Talk:Lewis Carroll/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

scurrilous psychobabble

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)

It is nonsense. Without a doubt. I would be inclined to remove the lot; anything WP:DUE which Will Self thinks can be on his page, but I see no reason to tell readers of this article about all the speculation—the only accurate statement that is useful here is "We cannot know to what extent sexual urges lay behind...". However, the "Controversies and mysteries" section needs to be treated as a whole and what is needed is someone who has seriously studied the topic to redo the lot. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think the phrase He probably felt more than he dared acknowledge, even to himself is typical, as far as verifiability and notability are concerned. Tkuvho (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This has all happened much too quickly. The fact that there are several citations is a reason to keep this material, not a reason to delete it all. The text should be put back and more time allowed for discussion. Myrvin (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for contributions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature and Talk:Pedophilia. Myrvin (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the BBC source in particular is not good, roughly in line with "mysteries of the pyramids" kind of programming. Overall, that subsection seems like a sort of he-said she-said OR by SYNTH. It should go. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The BBC material may be trivia, but the controversy over Carroll's sexuality is very notable. All modern biographies discuss it, and Morton N. Cohen's biography in particular is regarded as the standard work on Carroll.[4] KateWishing (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What User:KateWishing writes about notability may or may not be true, but in any case there is already one section discussing this, namely the one preceding the section I deleted. Tkuvho (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW see a somewhat similar situation, Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell#Sexuality, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination) -- there was an entire article about this which was only deleted on the fourth try. And that's for someone who was on record as abhorring homosexuality and was married with three children... I'm not in favor of speculating that Baden-Powell was gay, but if his biographers say he was, are you gonna ignore that? And Carroll's situation is a lot more sketchy... If "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" is true, you certainly have to give that a lot weight even if they're dead wrong, since they're his biographers. Herostratus (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That section only covers the revisionist point-of-view. They should be merged, rather than one deleted. Will Brooker's book Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture should also be used. It has a balanced overview of the debate that's critical of overreaching by both sides. I might clean it up myself later. KateWishing (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what User:Herostratus claims above through the comparison with Robert Baden-Powell, Cohen's biography which is considered the standard biography of Carroll notes that We cannot know to what extent sexual urges lay behind Charles's preference for drawing and photographing children in the nude. He contended that 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. These comments by Cohen, combined with the fact that the photographs and paintings in question involved specifically girls (rather than boys), tend to indicate that the biographer felt that Carroll was heterosexual. Furthermore, his biographer Cohen does not employ any of the explicit terms that infest our page. To the extent he acknowledges that Carroll was celibate, copious speculations about this certainly fall under the category of "scurrilous psychobabble" and should be either eliminated altogether or minimized as far as possible. Tkuvho (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We have no policy against "scurrilous psychobabble". We summarize the viewpoints of significant sources. Cohen et al. are (very) significant. The inclusion of only the revisionists without any mention of more mainstream biographers is WP:UNDUE. Also, Herostratus was not suggesting that Carroll was gay. KateWishing (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think someone should consult Cohen to see what he says in the broader context (there are no Google previews, so someone will have to visit a library :-) The section of interest strikes me as possibly having been quote-mined to push an agenda (possibly inspired by the recent BBC feature of dubious provenance). Anything beginning with "Despite comments like this..." is likely to be OR. Let's stick to reliable secondary sources, and leave speculation out of the matter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read Cohen. The quote is representative, and his discussion of the possibility is extensive. Cohen itself is a reliable secondary source, but our use of the Collingwood quote and the "Despite..." line do seem like WP:SYNTH. KateWishing (talk) 15:31, 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)

That comment by Cohen could be included though I find Cohen's conviction that he (Cohen) knows "more than he [Carroll] dared acknowledge, even to himself" quite hilarious. Tkuvho (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is and it isn't. There is something to the saying that we never see ourselves as well as others do. Certainly the phenomena of knowing something about a friend that he doesn't is not unknown. And Cohen has studied the matter to some depth I gather.

