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)

First off, I don't have to prove anything. You are the one contesting information with a reliable citation in this article. You claim that Dickens could not be a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts because the society had a name change in 1908. Either provide citations to back up what you are saying or the cited information stands. Second, there are references to the "Royal Society of Arts" prior to 1908. For example, on June 20, 1857 in "Best Authority," Charles Dickens himself wrote these words: "I found a fellow-member, Mr. Prowler, of the Royal Society of Arts, lying in wait ..." Finally, the names of organizations can and do change over the years but those name changes do not negate an organization's previous honors and work. If the Royal Society of Arts of today states that Dickens was a fellow and a reliable source for this info is provided, then that's what we go with. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

What, it is information in the article which is uncited, and the burden of proof is to keep it there. There is not information with a reliable citation in the article because there is not a citation to say that he had the FRSA postnominal. Two citations that it is wrong have already been given in this discussion. Moreover even if he did have a FRSA postnominal (which he most likely didn't) it's not clear that it's relevant to include or any kind of honour at all. The RSA of today are not an impartial authority on their own importance or of their fellowship.

The reference to "Royal Society of Arts" prior to 1908 is a mystery, but not conclusive that this was correct. I found a further reference (JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS, 11th March 1949, K.W. Luckhurst, "WILLIAM SHIPLEY AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS: The History of an Idea"), which says: The Princess is the sixth member of the Royal House to be President. Except for a few short intervals the Society has enjoyed this honour for the last 130 years, although it is only since 1908 that it has itself been entitled to the affix "Royal". Historylikeyou (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The term "Fellow" is also anachronistic, according to JSTOR: RSA Journal (emphasis added):

"Established in 1852 The Journal was also designed to record the work of the Society; it contained the formal proceedings of the Society, the notices, the appointment of various committees and their areas of interest. The ‘Royal’ prefix was added in 1908, so Journal’s prior to this are attributed to ‘The Society of Arts’. The Journal was distributed to ‘Members’, prior to 1914 and ‘Fellows’ post 1914, as the term 'Fellow' wasn't introduced until 1914." Historylikeyou (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol. 63, No. 3235, NOVEMBER 20, 1914, page 3:

"Fellowship. - At the Annual General Meeting held on June 24th, 1914, a By-Law was passed authorising all Members of the Society to use the designation of Fellow." Historylikeyou (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol. 62, No. 3214, JUNE 26, 1914, p.693

XXII. - Proposed Fellowship or the Society.

There has always been a wish among a certain number of members that the term Fellow should be applicable to members of the Royal Society of Arts. From time to time a good many letters have been received, many from members residing abroad, asking whether a change could not be made in the Society's regulations, so as either to form a separate class of Fellows, or to constitute all the members Fellows, the idea in the minds of the writers being that the term Fellow implied a higher standing than that of Member.

The Council have always been a little reluctant to make any change in the old constitution of the Society ; but as the alteration seems to be desired by a large number of members they have decided to submit to the meeting a new By-law, under "which all subscribers to the Society will be enabled to use the designation of Fellow or Member. The two terms are obviously identical in meaning ; but inasmuch as the term Fellow is used by a very much larger number of societies than that of Member, it is generally preferred ; and there seems no reason why members of so old a body as the Royal Society of Arts should not, if they wish, use the same title as that adopted by the majority of the younger and similar institutions. Historylikeyou (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

My apology -- I thought the info in the article was already cited. I've now added reliable citations to support the FRSA postnominal. If you have a reliable citation showing Dickens wasn't a FRSA, please share it.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the paragraph you provided about using the term "fellow" instead of "member" after 1914 ties in with what I said earlier about how terminology may change over time but the intent behind the words doesn't change. Again, the RSA is currently stating that Dickens counts as a fellow. Maybe during his time the term was member, but today the RSA counts him as a fellow.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The RSA is not a neutral authority on themselves and their own importance. They obviously benefit from their association with Charles Dickens and exaggerating the age and prestige of their fellowship, and possibly with confusion between FRSA and FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society), a bona fide honour. FRSA is not an honour at all but something practically anybody can get by paying membership fees. It makes no sense to display it after someone's name as if it was an honour they had earned. Historylikeyou (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Did Dickens pay to become an FRSA? Even if he did, did he ever use those letters after his name? That's still the most pertinent question here. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is my final comment on all this. There are a number of interesting theories and ideas being shared about why Dickens shouldn't be considered a FRSA. However, all of this is essentially original research and, despite repeated requests, no reliable citations to support this view have been shared. As such, we go with what can be cited to a reliable source, which is that the RSA states in multiple places Dickens counts as a FRSA. I also suggest all further discussion on this should take place on the Manual of Style's Biography talk page, where the original discussion started.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not "original research" or "interesting theories or ideas". All of your points have already been addressed in this discussion. It's pointless repeating them again. I will post regarding the anachronistic nature of this postnominal on that talk page. Historylikeyou (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The citations provided do not support the content. Neither states explicitly that Dickens used the postnominal. Addition of the postnominal is therefore not supportable and it should be removed. DrKay (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources state that the RSA considers Dickens as having received the FRSA. The use of the FRSA postnominal is not stating that Dickens used the postnominal himself, only that he is considered to have received it by the organization that awards the FRSA. Again, if someone can provide a direct reliable source stating Dickens didn't receive it, I'd support removing it. But this has not been provided.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No-one's contesting that he was a member. You're putting up a straw man. Show us a source with the post-nominal in use. DrKay (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on info shared by Historylikeyou, it appears the term "member" was what the RSA today calls a "fellow." But that's merely a guess since I haven't seen a definitive source proving that. However, the provided sources state that Dickens is considered a fellow of the RSA, as are many other authors from his time period. That is sufficient as a source b/c the postnominal letters are merely "placed after a person's name to indicate that the individual holds a position." In this case, the FRSA postnominal indicates he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and links to that article. The provided sources support all of that.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I should add that I'm totally willing to be convinced that FRSA should be removed. But this is also tied in with a larger discussion on allowing FRSA on any author bio article on Wikipedia. Perhaps this discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography?--SouthernNights (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As DrKay says, no-one's contesting that he was a member. Show us a source with the post-nominal in use. Yes, that might be a better venue for discussion, as there are plenty of others. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

I saw something wrong and want to correct it sir/miss. Archie Sales (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 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. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

Please add a caption saying that a surviving letter by Charles Dickens is also under private ownership by Abbott Antiques and Collectables. A link to the letter and its contents can be seen here. Redacted link Gregory128 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Declined We're not going to help you spam your website. See this page for guidance. — Trey Maturin™ 14:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)