Talk:Charles Dickens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Criticisms

In other articles, criticisms are not defended to the extent that the defenses occupy more room than the criticisms...why are they here? More of the criticism is given over to praise for Dickens rather than actual literary criticism. For example, why is there no mention of the frequent assertation that his florid prose was developed as a result of being paid by the word? Let's take the Criticisms section and I'll colour bits which are actually criticising Dickens' style green, with the rest in red:

"Criticisms

Dickens' fiction is often viewed as overly sentimental, as with the extended death scenes of Little Nell in The Old Curiosity Shop (1841) and young Paul Dombey in Dombey and Son (1848). In Oliver Twist, Dickens provides readers with an idealised portrait of a young boy so inherently and unrealistically "good" that his values are never subverted by either brutal orphanages or coerced involvement in a gang of --164.116.249.9 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Italic textLindsey GOnzalez.

These novels, as with most of his novels, also employ somewhat incredible coincidences (for example, Oliver Twist turns out to be the lost nephew of the upper class family that randomly rescues him from the dangers of the pickpocket group).Such coincidences were a staple of the eighteenth-century picaresque novels (such as Henry Fielding's Tom Jones) that Dickens enjoyed so much. So there is an intertextual aspect to this convention. However, to Dickens these were not just plot devices but an index of a Christian humanism that led him to believe that "good" wins out in the end, often in unexpected ways. Looking at this theme from a biographical context, Dickens' life, against many odds, led him from a disconsolate child forced to work long hours in a boot-blacking factory at age 12 (his father was in the Marshalsea debtor's prison) to his status as the most popular novelist in England by the age of 27."

Absymal. I'm going to stick an NPOV tag on that section. -- Dandelions 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and:

"Later Victorian novelists such as Thomas Hardy and George Gissing were influenced by Dickens, but their works display a lack or absence of religious belief and portray characters caught up by social forces (primarily via lower-class conditions) that steer them to tragic ends beyond their control" What on earth is meant by that? Try saying that there's an absence of religious belief in Tess of the D'Urbervilles, for example- it's one of the central themes of the novel. The whole section on Sorrow relies on it, as does the reason for Angel Clare leaving the country, and the punishment of Tess in the end. -- Dandelions 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)charles dickens was a succesful young man

Well criticism is a rather ill chosen sub-heading probably added by someone who likes sectioning articles. The legacy section should have a balance throughout of what is good and bad about his works rather then a bad news section. Also the by the word claim is not true but something could be added about padding. meltBanana 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole section has bugged me for a while. If you feel knowledgeable enough to do it, pls just fix that section, rather than tagging it. I suspect the problem starts with "'Dickens' fiction is often viewed as overly sentimental". Viewed by whom? If we mean modern readers, let's say that, and put it in context with other contemporary novels. If we mean Dicken's comtemporaries, a ref to criticism by one would be good. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 14:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Little Nell

That Little Nell's death in The Old Curiosity Shop is generally viewed as mawkishly sentimental can hardly be controversial. This is surely one of the best-known things that people say about Dickens. a google search of "Little Nell"+"mawkishly sentimental" turns up two separate essays. Beyond that, um, are people aware that there are two meanings to the term "Criticism?" john k 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Grew up with Dickens up to the eyeballs, have never heard anyone use that specific phrase. Doesn't make it untrue (Bleak House is one of my favourite heaps of slush), just that it's hardly "one of the best-known things that people say about Dickens". I'd suggest this phrase comes from a Dickens study-notes jobby, perhaps in a specific country, and is now a cliche among people who studied in that country.

All of which brings us back very nicely to: Who is saying this? Dickens' contemporaries? 2006 readers or academics? In Kenya? These are real questions - if you know, pls improve the article by answering them! Cheers, JackyR | Talk 02:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, wasn't meaning to say the specific phrase, necessarily, but just the idea that Little Nell's death is awful has been around at least as early as Oscar Wilde, who had a famous witticism on the subject - "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing." The passage of the death of Little Nell was famously found to be incredibly moving by contemporaries, but very soon afterwards got a reputation as sort of officially The Worst of Dickens, and this opinion has never really changed. Here is a review of a recent book which apparently featured a character called "Little Nell," in which the review author notes, as an established fact, that everyone thinks Little Nell is awful. Here is G. K. Chesterton writing on Dickens. Chesterton attempts a partial defense of Little Nell, saying:

It is not true, as is commonly said, that the Dickens pathos as pathos is bad. It is not true, as is still more commonly said, that the whole business about Little Nell is bad.

He continues:

The death of Little Nell is open certainly to the particular denial which its enemies make about it. The death of Little Neil is not pathetic. It is perhaps tragic; it is in reality ironic. Here is a very good case of the injustice to Dickens on his purely literary side. It is not that I say that Dickens achieved what he designed; it is that the critics will not see what the design was. They go on talking of the death of Little Nell as if it were a mere example of maudlin description like the death of Little Paul. As a fact it is not described at all; so it cannot be objectionable. It is not the death of Little Nell, but the life of Little Nell, that I object to.

So, Chesterton, writing in 1903, obviously believes that the death of Little Nell is widely viewed as being maudlin (and also that of Paul Dombey). He also believes that while this judgment is unfair, the character of Little Nell is still awful. Basically, the story as I understand it is that people in the 1830s really really loved Little Nell, and found her death scene to be incredibly moving. By the late 19th century, it had become common opinion that it was The Worst of Dickens, and a maudlin and mawkishly sentimental monstrosity. This latter view has tended to predominate ever since (with some partial rebellions, like Chesterton's), and can still be found in that 1998 NY Times book review as the customary view on Little Nell. Having to defend the idea that people think the Little Nell business is bad seems weird - it feels to me to be fairly close to literary "general knowledge" - I'd have thought that anyone who knows much of anything about Dickens "knows" (whether or not they've actually read The Old Curiosity Shop) that, as Chesterton says, "the whole business about Little Nell is bad." One knows this in the same way that one "knows" that Shakespeare is the greatest writer of the English language, and such similar things that one "knows" about literature without actually reading it. john k 04:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of writing for a general audience, not your peers! I came to Dickens through general knowledge and as a reader, not through "doing" him. Before reading the books, what I knew "in the same way that one "knows" that Shakespeare is the greatest writer" is that Dickens wrote about great poverty and injustice (we use Dickensian now to refer to industrial squalor and poverty), and worked to change these; that he created immortal names and characters, (Oliver, Scrooge etc) and that he could do a mean ghost story. And that he could be, ahem, verbose.

I've just tried a friend on this, and of a list of eight things he could think of about Dickens, (orphans, poverty, smoky London...), sentimentality wasn't one. He also pointed out that Dickens' best-known books (to the ordinary person) are probably "A Christmas Carol" and "Oliver Twist", from which poverty and hypocrisy are the themes that stick in the mind. Understand that I'm not denying that Dickens could write a sentimental scene when he wanted to, but behind it he is being incredibly hard-nosed (knowingly manipulating his audience).

However, you make it clear that there is a view on this in English Departments (or at least, among critics from certain times and places), so without making claims about what is "best-known" about Dickens, I have tried to integrate this info into the article a bit better. Also, the way the article was phrased was ambiguous as to whether it was describing (in fact, criticising) Dickens himself as sentimental: I have had a go at that too.

It would be great if you could check my work -- and add refs (this article failed FA status on lack of refs). Sounds like you're an Akshal Eggspert on this, so it's good to have you watch over any changes :-) JackyR | Talk 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a view of English departments, it's a widely held view which led to a famous Oscar Wilde quote. Is Wilde now an English professor? The thing was referenced in a recent Doctor Who episode, for God's sake. At any rate, most English professors now hold a much more positive view of Dickens than people a century ago did, but the death of Little Nell remains a really famous thing, and by famous, I mean "infamous for its sentimentality." Just because you and your friend don't know something doesn't mean that it's not well known. john k 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's a decent discussion of the basic Little Nell issue. john k 13:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, me and the first person I saw wasn't supposed to constitute a scientific survey. But if you will make positive statements like: "one knows this in the same way that one "knows" that Shakespeare is the greatest writer of the English language" and "one of the best-known things that people say about Dickens"... :-)

Maybe I should have stuck to my first draft of that post, which began something like: "Thank you, your info is brilliant: it's exactly answered my questions and I hope some of Dandelion's original objections. Could you integrate the info and your refs into the article?". But I decided to have bash at the first draft myself - it still needs references from you and generally would still benefit from your improvements. In particular, my new subhead of "Literary techniques" is poor and the emasculated section may now overlap with material further down.

Obviously I wrote that post v badly, as it sounded like I was disagreeing with you. In fact, you've completely made your point that there was criticism of The Old Curiosity Shop as sentimental-in-a- bad-way in the literary world in some period 1870 - ? (I daren't try to summarise further, as every time the word "people" is used unqualified, I lose a grip on who is meant... )

Please, check/fix what I've done in the article (which is what matters), and use your wonderful references to be clear when you mean "English professors now", English professors circa 1900, literary critics, the general reading public in the 1840s, 1900s, 2000s... This whole discussion arose from trying to get away from "Dickens' fiction is often viewed as overly sentimental", which was either imprecise or judgemental, depending how one took it.

I've now spent much longer on this post than on the article, which is Not Good. Argghh! JackyR | Talk 22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I read my first Dickens in 7th Grade. It had a lasting impression on me as a great work of fiction. My English teacher taught me how to write essays based on the style of other authors, and I believe Dickens offers the greatest lessons. Also, anyone who critisyzes Dickens' writing as long and drawn out, must remember that Dickens was paid by the word in for his installations in the magazines which he worked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.120.65 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC) hes lame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.58.100 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wilde's famous mot on the death of Little Nell is correctly quoted above, but the quotation in the article, notwithstanding the correct (footnoted--footnote 50) reference, is incorrect and does injustice both to Wilde and to Richard Ellmann. Please correct it! 173.48.130.196 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? If Wilde made the comment in conversation it is probably impossible to say for sure what his exact words were. The differences between versions of the quote seem very minor. I would prefer to treat Ellmann as definitive in the absence of some reason to the contrary. PatGallacher (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Small Style Issue

"He continued to maintain her in a house for the next twenty years [after 1858] until she died." That doesn't make sense. He died in 1870 himself. How could he himself maintain her after his own death?

I found another correction. Not a big deal, but under the subcategory Rail Accident and Last Years, I found a sentence needing a bit of work: "He suffered another stroke on June 8 at Gad's Hill, after a full day's work on Edwin Drood, and five years to the day after the Staplehurst crash, on 9 June 1870, he died at home at Gad's Hill Place after suffering a stroke, after a full, interesting and varied life." ----Jarlaxle180 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ten pound note

Charles Dickens was pictured on the ten pound note for around ten years (1992-2002?). This ought to be mentioned in the article somewhere - I'm sure Shakespeare is the only other writer to be shown on British currency and there have probably been less than twenty people shown on British banknotes.

yes, he was recently replaced by Darwin, I have one in my pocket now.

Cultural depictions of Charles Dickens

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Caption oddness

Do people really acclaim Dickens for being famous, as the caption at present appears to state? I'll change that later unless someone else does first, providing no-one thinks I'm missing some other meaning of the phrase. --Chips Critic 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, on behalf of C. Dieckens.--Ed Peartree 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the whole Charles picture thing. What you have to do is delete the heading that says Charles Dickins and replace it with Charles Dickens again. I think that the vandal putup some code that disguised the real typing and made it look like Charles Dickens but said something different.

Life

The section on Dickens's life ends without stated where the bronze of Dickens is located. Can someone end this section with the appropriate location of the bronze? JJ 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It was removed by some previous vandalism. I have restored it. Stephenb (Talk) 12:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

DICKENS BIRTHPLACE, AN ERROR! Could someone please edit the section relating to the birthplace of Dickens? He was born in Newtown which no longer exists. His house now stands in Buckland and not Landport as stated. A small matter maybe but important to Buckland residents proud of their famous son. ( user eng Buckland 24/07/08 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.37.195 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The 'Autobiographical Elements' section includes the words "Dickens's own family was sent to prison for poverty .... " This is not only misleading, but absurd. England would have had to have been covered with prisons. I think it would suffice to change "family" to "father", and "poverty" to "debt". 66.167.132.17 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting this: good catch! --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

Surely the photograph of Dickens has been left-right reversed? He was almost certainly right-handed, and in this picture he is left-handed. I know the picture occurs frequently on the internet, but there are also many others with the pen in his right hand and with his hair parting on the other side. Who knows where the error originated, but this is not the place to continue it. Chris McManus, University College London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.38.235 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The original of the photograph can be found in the National Portrait Gallery in London ( http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait.php?sText=charles+dickens&submitSearchTerm.x=0&submitSearchTerm.y=0&search=ss&OConly=true&firstRun=true&LinkID=mp01294&page=1&rNo=5&role=sit ) and clearly shows Dickens writing with his right hand. Chris McManus, UCL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.38.235 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a fairly firm rule (see MOS:IMAGES) that sitters should face the text, so we can't just re-reverse the image and use it in the infobox. I suggest using this for the infobox and using the NPG image, the right way around, lower down.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As page protection is in place I've jumped in and done it. Thanks to Chris McManus for noticing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gad's Hill, Gads Hill, Gadshill

Which one? I though it would be out of the first 2, but I just had a look at an OS map and its the 3rd on there. Anyone know the etymology of the word? Its from a personnal name (Gad's) or named after the gadfly perhaps or a corruption of gates hill or something similar(Gads)? Is the OS wrong? Would be nice if we can get a difinitive answer and get everything agreeing. --LiamE 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a house - Gad's Hill Place, near Rochester, is now a school. See this site which also links to Multimap and the grid reference: TQ709708 (Admitedly, this site lists it as Gads Hill without the apostrophe - every other reference I can find lists it with) Stephenb (Talk) 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very well aware its a house, thank you. It is also the name of the locality, presumably where the house gets its name seeing as the name predates the house in English literature by many, many years. Not only is that map linked without an apostrophe, it is also clearly one word - and that happens to be an OS map and those guys don't often get things wrong. I agree that the majority of written sources go with Gad's but a fair proportion go with Gads. So we still have three choices. Without the etymology its pretty hard to decide which is correct. The site you linked only proves my point as it uses Gads, points to a site that uses Gad's (which in turn links to other sites that use either), and links a map with Gadshill as one word! --LiamE 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And just for the record the single word form seems to be the earliest record, the area

being famous for highwaymen as long ago as Shakespeare's time ..."Poins! Now shall we know if Gadshill have set a match. O, if men were to be saved by merit, what hole in hell were hot enough for him? This is the most omnipotent villain that ever cried 'Stand' to a true man." - Henry IV Part 1, act 1, scene II. --LiamE 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You may be out of luck as regards consistency. A quick scan of some of Dickens' letters online suggest he spelt it both Gadshill and Gad's Hill although these may represent errors in transcription. For etymology, something I read suggested that it is the same as gad: a vagabond or to hang about i.e. "gad about" which is what is mainly happening in Henry IV. My guess though would be a corruption of God's Hill, god often morphing into gad. meltBanana 01:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please edit the section on where Dickens was born please? He was born In Buckland Portsmouth not Landport. His house stands today in what was Newtown at the time of his birth and is now Buckland.( user eng Buckland 24/7/08 )

Dickens', Dicken's, Dickens's?

