Lewis Carroll was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Juan Alejandro Forrest de Sloper (2016), Lewis Carroll, Book Of Days Tales
Additional comments
Comparison of this post dated 27 January 2016 with version 701389717 of our page, dated three days earlier, 24 January 2016, shows substantial overlap; the content was taken (without acknowledgement) from Wikipedia.
I was sent here from the help desk to talk about this specific topic.
One day I was curious to dig into claims that Lewis Carroll was a pedo/groomer and took about (30?) of children, either nude or not. when I got to the section on the wikipedia page ( https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lewis_Carroll ) , there was undeniable evidence of one of them, as seen as a photo. Can we talk about the subject WITHOUT giving out the photo? It was taken a long time ago, but please. The last thing I wanna do is stumble upon CP because someone put it there. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodyShard123 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Victorian Britain, photos of pre-pubescent children naked or in rags were not considered (by "Polite society") to have any sexual implications, and were a popular genre in early photography. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, active collectors of photographs, had a number of such pictures in their collection, some of them (if I recall correctly) actually taken by "Lewis Carroll" (Charles Dodgson), who was a pioneering and well-known amateur photographer. He took around 3,000 photos of various subjects, so it's not surprising that a small proportion of them would have been in this then-popular style. Have you already read the section Photography (1856–1880) in this very article?
Various writers, looking for sensational new angles on which to base literary-historical papers and books, have tried to push the conjecture that Carroll/Dodgson might have had paedophilic tendencies by using innuendo and forced interpretations, but as far as I'm aware (and as a fantasy writer he falls within my sphere of active interests), not a single shred of direct evidence has emerged to support it.
His image has also suffered from partisan efforts to portray him as Lewis Carroll the shy Oxford Don, when in fact he was a very convivial man with strong connections to the less fashionable North East of England. Read, if you can, Bryan Talbot's unconventional but cleverly designed and well-researched Alice in Sunderland, which presents a good deal of material about the real Charles Dodgson. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.128.151 (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless "CP" is short for Child Picture, there's no danger of anybody "stumbling" on anything in this article. Lewis Carroll took pictures of children (among other subjects). This has recently become controversial. We illustrate that with an example of one of his photographs of a child (fully clothed, albeit in rags). If you deem that photograph to be pornographic, that probably says more about you than it does about the photo.Chuntuk (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC made a documentary called The Secret World of Lewis Carroll. It was inaccurate, saying a photograph of a naked prepubsecent girl was a picture of Lorina Liddell by Carroll, but actually it has been proved not to be by him, and is believed to be a medical photograph taken by a doctor, as the girl has a curved spine. I think the documentary should be mentioned, if only because lots of articles are still out there referring to the photograph and it's not clear that the documentary was discredited unless you read the imdb reviews. 92.40.9.166 (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why more detail on the inaccuracy -Two of the expert contributors on this programme complained to the BBC Trust about this programme and the BBC was censured by its own governing body for lying. The picture, supposedly recently discovered, had been readily accessible on the internet and known to scholars for around 20 years, and was known not to be authentic. The experts on Carroll who appeared on the programme were not told of it and thereby prevented from saying this. The provenance of the photo has no connection with England, let alone Carroll. It was bought from a French dealer one of whose specialities was 19th century French medical photographs, and the photo shows the girl's spine is crooked - a fact that was obscured by the BBC's selective use of the photo. The present owner of the photo, a museum, did not appear in the film, and has never claimed the photo is of Lorina by Carroll (it is only "attributed" based on an anonymous inscription on the back.) In fact the inscription uses the name "Lewis Carroll" which nobody in Carroll's lifetime would have used since he invariably used the name "Dodgson" and kept his identity as "Carroll" secret. When Lorina was a young teen he had not yet achieved fame as "Carroll" anyhow since he had not written "Alice in Wonderland" by then. The photo is also not in the format used by his specially made camera. It is only attributed to Carroll due to the date: Carroll was using photography at this time, but so were many hundreds of other photographers. It gives the non professional "gut feeling" of a consultant who is not a Lewis Carroll expert. However, I also read that 'The photographic conservation specialist Nicholas Burnett and forensic imagery analyst David Anley concluded it was authentic and probably of Liddell.' I'm still doubtful. Wakeling later wrote a scathing article in the Lewis Carroll Society Journal about his experiences on this documentary, and has managed to ensure it is never repeated, but I've been unable to find the article. The books of Wakeling and Robert Douglas-Fairhurst amy shed more light. 92.40.9.166 (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From an opus of some 3,000 photographs, Edward Wakeling has calculated that nude photographs of children represent ‘no more than 1 per cent of Carroll’s output’.He argues that picturing nude children and focussing his camera on girls was common practice among Victorian photographers and that, when Carroll visited family friends, boys were more likely to be away at school.Is there a source for the John Betjeman quote about liking girls not boys? Betjeman was born eight years after Carroll died, so he couldn't have heard it directly from him. Wakeling says there are as well many photographs of boys and adults.
As a writer of children’s books, Carroll needed to explore children, Mr Wakeling pointed out: ‘His relationship with children is not an all-encompassing part of his life, which many of the biographers tried to suggest.
‘He was a teacher. He actually enjoyed the intellectual banter that he could have with children. Children in Victorian times found that very refreshing because it was very uncommon for someone to treat them as equals. Children were seen and not heard.' Also Hugues Lebailly, Jenny Woolf and Karolina Leach would be interesting to reference. 92.40.9.166 (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An oddity about the photo in question is that it has frequently been described as being of Lorina Liddell. The fact is the girl in the photo does not look like Lorina, but does look like Edith L.. I say this assuming that the several photos of the Liddell children taken by Dodgson, and readily viewable on the net. have those three sisters correctly identified. There is a strong family likeness between all three, so much so that Alice and Lorina would pass for identical twins were it not for the age difference. On the other hand Edith has markedly lower set eyebrows, as does the girl in the photo in question, but very similar facial features otherwise. To my eye the similarity between the face of the girl in this photo and others of Edith are so great as to make it almost certain that it is of her. 86.1.33.153 (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible, that the photo of the girl doesn't depict any of the Liddell sisters. The face looks slightly bruised. And there seems to be an issue with the eyelid of the left (from dorsal view) eye. One thing is sure: The curators of the Musée Cantini won't confirm that the image had been taken by Dodgson. --DL5MDA (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is claimed here that the pics of children were taken "often" in attendance of the parents. I don't think there is any evidence for this. Suspekt (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every Carrollian knows that the "g" in Dodgson's name is silent. It is not pronounced. It is not supposed to be pronounced. It might be pronounced by some other people with the same name. Doesn't matter. This was discussed at length as far back as 2014, archived now, but it is still there. What can we do to stop people wrecking the IPA? -- Evertype·✆16:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
