Talk:Lewis Carroll/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Peer review

I think this article is a diamond in the rough. Specifically, I think we can being this article up to featured status with a little work. To get us started on this path, I've opened this article up for a peer review so we can get some feedback on ways to improve this article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is this picture (of the nude girl) really appropriate for this article?

Yes, it is; the section in which it's placed discusses Dodgson's nude photographs at some length. Septentrionalis 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone verified the authorship of Dodgson? Quoting user JayW @ 19:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Is this really by Lewis Carroll? Where did you get it?. With that said, I also think that the caption (rare archive by Dark111) is deeply inappropriate. Is Dark111 famous or something? If somebody verifies the authorship I will be glad to support its inclusion in the article. -- Pichote 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dark111 is just another Wikipedia user and should not be in the article at all. The photo is authentic. In fact, the girl herself has her own Wikipedia article under the name Alexandra Kitchin. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said the above, I'm thinking the article is better without the photo. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A selection from symbolic logic

Here we go. These are titled 'Sets of Concrete Propositions, proposed as Premisses for Sorites. Conclusions to be found.' There are several dozen of them, but I shall quote the first...

1. Babies are illogical;
2. Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile;
3. Illogical persons are despised.

Univ. 'persons'; a = able to manage a crocodile; b = babies; c = despised; d = logical.

...to which the conclusion is 'Babies cannot manage crocodiles.' The last, and most complex, of the problems is:

1. The only animals in this house are cats;
2. Every animal is suitable for a pet, that loves to gaze at the moon;
3. When I detest an animal, I avoid it;
4. No animals are carnivorous, unless they prowl at night;
5. No cat fails to kill mice;
6. No animals ever take to me, except what are in this house;
7. Kangaroos are not suitable for pets;
8. None but carnivora kill mice;
9. I detest animals that do not take to me;
10. Animals, that prowl at night, always love to gaze at the moon.

Univ. 'animal'; a = avoided by me; b = carnivora; c = cats; d = detested by me; e = in this house; h = kangaroos; k = killing mice; l = loving to gaze at the moon; m = prowling at night; n = suitable for pets; r = taking to me.

The conclusion is 'I always avoid a kangaroo'. This is from 'A selection from symbolic logic' in 'Lewis Carroll: The complete works with Tenniel's drawings', Nonesuch Press, 1939. I think these make useful, and entertaining, examples of Dodgson's mathematical work and the fact that the Carrollian wit was present even in the lecture room. Robin Johnson (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination with invitation to renominate

As stated in the above peer review post, this article is a diamond in the rough. Specifically I've failed the nomination over citations: two of the most controversial matters - possible drug use and child pornography - need better documentation. Stubby one and two-line paragraphs also detract from the article. Some of the material here would probably be better covered in summary style with branching articles: more space gets devoted to his artistic hobbies than to his actual career as a mathematician or to critical receptions of his writings. On the whole, this article loses its balance over what I would call the Sally Hemmings effect: legitimate concerns over sensational topics can steal the spotlight away from other substantive issues. This man is chiefly memorable as the author of some of the most enduring and respected children's literature in English. Durova 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is some very valuable feedback. Thank you Durova! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Dodgson's work on sets and symbolic logic might be covered as well as the gossip and speculation around his private life? He was in his time, after all, a mathematician and logician. Daen 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

At the same time. Since the current understanding of LC is in a state of flux, shouldn't Wiki reflect that current state? I don't think it's about being sensational. It's about trying to accurately reflect current realities, so people coming here for info get a balanced idea. I think it's crucial for the 'controversies' to be well featured as they reflect most accurately the current nature of LC and his biography. So much is unknown or in dispute. And the 'carroll Myth' has an impact on his work as much as his life, don't you think? Maybe we could do with linked feature swctions on some of his best non-Alice work?--Wicked-Witch-of-the-East 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Requested semi-protection on 6th Feb. due to persistent vandalism. --Viledandy 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

General tidying

I moved the Alice Ottley info into 'trivia' as it seems too minor a point to have it's own section. MikeLeach1956 09:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Re-establishment of an External Link

|Request for Re-establishment of an External Link talkpage heading |On 18 August 2007 the link, http://justtheplaceforasnark.blogspot.com/, was deleted from the Lewis Carroll page: reason given was: ... removing an external link that pertains to one of his works, not Carroll himself. Several other external links refer to LC's works, therefore, the above deleted link should be restored. Additionally, it seems illogical to apply such stringent parameters to external links, the works of LC are the sole reason for his biography to exist, the man is his work. . 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)}}

On 18 August 2007 the link, http://justtheplaceforasnark.blogspot.com/, was deleted from the Lewis Carroll page: reason given was: - removing an external link that pertains to one of his works, not Carroll himself) Several other external links refer to LC's works, therefore, the above deleted link should be restored. Additionally, it seems illogical to apply such stringent parameters to external links, the works of LC are the sole reason for his biography to exist, the man is his work.

The problem is this article has way too many external links per our guideline at WP:EL. I saw this link and noticed it was more appropriate for The Hunting of the Snark than here. Something pertaining to a work should really be linked from the work -- it's just a way of keeping things organized. Also, we're really not supposed to link to blogs. So for these reasons I went ahead and removed it. Other links on this page that pertain only to a single work of Carroll's should also be moved to that particular page. --JayHenry 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, the first message should be signed (you do it by adding 4 tildes '~' at the end of the message). Now, onto the main issue. I am not sure that the External Link should be re-instated at all. It was removed, but perhaps not for the right reason in my opinion. If one reads WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, one sees point 11 state that links to be avoided should include: 'Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority' I have looked at the external link and it states it is a blog, and I'm not sure how much of an authority the author of the blog is. So, unless some reason can be given that would specifically verify that this blog adds something reliable, relevant, and significant to this article, I don't see how or why the guidance in WP:EL could or should be ignored in this case. In any case, if it does add something reliable, relevant, and significant, then perhaps it is better worked into the text as a reference (not an in-text external link), in which case, it will occur in with the rest of the references. Thus it would no longer be appropriate to duplicate it as an external link in a separate section. Just my thoughts.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations, I appreciate the clarity of your reasoning. Sorry about the lack of a correct signature. Lichtenberg 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll vs. Charles Dodgeson

