Talk:Thomas Carlyle

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opinion sought 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Carlyle the postmodernist? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I'd really like to see a citation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Contributors to ''The French Revolution''?

message: 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)
thread_title:  SPAM block on external link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Nigger" Revert

message: 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)
thread_title: Dubious Edit?

message: 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)
thread_title:  New photos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pseudo-medicine

message: 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)
thread_title:  Past and Present 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Portrait attacked  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've wikified "London Library" as its own subsection, which it clearly should be. Carlstak (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does the Froude-Carlyle controversy deserve its own article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead section length 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: But for the love of god, please do not delete it altogether. StrongALPHA (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of course edit the Infox to make it better and more accurate