What is the correct possessive form of his last name? I always get confused. Mathwhiz90601 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because Dickens is a singular noun, the possessive adds the 's... so Dickens's is correct. The Dickens' form could only be used in reference to more than one Dickens owning something. QuietApocalypse 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the plural of Dickens is Dickenses, and the possessive of that would be Dickenses'. (eg. The Dickenses' house was in Soho). JackofOz 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think QuietApocalypse meant that "Dickens'" could be the possessive of the plural of "Dicken". The Wikipedia page on possessives implies that "Dickens'" could be used here if that's how it's usually spoken, but if you want to be on the safe side, I'd recommend "Dickens's". Xiner (talk, email) 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To get the possesive form of a noun, you add an 's, but since Dickens already ends in an s, the correct possesive form would be Dickens'. Random89 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a matter of (actually, rather recent) opinion, and "Dickens's" is just as acceptable Stephenb (Talk) 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In Strunk and White's Elements of Style, a seminal work, one of the chief points is that a singular noun (like Dickens) always takes an 's in the possessive, no matter the final consonant. Examples include Charles's, etc. Dickens's is correct. The apostrophe alone is for plural nouns, like witches', etc. Vincent Valentine 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the article text roughly 5:1 in favor of "Dickens's" (E&OE). Three stragglers changed to the majority version. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It really should be Dickens' . If a word ends in s, you add an apostrophe ; if it has no s, you add 's. That's the simple, traditional way (no fretting about singular versus plural). The newer method was a slipshod invention & complicates matters needlessly (all that singular versus plural gobbledygook layered on top of the s versus non-s dichotomy). If you don't believe me, consider this : s' = always correct & x's = always correct (traditional method, with x = any non-s letter). With the invented, complicated method, s' might be correct, or might not ; s's might be correct, or might not. Apropos Strunk and White : Elements Of Style is not a seminal work ; it's merely their personal opinions. If they think that there were 2 Charles Dickens, that's their problem. But don't worry. I am not going to start an edit war. I just want to reassure anyone using the correct, traditional method ( ONE s ). That's all I am going to say. Peace.

I think Strunk and White, which is in agreement with most of the other reference works, seems to outweigh the above unsigned and unreferenced "if it has no s, you add 's" rule. Sincerely hoping, as well, not to start an edit war, reverting to the consensus version. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to be ravingly pro-Dickens. Its a bit too much work for me, but I think someone ought to fix it (<---the rallying cry of the extremely lazy) --Adroit Nubian 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dickens' poetry

This article is lacking Dickens' poetry. A section should be added in the Bibliography entitled "Poems" and list such works as "The Ivy Green." Xcountry99 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Charles Dickens ebooks for cell/mobile phones

I added an external link so wiki users can download the Charles Dickens books for free to their cheap cell/mobile phone. Hopefully this will encourage them to read his great works without having to print them on paper or being stuck on a PC for hours. Please do not treat it as spam. johnmizzi 14:50 17 Dec GMT+1

Why was the link for Cell/Mobile phone ebooks deleted? There, the ebooks are FREE and I am not even asking for tax deductible donation money!! Johnmizzi 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

These questions have been answered by several administrators. Sarah Ewart 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dickens as Reformist

The bit about Dickens as reformist and its gloss in opening section is a little misleading. Sure Dickens attacked British institutions with some ferocity ie. Poor Law etc but there is no suggestion that he ever had any constructive ideas as to what to replace them with or how to reform them. Orwell's essay on this subject concludes that Dickens's very confused politics were essentially destructive, or at least his political theories never really moved beyond a call to 'be nice'. Of course, Dickens would have replaced much stuff with 'something better' but he had no clue as to what this 'something better' was. I've removed the section. Please replace if you feel this is petty/unfair.ThomCostello 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

In the course of tracking vandalism by User:70.186.212.254, I noticed that this user changed the following paragraph, by editing the honeymoon location from Chalk, to Sandwhich. I'm not sure if this is actually vandalism, since I don't know the truth, but just wanted to point it out to anyone who may be better informed. The edits were to this passage: "On 2 April 1836, he married Catherine Thompson Hogarth (1816–1879), the daughter of George Hogarth, editor of the Evening Chronicle. After a brief honeymoon in Chalk, they set up home in Bloomsbury where they produced ten children. Their children were:" Hiberniantears 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mary Weller

Shouldn't something be in here about Mary Weller and how she impacted Dickens's imagination? 71.0.240.5 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.0.240.56 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Okay if you demand an answer: no. There are many influences for any writer and the critic F.R. Leavis dismisses many of them in the case of Dickens as being over simplistic views of Dickens' genius. So he had a wacky nursemaid does not mean he was fated to become a writer and her influence may have been to the detriment. but this of course is just my view, she is mentioned briefly at The Uncommercial Traveller. meltBanana 03:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mary Weller is discussed at some length in Michael Slater's work "Dickens and Women". She is important to understanding his life, but not necessarily his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.195.112 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

HEY

67.43.21.12 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)HEY ALL WHAT IS THE WORK CITED ON THIS SITE??--67.43.21.12 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Go get someone else to do your school project for you. --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

I created a navigation box for Dickens, Template:Charles Dickens, but it didn't come out the way I expected. Anyway, this would be great to tag at the bottom of this article (and those of each of his works) so the huge Bibliography section can be removed. Thoughts? Midnightdreary 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, I like it. What were you unhappy with? --Stephen Burnett 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and replaced the Bibliography section with it; thus far there have been no objections. Chris Buttigieg 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good and it's relatively easy to navigate. Now people can create more articles for Dickens's works and link them here. Sorry, I haven't been checking this page that often. -Midnightdreary 17:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that it appears to have lost information - i.e. the years that the books and essays etc. were published, which gave an idea of how Dickens's career progressed. Stephenb (Talk) 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to stick them back in. -Midnightdreary 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

North Road, Highgate

Is it true that the Dickens Museum is the only surviving house in which the author resided? There is also a blue plaque on a house in North Road in Highgate, North London that claims he once lived there. There is also a blue plaque in Tavistock Square which claims he also once lived there.--87.74.68.164 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Tavistock Sq plaque says that he lived on house on the site of the present building. The house itself is no longer there.--Pfold 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters

This article doesn't seem to have an actual link to the category: Charles Dickens characters. I found the category myself by following a link to one specific character and finding the link there! I think a direct link to the category would be useful, at the bottom and perhaps also in the section on characters. Mooncow 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Chris Buttigieg 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of works by Charles Dickens

I was wondering if there is a reason no such list of his works is found on this site. I would love to see him have a complete bibliography as a stand-alone article like many lesser authors do Black Harry (T|C) 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists are considered unencylcopedic on Wikipedia. But, even so, there's a decent navigation box (if I do say so myself) near the end of the article that does, in fact, list most of his works. Hope that helps. -Midnightdreary 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but there has been a recent trend of forking bibliographies (and other list of works) from the writers main page. I was thinking that Dickens would be a good candidate for such a list. Black Harry (T|C) 03:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying... but because lists are unencyclopedic so the navbox is supposed to take its place. Even so, I don't disagree with you creating a separate article, but certainly not the main page. We can link it from here under a "see also" heading maybe. -Midnightdreary 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, though there may be works by him not listed (by no means am I Dickens expert) Black Harry 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Birth

Charles Dickens was not born in Landport Portsmouth as stated but in Buckland Portsmouth! His house, now a museum is in Buckland. Please correct this error.

Friendship with Edward Bulwer Lytton

It might be worth recording that Dickens was a great friend of the novelist Edward Bulwer Lytton who lived at the splendid gothic mansion Knebworth House in Hertfordshire. Lytton wrote many historical novels including the famous Last days of Pompeii. Dickens used to put on plays at Knebworth to amuse house guests. Les Gillard

Bulwer Lytton also wrote Paul Clifford, famous for its opening, "It was a dark and stormy night ..." Jhobson1 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), I have reinserted the bibliography for this article. There is no guideline or policy on Wikipedia which states that lists of books in author articles are "unencyclopedic." While the template is a useful item to have on Dickens related articles, the template does not take the place of a complete bibliography. A good bibliography has much more info than can be captured in any simple template (and I should add that this article's bibliography could have a lot more info--such as where the novels were first serialized--which I hope an editor will add in the near future). Best, --Alabamaboy 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this move. I also like the idea of seeing a chronology of Dickens' works. How/when his stories were first serialized would be great. There is so much more context to be had in a separate and complete bibliography. You can get an idea of exactly how Dickens became the force he became.-BillDeanCarter 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There were also a ton of books missing from the template. Not every book by Dickens has its own article, so the template as bibliography was extremely incomplete. I've added most of these into the bibliography, but if I missed anything please let me know.--Alabamaboy 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because an article for a work does not exist doesn't mean they can't be listed on the template. Dates can be added as well (what other context does the bibliography provide that can't be found in that work's own article?). Further, the Wikipedia policy on lists of works does not suggest that bibliographies are required, but just that there is a recommended uniformity about them. Further, especially based on discussions on that policy's talk page, it's really referring to articles that are solely a list of works, not sections within a main article. I contend that aesthetics (and length of article) are good reason to avoid a bibliography in this article. I'm not saying my opinion is the foremost one, I'm just throwing it out there. Can this be discussed here a bit? Even Wikipedia policies are made to be broken. --Midnightdreary 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I dislike bloated "navigational" templates that get so large they become unwieldy. The long and complete list of works belongs in the bibliography (which is important for understanding the development of the writer), and the template should be restricted to linking to existing pages. nadav (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is shocking that Charles Dickens, one of the most popular writers of the nineteenth century as well as one of the influential novelists in the English tradition does not have a complete bibliography on wikipedia. A list of an author's works is crucial to understanding his or her writing. It also alerts the reader to texts he or she may not have read before and may now be interested in reading. Moreover, the policy does now indeed encourage editors to include complete lists of works, particularly when they can be cited (and a Dickens list certainty could). I would strongly encourage the editors here to consult scholarly bibliographies and copy out a list of Dickens' works in an orderly fashion. Since his output was so prodigious, I would expect a second page to have to be created for this endeavor and a selection of that larger list placed in the main article. Like Midnightdreary, I agree that Dickens' long list of works should not be placed entirely on this page for aesthetic and length reasons. In fact, the new policy indicates that just this sort of forking is necessary when the list of works becomes long, so I am not sure what wikipedia polices we would be "breaking" here. It seems to me more like we would be fulfilling them. (A quick glance at any annotated bibliography, Midnightdreary, will reveal how much they can contribute to "contextualization." The level of detail accorded to each text is very helpful. Here is a secondary source example.) Awadewit | talk 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that link, and you make a good point with it. Might I suggest, then, that a full bibliography be included on a separate page, such as Bibliography of Charles Dickens or Works by Charles Dickens or something along those lines? That way, the bibliography can be very detailed and annotated without clogging up this great article on Charles Dickens's biography and influence, etc. This has been a worthwhile discussion, so I'm glad I brought it up. --Midnightdreary 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now forked off most of the bibliography into its own article. All that remains here are the novels, short story collections, and selected other books. Please check it out. I do think, though, it is vital to leave some of the bibliography here so readers can get a feel for what he published without going to another article. BTW, I don't know if you've ever looked online for a good bibliography of Dickens works, but there isn't one. Wikipedia has a good chance to set the standard here (with a little more work). I'd also suggest trimming all the non-linking info from the navigation template. That way the nav template only contains links to existing or needing to exist articles. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually spent over an hour trying to find a complete Dickens bibliography online and was unsuccessful. Like the other two lists of works I have contributed to wikipedia, this would also help fill a missing piece of information on the internet. That in and of itself is a valuable enterprise. Again, I agree with the forking, since the list will be very long. Awadewit | talk 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so this remains a discussion rather than a conversation, I appreciate that the bibliography is included. Dickens does test any policy to its limits, so I checked what was done with the West Midlands playwright and it appears similar- and it is close the the Henry James example. My final test is what does the hypothetical reader expect from an encyclopedic article and with Dickens it must be links to his writing- everything else is secondary. From the school student researching an essay, the academic or the visitor to a festival wanting to know more. This does provide the summary that can be fleshed out in a separate article with a *full* list and critique of ever scrap of paper ever attributed- but don't reduce the information provided so far.ClemRutter 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the "Notable Works" section of the article makes the navigation box at the end of the article (which amounts to another "notable works" section) redundant? Llajwa 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Template box

I agree with Nadav1 that bloated templates, such as the Dickens box are less than helpful. If the Dickens editors are wedded to the idea of a template, however, I suggest that they design one such the eighteenth-century British children's literature template. It appears as a single line at the bottom of the article (see Sarah Trimmer) and the user clicks on each individual category for further information; that click takes the user to another page with the lists of information. Awadewit | talk 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for addition

Please add [[mn:Чарльз Диккенс]] in the language list, as it is disabled for me to edit. --202.72.243.70 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox citations?

