Talk:Samuel Johnson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dictionary's stature

The units in the phrase With pages nearly 1½ feet (46 cm) tall and 20 inches (51 cm) wide read slightly oddly. Change 1½ feet to 18 inches. And anyway, are these dimensions right? They imply a landscape format, whereas the image of the title page is definitely in portrait orientation. Does the measurement 20 inches perhaps refer to the width of each pair of pages when opened? Is the word "tall" used about book dimensions? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This point has yet to be dealt with. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The first dictionary was printed as a folio edition, on paper 20" wide, so the measurement is across two pages, i.e., the width of the open book. I've made that change to clarify. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thales

In Samuel_Johnson#Early_career we read that London "describes the character Thales's leaving for Wales to escape the problems of London". I know that leaving for Wales can be construed as a nominal phrase etc etc; but wouldn't it be simpler to write Thales (or, if you insist on the possessive case, Thales' )?

BTW This must be the only article in WP to contain both Thales and Thrales ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Style in Critical Theory

I've made a few very minor changes to Samuel_Johnson#Critical_theory, but this section still needs some work before it reads fluently. Such phrases as John Milton's language, whose blank verse ... are rather awkward; and could not stand the poetic language of Thomas Gray strikes a rather unencyclopaedic note. This phrase in the opening sentence is a bit flabby, too: is marked by various opinions on what would make a poetic work excellent. What exactly does this mean? Perhaps something like: contains a number of/numerous observations on what constitutes excellence in poetry? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some of my own revisions, but I don't think they are the ones that you were looking for in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A huge improvement, I'd say. There are a few remaining questions, which I'll simply list here for your consideration:

• whose blank verse, according to Johnson, would mislead later poets. A bit cryptic: why should blank verse mislead anyone? There may be a perfectly valid point, but it needs to be explained (or at least a reference given). And while you're about it, you might as well change according to Johnson to he thought/felt/considered.

• could not stand the poetic language: I'm sorry, but this is just a bit too colloquial/slangy: try detested/despised etc.

• Plutarch's model of using biographies to teach morals and compliment the subjects: I don't think you can compliment someone no longer living, can you? Perhaps praise?

• a smaller edition of his Dictionary was written for the masses and become the common household dictionary. The masses is an anachronistic usage: try written for popular use.

I've gone ahead made some minor changes of a purely stylistic or grammatical nature, but leave any further changes to your discretion. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've clarified the first concern here. However, the blank verse page is wrong to say that after Milton it went after style. It was extremely popular, but imitated by many, many (MANY) horrible poets. :) Also, this. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole section is now much more crisply written. I've done a bit more copy-editing & rephrasing which I hope you'll find useful. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Early career

(moved dave souza's comments from previous section) Slightly off-topic, m [M]y feeling was that the opening paragraph of Early career also needed attention, so I've rephrased much of it.[1] This removes some ambiguities, please check to see if my understanding is correct, or revert if you prefer the original. Thanks, dave souza, talk 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Question – "after being turned down for a position in Ashbourne, he spent his time with his friend who lived in the home of Thomas Warren." – was his friend Edmund Hector? An unidentified Hector appears later in the paragraph, and I had to search to find a friend of that name in the first section. . dave souza, talk 09:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, I feel that this whole section is much too long-winded. I feel it could profitably lose one-third to half its length. Here, by way of example, are just a couple of sentences that should be trimmed:

• Johnson returned to Lichfield in February 1734, where he began an annotated edition of Poliziano's Latin poems, along with a history of Latin poetry from Petrarch to Poliziano. Johnson began on 15 June 1743 and printed a Proposal, but the project did not receive enough funds and was soon brought to an end.

• The Porter family did not approve of the match, partly because Johnson was 25 and Elizabeth was 21 years his elder. His mother's marriage to Johnson so disgusted her son Jervis that he stopped talking to her.[57] However, her daughter, Lucy, had accepted Johnson from the start, and her other son, Joseph, was later willing to finally accept the marriage.

• The whole paragraph beginning In August, Johnson was denied a position as master of the Appleby Grammar School ... is much too long.

