Talk:Lewis Carroll/Archive 3

Jenny Woolf's book and the migraine thing
Jenny Woolf is worried shes been trolled on account someone removed her comment in the 'migraine' section pertaning to her book. Shes just put the section back, so shd anyone take it out again can u give reasons and assure her she is not being victimized? She is saying an 'anonymous person' did it, which is not true on inspection. XXanthippe removed it for 'repetition', but the l ady is thinkling she is being trolled so thought I'd put this comment out.--JedOrianus (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For some time, additions to this article have been made by Jennywoolf. The additions refer to the book The Mystery of Lewis Carroll by Jenny Woolf who appears to be the editor in question. The additions include a web address where the book can be purchased. The issue of COI has been raised previously with the user on her talk page by an administrator but the user has continued to add these edits and references to the views of the author. It may in the interests of NPOV if the decision on whether these edits are suitable for the article be made by editors other than Jennywoolf. I have attempted to remove most of the edits, and leave it to other editors to reinsert them if they find this is appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Check out the FB page for Jenny Woolf's book - she thinks you're part of a clique trying to trash her. Tried to explain. But no good. Paranoid City.--JedOrianus (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. I don't intend to go anywhere near Facebook with its atrocious reputation for privacy. She can always discuss the matter on this talk page which, after all, is what it exists for. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

'hagiography'
'Hagiography' seems a pretty extreme way to describe a comment like 'wide-ranging', but I trust my rewording will be acceptably moderate. I've also removed the attacks on Leach by senior American Carrollians as a) they are about Leach rather than Carroll (and duly appear on her own page), and b) if they do belong on this page then so do the positive reviews. (See topic 'sorely needed rebuttals' above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeindex (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC) @John (clearly a fast reader) - and anyone else who feels disposed to revert my recent edits - I have no wish to get involved in some stupid wiki-war. Perhaps some debate might be fruitful? To explain those edits I didn't go into (and should have), 1)It seems inappropriate to state as fact 'Dodgson was ... conservative' when, while some believe this, others do not - and can indeed produce evidence to back them up. Surely fairer to say it like it is, i.e. generally held opinion? 2) It's silly to have to say that 'Leach asserts' stuff is in the diaries and letters, when it quite clearly is there for anyone to see, they're published after all. If it's not there, anyone can prove her wrong, and if it is, it's there as a matter of fact not assertion - so clearly this line should be either more positively worded or not there at all. My other edits are explained in my previous post. I'm perfectly happy to reach a compromise solution and have cut the parenthesis casting implied doubt on W. Tuckwell's bona fides, and that suggesting Karoline Leach ever wrote about anything but sex (in case this counts as hagiography). I've also reinstated one sentence I cut completely by accident in the first place (oops). If anyone finds any of this objectionable, or indeed debatable, I would really appreciate being able to debate the point rather than play draughts with it.Mikeindex (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Carroll's infinitesimals
Carroll has apparently has done work on infinitesimals and hyperbolic geometry. Abeles wrote a paper about this. Is anyone familiar with this? Tkuvho (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible drug use
'There has been much speculation that Dodgson used drugs, however there is no direct evidence that he ever did' seems to me enough, if not too much, about something for which there is no evidence. The rest of that paragraph is surely pointless? Richard Pinch 21:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) The only 'obvious' drug use in the books is the caffeine contained in the tea (and whatever the caterpillar's smoking, but is there any reason to assume it's not tobacco?). Unless you can provide direct evidence of the author's intention or direct correlations with the drug culture of the mid-19th century (not the 20th), it's supposition and doesn't belong in the article. Strephon 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC) What difference does it make whether drugs were referenced in this book? The public opinion of drugs has changed greatly during the time between the release of this book and the present day. I find it highly possible that Carroll didn't see the consequences of drug use outweighing the euphoric experiences. Therefore he would have little reservation for implicitly describing the psychoactive effects of eating mushrooms, smoke drawn through a water-pipe, and hallucinogenic tea. After all, he wasn't fortunate to have had the opportunity to view the laughably inaccurate "Reefer Madness". I'm not saying that his work was drug inspired, but it would be foolish to dismiss the aspects of the tale of Alice in Wonderland that are almost certainly referencing drug use. The Material Object 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) His personal drug use aside there was open drug use in England during his times. Opium dens.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle freely writes about Holmes's use of cocaine. If he didn't use it himself, he knew people or about people who did and how it was done and the effects it had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.37.160 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not, the whole paragraph minimizes existing evidences and not mentions others. What's the point of talking about laudanum and marijuana when you have bugs sitting on mushroons driking tea and smoking water pipes in an immagination, for not to say hallucinogen, land? Frankly, the references in his work are quite obvius. The problem is to infer that the author, besides the characters, used drugs. --El Chemaniaco 15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall reading that Dodgson objected to drugs - at a time when 4 out of 5 Victorian families used opium. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