Wouldn't this article be better under the name 'Charles Dodgeson' with Lewis Carroll as a redirect? After all, Lewis Carroll was only his pen name, and Charles Dodgeson his real name. It would make more sense that way. 'WiiWillieWiki^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because his name was really Charles Dodgson (note the spelling, which does not have an 'e' after the 'g'). Just as with Mark Twain versus Samuel Clemens (your other post today on the same topic), He is better known by his pen name, and given that the 'correct redirection is there, it makes little difference other than extra work for someone. Additionally, other articles linking to a redirection may not be such a good thing. Finally, in this case, you yourself give a counter argument: if you can't get his real name correct after trying to argue for a position, then it is surely better to stick with a pen name that can be readily found in many places if a spelling hint is required.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see little merit in that response; his reasoning is sound, as one will note if one spends less time in criticism of his spelling. The man's identity, if not as an author then as a mathematician, logician, anglican clergyman and photographer, was indeed Charles Dodgson. This article extends far beyond that part of Dodgson's work for which the pseudonym 'Lewis Carroll' was created, and it should seem academically erroneous to anyone seeking information about the person himself to have it named so.

I ask anyone if there is a reason beyond that of immediate convenience that the article remain titled 'Lewis Carroll'. Exemplar sententia 03:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Lewis Carroll is the name he is best known by, and the name people are more likely to look up. This is generally the convention with pen-names: Mark Twain, George Orwell, etc. are article names; Samuel Clemens, Eric Blair and indeed Charles Dodgson are redirects. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand this. There would be no technical issue, however, for those people if the were simply redirected from 'Lewis Carroll' to 'Charles Dodgson', as the situation would be made clear by the first line of the article.

Yet I suppose convention will be something to which we adhere, at least for the immediate future.  Exemplar Sententia.

At the risk of Wikilawyering, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Nick_names.2C_pen_names.2C_stage_names.2C_cognomens is pretty clear on the matter. More people would recognise 'Lewis Carroll' than 'Charles Dodgson' - the 'fact' you tend to hear is that 'Lewis Carroll's real name was Charles Dodgson', not 'Charles Dodgson called himself Lewis Carroll when he wrote children's books'. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image

I see the image of the 'Cut Pages' document has been removed due to inadequate sourcing.

What is wrong with 'in the Dodgson Family Archive at Woking' as sourcing? If more detail is required (eg catalogue number) it can be supplied, but I can't see the need for removal.

Kudos though to the editors who have been so prompt in remedying all the vandalism here lately. Mikeindex 08:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What a shame there has been vandalism in such case. This is an exceptionally well written article. The original author may very well be picked up by Britanni!

Dodgson as a Logican and Philosopher

Can we please have some discussion of Charles Dodgson's work as a philosopher and a logician? Surely some discussion of his Symbolic Logic is in order and his exploration of Modus Ponens in the Tortoise and Achilles. Some mention of his development of the Dodgson method in voting theory seems appropriate. 139.102.150.47 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Carroll Diagram

Is there any good reason why there are no mentions of Carroll diagrams on this page? This is the only thing I knew of Carroll/Dodgson other than Alice in Wonderland before comming to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.48.129 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! And it still reads far too much like a gossip column pretending to be an encyclopædia article. This could be the touchstone for Dodgson the mathematician and teacher. The Dodgson/Carroll naming debate is also rather odd, for Dodgson was his birthname, and it was as Dodgson that he published his academic works. His fame as a pseudonymous children's author/putative pædophile photographer is almost irrelevant to his original profession of mathematician and pedagogue. Daen (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest (to the first correspondent) that if you think a paragraph about Carroll diagrams would improve the page you write one and edit it in? I've no doubt it would be a worthwhile addition, and this is the whole essence of Wikipedia!

To the second correspondent I'd say that however important maths may be to you personally, Dodgson is famous now for writing the Alice books (and being a paedophile) so obviously those have to be foregrounded in any overview of his life and place in world culture. An article headed 'Charles Dodgson' all about his maths and teaching (a profession he drifted into becuse it was expected of him and seems never to have felt much enthusiasm for) would make about as much sense as one about Winston Churchill devoted to his talents as a water-colourist. Unfortunately popular culture's obsession with its misconceived and ill-researched view of Dodgson's sexuality leaves serious scholars with an obligation to point to the factual evidence in this area just as any other, even at the risk of being derided as gossip-columnists.Mikeindex (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

tidied up external links

there were so many of them, and some of pretty dubious value, I've left it with just the main links to other Carroll-based websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyDear32 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ready for featured status?

I've gone through adding citations wherever they seem to be needed. Also removed some dubious additions and tidied up the syntax where it had suffered from various competing editors. Is it a polished diamond now guys? --LadyDear32 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased?

It seems like this article is more a series of defenses of Lewis Carroll less than an attempt to be unbiased. Did anyone else get this impression? I feel like counterarguments to allegations are valid but I feel like this is too much - and also prevents insight and speculation about the author. Glitterglue (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, both sides are presented, what more can we do? If we say he was a pedo we're losing neutrality. --LadyDear32 (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The previous material regarding the Carroll Myth theory posted by LadyDear32 was not presented in a neutral fashion. No responses or challenges to the theory, expert or otherwise, were included; Karoline Leach's book was presented as the be-all end-all authority on the entire debate. The material used verbs like "points out" and "discovers" regarding Leach's arguments - treating them as newfound truth, in other words - and pored over the theory in undue and what I would deem loving detail. Several sections were rewritten so as to be restructured around the Carroll Myth theory's school of thought. As a result, the previous article argued for the theory rather than merely presenting it. Yes, the theory should be in the article, but in a neutral manner. (Alternatively, perhaps the theory needs its own page. I will also note that if LadyDear32 is Karoline Leach, her participation in the discussion thus far has been disingenuous.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.252.223 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

What do you think of his books? He also wrote the outline for the last Mimzy if anyone knew that. Another interesting fact: He is my great great great uncle!!(that is true because my grandmas maiden name is dogeson and that is his name and she actually met him at a reunion.):) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.252.86 (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia "talk" pages are for discussing the content of the article, not the subject of the article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Jameson's recent edit

I have restored a lengthy section which was cut from the article because, while based on research which is of recent date and therefore unacceptable to some people, it was about Charles Dodgson, his life, his relationships and the flaws in our received image of him, and therefore belonged in an article about him.

