Talk:Charles Dickens

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Change birth year of Catherine Hogarth to "1815" instead of "1816" as here is said, according to her own article where she is born 1815, or explain the difference. Rana Düsel (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Personal Life" section?

It would improve the article if a section on the subject of Dickens' "Personal Life" was created as exists in many biographic articles. There are bits and pieces of his personal life in various other sections. His marriage, his wife, his children, his mistress, etc., should be in one section. I realize that his life and works are a massive body of material to work with, but it should be done to have the first class article that Dickens deserves.--TGC55 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Too short a time duration on archiving.

I think it would improve the functionality of the talk page if the elapsed time duration of talk page comments staying available for direct viewing were increased from the current two months to four or even six months. My reasoning for the suggestion is that not everybody is proceeding in their study of any subject article such as the Dickens article in a lock-step progression of logic arriving at an idea or question about an article such as this article at the same time. Two months is too short a "window" for those thoughts to coalesce in a similar time period.--TGC55 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

In the intro, suggest changing "such as poor social conditions" to "such as poor social or working conditions", as the sorts of places or situations described as "Dickensian" can often include workplaces. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:40D:D7BC:930:C51E (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Religious Views sections

First off, the idea that the bible is the infallible word of God is in no contradictory to progressive revelation. Secondly, progressive revelation is not exclusive to liberal theology, plenty of evangelicals openly advocate it and teach it. I suggest that the line "Dickens also rejected the Evangelical conviction that the Bible was the infallible word of God" be deleted entirely.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

In the section "Influence and legacy", in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, correct "bass relief" to "bas-relief"... possibly also link it to the Wikipedia article "Relief", to enlighten readers who don't already know what it is. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:A0BF:813A:FF02:B8DD (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Racism

there's a whole page dedicated to racism in Dickens' work. Why does it not find even a single mention on the page? Is it to whitewash and isolate him from any criticism? 49.207.194.226 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. I'll create a See also section and put a link to Racism in the work of Charles Dickens. I think there is possibly some scope for including some mentions of the discussions around known issues, such as the implied antisemitism of the Fagin character, though we need to be careful of putting undue weight on some other aspects of the potential racism discussion; we need to keep within accepted parameters, otherwise Wikipedia itself would be responsible for forming opinion see WP:WEIGHT: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". It is worth looking at other mainstream encyclopedias on Dickens, such as the EB: [1], which also doesn't cover discussion on possible racism in Dickens and his writings. The most notable racism accusation has always been focused on the character of Fagin. It's a subtle and complex discussion, because Dickens himself spoke about it - saying that it wasn't his intention to be anti-Semitic, and he edited each subsequent publication of Oliver Twist to reduce the amount of times he refers to Fagin as "the Jew", etc. That is covered in the Fagin article, which seems to me to be the appropriate place. It has to be borne in mind that Dickens was a product of his times, and what is generally regarded as notable about him is how liberal and modern his thinking was compared to those around him. That he may have shared some aspects of the conventional Imperialist thinking of the times is perhaps not surprising and perhaps not so noteworthy as when he distinguished himself with his socialist anti-poverty, anti-class, and anti-slavery views. Nationalism and racism have existed in all peoples throughout history, but we don't go to each article on an historical person and seek to point out the everyday racism/nationalism, such as that of Jesus (example: Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter, in which Jesus calls her people "dogs"), instead we focus on the mainstream, conventional views. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The article does reference his reaction to the Indian Mutiny, which certainly doesn't pass the "product of his times" test. Shtove (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, his reaction was in keeping. It's always important to read things in context, and not just an isolated "sound bite". The British public were appalled by the reports (often exaggerated) they read in the papers of the violence and rape done to British children by the mutineers. The British troops in India then responded in an even more savage manner against the mutineers - such that it doesn't bear reading about, and though initially applauded, it was eventually seen as inappropriate, and the British calmed down. Dickens merely reacted in line with the British public at the time, and certainly less savagely than the British commanders and soldiers out in India. Calling for the deaths of all those responsible was the standard thing at the time. See [2]. SilkTork (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A columnist in a British newspaper, with no special knowledge of the pertinent circumstances, expresses a vulgar opinion with vicious intent: from that angle, Dickens wouldn't look out of place in many of Wikipedia's contemporary reliable sources. Plus ca change. Shtove (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I recently had the dubious pleasure of transcribing Rudyard Kipling and C. R. L. Fletcher's A School History of England (1911, reissued as late as 1983) over at English Wikisource. The sheer amount of casual racism, and ingrained colonialism and patriarchalism, on display there is just staggering. And this was in a textbook for use in elementary school written a generation after Dickens (and there's far far worse to be found from, e.g., H. P. Lovecraft, later still). In terms of biography, for anyone growing up in that environment, the only remarkable feature would be if they somehow managed to avoid being a product of their times and environment. From a literary criticism perspective it's somewhat different of course, since several movements there routinely apply colonial, race theory, gender theory, feminist, etc. lenses to a work or an author's oeuvre, so I would expect that literature to cover such issues both broadly and in-depth. Xover (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Add resting place coordinates for Geolocation completeness

