Talk:Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.

Bias

Does anyone else think that this statement seems biased?

"The quotes above by Oliver Wendell Holmes have a hint of witty humor, which creates a relaxed tone. Yet the quotes still are full of meaning. The first quote is very true."

The writing is not particularly objective and sounds more like an introduction to a poor high school English essay. Can somebody rewrite this or should it just be taken out?

Bibliography?

Holmes is remembered as a writer, so what about a bibliography? Where's mention of his most famous novel, Elsie Venner? I mean for Pete's sake, his collected works number over twenty volumes! egomet_bonmot

Sr?

This listing should be "Oliver Wendell Holmes" -- no "Sr."

Was he born and named "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.?" No siree, he was born "Oliver Wendell Holmes" and is the father of "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr."

He is listed as "Oliver Wendell Holmes" in the Encyclopædia Britannica and most other references.

Any objection to changing the from "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr." to "Oliver Wendell Holmes?"

05:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave the Sr. It's an extremely useful and proper way to tell who is who, particularly when both are about equally well known- for example the case of Alexander Dumas, father and son. In France they are commomly known as Dumas Pere and Dumas Fils.Saxophobia 19:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No Sr. I have only one of his books, but it does not have Sr. He is Oliver Wendell Holmes, his son is the Jr and that is all the distinction needed. I don't agree that the son is equally well known. Chemical Engineer (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No Sr. You can tell who is who by looking at the dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.199.67 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I permitted to reawaken this debate? I also don't think there should be a "Sr." in this article's title. All of the sources I've consulted so far do not refer to him as Sr., but "Holmes", "Dr. Holmes", or less rarely "Wendell Holmes". I'm referring to him as just plain "Holmes", but were I writing Jr.'s article, I would refer to him in the same way -- "Holmes". I see only a couple places where Jr. will be mentioned in this particular article, so differentiation between the two will be largely unnecessary. I say we move this article back to Oliver Wendell Holmes, which is currently a disambiguation page. A dab link can go at the top of the article for Jr. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough call. The only time I seem to notice the distinction being made is when both Holmes Sr. and Holmes Jr. are being discussed. I'm okay with it either way personally. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a requirement to use one's exact birth name here? Genealogists always place a Sr. behind a father's surname if there are children of the same name. Then one can pick the name one wants out of a long list of surnames. The Sr. here is called a Title Suffix. A Title Prefix would be, for example, Mr. So, to the purist who started this, the title suffix placed after Oliver Wendell Holme's (b. 1809) surname is essential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangnad (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia isn't primarily a tool for genealogists, I'm inclined to agree with those who would omit the Sr. (Arguably the use of "Dumas, pere" and "Dumas, fils" is just the French being French ;-) However, a solution that I hope will satisfy everyone is to follow the example of the Wikipedia entry for "Alexander Dumas" and redirect "Oliver Wendell Holmes" to "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr."; and (as Maria suggests above) add a hatnote to the latter pointing to "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.". TonySever (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that redirecting the dab page (which I note you've already done) does much good, as not many pages link there. If there were a consensus to move this article to where the redirect currently is, the article and its history would have to be merged into the other, with "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr." becoming the redirect. All of those links would have to be changed, as well; what a nightmare! María (habla conmigo) 12:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Waldo Emerson quote?

Is "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us" not a quote attributed to Emerson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Ethereal (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

mention of his critique against homeopathy

"By 1842, he had had enough and wrote the definitive critique of the practice: "Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions." " [1]. [www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html online version at quackwatch], online version at project guttenberg. Seems to be heavily cited, I can see it cited at Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, Skeptical Inquirer, American Council Against Hlath Fraud, American Cancer Association (cited as a reference for their page about homeopathy treatment, not bad for a 170 years old book) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronological bio