If you think the section is too long, surely the material to be referred elsewhere would be the critical responses to Leach's work, which could reasonably be argued to be 'about' Leach rather than Dodgson.Mikeindex (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the information to a new page, which I have linked to from the main article. Hopefully that is acceptable to you. Barry Jameson (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's still about Lewis Carroll - and based on primary evidence, unlike the (myth-based) commentaries by Cohen, Green, Hudson, Nabokov etc. cited in the previous section (which you are content to leave in). Perhaps instead the section in question could be rewritten slightly to make it clearer how many of the assertions it contains are solid fact and not just one writer's opinion.Mikeindex (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC) I have now done this.Mikeindex (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? The concept of the "The Carroll Myth" is a fringe belief created by people who are determined to persuade others to think that Carroll wasn't a paedophile. It's pure opinion, not anything remotely similar to "solid fact". Kooky beliefs shouldn't constitute a large part of a biography. Barry Jameson (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, I'm serious. I appreciate that you have strong convictions in this and related areas, but I'm afraid your zeal is misapplied in this particular case. I would really urge you to read Karoline Leach's book and/or some of Hugues Lebailly's articles - or better, do your own primary research and read CLD's own diaries and letters (with an eye on the 'Index of Correspondents' which gives their birth dates), and then see what you think. Please bear in mind also that the new scholarship is not just about sexuality but about the totality of the received image of CLD (reclusive, socially inadequate, politically/theologically reactionary etc) - all of which the primary sources show to be inaccurate or at least simplistic.Mikeindex (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(This is addressing both this thread and the "Biased?" one above.) Putting the "Contariwise" analysis in separate sections gives it undue weight, so I've done some work on putting it into the context of the rest of the article, summarizing their arguments more succinctly, and leaving off the summations restating their conclusions. I removed the closing comment about his personality as it said nothing specific. But looking at the citations for that section I have to wonder: is the non-Contrariwise POV represented there at all? - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

These recent edits, removing all reference to the 'Carroll Myth' look like vandalism. Or at least highly non-NPOV! The Carroll Myth is obviously a pretty central piece of scholarship right now, and it needs to be discussed here. We're totally neutral about it, how can anyone justify just cutting it out? I'm reinstating it.

I have a horrible suspicion this 'jasonAQuest' is doing this stuff for reasons of personal politics, and doesn't mind wrecking our careful work to score some bizarre point against person or persons unconnected directly with this page. --LadyDear32 (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1) New comments go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top.

2) Your accusation of vandalism and other accusations of malice are unfounded personal attacks and uncivil, especially since my comments here explaining my edits demonstrate my good faith. Please review these Wikipedia policies.

3) I did not "remove all references to the 'Carroll Myth'"; I simply placed them into the context of the rest of the article, alongside the other interpretations, where they belong. - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Jason, my suggestion of vandalism was based on the slightly odd repeated edits you'd made - gradually eliminating more and more refs to the new research. I assumed, by the tone and the proximity of the edits, that the IP of the person accusing Leach of 'whoring' belonged to you. You'll understand if, in the circs, I became slightly alarmed.

Look, I'm not a proponent of the Myth, but I've read enough to know it's more wide-ranging than the simple question of pedophilia. It covers Carroll's entire biography, and a lot of his work, and deserves its own section here, because it is currently an extremely signficant question. It's been a part of the Carroll page for years, I and others have helped hone it to its present NPOV perfection. It's good and informative and totally neutral, and I do fear you are removing it out of annoyance with the content rather than because you can identify objective problems with it.

Seriously - do reflect Jason. However annoying the strident Ms Leach may be, the Carroll Myth is bigger than her and deserves to have its place here! --LadyDear32 (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I don't understand why you would perceive gradual edits to an article, all with comments about their purpose, as vandalism. "Vandalism" is when someone adds "Tommy Walker is GAY!" to an article, or replaces every occurance of book with rock song, or deletes a whole section without an edit summary. If an edit isn't something of that sort, you should assume good faith. Think about that for a moment: You should assume that every editor is trying sincerely to improve it... not speculate what ulterior motives they have for destroying it.

Calling this article "NPOV perfection" and "totally neutral" is... even further beyond my understanding. No article will ever achieve that status; that's why there's an "edit" link on every section, even on articles that have passed Featured Article review. You apparently believe that the analysis of Leach et al is correct and trumps any prior analysis, which is fine. But not everyone does. And Wikipedia has to reflect their point of view in addition to yours. Again you accuse me - with no evidence - of having personal objections to the material, when I do not. I have editorial problems with the way it is presented. You keep pointing out that Leach's analysis is about many aspects of Dodgson's life, which is precisely why that information should be integrated into those sections, where it should be attributed in the citations to its author. The article about Shakespeare doesn't highlight the work of individual Shakespearean scholars, the article about J. M. Barrie doesn't have sections for the Birkin view and the Chaney view of the writer, the article about Abraham Lincoln doesn't call out the names of books about him in the section headers. That would give undue weight to a single viewpoint. "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content," is specifically mentioned in the guidelines as a something to avoid. In his case it also looks like an attempt to promote that author.

Speaking of which, unless Ms Leach is editing this article herself (in which case she is engaging in a conflict of interest) the anonymous editor did not accuse her of "whoring"; he accused editors of this article of "whoring [the theory] out". Please read more carefully. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoting isn't promoting if it's done evenhandedly. In the article we quote from many sources, some in favour of the myth, some against. If we were to only quote one side that would be promotion.

