at the slow edit-war that is gradually increasing in intensity and speed as the days go on. The rules about edit warring need not require 3 reverts for action to take place, and for some of you, action could already have been taken (the relevant quote is: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I am not going to name names, but to prevent further disruption to the article, I have fully-protected it for one week. That should concentrate your minds to try harder to reach a negotiated solution, as you may have been doing in the section above. If at the end of the week, you have not, then I strongly suggest that you take steps along the route for mediation and dispute resoution available to you. Any attempt to re-start any slow edit war without agreement will probably have action taken against the perpetrators. DDStretch (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the BBC piece, the network is generally considered as an RS as far as political coverage is concerned. This does not give it an automatic entitlement to being cited on every subject, including items designed to boost circulation based on the prurient audience interest. If the BBC piece is deemed serious enough by scholars for inclusion in a respectable biography this might warrant inclusion here, but this will not be known immediately. Tkuvho ( talk) 09:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As requested, here is the text that is under dispute:
Thank you.
DDStretch
(talk)
10:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this a RS? Myrvin ( talk) 10:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)In later life he became notorious for his penchant for photo studies of partially-clothed and naked young girls. In fact, he eventually gave up photography when a whispering campaign against him in Oxford became too loud to ignore. Clearly, Dodgson’s obsession with prepubescent girls cannot be discounted in any discussion of his work. At one extreme, psychologists have detected elements of ‘cruelty, destruction and annihilation’ and ‘oral sadistic trends of a cannibalistic nature’ in his work; others see it as a delightful and invigorating piece of nonsense. Whatever the truth, it is the case that most parents today would be happy for their children to listen to the story of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland – but they probably would not want Dodgson to be the man to read it to them. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/ian-fitzgerald/birth-lewis-carroll#sthash.c0NSaOWp.dpuf
We need to do something once the edit-warring ban is lifted. As I suggested above, I propose to include a paragraph on the suggested Lorina photograph towards the end of the section on LC's sexuality. I have taken opinions elsewhere on this inclusion and have been advised that the BBC documentary can be used as a RS, but that the text should name the experts involved. So, the text could be:
In a 2015 BBC programme, presented by journalist Martha Kearney, experts indicated their belief that a full-frontal photograph of a naked teenage girl was that of the oldest Liddell girl Lorina, and was the work of Dodgson. [3] Nicolas Burnett, a photographic conservation specialist, ruled out the idea that the print is a modern fake. He also said that the image had been taken by a similar camera to the one Carroll is known to have used, and that the developing process and paper was the same as that used by Carroll. He gave his "gut instinct" that the photograph was by Lewis Carroll. Forensic imagery analyst David Anley compared known images of Lorina at different ages with the suspected photograph. He said "In my opinion, I would say it's her". The presenter speculated that this was the possible cause of the rift between Carroll and the Liddell family. [4] [5]
Myrvin ( talk) 14:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Sayerslle is currently blocked for two months (I think), given edit warring on another article. The discussion mentioned action on this article and I was subject to harsh words by that editor for my actions in protecting it and for drawing attention to his/her role in the edit warring here. I hope the discussion can continue here in a dignified way. The adding and removal should stop until things are discussed and sorted out. Please avoid any further problems by taking advantage of any other mediation that is relevant here if you cannot resolve the issue by yourselves. DDStretch (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
References
I removed a recently added paragraph because it was about an obscure, fringe holiday with no connection to Dodgson apart from the name. The content might be more appropriate at the Anonymous (group) or NAMBLA articles. KateWishing ( talk) 17:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I propose creating a new article called "Sexuality of Lewis Carroll". It's main contents, to begin with, would be the material from the section "Discussion of Dodgson's sexuality". There is more to be said about this topic than can be included in one section here. Myrvin ( talk) 08:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: "I think CD allegedly did quite a lot to get him on your list."
