Talk:Cottingley Fairies

Reflections on the Cottingley Fairies

I've just read Reflections on the Cottingley Fairies, the first half of which is written by Frances and the second half by her daughter. Her account is quite different in some places from the article. Frances claims to have seen fairies by the beck for long time but kept it to herself. She never interacted with them as in the photos but just observed them. Sometimes she saw them when she was with Elsie but Elsie never saw them and it was a long time before Frances told her about them. When Frances came in with wet shoes once to often and her mother asked her why she went to the beck as there was nothing there she said "There is! I go up to see the fairies!". Elsie was asked if she had seen them and she said she had just to back Frances up. The two girls were constantly teased by the family for a long time afterwards and eventually Elsie got fed up with it and came up with the idea of copying the pictures onto "stiffish paper" (not cardboard) and sticking them onto hatpins. I think the fact that they were on paper rather than cardboard helps to explain why they look translucent in the sunlight.

When they took the last "sun bath" photo they had been sent out by Elsie's mother to get more photos as she said they were being ungrateful. They had nothing prepared and didn't want to take any more pictures as they were fed up with the whole thing. Frances saw what looked like a nest in the grass and, on impulse, took a picture of it and Elsie said "Well there's another plate you've wasted, one less to go!". However when her uncle developed the plate there were some odd smudges and faces here and there, but it wasn't until it was enhanced by professionals that the fairies appeared.

When Geoffrey Hodson came the girls thought he was a complete charlatan and wandered around with him pretending to see fairies of every shape size and colour. He wrote everything down they told him and at one point he stopped and said "do you see what I see?" and then proceeded to write down what they said they saw. He then wrote a complete chapter in "The coming of the fairies" (Chapter V) about what he and they were supposed to have seen.

In later life Frances thought the whole business had ruined her life and that she had just been used by everyone along the way. She was persuaded to write a book in collaboration with Prof Joe Cooper about it all so she could finally make some money out of it herself and buy a house near her son. In the book she would reveal the truth of what had happened but she was keeping that part a secret until the book was nearly completed. Cooper then changed his mind and said they should publish two separate books, but then suddenly, without her permission, produced the article in The Unexplained revealing how the photographs were faked. She had never told him about this and believed he had rifled through her notes while he was staying at her house and discovered the secret. After that she accused him of betrayal, withdrew all contact and gave up any ideas of publishing a book.

She always wondered why Conan Doyle never met them or tried to come and investigate the fairies and she thought that he suspected the photos were faked but it suited his purposes not to investigate too closely. Richerman (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Undoing

Well, I am tired of trying to improve this page. I have been reverted twice now and neither reason was legitimate. If it needs to continue to be made better then go ahead and do so, but just turning it back to what obviously is incorrect is just wasting everyone's time. Tvashtar2919 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're tired of it that's good, because your edits are not improving the article. A number of people worked hard on this article to get it to featured status and obviously they now keep an eye on it to see it stays that way. Clearly, before making major changes to a featured article you've had no involvement with, it would be sensible, and common courtesy, to discuss the proposed changes on the talk page. If you don't do that the cycle is Bold, revert, discuss not Bold, revert and then have another go. I told you why I reverted your second edit and user:J3Mrs and user:Sagaciousphil told you why your other edits were reverted - you clearly don't understand what you're doing and what the bibliography section is for. As for moving the images, they are where they are for good reasons. For instance, the lead photograph is one that illustrates the subject of the article - which is the fairies, not Cottingley Brook. Richerman (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cottingley Fairies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928204852/http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/xray to http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/xray

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Linking the "Sir" in "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle"

A minor disagreement has occurred concerning whether or not "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" should be linked as "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" or as "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle". Personally, I think that the latter option to include "Sir" as part of the link would preferable; obviously that's my thought on the matter, seeing as I was the one to change the link as such in the first place. To omit "Sir" from the link would be akin to linking to "Mr. Rogers" as "Mr. Rogers". –Matthew - (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. As you were informed before you reverted, not an improvement. J3Mrs (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

On what grounds? Do you have any specific reasoning behind why "Sir" should not be included in the link? –Matthew - (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cottingley Fairies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917124859/http://ash-tree.bc.ca/acdsfairies.htm to http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/acdsfairies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Update tag

The lead of this FA currently has a {{needs update}} tag on it. I had a quick look for sources, and can't see anything beyond the initial announcement that the third camera had been acquired in late 2019. It's possible that COVID put the brakes on it all, but without any other good sources, we can't say much else. Does anyone have anything more definitive? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The Reveal

I just want to start by saying what a beautiful page this is. Well done to all involved.

I think the following sentence is wrong: 'In 1983, the cousins admitted in an article published in the magazine The Unexplained that the photographs had been faked, although both maintained that they really had seen fairies.'

What happened was that Joe Cooper revealed that the photographs were faked, very much against the will of the two women who had wanted to do so on their own terms. They both broke off contact with Cooper. Perhaps that moment came when Frances sent a letter to the Times (9 April 1983) in response to Cooper's article?

More accurate: 'In 1983, Joe Cooper (a confidant of Frances) revealed that the cousins had faked the photographs in the magazine The Unexplained.'

I also seem to remember that Elsie immediately said that she had NOT seen fairies: it was Frances that held the line.

This is the first time I use the Talk page, please be patient if I've broken some rule. I just didn't want to wade into a page that has been so carefully curated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buremp (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Buremp: I added your signature. Feel free to remove it and replace it with four tildes (~~~~). See WP:TP. I used {{ping}} to alert you. For your information, I normally would not do that for a discussion like this where people participating should be expected to see replies if they are interested. Regarding your proposal: I have no idea. However, reliable sources should be provided to justify a change in meaning. You could try asking at WP:RX to see if someone can provide information from a source. Be specific about what information is needed and why. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You are very kind, thanks! Buremp (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)