|
Post by bettyboop on Mar 17, 2008 4:15:54 GMT -5
Is it a good article? Reliable? Should I quote it?
|
|
|
Post by johntufail on Mar 17, 2008 20:21:09 GMT -5
It is a very good article in general. Whoever wrote it is well informed and, I would say, has done a good job in terms of objectivity. However I would caution against quoting the information regarding Carroll's father. This is not strong and relies on dubious research. For example, Dodgson Senior is portrayed as 'Extremely High Church'. If this is the case, how is it that he not only allowed the works of writers such as Keats, Coleridge and even Shelley in his home - but actually ecouraged his son (Charles) to read them. How could he possibly have countenenced both the idea and content of the various publications that the Dodgson houselhold produced.
None of this is indicative of high Church philosophy or practice. It has never been established why such a High Flyer as Dodgson Senior undoubtedly was, was condemned to such an obscure living a s Daresbury. Part of the reason - but certainly not all - is that Dodgson Snr chose to marry for love rahter than status and position (VERY un-High Church - the idea that a person could marry within the extended family would have been anathema to people such as Pusey a\nd Keble - though, interestingly, perhaps not so much Newman).
The section on Carroll's stammer is also a little suspect. Carroll never had problems in preaching or teaching when he wanted or needed to. It certainly wasn't a major disability.
What I suggest is that you take the article as being one of the more authorititative version of Carroll, but be careful to double check against other evidence before you accept as gospel.
|
|
|
Post by mikeindex on Mar 18, 2008 7:14:40 GMT -5
Of course the problem with discussing any Wikipedia article lies in the editing system, which means that at any given moment you can go to consult the article and find that some earnest commentator has wiped the entire text and replaced it with "he was a pedofil and likd littel girls" or "bumbumbumbumBUM".
It also means that the article can easily have been edited - less innovatively - a dozen times between your asking the question and my answering it so that we're actually discussing two different articles (this happened once on the old discussion list). There has in fact been a lot of activity lately, still ongoing, so at present it's in a bit of a state of flux.
Having said that, I agree with John that - most of the time - it is a thoroughly worthwhile resource, and I'm confident that it'll emerge from the current editing bout in good shape. I personally don't concur with John's reservations regarding the sections on Archdeacon Dodgson - this isn't really the thread for an extended debate on the Archdeacon's character, maybe we could do with a new friends-and-relations board - and the stammer, where the article's conclusion doesn't seem all that different from John's. Or maybe it is by now.
All the best
Mike
|
|
Jules
Rook
The trombone frightens me
Posts: 45
|
Post by Jules on Apr 9, 2008 4:56:00 GMT -5
Someone deleted the entire Carroll wiki page a while back didn't they. is it the same vandal repeatedly doing that stuff do you think?
|
|
|
Post by jenny2write on Apr 16, 2008 16:14:00 GMT -5
John, I'm interested in your comment that marriage for love was not well regarded by the High Church. I honestly don't know enough about this to really argue but it would be useful if you could possibly quote some sources to back that up. Is there any definite evidence also that he married for love?
|
|
frockmaker
Rook
"I'm forty, unmarried and I work in musiclal theatre - you do the math"
Posts: 22
|
Post by frockmaker on Apr 18, 2008 9:00:10 GMT -5
The section on Carroll's stammer is also a little suspect. Carroll never had problems in preaching or teaching when he wanted or needed to. It certainly wasn't a major disability. Okay, call me a stupid queen, but isn't that just what the Wiki article is saying?
|
|
|
Post by hermionethestork on Apr 27, 2008 4:54:43 GMT -5
The section on Carroll's stammer is also a little suspect. Carroll never had problems in preaching or teaching when he wanted or needed to. It certainly wasn't a major disability. Okay, call me a stupid queen, but isn't that just what the Wiki article is saying? The article is awful IMESHO. Long-winded, patchy and one-sided.
|
|