Befriended and took photographs of female children and never married? That sounds to me very little. TheScotch ( talk) 11:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
there is in the beginning written: There are societies in many parts of the world[3] dedicated to the enjoyment and promotion of his works and the investigation of his life. can you please name some of these societies around the world? at the end of the lemma/article - thanks -- 93.184.26.78 ( talk) 20:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I made an incorrect correction to the page the other day. Dodgson's date of death in the jacket of the new edition of Martin Gardner's 'The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition' is listed as July 14th, instead of January. You'd think a mistake like that wouldn't be in the definitive edition of anything. I also seemed to remember reading somewhere that Dodgson died when he was 66 and a half years old, which he would have been in July of 1898.
He dies at his sisters' home, a house which he had bought for them with his royalties. It doesn't make sense to say that he lived in Ch:Ch: at then refer to his home in Guildford.
I'm thinking that a list of films or books or whatever in which Lewis Carroll is portrayed should be included in the article. I'm not an expert, and I don't know what films/books he has been in, but it would be of interest to people interested in Lewis Carroll to see others' interpretations of him in the media. I added in the Trivia section that Marilyn Manson was making a movie about him, because it is relatively important, and as trivia, it fits right in, but again, a proper section listing his appearances as a character in fictional or non-fictional works would be good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donniedarkofan2006 ( talk • contribs) 07:28 UTC, 11 June 2007.
Thank you to all the people who have written about Lewis Carroll. I am saying thanks on behalf of my great great great (etc) Uncle. who in fact was Charles himself. So thank you all for contributing to his page. And if you don't believe me thats your choice. But guess what I am. Thanks again
-Brianne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkducks778 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is extremely biased
He was a pedofile, taking nude pictures of little girls means he was a pedofile.
The article should be fixed to represent the facts.-- Simon19800 ( talk) 05:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
"His pictures of children were taken with a parent in attendance and many of the pictures were taken in the Liddell garden because natural sunlight was required for good exposures.[40]"
This blanket claim, has not and can not be proven.-- Simon19800 ( talk) 05:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The fact Carroll use to take pictures of naked girls should be added to the article. The fact is well documented (choose which ever you like from google).
Why is this fact censored from the page? Is it due to people who like to claim to be some distant (irrelevant) relative of him?
-- Simon19800 ( talk) 07:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
"His pictures of children were taken with a parent in attendance " Where is the documentation for this, its a baseless claim and its also known naked pictures where taken without parents there. So its just false.
-- Simon19800 ( talk) 07:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Added photo taken by Carroll one some people are ignorant of or try to deny it exists along with many other photographs like it. Wish to claim he didnt take it? then prove Wiki got it wrong, after you actually look at the proof he did take it first.-- Simon19800 ( talk) 07:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Great logical fallacy eeng, if you where not ignorant of basic logic, you would understand. Illl inform the wiki creator he will be sad he has got it wrong all these years-- Simon19800 ( talk) 05:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lewis Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to need a separate article; anything novel can be added to existing section. Pam D 07:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lewis Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://library.bangor.ac.uk/search/Xcontextualising%26searchscope%3D5%26b%3D%26SORT%3DA%26l%3D%26m%3D%26Da%3D%26Db%3D%26p%3D/Xcontextualising%26searchscope%3D5%26b%3D%26SORT%3DA%26l%3D%26m%3D%26Da%3D%26Db%3D%26p%3D/1%2C19%2C19%2CB/frameset%26FF%3DXcontextualising%26SORT%3DA%264%2C4%2CWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
You would think he was an ordinary nobody based on the lead section. Nothing of his influence or innovation in the literary genre? I see this is a poor quality article, but still, a beefed up and interesting lead section will only help it. Where are the aficionados out there? Michael0986 ( talk) 14:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Just added "The Manlet" to § Literary works, with ref taken from http://www.poetry-archive.com/c/the_manlet.html. I suspect this is not the original publication for this poem. Paradoctor ( talk) 02:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I have added some information to expand this sub-section, please feel free to correct if you find any errors. You can also message me if you have questions. Darwin Naz ( talk) 05:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the article currently has this sentence
This doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, it should be with the material relating to the Alice books, if it needs to be in the article at all.
