Talk:A Christmas Carol/Archive 2

Reception
I feel there should be more about the book's critical reception. Cited quotes from a couple of newspaper reviews (via books if necessary) would improve things greatly. The same goes for the "Dickens' reading" section, which gives no source at all for its assertion that his reading was "a great success by his own account and that of newspapers of the time". And, if I may make a really daring point... just for once, some sort of "in popular culture" section might actually be justifiable! After all, "Scrooge" in particular has entered our culture as an archetype, albeit usually only of the unreformed miser. (I know the Ebenezer Scrooge article mentions this; it's just one example. However, the story's impact could be covered in much more depth than it is at the moment.) 86.143.48.85 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the suggestion for a "in popular culture" section; it isn't necessarily bad to have those sections in articles per WP:IPC. I think one needs to be careful (as the linked essay states) as far as sourcing and keeping on notable things on the list, but they are perfectly fine to have on Wikipedia. Be bold! ;-) Killiondude (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Goose, Turkey or Chicken
I Have read several versions of the play. Some say that the butcher's shop is stocked with the largest goose, while some others say it is a chicken. Is it truly a turkey, or is a goose or a chicken? I did not edit the article as i was not sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tca achintya (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing that matters ("some say") is what Dickens the author says, and here it is:

 "An intelligent boy!" said Scrooge. "A remarkable boy! Do you know whether they've sold the prize Turkey that was hanging up there? -- Not the little prize Turkey: the big one?"

"What, the one as big as me?" returned the boy.

"What a delightful boy!" said Scrooge. "It's a pleasure to talk to him. Yes, my buck!"

"It's hanging there now," replied the boy.

"Is it?" said Scrooge. "Go and buy it."

So a turkey it is. The poor Cratchits might have been able to afford in a normal year (as in the third stave when Scrooge sees the family's normal Christmas dinner) a small less expensive goose, but never a turkey, much less a prize one. This is a gift of unexpected munificence, the more so coming from Scrooge. Sensei48 (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dickens paid for publishing?
The line in the opening of this article Although originally written under financial duress to help Dickens to pay off a debt, conflicts with this account that appeared in The New York Post, Dec 7, 2008, pg 30 that was part of a book review on the history of the story: His publisher, Chapman and Hall, expressed little enthusiasm for the book, so Dickens decided to have the firm bring it out 'for publication on his own account.' In contemporary terms, then, "A Christmas Carol" was to be an exercise in vanity publishing. Is it possible he would have paid for the book's publishing, seeing it as an investment to raise money to pay off a debt? 5Q5 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive Location And Link
While archiving the previous discussions on "A Christmas Carol" may be a good idea, it seems to me that there should be a) a notification of the fact that prior discussions have been archived and b) a link to that archive on this Talk page.

Edits here tend to get rather heavy over the Christmas season, and it would be nice to have the previous discussions easily available as a reference, especially since many of the same issues regarding organization, content, and style tend to come up here time and time again. Sensei48 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Heartily agree, especially since I am back now that it's Christmas time, and find that inaccuracies previously purged have crept back into the article; the same issues have been discussed previously, and I turned here to see if someone had found new citations leading to the change. The discussion I sought is completely gone, and with no link to the archive (assuming it was archived and not simply deleted) these same inaccuracies, posted by people relying on memory instead of the work itself, will continue to recur. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusations
I am just letting people know that I am deleting the first line of this article with immediate effect. "Don't use Wikipedia. It is not a useful source. Anyone can edit valuable information". This is obvious vandalism and is making unnecessary accusations against this website. Bonzostar (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Titile?
I have a version of the book with a letter from someone who was at Dickens's first public reading, and it says that Dickens originally wrote his book in four staves, and a footnote verifies that the fourth stave was later broken into two. This means the meaning behind the title can not be what is written. 24.168.74.109 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Recurring inaccuracy
This passage was "debunked" last year, with inaccuracies corrected. Unfortunately the discussion that was on this page is now gone, and someone is altering the text to match their own faulty memory.
 * Scrooge returns home to his cheerless rooms in an otherwise deserted building, and a series of supernatural experiences begins. His painting appears to transform into Marley's face...there is a clanking of chains in the bed and on the floor, and the ghost of Marley passes through the closed door into the room...three spirits will visit him on successive hours that night, and they may help change him and save him from his fate. As Marley leaves, Scrooge gets a nightmare glimpse of the tormented spectres who drift unseen among the living, and now shattered, he falls into bed.