This is such an interesting topic to research! What I find phenomenal is that Holmes was able to have the best of both worlds at the same time: a respected and innovative career in medicine and academia and a respected and innovative career in writing. With that in mind, I'm leaning towards making the article more chronologically based. "Old Ironsides", for example, was written and published before his medical career took off, but it's mentioned after thirty years have gone by in discussing Paris, his marriage, his teaching career, etc. Although the subjects will not be as clear-cut, I think it would be better for the reader to have things presented to them as linear. Any thoughts, suggestions? María (habla conmigo) 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Things probably just fell this way as it developed from a stub. I say we build it up chronologically and then see how it develops before we assign subheadings. So far, we're really making some real progress!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, let's try that. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not being as helpful as I could be. I spent some time today adding some poems to his Wikisource page (so far "Under the Violets" is my favorite), if that makes amends! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I was going to apologize for working at an extremely slow pace (one paragraph a day? argh!), so you won't hear any complaints from me! Wikisource is an invaluable resource, I agree, although my favorite by him ("An After-Dinner Poem") is not listed yet. "Skins of flayed authors, husks of dead reviews, / The turn-coat's clothes, the office-seeker's shoes" -- how great is that? María (habla conmigo) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive... this was a long one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks, I enjoyed reading it again. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I also put a couple more images on Commons. For a guy that lived such a long life, he didn't change his look much at all! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's not broke... eh? María (habla conmigo) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

TFA

Perhaps I'm slow on the uptake, but I just realized that August 29 will be the 200th anniversary of Holmes' birth! Ahh! Certainly we have to secure an FA star before that date to get this article featured on the mainpage. No pressure or anything, of course... María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the reason I chose Holmes as a focus was cuz of the bicentennial (I'm the chair of the Holmes Boston/Cambridge Bicentennial Committee). I'd be happy to just bring it to GA by then! FA is certainly ambitious. TFA? <gulp> Maybe? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See, I'm slow. Still, surely with more than a dozen featured articles between us, it's not too much to hope for. :) Five months should be enough time to research and write, and provided we can find a few trusty copy-editors/peer reviewers to help during the process, we'll sail through GA, kill some time at PR, and hopefully make it unscathed through FA. Besides, I'm sure we can convince others with even more FA experience to help once they know our noble cause. (Great, now I have "The Impossible Dream" stuck in my head.) María (habla conmigo) 14:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I got a great chuckle out of this... Okay, let's give it a go! (Now I've got "Chariots of Fire" in my head...) --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mary Eleanor Wilkins Freeman

While fussing with the chronology, I removed a seemingly random, unsourced statement that, for many years, Freeman was Holmes' personal secretary. Have you come across anything stating as much? She's not listed in the indexes of any of the three bios I'm flipping between (Tilton, Small and Hoyt), and yet the same claim is made at Freeman's article. My quick Google search only turned up Wikipedia mirror sties, so perhaps it comes from her bio? María (habla conmigo) 22:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything mentioning her either. I'm okay with it gone. Now, what about this turpentine quote? Or this Sherlock Holmes inspiration (WP:FRINGE?)? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Although giggle-inducing, I think the turpentine quote is somewhat out of place as of now. I don't mind leaving it in for the time being, just to see if it makes sense later on -- who knows, maybe someone will make sense of it one day? As for Arthur Conan Doyle, I'm not sure; if Michael Harrison is indeed a "noted Sherlockian", then his conjectures might be noteworthy enough. Hoyt makes a brief mention of Doyle on page 72, but nothing about Holmes' kind-of-maybe inspiration. María (habla conmigo) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It would help if the turpentine quote had a date... If it really is often recounted, as the article says, we should come across it frequently. I think I'm okay with the Sherlock info, but wanted to get your opinion too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources I have on hand unfortunately don't have an index listing for either "turpentine", "meaning of life" or "answer to mysteries of the universe", but seeing as how I'm only thirty years in, I have a long ways to go! I believe I found the full quote here, but no date, of course. María (habla conmigo) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Status report