Guyal of Sfere ( talk) 18:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
New user User:DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens is dumping a bunch of sources about photos; many of them are blogs. The actual text they're adding to the article doesn't seem connected to the rest of the section, nor does it convey much from the sources. I am opening this discussion in the hopes that they explain what they're trying to accomplish instead of edit-warring. -- JBL ( talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I noticed that the quite substantial section headed ‘Controversies and mysteries’ was not reflected in the lede. Since the lede is meant to summarise the article, I appended a short para, referencing the claims about close friendships with children, adding that these claims had also been quite credibly refuted.
This para was deleted by 184.69.174.194 because they felt it was dangerous to use the word ‘pedophile’ without a cite. Since the word ‘paedophilia’ occurs twice in the main text, I would have thought that their critical attention should have been directed on that part of the article. However, I took the point, and replaced it with a short, discreet statement that seemed unexceptionable: Recent speculation about the nature of his relationships with children has foundered on lack of evidence.
This was promptly deleted by Johnuniq with the following comment: It makes no sense to say "Recent" in an article (what does it mean?); is this a summary of text in the article?. Yes, it certainly is a summary of text in the article. That was why I inserted it. And ‘Recent’ just means what it says: the article states that the controversy started to bulk-up in the late 20th century. And by now, the topic has plainly become an inseparable part of any research into this author. If he was quibbling with ‘how recent is recent?’, I could have understood his deletion of that word, but I don't see how it justifies deletion of the whole statement. Valetude ( talk) 00:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Didn't he say "I like all children, except boys"? I can't remember where or when, but it sounds like him. Se non e vero, e ben trovato Seadowns ( talk) 13:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Large segments of Sexual preferences subsection are not cited. I added citation needed span tags but they were removed by Xxanthippe. As far as I can see, the claims are still in need of citations. For example, within these sentences:
Biographers Derek Hudson and Roger Lancelyn Green stop short of identifying Dodgson as a paedophile (Green also edited Dodgson's diaries and papers), but they concur that he had a passion for small female children and next to no interest in the adult world. Catherine Robson refers to Carroll as "the Victorian era's most famous (or infamous) girl lover".
That section is only cited by Catherine Robson's 2001 book, presumably only for the quotation in the second sentence. Given that the other authors are mentioned by name, it shouldn't be too hard for someone with the available literature to find where the claims come from, as is the case for the other errors. Tkbrett (✉) 22:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Having landed here to check a detail about Caroll's academic life, I was frustrated that it wasn't clear where this information was. I did find it - in the section headed 'Early Life'. This made no sense to me, so I altered the title, but have had it reverted. Why? Should we have a separate section for his Oxford life? Certainly the present title 'Early Life' is not an accurate reflection of the content of the section. Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 10:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems that this topic was added to the article on January 14th, 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lewis_Carroll&diff=1195689949&oldid=1195686740. It's good that it also describes the controversy about this "documentary".
The BBC2 documentary had been produced by Swan Films in London. In the public you only find unauthorized copies of the documentary. Martha Kearney was the presenter. Its first half is excellent. The second half seems to have been produced in a rush. Kearny failed to ask for the opinions of the curators of that the nude photo which allegedly depicts Lorina Liddell.
In 2022 I contacted the Musée Cantini in Mareseilles. They own that photo. One of the curators told me that the photo was part of a collection which the Museum bought from a dealer in the USA. But it also could be that the photo was shown in Paris by the Gallerie Texbraun in 1986. The Museum purchased the photo in 1994.
