Talk:Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mathematical Satire

It seems well known now that the book is primarily a mathematical satire of emerging mathematical techniques in the mid-19th century. Does this not bear mention in the introduction? See ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391.600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved.html ) for further information. 82.41.244.57 (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Cannibalism?

An alarming example of cannibalism is found in the Tweedle Twins’ poem, ‘The Walrus and The Carpenter’, where the two characters befriend then eat the anthropomorphised oysters

What does any of this section have to do with cannibalism? Being a carnivorous predator sure, but not a cannibal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.136.147 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you know

I'd like to suggest that the part of the article in the criticism section that says this book is banned in China because "animals should not use human language" and it "puts animals and human beings on the same level" be mentioned in the Did you know column. China banning the book for such a stupid reason is just too interesting to be forgotten by the Did you know section. Even better would be if it happened around the time when Tim Burton's film adaptation is released in the theaters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.22.62.66 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

wording

Can anyone correct the misplaced modifier under Symbolism? It says "Being a mathematician etc etc, IT etc etc" and this does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.184.244 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

astrology ... are the twelve chapters in the mirrorred books a reflection of the differnt houses the sun and moon travel through? notably, orion instead of cancer? Stormyraindrop (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Authorship rumours

There is a cherished rumour (which I hope has been proven false), that Queen Victoria herself was the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Does anyone know anything more about this? Mattabat 01:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never once heard this rumour, & very much doubt that its true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.9.100 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Drugs??

Its pretty damn sad that this article, written in an Encyclopedia, does not have even the slightest mention of the drug overtones that many suspect. Poor article IMO209.244.188.168 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See Lewis Carroll#The possibility of drug use, and discussions below. If you can find a reputable source for this claim, eager editors await. Notinasnaid 19:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the book itself was pretty good proof :P

Yes, because any book that seems silly or nonsensical in any way must have been the result of drug use, not a good imagination and writing skill. [unsigned]

I think drugs should be at the top of the major themes or not at all. If we cant agree or not, it should be off the list or not at all.(felix) ¨¨¨¨

Please sign your posts with ~~~~ (four tildes) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake, isn't it possible that you could just right down some babble? Try this: Throughout the history of cabinets, glasses have often been placed in the chopstick container, where they shrink to the size of Nevada. It is also well known that Moby Dick was a cream-colored pony. Reading that, can you conclude that I am on drugs? "Any book that seems silly or nonsensical in any way must have been the result of drug use" is nonsense. --15lsoucy (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I can conclude easily that you were trying to sound like you were on drugs and you failed miserably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.4.228 (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The talk of drug themes in Alice in Wonderland, do not simply claim that 'oh it sounds like babble so....Drugs'. There are the references to food and drink that makes one "small" and "tall" or high. The hookah, etc. The song "just ask Alice" references this. It is not simply "it's a silly story so it's about drugs". 72.209.158.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC).

The supposed drug references and influences on the story are one of the book's biggest urban legends (there is ZERO evidence he was on drugs or was talking about them). Most of the supposed drug references you are referring to only exist if you re-translate the book's themes into a modern viewpoint (a fallacy; the biggest and most common example is citing the song 'Just ask Alice', another being the drug LSD which didn't even exist when the book was written). At the most you can say that the Hookah was obviously a drug reference, and that is it. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh

Should there be anything discussing the theories of hidden messages, psychology or philisophical meanings of the things in Alice and Wonderland? I, at least, have heard in the past many things about the hidden messages or ideas within this story. An example would be the references within the Matrix trilogy, and Matrix fan-base (Red Queen, Looking Glass, Rabbit, etc) and the story may even have a cult following.

Why not, as long as it's also mentioned that Carroll himself didn't seem to be aware of any such "hidden messages" (beyond private jokes for his friends and child-friends. Carlo 18:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates are confusing

why is the dat of the boat trip where the sotry of alice was originally told LATER than the date of the manuscript being given to Alice??!?!

Nonsense

The articile attributes Freudian elements to Alice in wonderland. While it is true the book can be interpreted in this way, Lewis Caroll was not influenced by Freud because Freudian psychology hadn't started when he wrote Alice in Wonderland.

Look at the Trivia part of the article. I don't quite understand how that is accurate. It says:

In what might seem to be nonsensical, Alice says 'Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is - oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate!' This may seem mathematically absurd, until you consider that she's working in basic math: 4*5=12 in base 18, 4*6=13 in base 21 .. if you keep doing this and increase the base increment by three each time, it's actually impossible to reach 20.

But that's not true at all. The pattern here is 4*x in base [3*(x-5)+18]. You start with x=5 and increase it by one each time. So, 4*7=14 in base 24, 4*8=15 in base 27, 4*9=16 in base 30, 4*10=17 in base 33, 4*11=18 in base 36, 4*12=19 in base 39, and 4*13=20 in base 42. So, if you maintain the pattern, you will reach 20.

That's not necessarily true. 4*13 does not equal 20 at base 42, it would more likely equal something like 1A, as the decimal value of 11 is represented in another symbol, like in Hexadecimal. Put simply, 4 * 13 = 52 in decimal, and 20 at base 42 = 84 in decimal.

Agreed - 4 x 13 does not equal 20 in base 42. 4 x 13 is 52 in base 10 notation; to be equal to that value in another base and still produce a '20' it would have to be 20 in base 26 notation, which violates the pattern that is presented (each base value increases by 3).

The value following 4 x 12 = 19 (base 39) has to be something in base 42, the next base in the sequence. Since 4 x 13 is 52 base 10, the next number has to be a 1 followed by a symbol that represents the value 10 - which, following hex notation as an example, would be "A" - thus 1A.

In turn this makes the next entry 4 x 14 = 1B (base 45, the next in the sequence) -> (1 x 45) + a symbol for 11, equalling 56 (4 x 14). Logically this makes all following numbers conform to the form "1x" where "x" is a symbol representing a two (or more) digit number, usually a letter. The sequence therefore never reaches 2... anything. IMHO, of course :)

Where it gets interesting is when you head the other way (decrease the bases by 3). You end up looking for a symbol (or series of symbols) to represent negative numbers, and the number format still remains "1x". AncientBrit 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I though it was an laugh at how people conventionally only learn upto their 12th times table: therefore Alice having only learnt upto the 12th times table would "never get to twenty at that rate" because the system she is using only goes to 4 x 12=19 falling short of her target, being 20 by one. Remember Alice is a child (JoeRowland 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

somebody deleted the nonsense section. i vote to bring it back. personally i find it interesting because it further explains the knowledge of the author and that the book is not merely a "children" book. much like Dr. Sus' work.

I don't agree with the word nonsense.

It is not nonsense, it's just the sense of the subconscious (which is not logical). The book is full of sense, if you see it as what was the function of those stories before the book generalization : a tutorial easy to memorize. But the book is coded, made out of the average adult understanding. (Because he was afraid of the social judgment, and he was wright). And more accessible to children subconscious. That's why so many children dream/bad dreams are related to this reading. As for the Freudian references: the object of the Freudians theories was existing well before Freud did describe them. And it most probable that he was not the first to notice some of his points. ([--Brillen Otarie (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)user:Brillen Otarie] 7 avril 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.224.140 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Drug Reference

Is someone planning to write about the drug undertones of this book or should this link be removed? -Adrian

I added a picture of the Caterpillar and a hookah; I see no reason why not, since the picture is already used in the Hookah article anyway. -- Lament

(although this reverse the orders of posting it makes more sense to stick it here)

I wasn't having a go at you, Lament, it's just the link here made no sense. Hookah probably isn't the 'drug overtones' the writer of that link had in mind. Why did the page refer to The Matrix and not older references? Surely people who've read the book would have some interest in the surreal?-Adrian

Instead of "drug overtones" i used the term "similarities to psychedelic experiences," which i think is more neutral. "Drug overtones" (or undertones) seems to suggest these were intended by the author, which i doubt was the case. -- Flearosca

I think my drug referances should be left up there are obviouse overtones in the book, so I dont understand why my drug referances keeps getting deleted.It isnt nonsense and this side of interpritation should be looked at as well as the others User:Ro-man

If you can supply some reputable references that support your conjectures and you're able to avoid weasel words, then your references can be re-introduced. Until then, they stay out. - EurekaLott 02:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break it to you, but these "drug overtones" lie soely in your imagination and the imaginations of like-minded (probably the same people who try to find Satanic overtones in rock music) others...They weren't intended by the author. 70.162.66.142 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break it to you, 70.162.66.142, but unless I'm mistaken, Dodgeson didn't send any memo to you regarding what he ‘intended’. Even if only for creative purposes, it would be entirely fathomable - which is NOT to say deductible - that Dodgeson found some form of inspiration in the insights associated with drug use, be it through reports by others, or any of his own (a commonly dismissed possibility). Furthermore, it would be counterproductive of us as editors of Wikipedia to ignore the fact that Alice's story IS often associated with drug culture, regardless of the author's explicit or implicit intention.

Having said this, I would be forced to disagree that any reference to drugs are 'obvious', if for no other reason (like the fact that the book was a children's story, not an adult novel) than that the surreal elements of the narrative are explained solely through the 'nonsense' universe into which Alice adventures. Finally, I personally have never endeavored to discover satanic overtones in rock music, nor – presumably – have any of my friends with whom I have talked with about the book, who also share the observation that the themes are distinctively psychedelic. So I advise you revise your judgment accordingly. Cheers.

Exemplar sententia 09:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Though what your saying is true, then we could find overtones of any kind inany work. People could find anti-semetic overtones in The Wind in the Willows or Communist overtones in Now We Are Six. It is my personal opinion that there is little room for the the ridiculous things people interperate from books in an encyclopedia article. If you have a reputable reference that the Drug overtones were intended by Dodgson, write away; though I personally am fed up with all the idiots who think a story about a little girl having a dream is about drug abuse. Is it not faintly possible that Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is a creative work of liturature and not the result of someone under the influence of a drug? PS. You weren't sorry in the least to 'break it to' the other user writing on this subject. Let me suggest in the future you only write what you acctually think.

You say "Is it not faintly possible that Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is a creative work of liturature and not the result of someone under the influence of a drug?" but the two are not in any way mutually exclusive24.22.53.24 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

the mathatter is a drug refrence look it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.42.88 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Madhatter is not crazy because of drugs. He is crazy from mercury poisoning. "Mercury poisoning suffered by hatters in the 18th century and 19th century, when mercury was used in the manufacture of felt. Absorption of mercury through the skin can cause Korsakoff's syndrome." On the wikipedia hatter article, that is stated. Look THAT up. --15lsoucy (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Canonical

What does "canonical" mean in this context? -- Zoe

I'd assume its used in relation to comparisons with the book (cannon), & say, the Disney film (Non-Cannon), which cut aspects like the mock turtle, while adding things like talking with the flowers & the door knob characters & changing aspects such as what poem the caterpillar asks for.

[Canon (fiction)|Canon] is generally the works considered to be official. Each work of fiction seems to have its own rules about canon. For example, in most works, only the original author's writing is considered canonical. However, both the Wizard of Oz series and the Peter Pan series have canonical works by different authors.