Editors have started adding influences/influenced writers to the infobox. These are uncited, and often unsupported anywhere on wikipedia (e.g., if you follow the link to the writer's WP page, Dickens is not mentioned, or is simply listed as an influence in that writers infobox, again with no citation). If the linked to article does not support the inclusion in the infobox, then please add citations to your addition, else it will have to be deleted as unverifiable, like any other info on WP. Thanks. Doctormatt 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

proposed External Link

I'd like to add a link like:

• Free to read on a cell phone - Dickens works.

to the External Links section. This links to a list of Dickens works that you can download to read on a cell phone. I have read quite a few from this site and got a lot of value out being able to read the PD texts away from the PC.

The texts are Public Domain in the US, just like Project Gutenberg, they are packaged with the reader and available under a creative commons licence (share if (attribution, non-commercial, no derivative) ). The site is non-commercial without registration, subscription, or advertising. The texts as packaged together with the reader as a java program that runs on cell phones, this is a way for people to access the authors work that adds to the range in the existing external links (hopefully translating to more reading going on).

I checked WP:EL and the link seems appropriate:

• What should be linked: '...should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.'
• Links normally to be avoided: it seems only #8 might apply; 'Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content...'. The site lets you download java programs that only run on a J2ME environment, this means most/all current cell phones. So although they are limited to being read on a phone they do add an access method to all the others in the existing External Links, in the same way that LibriVox (in other author external links sections) adds a format but requires an mp3 player.

Filomath 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. My first thought is that this article has way too many external links. We must all keep in mind that external links should be kept to a minimum (the nutshell version at WP:EL). There are already a number of links to sites with free electronic editions of Dickens' works. I don't think we need to have a link to every site with a different format. I think what we have now is more than sufficient. Doctormatt 01:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If we included this link then it would be the only one of ten that gave people a reference to where they could get the texts to read away from their computer. I think that is a strong argument for inclusion of the link. Many of the existing nine links are only different formats all readable only on a PC or even while Internet connected. Filomath 04:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. How about, in the interest of keeping things to a minimum, remove at least one other link while adding this new one? Doctormatt 05:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

hmm, makes sense when you say it like that, but puts one in the hard position of choosing a link to drop, I don’t really want to engender any ire ... a couple of the linked sites have ads embedded in each page of the book - does this make them less 'link worthy'? Thanks for your inputs; I'll let things sit awhile to see what other comments I might get. Filomath 07:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• SUPPORT

I would support a link that makes complete works available in a format which the others don't offer, and doesn't subject the user to a lot of objectionable advertising or surplus content. Looking at the other links, I would suggest that the most dispensable is Charles Dickens' Quotes, which is a link offering a mere 37 quotes. Wikiquote is available for quotations, so this site offers nothing that is not or could not be made available internally. Also it is one of those sites that gives a very shallow view over a vast range of subjects, and I am more sympathetic to sites that limit the area and give more coverage in depth. I would say the same of Charles Dickens Biography, which offers 5 pages of biography, a dozen quotes and a very brief chronology - nothing which, in the words of WP:EL, provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. The usefulness of this link is perhaps indicated by the fact that it has been broken for at least six months, and nobody bothered to fix it until I did so this morning. --Stephen Burnett 08:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, both of those links are dispensable. Doctormatt 20:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help working it through, I added the proposed link and removed the bio link. Filomath 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Influences

I noticed that, in the list of writers which influenced Dickens, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (the author of Don Quixote) is missing, while he had a significant influence on Dickens's first novel, The Pickwick Papers. Mr. Pickwick and Sam Weller are partly based on Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Anyone else think he should be added? -DraugenCP

If you have references, feel free to add it. Chris.B 12:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I added his name, and the source to the references. -DraugenCP

Uncles

I notice that Nicholas Nickleby and Edwin Drood both have villainous uncles. Does anyone know if Dickens had a bad relationship with an uncle? --teb728 03:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Realism?

User:JewishJake recently added "Realism" as Dickens's "movement." This seems surprising to me -- do others agree with this designation? I'm not a literature scholar and don't know the debates, but I would have called Thackeray an early Realist, not Dickens. Llajwa 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should require a citation on this. The link to Realism is incorrect anyway - I assume what is meant is a link to Literary realism (though that article is quite lacking: no sources (and no mention of Dickens...)). Doctormatt 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dickens is suit would be better to remove the entry for a school or movement from that textbox altogether, rather than ask for a reference -- I don't remember ever seeing that kind of information referenced in writers' articles -- if it's up there at all, it should be because it's an accepted commonplace, like Wordsworth being a Romantic. Llajwa 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay - I removed the Realism mention. Doctormatt 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - *We* agree anyway :) -- other people can chime in if they don't. Llajwa 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dickens is very much considered an early developer of English Literary Realism, increasingly so in each subsequent novel. I'll provide some citations in the next couple of days. If anyone else sorts this before then, all the better.--Ignorantdaresmore (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA

I am watching this spat from the sidelines using the {{lifes too short principle}}- but could someone tell what it is all about. Living as I do, on the route of one of his weekly strolls- I can't tell you how he said his name- RP is class dependant, age dependant, time dependant and location dependant. And anyone born in 'Cha'um' living in 'Graivsnd'would be a least bilingual. I am obviously missing something here- whats all the passion about?

Timeineurope is apparently trying to force the article to favor non-rhotic English. Rhotic and non-rhotic accents are equally valid, and the article does not need to make a choice between them. (Yes, it needs to make a choice of British vs American spelling, but it doesn’t need to choose a pronunciation.)

As explained at Phoneme#Notation, square bracket notation [ ] indicates a phonetic transcription (showing the details of pronunciation), whereas slash notation / / indicates a phonemic transcription (showing only significant differences). So the phonemic pronunciation /ɑr/ indicates the sound of ar in “bar” (however it is pronounced in a given dialect). In a rhotic dialect it might be realized as [ɑɹ]; in a non-rhotic dialect as [ɑː].

The fact that Dickens was English does not affect the way that people around the world pronounce his name. 'He' may have pronounced his name as [ˈtʃɑːlz ˈdɪkɪnz], but it is factually wrong to say that is the way to pronounce it. If the article gives a phonemic pronunciation, it is not necessary either to choose one pronunciation or to give multiple pronunciations. (For those who are not interested in IPA let me explain that in plain English: With the phonemic pronunciation that I prefer, the “ar” of “Charles” is pronounced like “are” (however the reader pronounces “are”). With the phonetic pronunciation that Timeineurope prefers, it is pronounced like “ah” (irrespective of how the reader pronounces “are”).) --teb728 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hii x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.139.107 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dickens supports estranged wife for eight years after his own death

The article states: "When Dickens separated from his wife in 1858, divorce was almost unthinkable, particularly for someone as famous as he was, and so he continued to maintain her in a house for the next 20 years until she died."

Add twenty years to 1858 and you get 1878. Yet, according to the article Dickens died in 1870. Taking the article as it is phrased, that means that Dickens was supporting for an eight year period after he was already dead.

Wouldn't it be better to say that he supported her until his own death and then provided for her in his will? Are these dates correct? Sebol van Latnorf (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed "until she died" and changed "maintained her in a house" to "financially supported her". The first removes the problem discussed above, and the second cuts out rather unfortunate innuendo. Any further details about his wife at this point in the article would risk being somewhat parenthetical. Philip Cross (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Racial Defamation section

The racial defamation section is bad for several reasons. First of all, provide sources when you add something like that. Second, I had to change a few sentences to not make it sound so damn POV. Third, one of the "facts" is most probably original research.--Threedots dead (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is the documentary film cited. I have just watched it and came to the Dickens page. --206.248.172.247 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am deleting this section as over a month has gone by and no citation has been provided for either Dickens articles on the Inuit or the accusations of anti-semitism. Furthermore, the section is based around weasel words ("Dickens has also been accused..." Okay, by whom?). Furthermore, the documentary film cited does not seem to be available and the IMDB link provides no information.

By all means re-instate this section if citations can be provided. But if not (as now), it's just fluff.A bright cold day in april (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is a piece Dickens wrote for his magazine Household Words. Transcriptions readily available: one may be found here. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Section rewritten. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this is actually a notable fact to be included in the article? (Do common biographies of Dickens mention it, for example.) No doubt we can dig up many facts, with sources, but it would be wrong to give WP:UNDUE prominence to a fact that seems important, but was actually not of much significance at that time or to that person. shreevatsa (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Seems important" concedes User:Shreevatsa, above, but "not of much significance at that time...". On the contrary, the question of the truth or otherwise of the reports from the "Esquimaux", because of the interest in Franklin's expedition, received a lot of attention at the time. The issue of Fagin's Jewishness developed more slowly but, as the article shows, became significant during Dickens's lifetime, and to Dickens himself. Furthermore, the assessments made with today's sensitivities, as given in the modern citations supplied, are important.

Regarding WP:UNDUE: This Wkipedia policy refers to "viewpoints" on a topic. The section complained of contains only one "view", everything else is a report of modern sources, which are supplied. It mainly reports facts, such as the essay Dickens wrote on the Franklin expedition; the lack of contemporary comment about the characterization of "Fagin" when Oliver Twist was published; the later criticism in The Jewish Chronicle prompting a response from Dickens.

I usually shrink from using "googlehits" as an indication of notability: it seems a bit lazy, somehow. However, as I researched a lot of the references while preparing the paragraphs complained of, I feel justified on this occasion. There are 363 books mentioning "Charles Dickens" and "Inuit"; 338 books discussing Dickens's anti-Semitism. Is that enough? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant that it clearly seems important to us, but it might not have made much of a splash at that (or any later) time. I don't know much about this particular issue, and if you are convinced it was an important one please feel free to ignore me (and 300+ books does seem convincing); I just had a general concern about many Wikipedia articles drawing from the works of old authors and holding them up to modern sensibilities, even when no other source has done so -- I wouldn't be surprised if I saw an "anti-Semitism" section added to the Shakespeare article :) shreevatsa (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This is a valid consideration and accordingly I am about to introduce two extra sources discussing the question specifically in the light of modern sensibilities. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Racial Defamation section - POV notice - improper deletion of previous resolution to this issue Charles Dickens and Jews

This section is clearly POV. It is wildly disproportionate to the significance of Jews and Inuits in Dickens works, and strongly suggests that the article is written to serve the sensibilities of modern mainly American left-liberals, not to inform the reader about Dickens. There are literally dozens of aspects of Dickens that are more widely discussed in scholarly literature that aren't mentioned at all in this article. Years ago, a similar section was added, and it was taken out and moved to an article called Charles Dickens and Jews, and that stood for a long time. Lamentably, it was missed that someone managed to get it deleted using PROD, for which it wasn't even eligible - that's the unreliability of Wikipedia's controls for you. I have queried this with the person who implemented the deletion, and hope that the article will be restored. This re-manifestation of bias deserves the same treatment, i.e. removal to a new article. Honbicot (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it again Charles Dickens and Jews should be restored - it was longer and better than the current paragraph, if my memory serves me true, but the Inuit paragraph should simply be deleted. In the context of Dickens' works it is uber-trivia. He wrote hundreds of articles, and this is not one of the better known ones. There is no reason to dwell on it other than the personal bias of the contributor - which has nothing to do with the balanced encyclopedic coverage of Dickens life and works. Honbicot (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who inserted the paragraph about the Inuit, may I defend myself against the unwarranted personal attack: "the personal bias of the contributor"? I merely expanded the existing paragraph (see here) in response to the concerns expressed in "Racial Defamation section" above and the {{fact}} requests in the text. The point about notability isn't a literary one, or made in deference to modern sensibilities (although it it perhaps written in that way): it is historical. As explained above, the question of the Franklin expedition was of enormous interest at the time and Franklin's widow made a particular target of Dickens over many years. The paragraph should be reinstated.

