Talk:Charles Dickens/Archive 5

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 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. 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)

Invisible Woman - film
Here are some links to discussions and reviews of the soon-to-come film, since the book upon which it's based is mentioned:

"'The Invisible Woman': Charles Dickens' Muse And Mistress" - http://www.npr.org/2013/12/21/255739245/the-invisible-woman-charles-dickens-muse-and-mistress?ft=1&f=

"Orbiting Dickens, An 'Invisible Woman'" Or Two - http://www.npr.org/2013/12/24/256613450/orbiting-dickens-an-invisible-woman-or-two

"Ralph Fiennes’ The Invisible Woman: Dickens in Love" - http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/25/ralph-fiennes-the-invisible-woman-dickens-in-love/

"Filling in the Outlines of a Dickens Character, This One Real: ‘The Invisible Woman,’ About Charles Dickens’s Mistress" - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/movies/the-invisible-woman-about-charles-dickenss-mistress.html?_r=0

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013
Charles Dickens' middle name was Terance. Please add this to the title and any other relevant parts of the article.

32.60.108.73 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thanks, but we need a reliable source before this can be added. I found no hits for "Charles Terance Dickens" or "Charles Terrance Dickens" using Google or Google Books.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013
The section on Dickens' second visit to the United States is badly written (containing confusing statements and unclear references to facts that have not been explained):

1. Dickens spent the month shuttling between Boston and New York, where alone he gave 22 readings at Steinway Hall for this period. Does this mean that he was alone on stage in Steinway Hall, but had others on stage with him at other sites? I'm assuming the "alone" was intended to mean that of the 76 readings, 22 of them were in Steinway, but that is not what it says. Additionally, "for this period" doesn't really fit. May I suggest changing this to "...Boston and New York; at Manhattan's Steinway Hall alone, he gave 22 readings."

2. Although he had started to suffer from what he called the "true American catarrh", he kept to a schedule that would have challenged a much younger man, even managing to squeeze in some sleighing in Central Park. "Catarrh" is such an unusual word that I request a change consisting of a link to the Wikipedia page for this medical condition. Additionally, the phrase "true American catarrh" is from the 18 April 1868 speech Dickens gave at Delmonico's -- should that not have been footnoted?

3. During his travels, he saw a significant change in the people and the circumstances of America. -- In the original speech from which this is taken, the context explains that the change is one that took place over 25 years (when Dickens visited the U.S. for the first time). Without that context, the sentence implies that the "change" took place over the few months between November 1867-April 1868. I request an edit which adds that context: Change to During his travels, he saw a significant change in the people and the circumstances of America since his earlier visit in 1842.

4. His final appearance was at a banquet the American Press held in his honour at Delmonico's on 18 April, when he promised never to denounce America again. Although an earlier paragraph mentioned difficulties that Dickens was having with American publishers not honoring his copyright, there's nothing in the article that says Dickens ever denounced America itself. More detail is needed; otherwise, that sentence should be taken out as meaningless flattery to his audience.

5. By the end of the tour, the author could hardly manage solid food, subsisting on champagne and eggs beaten in sherry. This sentence belongs in the previous paragraph, about Dickens' schedule and the stress it placed on his health. It has nothing to do with the current paragraph. Please edit to have this sentence at the end of that paragraph as follows: "...sleighing in Central Park. But by the end of the tour, the author could hardly manage solid food, subsisting on champagne and eggs beaten in sherry." 76.24.169.158 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Tascal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.41.110 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014
Typo: "connected series or sketches". "Of", surely.

Johnniekerr (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed excessive examples from the introduction
The introduction mentions how Dickens would sometimes change plot or character elements in an ongoing serial, in response to feedback. This isn't vital for the intro, but seems ok to me. Then an example, Miss Mowcher, is given. An example may not be needed in the compressed space of the introduction, but it seems like a pretty good example.

Then there are four examples of characters inspired by real people, only one of which relates to the given theme of modification. This is becoming a list, and clearly too much detail for the intro. You could force it to make a little more sense, by introducing a second point, about how some characters were drawn from life. But that's unremarkable; it's common practice for a novelist, and doesn't seem to me to be needed in the introduction.

So I'm cutting this prose list, after the single example of Miss Mowcher. Someone put some work into sourcing these, so I'll leave the cut material here, in case anyone wants to work it in smoothly, later in the article.

