Talk:Alice Liddell

message: You can't flat out say that Alice Liddell is THE inspiration for Alice in Wonderland. There is no concrete evidence support it, and Dodgson himself repeatedly refuted claims saying that Alice Liddell was the inspiration.
'''
My tuppence ha'penny's worth.'''
I'm not qualified to edit or even comment on the article, but then, who is? History is written by people, often with an agenda. There are no reliable sources when it comes to history. 
It is therefore easy to find fault with any historical article. However in this case I feel the low levels of objectivity and neutrality are problematical. 
It is clear to me that the article needs to be about Alice Liddell and nothing more. One sentence along the lines of "reputedly the inspiration for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" is all that is needed.
Sam Cullan (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration 

message: While obviously Alice's fame comes from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, is it really appropriate that a whole paragraph about this comes before any significant info about her, herself? There's a whole separate article on the book, it does not need to be repeated here. 
The rest of the article would benefit from being better written too. It is, for the most part, about the book, the character and Lewis Carroll, rather than the real Alice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.168.237 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been addressed. The article has been substantially rewritten since that comment was posted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure

message: No data available?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.98.126 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She was born in 1826 according to The Real Alice by Anne Clark. I couldn't find the exact date, but I can check more thoroughly later. --Fritz S. (Talk) 07:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lorina Reeve's birthday?

message: When reading both pages, the information found on one page is different enough to lead to much more confusion than is necessary. I've encountered this problem at many other page groups on Wikipedia, but this is the worst I've seen by far. An editor should really take the time to clean up the differing/contradicting/confusing info on the Lewis Carroll, Alice Liddell and related pages.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.84.191 (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: info on [[Lewis Carroll]] v. that on [[Alice Liddell]]

message: The page http://www.waterpark.org/placesofinterest.html states:  
'Lewis Carroll was a friend of the Vicar of South Cerney, the Rev WW Liddell. The Alice¹ stories were written for and about his niece Alice Liddell. He used local features in the stories, such as a very small door at the vicarage as the door to Wonderland.'
The above is often repeated as fact, but is there any evidence to support the statement?
User:80.229.10.30 17:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wonderland Entrance in South Cerney, Gloucestershire?

message: It should explicity state that many people believed that Lewis Carroll was sexually attracted to her. Skinnyweed 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "many people believed" sounds very weasel-wordy to me, but if you find a reliable source for that... --Fritz S. (Talk) 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late to the party, here, but I also am a bit concerned about the rather-POV seeming current second paragraph: "As with Carroll himself, there are many false stories and misconceptions about her life, most of them based on mere rumours without any evidence to support them. However, because they were presented by many biographers as facts, they are often falsely believed to be indisputable by the public." This is not written in the preferred Wikipedian fashion. No doubt the editor who wrote this has good sources to back up this claim, but each claim made about Liddell or Carroll should be treated individually; the article sets up a negative tone when it explicitly claims a whole category of commentary are untruths to be debunked (no matter if it is true). I am deleting it for now; if somebody protests I will be happy to discuss it further. --Edwin Herdman 07:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Pleasance is her second name... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead not telling the truth 

message: I notice that in the second picture of real life Alice that she is clearly older than in the first, even though it is dated two years earlier when she was -- according to the first -- 7 years old. This would make her 5 years old in the second photograph, which she clearly is not. In fact she looks 10 years old in it, which would mean that it was taken during the time which I had believed Caroll had spent with her. I'd say that the date is roughly five years off. (Neurolanis (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph Date Problem 

message: It seems a bit confusing to keep alternating between the two names. Perhaps we should indicate that he is know by both names and then proceed to just use one or the other for the rest of the article. Amillion (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dodgson/Carroll

message: Short note: please see Talk:Anne Clark#biographer? and there for a little discussion about Anne Clark/Anne Clark Amor. --LiveOnMars (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographer's name 

message: I think, that Prince Leopold named his daughter not after Alice Liddell. He had a sister Alice (1843-1878), which died of diphteria at the age of 35. It can be possible, that his daughter get her name from her paternal aunt. --AndreaMimi (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Leopold and "Alice" 

message: I noticed that someone added a reference, in the "Biography" section, to a 4th child of Alice Liddell and Reginald Hargreaves: a girl named "Rose Liddell Hargreaves." I have never seen any reference to this Rose in any other historical documents or genealogical records, so I added a citation needed mark. If anyone has any information on this please add it. It would be interesting to know if such a daughter did in fact exist.
Edit: Removed reference to Rose Hargreaves as of March 2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiprodigy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose Liddell Hargreaves 

message: I've just uploaded a new photo of Alice Liddell as a young woman, :File:Alethea, by Julia Margaret Cameron.jpg (right). Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 13:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And another one (left). Dcoetzee 07:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These are nice scans. The King Lear one lists one of the sitters as "Marina Liddell", do you know what relation she is? Could it be another name for Lorina Liddell, Alice's older sister? -84user (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo 

message: Am I correct that alice in wonderland supposedly occured on May 4th, 1859?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact date of Alice stories? 

