Talk:Cottingley Fairies

Untitled

According to this page, the picture was actually taken June 1917, rather than the July 1916 stated there. SD6-Agent 00:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fairy Proof and Truth

The interesting thing about the Cottingley Fairies is they are an anomaly. When nature can do something, then it does it often when presented those proper conditions. There should be a lot more photographs of fairies. The images are fake, and without more evidence, then the images will remain fake. On a final point, the Cottingley Fairies were drawn by someone who had excellent drawing skills, or knew some trick of photography.

They were copied from book illustrations. --Hob Gadling 17:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not an interesting thing, it's just common with hoaxes and crap that isn't real. Interesting would be if this wasn't such an obvious con. Even in it's day the vast majority of people saw through it for the crap it was. Seriously, who can believe faeries aren't discovered or found by expert naturalists, but by little girls who stumble on them. The same people who can't wrap their heads around U.F.O.'s not being found by expert scientists, but they believe every drunk Redneck that has a story of seeing one. That's who. Their will always be gullible people who want to believe in something. Let's just hope they don't breed too prolifically [Monday, 2007-01-15 T 23:53 UTC] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Another thing is that in all the photographs (especially the third), the faeries are all drastically sharper than the girls or the background. As a result, the third and second photos look more realistic than the others. In the one with the faerie offering flowers to Elsie, not only are the flowers unusually tiny, but the expression on Elsie's face looks false, like she is acting.

Trust me. I'm an actor myself. When Elsie admitted that ALL the photos were hoaxes, Frances said that the final one was a real one. How confusing. ~~A user who does not wish to be named~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.114.217 (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright

It is worth noting the information containeed here -http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/photos/cottingley.html and here http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/cottingley_fairy_copyright_question/ Jooler 09:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"The re-touched versions of the pictures that are most commonly used today make the fairies look like paper cutouts, having a flat appearance, with lighting that does not match the rest of the photograph. Even the waterfall in the background appears to be taken at a slower shutter-speed than the fairies, which are sharp and clear. When viewing the original prints, however, the case becomes less clear."

This is ridiculous. It's a transparent attempt to say that the pictures aren't fake. Is there a source for the claim that the original photos look less fake than the retouched ones? (A modern source, that is--the contemporary assessments of the photos are not considered accurate nowadays.) Is there even a source for the claim that there are any retouched photos? Ken Arromdee 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

- is it? I took it as an explanation of why it wasn't dismissed as a hoax outright. Which is an interesting question: what lead to the significant belief in the authenticity of the photos? If the claim is true (I have no idea) it is an important piece of information. WilyD 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone give a source for the claim about the originals not looking like obvious hoaxes, and an experienced photographer saying that they had moved? PatGallacher 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read: all the photographs are retouched (likely to deal with the fact that they tended to be either over or under exposed). Of course, only one print from the original negative still exists, and it's in terrible condition, so it's pretty much unprovable as to how different the original prints are from the shots that everyone is familiar with. ([1] for a picture of the print in question.) As to the movement claim: Cottingley Connect ([2], same site as that print) contains what is supposed to be a quote from a letter of Snelling's on July 31, 1920, which contains the movement claim. (Although the quote differs from the one in this entry, which means that it's either a different source, or that at least one of the quotes isn't valid.) 156.34.221.174 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not beat around the bush. If we are going to claim that the fairies look like cutouts because of retouching, we might as well just come out and say that the photos everyone circulates are doctored in order to make real photos look like a hoax. All of the weaselly, unsourced passive voice stuff ("it is believed that") really contributes to the spin factor in this article. 65.87.169.2 17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

eh? I think the point is that it provides an explanation as to why they where believed so widely at the time; because of the lighting issues etc in the originals. --Krsont 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The opinion that the originals are different is not neccessarily notable. If it comes from a personal website or forum it should not be here, but if it is an opinion expressed by a published source, it should be sourced. Basically none of this article is sourced, despite external links.66.41.66.213 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a hoax as well. The photos circulated over the Internet definitely make the fairies look fake. However, I looked at a book printed in the 1970s which showed some of the Cottingley fairy photos. What's interesting is that in that book, they must have used an original clipping from the magazine mentioned in the article because the fairies look almost real. I'll try and explain, in the photos on the Internet, they look like cardboard cutouts but in the book I looked at, the photos appeared to be under exposed (not enough contrast). To me, this made the fairies look like they were real and "glowing". Marmalade7777 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Much of this page is very interesting, especially if true. Various websites have different accounts of which girl said which photograph was faked.Not all of these can be true, and the info here may have come from one of those, not a published source. Likely much of the article is accurate and verifiable, but being that this is a subject of folklore, which is chimeral by nature, much of this article is likely contrary to authoratative published sources on such facts as the condition of the originals, etcetera. 66.41.66.213 18:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The confession by both of the women

You can find the full confession of both of the girls (now deceased) on youtube. Type "Fadas de Cottingley - Confissão" for the search criteria.