Fagin in Oliver Twist apparently mirrors the famous fence Ikey Solomon; His caricature of Leigh Hunt in the figure of Mr Skimpole in Bleak House was likewise toned down on advice from some of his friends, as they read episodes. In the same novel, both Lawrence Boythorne and Mooney the beadle are drawn from real life—Boythorne from Walter Savage Landor and Mooney from 'Looney', a beadle at Salisbury Square.

Thanks. Ale And Quail (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Multimedia works templates

 * This discussion is copied from Archive 4:

I have created A Tale of Two Cities, Bleak House,Nicholas Nickleby, The Old Curiosity Shop, Our Mutual Friend and The Mystery of Edwin Drood. A Christmas Carol, Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, David Copperfield and The Pickwick Papers already existed. I have added all of 11 of these to the article. I don't see a reason why they should not be in the article. I don't think any more works will have multimedia franchise templates like these. I think this is (barely) under the borderline for overtemplating a page. Have a look. I don't watch this page and is infrequently edited. If in the coming weeks, or months you have some issues with my decision, please ping me. Also feel free to endorse for the benefit of others making the same consideration. (If we only ask objectors to make a permanent record, it will be reverted).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the templates for the individual works should be on the author's page; Dickens's own template covers his works. IMO, the templates for each individual work should be on the work's page and also the various works mentioned in each template.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove. This article is about the author, not his works, and allowing templates on individual works can lead to an accretion of information best left to the articles on those notable works. The Marshalsea template should also be removed.  It is too far afield, and no one will come to this article to look for links to information on that prison.  Kablammo (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed Marshalsea. If we are to add templates for every setting or subject of Dicken's works we might as well add templates for London, Paris, the French Revolution, Christmas, and so on.  Kablammo (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the templates based on this discussion. Tony has now reverted that change, and comments on my talk page:

I just noticed this edit. Can you explain to me how this improves the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Per discussion last summer on the talk page. As you know there, was a more general discussion elsewhere on the question which I believe resulted in no consensus, effectively leaving the issue to an article-by-article basis.  I don't know where that discussion is now.  Kablammo (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive_16 by a group of 29 editors, including you, and looked at the simultaneous 2–1 opinions at Talk:Charles_Dickens/Archive_4 by 3 editors, including you. The 5 July 2013 closure of the 29-person decision did not state that the no consensus indicated a preference for case-by-case resolution. This seems to be an issue where a uniform policy is desired. The closer indicated that although there may be support for a maximum number of templates, that issue needs to be resolved at a separate discussion. There was no indication that a case-by-case resolution was desired. Since I don't think we should be draining resources on individual discussions at each author page, I would suggest that a second consideration at WP:NOVELS or a new one at WP:LIT where all the relevant authors (Charles Dickens, Stephen King, Jane Austen, H. G. Wells, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Louis Stevenson, Agatha Christie, Bram Stoker, Felix Salten, Arthur Conan Doyle, Truman Capote, Curt Siodmak, Dashiell Hammett, Émile Zola, Washington Irving, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Oscar Wilde (mostly plays), Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Andersen, Nikolai Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Edgar Allan Poe, A. J. Cronin, Ernest Hemingway, H. P. Lovecraft, John Steinbeck, Herman Melville, Wilkie Collins, H. Rider Haggard, Thomas Hardy, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Henryk Sienkiewicz, John Wyndham) can be considered at once rather than on a case by case basis.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony, thank you for coming here to discuss, but I think the discussion for this article belongs on the articles 's talk page (where I will now move it, and respond further there). Kablammo (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Further discussion:

As the prior general discussion arrived at no resolution, and the opinions were 2-1 in favor of removal, as Tony noted ( and me in favor of removal, and opposed to removal and in favor of the additional templates) I removed the templates last year. Tony has now reverted that change. I will reinstate the change (and remove the templates) soon, unless further discussion here or elsewhere arrives at a result different to that of last summer. Kablammo (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that editors removed the templates against the no consensus 29-person decision at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 16 based on a 2–1 opinion at Talk:Charles_Dickens/Archive_4. I have restored the templates and suggest that a decision be sought at WP:NOVELS or WP:LIT if a new consensus is desired. This is not an issue where each other should have a different style of templating.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merged from section above after this section was created:
 * Tony, there is nothing in the larger discussion that resolves anything, and the possible compromise suggested by the closer was not enacted. Following local consensus here is not prohibited by anything in that discussion. The proper course is what I did: honor the consensus here of this page. Kablammo (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)When User talk:I JethroBT closed the 29-person discussion at WP:NOVELS that spanned from May 2 to July 5, 2013, it indicated that this had resulted in no decision for the extensive list of authors with multiple templates at issue. He made no mention of the proper thing to do being to hold discussions on the 35 talk pages for the 35 authors specifically named or any others also affected by the decision. The 3-person discussion at Talk:Charles Dickens were merely two people responding to an 21 October 2012 separately. SSilvers responded here at 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC). By that time 11 people had already weighed in at WP:NOVELS. It was a form of WP:FORUMSHOPping. Then, in the face of an impending no consensus, Kablammo responded to the FORUMSHOPping on 27 June 2013. There is no reason to recognize a three-person FORUMSHOP over a 29-person decision. Do not remove the templates without a valid supporting discussion somewhere. The appropriate venues, IMO are WP:LIT and WP:NOVELS where a policy can be set for all 35 authors in a discussion that has some substance. I don't want to hold this discussion 35 times.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony, please do not make accusations of forum shopping, particularly where the editors were simply responding to a thread you started here long before the larger discussion elsewhere. And it is not up to you do decide what is valid and what is not-- the consensus here is clear.  Seek to change it if you want, but please stop overriding it to suit your preferences.  Kablammo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking as if I am the one overriding consensus? I tell you what. Since the close of the general discussion hinted that in cases with more than 5 of these templates a separate rule might be in order, I would agree to a compromise like the one at Jane Austen where the multiple templates are capped. Are you willing to compromise?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony, on this page there is consensus to remove them.  Kablammo (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if half the people want to remove them and half the people want them kept, if you wait long enough there will be three people who want to remove them. If you call for opinions you are more likely to find a lot of support for them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Call for opinions

 * The following are the people with 100 edits to Charles Dickens:, ,
 * The following are the people with 50 edits to Talk:Charles Dickens:, , , , ,
 * The following are the leading editors of A Christmas Carol: ,
 * The following are the leading editors of Oliver Twist:
 * The following are the leading editors of Great Expectations:
 * The following are the leading editors of David Copperfield:
 * I am the leading editor for the other templates.

Hopefully pinging these people will generate a broader set of opinions on whether including these templates is useful on the Charles Dickens page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2014
Please remove the second instance of the text "From Richmond Dickens returned to Washington and started a trek westward to St. Louis." from the section "First Visit to the United States". It is redundant - it occurs in the middle of the preceding paragraph. Thanks

Mark.prendergast (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you.  Kablammo (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014
88.15.245.56 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

religious views
I have a problem with this  bit in religious views - 'Dickens was a professing Christian,[69] who would be described by his son Henry Fielding Dickens as someone who "possessed deep religious convictions". Though in the early 1840s Dickens had showed an interest in Unitarian Christianity, he never strayed from his attachment to popular lay Anglicanism.[70] - This is sourced to a book published by an evangelical Christian publisher, not a publisher like Yale University Press or OUP. I have just read Simon Callow's book on Charles Dickens and he states that Dickens did not believe in the divinity of Christ - he liked the parables, the teachings, the character of Jesus Christ merely. that is surely not at all 'Anglicanism' of any kind, whether described as 'popular lay Anglicanism' or whatnot. What is 'popular lay Anglicanism' anyhow. its just a term invented to get Dickens into the orthodox Christian camp as far as I can see. Its woolly really imo. I think the section is somewhat misleading in short and needs rewording and the view that he was Anglican attributed to a Christian writer, for a Christian imprint, and not set up as the final word.Sayerslle (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"anti-americanism"
I removed that addition due to being unsourced. However after searching around a bit, it seems there is indeed some scholarly literature making the claims described in the addition. However according to a recent scholarly publication by Max Paul Friedman, such claims are questionable/disputable and somewhat outdated as well (see: M. P. Friedman: Rethinking Anti-Americanism. Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 13-15, 30-39 (excerpt at Google)).

