Talk:Charles Domery

Polish-born

Suggest changing Polish to Polish-born, as the article provides no clues why he was an ethnic Pole, except being born in Poland. Not to mention non-Polish name and surname. Is it because sources say he was Polish? Brandmeister^talk 08:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no such place as "Poland" in this period—Polish was an ethnicity spread across multiple countries, not a nationality. If you're going by place of birth, he was Prussian-born, but that will make readers assume he was German which he wasn't. (An independent Polish state had to wait until 1918, unless you count the Free City of Kraków.) Every source refers to him as "Polish" or "a Pole". Domery was illiterate; the apparently non-Polish name (and non-existent birthplace) is owing to the fact that every record of him derives from records of the English and French militaries, who would have transcribed the name phonetically rather than attempting to guess the Polish or German spelling. (This is crossing the line into OR, but there's also a high chance he gave false details, in an effort to avoid punishment as a deserter should the British return him to Prussia.) ‑ iridescent 09:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I share serious concerns about him being Polish. The name "Charles Domery" is totally anglicized. Alt name "Charles Domerz" has a slightly more Polish-sounding surname but this is unreferenced. His place of birth is Benche, at best, a mispelled location. The entire claim of his nationality seems to be based on an early 19th source, whose reliability is dubious. It would be good to see relevant quotations so we can discuss this further. As he was born around 1778, this was after the First Partition of Poland, but he enlisted in the Prussian Army by 1792, so before the Second Partition of Poland. Perhaps he was born in the Prussian partition, then, which would made the Polish-born phrase problematic (@Brandmeister:). But honestly, without so much as a correct place of birth, I see nothing significant tying him to Poland. He seems to me more properly described as a German soldier, perhaps from a family with Polish origins. Finally, the lead (and the FA main page) uses the phrase "a Polish soldier" and that suggests someone serving in the Polish Army, which is clearly not the case here. PS. User:iridescent, you say that "Every source refers to him as "Polish" or "a Pole"", but I don't see any citations for his nationality in the article. Can you provide quotations and proper citations for such claims? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If he was born in Prussia after the First Partition, he may have been born in Bęczno, or if he was born in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, he may have been born in Bęczków or either of the places named Bęczyn. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad speculation, through OR would make even a footnote difficult here, I think. Also, Beche sounds French, and taking that into account, French pronouciation rendered in Polish would be not cz but sz so something like Besze. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's speculation; I wasn't suggesting putting in the article without sources. But maybe someone who wants to investigate further will search in the Bęczno archives someday and find a reference to a Karel or Karl Domerz. I can't find any Polish towns with names starting Bęsz- and anyway, Bęcz- could easily be frenchified as Benche too, as Bentche looks very un-French. Another, perhaps even more phonetically plausible option is Bąsze, then in East Prussia. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in a hurry so can't discuss at length, but these are a range of sources (of various degrees of reliability) which describe him as Polish just from dropping Domery Polish into Google Books; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. In addition, this is Cochrane's original account of his captivity in Liverpool, and this is Dickens's 1852 account which popularised the case, both of which again explicitly state "Polish". Everything that gives a birthplace gives it as either "Benche" or "Bench". ‑ iridescent 09:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: The discussion seems to be split between two sections now. I would suggest a footnote following the adjective Polish in the lead, to the essence of "most sources attribute him the Polish nationality, through his name (and that of his birthplace) are almost certainly improperly anglicized. It is also highly likely that while he might have indeed been of Polish ethnicity, he was born under Prussian administration, in the Polish lands recently annexed by Prussia under First Partition of Poland, and as such was not a Polish, but a Prussian citizen." I will also repeat my concern about the phrase "Polish solider" which implies a connection to Polish Army. I'd therefore also recommend appending a phrase that he served in Prussian and French armies immediately following the nationality claim, ex. "also known as Charles Domerz, was a Polish soldier serving in the Prussian and French armies, noted for his unusually large appetite". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, a statistically more likely origin is the city of Będzin, which is a Polish city that was part of Prussia at the time. Inhabitants (like my father, who was born and grew up there) pronounce the city's name with a strong stress on the first syllable ("ˈbɛnd͡ʑ") and so the second syllable ("in") could easily have been mis-transliterated as a schwa. And I say more likely because of the fact that Będzin is a city, while every other place listed above is a village or even smaller, a "settlement," with just a handful of residents. By contrast, at the end of the 18th century Będzin had 1,200 inhabitants, according to the Polish WP article. So there were more people there than all of the other places suggested above combined. (Of course, this is so speculative that it doesn't even qualify as OR. :-) ) --Eliyahu S ^Talk 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Two-headed Boy, and Other Medical Marvels by Jan Bondeson on page 273 says he is French i.e. English guards were amazed by the Frenchman’s voracious appetite[17]. The Phrenological Journal and Miscellany, Volume 10 also says he is French i.e. Another Frenchman, Charles Domery[18]Jniech (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support any clarification, perhaps as an explanatory note after the word "Polish". Brandmeister^talk 14:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Death