Just wanted to see where we think this article is. Maria was sort of working chronologically forwards, and I was trying to work on the end matter and chronologically backwards. I thinking we're almost ready to nominate for GA, but it's worth doing an internal review first. For one thing, I think the writing section should stay as one whole section rather than broken apart - at least until we scour up enough information to make each subsection stronger. Of course, we should really tackle the lede; I can try, but I tend to do very poor jobs on ledes. Other than that, I think it's quite comprehensive (considering how many fields Holmes took part in) and well-illustrated (I do like the infobox image now more than the "at the brink of death" old age image it had before). Any thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly close, as well. I want to at least attempt to cover the writing section, although those usually give me migraines. I have post-its poking out of every book that so much as mentions his prose and poetry (not to mention an entire book on his prose that I haven't cracked yet), so I'm fairly confident I can adequately plump up those subsections in time for GAC. If you want to start the lead, I'll jump in and help, although it may be a little difficult without having the writing or legacy sections completed.

The "brink of death" photo was a bit much to introduce an article, I agree, but perhaps we can add it to the last bio section? That may need to be plumped a little, as well, but I won't know until I finish my reading. Speaking of, however, if you think the bio is too long, feel free to go through and cull any seemingly unimportant details. There's just so much, I fear I might have gone overboard. (Am still going overboard?) The semester's almost over, so I'll be able to tackle things more aggressively in a couple weeks. Perhaps we can aim for GAC then? María (habla conmigo) 17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We should both take a look at the bio before we nominate. I can get cracking on the lede, and maybe just bulk it up later when the writing section is expanded. As far as images, take a look at [Commons] - I've added a few more options. I've got a copy of Gibian's book en route too so I'm sure I'll be able to pull more info from there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, those pics should come in handy. Nice work! Finding and uploading photos always stresses me out, especially when I think of them being scrutinized during the FAC process. Bleh. I read a little bit of Gibian via NetLibrary, and it seems interesting. So far my favorite book has been Dowling's; it's very useful when trying to put Holmes' medical philosophies in context in regards to his time in Paris. It also has some great insight into his later medical writings, so I'm sure I'll be referring to it a few more times. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Holmes' or Holmes's

Now we're beginning to get to the nitpicky stuff: does the MOS support "Holmes'" or "Holmes's"? I typically write it as the former, but I've noticed that you use the latter. I don't mind going through and making it consistent which ever way we choose, but I can't seem to find which is preferred, if either in fact is. BTW, the lead looks much better fleshed out! I'll work on the writing section this weekend. María (habla conmigo) 12:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I looked into it recently for another article. My personal preference is "Holmes's" but the MOS supports either version, so long as the article is consistent. If I've been breaking consistency, it's only out of habit! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I was the one doing the breaking. I'm sure there was a "Holmes's" here before I started editing, and I just didn't notice. I'll go through and make it consistent. BTW, I believe I've managed to subdue my automatic french spacing while writing, but if you catch any errant spaces, that's what that is. María (habla conmigo) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictional works where Holmes appears

In the German wiki it is usual to have references to fictional works, if a historical person appears in them. I don't know about that in the English wiki, so I thought it might be the best thing to leave the information here on the discussion page, allowing those who know about it to chose what to do. In The Bone Garden by Tess Gerritsen Holmes is one of the protagonists. --Reinhold Stansich (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting information, but it tends to fall into WP:TRIVIA. I don't find it entirely relevant - and, especially because we are working to bring this article up to Featured status, it's impossible to source without being accused of original research. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Soory for interrupting but doesnt this guy appear in copperhead part of the starbuck books written by bernard cornwell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.117.177 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ready for GAC?