Would it be out of place to ask for a retraction of the accusation of personal bias? The "NPOV" tag is unwarranted and should also be withdrawn.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any response to my points, I am proposing to reinstate the material: the claim that the piece was written "to serve the sensibilities of modern mainly American left-liberals" is clearly not sustainable, in the face of the concerns of the contemporary sources (e.g., John Rae, the Jewish Chronicle) cited. However, the suggestion that material is "disproportionate" might be settled by integrating it better within the article structure and I will try to do this. Further suggestions welcome, before I have a go. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that the Inuit information is encyclopedic enough to include - criticisms of the author are definitely within the scope of providing "balanced coverage." Additionally, I suggest you (Honbicot) take your complaint about Charles Dickens and Jews to WP:DRV, but rather than pushing for a complete article restoration, instead ask for userfication and then incorporate it into this article. I don't have any idea how long the previous article was, but it seems like an unneccessary content fork that could easily turn into a POV fork - for the sake of completing this article, we should keep the info here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Section deleted and the material (including the "Inuit" material) distributed into other parts of the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now six months since this material was split up for distribution around the article: this was my response to the criticism that having it in a section by itself was contrary to WP:NPOV and a "...manifestation of...the personal bias of the contributor". A result was that material relating to Dickens-the-journalist's interview with Ikey Solomon was moved to the "Autobiographical elements" section, rather than "Journalism and early novels", where it belonged. Has the dust now settled sufficiently for it to be put back under "Journalism and early novels"? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, no support for this. Dropping the suggestion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The solution adopted for the Jewish issue years ago was clearly the correct one, i.e. putting it into a separate article. The fact that an issue was discussed a hundred and fifty years ago does not mean that emphasizing it now cannot be bias. Neither of these points would be mentioned in most scholarly articles about Dickens of the length of this article, so they should not be mentioned here. As for the eskimo section it is absurd to include a couple of hundred words on it in an article which has far less content about most of his major novels. If we estimate this aspect of Dickens' life and work to be one thousandth of the reason why Dickens is notable (an estimate so generous as to be almost absurd) an article, or rather a book, about Dickens would need to be 200,000 words long before this level of detail on this subject was appropriate, so it simply has to go. Alex Middleton (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• The recent deletion of this material, announced here rather than given any further discussion, contradicts the compromise arrived at after the previous exchanges. The material is relevant and is important in the historical context, as has been pointed out already. The fact that other aspects of the life of CD are under-represented here is no excuse for omitting this material. The suggested WP:SS solution seems acceptable, but don't delete the material here before creating the new article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture Arrangement and Murdstone

I changed the picture above the "Literary Style" headline so it didn't cram itself onto the page break, and I switched the picture above it and made it so the Literary Style headline is unto itself. Plus, I changed the character name note about "Miss Murdstone" to "Mr. Murdstone" in David Copperfield because Mr. Murdstone is more directly responsible for David's mother's death, in line with "murder" and "stony".NTNchamp2 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dickens and the Druce Portland Affair

Mary Anne Robinson - one of the chief figures in the 1907-8 trial revolving around the Druce Portland Affair, and subsequently tried for perjury claimed that there was a link to Charles Dickens, and a certain amount of correspondence (purportedly stolen).

Source - The Times, various dates, 1907-8. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Death of Little Nell

I am not familiar with The Old Curiosity Shop myself, but according to its Wikipedia article the death of Little Nell takes place offstage. Going by comments in G.K. Chesterton's article and elsewhere, the problems some people may have with this piece of Dicken's writing may be for more complex reasons than an over-maudlin deathbed scene which any second rate writer might have come out with. Wilde's famous comment is not necessarily inconsistent with this view. PatGallacher (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

By including text from Encyclopaedia Britanica, I believe it has introduced at least one point of view to the article, for instance "As to the books themselves, the backgrounds on which these mighty figures are projected, they are manifestly too vast, too chaotic and too unequal ever to become classics". Is this the right way to use the EB content? Shouldn't it be a reference, or quoted, rather than baldly stated outright as fact? Just because one encyclopaedia wasn't neutral, doesn't mean Wikipedia should be, too! Stephenb (Talk) 14:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignore me - the other editor and I have resolved the issue (he has reverted the POV text and added it to Wikisource). Stephenb (Talk) 14:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Link

Hello, I inserted this external link: "Hard Times - three pictures for baritone and chamber orchestra" - music by Enrico Minaglia, text drawn from Charles Dickens' novel (mp3 audio + libretto pdf)

and it was deleted with the following comment: "I've removed this as it seemed to me not to be out-of-tune with the policy on external links: --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)"

Maybe I should have explained this better before adding the link: I'm a composer, I love Dickens and I wrote a small opera on texts drawn from Dickens' "Hard Times". The opera is unpublished, then I own the full copyright of it (being Dickens' text of PD). The work is well played and recorded, and I thought it would have been nice to make a present of it to all Dickens lovers (it must be clear that I don't get any money by sharing it with other people in this way).

Then, I propose this to you: download it and hear it, and if you find it has relevance to the subject, and if you think it's respectful to Dickens' memory, let me add it to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codroipo80 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you had better read the policy referred to first? Stephenb (Talk) 12:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the policy, and I found in it no obstacle to my link. I'm proposing a proper in the context, non commercial, copyright free and functional link. The link is hosted in the Wikipedia Dickens page in other languages, and nobody protested (I hope now you won't go there and erase it!) Why do you think it's wrong?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codroipo80 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

External links should add to the reader's understanding of a subject. Personally, I think your link comes close to "Links mainly intended to promote a website" (since you certainly aren't adding any information about Charles Dickens himself, you're just pushing your music) and also "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject", since it it not about Charles Dickens but about your music, and is more specifically related to Hard Times, where I notice you have previously added your link. Stephenb (Talk) 13:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you open the link? If you do that, you'll see I'm not promoting any website, since the link is to a public 4shared folder, and not for example to my personal website. So by adding the link I don't promote anybody and I don't make money in any way... I could have linked it anonimously, but I thought it would have been quite ridiculous, isn't it? :-) Then I'm not a spammer, and I'm not "pushing" my music (I "push" other pieces elsewhere, where it makes more sense than in WP!), I'm only giving for free a piece that was produced in a conservatory for educational purposes (final concert of the composition class), and was not published, nor will it be published in the future. I think that it could interest the average Dickens' lover, and since very few musicians wrote music on Dickens' texts, I thought that a "Music" chapter in the links section could be something new and interesting.

But if you and other people here don't agree, I won't bother you anymore.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codroipo80 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Publications" section

Moved from the article to here. This appears to be an old list probably from the encyclopedia britannica - there are more recent and better bibliographies than this. -- Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

==Publications==

• Forster, Life of Dickens (London 1872-74)
• Fields, Yesterdays with Authors (Boston, 1872, second edition, 1900)
• Fields, In and Out of Doors with Charles Dickens (1876)
• Kent, Charles Dickens as an Actor (London, 1872)
• Letters, edited by Miss Hogarth and Miss Dickens (London, 1880-82)
• Ward, Dickens (London, 1882)
• Kent, The Humour and Pathos of Charles Dickens (1884)
• Marzials, Life of Charles Dickens (1887)
• Pemberton, Charles Dickens and the Stage (London, 1888)
• Gissing, Charles Dickens: A Critical Study (New York, 1898)
• Fitzgerald, The History of Pickwick (London, 1891)
• Kitton, The Novels of Charles Dickens (London, 1897)
• Hughes, Dickens as an Educator (New York, 1900)
• Fitzgerald, Life of Charles as Revealed in his Writings (London, 1905)
• Chesterton, Life of Charles Dickens (New York, 1906)
• Thomson, Bibliography (Warwick, 1904)
• Lehmann, Charles Dickens as an Editor (New York, 1912)
• Pugh, The Charles Dickens Originals (London, 1912)
• P. H. Fitzgerald, Memoirs of Charles Dickens (London and New York, 1914)

Essays and editions are numerous. [1] Collected editions appeared in England in 1847, in 1861, and in 1874. Kitton produced The Autograph Edition of Complete Works (56 volumes, New York, 1902).

Huffam or Huffham?

The Dutch Wikipedia has Huffham instead of Huffam. I seem to see this verified in some places on the Web, though I have not taken a close look. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchthys (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Michael Slater's new biography of Dickens (Yale University Press, Sept 2009), 'Huffham' was entered into the baptismal register in error. The spelling should have been 'Huffam', after Dickens's godfather. Fougasse (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dickens and Religion

This unreferenced extract from the article seems to be both POV and untrue:

"Dickens clearly influenced later Victorian novelists such as Thomas Hardy and George Gissing, however their works display a greater willingness to confront and challenge the Victorian institution of religion."

Dickens was very scathing about the Victorian institutional deformation of religion, as per sabbatarianism and church-going hypocrites and Calvinistic gloom-and-doom merchants. He was a Christian in a radical sense as per J.C.'s gospel of love. Vide: All you need is love. Colin4C (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bleak House should be added to 'Notable Works'

It is considered one of his greatest and most complex works, and it should be highlighted with those other five books at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABusa (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The crooked stamp

The image of the stamp captioned "The Centenary Edition of The Works of Charles Dickens in 36 Volumes." is wonky. Is there any reason why I shouldn't correct the problem and set it right?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Writings about Jews, Esquimaux

A long series of discussions, above, found that the material was noteworthy. However to avoid undue weight the compromise was agreed that it should not be given a section on its own but distributed around the article. This was done. An an editor has now taken it upon himself/herself to ignore this consensus and delete the stuff, without consultation. I'm now applying the bold, revert, discuss procedure and reinstating. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Help on related topic

Expert attention is needed at Victorian magzines. People here may be able to assist. Bongomatic 13:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC) He later shagged his mum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.93.176 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stolen from New York Times?

I just read the first lines from this article, followed the link to the article of the NYT it stated as source: same text:
NYT:" He created some of English literature's most memorable characters and his work, which has never gone out of print, continues to bring the poverty of 19th-century London to life for future generations.
WP: "He created some of literature's most memorable characters. His novels and short stories have never gone out of print."
Is this fair use?
Around Eve (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Murdstone

Article currently says: Many of his character's (should be characters') names provide the reader with a hint as to the roles played in advancing the storyline, such as Mr. Murdstone in the novel David Copperfield, which is clearly a combination of "murder" and stony coldness. Not sure it's all that "clear" -- I thought Murdstone suggested French merde more than it suggests "murder". Note also the similarity to Merdle in Little Dorrit, a villain but not (if memory serves correctly) a murderer. 91.107.177.158 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Staplehurst

I have reinserted the ILN picture of the Staplehurst crash (why was it removed??) to accompany the text. Endless portraits of the man should be balanced by major incidents in his life, especially something as traumatic as a crash in which he was nearly killed.Peterlewis (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sections

I propose the following:

• Merging Life and Death into a new section, Biography;
• Merging other memorials and museums into new section, memorials;
• Merging the name Dickens somewhere -- or expand it;
• Merging the public readings into somewhere else -- or expand it;
• Taking the siblings of Charles Dickens away and link to the Dickens family.

Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 09:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dickens, as Commander in Chief of India calls for mass murder of all non-whites, blot it (the non-whites) out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth.

Should we not have the following in the article? Dickens has in The Perils of Certain English Prisoners used his characters to voice his opinion on what British retribution against the natives who try to reclaim their lost land should be. The British in Australia, America, Africa and Asia themselves (borrowing Dickens prose) despoiled the natives of their property, burnt their homes, barbarously murdered them and their little children, wives and daughters.

Their fate is to be exterminated from the face of the earth, that is Dickensian justice. The following is the exchange between Captain Carton and Commissioner Pordage.

"Sir," says Captain Carton, "I am an English officer, commanding English Men, and I hope I am not likely to disappoint the Government's just expectations. But, I presume you know that these villains under their black flag have despoiled our countrymen of their property, burnt their homes, barbarously murdered them and their little children, and worse than murdered their wives and daughters?"

"... It matters very little, Mr. Pordage, whether or not, believing that I hold my commission by the allowance of God, and not that I have received it direct from the Devil, I shall certainly use it, with all avoidance of unnecessary suffering and with all merciful swiftness of execution, to exterminate these people from the face of the earth. Let me recommend you to go home, sir, and to keep out of the night-air."

A swift and painless death, extermination from the face of the earth, are we talking about the Holocaust, the Jews and the gas chambers? This is older the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century,Dickens himself wrote to a Mrs. Counts on 4 October 1857, "I wish I were the Commander in Chief in India. ... I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race ... to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth".

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a revert with Edit summary rvv, expanded to revert vandalism, the little POV the three or four lines in this sub-section should certainly stand inclusion on a talk page, if the revert is repeated I would report the editor for vandalism. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On further examination this may be a legitimate addition, but it was so badly written that it could be taken for vandalism. I suggest that the title of this section be changed to something more sensible. PatGallacher (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pity the title looks like a tabloid article title, but those are verbatim reproductions of Dickens words, except mass murder which is my explanation of what he wanted, you write that I have written badly, where have have written? I have mostly reproduced. Any way it is not a practice to edit talk page entries. Do you still want the section title changed Pat?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Dickens was a great writer and gave us all much entertainment through his books. R.I.P. 86.166.181.216 (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree, he was entertaining. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The letter is definitely an excruciatingly racist diatribe ( although directed chiefly at the mutineers ) & is undeniably in the 1st person ( I have just now speedily read it ), but the story 'The Perils Of Certain English Prisoners' presents a much more complicated situation because 1st, it is fictional ; 2dly, Dickens was a co-author ( with Wilkie Collins ) ; 3rdly, Dickens & Wilkie Collins are taking aim at mankind generally : 'From the spy-hole, I could see the whole crowd of Pirates. There were Malays among them, Dutch, Maltese, Greeks, S-----s, Negroes, and Convict Englishmen from the West India Islands ... there were some Portuguese, too, and a few Spaniards. The captain was a Portuguese ...' ; 4thly, the story's narrator is manifestly an offensive, rude jerk at the story's start. -- To be fair, I have just now speedily read that story too. -- I tried re-titling the section to make the meaning more readily comprehensible & intelligible to the passing reader. As an American Indian ( one of the Native people of the United States Of America, aka, Native Americans ), I initially was puzzled by the title : were you referring to East Indians ( ie, India, ) or to us completely unrelated American Indians? I applied a temporary patch to the title ( East Indians ), but I do not wish to re-write your words. I turn the matter back to you. Thank you. Home essentials (talk)

I am bringing replacing East Indians with Indians for the following reasons.