For Lewis Carroll's Alice, I'd include everything he wrote which can be tied together. As far as I know, that's Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, Jabberwocky, The Hunting of the Snark, and Sylvie and Bruno. It would not include movies and games based on any of these, nor works by other authors. Shui9 16:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudonym

I have reverted Ed Poor's change - aren't I daring? ;) As I see it, a book should be credited to its author, even if the author wrote it under a pseudonym. Furthermore, Dodgson is referred to as "Dodgson" throughout the article, and we shouldn't expect readers to already know that Carroll = Dodgson. And we certainly shouldn't expect people to click on the "Lewis Carroll" link just to find out that they are the same person. Of course, changing "Dodgson" to "Carroll" throughout the article would overcome this problem, but it would be crazy to call him "Carroll" when discussing his real life! -- Oliver PEREIRA 03:59 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

As someone who uses a pseudonym in all his writings, i disagree with your point of view, but i am not reverting the changes you made. -- Flearosca

For the recording of an author's works in a factual, historical, and posthumous context for encyclopedic purposes, I am inclined to agree with Oliver. And especially for someone so famous, much like nobody really refers to Stephen King's pseudo-published works as Richard Bachman. --Super Jamie 23:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Custom Classics

"Customized classics" are a range of "editions" that put your picture on the cover, add a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet, and replace the names in the texts with the names of your choice: "Oh, Brad, Brad, wherefore art thou Brad?" You can get a customized edition of Moby Dick, with either Ahab or Moby bearing your own name. I'm trying hard to suppose that such links are added in good faith, and not as vandalism. Try to imagine EB referring to this type of product in its articles about literary classics. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia too. I've removed one of these links from this article, just as I have removed the same user's nonsense text in Romance novel and Romantic fiction. --Bishonen 19:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==Psychotic? Louis Carroll?Is Alice In Wonderland The psychotic ramblings of a man torn apart by contradiction and portraying his thoughts through the imagined dreams of a family friend? Louis carroll was stuck in his own dreams and his own paranoid reality. Maybe he was able to record his dreams through notes. It is likely. Either way, it makes for good reading. Sidenote: Was Louis Carroll a child molester? I believe not. Louis Carroll if anything fought his head to such a point of contradiction that he was anxious about everything. So he wrote about being the opposite of himself. A child and a girl. He was a child at heart and in mind yet with adult tendencies. This is what caused the nonsense, in combination with excessive drug use, which is really just combination words and/or made up words. The latter is true of all words, logically. Louis Carroll a drug user? Yes. Paranoid? Most certainly.Psychotic tendencies? Only to the point that it caused his anxiety. Which was exacerbated by his life in general. Nonviolent however. Were his tendencies violent, we would not have the history of him we have now. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.45.203.94 (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Alice in Wonderland really about a bad trip?

I have recently read Alice in Wonderland. I checked it out from the library, and found it a most difficult book to read. Much of it made no sense. However, I did conclude that Caroll was a drug user. I mean, the mushroom, the hookah. There are so many things about that book that could most undeniably be seen as someones trip on shrooms or acid. The Disney movie didn't help much either, with all the colors and everything all over the place. I've done shrooms once and I didn't like it, but once was enough to be able to associate the trip with the story. I mean, I felt like I was lost in some sort of wonderland. Then I watched the movie while I was on it. You do weird things, like my girlfriend. I went up to her and held her hand while on it. She looked at me and just said, "why are you touching me?" not angry, just asking. As I look back, that just reminds me of the way the characters were in the movie and book. Like you ask yourself hard questions. It's a simple show of affection, but she asks me why? "Well, I don't know because I love you" I say. "Why do you love me?" she asks. I really couldn't answer that. I mean how could I, being young and in a fairly new relationship. I was faced with a question I couldn't answer yet couldn't ignore. You think of those things that you normally wouldn't put thought to. Then I ask myself, what is love. I started to think that love was nothing. It's really weird, by the end of the whole thing I was laying on the floor, in a corner, in the fetal position. About the book though, no one seemed to worry about anyone but themselves. The feel of the book, and it may also be that the movie is influencing my perspective, is what it felt to be on shrooms. I feel as though I can associate with the mind set of the characters. It's hard to explain if you've never done them, I just wanted someone elses opinion. I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me. Perhaps someone has read other more intellegent peoples theories as to why this seems to be a drug users story.

I think that anyone who has actually read about Lewis Carroll would find it very, very hard to imagine the man smoking psyllocibin. Carroll was a logician who liked to play word games and who enjoyed twisting logic until it broke. His personal habits appear to have been very, very abstemious.

Well, to correct you there, you sure don't smoke mushrooms... spores will get in your lungs and it could make you go blind if your eyes come in contact with the smoke. I bet he was a user.

He may have seemed that way to the people to the people that knew him, but fact tells a different story. It's a fact that Lewis CArroll smoked opium. He was also in love with the person alice was based off of. (A 7 year old niece or something.) As for the bad trip thing I don't know but it's possible that he tried to imagine what it would be like to be on different drugs. I'm just looking for what drug each character is on so it can give more insight on the movie.

It might or might not be about drugs, it just "could" be. Consult the characters Tweedledee and Tweedledum for further insight on that comment. Also, maybe you're too young to recall the Jefferson Airplane song White Rabbit which tells you to Go Ask Alice, speaking directly to this theory. Wahkeenah 22:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this bit be updated with the info from the Lewis Carroll wikipedia entry?

I don't think the whole book is about drugs and bad trip. I think it is about life. Esspecialy about the Lewis Carroll's life. He wrote the things he encountered while growing up. In Chapter IV: The Rabbit Sends in a Little Bill, Alice says:

There ought to be a book written about me, that there ought! And when I grow up, I'll write one--but I'm grown up now.

- b.evrim

He may have seemed that way to the people to the people that knew him, but fact tells a different story. It's a fact that Lewis Carroll smoked opium. He was also in love with the person alice was based off of. (A 7 year old niece or something.)

Ummm...no, that is not a "fact," and I would like you to source that fact. Your near complete ignorance of the person the story was based on ("A 7 year old niece or something") sort of demonstrates that you are really in no position to be making pontifical pronouncements about "facts."

The story isn't really "about" anything (aside from perhaps nonsense). It's sole purpose was to entertain the many child friends that Carroll had; so to say it was about life or drugs wouldn't be very accurate. The periodic references to people doesn't give the book any sort of deeper meaning.

There's no proof that Carroll was involved with any drugs or hallucinagens, and if there is I'd like to see it. I don't remember the quote exactly, but in one of the notes from Martin Gardner in The Annotated Alice, he says that Carroll most likely wasn't on drugs and was probably just a very imaginative person.

well one thing is he wasn't doing LSD because it wasn't discovered intill 1930s and this book was written in 1800s so its inpossble for this to be LSD related. but this is a very trippy movie. it could be possible he did some other drugs that were around in the time. i will farther my readings to find the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.46.161 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

some prof! well as i fathered my reading i found nothing but as i was watching the movie i found that she eats a tablet saying eat me that could be referring to the drug he could have taking it is most likely he was doing mushrooms at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.46.161 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In several dozen of accounts from other people that knew him not ONCE was possible drug use ever mentioned by anybody - nor did he ever mention such a thing in his own personal diaries (all 13 or so thick volumes, covering nearly his entire life!). And Lewis Carrol never made an Alice movie, so those are just interpretations of his work by other people - you can't watch those and then say "He used drugs, and this is proof".

Quite bluntly he was a very boring (to most adults anyways) mathematician and church dean. If the man used drugs I'm sure he would've been remembered for more than "boring", and his diaries would've contained far more interesting matieral. Even a lot of his childhood friends found him dull - one girl recalling his attempts to entertain her with his "Game of Logic" springs to mind. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Noon's Automated Alice

Maybe there should be a reference to the book "Automated Alice" by Jeff Noon, a writer from Great Britain. He describes the book as a trequel to the first two alice books by Lewis Carrol.

Some info about the book can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Noon

and here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0552999059/ref=ase_125/202-6476551-2460615

Article size

As the article size is currently over 32 KB, we should consider dividing it. I think the Works influenced section, which currently makes up ~1/3 of the article, could easily be split into a seperate article, especially as it's both not that important for the original work itself and continuesly growing. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What is the optimal title? Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland or Cultural influences of Alice in Wonderland or something else? Kusma (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. One comparable example is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references. - EurekaLott 17:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the current section heading, Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland seems like the right choice to me. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree on separating this section under the proposed title. Blahma 16:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just split the articles. Please help cleaning up the lead paragraph of Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland. Kusma (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

My additions "unhelpful"

My additions are allegedly unhelpful. The article doesn't discuss multiple translations of the book, quality of translations, graphical visions of the book by different designers. What is wrong with "Alice" (by Bromski and Gruza) movie? Are only strict adaptations O.K.? Xx236 10:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Magic Mushrooms or simply cannabis?

Obviously a story like this may have involved the use of drugs (even during the 19th century), I haven't tried shrooms but enough cannabis to get the idea. Like someone wrote in the earlier part of this thread it is a difficult story to comprehend.

It was written for children, and they comprehended it just fine. The trick is to stop trying to find meaning beyond what's written. Drugs have nothing to do with it. 70.162.66.142 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Praise

The person who wrote this:

Taken from this perspective, the novel (as well as Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There) is a sinister, pernicious world characterized by persons who exist fully by a self-sustaining logic that exists without reference to outside influence, including the influence of a sane, rational, and moral mind. By this perspective, at its essence, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is not a dream but a surreal nightmare involving loss of control, inability to communicate or reason, rampant uncontrolled change of one's self and everything around, and a total inability to gain any foundation in the world.

deserves a big shiny medal.

Thank you, though it's a summarized version of the thesis of Donald Rackin's. Hope my anonymity isn't a big problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.163.0.36 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Genre: fantasy or horror?

I cleaned up the last part of this section on American McGee so that it makes more sense to the average reader. However, given the format and tone of the rest of the section, I'm not sure if this part is even necessary or particularly relevant. I just want to see what everyone else thinks. - Runch 14:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious what it's really about. All that craziness and inability to reason with people is how a lot of people, particularly children, see real life.. with all its baseless rules and ability to make you feel powerless.

As the original (anonymous) author, I would state that the American McGee section is not mandatory, but is intended as an additional cite on the concept of the original novel (not any of the adaptations) as horror more than simple fantasy. However, adding it might make take it away from NPOV - presenting a thesis against a the perspective taken in most of the rest of the article isn't really POV (indeed, to my mind it the definition of NPOV), but adding a series of incidental "and this person agrees, and this person agrees" might be belaboring the point. I'll leave it for more nonymous (sic) writers to work out - with hindsight, I sit the fence.

adding to the cinematic adaptations section

I am a terrible writer (or at least I seem to think so) and so I do not wish to add anything to this article on my own. But I would like to point out that in the cinematic adaptation section, at least one adaptation was missing. In 1998, there was a made for TV adaptation Called "Alice Through the Looking Glass" starring Kate Beckinsale. here is the link to IMDB with the information: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167758/

I do hope this is helpful to someone.