This means if the claims are readded with proper sources, they should be contextualized with disagreeing more recent scholarly assessment's like Friedman's.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are simply adding those claims again without proper sources I will remove them again. Such information needs to sourced even more if it is challenged. And it needs to be sourced in this article rather than possible elsewhere in Wikipedia. Also note that Wikipedia can never be a source for Wikipedia content. However if those two Wikipedia articles containing those claims do have proper sources, you may reuse/copy them in this article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't think that we needed a source for simply describing the contents of his works. It seems to be a matter of common knowledge. Many of the plot summaries of Dickens's novels, for example in Oliver Twist are unsourced. The article Morrill Tariff has long contained the claims of Dickens (citing his own publication), so I don't see the issue mentioning it here as well. I don't have any other sources immediately at hand.


 * CJK (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well for simple plot summary of those books, I'd agree that no explicit source would be required and that you might consider it "common" knowledge" or simply consider the books themselves as sufficient sources. Describing those books as "anti-american" however falls more in the domain of analysis/interpretation/(value) assessment, for which scholarly or reputable literature review source is required, even more so if as I pointed out above such an assessment is disputed in recent scholarly publications.


 * There is no rush, but without a source thst conntent will have eventually to removed again or at least significantly rewritten following the scholarly source (Friedman) I referenced above. The other two Wikipedia articles will eventually need a source as well if the analysis/assessment there is unsourced--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that scholars have been questioning his perceived anti-Americanism for some time. .And here (all of Chapter 4) is another recent evaluation of it. In fact, as far back as 1843, C.A. Bodelson said "If Dickens's American critics had read Martin Chuzzlewit with a lower blood pressure they would have discovered that the American and English scenes are used as parallel examples of two societies that have both, though in different ways, erected acquisitiveness onto a principle" (Monod p.52). Dickens was, after all, a satirist, and no-one was spared his barbed comments. Richerman   (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional sources, I'm really nor a Dickens anr anti-americanism expert. Friedman was just the first reputable scholarly source I came across, when quickly researching/checking the anti-americanism claims. In any case the current formulation in the article would need to be significantly revised or deleted. In addition the two articles on the Dickens novels from which those claims were apparently taken may need a revision as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't explicitly say it was anti-American, I wrote "he repeatedly attacks Americans" in Martin Chuzzlewit which I believe is an uncontroversial fact. He actually went out of his way to write the republic was so maimed and lame, so full of sores and ulcers, foul to the eye and almost hopeless to the sense, that her best friends turn from the loathsome creature with disgust. Later one his characters says he would draw an American Eagle like a Bat, for its short-sightedness; like a Bantam, for its bragging; like a Magpie, for its honesty; like a Peacock, for its vanity; like a ostrich, for its putting its head in the mud, and thinking nobody sees it— How on earth is that not anti-American?

Dickens so profoundly hated the U.S. that he leaned toward the slave-owning Confederacy, ignoring their own public admissions that they were fighting at least in part to defend slavery.

CJK (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That wasn't what Dickens said about America, those were words spoken by his fictional characters. As American critic Albert J. Guerard said later, he took a "pure creative joy in grotesque invention". His characters weren't saying what he thought, they were over the top caricatures using hyperbole for comic effect. Yes, he was annoyed and disappointed with the Americans after his first visit but if, as you say, he profoundly hated the US he would hardly have gone on a second tour some years later. Richerman    (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The first quote was not from a character and the second quote came in the context of summing up the experience in America. Every single American character is portrayed in a negative light. That it was anti-American was universally acknowledged at the time. Obviously when relations between the two countries grew closer in the 20th century there was a strong interest to sweep this under the rug. Dickens could hardly ignore the fact that at most English speakers (hence much of his readership) lived in the U.S., which is why he visited it again. He did, however, either during or shortly after the visit take cheap shots at the policy of enfranchising blacks (see Racism in the work of Charles Dickens). The same article notes he "nearly" sided with the Confederacy. It appears that his criticism of slavery was so could take cheap shots at white Americans, not because he genuinely sympathized with blacks.