(edit conflict)Was not suggesting Carroll was gay, just pointing to another situation where a person's sexuality was brought up absent any actual activity and how we handled that. There are various "Sexuality of..." articles, e.g. Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Sexuality of William Shakespeare and what have you based on (what I assume is) pretty sketchy eviddence, so if Lewis Carroll doesn't have such an article, or an equivalent highly developed section in his bio, it's that that would be the outlier.

However, for my part, I'm skeptical that Sexuality of William Shakespeare has much to offer the reader beyond rank speculation since we basically know nothing about him, and so on. @KateWishing, we don't have a policy against scurrilous psychobabble, but come on. In addition to being editors we are (I hope) reasonable human beings, and can see that there's little benefit to the reader in going overboard on rang speculation or helping her form an impression that's not true. It's hard enough to know and relate what did happen in history without getting into what people might or might not have been thinking. And we certainly wouldn't look kindly on this for a BLP, and while Carroll is dead now, I hope we're not looking thru the obits to find articles about which can say "Oh, she's dead now, let the rank speculation begin!"

Not saying the situation isn't notable enough to be addressed, but for my part I'd 1) go as light on it as can reasonably be done and 2) make it entirely clear that it's speculative. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please User:Herostratus see WP:OTHER. Tkuvho (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

the title for this section you've chosen is evidence you have come not to 'discuss' at all but to insist the text you don't like be removed. but RS discuss this 'psychobabble' so that's what counts. Sayerslle (talk) 18:05, 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)

it wasn't a 'report' exactly - to say the BBC documentary that featured experts and biographers is not a RS - wtf? 'tabloid trivia'? it was a well researched BBC documentary - your pompous remark only reveals you haven't watched it really - I dunno, bloody 'highbrows' Sayerslle (talk) 20:25, 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)

why not write 'Dodgson wrote a few books and was good at numbers and stuff'. leave it at that. Sayerslle (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I second User:Sayerslle's description of the contested material as "tabloid trivia". I see enough support in this space to have the junk removed. Tkuvho (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

blimey , you don't agree with me - you made your open-ness to discussion abundantly evident from the title of this section you chose - I thought wp was meant to provide information but obviously not. If you added the information I should like to see added it would resemble much more the guardian I should think, something like that , than a red top. still what do Carroll biographers, various experts, and a writer like Will Self know, what does their info matter , compared to the anonymous wp mandarins around here. ffs. endlessly calling the BBC and its programme 'tabloid trivia' doesn't add weight to the assessment - have you watched the 'tabloid trivia' programme? of course you bleedin well haven't - why sully your mind with biographical content on the subject of the article from his biographers Sayerslle (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Calm down Sayerslle. I am also totally opposed to the suppression of RS evidence in favour of LC's paedophilia. General readers, who know something about his life, would expect to find a balanced and NPOV discussion of it. Just referring to one source who says it isn't so is not good enough, when there are many sources that suggest it is. The text as it stands seems reasonable to me as a basis. However, if we cannot agree, we could always ask for a neutral opinion. I have asked elsewhere on WT:RS for guidance on the inclusion of TV programmes, like the one mentioned, as an RS. There must be thousands of WP articles that do use TV programmes as sources. If we want further comment on the programme, we could use [5] or [6]. Myrvin (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I note that WP:RS says: "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Those against using the BBC programme as a source will have to argue that the BBC is not a "reputable party" - a tough job. Myrvin (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I am calm really Myrvin, honest, its just kind of odd to read 'I agree with you sayerslle, when you describe it as 'tabloid trivia' - when I have been arguing of course the exact opposite. What you quote from the RS advice would seem to wholly endorse as acceptable the use of the BBC programme. it doesn't really matter to me either way - I've seen the programme and it was interesting , and it offered a most plausible reason for the break in relations etc - I just don't see why certain other editors are so eager to denigrate the documentary -wp, as one is often reminded, is not about the TRUTH, but about what RS are saying about topics. Sayerslle (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