It seems to me that if there are current areas of signficant dispute in a given person's biography then a good encyclopedia has a duty to highlight those areas and give equal coverage to both sides in the debate. That way we allow readers to be fully informed and to make up their own minds. I don't know about JM Barrie or Lincoln, but if there are current scholarly differences of any importance then Wiki should highlight them too. If we don't then we are misinforming by omission aren't we? Jason - you might be in a good place to add the requisite material in both cases?

No matter who the accusation of 'whoring' was directed at it has no place in a civilised debate does it?

--LadyDear32 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "whoring" is inappropriate, but after your insulting insinuations about me, you're in no position to criticize others' civility.

Putting commentators' names and the names of their theories in section headers may not be intended to promote them, but that's the effect.

This article isn't even close to "evenhanded". The section about his stammer doesn't even get through the first sentence without interjecting Leach's POV, then spends the rest of the section presenting her arguments about it. The traditional view of his social life as entirely child-centered appears nowhere in the section about his personality except at the end... as part of a statement saying it's untrue! This is a blatantly biased presentation, which doesn't even bother to fairly present the POV it's refuting. I'm not enough of a Dodgson scholar to provide the missing balance, but I know a POV-pushing article when I read one. This article does not fully inform the reader, nor does it encourage the reader make up her own mind; it argues only in support of what a certain group of scholars want the reader to conclude. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

But the traditional view of Dodgson's social life as child-centred IS untrue. His social life was extremely active and largely adult-centred; this is simply and incontrovertibly proven by the evidence of his own diaries and letters without any reference whatever to anything Cohen, Leach or anyone else says. Surely it can't be inappropriate to state it as such?Mikeindex (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm actually I think Jason has a point about the 'traditional' view being merely raised in order to refute, but actually I think that's less about POV than a kind of accident of coinflation. We have a terribly long article here and can't afford to expand it further. I'll see what I can do.

Can't agree the article 'isn't even close' to even-handed though. I think Jason is making the mistake of seeing all the 'refutations' as stemming from Leach, but actually only some of themn do. The entire role of his stammer has been questioned by many other people, most prominently by Wakeling in the published Diaries. Likewise the active adult social life is referenced by both Cohen and Wakeling, though Leach develops the exploration.

I absolutely do not understand the purpose of the disputed neutrality in the drug-use section. What can we possibly add or take away? No serious scholar suggests he abused drugs of any kind. --LadyDear32 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I perceived the refutations as coming from Leach because nearly every citation in the whole darn article reads "Leach". Silly me. Small wonder it reads like it was cribbed from her book. Seriously, for a subject who has certainly been the focus of a lot of scholarly analysis, for the footnotes section to be so dominated by a single source is a warning sign of selection bias.

The drug-use section isn't neutral because it obviously aims to present a conclusion. The thesis statement is presented right there in the first sentence. When an article or a section starts out by saying "Such and such isn't true", my first thought is that the author doth protest too much. It undermines your point rather than supporting it, because it smacks of pushing an agenda.

A neutral, well-researched section about alleged drug use would start with an explanation of the history of the notion, not with a refutation of it. It would list the evidence (weak as it may be) and cite where it has come from. It would then list the evidence against and cite that too. And then it would stop, without summing up the author's conclusions. There's a principle involved in NPOV writing known as "writing for the enemy", in which you try to present the POV you disagree with as fairly as possible. If, for example, you think Dodgson had a pretty normal social life, start out by explaining why some people think he didn't. Assume that such people are sane and rational, and explain where such people would get the idea. When you've accomplished that, then explain why other people think he did have a normal social life. And leave off the conclusion, because the evidence should speak for itself. As an earlier anonymous editor pointed out, this article is littered with argumentative and declarative thesispeak that doen't belong in an encyclopedia article. The goal here isn't to figure out the truth, but to summarize what everyone else has said. If the reader can tell from reading your contributions what your opinion is... you're not doing it right. :) - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

most recent edit

I've taken on board some of Jason's suggestions. Presented a brief summary of the 'he loved children' situation, removed the ref to Lebailly and transferred his section to the Myth.--LadyDear32 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to reiterate my objection to the article-within-an-article about The Carroll Myth. It's a really bad way to organize what is supposed to be an article about Dodgson. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing style

This article is badly written and inserts the author's -- or several authors' -- opinions without citation. Someone needs to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and provide line by line citations and remove the point of view language. Far too many "it should be noted" and similar phrases. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AGREED. The style on its own isn't bad but by the standards of an "encyclopedia"... Glitterglue (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever else the article may be it is NOT badly written and you really shouldn't let your discomfort with any research that challenges the status quo lure you into spurious and incompetent attempts at literary criticism. Point out the places where you think citations are need and and I'll endeavour to supply them.Mikeindex (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have enough of the books or have enough of an interest in Carroll to attempt to edit this myself. I have Donald Thomas's recent biography of him and that's about it. Much of this article -- the latter part, particularly -- is excellent and provides valuable information with appropriate citations. However, I'd say that in-line citations are needed EVERYWHERE in this article where they don't exist, particularly in the first part of the article, and where opinions are expressed, it needs to be rewritten so it is clear which published source or literary critic the opinions came from. If it's a statement where there are two conflicting points of view, both need to be expressed and have in-line citations. Which critic said his first poem was a rather common little poem? Cite the critic; don't just say that because it's your opinion. Who said Jabberwocky was fantastic? It can't be the author of this article. That's POV. It needs to be attributed to a literary critic with an in-line citation. "Poorly written" probably is an exaggeration, but there are problems with POV. If this article is to ever to become a Featured Article it needs attention to those details. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article also seems to use words like "various," "generally" and "widely" a lot - i agree, specificity is missing/needed for accuracy... Glitterglue (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the "wiki of essays on literary criticism." this is a wiki encyclopedia. i feel the distinction is important. speculation is good/fun/important, but does not belong here. no one's offended by the literary criticism. Glitterglue (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagarism

Much of the content appears to be taken directly, or slightly modified from lewiscarroll.cc. Passages including:

"Scholastically, though, he excelled with apparent ease. 'I have not had a more promising boy his age since I came to Rugby' observed R.B. Mayor, the Maths master."