At that time, it would have been very strange indeed that tobacco, or at least only tobacco, would have been smoked in the style of pipe depicted in Wonderland. It would, almost with out a doubt, have been opium. If hallucinogenic mushrooms where referenced or used, it would be most likely to have been that of the Amanita muscaria rather than any of the psilocin producing species (Psilocybe spp.).95.148.88.32 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely drugs and opium should at least be discussed? Every biography I have read at least alleged that opium use helped inspire many themes in his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.155.6 (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Article To-Do
Based on the feedback from the Peer Review and the GA review, I think I can break down the things to do into a smallish bullet-list: Feel free to add to this list as needed. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) No, I don't agree. If the article is dealing with Dodgson's biography then the controversies belong right there on the main page, because his entire biography is 'controversial' right now isn't it? His 'pedophilia' especially. When we consider that almost everything said about his life and work has to some extent reflected the idea of his obsession with children, then I don't think we can peel off 'pedophilia' from any other aspect of his life or genius. The controversy about it is centre stage and needs to remain there. Likewise the whole 'Carroll Myth'. It is central to what Dodgson is and what he is perceived as being. To de-emphasise it is to give a quite false image of the state of our present understanding. What we need is sub-pages to do with his literature. This is his biography page and should reflect that fact first and foremost. --Wicked-Witch-of-the-East 14:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Slightly de-emphasize and summarize the controversial issues (drugs/pedophilia) - perhaps subpage?
 * Increase exposure of Carroll's academic/mathematics pursuits.
 * Give considerably more weight to Carroll as an author (for which he is best known)
 * Some general prose cleanup (stub paragraphs and the like)
 * For the stuff that remains after the above, references references references....
 * With regard to your 'Increase exposure of Carroll's academic/mathematical pursuits' - I can't find any of it on the web, but in a book at home I have some of the mathematical problems (set theory, I think) that he gave to his students. The Carrollian wit and surrealism shows in the way they are written. I'll put some examples in the article (or here) as soon as I can get the book and a computer in the same place. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * His mathematical work is documented on the Web, e.g. try and links therein. Or just Google "Lewis Carroll" mathematician. EEye (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a reader, I would just comment that the 'The Carroll Myth' section seems to just be a summary of a single work about Carroll. It may be a prime example of scholarly work in regards to him, but it strikes me as a bit odd that a single author's comments on a topic would be the sole one mentioned directly and further be the second largest section in the article. It seems more like either a page should be made for the book or move the text to Mrs. Leach's page (or the views of further authors be included.)
 * I also have problems with how the "Carroll Myth" is highlighted in this article. If there is a myth or a question about the scholarship, what is the subject? Is it possible pedophilia? There is already a section for that. Frankly I keep expecting to hear that "The Carroll Myth" has been trademarked. It seems to be used as a marketing term than anything else. At best it may be a meta-controversy, a controversy about the controversies. I think that one thing that can be done which will help the article is that earliest sources can be referenced. If ten biographies were written and the In the Shadow of the Dreamchild was number 11, should all the references come from Dreamchild? There are a lot of things sourced in this page from Dreamchild that are also in earlier biographies. Why not cite the earlier biography? RayKiddy (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes
I reverted by 91.104.233.156, mainly because they accidentally injected some junk into the article. However, they raise two good points. In the infobox, the occupation needs "Novelist" or "Author" removed, and it looks rather over-linked to me. Following is the current, then a proposed occupation:
 * Novelist Author, mathematician, Anglican clergyman, photographer
 * Novelist, mathematician, Anglican clergyman, photographer