message: I think there's an issue with the following passage:
:Alice Liddell was the fourth child of Henry Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and his wife Lorina Hanna Liddell (née Reeve). She had two older brothers, Harry (born 1847) and Arthur (born 1850, died of scarlet fever in 1853), and an older sister Lorina (born 1849). She also had six younger siblings...
The way this reads seems to initially imply that she has 3 siblings, but then later reads that she has 9.  I assume this is because they are not from the same set of parents, and that they are half-siblings.  However, this is confusing to me and possibly others, because where I come from, we strictly refer to siblings that share only 1 parent as "half-siblings", or "half-brothers and sisters".  While the prefix "half" is sometimes dropped in more casual circumstances, it is almost always used when explaining the whole family tree to someone else.  I'm not sure if its used the same way around the world, but I know that this is what we tend to do in my community.
I believe this could be more precise as to whether these are her siblings or her half-siblings.  Could anyone clarify this for me? 
Thanks, --moeburn (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does she have 3 siblings or 9? 

message: The Alice Behind Wonderland
--Javaweb (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon Winchester book 

message: I cannot recall any of the rumors that I've heard over the years. Stories about her and... insanity? Murder? Eating puppies? Frankly, I don't remember what the stories were. Can anyone out there recall? And from where would the notion of these stories come? Gingermint (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an appropriate place to swap rumors; quite the opposite. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Story 

message: From Google Art Project and the Art Gallery of South Australia, :File:Julia M. Cameron - St Agnes (Alice Liddell) - Google Art Project.jpg (right) is another portrait of Alice as St. Agnes by Julia Margaret Cameron, at a resolution of 9 megapixels, taken in 1872 (when she was 20). Feel free to use if useful. A number of others not in use here are at :commons:Category:Alice Liddell, so have a look if you haven't already. Dcoetzee 09:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo 

message: Now, we all know from historical record that this is factually false. But we need help over in the Emilie Autumn article in which her rabid fans are blatantly defying Wikipedia policy and guidelines by, repeatedly, using her own personal unfounded claims as a viable source to back up information in the article. Even when they are refuted by viable third party sources (there are several archived).
Currently her article claims that she is a direct descendant of Alice Liddell (appealing to her chic style of Victorian punk), despite this claim being factual false as Alice had no surviving descendants. Given that Emilie has lied about her age, her last name (confirmed for Fritzges), her families death, her age and how long she spent in a health clinic (alone with how it works), it's safe to say that her own words do not constitute a viable source in relation to historical record.
Any users willing to help out in editing out her claim(s) in relation to Alice Liddell would be serving Wikipedia quite well. Otherwise if we are unable to do so, it appears that this article must be amended to include (at the very least) her claim to be a descendent. 106.68.112.190 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to include that kind of information; only cited, verifiable additions are acceptable. Icarus of old (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If she was a descendant of Alice, her last name wouldn't be Liddell; it'd be Hargreaves (or something else). :/ -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emilie Autumn (Fritzges) is a direct descendant of Alice Liddell 

message: …noted, vis-a-vis the lack of verifiable inline citations. Besides noting a dead link and a reference to a yahoo discussion group, a plethora of  tags were placed to suggest places where factual or opinionated statements ought to be clearly sourced. This is an important and controversial section. It needs to be done right. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolutely horrendous state of Lewis Carroll section

message: This was done to create higher level interest in getting this important article, and the critical section about Lewis Carroll, accurate and source-based in content.  The POV tag was added, in particular, because the lede earlier concluded "not guilty" and "no basis" for allegations against Dodgson, conclusions that were poorly supported by the main body of the text (which has dead links, cites yahoo discussion groups, etc., see above).  Bottom line, the lede did, and still does, make suggestions that are not properly developed and cited in the main body. Fix the main body, then the lede. See the Lewis Carroll article. These two should be consistent. This is an awful situation. Disclaimer: I have no opinion on this matter. Encyclopedic content simply demands good sourcing, and excellent sourcing when the content is controversial (as this is). I would delete the article, at its current level of quality, if it were up to me. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and ref improve tags added to the article 

message: The article says "There was a rumour that Dodgson sent Tenniel a photo of one of his other child-friends, Mary Hilton Badcock, suggesting that he used her as a model,[15] but attempts to find documentary support for this theory have proved fruitless".
 
This picture actually surfaced on the BBC's Antiques Roadshow a few years ago, the girl's grandson (now an old man himself) brought in a photo of her and told the expert that the picture was sent to Tenniel to base Alice on. Unfortunately I didn't make a note of the name so I can't be absolutely certain the girl was Mary Badcock. The programme was Antiques Roadshow, Series 30, No21, Kentwell Hall, suffolk broadcast 27/1/2008 (recorded 13 September 2007) If anyone can find a recording of it they could confirm the name he gave. Samatarou (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of Alice image

message: In discussing the break between Lewis Carroll and the Liddells, shouldn't this article discuss the role of "Lord Newry's business", as it's called?  The cut pages in diary document refers to it, and biographies of Carroll credit it with playing a significant role in the cooling of relations between the Liddells and Carroll.  There is a summary in the article about the Lord Newry in question (Francis Needham, 3rd Earl of Kilmorey) which could probably be copied in here.  Given the plethora of tags that've been slapped on the section, I'm reluctant to do this myself, but perhaps a regular contributor to this encyclopaedia could take a look to see whether a mention might be appropriate?  -- 5.81.5.50 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Newry's business 