I'm not quite done tinkering with the "Writing" section, and I haven't proofread the newest additions, but I think I'm fairly finished for the most part. Any additions/changes/thoughts/etc.? Are we ready to tackle GAC/PR yet? Time is ticking, ah! María (habla conmigo) 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm of little help right now. I've been keeping an eye on things but my contributions to Wikipedia have trickled to nothing meaningful (due to deadlines, events, more deadlines, etc). I think it might be worth lining up a copy editing specialist for when the time comes. Have anyone in mind? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :) I was until very recently preoccupied with real life, as well. I'll make a few inquiries regarding a copy-editor, but seeing as how the queue at GAC is always monstrous, perhaps we should list the article now rather than later? María (habla conmigo) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pumped! -- so I went ahead and nominated. Let's continue to add/change/fix, but we at least have our foot in the door while the queue is still relatively short. In the minuscule chance that someone reviews in the next few days, I'll be available to address concerns if you're still tied up. María (habla conmigo) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

son

Really, it doesn't belong in the lede that his son became a celebrated Supreme Court Justice? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr, not his son. Per WP:LEAD, the introductory section is meant to be a summary of the entire article, including major points pertaining to the main subject; that's Sr., not Jr. Jr.'s accomplishments are detailed on his own article, and briefly mentioned (along with OWH's other children) in the body of this article. So, no, I don't think it belongs in the lead. Other opinions would be helpful, however. María (habla conmigo) 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S., the dab link at the top of the page currently reads: For his son, the American Supreme Court jurist, see Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.. María (habla conmigo) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that dablink, maybe that is a better solution. Encarta and Britannica don't seem to mention Jr. in the lede either so perhaps I am just wrong. My view was actually per WP:LEAD that notable aspects of his family life should be included, albeit briefly, in the lede, but I suppose a difference of opinion is possible on this point. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that a link to Jr. is not relevant in the lead. The father was ridiculously notable even if he never had a son so I'd say that Jr. just isn't important enough to commandeer the (already pretty lengthy) lead. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late on this discussion. Normally I *would* at least just name the more famous relative in the intro, but in this case, the fact that his name is "Sr." sort of already gives away that there is a Jr. Coupled with the dab link just above, and I can't get excited about adding it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

True, that's another good point. Midnightdreary's also correct in saying that the lead is already substantial; if I were trying to bulk it up, I'd definitely add Jr.'s fine attributes, but seeing as how Sr. was rather busy during his lengthy life, I don't think we're exactly wanting for material! María (habla conmigo) 19:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added

For the American jurist and Supreme Court justice, see Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

to the start of the article. The two can be confused at times, so this strikes me as appropriate even if the son isn't mentioned in the lede itself. 64.134.29.91 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

New image added

Swapped out the main image for a photo, as was a preference mentioned earlier. I still like the File:DrHolmes leaning.jpg image and was thinking of adding it in place of the "Washington Irving and friends" image. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No qualms from me on either points. Nice job on the infobox image! María (habla conmigo) 12:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This photo was recently uploaded - looks safe to use if you want me to upload a cropped version of it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a date of publication listed in the description; is it safe to use? If so, a cropped version might work quite well! María (habla conmigo) 12:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've done all about I can with this article for now; finding critical insight into Holmes's works is like pulling teeth, but I haven't given up just yet. Other than that, and image wrangling, what more is there left to do? Should we recruit a few more willing editors to have a look-see? María (habla conmigo) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree; there's not much critical insight into Holmes's work - at least not much readily available. I suppose his work isn't terribly deep? Another run-through for copy would be helpful but I think even that is very close. As far as the image, the new one I suggested can be proven as earlier than 1894 (for obvious reasons) so it should pass with a public domain in the US tag. I sorta like the one we have now, but I leave it to you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, let's keep it the way it is, then. I'd rather not incite the picky picture people at FAC. The fact that there isn't any recent critical work dedicated to Holmes's poetry troubles me, but the truth is that he just isn't widely read anymore. The most recent books we use (Dowling and Weinstein) are dedicated to Holmes's medical profession and prose. Other than that, there are the bios, which are not terribly recent, either; Hoyt is forty years old, and the others are older. Perhaps this article (and the upcoming bicentennial) will interest young scholars into researching and publishing something? :) Until then, I'll just keep searching JSTOR and Worldcat for crumbs. María (habla conmigo) 02:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's give Dr. and Mrs. Holmes an anniversary gift on June 15 - let's nominate for FAC then. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Splendid idea! Let's see if we can put the last couple polishing touches on it until then. María (habla conmigo) 18:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you're interested, here's what I got Dr. Holmes for his birthday. See item #3. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the page seems to redirect to http://www.cambridgema.gov/ccouncil.cfm...? María (habla conmigo) 12:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why; it works fine for me. Either way, the link basically says that Cambridge, MA - the city of his birth - has named August 29, 2009 "Oliver Wendell Holmes Day." --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yay! And all I got him was a couple library overdue notices. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I also was able to get this image. Enjoy! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review