There is no mention or source of how he died. As a FA merely citing "After 1800" is insufficient". Lihaas (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC) ha

Surely it's sufficient if it reflects all known sources. — foxj 11:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality

How did this get to be an FA in the first place? 16k and six para body doesn't cut it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.240.68 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Quantity is not an accurate measure of quality (or as you may be more likely to hear it, size doesn't always matter). GRAPPLE ^X 08:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the quality here doesn't seem to be FA level, IMHO. No FA level article should have unresolved issues such as those described in the nationality section above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Even a featured article can't go beyond what the sources say. If virtually nothing about his nationality is known, that's not the article's fault. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In which case his nationality should be at least footnoted, with a more detailed discussion of this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We can only report on what sources use, and the article's main author has been quite clear that the article does in fact state what the only available sources say—for us to even editorialise with speculation that source X or Y might be wrong based on a gut feeling is no better than original research. GRAPPLE ^X 08:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Piotrus, the current wording, which gives the (obviously incorrect) place of birth along with an explanatory footnote (His birthplace is given as "Benche" in all sources, but no town of that name exists in Poland, and it may be a misspelling in an early report which has been perpetuated) is based on a suggestion from, er, you (my original query to you is here, if anyone reading wants both halves of the conversation). Per my comments at the time, I strongly suspect his name is a French transcription of some variant on "Karol Damir", and that Dickens's "Domerz" is just a straightforward printers' error substituting Z for Y (which would have been next to each other in a 19th-century printer's font) which because of Dickens's popularity, entered the mainstream, but that's too far over the line into original research to include.

Regarding his nationality, this case is well documented (Jan Bondeson—or at least his publisher—has an unfortunate habit of giving his books sensationalist-sounding titles, but he's a perfectly well-respected medical historian). As Angr says above we can only reflect the sources, and every source describes him as either "Polish" or "a Pole". Since the First Partition had already taken place at the time of his birth, and we don't know exactly where he was born, it's not appropriate to use any form of wording that implies he was a Polish citizen as opposed to being of Polish ethnicity. ‑ iridescent 08:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So if all known sources only amount to 4 sentences, it can be an FA? ("size doesn't matter"). That's ridiculous. There are significant issues not covered here. This should not be an FA on many counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.240.68 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA, 1b and 1c. If it has been thoroughly researched and represents a comprehensive analysis of the available sources, it satisfies the criteria. This isn't even the shortest featured article by a long stretch. Unless you can find something that it actively omits, then you're throwing personal opinion up instead of using the actual featured criteria. I also have to wonder how someone consistently unable to sign a post despite a clear edit notice can be taken as having actually read the instructions around what they're complaining about. GRAPPLE ^X 12:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You may come to learn that not everything that is important in the universe is known to man. Ignorance as to the rest is not the solution. I don't think that unknowable aspects should exclude an article from FA status. Whether the topic warrants inclusion is another question. John2510 (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Grapple and John--as in "Comprehensive...it neglects no major facts or details...."? Yes this does and a 4-sentence "FA" would too. With this I rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.240.68 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

While this is not a large article it is nowhere near just 4 sentences so that I don't see an extreme example such as that as being useful.--67.68.29.107 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Almost everything known about Domery comes from a 1799 account in the Medical and Physical Journal, written by Dr. Johnston, based largely upon information provided by Dr. Cochrane. This was reprinted in The Eccentric Mirror, which is cited in the article; the original could be cited and linked, and the heavy reliance on this account could be made explicit. An 1870 account in the Observer, reprinted in various other newspapers, refers to Domery as "a native of Broche, on the frontiers of Poland." I no more know of Broche than I know of Benche (not that I would know necessarily), and it is likely that this was just an error introduced by the Observer, but it is also possible that Broche is correct and Benche the error. John M Baker (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO this story smacks of a heavily embroidered but trivial soldiers' legend. The character's nationality is a side-issue, although it's obvious Domery (which may have been corrupted in translation) does not reflect Polish morphology.

