Talk:Lewis Carroll/Archive 1

message: shouldnt the title of the page be Charles Lutwidge Dodgson rather than lewis carol?  it makes more sense to have a page about a certain person with that persons name...  lewis carol can redirect to Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.Jrcrisologo 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article should bear the name by which he is best known. Septentrionalis 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: === Early life===
===Character and appearance=== 
=== Dodgson the artist ===
=== Later Years===
I have removed this recent addition:
He was a true genius as is shown by his accomplishments in the fields of mathematics, logic, religion, photography, and literature. He is most well known as the author of the world famous book, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It is no surprise that the centenary of his death is being celebrated all over the world.
1. because it doesn't seem the right place; a summary like this should be at the top of the page surely, and there already is quite an adequate one there. 
2. Are phrases like 'he was a true genius' really Wiki-style?  What is a true genius anyway?
3. Most important really - it was Dodgson's centenary EIGHT YEARS ago!! So no idea what that is about!
--Dee-Dee 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted by Kenneth Lanning, some child molesters try to make up for their behavior by doing "good," e.g. donating to charity. Anyway, though, it's VERY unlikely Carroll was a child molester, but he was probably a celibate pedophile. Being attracted to children does not negate the normal human interest in protecting them from sexual abuse. JayW 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main  Editing Discussion

message: I have removed this recent addition:
He was a true genius as is shown by his accomplishments in the fields of mathematics, logic, religion, photography, and literature. He is most well known as the author of the world famous book, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It is no surprise that the centenary of his death is being celebrated all over the world.
1. because it doesn't seem the right place; a summary like this should be at the top of the page surely, and there already is quite an adequate one there. 
2. Are phrases like 'he was a true genius' really Wiki-style?  What is a true genius anyway?
3. Most important really - it was Dodgson's centenary EIGHT YEARS ago!! So no idea what that is about!
--Dee-Dee 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later Years

message: added this  a few days ago as the best place for all the more contentious debates,including the 'Carroll Myth' which seems to get people really riled up!!
--Dee-Dee 14:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted by Kenneth Lanning, some child molesters try to make up for their behavior by doing "good," e.g. donating to charity. Anyway, though, it's VERY unlikely Carroll was a child molester, but he was probably a celibate pedophile. Being attracted to children does not negate the normal human interest in protecting them from sexual abuse. JayW 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Controversies

message: took out the photo of "Xie" as I don't recognise it as being by Dodgson. If anyone wants to replace it then we need some sort of authentication first.
(signed by Dee-Dee, who still can't remember her damn password)
Well i find the arguments quite interesting, but it amazes me they fail (i mean in the quoted texts and biographies, not in the wiki article) to see that a pedophile may also have meaningful sexual relations with older women... even if Leach is right (and from what i see in the article she seems very correct in her arguments) and Dodgson did have many relations with grown up women, that doesn't prove that he didn't have "intense, recurrent, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger), over a period of at least 6 months" which is the main criteria for APA to define somebody as a pedophile...
cheers to all
----
took out the stuff about Leach being basically right, and left it more neutral.  Added some positive reviews of her work to balance the highly negative one already there. 
There's probably more copyediting needed. But I think it reads better now
--Dee-Dee 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted by Kenneth Lanning, some child molesters try to make up for their behavior by doing "good," e.g. donating to charity. Anyway, though, it's VERY unlikely Carroll was a child molester, but he was probably a celibate pedophile. Being attracted to children does not negate the normal human interest in protecting them from sexual abuse. JayW 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: paedophilia

message: i changed the 'drug abuse' to 'drug use', i think that's more neutral, and added that he seemed to have used cannabis. i can't find a good source on google, but i saw this at public television some years ago, in a respectable documentary. i'll try to come up with a better source. Sarefo 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug use