Scrooge's "otherwise deserted" building is an old town-house of which he is the only RESIDENTIAL tenant; he has let the rest of the building out as office space. Describing it as "otherwise deserted" suggests that he is the only one who uses it; it is "otherwise deserted" in truth because it is Christmas Eve and the tenant businesses have closed for the holiday. The DOOR KNOCKER turns into Marley's face; there is no mention in Dickens of a "painting" doing so. The clanking of chains accompany Marley's spectre, they seem to come initially from the "wine merchant's cellar", then the cellar door is heard to fling open, then the chains sound on the stairs, then Marley appears. There is no mention of the sound of the chains coming from the bed or the floor. Marley tells Scrooge that the spirits will appear ON THREE SUCCESSIVE NIGHTS, not on successive hours of the same night. It is precisely for this reason that Scrooge is so joyous when the passing boy in the street tells him it is Christmas Day, and Scrooge remarks that "I haven't missed it...the spirits have done it all in one night." Dickens suggests that Scrooge retires to bed after Marley's departure because he is exhausted from the foregoing, not because he is emotionally shattered. The pattern of Scrooge's response to the supernatural is that he ceases to believe in each spectre as soon as it is gone, although his remorse builds over time (as evidenced by involuntary tears and an insistence on pleading with the spirits, especially the final one). The emotional response grows with each visitation, he is neither altered nor "shattered" until much later. Dickens' words suggest entirely that Scrooge is simply worn out by Marley's manifestation. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent points here, lending support to a) the need to have the archived discussions visible or linked here (preferably visible) and b) a point I raised a year ago in one of those now-removed discussions - that some editors are basing their edits one one or another of the many filmed versions of the tale and not on the text itself. "Painting" indeed! If I knew the proper way to "un-archive" the discussions and return them to their proper place here I would do so immediately.Sensei48 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article says twice that Scrooge "extinguishes" or "snuffs out" the spirit of Christmas past. This isn't exactly accurate. He tries to snuff it out but finds it impossible. Wrad (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Stave III says the Ghost of Christmas Present dies. If it's a ghost it can't die because it's already dead. 75.157.85.108 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We are discussing inaccuracies added to this article by people relying on memory or on knowledge of a film or TV adaptation rather than the original text. You seem to be criticising Dickens.  That's not the point of a talk page.  Besides, Dickens was using "ghost" in a broader sense to denote a non-physical being.  The Holy Spirit was once commonly referred to as the "Holy Ghost"; at no time did that mean that the Holy Spirit was once human or alive and now dead. The three "ghosts" are not spectres of the dead, they are agents of Time/Nature/God.  The Ghost of Christmas Present is a manifestation of the passing year and the growing of human spirit throughout the year, born on Boxing Day and destined to "die" (or reach an apex of sorts) on Christmas Day.  The brothers he refers to are previous Ghosts of Christmas Present. 71.200.138.188 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a GA review, however...
I suggest that the following points are addressed in advance of a GA review. Generally, a good copy-edit is required – examples:
 * 1) First sentence: "a book by English author Charles Dickens, that was first published..." – no comma before "that
 * 2) "19 December, 1843." – no comma after December, and no full stop after 1843 as the sentence continues after the footnote...
 * 3) ... and move that footnote to the end of the sentence.
 * 4) Why does Christmas need to be linked?
 * 5) "(a new literary genre created incidentally)" is poor, and there is nothing about this in the article. If it's important and relevant, find somewhere in the main body of the article and give a citation.
 * 6) "Completed in six weeks under financial duress to help pay off a debt, A Christmas Carol was initially to be written in his leisure moments while writing the more grave work Martin Chuzzlewit, but it soon claimed a place in the authors life that made its composition anything but a "leisure" task, he cried over it, he laughed over it, and friends who were with him during the closing months of 1843 have left their evidence of the power that story left over the novelist's thoughts and imagination". Multiple issues: (a) far too long a sentence, and certainly shouldn't be a comma after "task"; (b) "he cried over it, he laughed over it" is not encyclopaedic tone; (c) where in the body of the article is the information about Dickens laughing and crying over it?  The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, not contain information not repeated below; (d) "authors" should be "author's"; (e) "was initially to be written" is not a good turn of phrase.
 * 7) In fact, the more I read it, the more I see points in the lead that aren't repeated in the article. The lead should be a summary of the article, and perhaps should be the last section to be written not the first.  See WP:LEAD.  In general, lead sections shouldn't need to be cited – if a citation is only being used once, in the lead, then it's probably a sign that the mix of information between lead and article is wrong.
 * 8) "First edition copies of A Christmas Carol, with Illustrations by John Leech; London: Chapman & Hall (1843) in exceptional condition, estimated to be anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000 in value.[12]" This is not a sentence, since it lacks a verb. It is also a one-"sentence" paragraph, which should be avoided.
 * 9) "The book has been adapted in opera, films, radio and recordings." Unnecessary links to opera, film, radio and recording (a particular bad link) hide the one good link, to List of A Christmas Carol adaptations. Delink, reword, work into the article; if retained in the lead as well, avoid the one-sentence paragraph.
 * 10) Plot section - please get rid of the opening quotation, as it tramples all over the text in my browser (Firefox, so hardly an obscure one) and renders it unreadable.
 * 11) The plot section is far too long and unbalances the rest of the article. How to write a plot summary might be useful reading.
 * 12) The characters section is just a list of names that have already been introduced and wikilinked in the plot summary; is it necessary? This might, however, be the place for some sourced commentary on the characters themselves.
 * 13) Explanation of the title - I have removed the reference to Wikitionary, since wikis are not reliable sources. If you want to rely on the OED, cite the OED directly. The article by Lothar Cerny looks to have some interesting material that has yet to be used.
 * 14) History of the manuscript - is a wikilink to "United States" really necessary?
 * 15) References – at present, there is a mixture of references and notes; consider splitting them into two (see Template:Reflist for details.
 * 16) Some of the references have incomplete parameters; some have duplicates (you don't need to say that the publisher of the New York Times is the New York Times, for example)
 * 17) External links - do they all pass WP:EL? There seem to be rather a lot

This is by no means a complete list of things that I would expect a GA reviewer to pick up on, but it may be helpful. There must be much more written about the work from an academic view, and I suspect the article could use fleshing out with further sources. A quick search of JSTOR reveals: A look at Google Books / Google Scholar shows other possible resources. This article has a lot of potential, but could do with much more work. BencherliteTalk 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Spectacular Sympathy: Visuality and Ideology in Dickens's A Christmas Carol" (Audrey Jaffe) PMLA, Vol. 109, No. 2 (Mar., 1994), pp. 254-265 (Modern Language Association) link
 * "The Ceremony of Innocence: Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol" (Elliot L. Gilbert) PMLA, Vol. 90, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 22-31 (Modern Language Association) link


 * While I agree with practically everything you mention and think that it's high time that these points were raised and addressed, there is a different problem with sourcing from OED and JSTOR. OED can and of course should be cited, but such a citation needs to come from the print edition because the online dictionary requires a subscription (and I believe a fee) and therefore is not accessible as a link from a Wiki article. The articles that you cite from JSTOR link only to the first pages; subscription and fee are also required to view the entire articles. The consequence is that a sourced reference to either OED or JSTOR cannot be linked sources in the ref section. The same problem will obtain if you go to PMLA, the source of the JSTOT articles - the source articles cannot be linked. I'm going to guess that it was the availability of Wikitionary that prompted its use - and the fact that the other sources cannot be linked to the article is not an insurmountable objection to using the articles as sources. It simply means that whoever wants to use them must a) have hard copies from which to quote accurately or b)online subscriptions to both. The unending list of frequently self-promotional adaptations also bears some examination. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to address these issues today night. Thanks, Pmlineditor  Talk 04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sensei148, please point me to the rule that says that references have to be freely-accessible online to be usable in an article. I think that you will search in vain, because there is no such rule.  See the recent discussion on the talk page of this recently-promoted Featured Article.  Numerous FAs use subscription-access references, or print versions of books / journals / newspapers with no online edition.  See also WikiProject Resource Exchange, where you can place requests for copies of articles from JSTOR. BencherliteTalk 07:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume good faith and presume that you read in haste what I wrote. I make no reference to a "rule" at all either directly or by implication. I am merely pointing out an issue of accessibility. Also, I am suggesting the use of print sources of the same kind of which I have made extensive use in articles I've edited. Sensei48 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We were talking at cross-purposes, then: when you wrote, "The consequence is that a sourced reference to either OED or JSTOR cannot be linked sources in the ref section", I thought you were saying that they couldn't be used for reference purposes. In fact, they can still be used as linked sources in the ref section, even as subscription-access links: many people have access to JSTOR / OED subscriptions through library / academic resources. BencherliteTalk 14:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Cross purposes, indeed. I tend to use printed sources if there is an option in my edits, though the accessibility of online sources makes hem also quite attractive. Sensei48 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What about all the films that have been adapted from this story? I don't see any mention of them.  Majorly  talk  14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The link to this article - List of A Christmas Carol adaptations - has been temporarily removed because, I believe, an editor wants to clean it up. I think that the link will be re-introduced eventually. Sensei48 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN withdrawn
Sorry, I've decided to withdraw the GAN of this article. I see there are tons of problems with this and being busy with other articles, I can't give time to take this up to GA. Others, feel free to renominate and ask me for help if needed. Regards, Pmlineditor      ∞    14:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisions
I've tried to eliminate some of the 'pop style' peacock phrases ("the greatest Christmas story", "the most popular Christmas book of all time", etc.). The article should read like an encyclopedic entry not a dustjacket blurb. I've reduced the number of images; there are simply too many. They give the page an eye-jarring zig zag appearance. One or two from the original edition are enough. Contemporary reviews and expert critiques from modern literary scholars should be entered in Reception and the "testimonials" such as the Thackeray comment and the bit about the costermonger's daughter cut. They are unencyclopedic. 808Starfire (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Pitching the book
It isn't necessary to continually add statements that read "the greatest book ever written", "for many, the essence of Christmas literature", "the most popular Christmas book of all time", or other glowing opinions of the book -- even if they are cited to a source. It's unenecyclopedic. WP is not "selling the book". The book can speak for itself and doesn't need "help" along the way. These sorts of statements belong on dustjackets and make it difficult to both edit and read this article. 808Starfire (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice
Please cease and desist in the unwarranted, prankish, and childish reverts at this article. WP editing is about evolution, progress, and refinement not unlimited reversions to inferior editions of an article because one has "ownerships issues". Such behavior is bordering on harassment, stalking, and vandalism. I am giving serious consideration to reporting your behavior to the administration. Cease and desist. If you have issues with the progress of this article, please take those issues to the talk page before slamming your finger on the 'revert key'. 808Starfire (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 808Starfire (talk • contribs)

