A couple of days ago another contributor initiated a discussion at: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of naked children. In that discussion I brought up the history of the rumors about Dodgson, and went on to suggest that some of the images Dodgson took, taken out of context, might trigger some concerns, for some people. I suggested we should continue to make those images available, nevertheless, because it was more important to show all of the surviving Dodgson photos in context, so readers could make up their own minds.
Because the decision may be made to remove the images I spoke about I am recording the names of the five most likely to be deleted here: File:Alice Liddell 2.jpg, File:Hatch, Beatrice (Lewis Carroll, 30.07.1873).jpg, File:Hatch, Evelyn (Lewis Carroll, 29.07.1879).jpg, File:Hatch, Evelyn as a gypsy (Lewis Carroll, 29.07.1879).jpg and File:Henderson Annie and Frances (Lewis Carroll, 07.1879).jpg.
I have done so because it is one of hte weaknesses of the category system that deleted files don't show up in any kind of history of the category, unless one takes explicit steps -- as I am doing here.
Could you please explain...Edit
Could you please explain why Category:Pedophilia was added to Category:Photographs of children by Lewis Carroll. Yes, I know some commentators have been willing to describe Carroll, or Charles Dodgson, to use his birth name, as a pedophile. He was a single guy, who did like to take photographs of children -- including some children posed in a state of partial undress.
From what I have read this kind of posing was a fad, one that is vulnerable to misinterpretation. In the early days of photography there were no "action shots". Photographic subjects had to sit still, or stand still, and pose long enough for the relatively primitive light sensitive emulsions to be properly exposed. And one fad was for photographers and subjects to agree to pose in costumes in "tableauxs", from classical mythology, classical fairy-tales, or long-established folk-lore. Otherwise conventional Victorian-era individuals, who would normally never appear with naked ankles, without bustles and corset, would agree to pose in relatively undressed states, when in costumes they imagined ancient greeks dressed.
From what I have read there is no evidence that Dodgson exploited any children, used them for sexual gratification.
Back in December 2009 I listed a few images that were in this category that I thought might trigger a concern the subjects weren't sufficiently dressed. Dodgson is a very important figure in world literature, world culture. Even if, for the sake of argument, the handful of Dodgson's photos that show children in a state of partial or complete undress were a focus of interest of genuine pedophiles I think these images should be retained, because serious readers need access to these images in order to reach their own informed conclusion as to whether this subset of his images justifies suspicion that he was a pedophile.
- I'm conscious that it can be seen as an anachronism to state a connection between Carroll (who died 1898) and the term of paedophilia (which was firstly instituted as a nosological term in 1886). But there are many evidences that Carroll (Dodgson) several times fell in love with little girls and that he liked especially them. That's why he is often named as an example (almost an archetype) of a (non-criminal) pedophile – even as the first, most known and most doubtless example. That's no accusation and no speculation but an apparent psychological fact (although it is incompatible with the now most popular but incorrect meaning of the word "pedophilia"). I also suppose that Dodgson never exploited any child. Only some of pedophiles abuse children, and only lesser part of child sexual abuses is committed by pedophiles. The purpose of categorization system is to help to seek photos related to certain topic. Also the theme of pedophilia needs to ilustrate all its aspects. And because Dodgson was a very well-rounded personality, it's purposeful to categorize such way only such subcategories which have reference to his personal relationships to children. --ŠJů (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
pettifogging, defamatory and unfairEdit
Children at these photographs (only photographs!) are dressed as nuns.
Adding categories about pedophilia is very pettifogging, defamatory and unfair. If someone so desperately wants, then add that category to the paintings. Only paintings. Void what was the psyche of Lewis Carroll or the story of his life. This category collects photographs by subject. All dressed up. --Starscream (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Category "pedophilia" means "pedophilia", not "undressed children" not even something pettifogging, defamatory or unfair. The word "pedophilia" has nothing to do with clothing or nakedness. No doubt that categories of abstract concepts (which require rather manifestations and symbols because a positive depiction of abstractum is impossible) are more problematic than categories of concrete things. But there is no rational doubt that Carroll was a (noncriminal) pedophile and that his work (literary and especially photographical and pictorial) is an immediate manifestation of his real love for little girls (expertly said, his pedophilia). --ŠJů (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Pedofilia is perception of the children are the primary or exclusive sexual object of sex drive. And nothing. Does anyone if the photographs of animals and says: "I like animals", it means that a zoophile? Can get such a request, reading your words. 100% absurd. Everybody children love cats and dogs. This is very scary. Slandering of millions people who love children, but they are 100% innocent. It is very terrible. I love architecture. I often photograph architecture. What is it called my sexual perversion? --Starscream (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)