Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Carlyle

Former featured article candidateThomas Carlyle is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleThomas Carlyle has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 29, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
May 6, 2023Good article nomineeListed
February 28, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wik.ipedia.Pro's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 10, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Thomas Carlyle (pictured) was the first writer to use the expression "meaning of life"?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

No mention of "Negro Question"?

Why no mention of Carlyle's avid support of slavery, in particular slavery of Africans? Seems fairly revisionist to have eliminated all references to this. The references were here before, but now are not. Carlyle would have wanted his flaws examined. Trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.23.29 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that "avid support of slavery" is a fair description of a Carlyle position. His notorious pamphlet "The N- Question" (I don't want to write the word) isn't strictly about slaves. 70.31.46.131 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Crabb Robinson reported that he expressed fervent support for slavery (on racist grounds, too). And Robinson was his friend! 98.115.255.240 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

where do you want to put him in the canon? under essayist? near montaigne?

BTW a fine read! I've heard of his Revolution but never read it. Is it available at Gutenberg?
you're doing great work here! set up a user account so we 'know' who you are! --dgd
  • The Gutenberg link is in the article. -- Jmabel 23:47, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • You should note that Emerson also published Sartor Resartus in America at his own expense, and only broke even by the third printing.--Case 22:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The dismal science"

  • He called Economics "The dismal science". I'm trying to work out where to add that factoid to the article. See http://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/melbec/715.html for more. Edward 10:20, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
    • Probably merits adding a paragraph or two that will elucidate the context in which he said it. The quotation is famous enough (and subtle enough in its significance) to merit more than just a mention in a "quotations" section. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Image confusion

I removed the second image from the article, because according to the source, it actually shows Robert Owen rather than Carlyle (compare [1]). The correct image is evidently [2]. Wmahan. 03:30, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

This is now fixed, thanks to the great Magnus Manske. Wmahan. 22:55, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I think this link Carlyle's French Revolution in relation to 20th Century American economics should be dropped. Not very informative about Carlyle, really it's just one not-at-all-obviously-expert person's remarks. Unless someone explains in the next 24 hours or so why this should be kept, I will feel free to delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

I merged in the alternate spelling article, but didn't update the spelling, nor attempt a cleanup of the text (two sections are wholesale from the other article) other than the 1st paragraph. Can someone help? Tedernst 20:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the spelling and some other minor issues, but so far haven't taken on the heavy lifting of a proper merge. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sought

I'd be interested in a third opinion on these recent anonymous edits. I'm inclined against them, but it would just be my opinion against the anonymous editor's. Would someone else please weigh in?-- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well,I've reverted them. They just seemed designed to denigrate him. Who are these 'adherents' who have 'tried' to link him to Nietzsche? Who has been reduced to 'despair'? Why say his role in introducing German thought was 'secondary'? Paul B 08:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlyle the postmodernist?

Is it fair to count Carlyle a postmodernist? What basis is there for such a categorization?

The term is mentioned in the article, but only in the sense that he "anticipated" aspects of the movement. He shuldn't be in the category. Paul B 06:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to see a citation

Recently added anonymously (I've copy edited, this is after my copy edits):

William Dalrymple, author of White Mughals, has mentioned that Carlyle was in love with a princess of Indian origin, Kitty Kirkpatrick, before his marriage to Jane Welsh. It has also been mentioned that the feeling was mutual, but social circumstances made the marriage impossible. In fact, the author links the lead characters of Sartor Resartus with real-life characters, especially Kitty Kirkpatrick.

This really begs for a citation. It doesn't even say whether Dalrymple makes this claim in White Mughals or elsewhere. - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty well established. Kitty was half indian. She appears as Blumine in Sartor. Froude is the source for the identification, which is generally accepted. Paul B 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld

I made a section for it, thanks. I see NO reason why that should not be there. Look at the quote itself -- why should the article belong in only the 19th century?

