Talk:Lewis Carroll
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lewis Carroll article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2009. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
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 has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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:
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Rugby edit
I have added some information to expand this sub-section, please feel free to correct if you find any errors. You can also message me if you have questions. Darwin Naz (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Child-friendship controversy
A few weeks ago, I noticed that the quite substantial section headed ‘Controversies and mysteries’ was not reflected in the lede. Since the lede is meant to summarise the article, I appended a short para, referencing the claims about close friendships with children, adding that these claims had also been quite credibly refuted.
This para was deleted by 184.69.174.194 because they felt it was dangerous to use the word ‘pedophile’ without a cite. Since the word ‘paedophilia’ occurs twice in the main text, I would have thought that their critical attention should have been directed on that part of the article. However, I took the point, and replaced it with a short, discreet statement that seemed unexceptionable: Recent speculation about the nature of his relationships with children has foundered on lack of evidence.
This was promptly deleted by Johnuniq with the following comment: It makes no sense to say "Recent" in an article (what does it mean?); is this a summary of text in the article?. Yes, it certainly is a summary of text in the article. That was why I inserted it. And ‘Recent’ just means what it says: the article states that the controversy started to bulk-up in the late 20th century. And by now, the topic has plainly become an inseparable part of any research into this author. If he was quibbling with ‘how recent is recent?’, I could have understood his deletion of that word, but I don't see how it justifies deletion of the whole statement. Valetude (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Didn't he say "I like all children, except boys"? I can't remember where or when, but it sounds like him. Se non e vero, e ben trovato Seadowns (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Alice/Alice Liddell identification issue in opening para
The opening paragraph of the article currently has this sentence
- Alice Liddell, daughter of the Dean of Christ Church, Henry Liddell, is widely identified as the original for Alice in Wonderland, though Carroll always denied this.
This doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, it should be with the material relating to the Alice books, if it needs to be in the article at all.
Guyal of Sfere (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- What you call the ‘opening paragraph’ is the lede section, which is meant to summarise the article as a whole. The issue of Alice’s origins is duly covered in the article, and it is a major debating point, of enduring interest to the public at large. Valetude (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Something about photos
New user User:DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens is dumping a bunch of sources about photos; many of them are blogs. The actual text they're adding to the article doesn't seem connected to the rest of the section, nor does it convey much from the sources. I am opening this discussion in the hopes that they explain what they're trying to accomplish instead of edit-warring. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, of course I don't want to get into an edit war; all I want to do is make an edit.
- The external links section contained a link to a site which presented a hoax as if it were an authentic 19th century photograph; specifically, two photos, one of a grown man and the other of a seven-year-old girl, were photoshopped together in such a way that they appear to be inappropriately kissing. My latest edit is an attempt at compromise; I deleted the link to the spurious site, without adding text or sources of my own.
- I should add that there are any number of other sources on this article which I do not agree with, but which I have made no attempt to delete. The difference is that they are not based on hoaxes. One is entitled to one's own opinions, but not one's own facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation -- I doubt very much that anyone will object to your most recent edit! --JBL (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Unfortunately, someone just restored the link. Again. DarwinGalileiHerschelHuygens (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Top-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Top-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class philosopher articles
- Mid-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- C-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- C-Class University of Oxford articles
- High-importance University of Oxford articles
- C-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
- WikiProject University of Oxford articles
- C-Class Cheshire articles
- High-importance Cheshire articles
- C-Class England-related articles
- High-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- C-Class children and young adult literature articles
- Top-importance children and young adult literature articles
- C-Class mathematics articles
- High-priority mathematics articles
- C-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- C-Class Anglicanism articles
- Low-importance Anglicanism articles
- WikiProject Anglicanism articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Photography articles
- High-importance Photography articles
- B-Class History of photography articles
- WikiProject Photography articles