1. The story is based in Belize, which is the American continent, so there is the American connection.
2. I was always under the impression that Indian was considered as a pejorative term by those who are designated by it. I also assumed that they had issues with the word America, which is derived from the first name of a white man whose race then went ahead and nearly annihilated the natives. On the other hand Indian is a self-designation of about a billion persons when they refer to express themselves in English, and though perhaps in some remote corner of America (by remote I do not mean spatially but in terms of a mindset) it may be necessary to have a qualifier, in a Wikipedia article about Dickens, who was British, lived in Victorian times any reference to India would be rightly assumed to be India, East Indian on the other hand to many Indians refers to a small Marathi Roman Catholic community, living around Mumbai.
3. This is one of the unfortunate rare instances (of commenting on the book) where I have not read the book, but if you exonerate Dickens of the charge of racism, by unfocussing the scope of his ire to pirates - regardless of race, and the words are spoken by a fictional character, his views on the matter are clear from his private correspondence etc. are there to help you to decide. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't S___o also refer to natives of America, at least partly? In simple words Dickens was a b****y, f*****g, r****t. A white chauvinist p*g. No offence ment to the later. This aspect of his personality is absent in this biographical article of him, and the void has been filled imho by my additions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Section Allegations...

Please check the references, the article section and subsections discuss Dickens' works, and quote instances of blatantly racist comments of his characters, his private correspondence is quoted which is corroborative, another reference alleges that he spawned a whole genre of racist literature. the reference tag is inappropriate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a {{relevence}} tag since I was questioning the use of a set of the quotes from fictional characters to contribute to an argument about Dickens' own beliefs. I'm not racist, but I could write a novel where there are racist characters (and, equally, a racist person could write a novel containing non-racist characters). Adding information about the study of the novella is fine, but I'm not sure what the quotes demonstrate towards the arguments (certainly nothing provable, unless you can show that those quotes themselves lead to allegations of racism or otherwise). Stephenb (Talk) 07:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dickens' book was very influential in determining the cultural response to the events of 1857. A study alleges misplaced guilt attribution, his characters and story is full of racist comments, I have read the story available on line by now, it is really very harsh on Christian King George, the native king and other natives. But I cannot write about the book that would be wp:or, so I have quoted an exchange and what wp:rs have commented about the story. I do not understand the relevance tag. His private correspondence is also given to demonstrate his views expressed privately. Perils is actually an allegory about the events of 1857. Dickens' son was in India during the time, (though I do not know how he fared), it is claimed that one reason for Dickens not writing about the events directly was that he did not wish to comment on his sons superiors. 117.195.71.177 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That was me above, forgot to log in, additionally, Commissioner Pordage looks to me like Canning or Disraeli, the latter is quoted saying something to the effect that the Indian action in 1857 was understandable considering the way they suffered earlier. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The book may have been influential, but you haven't demonstrated how the quote itself is relevant. What Commander Pordage looks like you you is neither here nor there! I'm not trying to remove the whole section, btw, just asking you to find the justification for including the quote - at the moment, it is just a quote from a work of fiction, with nothing cited to say why that particular quote was used, or any justification that the quote itself represents Dickens' views. Stephenb (Talk) 06:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The you-you could be rephrased to Commander Pordage is an allegory of the likes of Canning or Disraeli, just as Snowball is considered to be of Leon Trotsky, actually I now remember reading this at a wp:rs, but is it necessary to give references on a talk page.

You are perhaps right, what should be written is that XXX consider the following to be a manifestation of Dickens' racism followed by the quote. In the meanwhile if you wish you may take to quote off . Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Better? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks :) Stephenb (Talk) 20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

On the anti-semitism paragraph there is this :"When the work was published in 1838 the unpleasant, to modern eyes, stereotype of the Jewish character Fagin as fence and corrupter of children perpetuated prejudices of the times, the characterisation meanwhile aroused no indignation or even comment, the following claim that it may have been written without conscious anti-semitic intent. " I've read that a few times, and I can't follow its tortured expression. I want to change it but I'm not sure what its saying so can't change it really but I don't think it is at all clear and its got to be changed I reckon. The next bit quotes Pionke, Assistant professor of English at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, who credits Dickens with 'drawing the racial lesson that the only good blood is English blood'. Isn't that crediting Dickens with being a racist. The quote to support this, about oysters, looks overtly comic to me. Then theres a quote from a graduate essay?! I don't know this section looks weird to me. The letter quoted, is addressed to Baroness Burdett-Coutts , in the link provided, not as in the article, Mrs Counts , it is sloppy!. 92.18.74.84 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the guilty editor responsible for the first, "tortured", sentence (but not the second), but it seems to have been tinkered with subsequently. It was the product of a "tortured" editing process to achieve a fragile consensus and any alterations should be done with care, but if it's not clear it must be changed. As the page is protected at present I will have a go. The second part User:92.18.74.84 complains of is much worse, but as I wasn't part of the editing process I'm reluctant to jump in there.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Fagin" sentence restored to the original wording. Suggestions to improve clarity further welcome.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) Oysters and the preceding paragraph are Pionke's views, not mine, and is compliant to good Wikipedia practice of no wp:or. (2) There is a quote from a graduation project, I don't understand the interrogation and exclamation marks, if it is not wp:rs kindly be specific as why?. (4) I don't know this section looks weird to me is subjective. (5) Counts - Coutts was a typographic error, and has been corrected, so it is no longer sloppy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing that the "oyesters" [sic] quote may not be the most representative of the work cited, I have substituted another quote from the same page. The names of the authors of the commentaries taken from the text into their citations. I believe the balance of the paragraph remains unchanged. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agreeing with the IP editor 92.18.74.84, above. Please ask, rather than tagging other editors' comments. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a misquote, a few hunderd killed at Kanpur was racist Dickens' justification for the genocide that he feels should follow. It seems that Dickens' racist stench continues to poison readily impressionable minds over centuries. I disagree with the editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote signs need to be there, in a more civilised time and a more civilised place a view like that could send a writer to hibernation, and we have who is a highly respected English writer saying those words, if anybody does not like to read such thoughts, he is a little too late to prevent their publication, just a 150 years. However was out of place, so removed. Dickens refrained from mentioning India as he did not wish to antagonise his son's superiors as he was in India then. I will find the source and it will be there in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong assertion.

The assertion is not strong it is rabid. The pity is that it is not a part of this editor's imagination, but it is what Dickens said. But I do not want to get into an edit war right away. It is however important to inform readers of this facet of Dickens' personality. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting it again in the WP:LEDE—"a concise overview of the article"—isn't the answer to your commendable desire to "inform the readers". WP:UNDUE may apply. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You like many misunderstood what the lead should contain, here is the lead of the article on lead

The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

The lead quoting what has been highlighted above, should be an introduction and a summary. A stand alone article in itself. A mini article. So what is important about the subject of the article should be included in the lead and then elaborated in the article. The Dickens' article unfortunately doesn't follow this principle perhaps because editors were unaware of this principle of lead writing. (I too have been guilty of not knowing that the lead statements too need to be sourced). This far I'm sure we do not have a lot to argue. Now comes the subjective part, what is important and what is not? Which needs a consensus as it is a matter of opinion. I strongly contest the wp:undue charge. Dickens was an extremely influential Victorian writer, who because the subjects he chose was seen as an engine of change. A voice for the underprivileged. However this same Dickens when it came to other races considered them only vermin fit for extermination. A very important trait of his personality. Definitely not something that should be mentioned in passing but something that should be written as his epitaph, Here lies Dickens who wrote exterminate the Indians. I agree that his fans would not like to associate Dickens with such ideas but, it is a well documented fact that he said such words, and his work too reflects his views, which were not just one-off, heat of the moment, but ones which formed a part of his personality which was then strongly expressed in his writings, before and after he said them. I therefore go for revert and then will source the quotation. I have given many arguments immediately above and in many lines at various instances earlier on this page. If other editors feel that what I have argued is not correct, I wish they refute point by point and then delete this very important utterance, which is unambiguously related to Dickens, sourced from good and reliable sources from the lead. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If the sentence in the Coutts letter was not just one-off, heat of the moment but an expression of 'part of his personality which was then strongly expressed in his writings' - can you give some other examples. Just mentally flicking through some of the major titles, Pickwick, Copperfield, Great Expectations..where is the evidence of a personality dominated by racist ideology. In 'Barnaby Rudge' , there is Hugh, an illiterate man of great strength - 'as a victim in the story he has Dickens sympathy', but as 'one of the dangerous, anarchic forces that are released in the riot he is condemned.'.. Dickens 'distrusted the Rousseauistic concept of the noble savage , and [was] prejudiced, as a result, abbout missions to Africans, indded was almost comically apprehensive of Africa as a continent.' Dickens maybe had a horror of anarchy, of mob actions, whichever race at the time was involved. The quotes above are from Angus Wilson's 'World of Charles Dickens', and Wilson says of his trip to America: 'What he saw of slavery in that time horrified him as much as he expected.' I think it is undue prominence in any case, same as if the Philip Larkin lead was ; 'Philip Larkin was a poet. He was a racist. In 1983 he wrote to an old schoolfriend of his new home; 'Not many niggers round here I'm happy to say. Except the Paki doctor next door..' Larkin felt an almost instinctive unease and resentment at the arrival and integration in Britain of non-white. 92.10.90.122 (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Other bad articles should not be the bench mark for any Wikipedia article, so I cannot comment on the Philip Larkin article, nor the comments which consider racism frivolous. Do you wish I furnish a list of the racist comments I find, I could start with Perils, then go to Savage, then we have Fagin in Oliver. But apologists would always be there with excuses and denials.

1. Dickens's views appear to be voiced by his narrator, Gill Davis, the plain-spoken private in the Royal Marines, who to an extent anticpates Kipling's proletarian defenders of empire. A benign miles gloriousus — the braggart soldier of classical and Shakespearean tradition — Davis responds to the solemn beauty of the Central American jungle in a manner sometimes sentimental and sometimes comic, and the illiterate soldier speaks positively about the "accommodations" that the British garrison and colonists have made with local customs. And yet, especially in describing the treacherous mulatto ('Sambo') collaborator, "Christian George King," Gill makes racist comments that render Dickens's chapters awkward reading today.[2]
2. No less a historical figure and a Christmastime favorite, Charles Dickens, author of "A Christmas Carol," shared Carlyle's positions on pro-slavery and blacks as subhuman.[3]
3. But whatever the lens, Dickens just sounds like a callous arse. I can’t help but be disappointed that a writer who had such surfeits of imaginative sympathy for the sufferings on his doorstep could have been quite so obdurate about those overseas.[4]
4. Eyre unleashed severe repression-439 persons were killed... The scale of repression caused consternation... a Committee to defend Eyre led by Carlyle, Eyre's defense committee drew on persons like Dickens.[5]
5. In Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens describes Fagin as 'the Jew' - not once by way of identification, but repeatedly, relentlessly, emphatically, to such an extent that the wicked old receiver of stolen goods is hardly ever mentioned by name, only by racial and religious origin.[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/sitemap/index.php/t-381667.html] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read American Notes , but just googling 'dickens and slavery' it looks like chapter 17 of the book is an anti-slavery chapter. The link to support the sentence that , 'Dickens shared Carlyles pro-slavery positions, and blacks as sub-human' merely repeats this sentence and offers no evidence whatever. Sayerslle (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dickens's anti-slavery chapter in Notes, which I have read, is referenced in the article, here. In the light of this the reference supplied at (2.) above, a blog post alleging the opposite, is clearly wrong, as is the suggestion that Dickens was a "callous arse...about those overseas". Modern commentators assess the portrayal of Fagin as having been "written without conscious anti-semitic intent": see here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes some modern commentators, I have already remarked above, there are bound to be apologists and those in denial. Also I did not run out of references I ran out of time. I will be back with more. The blog is not a reliable source, but its writer found Dickens a callous arse, so I am not alone in my feelings about Dickens views on fellow humans, it seems. Sayerslle please would you bother to explain what you mean to say. What evidence are you demanding? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes: presumably in the same way as some modern commentators are driven by their "feelings" to scrabble around for material with which to perform a "hatchet job" on historical figures. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity that the words "hatchet job" are used, it betrays lack of understanding of sensibility of the views of billions of people whom the likes of Dickens considered little more than animal. Dickens was a collaborator in the imperialist band wagon. He wrote what he did, with great acclaim as English in his time was a white-Christian language which it no longer is, today. White Christian English speakers had little to complain about what he wrote then just as they do not now. But for a person belonging to the race he condenmed to extermination, I feel it necessary that every time a non-white non-Christian person reads Dickens, he should be aware of his views about them. Winners write history, their historical figures overcrowd the landscape, so as long as Wikipedia cares about their sensibility, we are going to see a perpetuation of white-Christian history. But not without dissent. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here my attempts to preserve the balance of the article are labelled as "lack of understanding" and "perpetuat[ing] white-Christian history". Above I am condemned as editing with "personal bias of the contributor...to serve the sensibilities of modern mainly American left-liberals" when attempting to add material dealing with CD's supposed racism. Does this mean that the balance between the two positions is now about right, or is it just another example of "can't win"? Other perspectives on this would be useful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Torn between positions.

