Talk:Alice Liddell

Inspiration

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)==

Restructure

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)

This issue has been addressed. The article has been substantially rewritten since that comment was posted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Lorina Reeve's birthday?

No data available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.98.126 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

info on Lewis Carroll v. that on Alice Liddell

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)

Wonderland Entrance in South Cerney, Gloucestershire?

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)

• I don't know about the part about the sites, but there is absolutely no doubt that the "Alice" character takes her name from Alice Pleasance Liddell. Aside from a great deal of secondary evidence supporting this fact, there is the primary evidence in the poem at the conclusion of Through the Looking Glass, in which Alice's full name is spelled out, reading the first letter of each line downward. Wahkeenah 04:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dodgson's Heirs/Cut Pages

While Dodgson's heirs did indeed destroy most of his papers at his request and probably are responsible for some of the cut pages, many tend to agree that Dodgson cut some of the pages himself. An examination of the diaries shows two different kinds of cut - one jagged and one straight - that strongly suggest that the cutting was performed at two different times, perhaps by two different parties. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon File:Zanthalon.jpg, ]] 16:25, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two of these pages, including the one from 1863, have been cut by Lewis Carroll's nieces, Violet Dodgson and Menella Dodgson, as a document discovered by Karoline Leach reveals. We don't know, indeed, who cut the remaining five (although Stuart Collingwood seems to be the main suspect), but all of them were from earlier period. -- Naive cynic 17:29, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

"We don't know, indeed..." Precisely. That is why I worded it the way that I did, to indicate that there is uncertainty about who removed the pages. Another page on the same site you are citing suggests that Dodgson may have done the earlier cutting. I think my wording is more accurate than yours, which says his heirs did the cutting without indicating that who cut some of the pages is in dispute. I think that for the sake of accuracy, my version should be reinstated. This is not worth getting into a revert war over, but I think that we should point out the uncertainty of the situation rather than making a definitive statement one way or the other. --[[User:Zanthalon|Zanthalon File:Zanthalon.jpg, ]] 20:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Missing page "from that time period" (i.e. from 27-29 June 1863) was cut by LC's heirs. Who cut the ones from 1855-1857 is clearly under dispute, but these pages are presumably not directly related to the rift between LC and the Liddells, so I haven't considered mentioning them here useful enough. If you think otherwise, you are, of course, welcome to reintroduce these details. -- Naive cynic 00:33, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Cut the phrase 'The fact that we now know what caused the famous break...and that it had nothing to do with Alice Liddell.' Article acknowledges that provenance of the note is much disputed; how can we accept its conclusion as fact? --128.36.43.176 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the note "L.C. learns from Mrs. Liddell that he is supposed to be using the children as a means of paying court to the governess — he is also supposed soon to be courting Ina" starts with the letters "L.C." (Lewis Carrol). Isn't it a bit odd that Dodgson's relatives used initials of his pseudonym instead of (the initials of) his real name? Heiko242 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I just came here to make the same comment. That is odd. I was wondering if perhaps it stood for "Lorina Charlotte," (Ina) but that doesn't seem to fit the context. 207.237.209.237 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreadable?

I believe the text marked [unreadable] in the cut page is "soon". The page in the cut page link http://www.lookingforlewiscarroll.com/cutpages.html is titled "pashes" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Netdragon (talk • contribs) .

That word actually looks like it begins with a "g", not an "s". Compare the handwriting with that of the lines immediately below, which (in content) are actually far more interesting. You see, the article states that

Precisely what this note means has yet to be determined, but it seems to imply that the 'break' between Dodgson and the Liddell family was caused by concern over the alleged 'gossip', linking Dodgson to the governess and to 'Ina' (presumably Alice's older sister). Whether there was any foundation in any of this gossip has not been determined.

but the note asks

Does anyone know what the "business with Lord [Newing]" was which put L.C. out of "Mrs Liddell's good graces"

which suggests that there was some sort of to-do with some peer, whose name (if I've deciphered the scrawl correctly) was Lord Newing. Now, if you're looking for a reason why Carroll fell out of favour with the Liddells, wouldn't showing up a member of the aristocracy have kind of done it? It's almost enough to make one want to research the Newing family history. Can't see where you've got that "pashes" idea from, though. Wooster 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think it reads "so one", not "soon". I think they were more literate than to misspell it, and it seems to be separate words. However, the phrase "he is also supposed so one to be courting Ina" doesn't make much sense, unless it was a colloquial way of saying "so one hears" or some such. Wahkeenah 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies; the first sentence is not my comment, but an unsigned one. I have inserted the usual "unsigned comment" tag. Wooster (talk)