I fixed up a few of the images, but this one needs some additional information:

• File:HarvardMedical-1878.jpg - The license claims "70 years plus the life of the author" but no author is listed. We either need an author or we need to establish that this image was published before 1923 and fix the licensing.

Everything else is good to go! Awadewit (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Awadewit (wow, it's been forever since we've crossed paths!). Maria, what are your thoughts? A PD-US is just as hard to prove as PD-OLD. The photo isn't vital, so we could always just cut it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we can replace it with an image that's easier to verify. Something from the Commons, perhaps? (And, yes, thank you, Awadewit!) María (habla conmigo) 23:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help! Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I miss a sentence or two about how and why Holmes, along with the other Fireside Poets, eventually fell out of favour with critics in the 20th. century and had to make way for Melville, Whitman, Dicksinson, etc, you know, the whole canon-revolution-shebang. Otherwise, after reading this article, you'd think he's still revered and famed for his works - which actually no one reads any more. Btw, there are two chapters on Holmes in Van Wyck Brooks The Flowering of New England, and I guess it was Brooks along with Matthiessen who is most responsible for Holmes's declining fame. --Janneman (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we consulted The Flowering of New England, so thanks for the tip. It may not be fair to say that no one reads Holmes anymore (hey, I did!), but I agree that it could be made clearer that he's not exactly on the same level as Whitman, etc. The problem is, very few sources actually discuss how/when/why he was pushed to the sidelines in favor of more progressive writers of the 19th century. If we can't find reputable sources, it may be construed as original research by synthesis. Very little works discuss any lasting impressions of his poetry, for example, so any help in this regard would be welcome. María (habla conmigo) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not true that no one does anymore! :) The committee for the Holmes bicentennial was fairly easy to assemble. I agree, however, that discussion of how this type of poetry (note that Holmes's prose isn't part of this) fell out of favor is important. The Henry Wadsworth Longfellow article discusses some of this. I'll see if I can grab a copy of The Flowering of New England from work. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I ordered a copy through ILL earlier. :) I'll also look through the bios again, just in case I missed anything. María (habla conmigo) 01:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction having read the first chapter on Holmes is, well, resisting the temptation to vomit. Brooks's problem is that he sees the world trhough rose-colored glasses and describes it all in sugary-sweetness, with a saccharine overload dripping from every word. I doubt we'll get much of the negative critical side of Holmes (or anyone) from him. I'll keep digging though. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

maybe try George Santayana then. I'm not sure if he mentioned Holmes, but OWH is pretty much what he had in mind when he wrote about the "genteel tradition", I guess. --Janneman (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I picked up a few books that focus specifically on the tradition of New England writing; I'm sure something will pop up. Another good source (which I can't get my hands on right now) is Christoph Irmscher's book Longfellow Redux. The author is primarily a modernist and has a fanstastic/enlightening view on the traditional "old-fashioned" poets like Longfellow, Lowell, and Holmes. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started a little discussion of this in the legacy section. I hope to expand it further. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Info in the Infobox.

