This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Dickens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Charles Dickens is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 7, 2012. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||
|
Index
|
|||||
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change birth year of Catherine Hogarth to "1815" instead of "1816" as here is said, according to her own article where she is born 1815, or explain the difference. Rana Düsel ( talk) 09:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It would improve the article if a section on the subject of Dickens' "Personal Life" was created as exists in many biographic articles. There are bits and pieces of his personal life in various other sections. His marriage, his wife, his children, his mistress, etc., should be in one section. I realize that his life and works are a massive body of material to work with, but it should be done to have the first class article that Dickens deserves.-- TGC55 ( talk) 20:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it would improve the functionality of the talk page if the elapsed time duration of talk page comments staying available for direct viewing were increased from the current two months to four or even six months. My reasoning for the suggestion is that not everybody is proceeding in their study of any subject article such as the Dickens article in a lock-step progression of logic arriving at an idea or question about an article such as this article at the same time. Two months is too short a "window" for those thoughts to coalesce in a similar time period.-- TGC55 ( talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the intro, suggest changing "such as poor social conditions" to "such as poor social or working conditions", as the sorts of places or situations described as "Dickensian" can often include workplaces. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:40D:D7BC:930:C51E ( talk) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
First off, the idea that the bible is the infallible word of God is in no contradictory to progressive revelation. Secondly, progressive revelation is not exclusive to liberal theology, plenty of evangelicals openly advocate it and teach it. I suggest that the line "Dickens also rejected the Evangelical conviction that the Bible was the infallible word of God" be deleted entirely.
In the section "Influence and legacy", in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, correct "bass relief" to "bas-relief"... possibly also link it to the Wikipedia article "Relief", to enlighten readers who don't already know what it is. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:A0BF:813A:FF02:B8DD ( talk) 06:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
there's a whole page dedicated to racism in Dickens' work. Why does it not find even a single mention on the page? Is it to whitewash and isolate him from any criticism? 49.207.194.226 ( talk) 08:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
| resting_place_coordinates = <!-- {{coord|LAT|LONG|display=inline,title}} -->
to
| resting_place_coordinates = {{coord|51.4991384|-0.1274443|display=inline,title}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Blue.lewish ( talk) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60261545 This seems new, relevant and significant. I do not know where it would best go in the article. FrankSier ( talk) 17:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
As recently noted at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, Dickens had pet ravens: [3]. There's more detail here. Does anyone else think this should be mentioned somewhere? I'm unsure of the best location. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The FRSA postnominal should be removed from the lede and infobox. Dickens could not have had this postnominal in his lifetime as the organisation only got the Royal title in 1908. ( Royal_Society_of_Arts). Moreover, FRSA is not an honour but represents a membership that is open to a wide range of people by paying a subscription. Related discussion here. Historylikeyou ( talk) 16:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
First off, I don't have to prove anything. You are the one contesting information with a reliable citation in this article. You claim that Dickens could not be a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts because the society had a name change in 1908. Either provide citations to back up what you are saying or the cited information stands. Second, there are references to the "Royal Society of Arts" prior to 1908. For example, on June 20, 1857 in "Best Authority," Charles Dickens himself wrote these words: " I found a fellow-member, Mr. Prowler, of the Royal Society of Arts, lying in wait ..." Finally, the names of organizations can and do change over the years but those name changes do not negate an organization's previous honors and work. If the Royal Society of Arts of today states that Dickens was a fellow and a reliable source for this info is provided, then that's what we go with. -- SouthernNights ( talk) 13:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
My apology -- I thought the info in the article was already cited. I've now added reliable citations to support the FRSA postnominal. If you have a reliable citation showing Dickens wasn't a FRSA, please share it.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 20:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is my final comment on all this. There are a number of interesting theories and ideas being shared about why Dickens shouldn't be considered a FRSA. However, all of this is essentially original research and, despite repeated requests, no reliable citations to support this view have been shared. As such, we go with what can be cited to a reliable source, which is that the RSA states in multiple places Dickens counts as a FRSA. I also suggest all further discussion on this should take place on the Manual of Style's Biography talk page, where the original discussion started.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I should add that I'm totally willing to be convinced that FRSA should be removed. But this is also tied in with a larger discussion on allowing FRSA on any author bio article on Wikipedia. Perhaps this discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography?-- SouthernNights ( talk) 18:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I saw something wrong and want to correct it sir/miss. Archie Sales ( talk) 09:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a caption saying that a surviving letter by Charles Dickens is also under private ownership by Abbott Antiques and Collectables. A link to the letter and its contents can be seen here. Redacted link
Gregory128 (