OK S. More RSs: [7] [8] [9]. Myrvin (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, - that last one mentions 'breaths of scandal' - it seems to me the BBC programme was precisely the kind of RS to bring more light, to those breaths, kind of thing,- very poorly expressed - and suggested it was his interest in lorina more than alice that was one of those 'breaths of scandal' - Sayerslle (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not very impressive. The first source is merely morbidly riffing on previous ones (e.g. Cohen). The second is an introduction to a book on John Ruskin, i.e. a passing reference to Carroll, rather than a primarily focus on him. In the third the use of "paedophile" is actually a reference to William Mayne and not Carroll. Did you actually bother to read these before presenting them as "proof"? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

no-one is talking about 'proof' I don't think. do you bother to read what people are writing at all? I'm saying the BBC programme is part of the RS conversation around Dodgson and to censor it with the excuse that it is 'tabloid trivia' is disingenuous. a documentary filled with experts and biographers etc is not 'tabloid trivia' is it, and as for the other RS I wrote that what they offer may be meager 'breaths of scandal ' - but that is what the BBC RS can elaborate Sayerslle (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The speculations of pedophilia are adequately covered in the current version. Belaboring them would be inconsistent with WP:WEIGHT. Tkuvho (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

is the lorina photo discussed and that as possible reason for breach in relaions between liddell family and Dodgson? - wp is meant to provide intersting and informative RS material, no ? you titled this section 'scurrilous psychobabble' so really one already knew your opinion and the way you entered upon 'discussion' - it still needs wider discusiion whether interesting material is going against WEIGHT. Sayerslle (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that Lorina is discussed in detail in the "missing diaries" section. The photo you are referring to is apparently of uncertain authorship, as even some of the reviews acknowledge. I am not convinced the current coverage of this particular photo necessarily justifies its inclusion here. Possibly a few years from now if this material makes it into respectable biographies such inclusion may be justified. Tkuvho (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

well I wouldn't say that 'Lorina is discussed in detail' exactly but its the terrain that the BBC explored - I don't see why you think the BBC is not 'respectable' in some way . well, whatever, nevermind ...Sayerslle (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of venom here. My three references were all relevant and not meant to be one-sided - and I did read the relevant portions. 10 is a work 'On Paedophilia' castigating LC's photos as "abusive", "voyeuristic" and "seductive". 11 refers to Robson's linking of Ruskin and Carroll as "notorious girl lovers", but the author doesn't necessarily agree. 12 mentions Mayne at the bottom of the page, but asks "Are the 'Alice' books the works of an actual or incipient pedophile", and says his case has not been helped by the critics. The authors seem to be negative to the idea, but do mention 2 real psychoanalytical studies that are positive. I shouldn't be personally attacked for trying to help - and by an experienced editor too. Myrvin (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, we seem to be agreed that the present text is OK for now - mostly due to KateWishing I think. However, there is a serious disagreement about whether or not the BBC programme should be used as a RS. People should not simply be removing the text - that is edit warring. I think we should ask for a dispute resolution. Myrvin (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I added back the BBC sourced material but placed it in the 'missing diaries' section - I don't see why one has to wait for this material to reach 'respectable' sources , as Tkuvho argues , - the BBC is eminently respectable , long established, and the programme consulted experts in various fields and biographers, etc - it just seems like idontlikeit objections really. Sayerslle (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring and full protection

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)

User:ddstretch: Could we have the text about the BBC programme put back so that editors can easily see what we are arguing about? I think that this is the only leftover bone of contention. Myrvin (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. However, I think because the text is under dispute, it is better to place it on this talk page until some kind of resolution to the problem has been reached about whether to include it and where to include it. I know this won't satisfy some of you, but I do think it is better to keep it on here until the issues have been resolved. I will include it in the next section. Note, I do not intend to comment on the substance of the dispute. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

BBC, RS, and the prurient interest

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)