Images: On the left side of https://snrk.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Lorina_Liddell_age20y__and_French_girl.jpg you see the face of Lorina Liddell. On the right side you see the face of the girl shown in the photo owned by the Musée Cantini. The curator of that image won't confirm that the image depicts Lorina Liddell. The curator won't confirm either that the photo has been taken by Carroll/Dodgson. -- DL5MDA ( talk) 09:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The page currently contains the following material:
Speculation on Dodgson's sexuality[edit] Dodgson's nephew and biographer Stuart Dodgson Collingwood wrote: And now as to the secondary causes which attracted him to children. First, I think children appealed to him because he was pre-eminently a teacher, and he saw in their unspoiled minds the best material for him to work upon. In later years one of his favourite recreations was to lecture at schools on logic; he used to give personal attention to each of his pupils, and one can well imagine with what eager anticipation the children would have looked forward to the visits of a schoolmaster who knew how to make even the dullest subjects interesting and amusing.[73] Despite comments like this, and the fact that his pictures of children were taken with a parent in attendance (many in the Liddell garden),[39] modern psychological interpretations of Dodgson's friendships with young girls and of his related work—especially his photographs of nude or semi-nude girls—have led some late twentieth century biographers to speculate that he was a paedophile, including Morton N. Cohen in his Lewis Carroll: A Biography (1995),[74] Donald Thomas in his Lewis Carroll: A Portrait with Background (1995), and Michael Bakewell in his Lewis Carroll: A Biography (1996). All of these works more or less assume that Dodgson was a paedophile, albeit a repressed and celibate one.[page needed] Cohen, in particular, claims Dodgson's "sexual energies sought unconventional outlets", and further writes: We cannot know to what extent sexual urges lay behind Charles's preference for drawing and photographing children in the nude. He contended the preference was entirely aesthetic. But given his emotional attachment to children as well as his aesthetic appreciation of their forms, his assertion that his interest was strictly artistic is naïve. He probably felt more than he dared acknowledge, even to himself.[page needed] Cohen goes on to note that Dodgson "apparently convinced many of his friends that his attachment to the nude female child form was free of any eroticism", but adds that "later generations look beneath the surface" (p. 229). He and other biographers[who?] argue that Dodgson may have wanted to marry the 11-year-old Alice Liddell, and that this was the cause of the unexplained "break" with the family in June 1863,[26] an event for which other explanations are offered. Biographers Derek Hudson and Roger Lancelyn Green (Green also having edited Dodgson's diaries and papers) stop short of identifying Dodgson as a paedophile, but concur that he had a passion for small female children and next to no interest in the adult world; in the last ten years[dated info] several other writers and scholars have challenged the evidentiary basis for Cohen's and others' speculations regarding this interest of Dodgson. In addition to the biographical works that have drawn the foregoing conclusion, there are modern artistic interpretations of his life and work that do so as well, in particular, Dennis Potter in his play Alice and his screenplay for the motion picture Dreamchild, and Robert Wilson in his film Alice. In a 2015 BBC programme The Secret World of Lewis Carroll experts indicated their belief that a photograph of a naked teenage girl, was the oldest Liddell girl Lorina, and was the work of Dodgson. The programme speculated that this was the possible cause of the break in the relationship between him and the Liddell family. Will Self in the same programme called Dodgson 'a heavily repressed paedophile. Without a doubt.' [75][76]
Note the abundance of footnotes. How much of this should be retained? Tkuvho ( talk) 09:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
So I think possibly Cohen's view could be restored, even moved further up into the section. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we please attempt to keep this relatively professional? Yes, Dodgon's sexuality is a topic of some major interest in reliable sources. The BBC report is not one of those sources, and certainly not some cherry-picked juicy quote from Will Self. (Why should we even care what he has to say about it??) We need to rise above this kind of tabloid trivia. We aren't here to give every celebrity with an opinion equal airtime: we'll leave that to the BBC. In the mean time, we have our own reliable sources at hand that need summarizing. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Why do we not remove all the speculation and just say "Dodgson made many photographs and drawings of female children in the nude.". Leave it at that. JRSpriggs ( talk) 07:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed, and become increasingly alarmed, at the slow edit-war that is gradually increasing in intensity and speed as the days go on. The rules about edit warring need not require 3 reverts for action to take place, and for some of you, action could already have been taken (the relevant quote is: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I am not going to name names, but to prevent further disruption to the article, I have fully-protected it for one week. That should concentrate your minds to try harder to reach a negotiated solution, as you may have been doing in the section above. If at the end of the week, you have not, then I strongly suggest that you take steps along the route for mediation and dispute resoution available to you. Any attempt to re-start any slow edit war without agreement will probably have action taken against the perpetrators. DDStretch (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the BBC piece, the network is generally considered as an RS as far as political coverage is concerned. This does not give it an automatic entitlement to being cited on every subject, including items designed to boost circulation based on the prurient audience interest. If the BBC piece is deemed serious enough by scholars for inclusion in a respectable biography this might warrant inclusion here, but this will not be known immediately. Tkuvho ( talk) 09:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As requested, here is the text that is under dispute:
Thank you.