Date of death

Sometimes November 15 is given as her date of death (for example in Anne Clark's The Real Alice), other sources (including Colin Gordon's Beyond The Looking Glass) give November 16... I was wondering if anybody could clear this up with a dependable source for either date? -- Fritz S. 20:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

The lead not telling the truth

It should explicity state that many people believed that Lewis Carroll was sexually attracted to her. Skinnyweed 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"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)

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)

I think the whole article seems weird. It keeps mentioning the controversy of their relationship, and I think it should be limited to just one section of the article. The poem as evidence is impressive, I had never come across that before (it actually spells out her name with the word 'pleasance' in the middle (which can mean, 'a source of pleasure.') I just think that the issue should be handled in one confined topic, rather than referring to it here and there. (Neurolanis (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Pleasance is her second name... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Neurolanis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurolanis (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Photograph Date Problem

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))

Dodgson/Carroll

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)

Biographer's name

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)

Prince Leopold and "Alice"

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)

surname

Shouldn't her married surname (Hargreaves) appear somewhere in the lead? Also, even though it would be confusing to refer to her throughout the article as "Hargreaves" (since that's not the name she's known by), I don't think it's appropriate to keep calling her "Alice"; "Liddell" would be better. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on Hargreaves, and have edited the article accordingly. However, why would it be better to call her "Liddell"? I don't see any reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Referring to someone by their first name is for gossip magazines that pretend they know the subjects personally, not for an encyclopedia. It's in the WP Manual of Style. As for her married surname, I suspect that calling her that would be confusing because (as the previous condition of the lead indicates) the name is unfamiliar to most people. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have searched for this in the Manual of Style and have not found it. Can you give a direct quote from there to help me locate it? It is also not mentioned in the guideline on proper names. I agree with your distaste for the fashion among journalists for excessive use of first names, but I think calling her "Liddell" would be cumbersome and unnatural. Perhaps "Alice Liddell" would be acceptable to all? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. Calling her by her last name is only awkward because our culture makes a habit of referring to women, girls, and boys by their first names. I think that using a full name repeatedly would be more awkward and cumbersome. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to Manual of Style (biographies). My feeling about "is only awkward because our culture makes a habit of referring to women, girls, and boys by their first names" is partly that it doesn't matter why it is awkward: it is awkward; and partly that I find it unnatural to use this form for anyone, including men. In ordinary conversation the usual way of referring to, for example, the current prime minister of the United Kingdom, is "Gordon Brown": to refer to him as "Brown" suggests a somewhat contemptuous tone. Likewise in radio and television reporting he is either "Gordon Brown" or "Mr Brown". The practice of referring to people by surname alone is an artificial one, common in writing which is trying to give an impression of a formal, impersonal tone, just as artificial as the gossipy first-name tone affected in some magazines (referred to above). It is in fact a hangover from the days when it was common practice for male people to address one another by their surnames: this was still current practice between people who were not on intimate terms when I was at school, and even between close friends when my father was a young man, but it is now largely obsolete. The surname only style is still normal for male figures from the past, as "Shakespeare", "Voltaire", "Washington", etc, but it is no longer natural for contemporaries, and it has never been natural for women. The practice of using surnames alone for women is an artifice, invented because of modern distaste for treating people differently according to sex, but the same effect could be achieved by dropping the practice for men, which would accord better with modern natural practice. It is true that the Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographies indicates a preference for this style, but that document says "use common sense in applying it", and acknowledges that there will be exceptions. I suggest that there are at least three reasons for considering making an exception here. Firstly, are we to use "Liddell" in part of the article and "Hargreaves" in others? This would be likely to be confusing, with risk of, for example, the latter being taken as referring to Alice Hargreaves's husband. Or are we to call her "Liddell" even when referring to her at the time her name was Hargreaves? Calling her by her first name, which did not change, avoids this problem. Secondly, the only reason that the woman in question is remembered at all is her connection with Lewis Carroll and with the fictional "Alice", so that "Alice" is the name that people associate with her. Finally, an examination of the article shows that a clear majority of references to her as simply "Alice" are in contexts in which others members of her family are also being referred to as well, and in this case using first names is much more helpful than referring to one of them by surname alone. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not "ordinary conversation"; it is an encyclopedia. It's written using the tone that is agreed by consensus to be appropriate. I'm sorry if you find writing in a formal objective voice awkward, but that's the project here. You're not arguing for an isolated exception in this instance (i.e. countless famous women change their surnames at some point in their lives), so if you want to change the tone that this encyclopedia is written in to be more conversational, I suggest you take it up on WP:Manual of Style (biographies). The fact that she has a well-known fictional character named after her is all the more reason not to use that character's name in reference to her. I should add that I am suggesting that we make a common-sense exception in this case, by using her maiden surname, as that's the one that the general public recognizes. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It was probably a mistake to mention my opinions on the general question of use of surnames alone as being artificial: it was of limited relevance, since it is Wikipedia policy, and I have no intention of proposing a change to that policy. I fully accept the argument that the need to distinguish Alice Liddell from the fictional Alice is a good reason for not calling her Alice, and I was mistaken in suggesting the contrary. However, I feel that "in a rowing boat travelling ... for a picnic outing, 10-year-old Alice Liddell asked Charles Dodgson" is much more natural than "in a rowing boat travelling ... for a picnic outing, 10-year-old Liddell asked Charles Dodgson". I feel even more strongly that "Later, when Harry went to school, Liddell and her younger sister Edith joined the party" is an awkward form of words, since all three people named are Liddells. Likewise in the context of referring to the whole Liddell family, "Liddell was the fourth child" does not seem natural. Then again "Reginald Hargreaves inherited a considerable fortune, and Liddell became a noted society hostess" seems somewhat forced, since she is being referred to specifically in relation to her husband Reginald Hargreaves. On the other hand, it seems perfectly clear to me that "Karoline Leach's reassessment of the Carroll/Liddell relationship" is infinitely preferable to "Karoline Leach's reassessment of the Carroll/Alice relationship".