Number of Ghosts
I've changed the opening to say that Scrooge was visited by four ghosts (Jacob Marley and the three ghosts of Christmas). --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Themes section and possible FA nomination
Could someone develop the themes section? That's the least interesting section in any article for me and I don't want to do it. Can we have this article ready in a week or two for Christmas FA nomination? It can't go there without a themes section. 808Starfire (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FA might be a bit ambitious. Should the goal be to aim for GA first? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I can't do it tho. I have a new job and I won't be spending much time here in the future. Good luck. 808Starfire (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about what is meant about its secularity. By not focusing on Jesus, I suppose?  It doesn't seem atheistic, though (not that secular=atheist, I realize).  Also, is "the turkey and plum pudding aspects of the book" a figure of speech?  I'm not sure what it means. Шизомби (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas J. Burns
Freelance writer TJ Burns wrote an article called "The Second Greatest Christmas Story Ever Told" that is widely available online. I'm wondering if we could refrain from citing it here as it has a pop "let's tell a story" style and tone about that is not scholarly, academic, or encyclopedic ("Dickens was walking down the street when he had a sudden inspiration. Why not write a Christmas story?! He rushed home, took quill pen in hand, and wrote the first immortal words of the greatest Christmas story ever written..."). If this article goes to GA or even FA, reviewers will ask "What makes Burns a reliable source?" Well, there's no good answer. Let's try to cite reliable sources before falling back on Burns. Thanks! 808Starfire (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No. You don't fall back on this nonsense as WP:RS because it's not. The use of the Standiford material is also highly questionable and needs to be vetted further. The extravagant claim that this book somehow saved or popularized Christmas is stupefyingly ludicrous, a total fabrication contrary to fact. Only legitimately recognized academic sources from peer-reviewed publications should be acceptable for assertions of such magnitude. Sensei48 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to get this point nailed down one way or the other. "Dickens 'the man who invented Christmas'" by Philip V. Allingham http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/xmas/pva63.html (Allingham's bio: ) suggests it's complicated, that particular kinds of Christmas celebrations were waning in England due to population movement in connection with the Industrial Revolution, and that Dickens was one of a number of writers sharing their nostalgia, and perhaps that Dicken's nostalgia was the most influential. [[User:Schizombie|Шизомби] (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations section
The entire second paragraph needs citations. As it is, it appears to be OR. Claims such as "most remade", "most acclaimed", "oldest", "most recent" all need citations. In a year or two or three, "most recent" may need updating and perhaps the sentence should presently read, "In 2009, the most recent version was ...". The paragraph gives undue weight to film adaptations while neglecting musicals, operas, comic books, etc. and its inclusion here needs to be reconsidered. The paragraph might be best suited for the films section of the adaptations main article. Agree or disagree? Let's reach a consensus on this. I prefer moving it right now to the films section in the adaptations main article in order to rid this article of a paragraph that doesn't really belong here. LOC2010DC (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

History of the manuscript section
As an entire section in the body of the article, this material gives undue weight to a very minor aspect of the book. Wikipedia novel articles do not follow the various ownerships of or the prices paid for a particular manuscript. In Hearn's exhaustive, "The Annotated Christmas Carol", the information is relegated to a note at the bottom of the page - where it is found in this article. This section is redundant and could be merged with the note. The material actually makes a better note than an entire section unto itself. Agree or disagree? LOC2010DC (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Context section
I'm returning this section to the article after it was summarily dismissed as a "sweeping change". It belongs here for a number of good reasons. First, it is well-written, secondly, it is properly and reliably sourced, and, most important in my opinion, it provides the reader with some "grounding" before plunging into the lengthy "Sources" section. Agree or disagree? Should this section be deleted? Should it remain within the article as is or further developed? Please don't remove it until a consensus has been reached. There are many editors working on this article. Please let them have some input on this. LOC2010DC (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have with it off the bat is the American spelling in what is a subject of British origin. -  Dudesleeper  talk  13:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition: a) "the reader" is a poor rhetorical choice, an unsupportable generalization and a device acceptable in criticism only in "reader response" analyses, which an encyclopedia article is not - it should go; b) however it is sourced, the "secularization" phrase is problematic, since Dickens employs and makes reference to a Purgatory trope with the plight of Marley, who appears to Scrooge of his own volition as part of a "penance" and whose agony is reinforced by religious references to the star of Bethlehem and three wise men. Scrooge's redemption may have its outward manifestations in the secular world, but the entire point of Stave 1 is that he is in danger of a very real spiritual damnation - he narrowly avoids Marley's fate and thanks Heaven (and Marley) for it; c) some of the refs in the section to the history of Christmas observances duplicate material found in the sources section next. Overall, I'd say keep the section but rewrite it with an eye to that section. Sensei48 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dickens the first?
Shouldn't the first sentence in the section on Dickens read, "Dickens was NOT the first author to celebrate the Christmas season in literature?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.36.17 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Unwieldy sentence
Wonderful article, in writing and content, it answered every question I had about the subject. The only problem is that I had to take a break from reading because of the immense frustration I had with one particular sentence. It is in the section "Sources", second paragraph, first sentence:

"Whilst Dickens's humiliating childhood experiences are not directly limned in Carol, his conflicting feelings for his father as a result of those experiences are principally responsible for the dual personality of the tale's protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge."