"At twelve he was sent away to a small private school at nearby Richmond, where he appears to have been happy and settled. But in 1845, young Dodgson moved on to Rugby School, where he was evidently less happy, for as he wrote some years after leaving the place..."

--Zachquint (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I webmaster that site. We've been aware of the fact it was borrowed from us for some time, and haven't really had cause to object. And to be honest it has been altered so much by the various corrections and additions it's only passingly similar now. So, no prob.--Frockmaker (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Gender issues

What is with the intro paragraphs using the pronoun, 'She' and the early life using 'He'? Is there something I'm missing?- Jhoge —Preceding comment was added at 02:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

info on Lewis Carroll v. that on Alice Liddell

When reading both pages, the information found on one page is different enough to lead to much more confusion than is necessary. I've encountered this problem at many other page groups on Wikipedia, but this is the worst I've seen by far. An editor should really take the time to clean up the differing/contradicting/confusing info on the Lewis Carroll, Alice Liddell and related pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.84.191 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Particularly the amount of space spent arguing the notion of whether the character of Alice was based on Alice Liddell, which would be far more profitably used to explain - or at least acknowledge - that it was Alice and her sisters to whom he told the story, and Alice who requested that it be written down, meaning that she is a fairly good candidate for the basis of the character. Ravenclaw (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion

The 'Further Reading' Section correctly suggests Robin Wilson's book 'Lewis Carroll in Numberland'. Professor Wilson recently gave an hour-long lecture summarizing the findings of the book, which is now available on-line in free text, MP3 and MP4 versions: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=749 I would think that this is an obvious and appropriate link (I only hold back from placing it up myself as there is a possible conflict-of-interest issue as I am associated with Gresham College, of which he is a professor). Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome suggestion

Hi, I removed the section speculating that Carroll had Asperger's -- as it was almost entirely one block of unverified, uncited opinion, and if not only that then also original research -- I felt at this time it would be best to remove it, until further discussion of it could be induced. thaaaaaaaaaaanks Spankmecold 07:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Pichote 09:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---------------------------------

I request review of this subject: Rhoel2007 19:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC+7)

There is good anecdotal eveidence to support this condition: Certainly medical professionals and those with the condition fully recognize the signs: Dodgson wore the same style of clothes for years without change, ate the same diet without change, had a flair for mathematics and literal creative thinking, his word play. He also would suddenly leave a crowded room or dinner party - a common trait where AS sufferers are unable to track multiple conversations. The latest information which supports his condition is the discovery of his bank records: more than 90% of AS people are inept with planning money and understanding the actual consequences or reality of debt. The original piece I wrote was uncited for the simple reason the majority of biographies were written prior to the condition being publicly known in the English speaking world. Much of what I wrote is not online and therefore un-linkable. It is partly based on private original research but clinical psychologists who have reviewed the pointers agree the hypositis: The case is as strong as that for Albert Einstein, which is accepted. I believe entering the information under controversies was correct: It at least provides the basis for other researchers to build and comment upon this relatively new information. I therefore request a review of the deleted material. Rhoel

You state above "[i]t is partly based on private original research"; this is why it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The issue is not the strength of the case, but that material must come from a "reliable, published source" as stated here: Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks. -Sketchmoose (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Church Mouse

I've noted a massive amount of reliable word/etymology sites reference the 'Church Mouse' as "A fictional character created by Lewis Carroll" yet none reference in what book/poem it appears. I have been unable to find where this character appears. I am beginning to wonder if this is some massive repeated mistake or possibly that the Dormouse in Alice has been altered to a 'Church Mouse' possibly for the american film market. In which case its not a character created by Carroll. Does anyone have any idea about this.. I'm certainly willing to bow to superior knowledge.--MRNasher (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing pages in diary

Avoid weasel words. 'However, there has never been any evidence to suggest this was so, and a paper[15] that came to light in the Dodgson family archive in 1996 provides some evidence to the contrary.' Some evidence? What some evidence? For all I know, this is 'some' evidence of the former. That he had proposed marriage and his family wanted to cover it up. Hey Anon I'm not sure what the problem is. The nature of the 'some evidence' is gone into elsewhere and anyone can check the listed source. This isn't the place for an in-depth analysis of one piece of paper. We summarise the situation and link to a source for more info. --Mikeleach56 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Also it offers an 'alledged summary' would be the correct way to write it. You will pretty much have to use weasel words if you want that crap in there. Until the pages are recovered it's just a note claiming alot of things... The cut pages in diary document was discovered in the Dodgson family's own archive and was identified by Philip Dodgson Jacques (Carroll's great-nephew) as having his handwriting on it and also the writing of his aunts Menella and Violet. Its provenance has never been disputed, nor has its authenticity ever been brought into question. It's quoted in the Wakeling edition of Carroll's diaries and accepted by him and by all other scholars as a genuine document. As it is the only record of what happened on June 27 1863, its value is immense, even though, of course, the summary can only give us an approximation of what happened on that day. MikeLeach1956 09:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Lewis was a very bright man a real man 4 woman and his real name was Rev.Charles Litwidge Dodgson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.236.235 (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

