Talk:A Christmas Carol

Recent edits about characters

Purplebackpack89, Can you please stop edit warring on this FA and DISCUSS? Thank you - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You're the one edit-warring now, my dude. I added a source and you still undid me. Did you even bother to check that? pbp 11:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't call me "my dude", or anything similar. I undid a poor edit. If you had bothered to come here after it was first reverted you would have understood just why is was a poor inclusion into the article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, I noticed the characters section...well, didn't have much information about the characters, except for Scrooge. Several of the characters have their own Wikipedia articles, so I added one-sentence descriptions (largely summaries of their articles) of them with links to their articles. Fred doesn't have his own article, so his is longer.

Hope everybody's OK with that. pbp 11:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 What you have added is poor. Bullet points or trite descriptions of actions covered in the Plot section are superfluous. The section on characters is an analysis from reliable third party sources of their background etc, not a description of their action. I'm delighted you've stopped by here to discuss, but was there any need for the edit warring first? - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

There wasn't, dude The edits were reasonable and you shouldn't have undone them. They just happen to be a style of edit you don't like, and you're creating an exaggerated interpretation of policy to wrongly justify removing them. If I add a couple of sources, I believe there's no reason for them to be deleted. pbp 11:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've already asked you not to call me dude, so why you are being to obstreperous is anyone's guess. As I said on my talk page, please leave the aggression elsewhere and discuss civilly.

As to the content, the edits were poor. This is an FA, and it has high standards. As I have explained, the Characters section is about the background of the characters, not a regurgitation of actions already covered in the Plot section. It is utterly pointless trying to crowbar the repetition of character names and their actions: it doesn't improve people's understanding of the work by providing new information, and that's the key driver. Why or how do you think it would improve the article? - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

There's an expectation of what you get in "characters" section. If people see a "characters" section in a book or movie article, they expect to find what I added: short descriptions of each of the main characters. You'll find similar lists in many Wikipedia articles about books and movies. Might it be redundant to other sections of the article? Perhaps, but the ease of navigability makes up for that. The "characters" section prior to my edits is mistitled, it doesn't fulfill the function of character sections in similar articles. And it being an FA doesn't preclude people from making BOLD efits pbp 12:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 - This is a WP:Featured article. It has gone through a rigorous process to make sure the prose, image licensing, source formatting, source reliability, comprehensiveness, neutrality etc etc is up to snuff. Additionally, editors are advised to use the talk page or contact the main contributors to the article before making large changes (like you did). I advise you to consider whether you think your edit was up to the FA standards. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe my edit added something to the article that needed to be there. The information I added about the characters is easily sourced from the articles on the characters themselves. pbp 12:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The information I added about the characters is easily sourced from the articles on the characters themselves - It needs to be sourced here too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

One of my edits had sources. The Great and Powerful SchroCat undid it anyway. pbp 12:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Because the substance was poor, as three people are now telling you. It did not aid the reader one iota in their understanding of the topic. (And take out the out the snark: I can be much ruder than you can, but it's not a competition I can be bothered to get into). - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with the claim "It did not aid the reader one iota in their understanding of the topic.", and I'm entitled to say so here. The idea that we can cover the characters in the plot makes a huge assumption: that people are reading this end-to-end. If people just want information about the characters, they'd look in the characters section and skip the other sections pbp 12:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course you're entitled to say it, but it doesn't make it right though. We don't repeat factoids in multiple sections to try and guess where people will read. We ensure all the relevant information from high-quality sources is in the article, and we only put that information in once in the body (although some stuff is inevitably repeated in lead and IB). - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

To you, SchroCat, this isn't even about the article anymore. This is about you needing to be RIGHT and you trying to put an editor you see as beneath youin his place. I make no assumptions about Tim and RNDDude, but you're not acting in good faith. I will not be bullied by you, and I stick to my opinion. pbp 12:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, any chance of sticking to CIVIL, AGF, comment on content, not editor, etc? As far as I am concerned, this is entirely about the article and nothing else. You can pop the accusations of bad faith wherever you wish: I am commenting only on the article, and I am not bullying anyone. You are, as I have already said, completely entitled to keep your opinion, but at the moment, three other people disagree with you on it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The additions have problems. The majority of the contribution is repeating plot points that are already covered. Examples include:

adding Bob Cratchit is Scrooge's overworked and underpaid clerk to the character section, but all of that is stated much earlier in the article with [h]e turns away two men seeking a donation to provide food and heating for the poor and only grudgingly allows his overworked, underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit, Christmas Day off with pay to conform to the social custom.

also with Jacob Marley is Scrooge's former business partner, dead seven years at the outset of the story. He is depicted as a ghost wearing the chain he forged in a life of making money while being indifferent to the poor when that same information is provided much earlier with the lines ... seven years after the death of Ebenezer Scrooge's business partner, Jacob Marley and [t]hat night Scrooge is visited at home by Marley's ghost, who wanders the Earth entwined by heavy chains and money boxes forged during a lifetime of greed and selfishness. I suppose you could add the words 'and indifference to the poor' to that sentence, but is it necessary?