If that is meant to be WP policy, then I think it is made up. An RS is an RS. A 'respectable party' is what it says. We can't say it is OK when we agree with it, but it isn't when we don't. It is not sensible to wait for a TV programme to be quoted by respectable scholars before using it as a source, anymore than it would be for a newspaper article. Readers who have seen the programme will expect some mention here. Myrvin (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If we are looking for balance here, we might use this [10]. Unless History Today isn't good enough. Myrvin (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking for the use of BBC documentaries in WP, I tried this [11]. You can see hundreds of articles that use BBC documentaries as sources. Of course, many are complete articles about a programme, but others are ordinary articles that cite a BBC documentary as a source. Myrvin (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I truly don't understand why people think the BBC is a reliable source for this. The above review in History Today more or less bears this out, stating that Dodgon's alleged paedophilia has little scholarly evidence, and that the show's producers had an obvious agenda. Let's chuck this one in the bin, along with Ancient Aliens and the rest of the infotainment masquerading as journalism. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As requested, here is the text that is under dispute:

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.

Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

if you don't understand why people think the BBC is a reliable source for this you are re-writing the rules of RS basically. - nothing is a RS except for 'respectable biographies', whatever they are - Myrvin has put it like this 'We can't say it is OK when we agree with it, but it isn't when we don't.'- and that seems about right to me - it has no automatic 'right' to be included, no, its about whether editors think it is worth including, but slagging off the BBC for infotainment is supercilious really - the 'sensationalist' aspect, the photograph particularly, was analysed by experts, - and other experts, (contrary imo to the sneery hatchet job in History today), expressed a range of attitudes and were not all of one accord ,except for Will Self, at all, - so its been discussed in history today, and was broadcast on the BBC, - I think its perfectly fine to add to the article, personally. Sayerslle (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I still see no evidence that the BBC documentary is a reliable scholarly source. The only reliable secondary source on the matter, the History Today poece, is dismissive. Just because something expresses "a range of views" doesn't mean that it is good scholarship. The fact that certain versions of the proposed text included quotations from random celebrities, as opposed to Carroll schokars, suggests perhaps some fundamental disconnect with WP:RS. But I think we should drop the matter unless and until some more obviously respectable sources start taking the BBC piece seriously. 15:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

does wp have to use only 'reliable scholarly sources' now? where are these rules on RS ? ( anyhow there were plenty of scholars in the documentary)Sayerslle (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an article such as this should rely on scholarly sources, not pop media documentaries. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Also, sometimes documentaries are unavailable for viewing which makes them hard to verify, though I don't know if that's the case here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, someone needs to look in a dictionary for the difference between 'stating' and 'speculation'. I watched the documentary and the BBC did neither. Secondly, Sławomir Biały does not appear to understand British culture, confusing such a documentary with 'pop media documentary' and probably did not see the programme. And thirdly, Wikipedia's job is not to make its own interpretations, but to report neutrally. If any TV content producing companies can be described as reliable and/or respectable, then IMO, the BBC is number one. Whatever Riddell says, that documentary, which I also watched, was extremely well balanced and Wikipedia editors could learn a lot from that when trying to make Wikipedia articles free of 'undue'. I remember when it was illegal to buy a book by D. H. Lawrence, and you could get locked up for being gay if you walked to slowly past a public loo, and where paradoxically photos of pre-pubescent females were allowed on album covers without the group being accused of being a band of pedophiles. At the end of the day, social mores change with time and the BBC documentary explains it exceptionally well. However, they are all prurient topics which people today have an even greater propensity for talking about than they did in ancient times when I was a teenager. I was not left with any impression whatsoever that Caroll was or might have been even a repressed pedophile but nowadays you can't even take a walk through the mall with your own young son or daughter without being accosted by two policemen. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's great that you found the BBC documentary personally uplifting, but I fail to see what this has to do with its status as a reliable scholarly source. According to WP:V, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Despite some editors' efforts here to canonize the BBC, much of the content produced by the BBC (and especially its television content) is not reliable, precisely in the categories highlighted of "history, medicine, and science". Apart from personal attestations of reliability, no one here has presented any clear evidence that the documentary should be taken as an exception to this general rule. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Just out of interest - if respected journalist Martha Kearney were to publish a book about her investigation, would those editors who think that the BBC is not a reliable publisher accept her book as an RS?I think some are deep into a No true Scotsman argument: No reliable source would say those things about Carroll. However, we have come quite a long way from the initial deletion of anything that suggested LC was a paedophile - even the initial deleter seems to agree with the current text. As I said, the last bone of contention is whether this BBC documentary can be referred to and cited. Could we have a couple of lines that refer to the programme and the dismissive History Today article, at the bottom of the main section on the subject? No Will Self. We should probably name the presenter too. I don't think anyone thinks that History Today is not a RS, so there should be no problem citing that article. Mentioning that magazine, there is another article that refers to the general point about LC's sexual proclivities here [12]. It says:

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

Is this a RS? Myrvin (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This entire post is a red herring. There are reliable sources concerning Dodgson's sexuality, including his alleged paedophilia. But that's not what this discussion is about. It's about: is the BBC a reliable source? The answer is, by default, no. It is not an "academic peer-reviewed publication", as ostensibly required by WP:V, which says "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." We have such sources, so those are the sources policy says we should use. Those lobbying to include the BBC as a source would need to show in a clear way why we should not apply this basic standard to the documentary. The burden lies exclusively on them to show why we should WP:IAR it. But instead, we just meet touchy-feely "but it's good", "but it's made by a real journalist", "opponents just don't understand British culture", and straw men like your above post. These arguments are very unconvincing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You came to this discussion a little late I think. But you are right that perhaps I shouldn't be harking back to the idea that we shouldn't be including sources who say that LC was a paedophile. My aim was to test what editors such as yourself would countenance as a RS that said such things. Your contention is that we can never use any BBC documentary as a RS. As I have said above, thousands of WP articles do just that. For your other sources: we do not have any other source (except papers and History Today) that says anything about the supposed Lorina photograph. I have elicited some expert thoughts on the use of BBC documentaries. WhatamIdoing says: "Generally speaking, a documentary that is broadcast by a reputable publisher (like the BBC), is treated the same as a book that is published by a reputable publisher (like Random House). I would definitely accept it as being reliable for the fact that an identified person holds a given viewpoint." The article already cites sources that, by your definition, would not be acceptable; e.g. Dennis Potter and Robert Wilson, and probably the biographies. Myrvin (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

so Slawekb says ' its already covered the Lorina photograph - and the BBC is not a RS ' - so wrong, and wrong. Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we assume User:Sławomir Biały that you would accept the History Today article that refers to the picture as a RS? Myrvin (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this [13] contains the photo in question. Probably copyright. Myrvin (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:V also says: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". So, not JUST academic, peer-reviewed ones.Myrvin (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward

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. 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.

Myrvin (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing that Kearny is a Dodgson scholar or historian of any not. Also, there is a very distinct consensus against using the BBC as a reference. Certainly, her program is a reliable source for her views on Dodgson (and, presumably, for the views of Will Self and other celebrities), but those views carry little weight in relation to this article. Given that the closest thing we have to a scholarly review of this, the History Today write-up, essentially dismisses it, I think we should shelve this along with the rest of television. Good for entertainment value, but not much scholastic merit. There are better sources than this available.

I should add that I am very much opposed to the hostile environment that User:Sayerslle has created here. I will not comment in any thread where that editor has also posted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well s/he's posted here. We have been warned to stop edit warring. My proposal was on this page for days before I was allowed to put it in the article - nobody spoke against it. I have removed Kearney's view. The other views were from experts on the programme. Myrvin (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it looks to me like the paragraph now concerns expert discussion of a particular photograph, not discussion of Dodgson's sexuality. To me it has a very OR by SYN feel to include it where it is in the article. If there is a discussion of authenticity disputes of Dodgson's work, and critical reactions, then presumably it belongs there. But I find it very implausible that this one work would carry much weight in that regard. Volumes of criticism have been written on the works of Lewis Carroll. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the current text could be moved to the end of the Photography section. I'll try that. Myrvin (talk) 16:14, 15 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)