And in the next paragraph regarding paedophilia---------

'But there has never been much evidence to support such an idea' There has never been much? So there HAS been evidence, or? How much is much? Actually there isn't any firsthand evidence at all - so maybe that should be more clearly stated --Mikeleach56 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 'and the 1996 discovery of the 'cut pages in diary document' (see above) seems to imply that the 1863 'break' had nothing to do with Alice. However the document's provenance has been disputed and its final significance is unknown.' No. You are implying the break had nothing to do with it. The notes provenence has rightly been disputed since its significance cant be proven or disproven until the pages are recovered. (Not bloody likely huh?) Seriously... To my knowledge the notes provenance has never been disputed - (see above) --Mikeleach56 13:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Very well said, Anonymous Person. I had to fight hard to even include that the document's provenance is disputed. Apparently if you accept NONE of Leach, some treat you like an ostrich... --Viledandy 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC) How does an ostrich get treated? :) --Mikeleach56 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Revised language that the document was 'presumably' written in 1898 - to my knowledge there is no evidence of this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Philip Jacques cannot say when his aunts wrote their portion. We are therefore possibly dealing with something composed long after the fact. As noted elsewhere, the document 'provides' evidence of nothing; it alleges it. --71.125.153.218 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

'sorely needed rebuttals'

Addressed (mainly but not solely) to the person responsible for the recent edit, who prefers to remain a number rather than a free man:

1) Just for the record, rebuttal means producing evidence to the contrary. Even if Cohen, Gardner or Rackin actually provided genuine rebuttal rather than misrepresentation and abuse - which none of them do - I'm afraid that merely stating here that they disagree with Leach doesn't as such prove her wrong.

2) The material you've reinstated has already appeared at this entry for a long time, accompanied by a brief account of the more positive responses to Leach's work (which you very even-handedly decided were not so sorely needed); the whole section was moved, not through some dastardly pro-Leach conspiracy, but in response to a general view that, as the material was not directly about Dodgson, the new location was more appropriate. Personally I still hold this view and see no need for any of the material to be reproduced anywhere but Leach's own page; but if the negative reviews belong on both pages, surely the positive ones do too?Mikeindex (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

neutrality???

can't really understand why the neutrality is being questioned at this late stage. This article has been gone over and gone over and fine-tuned by so many of us, it seems simply ridiculous to question the neutrality at this point, and I suspect it's either a troll or simply a bit of malicious meddling. Note - no reasons for the notice have been given. So I'm removing it until some proper basis for applying it is put forward. --LadyDear32 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I'm uncertain what this is about, but I would suggest that the description of Charles Dodgson as a young man being "handsome" is a subjective opinion. There is a citation given at the end of the paragraph on his "physical appearance", but I'm uncertain if this relates specifically to "handsome" bit. If this was/ is a commonly held perception then who (other than the author/ editor of the Wiki article) said so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contains Mild Peril (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just browsed over the first few parts of the article, and...it's NOT [completely] neutral. Take, for example, the third paragraph: it's a bit, ah, glowing, isn't it? ...Not quite "encyclopedic material," I think. Paperxcrip (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sopped up the sauce and condensed the remainder into a single, more prosaic introductory paragraph. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it refers to a possible Conflict of Interest on the part of some of the frequent editor/s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psipes (talk • contribs) 04:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Linkrot

I noticed some dead links in Lewis Carroll.

I first manually archived the Harry Ransom Center search results page here using WebCite because Checklinks was reporting error 404 (page not found), even though I could access the page. I did this in case a later bot (or human) decides to mark it as dead when it isn't.

I then ran the User:Dispenser/Checklinks tool which tagged four dead links.

These dead links are to the lewiscarroll.cc domain, which appears to have become expired (they now redirect to sedoparking), but there is no archived copy in the Internet Archive (archive.org) nor in WebCite. However, archive.org may have made a copy in the last six months and will not show the unregistered user until six months later. I vaguely remember reading those pages at that domain. I instructed Checklinks to mark them as "dead links with history".

It's likely too late now for these, but using {{cite web}} for inline citations should help stave off this linkrot problem in future.

Lastly, I clicked Checklink's experimental "CiteWeb - Archive this link" button on all the external links, but I think it takes at least 48 hours to take effect.

The current link status can be found: here.

I hope this helps. -84user (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

old photographs

There are four old images concerning Lewis Carroll at http://chasseausnark.blogspot.com/2008/02/fragments-et-images.html that are not available on Wikimedia Commons. Two are portraits of him, one is a sketch of him sitting in his room and the fourth is a 1909 copyrighted photograph of his Oxford study. In case anyone wants to research further, those which are in the public domain could be uploaded. -84user (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Drug use

"most historians would agree, probably used it" is weasel wording by my interpretation. Would agree? Probably used? Completely uncited, at that. I suggest either finding out which historians agree and upon what evidence, or removing it completely. TransOceanic (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have boldly removed it. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the reference to 'forbidden' drugs being freely available over the counter in Dodgson's time is relevant to the discussion, so I've reinstated it and found refs to support the statements. --Broadwayboy08 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So far this section is a complete non-event. There's still no citation to support the alleged popularity of Carroll in the Sixties drug culture. If you cut that out, there's simply a paragraph to say that certain drugs were legal in Carroll's time, that he might well have taken them normally, and that there's no reason to suppose he abused them. None of that is worth keeping. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The iconocgraphy of Carroll's work was certainly popular in the "alternative" scene in the 1960s/early 1970s, most commonly through the use of John Tenniel's illustrations. Nicholas Saunder's self-help anthology Alternative London used the classic image of Alice and the Caterpiller in its "Drugs" chapter, for example. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of points struggling to get out of this section.

• Carroll's words, ideas and images were popular with the drug culture

(White Rabbit (song) GeorgeMacro (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

• This popularity was due to a perceived resonance with their own activities and subculture
• The drug culture believed that this resonance was so strong that Carroll must have been using drugs himself
• The use of drugs by a pillar of the Victorian establishment was an argument used to legitimate use in the modern day
• Whether there is direct evidence in the historical record of Carroll using or being influenced by drugs.

So far there are no citations for any of these: you've mentioned a possible source for the first; the article asserts that there is no support for the last. I don't think the article can support a section on speculations of drug abuse without reliable sources for all the links in the chain. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this section out pending some sources. It's currently riddled with tags. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

—

Alice in Wonderland, describes many hallucinogenic experiences in detail. It seems inappropriate that given this fact, there is no reference or suggestion as to how this came about.