The second point is "pseudonym" in the lead. Following is the current text, then a proposal:
 * better known by the pseudonym Lewis Carroll
 * better known by his pen name Lewis Carroll

Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Carroll scholars may be needed at Commons
Because a set of photographs by Carroll have been nominated for deletion at Commons, it would be helpful if experts could mention relevant publications dated before 2002 (my guess only) that include the photographs in question. Please see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll if you can help. -84user (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: the nomination discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll was closed with the result of deleting the listed images. Nevertheless, if anyone finds any evidence that any of the deleted images was published before 2002 (or otherwise became freely licensed), please ask an administrator to consider undeletion at Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests. -84user (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've notified an administrator that many photographs of Xie Kitchin taken by Lewis Carroll were published in 1980 by the Lewis Carroll Society and the Argosy Book Store, New York, in LEWIS CARROLL & THE KITCHINS, with a forward by Morton Cohen. This would seem to affect the copyright granted in 2002 and allow them to be published here. 68.36.136.24 (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing that 1980 book to the administrator's attention. Your note and his reply are at Commons:User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive3, unfortunately it appears such books would need to have been published before 1989 without notice and without registration (it's actually more complicated than that, see File:PD-US table.svg). -84user (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

book on his photography and relationship with Liddell family
The Alice Behind Wonderland --Javaweb (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Work as Mathematical Lecturer
In the sentence Many of his pupils were older and richer than he was, and almost all of them were uninterested I removed the phrase "older and" since it seems implausible: he was Lecturer until the age of 50, and I doubt that, for most of that time, his students would have been much older than their early twenties. That has now been restored on the grounds that it is "Quite plausible. he held the job for 26 years." I don't understand that logic. However, more pertinently, this whole paragraph is sourced to Leach, Karoline In the Shadow of the Dreamchild Ch. 2. (no page number) and Google Books shows no hits for any of the words "Mathematical", "Lecturer" or "Tutor". So I dispute this phrase and suggest that the citation is inappropriate. Is there a better source? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not leave the whole sentence out? It doesn't contribute much. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC).
 * OK. Cohen and Collingwood both have something on this, which I'll add in some time.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Theosophy
I have removed a sentence he based the entirety of his last novel, the two-volume Sylvie and Bruno, on certain aspects of Theosophy which is cited to the Preface of Sylvie and Bruno. There is no support for the assertion there, and indeed the reference by Susina which I have just added explicitly states that Carroll was not a Theosophist. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed photo
I removed a picture from the article because I felt it wasn't needed. The text makes it clear that Dodgson took nude photos of young girls, I don't see what adding an image does to enhance that section of the article. 206.222.205.249 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. However, before reinstating the image, we need to see verification from a reliable source that it was indeed taken by Lewis Carroll.  Only then do we need to discuss whether it is relevant to this article.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Source contains fake material
Source 44: http://sites.google.com/site/photographyoflewiscarroll/

This google page does not contain photographs, it contains original artwork; painted photographs. I believe the technique is to paint on top of the photographic image and then add a 'fantasy' background. The first image is of Beatrix Hatch which was painted (or painted over) by artist Anne Lydia Bond. This is a well known and authentic image. The other images were allegedly published in a book by a biographer of Carroll's called Morton N. Cohen. It is difficult to authenticate these paintings or prove that they were based on images by Carroll, but perhaps that is not down to us (that would be original research - our task surely is just to provide a reliable source?) However, the source should perhaps be the book by Cohen, not this web-page which refers to Cohen second hand?