While I can live with the word "whilst", the word "limned" is so obscure and out of general circulation that I feel that it is out of line with the rest of the article, and it could scare off readers who may not have a degree in British Lit. In general, the sentence seems overlong and in need of rephrasing. Does anyone have any ideas? --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Abie, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this point. My version of the sentence follows:
 * "Although Dickens's humiliating childhood experiences are not directly mirrored in Carol, his conflicting feelings towards his father could account for the dual personality of the tale's protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge." Is that better? --Skol fir (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like 99.192.88.81 already made the required changes at Revision 08:26, 27 December 2010, but we could still improve it further if necessary. This anonymous editor probably did not see your comment here and bypassed the usual courtesy of "discuss before discard." --Skol fir (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and "A Christmas Carol"
I noticed someone anonymously trying to include "A Christmas Carol" in a Wiki Project about Judaism, here on this Talk Page. If that person would like to make his reasons known, please do it here!

I did find an article in the journal "Tradition," which is a journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, and it is entitled "The Day of Atonement in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol," by Martin H. Sable -- Tradition, Vol. 22 No. 3: Fall 1986, pp. 66–76. In this essay, Sable debates Dickens's familiarity with Judaism and finds parallels in Scrooge's conversion to the three main aspects of the Jewish Day of Atonement: repentance, prayer, and charity. Aside from there being parallels in Jewish theology, I am not sure that the story itself is tied to Judaism, or is a deliberate reflection of it. The anonymous wiki editor who tried to make this spurious claim first tried to replace Christianity with Judaism (stating as reason "wrong religion," then stating that the insertion of the Judaism Wiki Project was "accurate"). This sounds more like a fanatic trying to undermine another religion, rather than a sober contribution to knowledge. Any thoughts? --Skol fir (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * When a registered user who is a member of WP Judaism adds the tag, I'll be ok with it. Until then I regard it as a fanatic anon. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would still exercise extreme caution with a claim such as this. What Dickens is self-evidently familiar with is Roman Catholic theology, which posits the concept of Purgatory, a place or state after death in which a soul makes atonement for the guilt incurred by his/her sins, though after a time that soul will enter heaven. The ghost of Jacob Marley may well be in Purgatory working out his "penance," the term that he uses and one used by Catholics as part of the process of atoning to God for one's sins. Further, Dickens has written that the Marley segment of the story was inspired by the visitation of the Ghost in Hamlet, who is most definitely in Purgatory - as he notes that he is


 * "Doomed for a certain term to walk the night
 * And for the day confined to fast in fires,
 * Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
 * Are burnt and purged away."
 * - or Marley may be damned - the text is not definite on the point, though the use of the word "penance" as noted is significant, as is the fact that Marley is now being given a chance to do what he failed to do in life, which is antithetical to the idea of damnation. In either case, the theological underpinning of the story is Anglo-Catholic; it resembles Judaism only tangentially. Sensei48 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

1st publication of "The Book of Christmas" by Thomas Hervey
David Goldsmith just tried to change the date of first publication for "The Book of Christmas" by Thomas Hervey. Please look at this reference :: The Appendix for "A Christmas carol" By Charles Dickens and note that the original date posted was correct (1837). Please check reliable references before making arbitrary changes like this. --Skol fir (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Puritans, etc.
The Puritans in the US held sway in a small corner of the colonies for about 60 years and were gone as a political force by the early 18th century. Their banning of Christmas celebrations stretched from the 1660s to the 1690s. By the mid 18th century, much of what we now know as Christmas was celebrated throughout the colonies, especially in the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies where there was never any Puritan influence. Splendid Christmas dinners and Yule logs were the rule in new England and across America by the time of the Revolution when the Puritans were a distant and unpleasant memory.

Additionally and again in the US, the poem known as "The Night Before Christmas" which solidified a tradition around Santa Claus and a Christmas tree was published in 1823 and widely know in the US 20 years before "Christmas carol." Note that the poem includes St. Nick, presents, and a tree.

Britain also rejected the excesses of Puritan governance nearly 200 years before Dickens. The idea that Christmas was "somber" or "dying" is largely a modern invention of Dickens fans and the kind of lightweight USA Today type critics cited here. You won't find any support for this notion in any respectable literary history of England. Sensei48 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Victorian reviving Christmas festivities was said to be the then young Queen Victoria and her German-born Prince Albert who married in February 1840. For instance, they popularized the Christmas Tree, a popular German tradition. I think Lady Elisabeth Longford's bio of Queen Elisabeth mentions this, but as I do not have the source in front of me, I'm just inserting this note in "discussion". Agreeing with the critic who posted just above this comment concerning "USA Today lite" scholarship...Even "A Christmas Carol" seems to refer to already existing past and present British Christmas customs...Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Someone did add in a contribution of Prince Albert's...I merely added who he was "German-born husband of Queen Victoria". I was taught LITTLE history in my American schooling; thus I suspect many American readers also would not have known about Good Prince Albert! Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Broken source for Douglas-Fairhurst?
I'm not sure, but I think the "Douglas-Fairhurst viii" source is not properly attributed. A precursory Google search provides several potential sources, but none of which are probably not the right one.

Ggppjj (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Lowell Offerings meets A Christmas Carol - a heads-up
In a book to be published next year, co-edited by Diana Archibald, on Charles Dickens' 1842 trip to Massachusetts, Natalie McKnight and Chelsea Bray will author a chapter on proposed sources for his book, "A Christmas Carol". The name of the upcoming book was not mentioned in the Boston Globe article below.

Natalie McKnight, a professor of English, and Dickens specialist, at Boston University, and Chelsea Bray, an undergraduate (now in graduate school) at Boston College, researched stories published in the "Lowell Offering" up through the time of Dickens' visit. He took with him 400 pages of magazine issues when he left Lowell. The stories were written by the "Lowell millwork girls", published under brief pseudonyms or anonymously. The researcher's premise is that some of the major ideas found in "A Christmas Carol" were first found by Dickens in the magazine stories. "A Christmas Carol" was published after the trip to America, in 1843. The newspaper article does not claim that he plagiarized the stories. There's bound to be a lot of debate over this premise.