Zweifel 10:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC) -- who has read Carlyle and Shiller and Goethe, much in the original German. THANK YOU.[reply]

Apart from a few "quotations" from Teufelsdroch, I wasn't aware that Carlyle wrote anything in German. The article does not restrict itself to the 19th C, but the Seinfeld quotation tells us nothing of any value as far as I can see. Carlyle's words are not even quoted accurately. Paul B 11:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Man. Well, I meant Shiller and Goethe with the German (I was missing a comma), but whatever. The article is overwhelmingly 19th century: the exceptions are Carlyle talking about Cromwell and Frederick the Great. Beyond that, there are mentions of Nazism, existentialism, and postmodernism. That's pretty skimpy.
However, I will grant you the fact that the quote looks out of place. So let's make a deal. You find the actual quote from Carlyle and maybe give it a little bit of context, and I'll move that section over to the Wik.ipedia.Pro article on that very episode, and put a "see also" link at the bottom of the page.
Sound good? Let me know. Zweifel 22:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carlyle's words have already been corrected. I also corrected the spelling of Carlyle's name. I think Carlyle's influence on Hilter existentialism and postmodernism is slightly more important than a very brief mention on Sienfeld - which really could have been a quotation from anyone to make the same point. Paul B 09:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've read "Shiller" in the original German? 98.115.255.240 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no reason this should be here at all. Why would a person looking up Carlyle be likely to care that there was a passing, ephemeral reference to him on a situation comedy? - Jmabel | Talk 22:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a consensus was reached to remove all mention of Seinfeld. I personally did find it of interest that he was mentioned on Seinfeld. I back Zweifel's suggestion above. roundhouse 11:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK,you want context. Here's context. The original quotation is "Whoso belongs only to his own age, and reverences only its gilt Popinjays or smoot-smeared Mumbojumbos, must needs die with it." It's from Carlyle's two-part review of Croker's edition of Boswell's Life of Johnson, 1831. The review was part of a discussion of the nature of biography as a literary art, and in particular a discussion of the extent to which the biographer should also be an historian and commentator on the time being written about. Carlyle sees Boswell himself as the epitome of a man of his own time and something of a popinjay, but one who was redeemed by his engagement with Johnson, a writer who combined a relish of contemporary life with a classical ideology that nominally rejected the importance of history as detailed lived experience, seeking only to extract generalised moral lessons. The comment is really about how they needed each other because through Johnson Boswell was able to both see his own age and see beyond it. The sentence itself, with its deliberate coinage of strange phrases used in unusual ways was known as "Carlylese", a notoriously eccentric style of writing invented by Carlyle and designed to disconcert the reader by sounding both archaic and weirdly new at the same time - mirroring his emphasis on the interpenetration of the past, present and future (the "conflux of eternities" as he calls it) to stress the very point being made about seeing through ones own time. Paul B 13:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally found the reference to Seinfeld on this page somewhat amusing. I think with some context, I'm against its removal. --Todeswalzer | Talk 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to The French Revolution?

I've recently started to make some serious expansions to the formerly-very-brief stub on Carlyle's The French Revolution: A History. Currently, I'm the only person working on the article, so if anyone else here is familiar with the work, your help would be much appreciated! --Todeswalzer | Talk 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new link to the ext-link section and came back an error that the save was blocked because an existing link was in in the WP spam blacklist. The blacklisted link is www.thomascarlyle.eu If someone wants to investigate further this is a FYI. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Nigger" Revert

I've reverted the edit that changed "Nigger" to "Negro" because thats the name of the essay, and the version of the essay we have linked specifically says Nigger. Dozenthey (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone bowdlerized it. It says "Negro" again. KarlKetzer (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back to the true title of his essay, but the PC thought police have struck again, changing the dreaded N-word - the word that dare not say it's name - to "Negro" even though that's not the true name of Carlyle's essay. The edit history accuses me of "vandalism" for simply giving the truthful title of Carlyle's essay. Once again, Political Correctness shows itself to be an ideology which despises facts, in this case the fact that Carlyle used the N-word in the title of an essay. What's next? You people going to rewrite Mark Twain? KarlKetzer (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "true name". It was oiginally published with the title "Negro Question" and later republished with the title "Nigger question". Neither is "more" correct. Carlyle preferred the latter name, but the first published title remains a fact. Paul B (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you want to clean up Carlyle, it would be very much to the point to acknowledge that he ultimately published "The Nigger Question" with the N word in full view. John Stuart Mill responded to the original publication ("The Negro Question") and Carlyle was so incensed by Mill's essay that he re-released his own with the offending title that has been embarrassing his readers ever since. There's no reason to obscure the fact that Carlyle doesn't come off very well in this exchange, or that Mill walks off, as it were, with the palm of victory. 70.31.46.131 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Edit?