The image at the bottom of the page, 'alice and carroll' is DEFINITELY a fake, lashed together in some photo manipulation software. Look closely and it is obvious. If anyone doubts this I can probably provide links to the two separate photographs that have been added together. The very fact that this page contains obviously fake material makes me suspicious of it's reliability as a source and I think it should be removed. SAHBfan (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had noticed the obvious fake sixth image and wondered myself about that page. I've accordingly added Citation needed and Verify credibility to the statement affected. -84user (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have boldly removed the assertions and the citation. A personal website is not normally considered a reliable source.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I endorse this removal. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Place of burial?
I was surprised by the statement that his place of burial is in in Guildford as I clearly recall visiting a churchyard in Oxford which had a gravestone for him. Can anyone shed some light on this matter? Afterwriting (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

See http://www.guildford.gov.uk/guildfordcemeteries they claim he is interred there, someone is mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.106.72 (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ciphers
Do we know these are original? describes a cipher supposedly invented by Lewis Carroll, but it's just a Vigenère cipher. Does anyone have the source handy to check what these are. The cipher might itself be notable if it was any good... --Philipwhiuk (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Which Sources To Use As References?
It seems to me that this page can be improved by ensuring that the proper sources are cited. There are many biographies of Carroll to choose from. If something is stated which is in a biography published over 50 years ago, is there a reason to use a more recent biography which does not dispute or add any information on the statement? It seems to me that we could use the oldest biography which make some statement as a reference for it. If something is cited in a more recent biography, it should only be cited there because that is the oldest biography which makes that particular point. If this was done, it would be clear which sources had new information and new perspectives and it would be clear what that new information is. Using a new biography to cite old information gives it undue prominence and suggests it is more authoritative than it may be.

I have a copy of the 1898 edition of the Collingwood biography. I feel that anything that is in that biography should be cited from that biography and not from something later. Would anyone object to changes to references so that they reflect an earlier source making the same statement? RayKiddy (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a problem because people will differ in their opinions of whether the newer biography adds new material or perspectives. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
 * If some fact is posited first in a book published in 1898 and in a book published after 2000, doesn't the first source have priority? If the second source has new material or a different perspective, then would it not be correct to cite the second source when discussing the new material or the different perspective, and not when providing a source for the original fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayKiddy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Annoyance At Night
I've heard some speculation of what Carroll meant by this. Some say he was molested and that's what that means. Does anybody know? It sounds like whatever it was contributed to three years of misery.
 * "Some say" all sorts of ridiculous things. Do "some say" anything factual? RayKiddy (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, RayKiddy since you seem to know the "facts", what DID he mean? What kind of "annoyance at night" could make someone put in writing that if it weren't for this, he could have borne everything else? Who knows what happend; Carroll didn't say. Your snide remark however, is silly in the light of the fact that YOU don't know what the hell happened either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.179.21 (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

'The Carroll Myth' NPOV
Note that this section makes only glancing (at best) mention of Leach's argument for Carroll being sexually experienced and/or active. (As written, the article equivocates. Leach does not.) The Leach controversy does not simply centre around the 'cut pages' document; it is also her highly speculative version of Carroll's sex life, which according to Cohen, Rackin, etc. is completely contrary to evidence. Include Cohen's and Rackin's denunciations of her, as well as the praise contained in the Leach article. --71.125.134.48 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also note that while this section goes into some detail describing some of Lebailly's and Leach's arguments for the myth, it only mentions Cohen's and Gardner's repudiation of it without citing any actual arguments, which leaves the impression that they poo-pooed the idea without much basis. I'm not familiar with their criticisms of the myth, and so I cannot attest to whether they made any actual arguments, however if they did, they should be described in equivalent detail to that used for the pro-myth, or if not, that should be explicitly noted. --Ericjs (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is 'The Carroll Myth' about Lewis Carroll, or is it about the scholarship about Lewis Carroll, or perhaps about the reaction of the Corrollian community to Leach herself? It seems to me to be a secondary issue. Should it be on a page about Lewis Carroll, or on the page for Karoline Leach? There is information in the "Myth" paragraph and that information is about the rumors of pedophilia, which is discussed in a paragraph below. So the informative discussion should go into the paragraph on pedophilia. Perhaps the "he said, she said" comments should go somewhere else. RayKiddy (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just read the whole article of Carroll, and came here to say the fact that the 'Carroll Myth' entry comes BEFORE the entry regarding Carroll's possible paedophilia messes up the 'flow' of the controversies section: the Carroll Myth hinges on the idea that Carroll was a paedophile, and makes the assumption that the reader already is familiar with the allegations. It doesn't make sense for the paedophile part to come AFTER the 'maybe not a paedophile' part. That being the case, can someone who isn't an anonymous (like me) change the order of the two so that they flow into each other, or at least re-word the beginning of the 'Carroll Myth' so that it makes the question of his paedophilia clearer in regards to the stance of the de-bunkers?