Somewhat lacking in info? His birth and death are covered in the lead.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I'm not a fan of infoboxes for biographies, but what do you believe it lacks? The general consensus for writer FAs is to not include the fields "influenced by" and "influenced" because it's typically crufty, subjective, unsourced, etc. Other than that, I can't think of anything to be added. María (habla conmigo) 13:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more supportive of removing the infobox than adding to it. Most of the remaining fields are very subjective and I'd rather not go there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeerppp...That was my main point-The infobox is useless! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me like this. It seems to show up in this simple form fairly often throughout the project. Other thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Turpentine anecdote

I'm trying to include an anecdote about OWH's experiments with ether which has been deleted twice now. The first time there was no reason given and second time the reason given was that it's OR even though the material was properly sourced. These deletions seem to be arbitrary and unfair and I'm not sure what is motivating them. I've been an active editor on Wikipedia for several years now and know what is OR and what is not, the material I added was not. If the material added needs revision then it should be revised, but arbitrarily removing significant material with either no reason or a false reason being given is not acceptable.--RDBury (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration, RDBury, I don't believe this particular anecdote deserves such prominence in a Featured Article that is already quite detailed. Sure, it's quirky and fun, but I fear it may err on the trivial side of things. If it were considered notable enough to mention, however, does it truly belong in a "Legacy" section, which is dedicated to Holmes's various literary and medicinal merits? If not there, then where else? It seems out of place no matter where it would go because it isn't connected to anything else in the article; random, largely unimportant, and certainly not what Holmes is largely remembered for. Holmes led a long and eventful life, and there are numerous anecdotes that were left out while writing this article for the very reason that I don't believe the turpentine incident belongs -- it simply hasn't a home. I would advocate its removal as before, unless someone has any other ideas to better present such material? (P.S., the included citations are not formatted correctly as of now.) María (habla conmigo) 01:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least being trivia would be a legitimate reason for removing the material. However, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning that it is trivia, though I agree the structure of the article makes it difficult to find an appropriate place to include it. Perhaps I'm demonstrating my ignorance of general knowledge, but I would never have heard of OWH if it wasn't for the anecdote. I, as with many other people, heard the story more or less as it appeared in the Time article, a story about no one in particular and basically an urban legend. So I was surprised when I researched it and learned that story was true and well documented. I think that, given that the story has been repeated often but in a factually incomplete or even erroneous way, and in actual print as opposed to some internet meme (see the Time article as an example), it would be desirable for Wikipedia to have complete and accurate version of the story. Perhaps the anecdote does not belong in this article, but I believe it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia so if there is a more appropriate article for it be included then I wouldn't oppose moving it there. However, one of the criteria for being a featured article is to be comprehensive, so excluding material simply because it doesn't fit within the existing outline of an article does not seem to me to be keeping with the spirit of the featured article guidelines.--RDBury (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mere trivia. Hardly notable at all. In the grand scheme that is his life, nothing. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but agree that this info does not merit inclusion. Just because it's true, doesn't mean it needs to be here. Although I love the story, it adds little to this featured article and our understanding of the importance of Holmes (well-documented or not; there is no denying it's a true story, or at least that Holmes told it as a true story). If you haven't heard of Holmes without this anecdote, I'm sort of disappointed; he's much more important than that anecdote (have you read the article in its approved Featured form?). What needs to be done, I believe, is prove that the story has been repeated often but in a factually incomplete or even erroneous way, or that it's a meme, or that most people know Holmes only through this story. I've never heard of it outside of my own studies of Holmes. If you're diehard about including it somewhere, maybe the article on turpentine has a popular culture section... Good luck getting it to stick there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A search of Google books for "smell of turpentine prevails" turned up over 100 hits. Even if when you discount collections of Holmes' work, duplicates and restricted books that should produce 25 solid references in print. Do I have to list them all to claim that the story is "often repeated"? The Time article shows how distorted the story has become after repetition. I don't want to be accused of pulling WP:OTHERSTUFF but I can't help being reminded of an anecdote in the Carl Friedrich Gauss article. (See the second paragraph under "Early Years".) In terms of Gauss' lifetime accomplishments the incident is trivial, even if it's true which is doubtful. But the story was the version of the article that gained FA status, so I think your claim that only the big, important accomplishments should be included in a FA biography doesn't carry much weight.