"Was Dickens’s Christmas Carol borrowed from Lowell’s mill girls? A new discovery by literary scholars highlights an unexpected inspiration" http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/12/15/dickens/vFjBRRSBUtzHVH9DXiCSSL/story.html

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoring line
Please do not restore the line about the tale being one that indicts capitalist industrialism. This line appears only in the lede, not in the text, and is nowhere developed for the reader. Return the line when a paragraph is entered that sufficiently explains the line. Thanks.SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Initial price
This can't be correct: Modestly priced at five shillings (equal to £20.79/$5.87 today). US$5.87 is not equivalent to 20 quid, and I would also say that £20 for a book is not "moderately priced".  howcheng  {chat} 19:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've wiped all the dollar entries. To use that template, one must first convert from sterling to dollar values in 1843!! As to five bob (which was not equivalent to 25 cents) - Dickens records the little tailor being fined five shillings for being "drunk and bloodthirsty in the streets" and Bob Cratchitt earned fifteen shillings a week, which was not enough to quite keep his family.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the price, the book was expensive. It was a high-end production written for those who had the means to alleviate some of the social ills explored in the novel. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section
You seem to have got alot of positive criticism on this book but you need some negative criticism as well. Other wise this article may be accused of being unbiased.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.168.79 (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The book received widespread positive reviews. There is a mention of a negative review by one of Dickens' carpers. The text explains that America was not enthusiastic. It's impossible to cite negative reviews if there were none. Additionally, a book article focuses on the first edition and its reception. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Christmas
The first edition of Hervey's 'The Book of Christmas' (publisher: Spooner) is most certainly dated 1836. I have a copy with this date. It was reprinted in 1837.

The first edition was actually printed in December 1835 and post-dated to 1836. Early reviews of the book appeared in The Court Journal (19 December 1835) and The Literary Gazette (also 19 December 1835).