At the end of the 'Influences' section, the last paragraph claims, "Thomas Carlyle is also notably an ancestor of the prolific 21 century nurse Wendy Squire". What does that mean? It is a recent edit, April 23rd 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New photos

I've uploaded two new photos of Thomas Carlyle by Julia Margaret Cameron, below. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 18:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait

Here's a portrait of Carlyle by John Everett Millais, incase it's needed for the article.--I NEVER CRY 00:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influence section

This section has been tagged as original research for five months with no editorial activity. I'm stating my intention to remove it entirely unless someone has an alternate plan of action. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much entirely uncontroversial. All it needs is some footnotes to what are essentially uncontested facts. Paul B (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that section should not be removed. — goethean ॐ 16:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did either of you gentlemen contribute to this section? If so, I'd like to ask you to identify your sources. I don't think it's enough to just declare these things "uncontested facts". Verifiability is a core content policy and it especially applies to highly interpretable areas such as "influence". E.g. declaring him "essentially a Romantic" is in no way shape or form an uncontested fact. I also question whether he had any "influence" on southern slave holders or Adolph Hitler. Interpreting a thinker's writings to justify your own agenda does not qualify as influence, as the case of Nietzsche vis-a-vis the Nazis proves only too well. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Paul for providing the sources. But your reinstating the Hitler stuff is perplexing to say the least. One of your sources says, "It is difficult, however, to find primary evidence of Hitler's first hand reading of Carlyle" - (Carlyle Encyclopedia, p223.) Both sources indicate that it was Joseph Goebbels who was reading Frederic the Great at the very end, not Hitler - (Carlyle Encyclopedia same page; Hitler's Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life, p225.)
Concerning his influence, the Encyclopedia says this:

The debate concerning Carlyle's role continued throughout the 1940s with critics eager to censure or vindicate him. After the fall of the Nazis , the noted critic Ernest Cassirer in The Myth of the State (1946) clearly distinguished Carlyle's penetrating and conscientious hero from the Nazis' deluded and self-indulgent one.

I find this kind of approach more balanced and neutral. What are your thoughts on this? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Goebbels introduced Hitler's to Carlyle's work, as far as we know. The claim that Carlyle was an influence on fascist thought in a more general sense is utterly commonplace. Of course his admirers tried to say that his version of leadership and the Nazi version were different. They would wouldn't they? There were many books and articles debating the degree of influence or commonality of thought between Carlyle and fascist ideology. The very fact that the Carlyle encyclopedia has a whole section on Hitler is indicative of the fact that it's significant. The article says it "appealling" to Hitler. Yes. I did write that line. (I am the original author of this article - created as an IP before registering. I publish academic stuff on TC [3]). I chose the word because it implies an attraction rather than asserts direct influence, which was, I thought, the most accurate way to phrase things. Paul B (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement: "Of course his admirers tried to say that his version of leadership and the Nazi version were different. They would wouldn't they?" can easily be reversed, naturally, to read: "Of course his detractors tried to say that his version of leadership and the Nazi version were the same. They would wouldn't they?" But to the point.

You're generalizing my specific statements.

  1. I said that your sources don't support the assertion "Adolf Hitler was reading Carlyle's biography of Frederick during his last days in 1945." Therefore this should be removed from the article and I intend to remove it unless you can provide another source which supports it.
  2. I say the tone of certain passages of the section needs to be more neutral. I don't deny there is a body of criticism that links C with fascism and I understand some people are upset when they think that Carlyle's writings (like Nietzsche's) may have inspired the Nazis. Nevertheless, strong arguments can be (and, like the Cassirer quote above, have been) made that Hitler would never have made C's pantheon of heroes. This needs to be made clear. What the section cries out for is something in the spirit of: thinkers think, writers write and politicians use this intellectual product for their own means and ends. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Nazi model of leadership was or was not "the same" as Carlyle's is rather difficult to determine. Nazis didn't really have a worked out model, and there are many different interpretations of Carlyle - whose ideas also evolved during his life. What matters is the fact that Carlyle was portrayed by many writers as an intellectual precursor of fascism (not just Nazism specifically). I certainly don't intend to hide that fact and it has never before been challenged in all the years it has been in the article. The quoted comment on Cassirer is frankly rather silly. No one is going to support a "deluded and self-indulgent" leader are they? That's just making a rather banal judgement about Hitler and then saying it does not fit Carlyle's ideal. It's a completely circular argument. You could, for example, assert that Cromwell, one of Carlyle's own heroes, was "deluded and self indulgent" (or Mohammed, or Napoleon or...). If Carlyle hadn't expressed an opinion on Cromwell and the others we could say on that basis that he wouldn't have admired them. In any case, it it irrelevant whether or not Hitler would, could or should have made Carlyle's pantheon. It's an unanswerable question. The passage is about the influence and appeal of his work on people who thought, rightly or wrongly, that society needed (or had in the persons of Hitler, Musso, whoever) a great leader.
The only thing that is arguably untrue about the current sentence is that it says Hitler was reading, whereas in fact Goebbels was reading to him. It's a common contraction. It this book it says Goebbels was reading to him, and futher down the same page it contracts that to Hitler doing the reading ("Hitler's reading of Carlyle"). Now you must know this to be true, since the sources quoted already clearly says this, and yet you apparently want to remove the sentence rather than just maybe modify it slightly. Why is that? Paul B (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of faith