CJK (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, you're right, I misread that, he said it as the narrator. However, according to this article his view of America changed after his second tour. As for his views on slavery, the article about his racism also quotes Moore as saying "overemphasising Dickens' racism obscures his continued commitment to the abolition of slavery". It's not surprising that he didn't think that blacks should have the vote - women in Britain didn't get the vote until 1918 and then they had to be property owners. However, there's nothing to sweep under the carpet - he was a man of his time and, although enlightened in many ways he was flawed in others. But this all just shows why we have to be careful about not letting our own opinions creep in when we're editing and only add information that can be supported with reliable sources. Richerman    (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case one cannot really assess his (real or perceived) anti-americanism based only on a few individual quotes (bing possibly out of contet as well), but one need to look at the overall person. More importantly however any such assessment needs to be done by reputabke eternal sources rather than by Wikipedia editors themselves. We avoid analysing/assessing such things by ourselves, but instead report/summarize the assessments of reputable eternal sources. That is "the" cornerstone of writing Wikipedia articles and exactly the reason why edit in its current form is problematic. Its is an (from a certain perspective reasonable/justified) assessment by a Wikipedia editor rather than report of the assessments of reputable external sources and what is worse, it is even contradicting various recent scholarly sources. From the Wikipedia perspective that's a clear no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I wrote was that he attacked Americans in Martin Chuzzlewit and published an article blaming the Civil War on high tariffs. That really isn't too controversial.

CJK (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We should use summary style here. I've rewritten that section according to a Dickens scholar using a chapter from The Cambridge Companion to Charles Dickens. It's best to keep plot summaries and lit. crit. on the individual subpages. Victoria (tk) 17:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation markup
I noticed that the citation markup in this article is such that a cite to a single source such as, includes the ref brackets. Theses are not necessary, as accomplishes the same thing, and it's arguably better because there is no need to name each citation in order to indicate multiple cites to the same reference. I think it would be better to remove the unnecessary reference brackets, but I don't want to do that only to be reverted, as it's a lot of busywork, so I'm seeking guidance here. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

IMBD
, per this edit, I wanted to double-check the reliability of IMBD, as I've seen more than one editor suggest that the site should not be cited to here. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not a great source. I am sure better ones can be found. --John (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you think it's fine for now, since this isn't even GA yet. I might be wrong, but I've seen a couple of people remove it. Is there a page that lists unreliable sources, as this can be difficult to keep track of? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not considered reliable see: Identifying reliable sources it's listed there. Richerman    (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but it depends on the actual content you source. You certainly cannot use use the IMDB for biographic information. However using it for filmography information is usually ok and the IMDB tends to be relatively reliable in that regard.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014
78.32.40.42 (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)gykfuyof6u76or89.d56l,e3 et789
 * 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. Stickee (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

charles dickens was not agood person.he jikll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.227.116.19 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Template stack
I've added twelve book templates, in chronological order by year of publication, after the expanded Charles Dickens template at the bottom, and would like to propose they be kept in view without a navbox stack. My reasoning is on the size of what can be called the template section. It is not that big, measured up and down, and is comparable with other sections of this article. This section contains a very large amount of information contained within, comparably, a not very large top to bottom space. We on Wikipedia have gotten used to not having a lot of templates stacked up, and hide them within a single section (which I doubt is looked at as much as the templates would be if are visible). Charles Dickens wrote many influential and literarily important books, and to show them in a visible template stack seems like the best way to go for information sharing and data flow. Randy Kryn 00:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually not that I feel that strongly about it, but to me they look fairly displaced. We already have separate articles for those books and the bibliography and that's where those templates belong, here they imho just add unnecessary clutter at thend. The data flow you seem to be concerned about is already provided in a sufficient manner by the first template and the bibliography section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, keeping the stack as is probably isn't feasible. The disjointedness likely comes from the repetition of Dickens' name, and readers here aren't used to seeing large template stacks being visible. As for keeping them on the page, the templates themselves have value, and at a minimum should be kept in some form. If the present form doesn't work then maybe this would do, placed above the main Dickens' expanded template:

Some of these templates themselves need additional entries, and maybe regular Dickens editors can expand them. Others are well done and full. Randy Kryn 10:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

spelling of instalment
The article uses the British spelling of "installment"; whereas, the standard U. S. English is used throughout Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. For that reason, we should change the spelling of "instalment" to "installment" to follow standard US English spelling. Right? I changed one of spellings in the article but will hold off doing more until I get feedback on this issue from TALK. thnx, Primofacts (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One template included at the top of the article is Template:Use British English, so 'instalment' is correct. Wikipedia uses different English spellings in different articles, please read National varieties of English in the Manual of Stylefor more information.  Thanks, Stephenb (Talk) 11:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Charles Dickens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140925203511/http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/sun_3hea.pdf to http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/sun_3hea.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophe
The article is replete with use of "Dickens's", which is correct, however when I try to correct the other 4 or so instances where there is no second 's', the edits are reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarnick (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't do a global replace to correct this. Some of the referenced pages use a second 's', so I have reverted your recent change. Stephenb (Talk) 11:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016
I would like to suggest a Biography reference on Charles Dickens to be added, namely a book written by Una Pope-Hennessy entitled 'Charles Dickens', which I regard as an excellent biographical source, The link to Wiki's information on Mrs Pope-Hennessy is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Una_Pope-Hennessy. Thank you vey much indeed, user< RobinXXI. Roberto J. Romero (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know the ISBN number or do you have a URL? — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Think I got it. Thanks. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 02:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the racism thing a bit overstated?
I think that the way the article presents Dickens' alleged racism may be overstated and out of proportion and necessary context. Dickens is usually thought of as an author of social conscience, and it is also well known that,on his visit to the United States, he opposed slavery. That does not make his views on race perfect or impeccable in every respect. Clearly his support of Ere in Jamaica has drawn criticism, perhaps rightfully so, but some have pointed out that his stance in that situation may have had more to do with his sense of British paternalism (a common Victorian notion) than abject racism. I think that his inconsistencies about race should be brought up in the article, and that the points made in the Racism section should indeed be brought up--but that they would be best placed alongside the larger discussion of his thoughts on political and social issues, pointing out his both his virtues and failings on racial matters--placed in a surrounding body of text. However, by creating a whole one-sentence section about his alleged racism (based on one source that may not reflect a majority view) may be doing him a him a disservice--we cannot be sure that his actual thoughts on race are being adequately conveyed in the way it is presented here, and we may be giving readers the false impression that he is a writer of hate. So, I propose to remove the racism section and move the statement in it to another section. It would be much better to discuss the pros and cons of his views on race in one of the other sections alongside other considerations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Interpreting the work of someone from 150 years ago in modern eyes is a popular pastime at Wikipedia, and there is always someone somewhere who has written a "criticism" that can be used as a source. The section was added by an IP on 21 October 2015. It would be difficult to remove as it points to Racism in the work of Charles Dickens which is full of conjecture, but your proposal is attractive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My thought is that we could retain the statement, but perhaps get rid of the "Racism" section and re-locate the statement about alleged racism into one of the larger sections that discuss his overall political and social views. We could slightly re-word it.  Rather than say "racism" ("racism" is a powerful word that should not be used lightly), we could frame it more in the light of "inconsistencies", (i.e. that despite his stands against slavery, his views on race were not always consistent, and that in some ways, his views were typical of his time).  We could place it a broader context that is more fair and balanced.  We can also remove the link to the article Racism in the work of Charles Dickens--having that link is not only unnecessary, but also inappropriate.  That article (Racism in the work of Charles Dickens) has been criticized for its lack of objectivity, and I have problems with that article's whole existence--it seems more like an opinion essay than an encyclopedia article.  There is no article at Wikipedia called "Racism in the work of Ezra Pound", yet Pound supported fascism and had well-known anti-Jewish sentiments, which he made no attempt to hide, and had views that were far to the right of Dickens, who is usually thought of as residing in the progressive tradition. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I made some modifications in the article. I removed the one-sentence Racism section and moved the statement about Dickens' inconsistences on matters of race up to the statement about the abolitionist positions he took after his first American trip.  I also slightly changed the wording, as not to go as far as accusing Dickens of racism. I have, nonetheless, retained the statement which was previously in the lower section.  I also removed the link to the Racism in the work of Charles Dickens article, because it has been criticized for lack of objectivity.  There had been a previous commentary placed onto the edit page noting the contradictions between the statements about his abolitionism in the American section and perceived racism in the Racism section.  So, I have attempted to rectify the two statements and place criticism of his views into a broader context. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

First stroke
He suffered a stroke on 18 April 1869. (165.120.240.48 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016
The image under "First Visit to the United States" is incorrect and should just be deleted. That image was done in March of 1838 by Samuel Laurence in England, not in the United States. As far as I know, there is no portrait of Dickens from the 1842 American Tour.