David Goldsmith 21 Mar 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Goldsmith (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article cites a source. Your investigations are OR. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Date of first publication
As an anonymous editor changed the date to Dec. 17, 1843, I thought I would do some research to see if this was true. I found a source of that info at about.com :: Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens :: If anyone has other information about this, please provide it here. --Skol fir (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Another source... Dec 17, 1843: A Christmas Carol is Published. However, in this and the previous example, no reference is given for the authenticity of this date. I am still reserving judgement on this date, as one source could get it wrong, and other sources simply follow suit. --Skol fir (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The original text is cited. No changes should be made without discussion and consensus. There is no reason to think that one source is "true" and to be preferred. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Adaptations
Adaptations are limited to "dramatic" adaptations such as movies, musicals, operas, etc. Adaptations do not include statues, paint by number kits, and other commercial stuff. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck?
No mention of Carl Barks's Scrooge McDuck? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I just added a sentence mentioning Scrooge McDuck in the "Adaptations" section. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... lots of problems there. For one, Barks didn't create the character for the 1983 animation, he created it in 1947 for Disney comic books (Barks retired in 1968).  Now looking at the section, it really needs to sum up Adaptations of A Christmas Carol in general—summing up the most prominent adaptations. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it with the summary of "inappropriate." Please look again at the section, "Adaptations." It is merely a portal to the main page on the topic and not a list in itself. Out of respect to the prior edit, I added the word "animation" to the media of adaptation and left the redirect as it was. In addition, this section was intentionally left blank except for the redirect. It had turned into the messy link farm that the actual adaptations article has become. And there is absolutely no way at all to determine what "the most prominent adaptations are," which is OR and POV by its very nature. regardsSensei48 (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is absolutelysolutely untrue. Take a look through WP:FA to see how it's done. A black section like that is absolutely unacceptable---the article's a GAN right now, and that there in itself is a quick fail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bit of a problem there, because the only FA that presents a situation roughly analogous to the CC situation - a story of some age that has been adapted scores of times and continues to be adapted - is Romeo and Juliet, and that article devotes about 40% of its length in the "legacy" section to extended discussions of some of the stage and screen adaptations that someone or other has deemed worthy of inclusion - without a stated rationale for inclusion within sight. The focus in the film section of R&J on three productions as "the most notable theatrical releases" without explanation or source is POV, FA or not. I'm going to guess that you would like to avoid that pitfall here, so perhaps you could glance at the CC adaptations article and suggest some unassailably objective criteria for precisely how to sort through 27 listed television shows that are direct adaptations of the tale, along with the 21 films, 16 radio programs, numerous recordings, plus scores of theatrical presentations and even more pastiches to include here. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An article with a blank section simply will not pass, and not giving an overview of adaptations will fail the article over lack of comprehensiveness. You're taking the idea of "POV" to untenable extremes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have quick-failed the GA review over concerns with stability, unsourced content and an overlong lead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You've jumped the gun on this. There is no unsourced content, there is no edit warring, and the lede has been trimmed per your concerns. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To Curly Turkey - I think you may have misread my comments, to a degree at least. I am not arguing against adding content to the currently near-empty "Adaptations" section. To the contrary, I am asking you to establish some criteria for creating just such a list - criteria that unlike some parts of the R&J article depend upon verifiable sources and not on the mere and unsupported assertion in that article that some versions are more "notable" than others. What would the basis be for selecting some versions over others? What struck me as irreproachably objective would be to list the first appearance of the story in each of the media detailed in the CC adaptations and leave the rest to the adaptations page. There is no untenable extreme about requiring a Wikipedia article to avoid the shallow, recentist, fanboy types of judgments that are far too common in arts articles on this site. Also - please note that the GA quick-fail lists other causative factors in its judgment. Repairing the Adaptations section is a worthy goal, but one that in and of itself will not promote this article to GA status. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Two things: (a) we give emphasis to those adapatations the source tend to emphasize, and (b) we follow the principles we would with the lead (per MOS:LEAD), using our editorial judgement to determine what to summarize. There is no such thing as an article without a POV—the issue is with editors pushing their own POV rather than neutrally summarizing the POV of reliable sources. "First appearance in each media" is entirely arbitrary, unbalanced, and unhelpful. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly - quite the opposite. It is in most every case for each medium a verifiable and sourceable fact. Determining which adaptations are "notable" beyond that is where the article risks becoming, as you say, arbitrary etc. However - my primary point above was to request that you lay out what criteria you believe useful for creating a list of "notable" adaptations appropriate for this section. That seems like the logical next step to pursue and I look forward to your ideas for it. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're confusing mere verifiability with the weight sources give. I've already given you the widely-followed criteria—stick to the sources, and highlight those adaptations they highlight.  What you're suggesting would result in no lead ever being writable. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet to Come's trembling hand
I have added in the mention of the Spirit's trembling hand - I read the book myself, and also observed the hand trembling in the George C Scott film and the 1971 cartoon. Many Christmas Carol film viewers generally consider the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come as an ominous creature devoid of character. Careful readers know that Dickens subtly shows us this is not the case. Even this solemn spirit is moved by Scrooge's case and if you read closely, after Scrooge pleas, the Spirit's kind hand trembles- if ever so slightly. Even Scrooge called him "good spirit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.223.76 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Characters section
I've boldly removed this new section: it is unnecessary as the plot tells us so much more. - The Bounder (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ...and with more accuracy. Sensei48 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm overruled, I see :( Most other book articles have separate sections for Characters and Setting, so one doesn't have to read the plot to get the context.  Why not here?  If the text was inaccurate, it can be reworded.  The character section can be greatly expanded (see section below).Sbalfour (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with those that have a list of characters: can you provide some examples of rated articles (FA or GA would be good) which follow that oath? Thanks - The Bounder (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked War and Peace, Mutiny on the Bounty, The Jungle, Jamaica Inn (novel), none GA or FA, just a random sample, and all had lists of characters. The present article is not GA, either.  I doubt, as you surmise that a Character or Setting section is vital to that, however.  I can't find a search method to find 'Featured Articles (book)'. Now I'd like to know, because I've worked on some book articles, and assumed the standard included Characters and Settings sections.  However, WikiProject Books doesn't list those sections.  So, looks like consensus by those who do these, is 'no such'.Sbalfour (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand W & P, as it's a mammoth and confusing number (the fact there is also a family tree justifies the inclusion); the Mutiny and Jamaica Inn lists are ridiculous, and the Jungle is a borderline possibility, with a list approaching the complexity of W & P. I'm not sure there is any difficulty with the Christmas Carol plot line that necessitates a separate list. I appreciate that this article is not GA, but it's a light copy edit away from that level (and I hope to make a start on a more thorough write up for an FA soon (ish). - The Bounder (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Essentially, I agree. Let's get on with the other issues.Sbalfour (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles on characters, merge here?
There are a plethora of articles on the characters of this book, most quite short: Jacob Marley, Ebenezer Scrooge, Bob Cratchet, Tiny Tim (A Christmas Carol), Fezziwig, Ghost of Christmas Past, Ghost of Christmas Present, Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, possibly others. If there's anything needed to be detailed about the characters, shouldn't it be said here? Most of those articles are poor, unreferenced, probably original research, and hardly notable in themselves. It's article creep. My opinion is they should be deleted, and anything worthy, merged here. There's of course multiple issues, somebody has a vested interest in those articles, and bundling them wholesale into this article is going to draw screams. Before I do that, anyone have any thoughts?Sbalfour (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Ribbet32 (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My thought would be 'probably not': many of these could possibly have a stand-alone article based on the large number of sources. There are probably a couple that could go, but there isn't much there that's should be included in this article. All the best - The Bounder (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this proposal a joke? The nominator questions the cultural significance of Tiny Tim and Ebenezer Scrooge? I'd suggest they enroll in a class in... something. If there's issues, Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
 * I don't question (or need to evaluate) the cultural significance of anything. It's a matter of organization.  No character of the novel can be considered in isolation from the rest, or from the plot and setting.  Here, where one can read the details of a character, in conjunction with the others, is the logical place to collect the info.  If one wants to read 'about' the novel now, one has to find and page to about 10 integrally related articles.  This is a comprehensive article about a book, why can't we read all about it here?Sbalfour (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, characters sort of can be viewed in isolation, which is why there are articles on Harry Potter (character), James Bond (literary character), Jason Bourne, Oliver Twist (character), Fagin, Bill Sikes, Mr. Darcy and a host of others. Partly this is because it is possible on a website - to interconnect separate pages on the same broader topic, and partly because it is sensible to split off things that are 'interesting but extraneous' in terms of the book, but are important when looking at the character itself. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you tagged Tiny Tim as non-notable. If an editor tagged a Harry Potter character that way, or mass tagged all Harry Potter character articles for merging, they would be instantly reverted and possibly blocked, despite less proven long-term significance, because that's how far our civilization has crumbled in the wake of the Great Recession. Check out Lady Macduff for a smaller character who has been able to be covered with literacy analysis and different portrayals beyond what Macbeth could cover. These characters exist far beyond the original novel. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Lost film
MagicatthemovieS, Can you please stop edit warring on this article and discuss this before you revert yet again. To justify a short, stubby sentence you said that because of the wording "readers will realize that they can watch what survives". I try not to treat readers as complete idiots, and the presence of the clip on the page will not just make readers realise they can watch something, but also actually watch it. The stubby sentence (aside from being jarring and poor) also removes the lost film link, which I think is important in the context. – The Bounder (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Scroggie, the "meal man"
The article refers to Scrooge's name being derived from the tomb of one Ebenezer Scroggie. The Ebenezer Scrooge page says that the whole Scroggie story is likely to be a hoax - that page has citations in both directions and its talk page has more detail, including a couple of pertinent links. I suggest removing the part about Mr Scroggie altogether from this article: the ES article has it, along with several other theories, and it doesn't add much to repeat it here. I won't remove it immediately, as it seems to have been contentious for some time in the ES article. Thoughts, anyone? Pastychomper (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And Happy B'day to me.. in re: of one Ebenezer Scroggie... a simple hunt, search of UK/GBrit/Scotland Census records of the period might do wonders to verify or... well you know, etc 2600:1700:A760:C10:E1A7:2377:94E3:16FD (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My simple hunt turned up 291 Scroggies born within ± 40 years of 1792 in Scotland, but no Ebenezers. Putting the name into DDG gives numerous blog and newspaper articles, most of those I looked at appeared to quote the same source.  The plot thickens.  Pastychomper (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"of that year"
I'm not sure what the merit of this phrase is to the article; maybe someone can explain it to me rather than continually restoring it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarity. Perhaps you should have asked before ignoring BRD to force it back in? (And "continually" is now once? Odd choice of words...) - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Twice. What "clarity" does it add? And how is "close of February" better than "end of February"? I fear we are into WP:OWN territory here. Shall we see what other people think? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Only twice after your edit warring. Thanks for diving straight to the gutter with an OWNership claim: that (and the edit warring) speaks volumes about you, not me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, if changes are to be made, I would prefer the text to be more explicit about the first number of Chuzzlewit appearing on 31 December 1842. (See for instance the entry in the Oxford Companion to Charles Dickens : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AYCcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA374&lpg=PA374#v=onepage&q&f=false ). To immediately accuse an established editor who objects to changes you have made of "ownership" smacks of bad faith. William Avery (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the specific date - the current reference covers it already. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bad faith begets bad faith, it's a common problem. However fascinating you guys find the willy-waving, I'm actually more interested in improving the article. I'll ask again, how is "close of February" better than "end of February"? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No-one showed you any bad faith, but perhaps you're only more interested in trying to needle others with the playground taunts of "willy-waving"? I really don't care what games your trying to play, but knock it off and try and treat the rest of us with a modicum of manners.
 * "Close" or "end" are synonymous in this usage, but as there are seven "close of xxx"s in the text, a little variation is no bad thing. As there was no real reason to change was one perfectly good form to another, the question is begged, why did you decide to change it? - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Got you. That's called elegant variation and it's usually taken as a sign of bad writing. "Close of February" isn't FA standard. There'll be a better way to write it, if you're allowing folks to edit here, or do you think it's perfect as it is? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven’t “got” anything (apart from an obvious BATTLE ground mentality in trying to “win” things). If you think repeating the same phrase continually is a sign of perfect writing, you need to read some style guides. Of course "close of February" is perfectly acceptable in an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Gosh. The very definition of ignorance is refusing to learn to do better. I guess we're done here, unless or until somebody brings this garbage to a review. Toodle pip. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all avoidance of monotony and repetition is silly "elegant variation". William Avery (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Other Christmas stories
The assertion that Dickens wrote three prior and four subsequent Christmas stories is neither supported with sources nor corroborated in other Dickens Wikipedia entries.--~TPW 17:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The details of Dickens's other Christmas stories are all supported in this article by reliable sources. I have no idea what the other Wikipedia entries on Dickens say, but this article reflects the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Foster --> Forster?
Hi, Merry Christmas! At "...Dickens referred to in a letter to Foster as his "Carol philosophy..." is that letter recipient his mate John Forster (biographer)? Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll have to have a check on the source - leave it with me, and I'll try and dig it out again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Checked, and you're right. I've corrected the spelling and linked to the article. Thanks for picking that one up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking on that . Regards, JennyOz (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring IP
, Please STOP edit warring on this article. This article is written in British English. In Britain we can manage with lists of more than two items without needing a comma for each one: the "and" acts as a substitute for the comma. I see you are editing in the US, where comma use differs. Per out WP:ENGVAR guidelines, we use British spelling and punctuation for British subjects, so we don't use the serial comma here, regardless of what you may use in your 'home' country. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Images