The lead currently states 'while at the University of Edinburgh he lost his Christian faith'. This isn't sourced or mentioned again in the article. If no source is available, I will remove this claim. - Crosbie 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do something useful like taking two seconds to look it up [4]. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a specific source. - Crosbie 19:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do it. Ask yourself, 'is my action likely to make this encyclopedia better or worse'. Demanding that other people jump through hoops to satisfy your whims or else you will just eliminate content is pointless and destructive. It's an excercise in power without responsibility, and it's an example of WP:NOTHERE. Paul B (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of those looks pretty reliable and unequivocal, so I added it. Mcewan (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every biography says the same [5] [6]. I don't think we should humour "editors" who have no interest in in improving things themselves, but expect to be able to order real editors to do so. Crosbie's response epitomised the most contemptible aspects of the behaviour of some Wik.ipedia.Pro editors. Paul B (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mcewan - Thank-you - Crosbie 06:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I may have jumped in a bit quickly. I agree that a threat to remove an easily referenced fact is not very helpful. I chose to see Crosbie's comment as a challenge in the WP:V sense, and felt a ref would do no harm. Mcewan (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting sources does no harm. If they are readily available then polite advice is the appropriate response. Barlow's ad hominem snarl was way out of line. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not ad hominem (perhaps you should check the meaning of that term. It applies to the logic of an argument. It's not just an expression you can use for any form of criticism directed to an individual). It certainly was not out of line. Crosbie did not maket a "request". It was a demand with a threat, in which the editor made no effort to perform a simple useful task. And yes, it does do harm. What if there were few active or knowledgable editors watching this page? There are many pages in which correct useful information is present, maybe written many years ago when sources were not demanded, or taken from a public domain source. If editors think it's appropriate to just demand something on a talk page and then delete if there is no response, then that actively harms the encyclopedia. It takes literally seconds to check this. Of course if it were something that could not be found by a simple online search it would be right to request a citation, and to delete if none were forthcoming and due dilligence in searching was observed by the editor. BTW, my signature name is "Paul B" not "Barlow". Paul B (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Barlow, your responses above do border on personal attacks, IMO. Whether or not it meets your definition of ad hominem is, IMO, immaterial.
"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." You would obviously prefer that editors do more before removing it, such as -- perhaps -- adding a "cite needed" tag. The consensus opinion recommends -- but does not demand -- this. The multiples of seconds you spent in your response could certainly be useful in citing information that will take "literally seconds" to find. This particular item is now cited. It would seem we're done here. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my definition of ad hominem, it's THE definition of ad hominem. Please take the trouble to look it up. Criticising someone's behaviour is by definition not an "ad hominem" argument. Your second sentence is unintelligible. Changing behaviour which is potentially destructive to the encyclopedia is a good use of time. I have already explained this point. And not that I provided several sources in a link, to which Criobie responded "provide a specific source". So s/he again made a "gimme it" demand with no evidence that s/he had even bothered to click on the link in which several specific sources were provided. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to discuss relative to improving this article? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-medicine

The article currently states: 'Carlyle developed a painful stomach ailment, possibly gastric ulcers (which pseudo-medicine of the time attributed to this "crisis of faith"', which is referenced to http://criminalbrief.com/?p=8890 . The site itself states ' Departing after only three years, Carlyle went on to the University of Edinburgh, but early bullying and a subsequent crisis of religious faith may have led to a gastric ulcer. ' Its seems that it is 'criminalbrief.com' itself which claims a link between Carlye's crisis of faith and a gastric ulcer, not 'pseudo-medicine of the time'. The source does not support the claim, and I'm not sure this is a reliable source anyway. I will remove the parenthetical aside. - Crosbie 07:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Past and Present

The article could do with a mention of Past and Present. Massively influential at the time, specifically a big influence on John Ruskin (and less directly on William Morris). Engels reviewed it positively (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/carlyle.htm), unlike Marx's later review of Latterday Pamphlets when they realised how reactionary Carlyle was.. New marinheiro (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait attacked