It's listed in the section for 'Through The Looking Glass...' here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass

It's a rather good adaptation. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.159.136 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pratchett on Alice

The article says "One of the best-known critics is fantasy writer Terry Pratchett, who has openly stated that he dislikes the book". While true (wow, he "openly stated" it?), its placing in the article seems to convey (upon careless reading) that Pratchett is one of the most outspoken critics of the Alice books or that his has a somewhat central place among Alice criticism, but the the reference only has a line or two about the books being unfunny and revolting. I think the proper place for mentioning Pratchett would be as just an entry in a (small) list of people hating Alice, if such a list could be put up here. --Shreevatsa 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett is quite successful, and in my opinion, quite good. And he is often regarded as a children's writer, although he writes for all ages. There's no need to make the article a puff piece. Carlo 11:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read some Terry Pratchett, and I agree he's quite good. But that's beside the point. The mention of him should obviously stay on the page; my comment was more a formatting issue than a content one. I mean, does "best-known critic" mean that he is well-known and a critic, or that he somehow spearheads the anti-Alice movement? :) It probably means the former, but sounds like the latter (to me). Has he repeatedly criticised Alice, as others (I assume) have done? Are there references besides the one given, which is scant?

I guess all this is too much nitpicking. It just sounded odd to mention, in the very second line, the name of one random person (albeit famous) without any reason for his being special. I'd be happier if there were names of more people who dislike Alice. --Shreevatsa 14:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As quoted, Pratchett just states his subjective reactions to the Alice books, not reasoned criticisms. There's no reason to include them in an encyclopedia.CharlesTheBold (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's gone. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my voice. I also agree. There is a difference between literary criticism and some general comments in an interview.--SabreBD (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is dubious that Terry Pratchett is a best known anything. Gingermint (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical Symbolism

This article does not talk about the mathematical symbolism of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland at all. That is a very important part of the book. It should be discussed. FDR MyTalk 0:500:09 October 21, 2006 (UTC)

• Can you give examples of the mathematical symbolisms?--Jimmyjrg 10:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The author Lewis Carroll, was a mathematics teacher whose real name Charles L. Dodgson. He wrote mathematics books such as Euclid and His Modern Rivals. One of the mathematical symbolisms in the book is when Alice sees the cards talking to each other and they all refer to each others' names as numbers. Another example is how there is the White Rabbit wearing white gloves, those are a symbol for a secret society dedicated to the study of mathematics called the Masons, the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was both a professor of mathematics and a Mason. In Through the Looking one of the characters asks what 8-9 equals, this has to do with negative numbers. There are cards in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and cards involve a lot of mathematics and there is chess in Through the Looking Glass and chess involves a lot of mathematics. And Alice talks about latitude and longitude at the beginning of the book and tries to remember her multiplication tables. FDR MyTalk 4:31:21 December 5, 2006

Wikipedia needs sources. I assume this has been written about in scholarly books or papers, so the author of any such section just needs to add citations. Under no circumstances can you include insights you had yourself (unless you later found them in a source, of course). Notinasnaid 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin Gardener, an American mathematician, essayist, and author, has commented about this. Robert Lomas makes a comment about it in Turning the Hiram Key. And Mathematical Ideas Tenth Edition by Charles D. Miller, Vern E. Heeren, and John Hornsby, a mathematics textbook also comments about the mathematical symbolism in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. FDR 2:05:22 December 6, 2006 (UTC)

Bill the Lizard and Disraeli

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but how would "Bill the Lizard" be a pun on Benjamin Disraeli's name? Recury 13:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess "lizard" and "Disraeli" have that same izz sound, but that is pretty weak. Recury 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen that claim elsewhere, but some have speculated that the Lion and the Unicorn in Through the Looking-Glass represent Gladstone and Disraeli, respectively. That doesn't really answer your question, though. - EurekaLott 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming

This artilce switches back and forth a lot referring to the author as Dodgson and Carroll. One should be chosen and I suggest it be Carroll, since that is what he is best known as. Sparsefarce 17:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He was never (AFAIK) known as Carroll in real life. The right convention to use would be Carroll for the author and Dodgson for the person. It seems that the page is consistent with this. Shreevatsa 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this of relevance?

I have in my possesion a collection of books, which includes alice, and was prited in 1962. i am not positive, but i was told that it came along with an edition of Collier's Encyclopedia, along with 9 other books in the set called "The young folks shelf of books". The first one has been lost, but i have the rest intact..., and i can't find any article's about them on wikipedia. Is this of any relevance? Lord GaleVII 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with first sentance

Hi, Someone has added the word shit to the first sentance.

124.150.75.137 12:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving sections to 'works influenced...'

I suggest that the Cinematic adaptations, Songs based, and Live performances sections be migrated to the Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland page; this is beneficial in that it will cut down on the size of this article, and that these sections are both partially duplicated, and thematically better placed, in the influenced page. Should there be no objection prior to 23.59 UTC 15.may.2007, i'll do the migration. Quaeler 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The only thing is that it'd probably be good to keep some of the information about Carroll himself doing live performances. ShadowHalo 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The songs section definitely needs to be merged into the works influenced page, but I'm not as sure about the others, since they're adaptations of the story as opposed to works informed by the book. If the cinematic adaptations sections stays, though, it should be cleaned of the cruft that's accumulated there. - EurekaLott 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooph.. you have a point about the adaptations; however there are items listed under that section which are no more direct representations of the story than works already listed on the 'works influenced...' page in the film/etc. sections.. Quaeler 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. That's why I said it needed cleaning. Sorry I wasn't more clear. - EurekaLott 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I made this change; i left live performances untouched, and moved all cinematic adaptations that weren't (apparently) direct adaptations into the 'works influenced...' page if they didn't already exist there. Quaeler 09:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Still needs cleaned up, "This list comprises only direct and complete adaptations of the original books. Sequels and works otherwise inspired by – but not actually based on – those books (such as Tim Burton's 2010 film Alice in Wonderland), appear in Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland." so why are the Tim Burton film and the lesbian anime and others in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I removed them. There are quite a few here, particularly the foreign langauge adaptations, that I just cant tell if they are direct adaptations. If anyone can help please do so.--SabreBD (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is that the distinction is subjective and arbitrary. None of these derivative works is a complete and faithful adaptation. They all leave out the bits they don't like, and/or add bits from Looking Glass, rewrite scenes wholesale, etc. Rather than trying to judge which works are "direct and complete" enough, let the list-making and description be done in the other article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] Jason, what do you think constitutes a "complete" and "faithful" adaptation? Since it's subjective, we ought to try for consensus. -- Evertype·✆ 15:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's subjective, we shouldn't do it. The problem isn't that I disagree with where the line is drawn; I disagree with attempting to draw a line. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But you're not suggesting moving all the film adaptations off of this page, surely? -- Evertype·✆ 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly am. Moving the entire topic to another article (with a very brief overview in the main article) is very effective when dealing with a story that has resulted in numerous derivative works. See The Wonderful Wizard of Oz#Adaptations or Peter and Wendy#Adaptations for examples. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Those pages are very interesting indeed. I see your point. Myself, I am quite interested in literary imitations, sequels, and parodies of the Alice books. I like the template at the bottom of the Oz page very much. One thing I notice is that the relative order of sections differs between the three articles. I wonder if it would be appropriate to attempt to harmonize that? I would be interested in discussion on the organization of the Works based on Alice page before the move you mention happens... though I guess it could happen after. What do you think? The order for Peter is Stage, Radio, Film, TV, Comics, Books, Video Games etc... (I surely think Books needs to move up the list). The order for Oz is Film, Television, Stage, Books, Comics, Games, etc. The order for Alice is Literatary Retellings, Literary Allusions, Art, Comics, Animation, TV, Film, Radio, Music and so on. -- Evertype·✆ 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it but personally I don't feel a need to harmonize the "works based on" articles, since they reflect different histories (e.g. stage has always been a natural and popular venue for Peter Pan, while books have expanded mostly since copyright expired; Oz has so many authorized books that the book category has been avoided by others). - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation absurdity

Some idiot is requesting citations for three books, but the books are linked at the bottom (literal interpretation!!). I think this kind of article is not suitable for lots of citations. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sypnosis

I have deleted the Plot Summary and made a sypnosis. I hope this would not be a problem. I don't know how to do the links, so you may have to do that yourself. There may be spoilers, and I don't know how to do that. If it is not satisfactory, you can delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.98.170 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend going back to the original. The purpose of including a summary in Wikipedia is not to give chapter-by-chapter plot points but to give context to out-of-universe information. 17Drew 10:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Cheeser1 10:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed, also Quaeler 13:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.67.2 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Somebody slapped a "laundry" tag on the article. Looking at it, I agree that the "Themes" list is pretty much waste space. I don't want to just delete it without some sort of agreement. Do others feel the same way? 15:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-place lists are supposed to be integrated into the article, if possible. Categorically deleting them may remove content that isn't necessarily bad - just presented in the wrong format. --Cheeser1 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New Hampshire play

Is this, that I deleted, really notable? In October 2007 The award winning Peacock Players of Nashua, NH preformed a modern mix of both Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. There was four performances - October 5th trough the 7th and it was set to be adjudicated for the 6th annual New Hampshire Theater Awards, but the NHTA judges backed out at the last second. Jok2000 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

COTM

Is anyone actually working on this COTM? If so, perhaps it'd be useful to start with a discussion here on talk about what direction to take the article? --JayHenry 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea is working on it, but here is one place to start looking for sources. Awadewit | talk 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

2009 Film Reference

A new AAiW movie sounds pretty cool, even though I am not a fan of Tim Burton. I think there should be a reference, because on IMDb it is not listed in his filmography. I noticed that there is a film entitled "Alice" scheduled for 2009, except I do not have IMDb Pro so I can not view it. Can someone please tell me where this was announced, otherwise I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.98.170 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication dates

There's a possible contradiction in the publication dates that I'd like confirmation on. The History section states that the first print run was all-but-destroyed and the second print run didn't occur until December 1865. But the Publishing highlights subsection says the first American edition was also in 1865. In those days it took a week or more just to get from England to the US, which would leave little time for someone to 1) realize the market potential for the new book, 2) get it to the US, and 3) arrange and go to press with a pirate edition before the close of the year. Or did one of the July first-prints serve as Copy Zero for America? Could someone with hard info about this please clarify? - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Burton movie

In my opinion the Tim Burton movie passes the threshold set out for future events at WP:CRYSTAL. I would have no objection to mentioning the film supported by citation to one of these sources: Reuters, SMH, BBC, Variety. --JayHenry (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If the only metric we use is whether a media member has managed to get press about their project, shouldn't we also allow the forever-being-made Marilyn Manson version as well? (Rhetorical: i vote no). Quaeler (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of sources exist about the Marilyn Manson project. Reuters, BBC and Variety are serious outlets. They won't just write a story about anybody pitching any project. And if we have reliable sources saying that Marilyn Manson is trying to make a film version, why would we not say as much? --JayHenry (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've only got the wiki article to go on, which cites Rolling Stone and MTV. My main problem is that this stuff sometimes simply never makes it to release - that's the nature of the business. For example, all of Tim Burton's projects which were never released: http://www.timburtoncollective.com/unfinished.html . How many of those chronicled actually got PR in 'serious outlets', i don't know -- though i would bet money that the answer isn't zero. It's a fickle business with fickle people. Quaeler (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that, since there is already an official website for the film (http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/aliceinwonderland/), an official theatrical poster which is currently being displayed in movie theaters across the nation (http://www.filmofilia.com/2009/07/05/alice-in-wonderland-poster/), several published news articles containing details about the film - an example of which is (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b130460_johnny_depp_alice_in_wonderlands_mad.html), and when the phrase "Alice in Wonderland" is input in a Google search - the first link returned is the film's IMDb page, that the film should not only be included in the adaptation credits of this article, but also in the respective articles of the characters featured in the film (e.g. "The Hatter," "The Red Queen," etc... and this should include the names of the actors and actresses who will be portraying the characters as well). 71.215.118.182 (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Does no one seem to draw a bead between William Wallace and the actions of the Mad Hatter in the moive? He speaks with a Scottish accent that is devoid from the rest of the moive, he speaks of how they should rise against the oppressor that is the Red Queen, fights with a claymore and kilt, and in the end, spares Stain, whom could be alluded to Robert the Bruce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.232.54 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The move is alices mind presented in dream form so that all of what is done is alice fighting with herself to accomplish what she could not in waking life so that she could apply it to waking life and continue on the way she wants to. as an individual.