I hardly need mention that the Ghosts of Christmas are also covered much earlier in the article and in far greater detail than the terse ... three spirits who visit Scrooge to help him realize the error of his ways description provided.

There are also prosaic issues, such as ... who suffers from a treatable yet potentially-fatal ailment left untreated due to Bob's poverty. The awkward repetitiveness of 'treatable' and 'untreated' stick out, there should not be a hyphen for potentially fatal (the adverb describes the adjective, not the noun), and 'suffers' might be questionable encyclopedic tone.

I don't doubt the good faith intent, but I don't see the edit as an improvement in totality. There may be elements that could be incorporated elsewhere, such as the aforementioned indifference to the poor phrase, but that's up for discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If there's a characters section, it needs to provide information about the characters. Why would people look for information about characters in the Plot section when a characters section exists? pbp 12:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It provides information on the characters who need to have more said on them: those where there is analysis in reliable secondary sources. It's not a section for listing character names and repeating their actions. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I believe that it should be a section for listing character names and repeating their actions. That's one vote for that opinion. pbp 12:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We have a whole encyclopaedia of articles that avoid doing what you want to do, and (on this talk page) three editors who have expressed the opposite opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Three editors expressing one opinion here on the talk page doesn't prevent me from expressing another opinion. How about less bullying me and more compromising with me? pbp 19:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have said at several points in this thread that you not only entitled to your opinion, but you have the right to say it. That's not bullying by any measure. Nothing I have said or done could be construed as such. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Express your opinion all you like, Wikipedia works off of consensus and currently a 3:1 ratio of opposition:support is not going to get your desired change instated any time soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a very strange thing to say, PBP. Nobody has told you that you're not entitled to express your opinion, much less that you're not entitled to hold it. And I see no bullying here; I see three editors (now four, and you can count me as five) disagreeing with another editor and that editor unnecessarily personalising the dispute. Consensus means you win some, you lose some. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

HJ, you really haven't spoken to my rationale for adding this. Why no to my changes? Why would people look for information on the characters in the Plot section when a characters section exists. NOBODY has given me a real response to this question pbp 21:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

They have, but you didn't get the response you wanted, so you claim they didn't. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, I disagree with you, but before I get to that, please note that Edit Warring is prohibited on Wikipedia. First, I disagree that a list of characters is required for a book article in this encyclopedia. This is an FA article, which means that a large group of experienced Wikipedians reviewed and commented on it in detail, and they believed that the text was comprehensive. So, it should be obvious to you that if you wish to add a whole new section to the article; you need to discuss it first on the Talk page (and certainly not Edit War about it). Second, the characters are, of course, described in the plot section. Importing unreferenced descriptions of the characters (from less well developed Wikipedia articles) is not helpful -- if they are important to the book, the necessary descriptions should be in the plot section. Third, as Mr rnddude noted above, your proposals are problematic in other ways. See also WP:UNDUE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

takes two to edit-war, so don't forget to criticize SchroCat as well. Also, your claim that I created a characters heading is a bit off; there already was one and I added to it pbp 21:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I will also note that you wrote "realize" in the article. Should be consistent with the rest of the article ("realise"). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So-and-so is a murderer too, so don't forget to criticize him? What a bad argument. Also, See WP:BRD. The proper sequence is: 1. You make a bold edit. 2. Another editor opposes your edit. 3. You take it to the Talk page. You should WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

“Plot section”

The paragraph “beloved sister Fan, who died young while giving birth to Fred” is a common assumption based from the 1951 film adaptation. In the book, the cause of her death is not mentioned, the ghost simply saying “she died a woman”. This could be changed to “late beloved sister Fan, the mother of Fred”. In addition, the paragraph, “Scrooge, upset by hearing Belle's description of the man that he has become” could be changed to “Scrooge, upset at what losing his engagement to Belle cost him”, as Dickens makes it clear in the writing that Scrooge is upset over the thought that Belle’s children could have been his. 92.17.199.182 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks IP. You're right on the first point (which I've now changed). On the second point, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that "Scrooge is upset over the thought that Belle's children could have been his". The text does not say it outright, which means it would be WP:original research to make the claim that was why he was upset. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Dickens writes, that when Scrooge sees Belle’s children, “W]hen he thought that such another creature, quite as graceful and as full of promise, might have called him father, and been a spring-time in the haggard winter of his life, his sight grew very dim indeed.” 92.17.199.182 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Two ambiguities

The story was illicitly copied in January 1844; Dickens took legal action against the publishers, who went bankrupt, further reducing Dickens's small profits from the publication.

Manning that Dickens might've recovered some dough from them, or that their sales cut into legitimate sales?