This was a time of drug culture, there was no shame in consuming laudanum for example. The level of detail is such that he must have had close contact with someone with first hand knowledge, or had a hallucinogenic experience himself. The absence of any record of recreational use of hallucinogens, in the UK at this time, suggests to me that the experience would have been as the result of ingesting hallucinogenic mushrooms, an accidental "poisoning".

There is little doubt that the introduction of hallucinogens to the recreational drug market did not happen until the early part of this century, despite hallucinogenic mushrooms having grown in this land for thousands of years. This suggests to me that contrary to modern contextual usage hallucinations were not considered to be "pleasurable" by those who had experienced them in the context of accidental ingestion and it was not something they would choose to repeat.

I guess there is potential for his interest in mysticism to be some sort of link to South American traditions where, at his time, the deliberate consumption of hallucinogenic mushrooms was taking place in a spiritual context, however, this seems tenuous to me. Brucedenney (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the best

This is one of the best written articles in the entire Wikipedia. I can't help but suspect that others have come afterwards and added punctuation crutches for the only thing needing work is punctuation which is way in outer space.  — [Unsigned comment added by 90.5.12.95 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 October 2007.] It may be "well written" in the sense of some literary standard, but not in terms of objectivity. Charles Dodgson made many very important contributions in mathematics (control theory, calculus of two variables) and voting models, which are not put into perspective with whatever may have been his sexual bent. Erichwwk2 (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to add whatever you feel is missing. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any important contributions he made, and I would be interested to learn of them. My impression is that he was a very ordinary, run of the mill academic, who did nothing noteable in his academic work, and would be completely forgotten had it not been for the Alice books. If this impression is wrong I would be fascinated to learn of his important contributions, and if Erichwwk2 can tell us what they were that will be excellent. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Three-valued logic

Back in July, someone deleted this from the article because "The uncited claim about three-valued logic seems OR (and dubious) to me."

• It does contain an extremely concise account of three-valued logic when Bruno counts "about a thousand and four" pigs because he is certain about the four but estimates the remainder. In three-valued logic, unknown plus four = unknown (see Null (SQL)).

This idea came from one of the numerous commentaries on Carroll's work, I just can't remember which one. Can anyone verify it? GeorgeMacro (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is arguable that Bruno's statements and Sylvie's response to him relate to an example of three-valued logic, but by no stretch of the imagination does Carroll's text contain an account of three-valued logic. If some (unspecified) commentator has commented on this passage as an account of three-valued logic then that may or may not be a notable fact about that commentator, but it is too far removed from Carroll to be meaningfully regarded as a notable fact about Carroll. In any case it is a total misrepresentation to claim that Sylvie and Bruno actually contains an account of three-valued logic. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Carroll's other works

I think for informations sake there should be articles on his 'Three Sunsets', 'Tangled Tale' and other poems in 'Ryhme? Reason?'. Three sunsets and 'Rhyme Reason' poems appear to give a fresh look on Carroll with his lampooning or critising of the upper classes (example are 'Hiawathas photographs' and 'Fames penny trumpet' respectivly')in his 'Rhyme? Reason?' whilst in 'Three Sunsets' It seems to be a poigniant look on lost love, regret, and lost innocence.

Sinse I'm not really good at article making, may I ask the creation of these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.232.92 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Relations with females

Let's broaden the "pedophilia speculation" section to describe all Carroll's relationships with the opposite sex. I've found a number of online sources which suggest that Carroll had friendships with teenage girls and women - not just little girls. He also called some women as old as 25 'child friends'.

Add some perspective on the Victorian cult of the child (?) which regarded children as the apotheosis of purity. How many other photographers were taking nude pictures of children? Were they also suspected of pedophilia or what?

Add some more perspective on how a man could be alone with little girls and no one would worry about anything (pedophilia being a non-issue in Victorian England), but that a man alone with a female 17 to 25 would ruin her reputation, i.e., she'd never be able to marry. Talk about Chaperonage. For example, when one of the Liddell daughters became too old, her mother began to insist on a chaperone for her.

Add a timeline of the shifting biographer viewpoints. Who started the rumor of "stammered around women, but could be at ease with girls"? Who drew conclusions from the "missing pages" (already in the article, but needs fleshing out)?

Do we need to remind readers that Charles Dodgson (before his pen name became famous) had joined a college which required some kind of holy orders along with celibacy?

Perhaps, along with this broadening of perspective we could write about his social relationships in general. Apparently he had a wide number of acquaintances and even traveled to visit famous authors (mainly male I think). He knew dozens, if not hundreds of married couples and was friendly with both the husband and wife.

A personal note (possible indicating my own bias, which I hope I can keep in check): Is it any wonder that a celibate intellectual, who found in children a purity of mind and who loved teaching (but disliked rough horseplay) and who had the sort of vivid imagination to write a children's book that would appeal to girls would be delighted to be in their company and write them letters filled with puns and logic problems? --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your general view, but I'm sure you are aware that per WP:NOR and WP:V we have to find reliable secondary sources and report what they say. We should not add selected statements from primary sources for balance (i.e. we should not select such statements). Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

the Carroll Myth

I've reinstated this as the first subsection of the 'controversies' section. Since it's the most 'controversial' and hotly debated aspect of Carroll's bio at the moment it hardly seems justifiable not to give it its own subsection. Putting the content inside the 'paedophilia' subsection doesn't seem appropriate as the 'myth' covers a much wider area than just this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.166.91 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Weak Phrase