The hatter represents ego. Absolem represents her relaxed contemplation about who she is. Its all obvious until you start digging. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.45.203.94 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Article on poem

I created a new article on the poem "They told me you had been to her...". You may kindly visit it and make/suggest improvements. Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dormouse - Dormant

As French is my mother language, I noticed that Dormouse also sounds much like "dormant" that is the past participle of the verb "dormir". Moreover, "dormant" makes me immediately think about Charles Perrault's classical fairy tale "La Belle au Bois dormant" (whose title in english is "Sleeping beauty"). So, this might be a reference. Though, I don't know if it should be noticed on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.197.112.83 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The OED says the etymology is a little uncertain, but that from the 17th century it has popularly been thought to be related to dormir. It's likely that Carroll did use the French as a reason to make the character sleepy. -- Evertype·✆ 10:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

MadHatterDay

http://www.google.com/search?q=MadHatterDay mildly amusing, and probably too obscure to mention on this page 2z2z (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant mathematical symbolism

I have read the article, and I understand the attempt to correlate Dodgson's mathematical career with the supposed mathematical symbolism in Alice's adventures in Wonderland. However, all examples, at this time of writing, are of little interest and are definitely not beautiful — for math's theorems are beautiful, and last through history, only if they can express complex ideas in a simple manner.

I don't think that, for instance, the following sentences are relevant at all for understanding the story or to bear the notion of Dodgson's mathematical insight:

«In chapter 5, "Advice from a Caterpillar", the Pigeon asserts that little girls are some kind of serpent, for both little girls and serpents eat eggs. This general concept of abstraction occurs widely in many fields of science; an example in mathematics of employing this reasoning would be in the substitution of variables.»

And also regarding a clever pun in natural language — which, naturally, defies our notion of logic — as another mathematical reference seems rather sterile:

«In chapter 7, "A Mad Tea-Party", the March Hare, the Mad Hatter, and the Dormouse give several examples in which the semantic value of a sentence A is not the same value of the inverse of A (for example, "Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"); in logic and mathematics, this is discussing an inverse relationship.»

I won't dare to remove it, for this is a matter of taste; still I leave it to you to ponder.

Hugo Gouveia — 193.136.24.200 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. If Carroll is doing anything there, he's demonstrating a misuse of symbolic logic, which was one of his fields, not real mathematical principles. (All A are B does NOT mean that All B are A.) Carlo (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The mathematical discussions are needed in order to prove that Dodgson knew what he was doing when writing "irrational" scenes. It refutes the druggies' theory that the irrationality is due to the use of drugs.CharlesTheBold (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an encyclopaedia article, not an essay. Is "refutation" of such "theories" really necessary? -- Evertype·✆ 18:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed? Where?

If citations are needed for this article, can someone point out where they are needed. I looked for the "citation needed" template text and did not find it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles

If there is nowhere that citations are needed, the mark can be removed from the page, yes?

RayKiddy (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem lies in the fact that this article has only eight references. A work as well-documented as this should have a good deal more references. - Eureka Lott 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, they are needed all over the article. There are a lot of statements made with no indication of where these presumed facts came from. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Movies

Tim Burton is currently producing a new Alice in Wonderland movie slated for a 2010 release. Info can be viewed at imdb.com although there is no trailer posted, yet. Wgrolfson1 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Movie is released now, Can it be added to the original article ? m.e.r.Cu.r.y 07:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xl rage (talk • contribs)

No, it can't, because it is not an adaptation of the book, but a work based on the book; so it is properly discussed at Works based on Alice in Wonderland. -- Evertype·✆ 10:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite Synopsis

Hi. I have read this book. If you want I will rewrite the Synopsis and read the book again? It's way too long and not very accessible. ≤Ftphokie (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)≥

After the accusations about your sockpuppet-ness gets settled, rewrite the synopsis in your own personal sandbox and then point people towards it for review and consideration. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming musical adaptation

I added information about Wonderland: Alice's New Musical Adventure to this article, and it was removed by Quaeler, who sent me a message stating "WRT Alice-related articles, we have a standing policy in which we don't cite works which are still in production / have not yet been released to the public," although he didn't identify who "we" are.

According to WP:Crystal, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Since the article about Wonderland: Alice's New Musical Adventure is, in fact, properly referenced, it seems mention of it is appropriate in this article. I look forward to hearing comments from others. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Brought up historically here and here, there has been a basis in the past for not citing unreleased "works of art in progress". WRT WP:CRYSTAL and the portion of it you chose to quote, I would say that your quote suffices to give basis for the article which you've started on the musical, though not basis to cite that article in the AiW article which would run against (my paste from CRYSTAL which says:) "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Is a theater presentation of AiW being done somewhere in the world at the end of this year presently notable? I would vote no. Quaeler (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the musical is by Frank Wildhorn, an established Tony Award-nominated composer with several Broadway credits, I would say the event is notable, and since the opening date has been announced, I would say it is almost certain to take place. Could you please explain what WRT means? You've used it twice and I can't decipher it. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WRT = with regard(s) to --13² 18:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I was not involved in previous discussions, I agree with Quaeler on this issue. I don't think anything that hasn't been released yet should be listed. --13² 18:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree, the problem is not the adaptation under discussion and whether it is notable or will probably appear, but that it opens the door to other speculations. Just wait until it is out.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Auction in 1998

since about 3 hours I tried now to find a source for this, one of the first exemplars should be sold in an auction for 1.5 Million Dollars - nowhere in the Internet there is a source for this Story - all founded results are simply saying (without source) the same: Auction in 1998, 1.5 million Dollars... blabla - And all with the same words - I think ther was one person writing from the other without research. I guess this is just a nice legend but not true. Maybe the Person which wrote this in the Articel is so friendly, giving a source for this Legend? -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 11:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

till yet the Persons seems not to be so friendly --Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the original person who inserted it in the article, but I've added a ref just now (from the New York Times). You could have saved yourself 3 hours (or more) of your time if you had searched in the right place — it is the first result at Google News Archive search for alice auction record. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot

This edit added {{plot}} to indicate that the plot summary is too long and should be pruned. I agree the summary is long, but I think it is warranted for this work which is often referred to in other material. It is useful to have a detailed outline. Does anyone want to support cutting the summary? Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is much too long and detailed. WP:PLOTSUM indicates: "A plot summary is not a recap. It should not cover every scene and every moment of a story."--SabreBD (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I do not support cutting the summary. It's accurate. There's nothing wrong with it. This is one of the world's most popular works of literature, widely and frequently alluded to in other literature. The details in the summary facilitate such references, and are properly encyclopaedic. Note that the summary of War and Peace has 2,688 words and the synopsis for Alice is only 1,518 words. And Alice has been read by more people in more languages, I warrant! WP:PLOTSUM is a general guideline for the encyclopaedia, but one which is not very compelling here. -- Evertype·✆ 19:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good comparison. War and Peace is a ~1300 page novel consisting of four books plus epilogues. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is roughly 100 pages. If you want to consider an even length comparison, this article should have a summary around 250 words compared to War and Peace's 2600. Further, that article is not a FA and the long summary there would possibly be a bane in an FA nomination (the only way it wouldn't is if they considered that it's four books in one). While 250 words is too few, the current 1500 words is simply too many. According to WP:PLOTSUM, the summary here should be between 400-700 words. While going over a little isn't a big deal, the current summary is twice the suggested max. There are plenty of areas that can be trimmed without sacrificing the integrity of the plot. I won't re-add the tag (nor did I add it in the beginning), but I do think it needs to be shortened. --13² 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

War and Peace is also a lot less important. Millions of people read Alice every year and have since 1865. Far fewer people read War and Peace these days, or want to. WP:PLOTSUM may "recommend" 700 words for the average novel. but Alice isn't average. There will be no advantage to any reader for the present summary to be truncated just because WP:PLOTSUM gives a general guideline. They aren't rules. Just guidelines. I continue to oppose arbitrary truncation of this article. -- Evertype·✆ 00:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

How important, or even how popular a book is, are not very relevant. Even the more widely read Lord of the Rings, with its three books and major sub-plots, only has a synopsis of 1,466 words. The size of a synopsis is not a reflection of books importance, but an appropriate means of communicating its plot to the reader. No one is arguing for an "arbitrary" truncation, but for a reasoned one. What editors are trying to do is improve the article, not damage it. At the moment a consensus seems to be emerging that it would be helpful to put this in a more concise form if the quality of this article is to be raised and that is what is most important here.--SabreBD (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Also, a lot of what Evertype is saying regarding importance is original research, loaded with weasel words, and mostly based on personal preference. What makes this novel more important and more deserving of a lengthy plot summary than the millions of other novels out there? I guarantee hundreds of scholars would vehemently disagree with the statement that War and Peace is a lot less important. Alice in Wonderland may be very popular, but it is still a very, very short childrens' novel. This article is not here to provide a scene-by-scene account of Alice's adventures; this article is here to provide a concise summary of the most important elements of the novel. This article would not pass a FA nomination with the current summary. --13² 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand you lot.... Millions of people read Alice and love it; far fewer ever read Tolstoy. How could the latter be "more important"? Alice has been a favourite in every generation since its publication. This is hardly "faddish". If the text must be truncated (and I think it is fine as it is) please propose alterations on the Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources that "millions of people read Alice and love it" and "far fewer ever read Tolstoy". Methinks you are projecting here (by the way, you are the one who brought up Tolstoy (simply because the summary is long and wanted to justify this one, I imagine)). Again, in my last edit, I emphasized that WP:PLOTSUM advises against scene by scene plot sections, which is, quite literally, exactly what this summary is. It would not be at all difficult to trim the summary. In fact, I'll read the story again and edit this weekend. Honestly though, Evertype, you're really showing your bias here (and this comes from a huge fan of Alice). --13² 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that some edits have helped to reduce this section a little, but a wider edit is still needed. I will try to find time to look at this over the next few weeks. I think much the same can be said without all the specific detail.--SabreBD (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to work on it, but, unfortunately, I got tied up in some Wikidrama recently and am currently buying a house in real life. I'll try to work on it soon. --13² 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving this for 13 squared to have a look at it.--SabreBD (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the Arctic Monkeys doing here?