DDStretch
(talk)
10:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this a RS? Myrvin ( talk) 10:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)In later life he became notorious for his penchant for photo studies of partially-clothed and naked young girls. In fact, he eventually gave up photography when a whispering campaign against him in Oxford became too loud to ignore. Clearly, Dodgson’s obsession with prepubescent girls cannot be discounted in any discussion of his work. At one extreme, psychologists have detected elements of ‘cruelty, destruction and annihilation’ and ‘oral sadistic trends of a cannibalistic nature’ in his work; others see it as a delightful and invigorating piece of nonsense. Whatever the truth, it is the case that most parents today would be happy for their children to listen to the story of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland – but they probably would not want Dodgson to be the man to read it to them. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/ian-fitzgerald/birth-lewis-carroll#sthash.c0NSaOWp.dpuf
We need to do something once the edit-warring ban is lifted. As I suggested above, I propose to include a paragraph on the suggested Lorina photograph towards the end of the section on LC's sexuality. I have taken opinions elsewhere on this inclusion and have been advised that the BBC documentary can be used as a RS, but that the text should name the experts involved. So, the text could be:
In a 2015 BBC programme, presented by journalist Martha Kearney, experts indicated their belief that a full-frontal photograph of a naked teenage girl was that of the oldest Liddell girl Lorina, and was the work of Dodgson. [3] Nicolas Burnett, a photographic conservation specialist, ruled out the idea that the print is a modern fake. He also said that the image had been taken by a similar camera to the one Carroll is known to have used, and that the developing process and paper was the same as that used by Carroll. He gave his "gut instinct" that the photograph was by Lewis Carroll. Forensic imagery analyst David Anley compared known images of Lorina at different ages with the suspected photograph. He said "In my opinion, I would say it's her". The presenter speculated that this was the possible cause of the rift between Carroll and the Liddell family. [4] [5]
Myrvin ( talk) 14:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Sayerslle is currently blocked for two months (I think), given edit warring on another article. The discussion mentioned action on this article and I was subject to harsh words by that editor for my actions in protecting it and for drawing attention to his/her role in the edit warring here. I hope the discussion can continue here in a dignified way. The adding and removal should stop until things are discussed and sorted out. Please avoid any further problems by taking advantage of any other mediation that is relevant here if you cannot resolve the issue by yourselves. DDStretch (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
References
I removed a recently added paragraph because it was about an obscure, fringe holiday with no connection to Dodgson apart from the name. The content might be more appropriate at the Anonymous (group) or NAMBLA articles. KateWishing ( talk) 17:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I propose creating a new article called "Sexuality of Lewis Carroll". It's main contents, to begin with, would be the material from the section "Discussion of Dodgson's sexuality". There is more to be said about this topic than can be included in one section here. Myrvin ( talk) 08:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: "I think CD allegedly did quite a lot to get him on your list."