message: Could future editors cite the page they are refering to. Also, the short style of [Surname, Page number] is probably the best way to cite the books. Skinnyweed 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: To the anonymous users who POVize this article: Please know that Carroll's use of drugs, or his pedophilia, has nothing to do with his art--they are still exactly as great as they have always been. Compare this to Thomas Jefferson's slave sex abuse, or Martin Luther King Jr.'s plagarism. They are bad acts done by great people, the acts are still bad and the people are still great. Please let the man's life speak for itself...no man is without sin.--Zaorish 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: npov header

message: "[it should be noted however that paedophiles themselves are often married or otherwise engaged in adult heterosexual affairs - it is therefore generally considered a poor argument to imply that such a thing would having any bearing on the real issue]"
I removed this from the Leach section since it really serves only to attempt to influence the reader rather than provide additional (purported) fact.  Basically you could say this about any "thought crime" -- "oh, he may have many black friends, but he's still racist" or, perhaps closer, "it should be noted however that homosexuals themsleves are often married or otherwise engaged in adult heterosexual affairs" (not to imply that homosexuality is a "thought crime" or should be equated with racism -- just trying to show the absurdity of the original editor).
And besides, frankly if one of the points of evidence for the pro-paedophilia side of the argument is that Dodgson had no relations with adult women, Leach's argument is definitely a good counter-argument, regardless of the purported tendencies of paedophiles to engage in adult relationships.
--128.36.72.247 00:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's a reasonable counter-counter-argument to say that pedophiles engage in adult relationships, but to conclude from this that the counterargument is irrelevent is wrong. It's another piece of evidence among many from which the reader might form an opinion. I've added something more balanced in its place. Deco 00:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd addition 

message: A recent review of his biographies, published in the journal Epilepsy and Behavior [abstract] suggests that Carroll didn't have epilepsy at all.  The article's author writes that only in one biography is any form of attack mentioned: Carroll wrote that he had an attack on New Year's Day 1886 and that after six days of still having a headache, his doctor was less certain that it was a fainting attack and more certain it was epilepsy.  The researcher suggests that as only 8 per cent of post-seizure headaches last more than 24 hours and that such attacks are common after the day after drug ingestion, the attack was actually migraine with possible probable drug withdrawal symptoms Dupont Circle 20:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Added a brief mention of this, although I don't personally think it's worthwhile to go into the details - they can see the reference if they like. Deco 23:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilepsy 

message: removed the 'inventions' bit as the article is LONG and we need to cut it and coming after all the   paedo stuff it read like a bit of a pointless anti-climax. Not much info in it for the space. if people want to put it back maybe add it in earlier on? But I think we need to keep it leaner as it is.
--Dee-Dee 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inventions

message: Does this invention sound useful to anyone?  If it's only for short notes, why not just write in the dark?  --Chinasaur 30 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)
:To make sure it is legible enough to read in the morning. Septentrionalis 17:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nyctograph 

message: :Photograph of Lewis Carroll taken by himself, with assistance.
Huh? Stbalbach 03:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He set up the camera, which at the time was difficult, and had someone else snap the picture. The details are at the image's source. Deco 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo caption 

message: I just removed this from the main page:
:[He] introduced the dust cover for books in modern form inadvertently, by insisting that the publisher of Through the Looking Glass print the book title and illustration on its dust cover, which led to many people not throwing it away.
For some reason it just seems suspicious to me, and it was added by an anonymous user; I can't find anything about it on google. Anyone else have a way to verify this claim?  Sorry if I'm being paranoid. Lunkwill 07:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invented the modern dust jacket? 

message: It seems to me it is appropriate to mention all pseudonyms in the lead par, and then only refer to one name afterwards. This article seems to use both. I couldn't find any guidance in the WP:MOS. Not sure if it makes more sense to use his real name or his more well known name - maybe more well known, since that is where the article is located (Dodgson redirects). Thoughts, help anyone? I am having this problem on William Wharton (author) too. pfctdayelise 14:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I would prefer "Dodgson", but there are exceptions, such as when discussing perceptions of the author and his books by contemporaries unfamiliar with the person himself, or when specifically discussing books written under that pseudonym (as opposed to books written under his real name). For example, it would be incorrect to use "Carroll" in the context of Dodgson's non-fiction mathematics books. If we are to be consistent, I would choose Dodgson, but would also explicitly note the use of the pseudonym where applicable. Deco 19:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carroll or Dodgson? 