Can't find any references that refer to both Arctic Monkeys and Alice. However, should it exist, the 'Old Yellow Bricks - Arctic Monkeys' line should ESPECIALLY not be under 'Content', because unless I'm very much mistaken, that was written by the Arctic Monkeys.

But then, I've not read the book - thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.40.100 (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Burton's film

I see a lot of people want to add that to this article. We're going to have to have some mention of it otherwise it will be perpetual tidying, don't you think? (Also, come March, we may need to semi-protect this and some related articles.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be fielding a great many bits of vandalism from IPs. Please, could this article be semi-protected? -- Evertype·✆ 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I applied but only got 2 days. I will do so again and hope for something longer till the film hysteria dies down.--SabreBD (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We got a month. Enough for a start. -- Evertype·✆ 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect mathematics

Symbolism in the text Mathematics - In chapter 2...

..."4 x 6 = 13 in base 21 notation"

This is incorrect. 4 x 6 = 3 in base 21. 4 x 6 = 13 in base 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.86.216 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I for my part am not numerate enough to agree or disagree. -- Evertype·✆ 09:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous commenter is either joking or badly misunderstands numerical base systems. His corrections are nonsense. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are nonsense. 13 in base 21 notation means one of the base (i.e. 21) plus 3 units. So 13 in base 21 equals 21+3 or 24 in decimal notation. And indeed 4 x 6 = 24 in decimal notation. 173.16.252.154 (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Quaternions

A recent NPR segment discusses the notion that the tea party scene is related to quaternions. In particular, the notion at the time that any fourth dimension would have to be time and that without time the three (characters/dimensions) just go 'round and 'round in R². This seems at least as plausible as the other math allusions... —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This view is also given in this New Scientist article. 82.41.244.57 (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Speculated usage in MIND CONTROL experimentation

I've read that this story was used in MKULTRA experimentation. If this is true I think it deserves a section, but if not it still deserves mention for being an urban legend, perhaps in the controversy section. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Two words: [citation needed] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Burton version

I put the Tim Burton version at the end of the list. It has enough characters from the book to be considered an adaptation. If anyone connected with the movie production is trying to make it special, they have a conflict of interest and should not edit the article.

Sprint ran an ad campaign at one time claiming their cell phone service was an "alternative to cellular" - implying that they did something so special that they could not be lumped in with other cell phone companies. That is just advertising hype.

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) is an adaptation of the Lewis Carroll book, and like several of the other movies, also is based on the book's sequel Through the Looking-Glass. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. An adaptation presents the same story. This is an imitation, a sequel, or a pastiche. A story in which Alice has explicitly grown up is not an adaptation. Burton's film belongs to Works based on Alice in Wonderland. No doubt. -- Evertype·✆ 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should hold off until I actually see the movie. You described it as a sequel but Burton said it wasn't one. Burton complained of the episodic nature of Alice's encounters with one character after another, and wanted to make story that tied it all together better. Your call. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

They all belong in Works based on Alice in Wonderland, and not here. Many of the listed works just cherry-pick the bits they like from this book and the other book, and are not (as the article claims) "direct and complete adaptations". It's an arbitrary and subjective distinction, and the editors of this article are no position to referee it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I read Through the Looking-Glass before I ever read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or saw any of the movies. So whenever I've seen an Alice movie, any elements from Looking-Glass stand out in my eyes.

I daresay the typical "Alice in Wonderland" movie borrows at least one character from Looking-Glass. It makes me wonder whether to call "Alice" a two-part story (like LOTR as a trilogy, or as "six parts and and appendix"). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mayhap, but at least they are trying to tell the same story even if they mix the two. Burton's cannot be an adaptation of the two books, because Alice is an adult, and the characters in the film refer explicitly to the last time Alice was in Wonderland. (Underland, whatever.) It is in this way no different from A New Alice in the Old Wonderland or Wonderland Revisited and the Games Alice Played There. -- Evertype·✆ 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is my cat?

"in the second chapter, Alice posits that the mouse may be French and chooses to speak the first sentence of her French lesson-book to it: "Où est ma chatte?" ("Where is my cat?")"

An interesting observation: "cat" in French is "le chat". The feminine form, "la chatte", used incorrectly in the book, actually translates as "where is my pussy (c**t)." Those must have been interesting French lessons Alice had. Lady_Contradiction (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all that interesting, to be honest. Chatte means a female cat. Elle est très chatte means 'she's very kittenish'. ma (petite) chatte means '(my) pet, sweetie (pie)'. Yes, chatte can also refer to the 'pussy' as you point out, but unless you were able to show that it did so in 1865 and that Carroll knew it, your theory is just pub-talk. The other week I was in Mark Burstein's library (he is a notable collector of Carrollian books) and I saw the actual French grammar Carroll used for this quotation in the book. "Où est ma chatte?" was right there. No further speculation required. -- Evertype·✆ 07:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Coincidental or not? It might merit research. Especially in view of the ongoing pedophilia debate. How travelled was Dodgson? Juxtaposing a mouse with a chatte seems innocent enough. But if one is familiar with Brussels dialect one would be aware that a "mouse" is also a synonym for a vagina. Grammars are notoriously fusty sources and in view of Dodgson's fondness of multiple ambiguities, might the chatte reference not also be one such? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Need Help

I have a very old copy of the book and it has no copy write date or any other date on it. The only things hinting toward it's age is written on the cover page and it says " Alice Kist from Uncle ?Hen? and Aunt ??? Dec 25-1899. But looking through all the sites no one has heard of this copy. A.L. Burt is the publisher to this one. Everything else is in place from Lewis Carroll to John Tenneil doing the art. I need help finding it's origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.110.133 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And you googled the publisher, right? And you tried abebooks.com and the Library of Congress catalogue, right? -- Evertype·✆ 07:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jason's issue about adaptation

Jason, you've made some unsubstantiated allegations without discussing your views with anybody. We all want the Alice articles to be good. Please outline your concerns here without worrying about tagging the article. Since you want things moved from here to somewhere else, discussion should happen here. Thank you. (And kindly refrain from accusing me of Ownership when I simply would like more rationale than an edit summary from you. Make a case, if you think you have one. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 21:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the section name changes because I am not sure that the original premise (that "adaptation" is problematic) is warranted. Discussion should help clarify things. -- Evertype·✆ 21:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tags for a proposed merger should not be removed until a consensus (or stalemate) has been reached, after discussion, not before. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You put up too many, which would have ended up with badly-forked threads. Discussion here is surely adequate. -- Evertype·✆ 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I put a tag on each affected section, and they all pointed to the same place. EurekaLott's fairly elegant solution of a single tag on a unifying section was also removed by you. If you disagree with the default location of the "Discuss" link; the appropriate thing to do is direct it elsewhere (there's a parameter for that), not to remove the tag altogether. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have brought this problem up before (more than once), and I also explained on the Talk page indicated by the merger tag, but I'll reiterate: The statement that certain works based on the Alice books are "direct and complete adaptations", and that others are not, is incorrect: none of them are. They all make changes, and they all leave things out. Of course some alter more than others, but there is no clear criterion or objective source which determines that Film A qualifies as a "direct and complete [enough]", but that Film B does not. (In fact, many of the films apparently judged "direct and complete" are very far from it; the 1903 Hepworth film is only 8 minutes!) Furthermore, the fact that so many people want to list the 2010 Tim Burton film as an "adaptation", makes it clear that there's no consensus for what the criteria should even be. It's a chronic low-grade edit war, with the defense prevailing simply out of tenacity. The lack of an objective and non-arbitrary criterion is a problem, whether the defense is "sure" of it or not. So I'm proposing a solution, one that really shouldn't be controversial. Articles for other similar works solve this problem by simply not trying to play referee. Those articles describe the original work (no WP:OR issues there), and they list all of the notable derivative works in a single list (based on WP:NOTE), which lets the reader judge their "directness" and/or "completeness" (or any other subjective question) herself (adhering to WP:NPOV). What's wrong with that arrangement? Why wouldn't it work here? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence of a low-grade edit war. Occasionally one reverts changes made about the Burton film. But if "direct and complete" is a problem, why not simply remove those three words? (I shall do so now.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done with some other clarifying edits. -- Evertype·✆ 08:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you please refrain from making further changes related to this question until a consensus has been reached? Removing the "direct and complete" criteria has simply compounded the problem, because now the distinction between the works listed on this page, and those listed in the "based on" article, is even more muddled and subjective. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The text seems to me to be quite clear now. -- Evertype·✆ 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the benefits of a wiki is that it allows others who do not share your perspective to provide feedback on the clarity of what you have written. I do not find it clear. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Go on. Be specific. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree that the Alice adaptations ought to be moved to a Based on Alice article. The content over there is fairly diverse and moving them doesn't really solve anything; the question of "adaptation" vs "inspired by" remains. Let's try to think laterally for a moment. Is there a higher level within the Childrens Literature project where this question and these criteria could be discussed? I notice that the titles Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz and Works based on Peter Pan and Works based on Alice in Wonderland (redirected from Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland) are very different. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article title is different for the Oz book. As I said the last time Evertype raised that objection, I don't think that's a reason not to fix this situation. I think that "based on" is the clearest phrasing that encompasses all kinds of derivative works, from the most faithful adaptation to the most imaginative spin-off, and fortunately that is the phrase used for the article we have here.

Another aspect of the problem is that we actually have three lists; there's one in Through the Looking-Glass too. Many derivative works include material from both books, and having a single, separate "based on" article that reflects this could settle the question of which article (or both) they should be described in. Perhaps calling it works based on Lewis Carroll's Alice books would be better. I don't have a strong opinion about the title of the article, just about the need to use it.

Evertype remains unconvinced that there is a problem, but I'm afraid there will be without this change. Part of the reason I am proposing this consolidation is that I disagree with some of the choices currently enshrined in the division of lists, and I wish to avoid a debate (which would evidently be a protracted one) over them, because the distinction is so arbitrary. The whole question would become moot if we simply abandoned the artificial division of derivative works into "adapations" and "not adaptations". Why do we need a partial list in this article, or in the Looking-Glass article? What purpose do they serve? Why introduce whatever criteria for separating them, when a simple single list of all notable derivative works would work? This is a question I have posed several times, but have yet to see answered.