I find the phrase "more or less unequivocally" to be somewhat self-contradictory. Perhaps someone could improve that passage. EricTN (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in context ('All of these works more or less unequivocally assume that Dodgson was a paedophile, albeit a repressed and celibate one') it's pretty clear: all the works assume it, but how uneqivocally they do so varies from one to another.Mikeindex (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the phrase "more or less" is not often used nowadays in this literal sense (though such usage was commonplace in the past). In modern usage the phrase is generally understood to mean approximately, sort of, somewhat, etc, so its old-fashioned literal use could possibly cause some confusion and appear contradictory when followed by an absolute like "unequivocally".Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would describe its meaning as "nearly". There is nothing confusing or contradictory about "nearly unequivocally" or nearly + any other absolute. "Nearly 100%", "with near absolute certainty", etc. --Ericjs (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

the vexed pedophilia section

I've cut the section about the letter Alice's sister wrote as it was lengthy and rambling and didn't seem to be saying anything very informative. I think the present section sums up the situation adequately and any additions get into the realm of 'assertion, rebuttal, reassertion' - which we want to avoid in an article already this long!--"the best head in town" 10:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to libel a man when he is deceased and cannot defend himself. There is absolutely no external evidence that Carroll was a pedophile. No one knows what was in his mind. Therefore, with the total absence of external and internal evidence, there is no justification for labeling him as a pedophile. Such libel is similar to the many Wikipedia articles that insinuate that famous people are homosexual when there is absolutely no proof whatsoever to support the accusation.Lestrade (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

That makes me mad. I'm gay. If someone insinuated I was straight wudya think that was a libel?--JedOrianus (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about other countries, but under U.S. law there's no such thing as "libeling the dead". I might add that your comment that describing someone as homosexual is libelous is insulting and offensive. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We document the academic controversy on this topic, at face value. We do not attempt to judge the credibility of the evidence presented, just present both sides and leave the judgement to readers. Dcoetzee 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it is easy to defame a man when he is deceased and cannot defend himself. Is that better? There is absolutely no proof that Carroll was a pedophile. Similarly, there is absolutely no proof that various famous people are homosexual as is claimed in many Wikipedia articles. Such claims are a common tactic that is used by homosexuals in their attempt to legitimize their immature and harmful behavior.Lestrade (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Homosexual behaviour is not "immature and harmful" and I strongly suggest that if you want people to take your comments about articles seriously that you refrain from making such overtly inflammatory judgements. Dcoetzee 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Immature:According to Freud[1], it is a result of arrested development.

Harmful: The AIDS virus is transmitted through torn rectal tissue.

Lestrade (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I strongly suggest that you keep your personal opinions and attempts at analysis out of this discussion (and any other on Wikipedia). As User:Dcoetzee correctly pointed out, Wikipedia simply reports what other people have said about the subject. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge whether these statements are correct or not, and it is most certainly not Wikipedia's place to make judgments about whether homosexuality is "immature and harmful" or not. This kind of personal attack is not welcome. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am showing that there is no basis to the allegation in the article that Lewis Carroll was a pedophile. It is the kind of baseless defamation that can be found in many Wikipedia biographical articles. Lestrade (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

You're not actually showing that; you're declaring it. I don't know whether Carroll was a pedophile or not. I do know that a substantial number of scholars have explored that question, and their observations (for and against that conclusion) should be reflected in the article. -JasonAQuest (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is irresponsible and cruel for Wikipedia articles to base such claims on citations that contain mere suppositions, speculations, and assumptions. That, however, is the way of certain groups that wish to make their own actions appear to be acceptable, natural, legitimate, and protected by contemporary society's sensitivity to civil liberty.Lestrade (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Whatever you want to believe. Wikipedia policy is to report what the scholars say, and let the reader decide what they believe. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds simple, but it's not. If scholars who have one viewpoint are presented, then the reader will think that viewpoint is the only true position. To be fair, scholars must be reported who represent all viewpoints. Then the reader can weigh all viewpoints and decide which is correct. It is, however, hardly possible to report all scholars and all viewpoints. This is similar to today's situation in which the communications media can largely present one viewpoint and the audience will naïvely accept it and believe it to be true. In Carroll's case, if the Wikipedia article states that he is generally considered to have been a pedophile, then many readers will accept this as the truth. Did Carroll ever declare in speech or words that he was a pedophile? No. Did any person ever witness him committing a pedophilic act? No. Yet the article will assume that he was something that he may not have been.Lestrade (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

The article already has multiple sections discussing the different perspectives. It's not one-sided. Someone who reads the article can make up their mind for themselves with the information presented. --JayHenry (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lestrade, we already went over this at length in the context of the Stefan George article. It is not the business of Wikipedia editors to assess the evidence on which scholarly judgements are based. If you can find a source which states a lack of evidence for pedophilia, why not cite it? The problem with the George article was that you were unable to come up with any citations to support your divergence from the critical consensus. It surely can't be as difficult with Carroll.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The following sentence in this vexed section is the most arrogant and conceited that I have ever read in Wikipedia: "He probably felt more than he dared acknowledge, even to himself." It presumes that we, of the presumptuous 21st century, can directly, immediately know the inner thoughts of a very thoughtful 19th century man, better than he could know himself. It is ignorant for Wikipedia to submissively allow such assertions in its articles.Lestrade (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

It's a quote, attributed to a particular scholar. Wikipedia doesn't make this assertion, it merely reports it. It also reports conflicting opinions and places his comments in that context. It's up to the reader to make his own judgment about which (if any of them) is correct, or if they're all just speculating. It would be "arrogant and conceited" for Wikipedia editors who make that judgment themselves. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As Jason said. I strongly disagree with the quoted material, but firmly defend its inclusion, because it is accurately representative of a point of view held by a certain group of scholars. The article does not state or imply that this viewpoint is accurate. Dcoetzee 04:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see that there's anything further to discuss here. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires that we represent significant views. These views about Carroll are very significant, as they are held by a great number of scholars. The article already includes other views about Carroll as well. It's too bad if some people are unhappy with prevalent views. The article currently fulfills NPOV, and it would clearly violate NPOV to remove these sections. --JayHenry (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cut sentence re. 'the Carroll myth' and its 'debunking' by 'modern Carroll scholars' - this implies that Leach, etc. have proven their arguments beyond all doubt, and that Cohen, Gardner, etc. are somehow 'not modern'. The explanation of the 'cut pages' document (twice!) plus the Leach section that follows more than makes the point. --71.125.134.48 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See below, section on Relations with females for a bold new proposal. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)