talk) 14:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Dickens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Charles Dickens is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 7, 2012. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||
|
Index
|
|||||
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change birth year of Catherine Hogarth to "1815" instead of "1816" as here is said, according to her own article where she is born 1815, or explain the difference. Rana Düsel ( talk) 09:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It would improve the article if a section on the subject of Dickens' "Personal Life" was created as exists in many biographic articles. There are bits and pieces of his personal life in various other sections. His marriage, his wife, his children, his mistress, etc., should be in one section. I realize that his life and works are a massive body of material to work with, but it should be done to have the first class article that Dickens deserves.-- TGC55 ( talk) 20:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it would improve the functionality of the talk page if the elapsed time duration of talk page comments staying available for direct viewing were increased from the current two months to four or even six months. My reasoning for the suggestion is that not everybody is proceeding in their study of any subject article such as the Dickens article in a lock-step progression of logic arriving at an idea or question about an article such as this article at the same time. Two months is too short a "window" for those thoughts to coalesce in a similar time period.-- TGC55 ( talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the intro, suggest changing "such as poor social conditions" to "such as poor social or working conditions", as the sorts of places or situations described as "Dickensian" can often include workplaces. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:40D:D7BC:930:C51E ( talk) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
First off, the idea that the bible is the infallible word of God is in no contradictory to progressive revelation. Secondly, progressive revelation is not exclusive to liberal theology, plenty of evangelicals openly advocate it and teach it. I suggest that the line "Dickens also rejected the Evangelical conviction that the Bible was the infallible word of God" be deleted entirely.
In the section "Influence and legacy", in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, correct "bass relief" to "bas-relief"... possibly also link it to the Wikipedia article "Relief", to enlighten readers who don't already know what it is. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:A0BF:813A:FF02:B8DD ( talk) 06:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
there's a whole page dedicated to racism in Dickens' work. Why does it not find even a single mention on the page? Is it to whitewash and isolate him from any criticism? 49.207.194.226 ( talk) 08:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
| resting_place_coordinates = <!-- {{coord|LAT|LONG|display=inline,title}} -->
to
| resting_place_coordinates = {{coord|51.4991384|-0.1274443|display=inline,title}}
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Blue.lewish ( talk) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60261545 This seems new, relevant and significant. I do not know where it would best go in the article. FrankSier ( talk) 17:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
As recently noted at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, Dickens had pet ravens: [3]. There's more detail here. Does anyone else think this should be mentioned somewhere? I'm unsure of the best location. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The FRSA postnominal should be removed from the lede and infobox. Dickens could not have had this postnominal in his lifetime as the organisation only got the Royal title in 1908. ( Royal_Society_of_Arts). Moreover, FRSA is not an honour but represents a membership that is open to a wide range of people by paying a subscription. Related discussion here. Historylikeyou ( talk) 16:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
First off, I don't have to prove anything. You are the one contesting information with a reliable citation in this article. You claim that Dickens could not be a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts because the society had a name change in 1908. Either provide citations to back up what you are saying or the cited information stands. Second, there are references to the "Royal Society of Arts" prior to 1908. For example, on June 20, 1857 in "Best Authority," Charles Dickens himself wrote these words: " I found a fellow-member, Mr. Prowler, of the Royal Society of Arts, lying in wait ..." Finally, the names of organizations can and do change over the years but those name changes do not negate an organization's previous honors and work. If the Royal Society of Arts of today states that Dickens was a fellow and a reliable source for this info is provided, then that's what we go with. -- SouthernNights ( talk) 13:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
My apology -- I thought the info in the article was already cited. I've now added reliable citations to support the FRSA postnominal. If you have a reliable citation showing Dickens wasn't a FRSA, please share it.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 20:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is my final comment on all this. There are a number of interesting theories and ideas being shared about why Dickens shouldn't be considered a FRSA. However, all of this is essentially original research and, despite repeated requests, no reliable citations to support this view have been shared. As such, we go with what can be cited to a reliable source, which is that the RSA states in multiple places Dickens counts as a FRSA. I also suggest all further discussion on this should take place on the Manual of Style's Biography talk page, where the original discussion started.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I should add that I'm totally willing to be convinced that FRSA should be removed. But this is also tied in with a larger discussion on allowing FRSA on any author bio article on Wikipedia. Perhaps this discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography?-- SouthernNights ( talk) 18:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I saw something wrong and want to correct it sir/miss. Archie Sales ( talk) 09:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a caption saying that a surviving letter by Charles Dickens is also under private ownership by Abbott Antiques and Collectables. A link to the letter and its contents can be seen here. Redacted link
Gregory128 (
talk) 14:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)