thanks 75.139.90.19 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

List of writings?
Why is there no list of his works, nor does there seem to be a link to such a page. 71.237.199.230 07:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, now there is a list of his works. But that list includes among his mathematical works: "Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection" That isn't about math. It's about a question in ethics. 72.94.96.7 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Was Carroll a paedophile, pt 94
I see we have what appear to be a succession of sock puppets adding a section on this. It doesn't belong here; the sourcing is weak and society's attitudes have changed since his day. --John (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Im not a suck puppet, and it certainly belongs to the section "controversies and myths". Why is there is a section for the "carroll myth" anyway? Why Leach goes uncontested?

Leach writing have an origin. If there werent any suggestion that he was a paedophile, why the need of refuting that "myth" anyway? Its senseless. Representing only Leach's side of the matter is highly NO NPOV, and completely ignoring the suggestions that are its origin doesnt make any sense.

You are basically saying "Carroll myth is false"... But what "carroll myth" to begin with? That needs to be explained. Only showing the opinion that he was not a pedophile does not contribute to a whole understanding of the great man Lewis Caroll was and completely ignores Cohen's opinnions on the matter, which I find extremely more educated than Leach's personal resentment. Cohen is a serious scholar on Carroll, Leach is just a writer with personal motives.


 * and society's attitudes have changed since his day.

That has nothing to with anything. --Johnmoss23 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, ok, you've had your say. I disagree and seemingly so do multiple editors who have removed this. --John (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the "annoyance at night"?
The article currently says:
 * In 1846, young Dodgson moved on to Rugby School, where he was evidently less happy, for as he wrote some years after leaving the place:
 * "I cannot say ... that any earthly considerations would induce me to go through my three years again ... I can honestly say that if I could have been ... secure from annoyance at night, the hardships of the daily life would have been comparative trifles to bear."

The reference given is: What does it mean by "annoyance at night"? Bullying? Bedbugs? Fear of the dark? Loneliness? Noises? Whoever added that quote probably has enough context to elaborate? Otherwise this is a strange quote to put here. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If Carroll was not more specific he may have had had his reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Is it clear that Carroll was not more specific? Did whoever added that quote to the article read the preceding letters; perhaps there is some previous context that Carroll assumed at that point? Or is it just as vague even in the original? Whom did he write this letter to, BTW? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lewis Caroll's Alice in Wonderland faced lots of controversies in China.His book was banned because talking animals were considered an insult to humans.Shrees1234 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

CONTRIBUTIONS

The Oxford dictionary mentions 21 words introduced by Lewis Caroll.Shrees1234 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"paedophile"?
Is it appropriate to spell "pedophile" with an "a" in a formal, Wikipedia setting? Isn't that just informal British vernacular? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it is the standard British-English spelling, which has primacy on this page. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why He Did Not Proceed To The Priesthood
In more of than biography I have read, there was some speculation that Dodgson also had a theological issue with church teaching, specifically that he could not persuade himself to believe in eternal damnation. I cannot cite the source for this material, as I read it too long ago.


 * I read it had something to do with his stutter in another wiki article. In fact, this article does not mention his stutter. Did he actually have one?