In 1914 a portrait of Carlyle was attacked by a suffragette named Anne Hunt. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/portrait-slashed-suffragette-goes-display-london-180968016/ As part of a new show a photograph showing the original damage is now on display. Seems relevant but not sure if it really fits in anywhere in this article. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

In the passage about the French Revolution - "The work had a passion surprising in historical writing of that period." - Well. Could the writer or someone else put this into plain English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C150:F400:D420:9864:2544:E35A (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me. (I didn't write it.) It means "The work was written with a passion that is surprising in historical writing of that period"; or "Carlyle wrote with a passion towards his subject matter that would not commonly be found in historical writing of that period". The rest of the paragraph expands on and clarifies this idea. I don't think it needs changing. GrindtXX (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

I am posting this to ask more experienced editors how we can improve this article, which is currently graded C-class. The "Life" section is more about his work than his life, and it's very shallow examinations of those works. The "London Library" section seems unnecessary. The "Views" section is really more of a "Controversial Views" section, and is very short; is this appropriate? These are some issues that stand out to me.Sinopecynic (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to address the bigger issues, but just the specific question of the London Library. The library was (and remains) an important cultural institution, and Carlyle was the prime mover in its establishment. It falls into an entirely different genre to his other achievements (e.g. publications, and the formulation of influential concepts), which is why it was previously given a section of its own. I accept that this probably gave it an undue prominence, and that it made sense to move the paragraph into the "Life and work" section. However, its current placing, as an unannounced paragraph within the "Heroes and Hero-Worship" subsection, is ludicrous. The library has nothing to do with that work, apart from being contemporaneous – the general reader will be brought up short by the paragraph's incongruity, and the reader specifically interested in the topic will fail to find it. I'd have thought the solution would be to leave paragraph where it is, but to give it its own subsection heading. GrindtXX (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've wikified "London Library" as its own subsection, which it clearly should be. Carlstak (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be better to create a separate section to discuss the works and keep the focus of the Life section solely on biographical detail, or if such a work section would be too specific for the scope of this article. I am also considering making a section discussing his philosophical ideas, in which I could combine discussion of the works in which those ideas appear. Let me know your thoughts. Sinopecynic (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Froude-Carlyle controversy deserve its own article?

Froude's biography certainly does, which I intend to at least start. Within that article, there will need to be mention made of the ensuing controversy. There is little discussion of the controversy in this article, due to the fact that there are two accounts of it in the J. A. Froude and Reminiscences articles, respectively. Adding a third here and potentially a fourth in the biography article seems redundant. So, I wonder if the best course of action would be to have an article about the controversy itself, so as to de-clutter the articles of Froude, Carlyle, the Reminiscences, and the potential Life of Carlyle article, with each containing passing references to the controversy which would link to its main article. Sinopecynic (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section length

I don't think the lead section is "too long for the length of the article." The article itself is quite large, which may be another issue, but the lead is about the same length as that of other featured articles, such as James Joyce, an article that is overall shorter than this one. I'll remove the template unless there is an objection. Sinopecynic (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I see the GA review suggested shortening the article, and I think it could be cut further. One natural way to cut it would be to move the bibliography to a sub-article, as has been done for Ursula K. LeGuin for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a sub-article for the bibliography. However, several of the works listed are used here as sources, so it remains a task to remove all those not so used (leaving the bibliography as the only source for everything else, with a bit of overlap for the sources used here). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Carlyle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry this well-crafted article has been languishing in the queue for so long: but on such a subject, and at such length, it's easy to see why reviewers might be daunted by it, or feel themselves quite unqualified to approach it. I considered just giving it a quick pass, as it's in many ways of high quality. But I think comments can be made at two levels. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The structural issues have largely been addressed, though the 'Character' and 'Controversies' sections remain, in keeping with good or featured articles that include these (i.e. William Morris, Richard Wagner). Sinopecynic (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sinopecynic - could you reply to comments individually below so that I can see which ones you feel you have completed and which you object to or wish to discuss further. Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap and @Sinopecynic I've just come across the nomination while reading the article and I didn't want to intrude with my own edits during GAR, which is why I am posting here. I think it would really benefit from Lead cleanup and copyediting for clarity, including removing duplicate footnotes later used in the body. It seems quite dense still and hard to navigate for an unfamiliar reader. An infobox might be also a good idea, though I know some editors are not in favor of these. Ppt91talk 01:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. We'll revisit the lead and check the article over once the shape of the article has been determined. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one ref in the lead that also occurs in the text, and it supports a direct quotation, so it is needed there. On the style, it's a bit literary, which doesn't seem unreasonable for this sort of subject; if editors want to adjust it a bit, that's fine but it's not a showstopper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor details

Several portrait-format images need an "|upright" parameter.