Wording

Please see my comment at Talk:Fairy#Wording, which applies to this article, as well as the other. - dcljr (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

hint of a POV tone?

As others above have noted, this article reads as though the authors actually believe (or want) the photos to be real. This is not the place for that kind of fantastic bunk. --A Good Anon 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. The article tries to make alot of excuses for the fact this was a hoax. It isn't written trying to explain why it was believed, it's written like it should actually still be believed, which is rediculous. [Monday, 2007-01-15 T 23:53 UTC] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Magazine articles

The Unexplained magazine articles referenced in the article can be found in the book Incredible Phenomena - (editor: Peter Brookesmith ISBN 0-85613-623-9), pp124-140 (article authors Joe Cooper and Fred Gettings). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

All of them? I was just going to say that some ISBNs are needed, but if that's true, that solves that. --InShaneee 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Coming of the Fairies

My school library actually has a copy of this book, so I have some time, I'll check it out and try to expand that section of the article. Zagalejo 20:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Doyle: The Unexplained mag articles say that Doyle defended the photographs for family reasons - his father was in a psychiatric hospital for claiming to see fairies, so Doyle perhaps felt that by proving fairies to be real he could get him released. But, of course, we need some evidence of this. Totnesmartin 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's interesting. I'll look into that. I'm still on winter break, so I haven't been to my school library yet, but I hope to make some substantial contributions to this article soon. Zagalejo 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I'm still here. I'm kind of sidetracked with other projects right now, so it might be a while before I actually get started on this. Just wanted to let people know... Zagalejo 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

References added

• added some References if anyone wanted to use them in the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues

This article has some significant problems, some of the language is very inappropriate an almost seems as it if was copied from an external source. There was a lot of "what it really a hoax?" type stuff, which it inappropriate for a wikipedia article and reads like a tabloid. It seems to have a lot of original research much of which is uncited, which further implies that it may be copied from other sources. I've trimmed off a lot of the poor language but the article is still stuck with some of it and needs a re-write in my opinion SGGH ^speak! 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as per MoS, wikilinking every day words like grammar school and cousin is unnecessary. I've culled a lot of the original research but there is undoubtedly a lot left. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a sensationalist magazine article. SGGH ^speak! 10:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Copyvio

Please see this version: [3] and note the "Captions" section, where it mentions pictures that were never in the article. Also notice the mention of "page 65". This was obviously a cut and paste job that should have been immediately reverted but wasn't. I recommend taking the article back to [4] which is just before the first edit of the plagiarizer: [5]

P.S. And seriously, any time you see someone add a huge amount of text all at once...just revert it. 99.9 percent of the time, someone is cut and pasting from non GFDL-compatible content. 70.20.175.189 05:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Most reproduced?

"Her photograph with the dancing fairies has been described as the most reproduced photo in history..."

I've heard the exact same claim made about the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima. What's the source for claiming this is? Was the claim supported at a time, but not any more? Or is the claim just a subjective guess (precise figures are probably nearly impossible to track, but one can make an estimate based on how often the photo is seen). If a notable source claims this, that should be cited... and if more sources disagree than agree on this assertion, than it should be presented as a minority view. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

British Journal of Photography

"In 1978, it was found some of the fairies resemble drawings in the 1914 book Princess Mary's Gift Book" - I recollect a series of articles in the BJP about these photographs, around this time, by their technical expert, Geoffrey Crawley. I wouldn't dare to trust my memory after so many years, but they were thorough, detailed and unbiased. Concluded they were obviously paper cutouts and identified the source. Could someone look up this sort of thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.174.155 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Move proposed

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Cottingley fairies → Cottingley Fairies — It's a proper noun, and what they're called in the literature. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

comments

Good stuff. "As an enthusiastic and committed Spiritualist, Conan Doyle hoped that if the photographs convinced people of the existence of fairies, then they might more readily accept the truth of other psychic phenomena" - I had to read it twice to check who "they might" referred to - the fairies, the photographs, or the people. There's nothing grammatically wrong with it but it might benefit from being simplified.