message: Hi, a quick Question, why are his books as a logicician not included in the booklist, "Pillow Problems and a Tangled Tale" is an example?
//Clive//
(try search GOOGLE or AMAZON for this title)
—This unsigned comment was added by 192.100.124.219 (talk • contribs) .
Yeah a  (brief) section on his logic would be good. Any takers?
--Dee-Dee 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: What's all this about 'FOR TESTING ONLY  ()'? Is it some kind of experiment gone wrong? Anyway, it certainly doesn't seem to be contributing to the article, so I've removed it.  Sergeant Snopake, 16:30, 21/03/06
:The clue was in the template name (); it used to be a template asking for a citation.  I've replaced it with . --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 19:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why it's been changed to "FOR TESTING ONLY  ()" (perhaps it hasn't — perhaps it's always been like that, and I'm just misremembering).  It seems odd, though. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: This page and the page on Xie seem to disagree about when Dodgson stopped photographing her.  This page says around 16 and that says around 14.  Which is more probable?  Phiwum 10:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xie's age? 

message: I have no opinion on the so-called Carroll myth, but this paragraph seems more like advocacy than neutral presentation of the debate:
:In a review of the title in Victorian Studies (Vol. 43, No 4) reviewer Donald Rackin wrote, "As a piece of biographical scholarship, Karoline Leach's In the Shadow of the Dreamchild is difficult to take seriously". However, for all the emotional intensity of his attack, he visibly failed to detail any actual errors in her work. Nor have any errors been pointed out so far by any other authorities, and many now regard her work as an important step towards a better understanding of Carroll. Her work has been paralleled by that of Hugues Lebailly whose studies of Dodgson's artistic and social interests also support the idea that the image of his "obsession" with little girls was largely simplistic or mythic in origin.
(Emphasis added)  Is there some more neutral description of the debate? Phiwum 10:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carroll myth revisited. 

message: I've changed the speling of "pedophile" to "paedophile", as Carroll was British, hope no-one minds! (MatthewMain 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British spelling

message: Hello, I'm a second year English student at Sunderland university currently studying Carroll. I wondered, do any of the readers and contributors to these pages have a view on Carroll being a specifically northern English writer? I am aware he was born in Daresbury, Cheshire and then moved to Croft in Yorkshire, but do his writings carry any specifically northern references? Thanks for any input you may have.
Colin Young.
:There are references to places from his youth in various of his works, but more than that I can't say. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis Carroll, a Northern writer? 

message: I have tagged this article for cleanup.  I was surprised that a detailed, long-standing article on such a major figure as Carroll should contain so many typos and problems with language.  And why are the subheaders not capitalized?  I will try to deal with this when I have more time, but I encourage others to help out.  -- Eb.hoop 11:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Since LC's parents were very closely related, is it possible that some of his chronic health problems were a result of inbreeding? Were his siblings unhealthy?205.188.116.197 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic Superposition

message: Who cares that Marilyn Manson cites Carroll as an inspiritation?
:If Carroll was alive, I don't think he would have liked that. Skinnyweed 11:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences

message: As Dodgeson was such a prolific photographer, would it be possible to include more photographs of his work? Thank you. Skinnyweed 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Photographer" section, request for more photographs

message: I have added a number of books to the references section and some citations, all from Leach. Some of these will be second hand references as  I don't have access to the other biographies. Skinnyweed 20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits. June 2006

message: What does "Morton N. Cohen repudiates this as being simply a plea for the defence" mean? I can't tell from that what the substance of the repudiation was. Does this mean he said Leach's book was defensive or pleading in tone? I'm assuming it's something more meaningful than that. 70.137.133.110 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cohen's criticism of Leach