Fixed.

Ref [109] Stephen 1911 doesn't point to a citation.

Has been removed.

Ref [290] needs a page number.

Several refs to the same book could well be merged, e.g. [198] and [199] are pp. 28–29; there are plenty of similar instances.

Has been removed.

There are some small formatting issues, e.g. ref [200] has page range 253–56 where it should say "253–256".

Has been removed.

Ref [271] Nietzsche is not consistently formatted.

Has been removed.

Ref [191] "I. Ousby (ed) puts initial first, when the rest of the reflist has surname first.

Fixed.

I notice that we have an article on Sage writing. Perhaps this would be a useful link in the text.

Structural issues

The article looks very long at almost 177 kBytes, but actually the narrative text is only a smallish proportion of that. The rest of the text seems to me to be on several non-biographical subjects:

The inclusion of a lengthy "Glossary" is a curious, even idiosyncratic choice for a biographical article. Wik.ipedia.Pro is "not a dictionary", and the extraction of Carlyle entries from a 1907 encyclopedia is at least an "interesting" editorial decision. It could be argued to be non-neutral, as if intended to portray Carlyle in a good light; it would be far safer to have a reliable secondary source (a scholar or critic) saying that Carlyle had invented many terms, some of which had found their way into reference books (e.g. two or three instances).

Ah, I see the Glossary has moved into the Philosophy subsidiary.

But I wonder why a biography article contains such a large amount on Carlyle's philosophy, which is a separate subject from the man's life. It should, I think, be a subsidiary article Philosophy of Thomas Carlyle, which could be linked and summarized here.

The "Style" section is also curious, not least because it contains its own "Reception" section as if it was a stand-alone article, Thomas Carlyle's prose style, embedded in the biography.

Ah, you've actioned this one, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've linked Philosophy of Thomas Carlyle in the lead; it should also at least be linked in the main text: there are a couple of places where it's mentioned. The normal approach when an article has a subsidiary is a subsection with a "main" link; the subsection briefly summarizes the subsidiary article in one or two paragraphs.

Same goes for Thomas Carlyle's prose style.

I've linked these in a new 'Works' section, which I cut and pasted from the lead. Sinopecynic (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is followed, oddly, by a section named "Character" which is also a reception section (by any other name).

Also remarkable is that the Legacy section begins about halfway down the article. It contains, yes, yet another reception section, or rather a series of sections which contain reception elements: its "Philosophy" is the reception section of the subsidiary article on Carlyle's philosophy: Philosophy of Thomas Carlyle#Reception, while the "Historiography" is again commentary on his philosophical impact.

I see you've actioned this one; and I see that the Historiography has gone over there. Took a bit of digging to work that out, would be helpful if you'd add replies to say what you've done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's a "Controversies" section: (is that title not deprecated?) - I wonder if this wouldn't be better worked into the biography, at least where the debates were with him directly.

I see your reply above; I'm not convinced by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but in this case with the controversies being posthumous, they don't fit too badly after "Legacy" (though perhaps they should be inside that section).

Then there's an "In literature" list. I'm a bit doubtful about whether such lists belong in biography articles at all: it'd be better as List of allusions to Carlyle in literature, and that indeed could be divided into a "Parodies" section and a more serious section.

OK, I see you've removed this and added a "see also" link.

In short, I wonder whether this article would not be better quite substantially rearranged, creating one or two subsidiary articles and lists, so that the text is crisper, in "summary style", and more approachable?

Good progress, but see WP:Summary style.

Summary

Nom has not edited (anything) for some weeks now, nor responded. I was hoping for a little more polish, but since the points have been actioned or made redundant by the hiving-off of material as indicated above, I think it's fair to say that the article is clear, properly cited with a wealth of sources, spot-checked, and covers the main points, now well supported by the linked subsidiary articles. I've actioned a few minor issues, so there seems nihil obstat now for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Of course edit the Infox to make it better and more accurate

But for the love of god, please do not delete it altogether. StrongALPHA (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Carlyle&oldid=1210805989"

See what we do next...

OR

By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.

Success: You're subscribed now !