I recently. My edits were summarily reverted, in one go, and with the edit summary "Meh. Ridiculous quote, uninformative image of books etc"

The portrait as the caption stated, shows "Dickens... during the period when he was writing A Christmas Carol", and replaced one described as being "Dickens in 1842, the year before the publication of A Christmas Carol". An image contemporary with the subject under discussion is surely better than one that predates it. The image is arguably artistically better, and at 576 Kb (replacing one of just 42knb) is inarguably of higher resolution than the one it replaced. It is after all, used on our article about Dickens himself.

The image of editions is far from uninformative; it amply illustrates that the work has been published in multiple editions, in various formats. Furthermore, it appears in an area of the article which had no previous image an where the preceding images are all monochrome or nearly so.

I am not sure what is meant by "etc" in this case.

Both images should be restored. If there is consensus that the quote in the portrait's caption (which also appears under the copy in the Dickens biography) is "ridiculous" then it can of course be removed or replaced here. But that would - of course - not be a reason to remove the image. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The first image (with the ridiculously long and pointless quote).
 * The image is contemporary to a year and actually shows Dickens writing, rather than just a head and shoulders. It's a better image, given it provides him 'at work', as it were. The quote is ridiculous - even for a biography, let alone one of his novellas.


 * The pointless book picture.
 * See WP:IRELEV, which says that picture should not be "primarily decorative". The claim that the image "illustrates that the work has been published in multiple editions" is an extremely thin rationale. It is something that can't be explained with words (and already is. As to the claim that "it appears in an area of the article which had no previous image" is somewhat puzzling, given there is already an image in the section – one that has been there for some time. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Contemporary to a year" is a year away from being "contemporary". An image which "amply illustrates that the work has been published in multiple editions, in various formats" is not "primarily decorative". There were, and currently are, no images from the paragraph beginning "Dickens advocated a humanitarian..." onwards. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A whole year? Not really a problem, is it, particularly given it's a more fitting image with Dicken writing. I'm glad you've changed from "an area of the article which had no previous image" (which wasn't true) to "from the paragraph ... onwards", which is entirely different (although the fact it's the final section somewhat weakens the impact of your point). It's still decorative, and still doesn't really inform readers, unless they are so bereft of imagination they need an image to show them only a very small number of the printings from over the year. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Francis Alexander - Charles Dickens 1842.jpeg is the better image of the two due to the fact that it displays Dickens in the act of writing. But I do think that the other proposed image, with the variety of editions, would serve nicely in this article. It demonstrates the wide popularity of the book. HAL 333  18:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to put words into my mouth. The area of the article from from the paragraph beginning "Dickens advocated a humanitarian..." to the end, has no images. I'm glad you agree that the image is decorative; my point remains that it is not primarily decorative. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't put words in your mouth: I quoted your actual words and I haven't tried to misrepresent or mislead anyone. Yes, it is primarily decorative. A small selection of the large number of editions that have been released doesn't add anything to the article and certainly doesn't inform or educate readers. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced by the second image (it's primarily decorative and doesn't help readers to understand the article any more than the text), but I have added this in, more or less where it was before. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Scrooge's business
Scrooge's own business partnership, and that of Fezziwig where he apprenticed, are specifically described as "warehouses". (The text, for reference.) Although he chases people for debts, he is not a money lender as this article and the character article claim, but rather a wholesale merchant. That is why he is known "on 'Change", i.e. at the Royal Exchange where agricultural commodities were traded. (See The Annotated Christmas Carol edited by Michael Patrick Hearn, p. 8.) DeVito's Inventing Scrooge is cited here, but DeVito does not state himself that Scrooge is a money lender; he only attributes it in passing to the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, a free-market think tank.

Request:
 * Change "moneylender" to "merchant". 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That would be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. If you can find a reliable source that states he was a merchant we would be able to add something to cover that point. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article already states that he's a money lender based on a source that doesn't actually say so. (I wonder about the other DeVito citations as well, since they have page numbers above its 256 pages.) Can it at least be changed to "businessman"? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You may wonder all you wish, but if you look a little more closely you'll see the references from DeVito are not "p. xxx". You may then wish to cast your eye to the list of sources, where you will see DeVito is an eBook (actually the Kindle edition), so those are locations, not page numbers. I have changed it to "businessman" to remove any question marks over what we say. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ghost of Christmas Present
Without realising there had been a previous consensus among two or three editors not to write about the Ghosts in ACC I started this article today. I think it is a useful addition and potentially helpful to readers seeking information beyond the bald facts mentioned in the main article. I think it works as a standalone. Jack1956 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well-written, fully referenced and a good read. Can’t see any issues. Works as a separate article and should be allowed to stand. Dreamspy (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto from me. It’s a good article that works well on its own. There is a very small amount of overlap (as you’d expect), but it contains enough additional information to work as a standalone article. Nice work. The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from 109.249.185.101 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ghost of Christmas Present is a splendid article, and serves its purpose admirably. No imaginable reason that I can see to censor it. Will you be following it up with ones on the other two Ghosts? I look forward to them. Note that there is a separate discussion of the matter here, which might perhaps have been more helpfully posted here (but seems to have been initiated earlier).  Tim riley  talk   16:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection as it's better than the original article, and the character is important enough to have a stand-alone page. My only concern is the long list of notable portrayals which will inevitably overlap very closely, though not exactly, with those of the book and the other ghosts (if they get written up as well). The reason for the previous consensus to convert the ghost pages to redirects was the incessant adding to each and every one of them minor passing mentions in every TV episode. Not sure how best to deal with that; perhaps some stern hidden wording to the effect that we only want notable adaptations - but such wording is routinely ignored. Or, better, direct readers to a central page such as a re-worked Adaptations of A Christmas Carol, with a table indicating which ghosts appear in which adaptation. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the new re-write introduces information that should be in the standalone article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article still fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. It is a pure plot summary plus a listing of appearances in related media. It needs a reception/analysis section. Which scholars analyzed this character? Did someone write as much as a paragraph about their literary significance? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the poor contents of the articles and nothing substantive in the comments here, I support merger of all Ghost articles into one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats to for bringing the ghosts back to life. The four Christmas Carol ghosts are the most famous and portrayed ghosts in history (although I saw Casper and Hamlet's dad dining at the pub with masks on), and each has enough stand-alone notability and criteria for full character pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021
I would like to add more info 78.86.12.125 (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Zeitgeist
The zeitgeist captured is early Victorian, surely, not middle Victorian. Victoria had only been on the throne for 6 years when it was published in 1843. 81.154.185.83 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good call. She wasn't queen until 1837, didn't marry Albert until 1840. I have now corrected the article per your suggestions. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021
I would like to request the restoration of the following information about the novella which previously appeared in the entry some ten years ago in 2011, this information should be placed in the reactions section. This information adds color and important information about the novella and its impact on the world at large:

While the 'Merry Christmas' was popularized following the appearance of the story,[55] and the name "Scrooge" and exclamation "Bah! Humbug!" have entered the English language,[56] Ruth Glancy argues the book's singular achievement is the powerful influence it has exerted upon its readers. In the spring of 1844, The Gentleman's Magazine attributed a sudden burst of charitable giving in Britain to Dickens's novella; in 1874, Robert Louis Stevenson waxed enthusiastic after reading Dickens's Christmas books and vowed to give generously; and Thomas Carlyle expressed a generous hospitality by staging two Christmas dinners after reading the book.[57] In America, a Mr. Fairbanks attended a reading on Christmas Eve in Boston, Massachusetts in 1867, and was so moved he closed his factory on Christmas Day and sent every employee a turkey.[33] In the early years of the 20th century, the Queen of Norway sent gifts to London's crippled children signed "With Tiny Tim's Love"; Sir Squire Bancroft raised £20,000 for the poor by reading the tale aloud publicly; and Captain Corbett-Smith read the tale to the troops in the trenches of World War I.[58] According to historian Ronald Hutton, the current state of observance of Christmas is largely the result of a mid-Victorian revival of the holiday spearheaded by A Christmas Carol. Hutton argues that Dickens sought to construct Christmas as a self-centred festival of generosity, in contrast to the community-based and church-centred observations, the observance of which had dwindled during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.[59] In superimposing his secular vision of the holiday, Dickens influenced many aspects of Christmas that are celebrated today in Western culture, such as family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games, and a festive generosity of spirit.[60] Aberry4489 (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done:: You have failed to include your references for the edit request, you have just copied the reference numbers. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea . Was this copied from a 2011 version? If so the references the section and references can be copied by checking the 'edit' button. Ho ho ho, tofu turkey for everyone. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking back, Yes, in fact it was. I copied and pasted to my Facebook page in 2011 crediting Wikipedia (of course). It was such a wonderful addition. Here is the original text from back then if it helps:
 * If you wished someone a "Merry Christmas" this year, thank Charles Dickens. The reason that we celebrate Christmas the way we do is all thanks to his 1844 serialized novella "A Christmas Carol."  Read on:
 * While the 'Merry Christmas' was popularized following the appearance of the story,[55] and the name "Scrooge" and exclamation "Bah! Humbug!" have entered the English language,[56] Ruth Glancy argues the book's singular achievement is the powerful influence it has exerted upon its readers. In the spring of 1844, The Gentleman's Magazine attributed a sudden burst of charitable giving in Britain to Dickens's novella; in 1874, Robert Louis Stevenson waxed enthusiastic after reading Dickens's Christmas books and vowed to give generously; and Thomas Carlyle expressed a generous hospitality by staging two Christmas dinners after reading the book.[57] In America, a Mr. Fairbanks attended a reading on Christmas Eve in Boston, Massachusetts in 1867, and was so moved he closed his factory on Christmas Day and sent every employee a turkey.[33] In the early years of the 20th century, the Queen of Norway sent gifts to London's crippled children signed "With Tiny Tim's Love"; Sir Squire Bancroft raised £20,000 for the poor by reading the tale aloud publicly; and Captain Corbett-Smith read the tale to the troops in the trenches of World War I.[58]
 * According to historian Ronald Hutton, the current state of observance of Christmas is largely the result of a mid-Victorian revival of the holiday spearheaded by A Christmas Carol. Hutton argues that Dickens sought to construct Christmas as a self-centred festival of generosity, in contrast to the community-based and church-centred observations, the observance of which had dwindled during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.[59] In superimposing his secular vision of the holiday, Dickens influenced many aspects of Christmas that are celebrated today in Western culture, such as family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games, and a festive generosity of spirit.[60] (courtesy of Wikipedia)
 * I went looking for this when teaching "A Christmas Carol" in my ENG LIT II course this fall and was sad to find I couldn't locate it. If I'd known then to check the edit button, I might have found it. Thank you for the info.
 * Allen 2600:1700:9250:7210:A5D4:BCF8:B142:84E8 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The important parts of this are still in the article. SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I personally agree with Allen above, that the following cited text should be restored to the article:

According to historian Ronald Hutton, the current state of observance of Christmas is largely the result of a mid-Victorian revival of the holiday spearheaded by A Christmas Carol. Hutton argues that Dickens sought to construct Christmas as a self-centred festival of generosity, in contrast to the community-based and church-centred observations, the observance of which had dwindled during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In superimposing his secular vision of the holiday, Dickens influenced many aspects of Christmas that are celebrated today in Western culture, such as family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games, and a festive generosity of spirit.


 * This text makes it clear that Dickens was not "reflecting" a mid-Victorian revival of Christmas celebration (see thread below: A Christmas Carol was published long before the mid-Victorian era), but that he spearheaded the revival. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But that’s not what Hutton says. He says that Dickens (and Prince Albert) "were responding to a mood already coming into existence". That’s not quite the same as "spearheaded" (a word that is too unencyclopaedic for inclusion).Part of the Kelly reference suffers from close paraphrasing here (Kelly's words are that Dickens "superimposed his secular vision of this sacred holiday"), but is otherwise already included in the legacy section, rewritten to avoid copyright infringement. SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"God bless us everyone" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God_bless_us_everyone&redirect=no God bless us everyone] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)