Jvarese (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If the current material is incorrect, corrections have to be verifiable and backed by reliable sources. If you have these, please re-open the request. Hope this helps — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Place of death
He actually died in Peckham and was brought back to Gad's Hill. (213.122.144.40 (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2016
Under Farewell readings section, there is a typo in the year: 1689 should be 1869

Sqrtpi (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Typo in 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph of section 1
Instalments could be corrected to installments. Haugeb (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but Wikipedia follows WP:ENGVAR which says that articles can use US or UK spelling (and some other variations), and the spelling style should not be changed without agreement. I've seen so much odd spelling that I'm no longer sure which variation uses "installment", but there are 13 "instalment/instalments" in the article so that is likely to be correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, per WP:TIES the article should (and does) use the UK/Commonwealth spelling. Instalment is only spelled with two ls in the USA, the rest of the world spells it with one. WaggersTALK

Henry James
Henry James' opinion of Dickens during the author's lifetime, at least, was much more positive (at least according to Kaplan's biography of James); and in fact important positive experiences in James' life mentioned by Kaplan seem to have included furtively attending a reading of David Copperfield at a young age, and later in England briefly meeting Dickens (in passing anyway). The negative criticism you mention almost has to be post-1870... Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC) (my point being that to say that "James thought that" is accurate so far as it goes, if one's clear as to when and where, since as with many people his opinion changed, not slightly.)

Opening summary of Dickens neglects to mention any of his important late novels
The introduction describes Dickens as a social critic, but fails to mention any of his massive and important later novels, such as Our Mutual Friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thujone33 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Dickens. 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/20121107040114/http://chucknorris.com/Christian/Christian/ebooks/dickens_life.pdf to http://www.chucknorris.com/Christian/Christian/ebooks/dickens_life.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Typo
Line 8... "installment" is misspelled as "instalment".
 * instalment seems to be the British spelling. Nigej (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Dickens. 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/20131225202712/http://lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka//CD-Forster-13.html to http://lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka//CD-Forster-13.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018
V2 Blurs (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2018 (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. Kpg  jhp  jm  08:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Charles Dickens and racism
In my opinion, any statement promoting Genocide is a racist statement. Here are 2 examples from Charles Dickens' personal letters... --Ne0 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) in a private letter to Baronness Burdett-Coutts on 4 October 1857
 * 2) * I wish I were Commander in Chief of India. The first thing I would do to strike that Oriental race with amazement (not in the least regarding them as if they lived in the Strand, London, or at Camden Town), should be to proclaim to them in their language, that I considered my Holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested; and that I begged them to do me the favor to observe that I was there for that purpose and no other, and was now proceeding, which all convenient dispatch and merciful swiftness of execution, to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth.
 * 3) in a private letter to letter to Emile de la Rue on 23 October 1857
 * 4) * You know faces, when they are not brown; you know common experiences when they are not under turbans; Look at the dogs - low, treacherous, merderous, tigerous villians
 * 5) * I wish I were Commander in Chief over there ! I would address that Oriental character which must be powerfully spoken to, in something like the following placard, which should be vigorously translated into all native dialects, “I, The Inimitable, holding this office of mine, and firmly believing that I hold it by the permission of Heaven and not by the appointment of Satan, have the honor to inform you Hindoo gentry that it is my intention, with all possible avoidance of unnecessary cruelty and with all merciful swiftness of execution, to exterminate the Race from the face of the earth, which disfigured the earth with the late abominable atrocities"


 * Blanket quotes are devoid of any scholarly context. The sub article gives a more balanced view on his racist views with input from scholars. Put forward a draft section in here, and then gain a consensus among other editors. F8RIL (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2018
According to the New York Times, Dickens was on a train that derailed over a bridge, in the only first-class carriage that didn’t plummet into a river. He not only found the key that freed his friends, he went to the carriages below and gave water and brandy to those who needed it.

