Revision as of 17:26, 19 February 2015 editRationalobserver (talk | contribs)11,997 edits →Citation markup: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:17, 20 February 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,233 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Charles Dickens/Archive 5) (botNext edit → | ||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Multimedia works templates == | |||
;''This discussion is copied from Archive 4:'' | |||
I have created {{tl|A Tale of Two Cities}}, {{tl|Bleak House}},{{tl|Nicholas Nickleby}}, {{tl|The Old Curiosity Shop}}, {{tl|Our Mutual Friend}} and {{tl|The Mystery of Edwin Drood}}. {{tl|A Christmas Carol}}, {{tl|Oliver Twist}}, {{tl|Great Expectations}}, {{tl|David Copperfield}} and {{tl|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).--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 . Can you explain to me how this improves the article.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 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. ] (]) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I have reread ] by a group of 29 editors, including you, and looked at the simultaneous 2–1 opinions at ] 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 ] or a new one at ] where all the relevant authors (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (mostly plays), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]) can be considered at once rather than on a case by case basis.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 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). ] (]) 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 ({{ul|Ssilvers}} and me in favor of removal, and {{ul|TonyTheTiger}} 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. ] (]) 14:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
;Merged from section above after this section was created: | |||
I have noticed that editors removed the templates against the no consensus 29-person decision at ] based on a 2–1 opinion at ]. I have restored the templates and suggest that a decision be sought at ] or ] if a new consensus is desired. This is not an issue where each other should have a different style of templating.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 02:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
: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. ] (]) 15:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
::(ec)When ] closed the 29-person discussion at ] 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 ] were merely two people responding to an 21 October 2012 separately. SSilvers responded here at 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC). By that time in at ]. It was a form of ]ping. 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 ] and ] 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.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 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. ] (]) 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 ] where the multiple templates are capped. Are you willing to compromise?--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 15:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Tony, on this page there is consensus to remove them. ] (]) 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.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
===Call for opinions=== | |||
{{Navboxes | |||
| title = Novels by Charles Dickens | |||
|list1=</span> | |||
{{A Christmas Carol}} | |||
{{Oliver Twist}} | |||
{{A Tale of Two Cities}} | |||
{{Great Expectations}} | |||
{{David Copperfield}} | |||
{{The Pickwick Papers}} | |||
{{Bleak House}} | |||
{{Nicholas Nickleby}} | |||
{{The Old Curiosity Shop}} | |||
{{Our Mutual Friend}} | |||
{{The Mystery of Edwin Drood}} | |||
{{Little Dorrit}} | |||
}} | |||
:The following are the people with 100 edits to ]: {{u|Yogesh Khandke}}, {{u|WickerGuy}}, {{u|Old Moonraker}} | |||
:The following are the people with 50 edits to ]: {{u|Yogesh Khandke}}, {{u|Stephenb}}, {{u|Old Moonraker}}, {{u|Nishidani}}, {{u|Yourfriend1}}, {{u|John}} | |||
:The following are the leading editors of {{tl|A Christmas Carol}}: {{u|Edokter}}, {{u|TheMovieBuff}} | |||
:The following are the leading editors of {{tl|Oliver Twist}}: {{u|Paul A}} | |||
:The following are the leading editors of {{tl|Great Expectations}}: {{u|Artoasis}} | |||
:The following are the leading editors of {{tl|David Copperfield}}: {{u|Dwanyewest}} | |||
: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.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2014 == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Charles Dickens|answered=yes}} | |||
<!-- Begin request --> | |||
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 | |||
<!-- End request --> | |||
] (]) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Done. Thank you. ] (]) 18:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014 == | == Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014 == |
Revision as of 00:17, 20 February 2015
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Dickens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Charles Dickens is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 7, 2012. |
On February 7, 2012, Charles Dickens was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
78.32.40.42 (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)gykfuyof6u76or89.d56l,e3 et789
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
88.15.245.56 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: as you have not requested a change.
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)
religious views
I have a problem with this bit in religious views - 'Dickens was a professing Christian, 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. - 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)
@CJK: 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 Misplaced Pages. Also note that Misplaced Pages can never be a source for Misplaced Pages content. However if those two Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, <ref>{{harvnb|Black|2007|p=735}}.</ref> includes the ref brackets. Theses are not necessary, as {{sfn|Black|2007|p=735}} 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)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Top-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- B-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class England-related articles
- Top-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- B-Class children and young adult literature articles
- Top-importance children and young adult literature articles
- B-Class Hampshire articles
- Top-importance Hampshire articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- High-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class London-related articles
- Top-importance London-related articles
- B-Class Kent-related articles
- Top-importance Kent-related articles
- Selected anniversaries (February 2012)
- Articles linked from high traffic sites