Talk:Karoline Leach

Objectivity/Tone

The text obviously favours Leach and her theories; the dramatic anti-Leach statements have no citation, but the pro-Leach quotes do. Article makes no reference to what Leach actually claims. Scholars such as Cohen are dismissed without cause. I cut the phrase 'there have been no systematic rebuttals' - they abound. Leach is a theorist and should be portrayed as such.--128.36.43.176 07:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No mention of WHY Cohen, et al. dispute Leach, or even what Leach claims; their reasoning is just as valid as the laudatory quotes.--72.93.4.159 19:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

At best, still treads a very fine line on NPOV - we should see the grounds on which Cohen, etc. dismiss Leach, rather than just having the fact, and then seeing it countered with a bunch of specific praise. As said above, Leach is a theorist. This is not a case of the Carroll 'establishment' simply not liking what she has to say - there are legitimate questions about many of her sources. I'm not the person to write about this, but someone should. --Viledandy 16:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cohen doesn't seem to have produced any specific factual refutation of any of her points. I have looked and can't find anything beyond generalisations. --PathogenicResponse 00:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this bit: "However, the book's critics have without exception avoided specifics or resorted to wholesale misrepresentation; there has been no genuine refutation. ". This is clearly the personal opinion of whoever added the sentence, and as such has no place here. The link was to a page on Michael Leach's website. I'm in two minds about whether Michael Leach's responses to Karoline Leach's critics should be referred to in this encyclopaedia article. He is not a well-known Carrollian scholar, as Cohen and Gardner are. I've tried Googling for more about him, but he seems to be virtually unknown - apart from on his own website. -- Oliver P. (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not opinion, it is fact. There has been misrepresentation and this is quite clearly demonstrated in the article in question, which incidentally (and ironically given your concern for abusolute factual accuracy) does not appear on my personal website but at lewiscarroll.cc. Why not consult the source and see whether it is accurate before dismissing it?

And maybe the critic's renown isn't the only criterion for factual accuracy. This isn't the place for it, but I can if necessary supply you with a list of errors and factual inaccuracies in both Cohen and Gardner's scholarship. Let me know if you can do the same for me.Mikeindex (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, are you or are you not Michael Leach? And do you or do you not run lewiscarroll.cc? It doesn't really matter, but I like to know who I'm talking to. Anyway, the level of factual accuracy in Michael Leach's criticisms is beside the point. This is an encyclopaedia entry, not a forum to promote personal views, however factually accurate those views may be. A fact should only be included in an encyclopaedia entry if it can be found in independently published sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Oliver P. (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am Michael Leach, and I have no part whatsoever in the running of lewiscarroll.cc. You are entirely wromg to describe it as 'my' site and totally unjustified in jumping to that conclusion. I guess whether or not this 'matters' depends on your attitude to factual accuracy, which we now know.

Thank you at least for one of the most treasurable quotes I have ever encountered. "The level of factual accuracy ... is beside the point. This is an encyclopaedia entry." Priceless.

By the way, opinions are not factually accurate or otherwise. This is what makes them opinions. Statements of fact are factually accurate or otherwise, and my reference to the critics' misrepresentation of Karoline Leach's work was a statement of fact which can be verified by reference to the source supplied. Surely this should be of more importance than the unverifiable question of whether or not the same person wrote the sentence here and the cited article.

But I'm not going to waste my time on some silly edit war, so enjoy your little victory.Mikeindex (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my misunderstanding about who was behind the website. The words "by Michael Leach" were prominently displayed on the page linked to, and I could not see any editorial disclaimer, stating, "The views expressed are those of Michael Leach and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors," as I would expect in such a situation, and I could not see any other person credited on the site. However, if it is not your site, then the confusion it caused is not your fault, of course.

As for the main issue, what you need to understand about Wikipedia is that factual accuracy is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. An item included in an article also needs to be verifiable and presented from a neutral point of view. Your claim of what Karoline Leach's critics are, "without exception", guilty of is neither verifiable (as it would not even be possible to draw up a list of her critics and know that it was complete) nor neutral (as the critics themselves would no doubt hold a different opinion). -- Oliver P. (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Nationality

Re the recent mini-edit war: 'English' is incorrect on three counts: a) 'British' is technically correct as the United Kingdom, not England, is the nation-state; b) KL's ancestry is not primarily English; c) 'British' is her personal preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeindex (talk • contribs) 10:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK is a state, but it is not a nation state, i.e. a state consisting of a single nation. The UK consists of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (or Ulster). Five if you count Cornwall. --86.135.81.194 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

photo

Would AS please stop adding the second pic! It's grainy, over-enlarged and totally superfluous. I'm the webmaster of KL's website, the image loaded right now (klmon) is the only one approved for use anyway. --FrockmakerNYC (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:KLmon.png isn't a clear enough portrait of Leach's face. It looks like it was shot for MySpace. Image:Karoline Leach.jpg is in the public domain, so no one needs to approve it for our use. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT in the public domain. The guy who uploaded it is a troll we've had trouble with. --FrockmakerNYC (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth Date

I added her birth date in parenthesis next to her name at the beginning of the article. Not sure why is wasn't there before. TripOnMyShip (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it was in the following paragraph? (Not difficult to spot)Mikeindex (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we need two separate articles?

They would work better merged. Talk: In the Shadow of the Dreamchild. Rothorpe (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Although they cover a lot of the same material, both are separately notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Two links to Carroll myth removed as vandalism

...as currently linking to pornographic webcam adverts. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What actually is the "Caroll Myth"?

I do not particularily care about this topic, but reading the several paragraphs that mention it do not leave me any wiser what it is. If it can be explained briefly, it probably should. Toxide (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)