Then, in a move that can only be called “bad ass,” the ailing 53-year-old “climbed back into the dangling carriage and retrieved from the pocket of his coat the installment of Our Mutual Friend that he had just completed and was taking to his publishers.”

he reason he was never publicly lauded for his actions? He was keeping it on the down-low because he was travelling with his mistress. 92.2.58.84 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019
In the line "Billies was an early supporter of women's suffrage and had painted the portrait in late 1843 when Dickens, aged 31, writing A Christmas Carol", Change the word "Billies" to "Gillies" and the word "writing" to "wrote" Kiwi-fruit (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Dickens's marriage
May I suggest that much more should be said about the failure of his marriage, his own role in this, and his treatment of Catherine and his children before and after. Peter Ackroyd for example would be a good source on this. It reflects very badly on D's character, which I fear is necessary for balance.
 * Here is a useful source that could be added to expand on this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019
In the section Religious views, please change "organized religion" to "organised religion", which is the standard UK spelling. Thanks. 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:EA (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been done. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 09:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Reputation
The article needs to consider more fully the negative criticism of Dickens, both while he was living and in the decades following his death. For example: George Meredith, found him "intellectually lacking":


 * Not much of Dickens will live, because it has so little correspondence to life. He was the incarnation of cockneydom, a caricaturist who aped the moralist; he should have kept to short stories. If his novels are read at all in the future, people will wonder what we saw in them.

See also Stephenson's The Dictionary of National Biography (1888), p. 30.

I'll try and remedy this. Rwood128 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems to me there is plenty of criticism already (see reception). A critique is also featured in the lead section, which is very rare for the bio of an author on here. In terms of balance, the bio is one of the best that I’ve seen on this website. As for Meredith..“not much of Dickens will live”..wasn’t exactly the best prediction. It applies to him though. Caryn Jones17 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My comments are not meant as an attack on Dickens's reputation–I'm an admirer. However, the discussion of his reputation doesn't completely represent the history of Dickensian criticism.


 * I assume good faith, so I didn’t see your comment as an attack on him. I understand your initial sentiment to get a balanced evaluation. What I was saying is there is already a critique of him, both in the lead section and in the body of the article, and when you take a look around this website it’s a lot more than most. Caryn Jones17 (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rwood128 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Charles Dickens for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Charles Dickens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Charles Dickens until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * North America can you explain the significance of this? Do many people actually use portals? I've curious, as I've edited many years and am hardily aware of them. Rwood128 (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just a neutrally-worded notice (in accordance with WP:APPNOTE) to encourage input at the discussion among users likely interested in the content. North America1000 11:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks North America; I still tend to find the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia baffling. Rwood128 (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Where did he die?
In the infobox he died in Higham, Kent, in the article he died at another place, Gads Hill Place. Which is the right place?--Kerchemer (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I see it: Gads Hill Place is a building in Higham. Could it be linked, so that ignorant people like me could get the information faster? Thank you. --Kerchemer (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019
Remove unnecessary comma in second sentence of "Literary Style" section: "Satire and irony, are central to the picaresque novel.[151]" Ave gravis (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ William Avery (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Racism in the work of Charles Dickens
This is currently included in "See also" (the only item). Shouldn't there instead be a small section dedicated to this topic? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It's as if all the racism of Dickens has been pushed in a closet and put in a corner and the article has been whitewashed. Even the word "racism" is not used in the full article. Coderzombie (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Notes" and "Footnotes"
Greetings and felicitations. I find "Notes" to be a bit too close in meaning to "Footnotes", and would like to change that subsection title to "Citations" for clarity. Comments? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"Socialist" and "Telescopic Philanthropy"
I found an image online with the following text:

''"Telescopic philanthropy is a term coined by the British socialist writer Charles Dickens in his critique of bourgeois liberals, who as a form of self-contratulatory egocentrism, pretend to be concerned about "humanitarian" issues far away (especially if it involves people with dark skin) whilst showing a cold indifference to the sufferings of their own working-class and homeless." The script at the bottom of this Victorian "Punch" illustration reads: "Please, M. Ain't we black enough to be cared for?"''

I assume that this is "the" Charles Dickens, and came here to find out if he was really regarded as a "socialist". All I found was that he was a "social commentator". Assuming this is the same Charles Dickens, I have two questions/points: 1)  If he was considered a "socialist", that fact should be included in the Article, and 2)  If he in fact coined the term "Telescopic Philanthropy", that seems noteworthy enough to me to also be included in the Article, particularly when regarding the conversation above regarding Dicken's alleged "racism".68.206.249.124 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Link? Schazjmd   (talk)  19:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)