Evertype has pointed out that the "based on" article needs cleaning up, particularly in regards to notability. It does. This is not a reason not to use it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I'm travelling and won't be home till Sunday night, if you don't mind letting people mull this over a while. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a higher level within the Childrens Literature project where this question and these criteria could be discussed? You've alleged that there's a "problem" with the Alice page, and I'm not sure there is, since it seems obvious to me that there's the book, and that there are two kinds of non-book representations of it: adaptations which retell the story, and other types of works inspired by the story. Also I'd actually like to know what you think about the differing titles for Oz and Neverland. -- Evertype·✆ 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the names of these article ("adaptation" vs. "based on") than the content. (As long as the name isn't an invitation to speculation and trivia.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't work out what your concern actually is. Because what your actions amount to is just deletionism. Whether that is your intention or not. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice over at Works based on Alice in Wonderland under film for instance it says "Not to be confused with actual adaptations of the Alice and Looking-Glass books, these are films which are based on elements of the books." I also think that this is quite clear, and that it would be a mistake to merge the list on this page with the list there. There are substantial differences in closeness to the book between the films listed in the present article and the films listed over on the "Works based on" article. I don't, therefore, think that your proposal to consolidate is a good one. -- Evertype·✆ 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "actual adaptations" is no better than the "direct and complete" formulation. It may be obvious to you what that's supposed to mean, but it is not self-evident, as demonstrated over and over by every editor who adds the Burton film to the list. They consider it an adaptation. For example, what specifically is it about the Syfy movie Alice that disqualifies it from being an "adaptation"? It's essentially the same story, retold in a futuristic setting. Meanwhile, the Wonderland comic by Slave Labor Graphics doesn't retell the story in the book, but it qualifies? If the X-rated 1976 film gets bumped from the list here for taking liberties such as bad costumes and sex scenes and not sticking to the plot, why doesn't the Disney film get taken off for adding songs and changing Alice's appearance and not sticking to the plot? Picking and chosing items based not on notability, but on how close each is to the source material is an original and subjective judgment, and it does not come from any published source. That's three Wikipedia policies it disregards, and there's a simple solution: merge the lists. Why would that be a problem? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidently "they" don't know what an adaptation is. Neither Burton's nor the Syfy movie is not a re-telling of the story; both EXPLICITLY indicate that a grown-up Alice is returning to Wonderland. They are clearly, by any criterion, sequels, not re-tellings. An adaptation is a re-telling. Disney's adds some material and merges the two books, but it is trying to tell the same story. That's an adaptation. Those criteria are fairly straightforward. And that is the difference between an adaptation and other kinds of "works influenced by" Alice. Richard's New Alice in the Old Wonderland is a sequel. Are you saying that identifying its being a sequel rather than an adaptation is original research? That's ridiculous. All one has to do is know how to read, and to know what the word "adaptation" means. Are you, by the way, aware of the Carrollian literature? Both Gardiner and Sigler give lists, and there are other published lists, of adaptations and so on. Are you familiar with these? I am. That's why I do not think that all Alice-related films should be jumbled together in one list. Because there is a genuine qualitative distinction between adaptations and other kinds of presentation which Carrollians, at least, recognize. Maybe it is different in Oz and in Neverland. But in the Carrollian world these distinctions are long recognized. This is why I opposed, oppose, and will oppose your attempts to consolidate the lists based on your own criteria. That's your POV, Jason. -- Evertype·✆ 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time I have asked: Is there a higher level within the Childrens Literature project where this question and these criteria could be discussed? -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This book's title is Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

I object most strenuously to the recent move of this article, and request that it be moved back at once. The rationale for moving it was poor and there was no consensus for this move. -- Evertype·✆ 13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that moving it without determining whether there was support for the move, was inappropriate; it was not "noncontroversial", as claimed. Although the book is commonly referred to as "Alice in Wonderland" (which would be supported by the "most common name" clause of WP:NAME), so are a great many other things. Thus, using the full and proper title of the book serves as a useful way of disambiguating it from those other things, and leaves Alice in Wonderland available as a disambiguation page. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that the move was likely to be controversial and does create a number of issues. It really needed to be discussed here first.--SabreBD (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The move needs to be undone. I have written to the admin who made this move on his Talk page and invited him to discuss the matter here. -- Evertype·✆ 16:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I really did think this move would be uncontroversial. Wikipedia's manual of style requires that we normally use the name most commonly recognised in English. Since it is evidently not uncontroversial I have moved it back. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JBW for the prompt reversal.--SabreBD (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean up needed here

This article should follow the MoS for WP:NOVSTY, but it's gone far off course. I'll be working slowly to add sourced scholarly material over the next month/s or so, but there seem to be a number of people active on this page so others could pitch in as well. In the my view the worst is the trivia that's crept in which should be removed per WP:Trivia. In the meantime I'm downgrading from a B class article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, particularly over the trivia, and will pitch in with improvements where I can, .--SabreBD (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss here what you consider to be trivia and why. -- Evertype·✆ 09:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• The new list of names of Alice in other languages should be moved to Talk:Translations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and used to inform the main page there. Shall I do this? -- Evertype·✆ 09:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, they are a bit abrupt and seem out of place here.--SabreBD (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Enthusiastically support moving Alice in other language list out of his page. Thanks to whoever does it. I haven't the time atm, but am watching here and will be adding critical commentary as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it. I think that to prevent strife discussions of "trivial" material should be made here before editing the main page. -- Evertype·✆ 19:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to be clear, you don't want solidly sourced scholarly comments added to the page without prior discussion? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, he means that he wants you get his approval before you delete anything. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't civil, Jason A. Quest. I mean that there should be consensus about deletions, and that means transparency via discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything with a good source should stay. Technically, unless reliably sourced, the rest should be taken out. I'm not much into removing text, but a point will come when we have to decide what to keep or not. This is a core article - or at least of high importance - and needs to be sourced and verified. Certainly plenty of scholarly material exists to support the building of a very good article, which is the direction we should be headed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Truthkeeper, the lack of sources in this article, put us well from the main track of WP:Verifiable information from secondary scholarship and into the Original Research realm. I think a wholesale cutting might need to happened soonish, because this is a core article. My immediate reaction when I came to assess the page was "how did we let this degrade so much?" (Thus the OR tag). I would suggest a serious reevaluation of the content based on the Verifiability standard, and will try to pull up some good references in a month or so, Sadads (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would as I say like to see "questionable" material discussed here. If something were flagged, for instance, a citation might be found. Unfortunately this article is in danger of deletionism (and has been bruised by it previously) and this should be avoided. -- Evertype·✆ 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything not cited is questionable. It's not as though tons of good sources exist for this book. My suggestion would be to start with the character section and start to work through it. When I have time I'll be adding new sourced material, so it's not really an issue of worrying about deletionism either. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Which things? "Anything" is too broad a brush. Be specific about something please. And I don't follow you about "good sources". What are you referring to? -- Evertype·✆ 20:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Evertype, if you feel much of the content is good and must be kept, why haven't you made sure that it all meets Wikipedia standards, and is in fact WP:Verifiable through citations to scholarly sources? If you are going to be a steward upon this page, please help improve it. Every statement that involves interpretation or comparison of the book with any outside set of knowledge 100% needs a citation, there is hardly any doubt about that in any circle on Wikipedia. The current state of the article is the very definition of a suffering article: it has a bunch of facts which have no grounds by which to claim scholarly verifiability (whether or not the statements are in fact true). It would be silly to go around fact hunting, but much better to start afresh and do the research from the ground up, rebuilding the article based on what is found in sources, not search for the sources that support what editors believe is the right thing to say about the article. If you would like to see how this works, look at any WP:Featured Article about literature and you will notice that there is a citation for every couple lines (except the lead and plot summary sections). Anything that is not in the lead or in the plot section without a citation is questionable, I think it would be folly to copy 90% of the article here for discussion. Be warned I do plan to revisit this article at some point, and all uncited statements will be fair game. Consider this my raising of questionable statements on the talk page. If you plan to help improve the content, I will certainly be open to giving feedback on the changes or we can request further feedback from members of WP:Novels or WP:Children's Literature. Also if you would like additional policy pages besides WP:V which I mentioned above to help you better understand the requirements for content inclusion in Wikipedia and my opinion about the page, I will go looking if you ask, Sadads (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not one who believes that every damn sentence in the Wikipedia ought to have a footnote. Nor am I new to the Wikipedia. Earlier today I added a footnote to the passage on word-counts. In reading the article I noted that the statement was made but not attributed. So I attributed it to an external source. (The external source was me, in a book I published two years ago.) Very well. There's something I identified as verifiable (to an external source written by an expert, never mind that it was me), so I sourced it. What does trouble me is people going in and just deleting stuff they theink is "cruft" or "unverified' without actually telling anybody else that they have a concern. There's nothing more useless than a hat-note saying "stuff here is not sourced". That doesn't tell anybody what bits are of concern to the reviewer who stuck up the hat-note. I certainly do not believe, however, that this article could be built from the ground up. That is why I have asked for discussion and consensus on the Talk page, to improve the article, not to take the shears to it willy-nilly. -- Evertype·✆ 20:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way I have on several occasions asked WP:Children's Literature for responses on various topics and to my knowledge no one has ever taken any notice. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree that this page couldn't be rebuilt from the ground up. Personally, I'm not much into tagging and didn't tag this page, but so much trivia exists here it's hard to see any substance. How does this book fit into the Golden Age of children's literature, for example? What are the main themes? What about the writing style? What makes it a classic? These are all questions easily presented with sourced material, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely disagree? You have talked about very interesting things, which are not in the article at present. That's in the category of "additions". Splendid. That doesn't mean that what is there now should all be ditched, or ditched without discussion. See the difference? -- Evertype·✆ 09:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry I am responding to the same issues as Truthkeeper: Unfortunately with fiction, which is a largely interpretative field unlike linguistics or biology or even history (which can have a lot more common knowledge facts), any statement making any sets of connections between the piece and any outside knowledge is verging on OR and needs to be cited, end of story. This article is full of arbitrary connections, especially in the Charechters, Contents, Symbolism and Live performances sections. As of right now they are useless, and show the hallmarks of OR: logical discussions of connections between facts, no citations, going into too much detail about each element discussed, etc. The problem with any popular media, is that these are too easy to modify with OR and only provide value to the reader if in fact they are WP:Verifiable. Also, these sections do not talk very much about scholarly opinion on the subjects, so again, do not represent Wikipedia:Encyclopaedic writing instead they represent reading guides, therefore do not belong in Wikipedia. I hope that explains why this article needs more citations, regardless of how other fields might approach articles, Sadads (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're talking in broad brush strokes with no reference to specific items. "This article is full of arbitrary connections"? What do you mean by "connections"? To another of your points... What "scholarly opinion" do you expect there to be about the White Rabbit, or the Mock Turtle? Surely the description of the characters should... describe the characters. Should there also be opinions about them? Sorry, but I really don't follow you. -- Evertype·✆ 09:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I marked every sentence and questionable statement in the characters section which makes unverified connections with outside knowledge which is not presented directly in the text of the book itself, to show you where I see the problems. Sadads (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Five months later and this page is no more than a repository for trivia, the great majority of which should be removed per WP:Trivia. I have a scholarly source, and will be adding information about the book, but first the issue of the trivia needs to be sorted out. I'm in a mood to start wholesale deletions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I don't think adding sources will be at all difficult. Will start adding links to Google books as I have time. This looks promising, if anyone is inclined to dip in: The Place of Lewis Carroll in Children's Literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I own an Oxford Classic edition of Alice in which there's some notes at the end about the poem parodies, etc., I could use that. I think we need to downsize some of the article... Glimmer721 ^talk 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I have Carpenter's book on children's literature, and want to add a bit more about the illustrations, but may not get back here for a few days. Let's try to add sources to what exists, and then think about how to downsize. Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle is a good example of how adaptations and merchandising has been sourced and written without using list formats. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Math in Wonderland.