Befriended and took photographs of female children and never married? That sounds to me very little. TheScotch ( talk) 11:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
there is in the beginning written: There are societies in many parts of the world[3] dedicated to the enjoyment and promotion of his works and the investigation of his life. can you please name some of these societies around the world? at the end of the lemma/article - thanks -- 93.184.26.78 ( talk) 20:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I made an incorrect correction to the page the other day. Dodgson's date of death in the jacket of the new edition of Martin Gardner's 'The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition' is listed as July 14th, instead of January. You'd think a mistake like that wouldn't be in the definitive edition of anything. I also seemed to remember reading somewhere that Dodgson died when he was 66 and a half years old, which he would have been in July of 1898.
He dies at his sisters' home, a house which he had bought for them with his royalties. It doesn't make sense to say that he lived in Ch:Ch: at then refer to his home in Guildford.
I'm thinking that a list of films or books or whatever in which Lewis Carroll is portrayed should be included in the article. I'm not an expert, and I don't know what films/books he has been in, but it would be of interest to people interested in Lewis Carroll to see others' interpretations of him in the media. I added in the Trivia section that Marilyn Manson was making a movie about him, because it is relatively important, and as trivia, it fits right in, but again, a proper section listing his appearances as a character in fictional or non-fictional works would be good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donniedarkofan2006 ( talk • contribs) 07:28 UTC, 11 June 2007.
Thank you to all the people who have written about Lewis Carroll. I am saying thanks on behalf of my great great great (etc) Uncle. who in fact was Charles himself. So thank you all for contributing to his page. And if you don't believe me thats your choice. But guess what I am. Thanks again
-Brianne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkducks778 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is extremely biased
He was a pedofile, taking nude pictures of little girls means he was a pedofile.
The article should be fixed to represent the facts.-- Simon19800 ( talk) 05:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
"His pictures of children were taken with a parent in attendance and many of the pictures were taken in the Liddell garden because natural sunlight was required for good exposures.[40]"
This blanket claim, has not and can not be proven.-- Simon19800 ( talk) 05:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The fact Carroll use to take pictures of naked girls should be added to the article. The fact is well documented (choose which ever you like from google).
Why is this fact censored from the page? Is it due to people who like to claim to be some distant (irrelevant) relative of him?
-- Simon19800 ( talk) 07:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
"His pictures of children were taken with a parent in attendance " Where is the documentation for this, its a baseless claim and its also known naked pictures where taken without parents there. So its just false.
-- Simon19800 ( talk) 07:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Added photo taken by Carroll one some people are ignorant of or try to deny it exists along with many other photographs like it. Wish to claim he didnt take it? then prove Wiki got it wrong, after you actually look at the proof he did take it first.-- Simon19800 ( talk) 07:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Great logical fallacy eeng, if you where not ignorant of basic logic, you would understand. Illl inform the wiki creator he will be sad he has got it wrong all these years-- Simon19800 ( talk) 05:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lewis Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to need a separate article; anything novel can be added to existing section. Pam D 07:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lewis Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://library.bangor.ac.uk/search/Xcontextualising%26searchscope%3D5%26b%3D%26SORT%3DA%26l%3D%26m%3D%26Da%3D%26Db%3D%26p%3D/Xcontextualising%26searchscope%3D5%26b%3D%26SORT%3DA%26l%3D%26m%3D%26Da%3D%26Db%3D%26p%3D/1%2C19%2C19%2CB/frameset%26FF%3DXcontextualising%26SORT%3DA%264%2C4%2CWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
You would think he was an ordinary nobody based on the lead section. Nothing of his influence or innovation in the literary genre? I see this is a poor quality article, but still, a beefed up and interesting lead section will only help it. Where are the aficionados out there? Michael0986 ( talk) 14:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Just added "The Manlet" to § Literary works, with ref taken from http://www.poetry-archive.com/c/the_manlet.html. I suspect this is not the original publication for this poem. Paradoctor ( talk) 02:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I have added some information to expand this sub-section, please feel free to correct if you find any errors. You can also message me if you have questions. Darwin Naz ( talk) 05:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of the article currently has this sentence
This doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, it should be with the material relating to the Alice books, if it needs to be in the article at all.