It appears, however, that further argument is pointless. I've had my say and if people aren't convinced by my reasoning then so be it. My original complaint was that the material I added was being deleted either without comment or misrepresented and that issue is now resolved.--RDBury (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up for discussion. It really is an amusing story (and the kick-off point for the play I wrote about Holmes and his friends) but there are too many questions here: does it add to our understanding? Is it really a common way that people know Holmes (even if they don't know his name)? etc. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

US Postage Stamp

this dude was honored with a postage stamp. It needs to be in this article. It is not even mentioned. Lets step it up boys.

--69.37.91.1 (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Boys"? *ahem* :) I know there was a stamp for Holmes's son, Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. (see here), but was there also one for Sr.? I don't recall there being one. María (habla conmigo) 14:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. They did a Longfellow and a Lowell in the 60s, I think (don't quote me). If there is one for Holmes, I haven't seen it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency issue with sources

I note some small inconsistencies with the book sources. Some have their year of publication in brackets after the author, whilst some have it after the publisher. I maintain that consistently formatted sources are important in an FA. Best, Eisfbnore ^talk 18:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eisfbnore, thanks for the note! I agree with you 100%. Part of the problem is that there was a mixture of templated and non-templated sources. I've made the references consistent with this edit here; let me know if I missed anything. María (yllosubmarine) 19:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

by century classification

Category:19th-century American novelists is a diffusing sub-cat of Category:American novelsits. There is no reason people should be in the parent directly when in the child category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there's a reason: these people are American novelists. Besides, the issue of categorization is being discussed and should be resolved more broadly than at individual articles. Just because you and a few others have decided that everything needs to be removed from the category right now doesn't mean that this is the correct choice. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Monty Python moment...

"At that time, students studied only five subjects: medicine, anatomy and surgery, obstetrics, chemistry and materia medica." I count 6. (I've studied anatomy and surgery, and the others.) Midgley (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Anatomy and surgery" is a single subject in this case. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Annotated Autocrat" is not complete.

In the external links section, the website known as "The Annotated Autocrat" was described as a "complete" set of annotations on the work. It is not complete. According to the website itself, annotations are missing for pages 281-300 of the source text. See http://wcdrutgers.net/Willysect8.html. Since that project has not been updated since 2013 I rather think it probably will not be. I've changed the description to "mostly complete" which seems more accurate and I'm stating why here, since there isn't enough room to say all this in the edit comment block. Poihths (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227174302/http://dms.dartmouth.edu/about/history/history2.shtml to http://dms.dartmouth.edu/about/history/history2.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://978.andover.edu/library/libinfo/naut.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203052943/http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~wcd/Willyintro.html to http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~wcd/Willyintro.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517031058/http://www.reelyredd.com/usa-0308one-hoss-holmes.htm to http://www.reelyredd.com/usa-0308one-hoss-holmes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

One Flag! One Land!

This piece is often quoted and attributed to Holmes. Is it his? And if so, where does it appear? 2A00:23C3:E284:900:812B:F1BE:BB9D:D8B6 (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's from Dr. Holmes's poem "Voyage of the Good Ship Union". See this source. Please keep discussion here focused on how to improve the article, not general questions about the article's subject. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Article organization

We have a couple versions of this article's organization in need of discussion. One version arranges the article a bit more topically (see here while the other version keeps all the information more chronologically (see here. I would note that in the latter version linked, we would need to incorporate new information on puerperal fever from the other linked version. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The most obvious difference to me is that his marriage and family information is taken out of his life's story and treated independently. The narrative jumps from 1847 to 1840 to 1848, for example. Rather than reading better, I feel that readers would find this time-skipping rather jarring. --12:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Organization by topic is typically the way Wikipedia biographical articles are organized; it avoids having the subject abruptly change back and forth, and making the flow more logical and easier to follow. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been the main contributor to 24 good articles and 8 featured articles, most of which are biographies (including this one), and I have never organized in that way. Always chronological, with additional points taken out and presented elsewhere. Where do we see that "typically" it is organized non-chronologically? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)