I have gone through the article producing a draft compromise version, which you may like to look at. I have checked each occurrence of the name "Alice" and considered whether to replace it, and if so with what. Despite my own feelings I have accepted that Wikipedia policy is for "Liddell", and I have therefore used it by default. However, I have made exceptions in cases where I feel, as I have indicated above, that "Liddell" is particularly unnatural. I am not by any means committed to every decision I made, and suggestions for improvements are welcome, but perhaps you may like to look at it and, if you think something along those lines would be acceptable, make any comments/suggestions for improvements here. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I began working on the general style-and-policy update I just posted before seeing this message; I did not ignore your version on purpose. If you wish to incorporate further changes into it that are in keeping with policy, please do so. It occurs to me that quite often the best compromise in awkward cases is "she", since it should be clear in article about the woman that "she" is she. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "she" is helpful, as long as it isn't overdone. Although your version is somewhat different from mine I am not going to quarrel with it, and by and large I am prepared to accept it. I have skimmed through it fairly quickly: when I have time I will read it through more thoroughly, but at present there are just two points which I think should be changed. Firstly, the attempt at giving the pronunciation of "Liddell" contains question marks. Is this an error? If not the nearest IPA symbol I am aware of is ʔ, which represents a sound which does not exist in standard British English, and would certainly not have been used by the Liddell family. Besides, it is not a vowel, and could scarcely be pronounced in the context given. The previous version of the article gave ˈlɪdəl, which correctly represents the British received pronunciation of the name, so I am reverting to this. My second point, though, is one which I am raising for consideration, rather than boldly changing without consultation. The article opens with "Alice Hargreaves (born Alice Pleasance Liddell...)". It seems odd that the name used as the title of the article is not the one given prominence, and it also seems to me that the name by which she is best known should be given the major place. I have looked at various policy documents and guidelines, and, although I have not found anything which exactly covers this case, there are various statements which seem to me to be consistent with my feeling on this, for example:

• Wikipedia:Lead_section: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence
• Wikipedia:Lead_section: the first ... appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence
• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles): use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies): It is common to give the maiden or birth family name (last name, surname) of a woman better known under her married name, for example: Lucy Washington (née Payne). (My emphasis.) We are here dealing with the reverse situation, namely a woman better known under her maiden name, but it seems to me the principle involved is that the better known name is given first, and then the less well-known parenthetically. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The phonetic characters were damaged by my offline editor; apologies for that. As for guidance on when and where to give her legal married name, I looked to other articles where article naming conventions ("the most common form of the name", i.e. Alice Liddell) pointed in a different direction than writing style guidelines ("start with the complete version" and "legal name first", i.e. Alice Hargreaves). The recurring solution in other articles is to give the legal name, followed closely by the popular name, so that the above points are all met as closely as possible. Note that neither of the first two points require a match, and the examples cited in the MoS(bio) page demonstrate that the first words of an article are not expected to be the most popular version of their name, but the most correct. The name she held for the majority of her life would presumably be the more correct one. I'm uncertain whether her full legal name after marriage included Pleasance and/or Liddell, which is why I left them out, but if it did they should be included. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand this. No reference is given above for "legal name first", but the only use of the expression I can trace is in an editor's comment in an archived discussion on titles of members of the peerage, which does not have any relevance here, and in any case is only an individual editor's opinion. If the expression occurs anywhere else more relevant and authoritative I should be grateful for a link to it. The woman who is the subject of this article used different names at different stages of her life: neither was more "legal" than the other, so the distinction between "legal name" and "popular name" does not exist here. (It is quite a different matter in such cases as, for example, Richard Starkey MBE (born 7 July 1940), better known by his stage name Ringo Starr, as one of them has never been his legal name.) Concerning "the first words of an article are not expected to be the most popular version of their name, but the most correct", both names were equally "correct"' at different stages of her life, and as for which is more "correct" to use in Wikipedia, there are several places in Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines which say "use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name" or words to essentially the same effect: I gave a reference to one such above. Is "most popular" here intended to mean something different from "most commonly recognized"? Actually whether it does so or not is somewhat irrelevant, since Wikipedia uses the most commonly recognized name unless there are particular reasons for doing otherwise, whether or not this is also the "most popular" name. "The name she held for the majority of her life would presumably be the more correct one" raises several points:

1. "Presumably"? Presumed by whom? We are dangerously close to weasel words.
2. "Correct" on what basis? On the basis of Wikipedia policy the correct name to use is the most commonly recognized name, not the one borne for the longest time by the subject.
3. The only reason why Alice Liddell is known at all is because of events which occurred when she was known by that name, so that this period of her life is the one which is relevant, whether or not it was the longest. Everything I have ever read about her anywhere (except in this article since its recent editing) has referred to her by that name. Consequently in this case common sense and usual practice elsewhere both support Wikipedia's policy.

Finally, in connection with "The recurring solution in other articles", I looked at a few other articles about people known mainly by names other than the legal names they used for most of their life, and found that practice varied: I have already quoted from the Ringo Starr article, and explained why it is not analogous to this case. Of the ones I checked, however, the ones which seemed most closely analogous to the Liddell/Hargreaves case behaved in a way typified by that of Shirley Temple: she is likewise known mainly in connection with her childhood and therefore usually known by her childhood name, rather than by the married name she bore for most of her life. The editor responsible here has followed the Wikipedia policy of giving prominence to the most usually recognised name: Shirley Jane Temple (born April 23, 1928), known for most of her adult life by her married name, Shirley Temple Black.... I find this form of words perfectly acceptable, and see no reason at all for not using a similar formulation for Alice Liddell. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think you're doing an excellent job of claiming to find "policy" where none is clearly articulated (the same as you accuse me), I'll concede that the Shirley Temple Black example is a very good analogy, and follow that precedent. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree I have plugged the word "policy" too heavily: sorry. I was intending it as a shorthand, having already said that I had not found any policy "which exactly covers this case", but I still feel, as I tried to indicate above, that the general spirit of Wikipedia policy is that which I quoted above from the Naming conventions (names and titles) guideline: "use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name". However, I feel that, even though we still disagree in some respects, we seem to have reached a substantial consensus on accepting more or less the current wording of the article, so this discussion has been constructive, although perhaps longer than the topic warranted. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rose Liddell Hargreaves

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)

New photo

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)

And another one (left). Dcoetzee 07:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Exact date of Alice stories?

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)

The above dates are incorrect. Please see my notes on the original dates and other details.89.139.194.106 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Does she have 3 siblings or 9?

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)

All 9 children were born to Henry Liddell and Lorina Reeve. Kissmaiden (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Simon Winchester book

The Alice Behind Wonderland --Javaweb (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

References

Dark Story

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)

This is not an appropriate place to swap rumors; quite the opposite. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New photo

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)

Emilie Autumn (Fritzges) is a direct descendant of Alice Liddell

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) Sutter Cane

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)

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)

Absolutely horrendous state of Lewis Carroll section

…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)

POV and ref improve tags added to the article

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)

Source of Alice image

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)

Lord Newry's business

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)

French photograph of Lorina

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:[1]. 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)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar17 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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) (p.s. for those who want to watch the programme on BBC iPlayer, it expires tonight at 11:35pm.)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Lyndhurst War Memorial

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.[2] Kelly ^hi! 17:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Original Story of Alice

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)

wrong date of death.

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)

Thanks. I reverted the vandalism and blocked the IP who had done similar in other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)