Well, I for one find the characterization of this single edit as "edit warring" to be a bit inappropriate, particularly when the characterization itself came with a revert, flouting best practices. Moreover, if you peruse the previous discussions, you will see that there is a very distinct lack of consensus for using the BBC as a source here. So I do not think that Myrvin's confident assertion of the high ground is fair. Truth be told, Myrvin, et al, sought out outside input over the BBC. Some editors made there opinions known at that time, and have since left this discussion page. But no consensus at all emerged for the disputed text. Now, I'm certainly not going to "edit war" over this issue, but it does seem like there is some WP:KETTLE issue in the accusation here.

Given the OR issues with the material in question, I sincerely hope that people will come to their senses about this nonsense. Probably others will return as I have, though, now that the environment here has improved, and our better natures will prevail. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

But it wasn't just that single edit, if you care to look at the entire history.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed recently-added text that was under dispute, yes. And I posted an explanation why here, although reasons were already made clear in earlier discussions. That is called normal editing. Within minutes, I was reverted by another editor (who had earlier on participated in an edit war), along with an accusation that I was "edit warring"! Other than that, I have only edited this article one time (as far as I know), to remove content added by a disruptive editor who is now blocked. So, I would thank you not to make baseless accusations, or to support others in their WP:KETTLE disruption. If you continue to do so, I suggest that a more clueful administrator would make a better mediator in further discussions here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I was restricting my comments to refer to only sayerslle, not you. I suggest you try not to react by making disparaging comments about people. It only adds to the hostile environment you appeared to be against in an earlier posting. I suggest you devote your time to discussing the addition or not of the content.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Paragraph about Alice Day

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)

Fair enough. The content is covered partly at NAMBLA's article already. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Split

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)

Who else has a "Sexuality of" page? Lincoln, Jesus, Adolph Hitler, some popes.... I am curious what CD did to get himself onto this list. It seems a bit much to suggest a new page for this. I have not looked at this page in a while, but I am pleased to see the extent to which the "Discussion of Dodgson's sexuality" section covers the issue. The discussion, as it is written now, seems to have reasonable length and a reasonable level of detail. As a matter of fact, I think the "Carroll Myth" section is now redundant and so should be removed. I think I have said before that it may be worth discussing psychological aspects of CD's sexuality (as difficult as it is to do across centuries and cultural divides), and it may be worth discussing the discussion of the psychological aspects of CD's sexuality, but then giving a name to that discussion of the discussion and then discussing that naming seems a bit meta, to say the least, and a bit unnecessary. RayKiddy (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no support for this, so I had forgotten about it. I think CD allegedly did quite a lot to get him on your list.Myrvin (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite new to this article, but from the looks of it personally would not split the section as it currently stands. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 16:45, 3 August 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)

societies

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)

Mistakes in the Annotated Alice

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.

Guildford

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.

Portraits of Lewis Carroll

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.

Thanks to all!

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)

Opinion

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)

I merged your two comments into one section because they appear to concern one topic. Articles are based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll Use to take alot of pictures of naked little girls

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

"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 which is from wiki

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)

Did you read the article? The subject is well covered. [14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is it the kooks always use wiki as a noun? EEng 3:55 am, 15 October 2016, last Saturday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)

Why shouldn't they? It is a noun, after all. Psychonaut (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

But here on Wikipedia we don't use it that way. People who say, "According to Wiki", and "I'm trying to protect Wiki" are always cranks and SPAs. I just don't know why. EEng 16:37, 15 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)