| resting_place_coordinates = <!-- {{coord|LAT|LONG|display=inline,title}} -->

to

| resting_place_coordinates = {{coord|51.4991384|-0.1274443|display=inline,title}}

Blue.lewish (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"Charles Dickens's code cracked by amateur sleuths"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60261545 This seems new, relevant and significant. I do not know where it would best go in the article. FrankSier (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ravens

As recently noted at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, Dickens had pet ravens: [3]. There's more detail here. Does anyone else think this should be mentioned somewhere? I'm unsure of the best location. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If it's mentioned anywhere in this article, I'd think the "Autobiographical elements" section would probably be appropriate. But perhaps it would be more appropriate in the Barnaby Rudge article, in connection with the character of Grip in that novel. Deor (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's certainly a connection and maybe it should go in there first. But seems a more general detail about his personal life. Then there's also the pet cat's paw that he kept as a letter opener!? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

FRSA postnominal should be removed

The FRSA postnominal should be removed from the lede and infobox. Dickens could not have had this postnominal in his lifetime as the organisation only got the Royal title in 1908. (Royal_Society_of_Arts). Moreover, FRSA is not an honour but represents a membership that is open to a wide range of people by paying a subscription. Related discussion here. Historylikeyou (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The RSA website states the royal charter was granted in 1847 while adding that Dickens was not only a member but also a vice-president. So I'm not certain of your facts here. If you have citations to back up your statements please share them. As it is now, the FRSA info should remain. --SouthernNights (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Historylikeyou is correct, the Royal Society of Arts adopted the Royal title only in 1908. The Society's own website, to which you yourself have linked above, says exactly that. The relevant question seems to be rather, did Dickens himself (or indeed any Fellow, before 1908) ever use "FRSA"? I also note that Karl Marx was also a member, from 1862, (see e.g. this record). But this fact does not seem to be noted anywhere in his article. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's possible the exact specifics of what they called the fellowship when he and others received it prior to 1908 may have been different, but you have presented no proof of what this might have been. As such, we can only go with what the sources say and at that link the RSA lists Dickens under the header "Famous Fellows." Until reliable citations are presented to support what you're saying, all you have presented is conjecture and the FRSA postnominal should not be removed.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

SouthernNights, do you have any source(s) that show(s) that any Fellow of the RSA, before 1908, ever used the post-nominal "FRSA"? Or perhaps the RSA itself makes this clear somewhere? More importantly, do you have any clear examples of where Dickens himself used it? In the absence of any such evidence, I would suggest that your own thesis here is pure conjecture. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As well as the society's website, The Online Books Page states of the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:

This journal began in 1852 as the Journal of the Society of Arts, adding "Royal" to its name when the society gained royal recognition in 1908. Historylikeyou (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)