A wikipedia article is about bringing together information from good and reliable sources in order to offer a multidimensional representation of its subject. In my opinion that leaves little reason to be torn between different positions. One editor writes the elephant has big ears, second a long trunk, third column like legs, fourth a small rope like tail. Let the article describe all parts of the elephant, and not be shy of mentioning its small eyes, or bad temper or gluttonous eating habits or its behaviour of trampling standing crops. For from a farmer's perspective the last quality may be of the most importance and he would find the article incomplete without it being included, say for example in its lead. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Old Moonraker, FWIW: I think it is giving it undue weight to include it in the lead section. The reason? Dickens is best known as a writer of fiction. While his views on various matters are important, only his views on social reform make any deep impression in his novels and therefore deserve to be in the lead. To use your analogy: The article may well include all parts of the elephant, but they do not all need to be stuck on its head - whereas all readers appreciate the elephant's form, most don't need to know about its temper upfront :) Stephenb (Talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A new reference is there which seems to say

“ Dickens said kill all the Indians (250 million of them) because those who murdered over 100 English prisoners, most of them women and children, were Indians. ”

Now do you wish I add a well sourced corollary that the murders itself were triggered by reports reaching Kanpur, of indiscriminate killings of hundreds of Indian villagers, as British troops approached Kanpur, and that the one incident of brutality was justified in the context of henious atrocities perpetrated by British imperialists in India for many years, including theft and pilferage of millions of pounds. Dickens' co-writer in Perils, Wilkie Collins, it is seen, had much better understanding of the events around him for example, in his eponymous story, an English soldier murders to steal a dimond, The Moonstone, but in the end the Indians get it back, and it is seen where it rightfully belonged, and the thief and murderer pays for his crime. Do you wish that Dickens' article has a list, well sourced no doubt of the crimes perpetrated on Indians by the British, before, during and after the events of 1857? For example prisoner combatants and non-combatants were bayoneted and then thrown in haystacks to be burned alive, which has been recorded in Jhansi? Were the Indian's not fighting against foreign imperialists? So do you want a long discussion on the legitimacy of means of those who are fighting against foreign opressors, in this article on Dickens? What is the ratio of value of English lives:Indian lives? In Dickens' opinion and the opinion of those of his apologists who refer to this editor's contribution as a hatchet job? 1:10000? Why this discussion is relavant in the contemporary context is because for example, a few Muslims from Asia and Africa, flew aeroplanes into American buildings killing about 5000 users; an incident which has been referred to by an Afro-American pastor as[6]

“ Our chickens have come home to roost, ”

justifies bombing of Afghan and Iraqi cities towns and villages, killing many times more civilians, women and children included. This despite the fact that USA sponsored, armed and financed these very Muslim anti-Soviet bands in Afghanistan against the USSR supported secular Afghan government[7] and Saddam Hussain against Iran, and that these faces appeared on the Times cover as heros, and in movies like Rambo. Is that not a continuation of the philosophy that Dickens' espoused? Kill all non-whites/non-Christians they are vermin, and deserve extermination. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-American focus and systemic bias

Wikipedia discusses the issue of Anglo-American focus and systemic bias. The recent debate about Dickens' views on the non-white/ non-Christians and the desire to deny the inclusion of this aspect of his personality, substantially is a symptom of the above. One would have been given to ignore them if the article contain such sentences as

“ A concern with what he saw as the pressing need for social reform is a theme that runs throughout his work. ”

Discussion on Anglo-American focus and systemic bias Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no desire to deny the inclusion of Dickens's views of "non-Christians" and you will recall that editors have followed up many of your additions in a constructive and positive way. It's a question of getting the right balance in the article, as expressed in WP:UNDUE. Nonetheless, thanks for the pointer to the discussion: a general discussion, such as here, is a far better venue for this sort of thing than the talk pages of individual articles. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have read your arguments made earlier, for inclusion of Dickens' seamier side in this article, if you may call it that. It seems that I unnecessarily biased against you. I agree that some editing has been constructive, but others have been in the category of denials. I strongly propose that a statement that Dickens views have been racist be added in the lead. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And I strongly disagree - it would be undue to put in the lead given that is was a single comment based on a single incident - that alone says nothing about Dickens' views throughout his life. If he had been well-known as a racist, rather than an author, then fine, but otherwise the lead should sum up the notable elements of his life and work. I also don't think this is an example of Anglo-American bias. I think you are in danger of putting yourself across as a propagandist rather than an editor who genuinely wants to improve the article. Stephenb (Talk) 08:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

“ Dickens was a very popular and widely read authors. His books have never gone out of print. He strongly held and actively supported propogated views which today can be considered strongly racist and anti-semitic. ”

Not all his contemporaries held the same views though many did. He was strongly critical of some such contemporaries though his protegee and co-authour on some works was one such writer, whose works were more multi-dimensional. How does this go? How many references do you want for a lead? Yes I am bound to come across as a propangadist, to those who refuse to look at other dimensions of Dickens' personality, these are the what I call the denialists and the apologists. There seem many of the type for this article, or I would not have come as a lone ranging railer, though I can come with many many more references of Dickens' racism; good sources, they may not take his racism and anti-semitism to his lead. This is what Wikipedia calls the Anglo-American focus and systemic bias.

English for better or worse, is no longer a white-Christian language and surely wikipedia will reflect this status soon. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am neither a "denialist" nor an apologist for racism - I'm quite happy that his views are reflected in the article, as I'm sure I have made clear. However, I am also sure I have made clear that I believe including such information in the lead is giving it undue weight to this article. It is NOT a question of how many references, but a question of whether that aspect of his personality is worth putting up there. I don't understand your point about English, which seems to be focused on the language rather than this article and (to be blunt) does really make you sound like a propagandist - there is nothing about my argument that is related to the English language, nor whether I am white or Christian (I'm not, btw). Stephenb (Talk) 09:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More on Chickens coming home to roost in this story here Forgotten Coverage of Afghan 'Freedom Fighters' The villains of today's news were heroes in the '80s Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are all your sources then , for his racism and anti-semitism? The way you talk about 'white Christians' as if they are all the same, same as you wrote 'White Christian english speakers had little to complain about then, same as they dont now' ?? werent white christian English speakers in workhouses and ragged schools, werent small children in mines and factories, wasnt Jo the crossing sweeper in Bleak House, a white , christian, a speaker of English? ' Dickens never allows the reader to forget that the social network is a vertical web with the Lord Chancellor and Sir Leicester Dedlock in his country mansion at the top of a heavy structure all borne in misery at the bottom on the bony, filthy shoulders of Jo, the road-sweeping boy, in his rags and fever and ignorance.' Maybe you are being a racist, and incautious generalisations, and shoving labels on people, is that so great? So you want Dickens called a 'racist anti-semite, who saw other races as vermin fit to be exterminated' put in the lead, because in one letter , he wrote a fantasy of revenge, an obvious fantasy - not a policy proposal for genocide - under the impulse of his recoil from evil actions. It was itself a terrible remark, and I was surprised when I read it, but it is in the article now and personally I think it's in the right place. In India today, isn't it assigned to the lowest 'caste' to climb into the sewers, and having got drunk to be able to endure it, scrub the sewers til they die young of diseases from the poisons. Because thats the job of that caste? isn't dealing with the waste society produces the job of all society to clean? And you want to shove all the evils of the world on the 'white christian english-speakers'...?? Sayerslle (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to all your arguments. At the moment I am a little rushed for time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

and make it w, c and their stooges the Uncle Toms. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please everyone, relax. We are not here to trade misinformed rants about "white Christians" and the caste system in India, but to improve the article. And we have policies — WP:Verifiability, WP:UNDUE — that tell us what to do. If something is reliably sourced, we can include it where it is due, as long as we do not draw our own conclusions from primary sources. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right Shreevatsa, I've got no idea how seriously Dickens meant what he said in the letter so I shouldn't have said its an obvious fantasy, and I shouldn't have dragged in extraneous stuff, but 'The Perils' section of the accusations of racism is still attaching a lot of influence to a story that appeared in a magazine 'Perils greatly influenced the cultural reaction from English writers to the Mutiny' and the essay to support this looks like nothing more than a sophomore student essay, , so the evidence for Dickens racism is , a story, a letter, Fagin. The student essay says at the start that the Victorians had a concept of women as 'pure and violable'.That may be a typo, but it doesn't inspire confidence in the writer. Are student essays o.k as reliable sources. Or is it reprinted from a book and I'm being condescending to it? I know 'Great Expectations' is considered as a kind of apology by the older Dickens for the younger Dickens snobbery, so maybe he was more prejudiced and racist than I've thought, and he admired Oliver Cromwell, which is bad, but he was a great writer so I don't think a caricature of him as a b.f. racist and 'white chauvinist pig', is good enough.Sayerslle (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In defence of inclusion Dickens' racism in the lead

1. Wonder what caste system has to do with Dickens. Caste system is India's past, perhaps a little of its present, but hopefully not its future. India's wretched past. A casteist is not just a racist, he is worse. If there were no caste in India we would not have the semitic religions fishing in Indian troubled waters. There is no denying or offering any apologies for the brutality, cruelty and horrors of the caste system. Hinduism needs to erase caste. In my personal capacity I have. I have married outside my caste, so have all us paternal cousins, 8 in all (one is unmarried), all grand children descending from one set of grand-parents. Two married to Christians, (one to a white-American of English-German descent, a Methodist, and she recently had herself baptised after 28 years of marriage, second one to an Indian Anglican), one to a Parsi, two to spouses outside our linguistic sub-nationality (Marathi). And four to spouses from the same sub-nationality, but not the same caste.
2. Do you mean to say that Dickens racism was justified as former lower castes, clean gutters in India even in 2009?

I am aware that making unfounded allegations against editors of racism is racism in itself. It is a manifestation of my exasperation. I have been stone walled. I have been asked where are the references, when they are all over the place, as a matter of fact all I have done is quote sources.

1. Dickens wrote racist fiction.
2. Not all writers in his time were racist, and he strongly attacked their views.
3. His views on slavery is one should not mistreat slaves, just as some say today that butchering of cattle or poultry should be done in a humane manner, without suffering caused. That is why he was aghast against the treatment meted to slaves in America.
4. In the Inuit case he falsely charged them with killing and eating members of the Arctic expedition when, reports came in that bad times forced them to cannibalism.
5. He strongly supported imperialistic adventurism and his son too worked in India, for which he had to take the support of a rich female fan. Later he wrote to her that the Indian race should be exterminated.
6. He was a part of a committee defending the brutality of a governor in Jamaica.
7. One of his principle villains was a Jew to pander to the prejudices of the times.

Remember the points above are not my views but have been compiled from reliable sources and the sources are mentioned above. I have been accused by allegations of pushing original research. Please give one example.

1. I have made no misinformed rants. I see this stone walling as a white-Christian (and their stooges the Uncle Toms, reluctance to make this article multi-dimensional. Nor is anything I have tried to add in the article based on original research.
2. wp:or---> (I even doubt Dickens social concern. If he was such a social revolutionary, why didn't Gill Davis and Marion Maryon marry in the end, he makes Gill acknowledge his lower status clear even though he yearns for Marion, Dickens paints their union as unlikely as that between a mouse and an elephant. His social concern was limited to make conditions for the lower classes more bearable, like the demand today for painless slaughterhouses. But give me one example of a crossing of class boundaries even in his fiction?).
3. When I mention his "butcher the Indians" quote an apologist comes up with a corollary that it was in response to murdering of over a hundred English prisoners, most women and children in Kanpur, to justify his remark. What if some body comes up with a reference that the butchering of Jews during WWII was justified because of the perceived Jew stranglehold over the German economy? And that it was sparked by the killing of a German officer by a Jew, and that the gas chambers were justified because Jews violently resisted German occupation at some places such as in Warsaw?
4. Would wikipedia allow National Socialist reliable sources in defence of their actions during WWII in the same way as we have imperialist reliable sources in defence of Dickens racism and imperialism? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
5. It is falsely alleged that the argument for inclusion of racism was based on a single comment, when the sources demonstrate his commitment to racist ideology in his writings, private correspondence and actions.
6. Wikipedia has acknowledge this white-Christian collusion to foist its world view. Wikipedia euphemistically refers to this as the Anglo-American bias.
7. What one calls a student essay is a post-graduate dissertation, done under the guidance of doctorate professors.
8. On typos:- I have brought a factual error (not typo) to the notice of Encyclopedia Britannica, but they have not undertaken correction, [8], compare the location of Mahabaleshwar, 177 miles versus 60 miles, Britannica is wrong, Wikipedia is right.[9]

I rest my case. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to answer these points individually.

• (Section 1)

1. Thanks for letting us know your personal circumstances. I think that's all I can really say, as it doesn't contribute to any argument about Dickens or the article content.
2. I can't comment here either, since I haven't mentioned the caste system. It doesn't seem to have much bearing on what the lead section should contain though.

• (Section 2)

1. A small amount of what Dickens wrote was racist - not enough to justify lead section mention by itself, IMO (remember, all we're talking about here is opinions)
2. OK...
3. ...so are you proposing that Dickens non-racist views are also included in the lead? Please be clear - perhaps make a proposal of what sentence you would like the lead to contain?
4. That's not actually mentioned in the article (yet), so the lead shouldn't mention it
5. Yes, for reasons given in the section. This was a bad thing, but didn't define his life and work, which (IMO) should be what the lead section sums up
6. Again, not in the article so shouldn't be in the lead
7. Again, I believe this is best covered in the section you added, rather than the lead (IMO once again)

• (Section 3)

1. Where is this white Christian thing coming from? Do you have a chip on your shoulder here? Nobody has accused you or original research so far as I am aware, so this is a bit of a straw man.
2. Again, no original research claims I am aware of
3. I don't think the other editor was justifying the remark, more putting it into context.
4. Another straw man argument
5. No, there is no argument about the inclusion of his comments about racism. This is a discussion about including it in the lead section.
6. Please remember, Anglo-American and "White Christian" are not the same thing.

I think your wide-ranging points make it clear that you are not just trying to argue that Dickens' views should be included in the lead section, and I would urge you to make your arguments to that end rather than attacking those who have other views. Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Or perhaps, if you feel you are being blocked, use WP:THIRD? Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 07:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Stephenb

Section 1

It was not for you, but for the editor who brought the subject of caste in India.