I'd like to see a little bit more about the mathematical aspect of Wonderland. I guess the potions, cookies, & mushrooms represent positive & negative intergers in algebra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Many stories incorporate growing/shrinking. It does not mean that the author intended to give references to math. There is an above discussion talking about Alice attempting to multiply numbers until she reached twenty (she did not know her multiplication tables and she is only a little girl). Sure, maybe there are some strange mathmatical spots in the story, but the growing/shrinking part is very blah compared to the others. 209.7.119.202 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Most authors, to be fair though, are not expert mathematicians with very entrenched views on how mathematics should be conducted, as Carroll was. 82.41.244.57 (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Alice in Wonderland 1903 film tea party.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alice in Wonderland 1903 film tea party.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Widely translated

Should it go somewhere in this article that the book is now one of the most widely translated books in the world? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if one looks at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_works_by_number_of_languages_translated_into#cite_ref-14

it says that it has been translated into 97 languages. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of translations

I've deleted from this page a number of foreign translations cited to the publisher, here, for a couple of reasons. First it's better to cite to WorldCat if possible instead of directly to the publisher - the page shouldn't be a catalog; second, I don't think the all these editions are necessary per WP:Trivia; and finally, the page should focus on the scholarly aspects of the book not the commercial. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think translations are important; Alice is one of the most translated books ever; I don't think it is trivia. Note that translations have been listed here for a very long time. I have looked at WorldCat and consider it problematic because it often has errors in the bibliographical information, and there is no way to correct them. Perhaps ISBNs could be linked? If not how do you "cite to WorldCat"? And what do you do where the WorldCat entry is incomplete or erroneous? -- Evertype·✆ 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Carroll, by the way, was himself keenly interested in the commercial aspect of his book, and in its translations. -- Evertype·✆ 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Then it should be prosified, and cited. This page is just a collection of lists with a very small amount that's actually about the book. It would nice to see it move in the direction of something like Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Miss Moppet which gives a prosified section on translations and with bibliographic sources. More problematic in my view, is that here the translations are linked directly to the Evertype publishing company. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alice's Adventures under Ground

Shouldn't this book have its own article? -- Evertype·✆ 10:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I recently edited this article. My edits were carefully considered and based on several years' intensive study of the subject. Within two minutes someone, who could not possibly have had time to read the new version, reverted them. What is the point of this? (I put all this in my edit summary when re-reverting, but for some reason it has not appeared).Mikeindex (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You should actually check the diffs (1st, 2nd, 3rd) of your edits or the version of article after your edits (1st, 2nd, 3rd), to see you are blanking the page. Was this really you trying to do?--SMS ^Talk 15:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops. No I was not trying to blank the article. I've no idea why this happened as the preview simply showed my edits as I wanted them, but I do see now that the reversions were in good faith! How annoying.Mikeindex (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You may like to use WP:SANDBOX for editing tests. This way you may be able to find what lead to this. Happy Editing. --SMS ^Talk 15:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Original manuscript

The British Library has a digitised version of the original manuscript of Alice's Adventures Underground (Add. MS 46700) using Flash/Silverlight, which is linked at the bottom of the page; however, there's also a slightly buried "accessible" version here with text/audio as well as the illustrations. This page includes a brief history of the original MS, which may help flesh out the "background" section of the article - currently it doesn't mention the original document after 1864. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

...and a colour illustration to go with it. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there's no objection, I've switched the original image for the facsimile previously in the article. Please feel free to revert - there's some value to having p1, I think, but the colour one is generally nicer and a bit more readable. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was a bit slow on this one. I think its a better and more interesting image. Good job.--SabreBD (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Andrew Gray (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

First edition, only 23 copies?

In the article, there is a mention that the first edition was scrapped due to issues with the quality of illustrations. This is then "referenced" with the following comment: ^ Only 23 copies of this first printing are known to have survived; 18 are owned by major archives or libraries, such as the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, while the other five are held in private hands.

However, no actual reference is provided just this editiorial. I've read various articles, some referring to the "myth" that Carroll recalled all copies of the 1st edition due to Tenniel's objection to print quality. I've also read articles that the first edition was sold to a New York publisher and rebranded for an American audience.

Does someone have an actual, real secondary reference to back up this claim? Otherwise, it should be deleted as unsubstantiated (though it would be a shame not to include this fact, if it is indeed true).

FutureInfoPro (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read about this somewhere but can't remember in which book. Let's keep it tagged for now and I'll try to research it. If we can't cite it, then it will have to be taken out. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I've found the source and added. Much of the rest of the paragraph is basically correct but needs to be rewritten per the source. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Truthkeeper88! I think I had already deleted it after writing this, so I appreciate you looking it up. Cheers! FutureInfoPro (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll try to get the rest soon but can't make any promises. To be honest I've pretty much given up on this article - it's full of a lot of unsourced pieces and the sourced bits are often edited away. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations

Harry Rountree editions. We mention "the full series of colour plates and line-drawings by Harry Rountree published in the (inter-War) Children's Press (Glasgow) edition." --and this emphasizes the edition relative to all others but Tenniel. Quick web search shows that Rountree illustrated Alice twice earlier.

• 1901 Thomas Nelson; or 1908 (more likely). 92 color plates [1] [2] [3]
• c1925 William Collins. black and white line/pen [4]; but that ed. evidently includes (some) color plates too [5]; this 2010 ed. mentions Rountree b&w illus. only [http://www.amazon.com/Alices-Adventures-Wonderland-Rountree-Illustrations/dp/1451520506]; but
• Google says 1908 Nelson and 1928 Collins [6]

Two recent editions won annual British children's book awards.

• Anthony Browne (Julia MacRae, 1985) --Kurt Maschler Award and highly commended runner up for the Kate Greenaway Medal
• Helen Oxenbury (Walker Books, 1999) --both Maschler Award and Greenaway Medal. "more abundantly illustrated"; Alice is "a child of today"[7]

Three Google sites

• Lewis Carroll - First editions
• Lewis Carroll - illustrated Alice in Wonderland 1899 - 1929
• Lewis Carroll illustrated Alice in Wonderland 1929 - 2012

May we suppose these are authoritative? Unfortunately no. Google gives date 1985 for the Anthony Browne edition. The British Council [8] says 1988; both annual awards were for 1988; WorldCat gives 1988 the earliest hit for Alice and Anthony and also lists a telling 1988 interview of Browne [9]

--P64 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is definitely GA material, but lacks references for A-grade. Errabee 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC) It is now 2014, and I just upped this article from C grade to B, but the above editor is probably right and it should go up to GA. someone should nominate it.Simplysavvy 13:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplysavvy (talk • contribs)

Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge or main

I'd like to propose that some elements of Wonderland and Looking-Glass be merged into a main article to be called Alice in Wonderland. The movies would also be summarized there (see WP:Summary style).

When people speak of Alice in Wonderland they can mean either her first "Adventures" or something in the sequel Through the Looking-Glass, and it would be great to have a compendium or summary article which made it easier for readers to find what they're looking for. There are many quotations and allusions such as "believing nine impossible things before breakfast". We can't just say it's from "Alice"; we must mention a book: but which book? It's so easy to say "Alice in Wonderland" but it's actually from Looking-Glass.

Also, the best place to compare and contrast the cards and the chessmen, as well as the various queens and kings, would be a new article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Its an interesting idea and I am not necessarily against it, but I would like to sort out a few more details. For example I take it there would still be a Alice's Adventures in Wonderland article and what would be the definition used at the start of the new Alice in Wonderland article, as that would be pretty critical?--SabreBD (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Why, certainly, Sabre. I would start the new article like this:

• The Alice in Wonderland books of Lewis Carroll include Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (written in 1865) and Through the Looking-Glass, the 1871 sequel. Many people use "Alice in Wonderland" to refer to both books together or may not be aware that there are two distinct books. Movie adaptations frequently incorporate elements from Looking-Glass into Wonderland.

I'd like your help describing the movies called "Alice in Wonderland", especially distinguishing the those parts which strictly came from our heroine's Adventures in Wonderland and her experiences in the Looking-Glass world. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget "Alice's Adventures Under Ground", as a book that should be included in the new article; and the chapter about The Wasp in a Wig, that was deleted; and the Passionflower that was renamed Tiger-Lily, after Dodgson discovered it was named after the Passion of Jesus. 24.90.104.148 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, mainly because there "obviously" must be an article for each book and there is not much in common besides Alice. Wonderland is not Looking-Glass Land. Commonalities can be treated in the Lewis Carroll article. Zaslav (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Cosplay-Alice-in-Wonderland.JPG