Case in point. EEng 06:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Simon, I would also note that your edit summary when adding the Hatch photograph of "His favorite type of photography" is unsupprtable. As the page satate, a survey of his known extant photographs reveals that, "just over half of his surviving work depicts young girls, though about 60% of his original photographic portfolio is now missing." In other words, around 20% of the pictures he is known to have taken are of "young girls," and yet even of those many if not most are innocuous even to modern eyes. Those that the latter choose to interpret with evil intent were of a type familiar in the work of other photographers, male and female. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lewiscarroll.org/works.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403033148/http://www.designbybeam.com/environment/lewis-carroll-library-3 to http://www.designbybeam.com/environment/lewis-carroll-library-3/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lewis Carroll and fine-art photography

Does not appear to need a separate article; anything novel can be added to existing section. PamD 07:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Merge At present, the sizes favour a merge. Potentially a future split to Lewis Carroll and photography might be a good structure (it's certainly notable), but that would have a broader scope than fine art. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: RU-version of the article is a separate featured in RU-wiki... Maybe translation would be a better option? --Balabinrm (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As things stand at this instant a merge could (and probably should) be done. However if Balabinrm or anyone else is going to expand the photography article then a merge would likely be inappropriate. And yes, I agree with Andy Dingley's suggestion on scope. It could become a very worthwhile article. Thincat (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added {{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%2C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307134836/http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/fales/berol.html to http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/fales/berol.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307134836/http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/fales/berol.html to http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/fales/berol.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Very underwhelming, uninspired lead section.

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)

Probably waiting for someone, such as yourself, to become sufficiently motivated to try to take on the job themselves rather than just complain about it.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The Manlet

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)

Rugby edit

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)

Alice/Alice Liddell identification issue in opening para

The opening paragraph of the article currently has this sentence

Alice Liddell, daughter of the Dean of Christ Church, Henry Liddell, is widely identified as the original for Alice in Wonderland, though Carroll always denied this.

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)

What you call the ‘opening paragraph’ is the lede section, which is meant to summarise the article as a whole. The issue of Alice’s origins is duly covered in the article, and it is a major debating point, of enduring interest to the public at large. Valetude (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Something about photos

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)

No, of course I don't want to get into an edit war; all I want to do is make an edit.

The external links section contained a link to a site which presented a hoax as if it were an authentic 19th century photograph; specifically, two photos, one of a grown man and the other of a seven-year-old girl, were photoshopped together in such a way that they appear to be inappropriately kissing. My latest edit is an attempt at compromise; I deleted the link to the spurious site, without adding text or sources of my own.

I should add that there are any number of other sources on this article which I do not agree with, but which I have made no attempt to delete. The difference is that they are not based on hoaxes. One is entitled to one's own opinions, but not one's own facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation -- I doubt very much that anyone will object to your most recent edit! --JBL (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Unfortunately, someone just restored the link. Again. DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, welcome to Wikipedia ;). Xxanthippe, I think DGHH has made a pretty compelling case for removal, feel free to chime in if you disagree. --JBL (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I meant to remove it but there is something funny going on with my rollbacks undos. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

Child-friendship controversy

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)

According to John Betjeman, yes. Valetude (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sexual preferences section is under-cited

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)

The sources are readily available. What is there to stop you from putting in the citations yourself? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC).

I do not have access to Derek Hudson and Roger Lancelyn Green's books, hence the citation needed tags. Tkbrett (✉) 02:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you thought of getting hold of the books yourself? It cannot be an impossible task. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC).

The books mentioned, but not actually cited, in the areas I originally marked include: Derek Hudson's Lewis Carroll (1954); Roger Lancelyn Green's The Story of Lewis Carroll (1951) or Lewis Carroll (1960); Donald Thomas's Lewis Carroll: A Portrait with Background (1995); Michael Bakewell's Lewis Carroll: A Biography (1996); and something by Hugues Lebailly. Unfortunately my local library does not carry any of them and, due to the pandemic, they are not carrying out inter-library loan requests. In the meantime, I think we ought to indicate that citations are needed for large chunks of the section so someone who does have ready access to the literature can add them where needed. Tkbrett (✉) 11:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Retitling 'early life' to 'early life and academic career'

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)