 * You may be thinking of the biography written by his nephew, Stuart Dodgson Collingwood, cited elsewhere in this article and talk page, and available through the Gutenberg project . In it, his biographer claims that "he himself did not believe in eternal punishment, or any other scholastic doctrine that contravenes the love of God". As to the reason for not continuing on to the priesthood, however, his biographer surmises that he was avoiding parish duties, and thought his stammering might be an issue. Whether this source is to be taken as truth is another question. Schmutzigeskind (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no direct source for this material. Dodgson's reasons for not taking orders can only be assumed or deduced from his available circumstances, as he made virtually no direct comment upon it in himself.--Wicked-Witch-of-the-East 13:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC) - Hi, Charles did have a stutter. I am researching Charles right now for a paper, and all the books mention it. About damnation, here is a quote from Charles that I found in a book: "I believe God is perfectly good. Also I believe that such infliction of [eternal] punishment would be wrong.  Consequently I believe that God is not capable of acting thus.  I find that the Bible, in the English Version, seems to tell us that He is capable of acting thus.  Yet I believe that it is a book inspired by God, and protected by Him from error in what it tells us of the relation between God and Man, and therefore that what it says, according to the real meaning of the words, may be relied on as true.  Consequently I hold that the word, rendered in English as 'eternal' or 'everlasting,' has been mistranslated, and that the Bible does not really assert more than that God will inflict suffering, of unknown duration but not necessarily eternal, punishment for sin." Here is a citation I did for the book I got this from: Jean Gattégno. Lewis Carroll. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976. (page 237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.249.80 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced "seems to make it highly probable" sentence, Pedophilia subsection, moved here, etc
I came here for background on the Hunting of the Snark, and was so appalled by this section, that I have now spent hours going over it. Here is the sentence moved: ""However, there has never been significant evidence to support the idea, and the 1996 discovery of the "cut pages in diary document" (see below) seems to make it highly probable that the 1863 "break" had nothing to do with Alice, but was perhaps connected with rumours involving her older sister Lorina (born 11 May 1849, so she would have been 14 at the time), her governess, or her mother (who was also nicknamed "Ina").""

Given the sorry state of this whole section with regard to sourcing of content, I would rather leave this sentence in place—because it balances an apparent modern impugning of a literary figure based on a single provided source. [The section may indeed belong, and its length may indeed be justified, but not based on the single clear source (other sources mentioned, but not even example page numbers given for any), and not the way it is currently written.]

This sentence was removed because it was simply awful from an encyclopedic POV, and unforgivable from any standpoint of public presentation—given the complete dearth of referencing throughout its several parts, the opening bold assertion of a negative, the "seems to make it highly probable" equivocating, the unreferenced and unexplained allusion to further outside evidence, the additional "but was perhaps" equivocation, and the near completely incomprehensible closing phrases.

It is moved here, to Talk, until it can be made encyclopedic (and understandable), but also, verifiable; the only other feasible option was its deletion, or leaving it in place a myriad of tags such as are shown in it here.

In addition, tags have been placed throughout this section, indicating places where there might be a need for either improved or first sources.

Note, finally, as I said at the Liddell article, in the LC section, these are important matters, controversial matters, about which I have no firm opinion; it is simply crucial that they be properly verifiable, and clearly stated. Best of fortune getting this in order. It has all the makings of a first-class article, if the matter of this controversy can be carefully, thoughtfully, and verifiably resolved. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In re added tags
I added the cleanup and other tags. The problem stated through the tags are self-explanatory. Also, (i) see the preceding section on the pedophilia section issues, (ii) see the newly appearing inline citations for some of the many text issues spread out throughout the article, (iii) see the Thomas Cranmer article, for an example of a well referenced historical article with a consistent style of referencing, and see this Help page for the "rp" style of citing the same reference repeatedly when difference page numbers are in play, without having to have the reference appear repeatedly in the reference list. I recommend a move to either the style illustrated at the Cranmer article, at least, or the "rp" reference style, which appears thus (where the 5 and 6 refer to page numbers, see markup via Edit):"The brontosaurus is thin at one end. Then it becomes much thicker in the middle."

Note, the greatest issues are content and verifiability. The style of referencing comes into play because when the style is so unsophisticated and variable, it makes it difficult for one to quickly assess whether citations are valid, whether there is an over-reliance on a particular source, etc. (With a consistent reference style, much information about the article's sourcing is taken in at a glance.)

Again, look at these alternatives, and see the inline tags, before considering removal of the article tags. (I will ask Administrative involvement if there is rapid reversion without Talk.) (an article fan) Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A Way Out Of This Mess?
Looking at the recent Featured Article, Empress Matilda, I see an article with many in-line citations. Further, there is not much you can say about that Mathilda's time period that we are completely sure about. So, then looking at the citations for this article, the things we have done to this article are embarrassing. Some things I notice:
 * 1) Its bibliography is called a bibliography.
 * 2) The in-line cites are all using the "Harvnb" template, and it certainly seems to do the job better than the randomly incomplete references on the LC page.
 * 3) The "Harvnb" format seems to handle the "many cites from one source in different pages" situation very well.
 * 4) They actually put some of the "maybe this, maybe that, maybe not" discussions into the Notes. Wow. Just ... wow.