Is the house they lived in at the time still there? A photograph might be nice. I do love the cynicism of some of the writers - "For the true explanation of these fairy photographs what is wanted is not a knowledge of occult phenomena but a knowledge of children" - imagine how useless some here would feel when faced with such pointed insults as that :) Parrot of Doom 09:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The house is the end terrace, number 31, here Parrot of Doom 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The house is obviously a rather unremarkable end of terrace, but I've found a photograph on geograph of the beck where Fances and Elsie said they saw the fairies; I'll add that. Malleus Fatuorum 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The clip from the Antiques Roadshow is on YouTube here - there is also a clip of the confession by the two sisters. There is a picture of the beck taken by one of the daughters on the AR clip but there don't seem to be any buildings at the place where she took the photo - it looks a much better place for fairies than the one from geograph:) I remember seeing a TV programme some years ago about this and, if I remember correctly, the reason why it was exposed as a fake was because a reporter found the original glass plate negatives and realised they had been enhanced before publication. He said that where the fairies appeared in the photos the plates had been rubbed so that the fairies appeared to glow slightly and looked more "etherial". He confronted one of the sisters about this and that was when she confessed. Richerman (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at that later. It was Geoffrey Crawley who pointed out the photographic plates– or copies of them– had been enhanced, in the early 1980s, but the women had confessed to Joe Cooper before Crawley's 10-part series was printed in the British Journal of Photography. There was never any suspicion that the girls had produced enhanced versions of the glass plates, that was done quite openly by Edward Gardner, so he could have better quality prints to show and sell at his Theosophical Society lectures. In fact, Crawley never met or interviewed either Frances or Elsie, much less confront them. I honestly think that Frances and Elsie just got fed up with being mithered about the photographs after all those years. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean the girls had enhanced the pictures - he said it had been done by a professional for publication. Obviously my memory of the other bit is faulty. One of the daughters says in the AR clip that her mother confessed to her after she was told that her cousin had confessed to her own son. There's an interesting article online here that looks well researched. BTW is it OK to have external links to YouTube? - there were a number of interesting films about the 1996 Manchester bombing as well Richerman (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a copyright issue with linking to YouTube, but I'm no expert. I'm missing just one piece of the puzzle now I think; why it was that that Elsie claimed she'd taken the fifth photograph and it was a fake just like all the rest, but Frances died believing that she'd taken it, and that it was authentic. I believe that Crawley's opinion was that the plate had been double exposed, so in fact both girls had taken the shot, but at different times. Can't find a reliable source for this though, and I'm very reluctant to fork out for a reprint of Crawley's 10-part series. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the letter from Elsie to Crawley here? It looks like my memory wasn't totally wrong :) Richerman (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a fascinating letter, presumably the first page of the one mentioned here. Crawley sold his collection of Cottingley Fairy stuff to the National Media Museum in Bradford, where the letter presumably still is now. Anyone got any good connections at the museum? Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this website "this last seeming controversy was quickly given a logical explaination by none other than Geoffrey Crawley. In a letter to the Times on April 9, 1983". If someone has access to to The Times archive they may be able to find it. Richerman (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We all have access to The Times archive here in God's own country, so long as we belong to a public library. Thanks for the pointer. I'll have a look. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that - I'll have to dig out that library card :) Richerman (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's definitely there - I can see the preview. How do you get access with a library card? - they only tell you about the payment options on the website. Richerman (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your library. With Manchester libraries, for instance, you stick "MAN" in front of your library card number. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me towards The Times archive Richerman, that's rounded the story off nicely I think. My work here is done. I only turned up to do enough to justify losing the ugly tags. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, a fine bit of detective work on your part Holmes - glad to be of some small assistance. Richerman (talk) aka Dr. Watson 01:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FA nomination

Hi ya'll i was just looking through this article and it looks really could does any one think it be FA material? Just asking as Drive-by noms are not my thing.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you that it's a suitable candidate and I've no doubt it would soon end up as a front page article, but the nominator needs to do a lot of work to jump through all the hoops at the FA review. The person who got it up to this standard is Malleus (see above) who has a lot of experience of FA reviews but he said a couple of days ago that he wasn't willing to put this one forward at the moment, so unless he changes his mind or someone else decides to do it I don't think it's likely to happen anytime soon. Richerman (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind someone else putting it forwards at FAC, but I don't have the enthusiasm for it myself right now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh bugger it. In for a penny, in for a pound. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Include Doyle's book (1922) as an External link?