message: BBC's The Secret World of Lewis Carroll, broadcast on 31 January 2015 revealed and investigated a full-frontal photograph of a naked young teenager, attributed to Carroll and labelled "Lorina Liddell", that is now part of the collection at the Musée Cantini in Marseilles:. In 1993 Edward Wakeling had judged it to be inauthentic. The photographic conservation specialist Nicholas Burnett and forensic imagery analyst David Anley concluded it was authentic and probably of Liddell. It's almost impossible (in my mind) not to see the discovery (by her mother) of the taking of this photograph of Lorina (born 1849) as the perfect explanation for the "Cut pages in diary" episode in June 1863. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar17 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

text: No, Martinevans123, you didn't listen carefully to the programme. Mr. Anley said that in his professional opinion there was a "MODERATE LIKELIHOOD BASED ON THE 2 IMAGES I HAVE SEEN" that the image was of Lorina. It was his personal gut feeling that it was by her taken by Carroll, not based on his professional work.  Mr. Burnett's professional opinion was not given at all. What you got were their personal views, their hunches, just what they happened to think. Maybe they both hate Lewis Carroll or something, they are entitled to their view but not to have it presented as their professional opinion. Listen again and you will hear that the type of camera and the collodion development found out by Mr. Burnett was normal for the period.  (If you look it up you will find this was the normal way of taking photos in the 1850s the 1860s and the 1970s, which is thousands of pictures all over the world for 30 years. This means you cannot link one particular picture with one particular photographer because everyone took the same sort.) But him giving his PROFESSIONAL opinion seems to have been cut out, and Martha Kearney twisted everything round to make it sound as though it was really unusual that this picture was taken just the same as Carroll's pictures. What she didn't say was that everyone else's pictures were taken that way too!!!!  Also didnt you thnk it was a bit strange that Edward Wakeling was not allowed to explain why he thought it was a fake but Will Self got airtime to say his personal opinion Carroll was a paedo. Sorry but you need to listen and watch a bit more carefully or you will be taken for a fool by program makers who don't care about misleading their audience so long as they can get some dirty headlines and publicity  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar17 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for such kind advice. I'm perfectly aware of what both experts said, thanks, after watching the programme, and their contributions in particular, three or four times. I posted a summary here just to draw attention to the programme and to provoke discussion, not to suggest how the article text might be changed. I had assumed that Burnett and Anley were both being cagey for legal reasons. That was particularly true for Burnett, who still said, in so many words, that "it looked like a genuine" Dodgson photo. He felt it was. I'd very much like to see the evidence on which Wakeling had concluded it was fake. Yes, the programme had a bit of an agenda. But I believe both Burnett and Anley did not. It's just odd that the photo, and the missing diary pages, and the letter, and the recorded events, all seem to support a certain hypothesis. I wasn't actually suggesting amending the article to read "Will Self says Carroll was a paedo." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd very much like to see that the Musée Cantini confirms that the photo shows Lorina Liddell. To my knowledge that didn't happen yet.Comments on "The Secret World of Lewis Carroll", produced by Swan Films for BBC2 (2015):※ https://jabberwock.co.uk/blog/index.php?itemid=1364,※ https://louisiem.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/responding-to-the-secret-world-of-lewis-carroll/,※ https://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2018/10/31/bbc-the-secret-world-of-lewis-carroll/,※ https://the-artifice.com/lewis-carroll/.--DL5MDA (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  French photograph of Lorina 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alice Liddell. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402012743/http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2181289&SectionID=1512 to http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2181289&SectionID=1512
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not sure if this is worthy of inclusion, but Historic England states that Alice was the originator of the design concept for the Lyndhurst War Memorial, after she lost two of her sons in the war. Kelly hi! 17:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyndhurst War Memorial 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alice Liddell. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517094152/http://www.southernlife.org.uk/lyndchur.htm to http://www.southernlife.org.uk/lyndchur.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to editor Elanor Graham (see Puffin Books, published in 1946 and many times later until at least 1974), the first version of the "Alice's Adventures Underground" was written by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll), shortly after he told this shorter version as an entertainment to the three Liddell children, during a boating outing/picnic on the river Thames in July 1862. That evening and night, Dodgson wrote down that story from memory. He was prompted to do this by his friend Cannon Duckworth. 
Charles later re-wrote it out more carefully with a few drawings as illustrations. He gave a copy to Alice Liddell, one of these children. Henry Kingsley and George MacDonald had subsequently read this version and were so impressed with it that they urged Charles to get the story published, which occurred 2 years later. At this time the original story was much improved by Charles, with more chapters and characters and details including the poems which are parodies of more serious works, to reach its present form as "Alice in Wonderland".89.139.194.106 (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Story of Alice 

message: the date offered at the beginning of the article doesn’t match the one at the information box. 187.190.159.68 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I reverted the vandalism and blocked the IP who had done similar in other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong date of death.