Well, I am going to make sure that the Bibliography at the bottom of the LC page contains all the sources that should be in it from the citations now in the article. Then we can start to change the references' form to that of the Harvnb template. Perhaps this will allow things to move forward. RayKiddy (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Want to help here
I am no specialist in Carroll, but I have a dilettante's knowledge, and close access to my college's decent library on the subject. I'd love to make myself useful, but as the tag on the top of the article notes that this article already has big issues, I don't want to make more of a hash of it than it already is. I'd love to be pointed in a proper direction as far as how I can best assist in fixing this article. Hallward&#39;s Ghost (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome—please do whatever you want! If people don't like it, they will let you know soon enough! I am a fan of Dodgson but won't be much help with details as it is years since I read a couple of bios on him. However, I can help with advice about anything you encounter (and I will offer an answer to your question at the teahouse). Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help so far. I'm not sure if I'll start here or with some other article, but I'll go ahead and start working on something after today. Thanksgiving is upon us here in the states! Hallward&#39;s Ghost (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Paedophile who photographed naked girls
Why is not this mentioned, its a well documented fact and should be here as being unbiased--Polygamistx4 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * it is mentioned: Lewis Carroll &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While it is proper to mention this as a historical fact, this topic should probably be on a separate page with a link to it from the main Lewis Carroll page. My 10-year old was reading this page and alerted us when he saw the naked girl photo that this page contains content inappropriate for him. --Cyberjudge 20:00, 9 March 2010

"Paedophile" refers to a person who is sexually attracted to children. Carroll was an Artist who photographed nude girls. Artists at the time would find nothing unusual in this. There has never been any sexual activity between Carroll and children confirmed by anyone. He was an 'Artist' not a 'Paedophile'.Johnwrd (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Cyberjudge's observation above. Painstaker (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The one starts to wonder in what world we're living? The man was a teacher, and certainly he passed a psychological and health examinations, same as today's teachers. So, the statement that "he was a paedophile" is probably based on XX century's way of thought. There should be drawn a line between pornographic and artistic representation. That picture of a girl's act is very simmilar with [|Francisco Goya's] [|"Naked Maja"], and probably was influenced by that masterpiece. So, we can make a conclusion that Goya was pervert and pornograph?93.87.113.232 (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor was linking Francisco Goya and "Naked Maja". These are his wikilinks without the redundant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ prefix. --Javaweb (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