Dickens acknowledged the influence of the modern Western observance of Christmas and later inspired several aspects of Christmas, including family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games and a festive generosity of spirit.

Dickens inspired those traditions, you say, but not till later (i.e. not via this story)? But it also says these very "modern Western" traditions influenced his writing of the story? That paragraph seems like a kangaroo jumping into its own pouch. – AndyFielding (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity in either of these when taken in context. The text makes it clear about the small profits, and we don’t refer to any money being paid to him by the ‘bankrupt’ copiers. For the second point, again no ambiguity in context. Dickens captured the zeitgeist and was influenced by modern developments which he also later inspired in others. No kangaroos were harmed in the writing, although some straw men were exposed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2024

Hi, I would like to make a page about who narrates the novella, a christmas carol, by charles dickens Sigmakebabsi (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any reliable secondary sources that speculate on the point? - SchroCat (talk)

Stave Two description

The paragraph in Stave Two, “Scrooge, upset by hearing a description of the man that he has become” could be changed to “Scrooge, upset at what losing his engagement to Belle cost him”, as Dickens makes it clear in the writing that Scrooge is upset over the thought that Belle’s children could have been his. Dickens writes that the delighted children show Scrooge how much he has missed; they could have been his. “W]hen he thought that such another creature, quite as graceful and as full of promise, might have called him father, and been a spring-time in the haggard winter of his life, his sight grew very dim indeed.” 80.45.146.138 (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It could, but he was also upset by the description of what he had become. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Lede listing of the ghosts

I'd added 'Christmas Present' and 'Christmas Yet to Come' as the proper names in the lede, per direct links, to 'Christmas Past', 'Present' and 'Yet to Come', which was reverted. Reading 'Yet to Come' seemed jarring as the name of a ghost (which is how the sentence again reads). Adding 'Christmas' as the ghost's proper names, per their direct links, seems an appropriate addition. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Repeating the same word three times in very close succession is jarring. There is no loss of understanding in having abbreviated names. - SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Yet to Come" is not the name of the ghost. It is "Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come", which could be abbreviated to 'Christmas Yet to Come" per the present wording ("ghosts of..."). Truncating it from six to three words skips over accuracy in favor of a comic-like Casper-companion name. Following the direct links here, at least for four of the six words, seems a better and more familiar descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s fine as it is. The repetition of ‘Christmas’ three times in close succession is just poor writing. - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless they are, as in this case per the links, proper names. Will await other comments on these issues, thanks for discussing. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are proper name we wouldn’t repeat. We wouldn’t write that the ghosts were ‘called John Smith, Sarah Smith and James Smith’, as it would just be bad writing, whether linked or not. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It should only say "Christmas" once. Repeating it three times is just longer and adds nothing. Concise writing is good writing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Was the novella influenced by Douglas Jerrold?

The lede says it was, the text below says it may have been. 'Was' and 'may have been' have two very different meanings, and stating that it was in Wikipedia's voice, then changing that it may have been in the 'Influences' section, leaves an inaccuracy hanging Schrodinger's-catlike for one of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It’s not an inaccuracy. From memory the source said ‘likely’ influenced by Jerrold (or similar), stressing the probability. I’ll have to dig out the source again to confirm. - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure which one is inaccurate. "Likely" is somebody's guess, so the wording should not be 'was' if the source says 'likely'. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've tweaked the body to bring it in line with one of the sources used. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"Ghosts" for "spirits" in lede per accuracy

My edit changing 'spirits' to 'ghosts' in the lede was reverted because: avoiding repetition. "Ghosts" is accurate here. The text now reads: "spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come", even though the links go to Ghost of Christmas Past, Ghost of Christmas Present and Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. This is an obvious fix, per the direct links. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Aside from it not being ‘obvious’, I put back the word ‘ghosts’ several minutes ago. Avoiding close repetition is a good thing. - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'ghosts' edit. Marley should also be described as a ghost and not a spirit ("Marley's ghost" is the common and well-known term, and per the novella itself, if I'm not mistaken). Repetitive use would be something like three repetitions in a row for a descriptive term, not two, if the two are accurate ('Christmas' is within the ghosts' proper names, notice the uppercasing, so three reps seem fine there). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, close repetition of the same word is just bad writing. Dickens used the words ghost and spirit interchangeably in the novel, so we’re all good to follow suit here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

See the n-grams for Marley's descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we make the prose lumpen and awkward when there is no loss of meaning? Dickens used several synonyms for ‘ghost’ (in different formats to the misleading ngram), and there is no loss of understanding there either. - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In expository writing (unlike, say, legal writing), it is good to mix up the synonyms so that there is less repetition. As long as the meaning is clear, as it is in SchroCat's version, ghost of this, spirit of that and apparition of the other are much more interesting for the reader than ghost of this, ghost of that and ghost of the other. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)