This tale evidently doesn't deal with facts that can be documented from historical sources, and probably shouldn't have become a Featured Article. (And BTW, neither Polish nor German Wikis have a Charles Domery – Karol Domerz – Karl Domerz – entry.) Sca (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This is a tall-tale. When an article describes something that violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics, there's no need to quibble about whether its protagonist is German or Polish. [Macossay] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.134.50 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sca and IP: That is unduly dismissive. There is no overt reason to doubt the attested veracity of the doctor's story, and (though I have not read them) I assume that the modern authors cited, including notable medical scientist Jan Bondeson, do not do so, else it would have been noted in the article. There other historical sources which remain to be researched and written about, such as surviving records of the Liverpool POW establishment at TNA/Kew and in Liverpool RO, or perhaps correspondence with the French authorities accounting for payments.

Incidentally, I removed reference to "Karol Domerz" as not in the Dickens source cited - and nowhere else to be found, apart from a large number of WP mirrors and quotes - please restore if can be cited. The only early Polish source I found - Kurjer Polski (Polish Courier) of 23 February 1830 [19] has "Karol Domery" from "Bench", but is only a translation of the earlier English publications, without addition or further comment. I agree with JMB that citing the original and accessible Medical and Physical Journal (which was quite quickly reported in the press - eg The Ipswich Journal of 9 August 1800) would be better than the later one used. Davidships (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My view rests on internal criticism: on its face the story is not plausible. Doubts about names, sources and translation/transmission further lessen its credibility. It is very far from being factual history (wie es eigentlich gewesen ist) attested by multiple sources. Whether its protagonist is represented as Polish or Prusso-German is irrelevant to the epistemic issue. Sca (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Eating cats, rats, candles, and spare limbs? I just wonder how much of this tale is owed to cultural stereotyping. Eric Partridge's Dictionary of the Underworld: British and American (1949) defines "candle-eater" as slang for a Russian tramp, or more loosely, any Slav. That usage was current as of the early 1930s. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

While I share all the concerns above, the problem is that if no sources cast doubt on this story, neither can we - it would be OR for us to say that it is probably a tall tale, stereotypical, or such. However, what we can and should do is to point out (at least in the footnote, and perhaps in a dedicated sources section) that this is based on 19th century sources (or one source, primarily). What User:John M Baker wrote in the opening of this section, with minor formatting, seems like a very good footnote to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

Domerz's nationality (ethnicity), would not be an issue if he won the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology. Unfortunately he's cited as having eaten 174 cats (and quite a few rats). Therefore, he couldn't possibly be Polish. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Preceding comment serves no purpose relevant to the discussion. Sca (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course the preceding comment serves no purpose relevant to the discussion. Only a comment such as ..."And BTW, neither Polish nor German Wikis have a Charles Domery – Karol Domerz – Karl Domerz – entry". Sca (talk), does. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And that itself is no great consequence as, so far as we know, it was only in England, in captivity, that Domery and his most unusual condition came to the attention of professional Government-appointed medical practitioners, who wrote about it. Is the hearsay part of the story exaggerated? Quite possibly, but the experimental examination in Liverpool is well attested and the article stays close to the original source (I cannot speak for the modern citations). Davidships (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Featured Article being on the Main Page!

I don't take such efforts for granted. Thank you to all the editors and reviewers who worked so hard to create a great article. You deserve appreciation and applause for your efforts. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing title

There is a missing title error at the article (Missing or empty |title= ). How to fix it? LuCkY ^talk 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

FAR might be needed

This suffers from the same problems as Tarrare, and has only an even less relevant image of a ship where Domery happened to once be. Like Tarrare, if the issues of poor comprehensiveness and media exposure aren't fixed within two to three weeks, this might have to be taken at FAR and be demoted from being an FA.

 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)