While I don't think he ever laid an inappropriate hand on a child, it should be noted that teachers did NOT undergo the same kind of scrutiny that they do today. My grandmother, great grandmother and great, great grandmother were all teachers between 1845 and 1930. Their credentials for teaching primary school was two years of college and a letter of reference. Note the period at the end of that sentence. My aunt was also a teacher and it was not until 1967 that she had to obtain a BA to teach then finally in the 1970s when a teaching certificate was required. She retired in 1985 and was never subjected to either a background check nor a psychological exam, both of which are relatively new developments in education. In some places, neither is required yet in private schools. I would venture to guess that the practice of requiring psychological exams for many professions did not exist until at least the 1930s. Keep in mind that Dodgson retired from teaching a year before Freud's medical career began and that early psychological exams were derived from Freud. So with this I dispute the claim that he passed a psychological exam as such certainly was never required at that time. As for physical exam, I would venture to guess he didn't need to pass one of those either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The IPA transcription indicates a silent , ie that 'Dodgson' should be pronounced the same as 'Dodson' would be. Is this correct or a typo? Echobeats 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's correct.Mikeindex 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As no one's responded, I'm gonna assume it's a typo and change it. garik (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I did respond (see above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeindex (talk • contribs) 08:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry! My mistake. I've taking the liberty of tabbing our responses to make them clearer garik (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Picking this up again, I see that four years on the conventional pronunciation is given and tertiary sources are cited. Yet it seems clear from Dodgson's own letters, for example. that "Dodson" was used. Are there better sources? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation as "Dodson" is supported here:  The citation is to   Sadly I don't have access to that journal.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a noted Carrollian who knows dozens of other noted Carrollians, I assure you that "Dodson" is the correct pronunciation. The dictionaries currently cited are themselves in error. I am going to change this now. -- Evertype·✆ 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not change it. Is there some reason why the dictionaries' mispronunciation is retained? Snezzy (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd change it myself, but I really don't know how to do it without my work appearing as "original research" since the dictionaries appear authoritative. All the "dodson" sources are in print material I do not own, or in blogs. Do we have to wait for someone at Merriam-Webster to do some research over the next two or three decades and finally get it right? Snezzy (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Took a long time, but I've made the change. -- Evertype·✆ 16:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations: I'm a bit worried about this book's pronunciations. For Dodgson (DAHD-sun), I was amazed that the G wasn't pronounced, but after getting over that, I am suspicious that the AH sound in the book is the US pronunciation of the English short O. If you look at some other entries in the book, you will find BRAHTH-ul, whereas an English person would say BROTH-ul. Also, CAHN-sul instead of CON-sul. And AW-tahp-see, for AW-top-see; it even says pronounce the second syllable like top (presumably US pron tahp, while English is TOP). I don't think Carroll would have said DAHDSUN, he would have said DODSUN - as the article says. I can't access the other reference, which is also US. Maybe it makes this clear. Without another citation, the article's pronunciation is unsupported, and the accessible ref will confuse readers. Myrvin (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, your writing "AH" and "O" isn't very clear. In any case, the chief problem seems do be the question of [d] vs [dʒ]. Now, every professional Carrollian (and I am one of them, and I know all the rest of them) knows that the pronunciation is [d]. Finding a source that says otherwise is simply finding an erroneous source. -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What an amazing statement. This is biography not religion. I think you could tell exactly what I meant by AH and O. I don't think you grasp what I am saying above. It's about the cited reference asserting that his name is pronounced dAHdson rather than Dodson. The AH is in the book. I am questioning the source as a support for the pronunciation. Perhaps it is erroneous.Myrvin (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also this emphasizing the correct spelling of his name. Does this suggest that people spelled it wrong because he pronounced it as if it didn't have a G, or was he insisting that it should be pronounced with the G. Myrvin (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. His name was pronounced with a [d] but spelt with a ‹dg›, and he was complaining that people left the ‹g› out, which meant they spelt his name ‹Dodson› which was evidently the spelling of the wretch in the House of Commons. -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also this, and several others, which do use the G. Perhaps the article needs a section on the pronunciation of his name. Myrvin (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There may be people who spell their names with ‹dg› who pronounce it with [dʒ], but Carroll wasn't one of them. Or this may be a mistake on Daniel Jones' part (even though he was a great phonetician). In any case, definitely [d] for Lewis Carroll. -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there are a lot of people who do just that. The DNB has 4 Dodgsons (including Carroll). Do they all pronounce their names like him? There are also 13 Hodgsons. Do any pronounce their names Hodson? So the Jones reference must be one of those erroneous ones. Myrvin (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All we need is a reliable source for the /dɒdsən/ pronunciation. It doesn't matter how many professional Carrollians (does it pay well?) there are to assure us. We need a published document that says it. The Big Book is dodgy (doddy?) because it doesn't even know how to pronounce the first vowel, and the second source cannot be accessed by anyone, so we don't know what it says or what evidence it offers. Myrvin (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have put a verification needed tag. The first reference should be removed. It does not support the pronunciation. That reference refers to the second one, so maybe that gets it wrong too. They seem both to be North American, and might both use the AH (/ɑː/ pronunciation of the first vowel, which is not what the text says.Myrvin (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

New biography
Lewis Carroll: The Man and His Circle by Edward Wakeling (I.B. Tauris, distributed by Palgrave Macmillan) "Draws on previously unpublished and newly discovered letters in a biography of Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) that focuses on his friends, associates, and acquaintances in artistic, academic, publishing, royal, and other realms." per Chronicle of Higher Education Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it say how he pronounced his name? Myrvin (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a mention in the Google book. Myrvin (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)