Guyal of Sfere ( talk) 18:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
New user User:DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens is dumping a bunch of sources about photos; many of them are blogs. The actual text they're adding to the article doesn't seem connected to the rest of the section, nor does it convey much from the sources. I am opening this discussion in the hopes that they explain what they're trying to accomplish instead of edit-warring. -- JBL ( talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I noticed that the quite substantial section headed ‘Controversies and mysteries’ was not reflected in the lede. Since the lede is meant to summarise the article, I appended a short para, referencing the claims about close friendships with children, adding that these claims had also been quite credibly refuted.
This para was deleted by 184.69.174.194 because they felt it was dangerous to use the word ‘pedophile’ without a cite. Since the word ‘paedophilia’ occurs twice in the main text, I would have thought that their critical attention should have been directed on that part of the article. However, I took the point, and replaced it with a short, discreet statement that seemed unexceptionable: Recent speculation about the nature of his relationships with children has foundered on lack of evidence.
This was promptly deleted by Johnuniq with the following comment: It makes no sense to say "Recent" in an article (what does it mean?); is this a summary of text in the article?. Yes, it certainly is a summary of text in the article. That was why I inserted it. And ‘Recent’ just means what it says: the article states that the controversy started to bulk-up in the late 20th century. And by now, the topic has plainly become an inseparable part of any research into this author. If he was quibbling with ‘how recent is recent?’, I could have understood his deletion of that word, but I don't see how it justifies deletion of the whole statement. Valetude ( talk) 00:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Didn't he say "I like all children, except boys"? I can't remember where or when, but it sounds like him. Se non e vero, e ben trovato Seadowns ( talk) 13:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Large segments of Sexual preferences subsection are not cited. I added citation needed span tags but they were removed by Xxanthippe. As far as I can see, the claims are still in need of citations. For example, within these sentences:
Biographers Derek Hudson and Roger Lancelyn Green stop short of identifying Dodgson as a paedophile (Green also edited Dodgson's diaries and papers), but they concur that he had a passion for small female children and next to no interest in the adult world. Catherine Robson refers to Carroll as "the Victorian era's most famous (or infamous) girl lover".
That section is only cited by Catherine Robson's 2001 book, presumably only for the quotation in the second sentence. Given that the other authors are mentioned by name, it shouldn't be too hard for someone with the available literature to find where the claims come from, as is the case for the other errors. Tkbrett (✉) 22:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Having landed here to check a detail about Caroll's academic life, I was frustrated that it wasn't clear where this information was. I did find it - in the section headed 'Early Life'. This made no sense to me, so I altered the title, but have had it reverted. Why? Should we have a separate section for his Oxford life? Certainly the present title 'Early Life' is not an accurate reflection of the content of the section. Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 10:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems that this topic was added to the article on January 14th, 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lewis_Carroll&diff=1195689949&oldid=1195686740. It's good that it also describes the controversy about this "documentary".
The BBC2 documentary had been produced by Swan Films in London. In the public you only find unauthorized copies of the documentary. Martha Kearney was the presenter. Its first half is excellent. The second half seems to have been produced in a rush. Kearny failed to ask for the opinions of the curators of that the nude photo which allegedly depicts Lorina Liddell.
In 2022 I contacted the Musée Cantini in Mareseilles. They own that photo. One of the curators told me that the photo was part of a collection which the Museum bought from a dealer in the USA. But it also could be that the photo was shown in Paris by the Gallerie Texbraun in 1986. The Museum purchased the photo in 1994.
Images: On the left side of https://snrk.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Lorina_Liddell_age20y__and_French_girl.jpg you see the face of Lorina Liddell. On the right side you see the face of the girl shown in the photo owned by the Musée Cantini. The curator of that image won't confirm that the image depicts Lorina Liddell. The curator won't confirm either that the photo has been taken by Carroll/Dodgson. -- DL5MDA ( talk) 09:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)