Section 2

1. A small amount, who decides small and big? For me it is gross enough.
2. Proves that allegations about his racism are not based on a one off remark.
3. If you think that (3) is proof of Dickens' anti-racism I think either I am a bad communicator or that the sarcasm has gone tangent.
4. It appears that you have not read the article carefully, I was referring to this Without adducing any supporting evidence he speculates that, far from resorting to cannibalism amongst themselves, the members of the expedition may have been "set upon and slain by the Esquimaux...We believe every savage to be in his heart covetous, treacherous, and cruel."[32] Although publishing in a subsequent issue of Household Words a defense of the Esquimaux, from another author who had actually visited the scene of the supposed cannibalism, Dickens refused to alter his view.
5. Quoted sources claim that Dickens' belief in the superiority of English race was a central part of his conviction. He was what is called a white supremacist.
6. It is my argument against allegations that I am stretching a one-off comment to undue importance.
7. --->wp:or His portrayal of Jews, was to pander to the prejudices and to perpetuate them. The brutality of WWII happened less than a hundred years after his times. Would the holocaust have happened without abetment by the Anglo-Americans?

Section 3

1. It is a pity that you do not read carefully. What are (a) "Where are all your sources then , for his racism and anti-semitism?" and (b) "And you want to shove all the evils of the world on the 'white christian english-speakers'...??" and (c) "We are not here to trade misinformed rants" and (d) "If something is reliably sourced, we can include it where it is due, as long as we do not draw our own conclusions from primary sources. and (e) "I think you are in danger of putting yourself across as a propagandist rather than an editor who genuinely wants to improve the article." but allegations of original research.
2. This is a communication gap, I am sharing my views on Dickens' social concern, which I feel is overestimated, the OR tag is a little like a disclaimer.
3. Though I disagree I allow the benefit of the doubt. (Strictly my opinion FWIW). If it is so would I assume you would agree to this? Reacting to reports of incidents of atrocities allegedly committed by Indians, one involving over a hundred prisoners, most of them women and children, Dickens wrote in a private letter to Baroness Burdett-Coutts on 4 October 1857; "I wish I were the Commander in Chief in India. ... I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested... to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth."
4. Imperialism was as bad as slavery and as bad as Holocaust, if not many times worse. To this day, there have been no reparation. Here we have imperialist arguments allowed as sources, whereas I believe that the same would not be allowed to the Holocaust. Why is this straw man? My position is clear. I am not creating a straw man. Nation Socialism is not my straw man. You are right, I do carry what you call a chip on the shoulder, and I do harbour a grievance. I'm sure though that it is not imagined. Imperialism and slavery and semitism are white-Christian discoveries. Like the nuclear bomb. Which have caused irreparable damaged to those it was perpetrated upon. So what if I harbour a grievance. I will not use it as an excuse to break rules, even though the rules are acknowledged by Wikipedia as systemic biases.
5. The argument as I understand is whether racism and anti-semitism was an important aspect of Dickens' personality as evidenced from his work, his correspondence and views and his actions. Sources claim that it was. That is in my opinion the argument. Once it is proved it was, it only follows that it should be adequately represented in the article on him.
6. Anglo-American may not be a self-designation used by English speaking white-Christians, but for the purpose of English Wikipedia statistically the equation (Anglo-American = English, white, Christian) stands.

Re section 2, 4: The "Inuit" material was separated out from the "racism" section in response to strong representations from another editor and it now appears separately, here. There is logic to having it in the "Allegations of anti-semitism and racism" section, but I fear that to do so would re-awaken older contentions and extend the current disagreement further. To reiterate my earlier: it would be contrary to the balanced reporting of the subject to have any of this in the lead. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that it is necessary to go in for third party arbitration. I am prepared to wait for groundswell of opinion to gather so that non Anglo-American sensibilities find adequate representation on English Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

'Imperialism,and slavery and semitism [?] are white-Christian discoveries.' But Jesus was born on the outer edges of the Roman Empire, so imperialism must pre-date Christianity. And slaves were commonplace in ancient times etc..etc..Sayerslle (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Inuit" material is lost even to an editor who spends lots of time on the discussion page. The effect to a casual reader is clear. Ergo it needs mention in the racism section. I have not removed it from its original place paraphrased it and repeated it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re section 3.5: The title of the above comments that I replied to was " In defence of inclusion Dickens' racism in the lead" (my bold). I think all we are discussing is whether it is adequately represented by a section in the article or whether it deserves mention in the lead. I await your groundswell, too :) Stephenb (Talk) 10:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Adequate representation in the article, means if racism is seen an important aspect of his personality, without disagreement, then it automatically follows that the lead should mention it, its importance makes it a candidate for inclusion in the lead. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The "without disagreement" can only mean without disagreement among sources, not disagreement among Wikipedia editors. Shreevatsa (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Sources may point in all directions. Editors can arrive at a consensus. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is always great, but coming to our own conclusions based on sources is WP:SYNTHESIS. Of course, when sources point in different directions we are free to report all of them (as due). Shreevatsa (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Are words being put in my mouth, I have not suggested that we draw conclusions. We can have "xxx consider him a racist, yyy don't." Like at some places in this article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This user Yogesh Khande comments are in clear breach of Wikipedia NPOV policy.. his quote; "Dickens was a b****y, f*****g, r****t. A white chauvinist p*g. No offence ment to the later. This aspect of his personality is absent in this biographical article of him, and the void has been filled imho by my additions"

With his set agenda and extreme bias this user is contravening one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Furthermore... he has highlighted certain comments to fit his set agenda. As a repeat offender i propose user ban from this article. BobSilverman (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A summary of the NPOV policy is as follows

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Good that BobSilverman is reacting strongly to invectives, even though they have been just alluded to. Now consider what I feel when Dickens writes what he has written about non-whites and non-Christians, living at all latitudes and longitudes. I am sure you would not like me to repeat what Dickens has written. It is gory. I am bound to search for reliable sources that seem to sympathise with my sensitivities. And strive to ensure that they are fairly represented without bias. Calling for a ban is also a violation of Wikipedia policy, (I forgot which). Please be careful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The five pillars of Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia which BobSilverman referred to are

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
3. Wikipedia is free content
4. Wikipedia has a code of conduct
5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your clear breach of NPOV, self admitting set agenda, swearing, racist slurs, issue with Anglo-American POV, and repeated breach of one of the five pillars of wikipedia, i have no alternative but to contact administration. BobSilverman (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your clear breach of NPOV, no

self admitting set agenda, yes

swearing, no I have used ***, to remain civil.

racist slurs, no The system is biased, Wikipedia says so, I have not meant to make personal attacks, I have contested views, which I think is fair, freedom of speech

issue with Anglo-American POV yes, is that a reason to be banned???

repeated breach of one of the five pillars of wikipedia, no

i have no alternative but to contact administration. I do not know how to react to this Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I have no idea who the two of you are, or what started this dispute, so I consider myself uninvolved here. (So, this is based on a cursory review of the discussion, and is not an attempt to indict anyone in specific). So here goes:

• There's no need (or excuse) for cursing out the subject of an article. Doesn't matter if they're dead or alive, or if you spell it out or use asterisks. See WP:TALK if you need clarification.
• We work by consensus. Just because you think something doesn't mean it should be in the article. If you want to enact controversial changes, you need the support of others. To put it another way, we don't actually have free speech here. All edits need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V, and that takes precedence over ones own opinion.
• Any controversial statement needs to be backed up by sources. For example, if you feel that Dicken's is racist against the swiss because in one chapter he has a character shovel other swiss characters into a meatgrinder, that's not enough. It would be original research or synthesis to make that claim. You'd need to find reliable sources that analyze the material and make the claim themselves. (Ie, you can't cite his chapter and then cite another source saying that writing chapters about people getting put into meatgrinders is indicative of the author's racism, that's synthesis). And if you do find such sources, you need to be sure that they are not given undue weight. That is to say, if only a minority of people hold the view that Dickens was racist against the swiss, it should described as such in the article.Note:after reading through the article, it would appear that there are at least enough sources to justify the racism section at least in part.
• The WP:LEDE should summarize the key points of the article. I don't currently see a justification for including the race issue there.
• And lastly, Wikipedia is not a battleground. The viewpoint that prevails in the end will be the one with consensus, not the one that makes the most edits. If you make edits that are continually reverted, you need to build consensus for your views, or if consensus goes against you, recognize that. If you feel a wider viewpoint is needed, start a Request for Comments, don't repeat edits against consensus.

Hope that helps some. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to user Bfigura

I am sorry but you are jumping to conclusions, which is not appropriate, despite your disclaimer, that you have not looked into the matter in detail.

1. Except for the disguised invectives all the other points above are unwarranted allegations. I merely used them to describe Dickens in everyday language, devoid of scholarly euphemisms. But I have alluded to invectives. I perhaps should have used the words, today Dickens would, using everyday language be called a *** *** etc. English is not my first language, and though I understand words and their meanings, I do not know what the fine line between colloquiallity and profanity is, in the Anglo-American cultural context. The discussion page is as far as I understand a little more informal than the article. The American movies that we watch are many times full of profanity, even when families with members of different ages and genders are shown interacting. I have seen atleast one instance of a Wikipedia policy article using a word like jerk which wikitionary marks as (US, slang, pejorative), and gives some synonyms as asshole and bastard. I have no idea what goes and what does not. However in my native tongue, and personally I abhor profanity, and if I come across as profane, I tender an unconditional apology, as I cannot expect others to be sensitive when I am not sensitive to their feelings.
2. There have been no edit wars, so your advice though generally sound is unwarranted in this case.
3. I have not synthesised, I have not indulged in original research, the charge of wp:undue is unwarranted and not based on evidence,also you have to prove that only a minority of reliable sources hold the view that Dickens held racist views. Please quote one non-white non-Christian source that exonerates Dickens of the charge of racism.
4. Please read the discussion carefully before making charges, though your disclaimer says that you have not arrived to indict anyone.
5. As far as I can judge the situation, the editors involved are comfortable with their differing views, and I have stated that I do not need arbitration, or rfc, but am prepared to wait, for other editors to come in. Please go through the entire discussion before forming opinions.
6. wp:FREE which says editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so. Have I abused my privilege as an editor, unless criticising imperialism and slavery and white supremacist ideology is construed as a violation of this privilege. In that case I am prepared to relinquish my editing privilege, not on this article but on Wikipedia as then Wikipedia would not be worth to be around imho.
7. I have written that I have contested views and not attacked individuals. I have supported my arguments even on the talk page with reliable sources. I have gone through wp:LEDE and have quoted it above. It seems to confirm my arguments, but if there is no consensus I will not indulge in edit wars, this was and is my stated position.
8. I have not violated wp:V as every word I have written in the article has been sourced from good reliable sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, it really appears that you're only here to push an agenda, which we really do tend to frown on. But rather than comment in numerous places, I'll let this unfold at ANI where there are more eyes about. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My cards too are on the table, my interest is to find reliable sources that throw light on the dark part of the moon, unseen so far. If you call that an agenda, I won't contest that. If it is against Wikipedia rules, poor Wikipedia. It is just not worth the trouble. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Journalism and early novels

In this section the chronology is wrong. It implies he became a political journalist in 1834, but he worked at the 'True Sun' starting in March 1832, and the 'Mirror of Parliament' circa 1832, I'd like to change this section if it's o.k.Sayerslle (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Racism" section and WP:SS