File:Cosplay-Alice-in-Wonderland.JPG

THis image shows a cosplay inspired by Alice in Wonderland. Do you find it relevant and useful for adding it to the article? Cogiati (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I think this could be relevant to show more of how Alice in Wonderland has influenced popular culture.

~~~~atd59 Atd59 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

consistent usage of author's name

The articel is inconsistent in the usage of the name of the author. In section 'Symbolism', he's first referred to by the pseudonym Carrol, but later repeatedly by his actual name Dodgson. (I'd suggest using Dodgson, as he was working under that name as as mathematician.) Same issue under 'Illustrations', plus we've got an inconsistency considering the first print: was it Dodgson or Tenniel who was objecting the distribution of the first print (see: 'Publication history')? Botanischwili (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Carroll, not Carrol. 24.90.104.148 (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The inconsistency has not been repaired. Zaslav (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Use Image-Copperplate of Mouse's Tail?

Is this suitable to use? http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/LargeImage.aspx?image=http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d46325/d4632544x.jpg Slightnostalgia (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"New Math"

There was a rather jarring thread to the article implying that Dodgeson was railing against developments in mathematics while writing Alice in Wonderland. I don't doubt that some literary critics might be able to get a paper or two published following this approach, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic source. Here are some examples indicating why this theory is anachronistic:

• Melanie Bayley claims that that imaginary numbers were a "new and controversial" topic when Dodgson was writing. Imaginary numbers are actually ancient, and become finally widely accepted after the work of Euler and Gauss in the 1700s. By the time Dodgson studied math, around 1850, imaginary numbers had been everyday tools for mathematicians for about a century.
• Similarly, Bayley and the Wikipedia editors seem to imply some uneasiness on Dodgson's part with modular arithmetic, which again was centuries old by the time Dodgson was writing, and was put in essentially its modern and entirely uncontroversial form in 1801.

In general, the ideas Dodgson was supposed to have been reacting against in mathematics, were all very well established before he was born in 1832. Dodgson may have had issues with the manner in which these topics were taught to students, or with the writing styles of some mathematicians as being insufficiently rigorous. But certainly neither the topics themselves, nor their internal consistency, were controversial. There were controversial issues in mathematics during Dodgson's lifetime, but they were almost entirely published at the end of his life after the 1865 publication of Alice in Wonderland. The most notable of these would have been Cantor's theorem (published in 1891) and Cantor's work on infinity more generally.

Additionally, the Wikipedia article claimed that Alice's inability to remember her multiplication tables was some sort of coded discussion of radices or number bases. This reading has no mathematical merit to it whatsoever, as you can in most cases "read" an incorrect multiplication as a multiplication in another base. For example, you get get 4*5 = 12, 4*5 = 13, 4*5 = 11 or (nearly) whatever you like by reinterpreting the base. You can also reinterpret these multiplications as multiplications in finite number rings with similar absurd-looking results. However, this reading is a tremendous reach with no textual justification. In fact, the paragraph containing the multiplication explicitly mentions that she is having difficulty remembering facts of all sorts. Her multiplication table is one thing she misremembers. She also misremembers London as the capital of Paris, and Paris as the capital of Rome. She also has trouble remembering the verse to several poems throughout the book. Given all this, the interpretation in the Wikipedia article is, at best, extremely suspect and should not be included without the support of a source explicitly mentioning that Dodgson had such things in mind when he wrote the book.2601:6:5480:15A5:4C40:D00B:FF5C:88F4 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

more references tag

I have just included a more references tag to the top of the article as there appears to be guite a lot of ureferenced statements throughout the article. I could be WP:BOLD and clean these out of the article but would rather have more experienced editors look into this. thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland (1951)

In 1951, Walt Disney Animation Studios was still called Walt Disney Productions. Dragon'sLair83 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016

Add the following to songs inspired by this topic: Alice in Wonder Underground(アリス イン ワンダー アンダーグラウンド) is the twenty-sixth single released by the Japanese Rock band Buck Tick, released on August 8, 2007

Bodoglimt (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 08:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Figure for distance

Admittedly this is not exactly a core feature of the article, but replacing an incorrect figure with a correct figure is an improvement. It is not a "nuanced argument". ----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mathematician and/or author?

'Confusing' was perhaps not the best word. But he's known to most of us as the author of the Alice books, not as a mathematician, though an important one, so 'author' should precede 'mathematician'. Rothorpe (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of muddying the waters, I have to say I see Zaslav's point. It's a bit of a circular argument to say that Dodgson is an author because he is known as the author of the Alice books; whereas identifying him as a mathematician is both correct (that was his primary profession) and more revealing. I write this aware that more often I find myself agreeing with Rothorpe in editing matters. Alfietucker (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I support changing this to "mathematician". After all, do we need to be told that a book was written by the person who wrote the book (should be able to work in "authored the book" there somewhere). Dodgson was first and foremost a mathematician, who wrote a couple of very famous fantasy stories. Well, what Alfie said. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see 'mathematician' mentioned at all in the leads of Through the Looking Glass, Hunting of the Snark, etc. Rothorpe (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead of Lewis Carroll, which is what we would expect. And if this sentence refers to Dodgson as a "mathematician", which is accurate, since it was his paid occupation from his polymath range of activities, then there will be a mention in this lead. And anyway, this is an odd objection: "Other stuff exists" or whateveritis. And surely AAiW was his first published writing (except perhaps mathematical papers?); making him even more of a mathematician. You could argue that when he wrote "Hunting of the Snark" he really was a "writer" by that stage. Well, I just think it's silly to have three occurrences of [WRITE] (that's "semantics") in the sentence... if someone argued that he should be called an "English polymath" for example, that would be a reasonable possibility. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, as this was his literary debut and his most famous work, I suppose it reads appropriately. Rothorpe (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, 'mathematician' seems too much of a biographical detail for the lead. How about omitting it, leaving Dodgson without any qualification? It's not as if this is an obscure work requiring intricate identification. And Carroll is perhaps better known just as a don than as a mathematical one. Rothorpe (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

i have just reverted Zaslav's edit to "author" as this discussion has not reached consenus, that said, i agree that the lead does not necessarily need to include this detail, author or mathematician, the reference does not state either way being a list of books with title and writer(author) only. WP:LEAD, also says "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.", could saying he was a mathematician in the lead of this article be seen as a teaser for a lot of readers who don't know this about Dodgson, or an author for those that do? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The reasons I put "mathematician" for "author" are two: "author" has no information content, since the book is already said to be written by him, and (more importantly) the fact that Carroll was a mathematician is very relevant to the way he wrote his literary works. I was not intending a teaser, but providing important information for understanding his special humor. Besides, his profession was that of a mathematician. His other work, literary and photographic (he was an expert photographer), was his hobby. It seems fair to put him in context as a mathematician by profession who wrote some literary works, three of which are famous. The one useless word "author" being changed to "mathematician" takes care of all that without making a big deal about it. Why this is objectionable is not clear to me. The relevance of what other articles about his works say is also not clear; if they must all say the same things, they can all say he was a mathematician. Zaslav (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As a I pointed out above, calling him an "author" is not merely redundant, it is actually wrong (except in the trivial sense that anyone, including me, who writes anything is an "author"), since he was first and foremost a mathematics don. But then Coolabahapple above quotes MOS (I take his word for it that this is what it says): the lead must not "teas[e] the reader or hint[] at content that follows". What on earth does this mean? How can you write anything without some lawyer being able to claim that you are "hinting at content that follows"? The fact that Dodgson was a mathematician is quite central to understanding the commentary on the book: why was Martin Gardner known mainly as a writer on mathematics and an expert on Alice? Read the second paragraph under "Symbolism"... it is all about him being a mathematician. How much more evidence is needed? I think I have just understood the comment above about "a list of books"... this is the "BBC list of books"? I think this is absurd. The article on "Paris" does not need a reference on the end of the first sentence ("Paris is the capital of France") to a "BBC list of European capitals": I would like to remove this reference, since it adds nothing. Will the lawyers let me? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Imaginatorium, for explaining in great detail why "author" is inappropriate in this lede.

As for the "list", I agree. But I don't see that list mentioned now. Zaslav (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the "list" reference -- as I understand it the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and as such does not normally need citations, so I think the other two should also go: they are totally general articles, one cited as "p. 1 ff" [sic]. I also think that in the disputed sentence, the best way to describe Dodgson would be "mathematics don" -- full, not overelaborate, and also not "surprising" to anyone who knew he was a don, but not that he was a mathematician. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I never heard of a "mathematics don". He was a mathematician and a don. The most relevant fact, in terms of the book, is that he was a mathematician (and logician). The humor is very mathematical and logical. That he was a don is not very relevant except to how he wound up taking a boat trip with the Liddell sisters. What people know of him is not the point; an encyclopedia is supposed to educate them with relevant and significant information. Zaslav (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Since no objections have been raised to the most recent posts that agree about "mathematician", I have changed "author" to "mathematician". I ask anyone who objects to give reasons here and await discussion rather than simply reverting. Thank you. Zaslav (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

1985 TV version

The cheapo 1985 British TV version is not mentioned here, is it? (IMDB YouTube) Iago2¹² 13:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Irving Berlin and Puttin' on the Ritz

Would it be notable to put Irving Berlin's Alice in Wonderland from Puttin' On the Ritz (1930) as an adaptation or is it too short?--2606:A000:7D44:100:3195:44BD:6D9E:9DE4 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

manuscripts

Please improve the article with more information about the history and current ownership/locations of the original manuscripts.-71.174.175.199 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

surviving copies of intact first UK printing

• www.christies.com/features/Alices-Adventures-in-Wonderland-7350-3.aspx

June 7, 2016

Books specialist Francis Wahlgren on a remarkable true first edition published in 1865 — one of only 23 surviving copies

"Working with renowned illustrator John Tenniel of Punch magazine, Lewis Carroll developed the elements of the story into this book. Three years later, during June 1865, the first edition was printed with the intention to have Macmillan & Co. of London publish it on 4 July 1865. Lewis Carroll requested 50 advance copies to give away. A few days later Carroll heard from Tenniel that he was ‘entirely dissatisfied with the printing of the pictures.’ Carroll withdrew the entire edition of 2000 and asked for the advance copies he had sent to be returned."

"‘Seeing an 1865 Alice is a very special thing,’ Wahlgren continues. ‘There are only 23 surviving copies, of which all but five are in public institutions.’ This edition has remained remarkably intact over the intervening 150 years since its publication, and still features its original binding, binder’s ticket and title page. ‘It has the original integrity which any collector really values,’ Wahlgren adds. It is one of ten surviving copies still in original red cloth, only two of which are in private hands, the other described as ‘heavily worn’."

This source says that not all of the original 1865 UK print+binding actually were deconstructed/destroyed, and that about 23 "true" first editions still survive, in some form. Some of this information and/or link to this source should be added to the article?-71.174.175.199 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dodgson or Carroll? Carroll or Tenniel?

Shouldn't the article stick to one name, at least within the same paragraph?...

"The manuscript was illustrated by Dodgson himself who added 37 illustrations—printed in a facsimile edition in 1887.[9] John Tenniel provided 42 wood engraved illustrations for the published version of the book. The first print run was destroyed (or sold to the United States[31]) at Carroll's request because he was dissatisfied with the quality."

Also the "Publication History" section contradicts this explanation of who requested the 1st run be destroyed.

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Beautiful Soup"

I'll take the article's word for it that the song is a parody of Sayles but I'll just mention that it pretty much fits the melody of Stephen Foster's "Beautiful Dreamer" as well. Don G Taylor (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Expansion of Carroll?

Is it time to try and expand the articles on the major Carroll canon? Notability is obvious, as is a vast corpus of commentary on the works, so there's no shortage of sourcing. But as it is, we have little here on the content of the works and the themes within them. We have articles on the songs and a list for the characters (although many of those were reduced, merged or lost a few years back [10]).

There are two big omissions here. We have no per-chapter articles. We don't describe the narrative of the books, to anything more than a sentence per chapter. A gaping hole for our readers.

We have no interpretation of the themes involved. The content we have is mostly unsourced, or trivially sourced to the text itself. For good WP:OR reasons, that then limits the amount we can say or explain (to the point that our articles are barely any better than an unguided reading of the text). However commentary upon Carroll is enormous – whole academic careers have been built upon it. As a quick [sic] taster, read Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach. We could build a FA-level article on each chapter (with effort), there's that much out there to work from.

Partly what inspired this was creating a redir for all must have prizes and it's now speedied because we have nowhere to target it. That's a recognisable, contemporary expression lifted straight from Wonderland, pure invention by Carroll, and we don't even have enough content to point to it as a simple quote. That's a pretty big failing on our part.

Anyone interested? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Carroll or Dodgson?

This article seems to be quite inconsistent on the use of the author's name.

Carroll began writing the manuscript of the story the next day, although that earliest version is lost. The girls and Dodgson took another boat trip a month later, when he elaborated the plot to the story of Alice, and in November he began working on the manuscript in earnest.

I wish to gain some consensus on whether instances of Carroll or Dodgson be changed to the same one. I believe Dodgson should be primarily used, following many articles about people with pseudonyms. May I also draw people's attention to MOS:NAMES. Thanks. Liam2520 11:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink to Carina Garland

@Gabriella MNT: The Garland mentioned in this article is the same person as the Garland who just got elected as an Australian MP, so I've undid your edit. See this article - as it's paywalled, here's the relevant quote:

Former academic, Victorian Trades Hall assistant secretary and Chisholm candidate Carina Garland wrote a journal article on “Gender, Desire, and Subjectivity in Lewis Carroll’s Alice Texts”, ­arguing that Carroll used his much-loved children’s books, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, to “revile” female sexuality and “idealise” female passivity.

--LivelyRatification (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Q: "Why is a raven like writing desk?" A: "They both have quills." The question was asked in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" in 1865. I came up that answer 50 years ago, but people still ask the question. 161.97.246.51 (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)