Would it be good to put Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Coming of Fairies as an External link? I know Malleus has used the reprint (2006) as a source, but I am talking about the original 1922 copy. There are some opinions above that people believe the photos because the images were "over/under-exposed" and hence give an ethereal impression, rather than the "sharp, distinct" paper-like cutouts in later reprints. Well... the 1922 book certainly show the photos to be of the same (or near) quality as those used in this article, and since the book was published in 1922, Doyle certainly saw those photos as we see them. Anyhow, the books also has photos of Garnder, the girls, other locations, and a purported fairy photograph from Canada. I think these, plus Doyle's text, could prove to be good additional reading material to readers that could not be in the article (because of length concern or otherwise). Agreed? Jappalang (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.archive.org/details/comingoffairies00doylrich
• http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028957599

I'd certainly have no objection to that, seems like a reasonable idea to me. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added the link.[6] Jappalang (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ontological conundrum

Fairies do not exist. The Cottingley fairies do not exist, and never have existed. That, surely, is the whole point of the eventual confession. How can that which does not exist "appear in a series of five photographs"? (Opening sentence of the article)

Suggest The Cottingley Fairies were images that featured in a series of five photographs taken by... Kevin McE (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a bit tortured to me. I think the lead is perfectly correct, whether or not you believe that fairies exist, have ever existed, or whatever you believe the Cottingley Fairies to have been: they "appear in a series of five photographs taken by Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths" whatever they are. Who are we to make judgements about what does or does not exist? Our job is merely to report the facts in as neutral a way as possible. In fact, Frances died believing that the fifth photograph of the fairies was genuine. I may think that's unlikely, you may think that's unlikely, but it's not our place to judge. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom states that it contains a unicorn. It doesn't get into a lot of detail about how the unicorn is a mythical beast. And with this fairies article, I claim the OP has it wrong. Fairies do exist. They're made of cardboard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one clearly seeing cardboard fairies?

Ive seen the pictures for the first time in a book years ago, and the one thing that keeps baffling me is not the fairies, but how someone could take this pictures for real. All photos (except for double exposed No. 5) have definitely a comic look, the fairies look pretty much like cartoon characters pasted into the picture, just like roger rabbit and similar movies. You definitely would expect different shadows on the fairies if dolls had been used instead of paper cutouts. So, am I the only one in the whole world with eyes good enough not to take the pictures for real in the first place? Or is it that people back then were not that much used to photography and cartoons (first cartoons like Gertie the Dinosaure were already made at that time) to see it? --89.15.228.146 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article you'll see that many at the time, perhaps even most, were unconvinced, including Ilford and Sir Oliver Lodge, who were both quite certain that the photographs had been faked. But you have to bear in mind the Spiritualist and Theosophical movements that were so popular at the time. As the girls said later in their lives, some people just wanted to believe. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There are countless cases of the public being duped by apparent "evidence" that turned out to be fake, but it filled a "need" so it was believed by some or many. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

These are well-done fakes, but it does seem odd that anyone was fooled by them. One key element of the argument was that two young girls wouldn't be clever enough to fake something like this using such advanced technology, which sounds like an absurd argument today. These were in fact ingenious young ladies who knew how to operate the cameras of their day. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We can only report what the sources say, and they were different times. It's quite clear that Elsie's father thought right from the start that the girls had faked the photographs in some way, he just didn't know how they'd done it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

name usage

As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names, "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only." Therefore, in this article, where it says Elsie it should say Wright, and where it says Frances it should say Griffiths. The choice to use first names here may have been made because for part of the story, Wright and Griffiths are not yet adults. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia entry, and surnames need to be used. Are there any objections to making this change? Kingturtle = (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In the literature Frances and Elsie are invariably described as such, and of course they married and their surnames changed. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Added to which "Wright" could be Elsie, her mother, or her father. There is no rule that surnames "need to be used" in encyclopedia entries. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In a case like this, calling them by their first names seems like the best approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that we have sysops and bureaucrats making daft suggestions like this one. Maybe some of them ought to try writing something themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Must be a slow day at the old ANI corral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That'll be the day! Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The way family members are distinguished is to provide a relative's complete name for the first mention; then for further mentions, use only the relative's given name. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I am sorry you are disturbed. There is nothing daft about my suggestion. Make valid points to support your position. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As a reader, I would have to say that the first names, in this case, make the article flow the best. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to any sensible suggestions you have to make Kingturtle, but so far I haven't seen one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your initial answer was sufficient. Why you had to add more later is beyond me. Yes, I am a bureaucrat. But I am also an editor. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a great deal that is beyond you Kingturtle, so why not restrict yourself to those things which are not beyond you? Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)