The proposal to spin off the "Racism" section into its own article was discussed above and rejected. However, thanks to the tireless efforts by User:Yogesh Khandke, there now seems to be enough material to make this worthwhile. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Yogesh Khandke would want the section moved off the page as it is on the main page and a separate page would be a lot less seen wouldn't it? If it grows too much larger though...I still think there are some debatable things there. Personally I'm not even sure about 'the unpleasant, to modern eyes, stereotype..' as if 'modern eyes' was all agreed, all felt the same..I don't mind Fagin really, and Dickens is an artist, not a politician, and , this is from Angus Wilson's book on Dickens ; "Inevitably, then, although Dickens by the force of his powers of rhetoric and narrative can rouse us to join the rat hunt against Fagin and Sykes after the murder is known, for the most part we find ourselves, however we shrink from their brutality, treachery and filth, living the second half of the novel with the gang, for they alone are alive, they alone share the author's power of laughter...Dickens participates with the villains of the second part (Fagin,Dodger &co) in their fight against the villains of the first part (the gentlemen who run society for their own well-being)." And writing like "the sliminess of the Jew ...is sign of his capacity to disorder representational boundaries", I don't even know what it means. But Yogesh Khandke has made me want to look further into this question. I think the section is on the right page, but it is a wrong-headed section in some ways.Sayerslle (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't deleted references and then added citation tags. The statements are not supported by the references at least not on the page number as shown in the reference. Also I wish you would not resort to opinionated words like it seems, conversely, etc. let the reader decide. I will first show how I would prefer it to be, and then would go in for the edit on the edit page. (This is for Old Moonraker, also a separate page for Racism in Dickens literature is a good idea. We can have a short writeup on this page and a link to the separate page.) Unpleasant to modern eyes is not my baby. Dickens' characterisation of the Jew caused indignation right away, way back in 1838, when it was first written, we at least have Dickens' issuing denials in 1854, and Riah in 1864. That the author was forced to respond to public pressure, Dickens' wrote with his pulse on the fingers of the readers, that was his style, Riah was a result of the reaction to Fagin. All this happened in his time. Sayerslle writes he does not mind Fagin, that is a personal opinion, is that however representative of the modern reaction to Fagin? (Just as a matter of argument, Fagin was found repulsive then and is found repulsive now, in 1838 and in 2009). All the above is not my wp:or every line is from sources quoted in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sayerslle it is not me but the author of the quoted source who has foxed us. is sign of his capacity to disorder representational boundaries, perhaps means Fagin is a human, a beast, a Devil, all in one, perhaps like a platypus, a bird, a mammal, a little of this a little of that, purely my understanding, I would like to hear what you learn about it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite do not understand what Sayerslle means by his Dickens was not a politician. He was a public figure, he was an active campaigner, he was a lobbyist, just as he was a creator of fiction, he was a journalist and a commentator on contemporary matters. He was a very influential 19th century English personality. Indians and other races he termed as savages did not have a voice in England then, like the Jews had or perhaps we could have had counter to Sambo, just like we had Riah. He perhaps was not an insensitive individual, but he was perhaps a little careless and he played to the gallery, a rabble rouser perhaps, and he wanted his work to sell, he could not have said all that he wrote about Sambo on his face, if they were fellow travellers in a railway compartment, (he later went into denial when it came to Fagin) but he formed and perpetuated prejudices, about Jews and about non-Christians and non-whites. (Most of the last line my opinion). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is Hebrew bible not capitalised at the start? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the sub-section in chronological order, it was a task overdue.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be the quoted source who has foxed us, Yogesh Khandke, but you quoted the quoted source, and you admit you're not sure what it means! Its the kind of academic verbiage I can't stand really so I certainly can't elucidate it further. When I said 'he's not a politician' I guess I meant there's a difference between a novelist creating a Jewish character who is the leader of a gang of pickpockets, and was based in fact apparently on Ikey Solomons, and an anti-semitic politician , who says 'This is what Jews are, crooks, thieves, etc..' and seeking to identify these as specifically Jewish traits or something. If I wrote a novel based around a leading character that I'd based on Bernard Madoff, would that be anti-semitic? If Dickens was anti-semitic why wasn't it a recurring motif in his work, why was he bothered to 'atone' for his Fagin ..to say he was just pandering to whoever tugged his sleeve, I dont know, I just don't buy it.(and if he wrote with his fingers on the pulse of his readers, then he was just a mirror, so not an ideologically driven racist/ arent you contradicting yourself?).When I say I don't mind Fagin, I know thats a personal opinion, and probably influenced by the Jewish Lionel Bart's Oliver! and such, and Fagin has some great songs like 'Youve got to pick a pocket or two', but 'modern eyes' have grown up with the Bart Fagin, as well as other Fagins, in any case, from another side so to speak, to say its offensive to 'modern eyes' , as if'modern eyes' were homogenous, some anti-semitic eyes may enjoy the caricature Fagins , making 'modern eyes' equivalent to 'tolerant eyes' , which is complacent etc.. I know you didn't add that sentence, I'm just not sure about that bit.David Schneider said he didn't enjoy reading the book but called Fagin 'a complex character' who 'was not the baddie'. John Drew who wrote 'Dickens the journalist' concluded theres no evidence that Dickens had a problem with Judaism. Sayerslle (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The last section got too long.

Dickens' was a writer and an activist. See Jamaica and the Franklin incidents. His egalitarianism did not extend beyond his own race and religion. His fiction reflected and perpetuated prejudices of his times. One source calls his Fagin the most notorious and infamous example of anti-semitism of the 19th century, perhaps not just limited to English literature but all literature. Do you have to pull triggers to be responsible for murder. Did Hitler flick switches in gas chambers? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also if you wrote a novel in which the character was inspired by Bernard Madoff, called him a Jew all the time, and presented his criminal activity as a part of his Jewishness that would make you anti-semitic. Wouldn't that? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oliver!'s Fagin is not Dickens' Fagin, who would find a Fagin played by Rowan Atkinson[10] anti-semitic. Wonder what you mean to communicate by your statement that you associate your Fagin with the Fagin of Oliver!. They are two different characters of the same name. The issue here is about Dickens' Fagin and not Bart's. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover the term modern eyes has not been quoted by me, actually to me it is another attempt at denialism and apologism behaviour. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole section is too long

The section has long been overburdened with quotes and the latest one "Nadia Valdman, a writer on the portrayal on Jews in literature: In the characterization of the Jewish fence, Fagin, Dickens produced one of the most notorious anti-Jewish literary stereotypes of the nineteenth century. Fagin's representation was drawn on the image of the Jew as inherently evil, the imagery and language used associating him with the Devil and Satan. Valdman writes: "The novel's figurative language links him (Fagin) with beasts, he is "lynx eyed," "a wolf"; his hand is a "withered old claw"; he has "such fangs as should have been a dog's or a rat's." He inhabits the night: "Creeping beneath the shelter of the walls or doorways, the hideous old man seemed like some loathsome reptile, engendered in slime and darkness through which he moved: crawling forth, by night, in search of some rich offal for a meal.""In Fagin's underworld where "everything felt wild and clammy to touch...the sliminess of the Jew is sign...of his physical repulsiveness and bestiality..." needs, once again, to be trimmed. Even in the context of this section, which arguably is in itself WP:UNDUE, this is too much. This extravagant and lurid language, whether that of the contributor or of his/her sources, does not belong in a properly balanced encyclopaedia article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

May I also ask the editor to try and bring to bear a little proportion and perspective? He/she has been conducting a campaign for several months that, while assuming good faith, is having a disruptive effect and with which every other every other commentator on this page has disagreed. It's time to tidy up the section, and call a halt. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I object to the allegation of campaign, I was reported to anv/i and rested my case there. Please follow links on my talk page. wp:undue, is about minority views, Dickens' anti-seimitism wrt Fagin is not a minority view. If you find the language extravagant and lurid, it is a pity, as to the best of my knowledge it is Dickens'. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is Dickens'.[11] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is again a case of misplaced guilt. I am editing by the rules others are not and they complain.!! For example why should not the lead carry a statement like this, He created many memorable characters including Fagin, considered as the most anti-semitic of his times. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There are again allusions of wp:or, though not direct, whether of the contributor or his sources. They are of neither, see above, they are of good ol Boz! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Just to save you from the bother of pronouns, I am male and editing with my real name. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not had the question kindly answered please. Why does b have to be lowercase in Hebrew bible? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No big deal: use caps if you like. To me it's not a proper noun. E.g., King James Bible is a the title of a work, whereas a bible, as in a gift of a book, is an object.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdent] I went to User:Yogesh Khandke's talk page, as suggested, but I couldn't find where he was reported to WP:ANV, several WP:3RR concerns notwithstanding. Are the circumstances relevant to the discussions here? However, the findings at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#User Yogesh Khande do seem relevant. Conclusions like: "interesting that he admits to having an agenda...combined with the incivility...I'm not really sure what to make of this user. A problem, for certain"; "You seem to be editing simply to make a point which I assure you is not going to be successful" and "There also seems to be a wider concern that you're only here to push a POV, which as others have said, isn't in alignment with Wikipedia's goals" all speak for themselves. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I meant to send you to the very link you found, actually I was lazy, so wrote the acronym from memory it should have been AN/I not ANV/I.
2. Your quote is not a conclusion, that is an allegation that you are quoting here please follow the link, and go through the entire interaction and where it has ended. I want to know from you man to man do you consider our exchanges an edit war? I do not want to indulge in one, that is why I am careful about not deleting any previous edits, except where they are un-sourced or cannot be verified from the source quoted. I have stated my position at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#User Yogesh Khande, and above here that I wish to work patiently, by the rules etc. On the issue of civility I have written in detail. Do you wish I bring all those arguments here? Please do not mis-quote, or quote partially as it results in incorrect representation of the situation.
3. Bible is not a common noun, it is a proper noun and first letters of proper nouns are capitalised, it is not capitalised only when it is used as a metaphor, for example, the Wisden book of cricket is a bible for lovers of the game. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have a go at editing the section - cutting down the size of the quotes from Nadia Valdman which are a bit long, and making small changes to the 'perils' and the 'letter to coutts' sections', should I just go ahead. I just want to check the etiquette as if I remove some stuff it may be painstaking to put it back, some of the refs look very involved. One thing I'm not sure of is what 'the stereotype as fence and corrupter of children reflected only the endemic view of the time', is saying. Is that saying people regarded the Jews as naturally criminal? That can't be true can it? If it aroused no comment or indignation I would have thought that meant, 'so theres a bad character who happens to be Jewish..not all Jews are saints.' ..but if it was really because people thought ' yeah, so what, Fagin is portrayed as Jewish, they're all corrupt aren't they' then that is anti-semitic for sure, and if Dickens felt that..About the Hebrew bible Yogesh, I'm not Jewish so I can't be sure but I don't think they have a 'Bible', capital B , thats a Christian thing, they have the Law, (the first 5 books of the Christian Old Testament) , and then some history, and prophets, so the small b would indicate its not a formal title, its an informal use of the term 'bible' Thats my explanation anyway. If the section is moved to a separate page, I've found some references to Dickens's 'apprehensiveness of Africa as a continent' !Sayerslle (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Another editor's take on the subject would be very welcome and the section is certainly in need of some WP:BOLD attention. Even bolder, the creation of the suggested spin-off page. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I am afraid Sayerslle you are a little in the dark regarding the Hebrew Bible. For starters you could try going through the Wikipedia entry on it. It is incorrect to use the lower case; Bible in Hebrew Bible is not a generic appendage.
2. I am glad you picked up the quote you have. The source says, as an apology: that Dickens' Fagin was a statement that Jews are genetically inclined to be immoral and criminal, but it was not his fault, it was just how every one else in England thought so, he was just reflecting the popular opinion about the Jews. So does Moonraker if I have not made a mistake in understanding him.
3. It did arouse a great deal of indignation, at least as much as the Jews could muster, or as much as England allowed them to express. Dickens' made various attempts to explain Fagin, and then created Riah, to atone for Fagin. A proof perhaps that Fagin was a mistake that needed Riah to clear it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just by way of clarification, I do not share Dickens's fictional opinion about Jews, and any intimation that this is so is a personal attack of the most offensive kind.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Moonraker I meant that you perhaps give Dickens' the benefit of the doubt, just as the source has. (And not share Dickens' fictional opinion Perhaps I would like to rephrase that as representation of Jews in Dickens' works,) is that still a personal attack. I wish that if you or anybody else is excessively offended a "Please explain", would be better than assuming the worst. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Also perhaps you meant insinuation when you wrote intimation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If he wrote intimation, that's probably what he meant. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the antisemitism part of this section, as the other was rather long and quite hard to see who was saying what. Here, for example:

The last we hear of Fagin, this 'snared beast', is a howling 'cry upon cry that penetrated even those massive walls.' The ruthless downgrading and dehumanization of Fagin has become more controversial since the Holocaust. "When Fagin, his execution approaching, has visions of strong and vigorous men' reduced by the hangman 'to dangling heaps of clothes' it is hard now for readers not to think of the 'heaps of clothes' that feature in the most forbidding landscape of 20th century history', of the death camps, of 'the Jew denied all identity right down to, and including, the body as in a sense Fagin is. "

The way the quotes are presented, it's not clear which is the voice of the Wikipedian, which of the source (Vincent Newey), and which of Dickens, if any. So I just did a rewrite, rather than trying to work it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Slim Wikipedia is not a platform for Wikipedians to air their opinion; that would be wp:or, so it is either Dickens' of the source quoting it. Wonderful job though, Is the figure of 800 characters and only one bad some kind of score keeping? What about Christian George King Sambo? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians have to write the articles, so clearly some words will come from them, and it's not clear in the above who said what. I didn't understand your final point about score-keeping. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In so far as you tidied up the edit, good job, in so far as you tidied away, bad job. I think its a bit disingenuous to say its not clear who said what...Its all from Neweys book , with him quoting Dickens's text within his writing, all I added was 'has become more controversial since the Holocaust', and 'the death camps', and I added that because Newey moves from Fagins prison cell to the camps of the mid 20th century. The punctuation was unclear,the commas were all over the place, and I was going to look at it again but I kind of knew the edit wouldn't last. It looks better now, with the picture too, but I think the edit is very anodyne now, very 'Blue Peter'. Sayerslle (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Sayerslle! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Great job Slim, read 800 as about a thousand, but let the point pass, it was not meant to be a question for you. Just a remark, to my untrained Indian eyes, the picture of Fagin looks like today's real life Arab, a villian for a particular race and religion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Life is Blue Peter, or it would not be worth living! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikihacked!

{{editsemiprotected}}

The "stop copyin' leds..." in the early years is apparently a spammed phrase, unless it is a quote (which I doubt)

• Dealt with. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Early life

"Just before his father's arrest, 12-year-old Dickens had begun a long term relationship with Anne Frank..."

Really?

Jafprrr (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does the Dickens page attract so much dumbass vandalism. Dragging Anne Franks name into it is really low. I think the page should be protected to be honest. Sayerslle (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism but not so dumbass, full of irony imo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilde's famous mot on the death of Little Nell is correctly quoted above, but the quotation in the article, notwithstanding the correct (footnoted--footnote 50) reference, is incorrect and does injustice both to Wilde and to Richard Ellmann. Please correct it! 173.48.130.196 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol

The Legacy section needs an addition. After

"Years later, Dickens shared that he was "deeply affected" in writing A Christmas Carol. The novel rejuvenated his career as a renowned author."

the following would be appropriate to his legacy:

"Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” returned Christmas to its pagan roots. Before Dickens, many Christians shunned Christmas as pagan. After Dickens, Christians and non-Christians saw Christmas as a time of good will, a time to celebrate Christian values.

"In the story, Dickens mentions nothing about Christ: not a manger scene, not a shepherd, not a word. He does mention the Sabbath as the result of “passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness”. Dickens presented Christmas with pagan spirits but without Christ and made it popular."

why add this? Because for as long as I can remember "Who took Christ out of Christmas?" has been a recurring question. It has an answer, at last.

Rabaker3 (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Wont pre-Christian in place of pagan be neutral and un-biased? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)