To sum up: this entire section reads more like a narrative than a succinct encylopedia article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You cannot trim one of Johnson's first projects. You cannot trim the fact that Johnson's wife's family did not accept the marriage. And trim the paragraph in which both Alexander Pope AND Jonathan Swift were involved in trying to get him a masters degree just so that he could be a school master? I don't know if that would help in any way. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you mean by "trim", I suppose. I didn't mean omit, just pare down a bit. Anyway, it's your call: I'm not quarrelling with the substance of the article, which is why I've supported it. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave, that is the same Hector, his childhood friend. I think his first name was originally mentioned a few more times, but it is part of that confusing first name MoS rule. If there seems to be a place in which it is needed, feel free. Its hard for me to find those locations as I know all of the people when I see them (but most of the readers wouldn't). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helping to clarify things. A question about your latest edit – "Johnson was a devout Anglican and political conservative, which permeats his works." Does that mean "Johnson's devout Anglicanism and political conservativism permeate his works." or "Johnson was a devout Anglican, and his political conservatism permeates his works." ? dave souza, talk 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

His views on religion and politics can be found in his works, if that helps. The sentence needs to be put in a better manner, it seems out of place. I think it happened from all of the rearranging. I changed it to "Johnson was a devout Anglican and political conservative, and many of his early writings reflect these views." Lets see if that works. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Early is uncalled for; he was a Tory Anglican all his life. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And that is mentioned in the page. However, that paragraph was dealing with his first works, which were characterized by Anglican and conversative values. Since they are notable enough to be in the lead because they are his early works, then they are described in a way people can have a sense about them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That is no excuse for Johnson was a devout Anglican and political conservative, and many of his early writings reflect these views, a statement misleading to the point of inaccuracy. If this needs to be said, it should be said where it can be said of all of Johnson's life, since it is true of all of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"a statement misleading to the point of inaccuracy" This would be more easy to believe if there was someone else agreeing with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And would you bvelieve it then? You haven't believed anybody else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your posts are overly energetic. You hyperbolize on a lot. I made an appropriate change. Its just very hard to take your concerns seriously in the manner that you produce them. If you calmed down, pointed out areas that you have a disagreement with, merely state that without making it seem like it is the end of the world (as this is Wikipedia, after all), and approach it calmly, then I'm sure more people will listen. There have been a lot of major reviewers looking over this article. There are 26 supports as of right now, and there are many more people who haven't weighed in on the FAC but have put effort into the page and monitor the contributions. Please keep it in mind. If you have any complaints about me, please fill up my talk page or my email inbox. The FAC page is already over 200 K and it is very hard for me to load it most of the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've gone through this section, making a few stylistic changes. A couple of points remain somewhat obscure to me:

• On 2 March 1737 the penniless Johnson left for London with his former pupil David Garrick. On that very day, Johnson received word that his brother had died. Fortunately, Garrick had connections in London, and the two stayed with his distant relative, Richard Norris. What is the relevance of his brother's death in this context? It sounds as if the pair from Lichfield had been hoping to stay with him in London: is that right? If so, say so; if not, drop the reference to SJ's brother's death—or rephrase the passage.
• Alexander Pope claimed that the author "will soon be déterré" (brought to light, become well known), but this did not happen immediately. Well ... when did it happen, and how? Don't be so coy!

BTW I'm not quite happy with the syntax of "will soon be déterré" (brought to light, become well known): I think there's a be missing before brought. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

PS The phrase "commented on by many observers" is hardly so original or memorable as to warrant the quotation marks: the footnote is surely sufficient. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the reason was that that exact phrasing was used in the source, to avoid the charge of plagiarism that seems to get thrown around all too often these days. Anyway, I agree with you, and so I've recast that bit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I made two changes per the two asterix above. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: those points are now cleared up. Here's another one that puzzles me:

• Between 1737 and 1739, Johnson became close to Richard Savage.[73] Feeling guilty about his own poverty, Johnson stopped living with his wife and spent his time with Savage.[74] They roamed the streets at night without enough money to stay in taverns or sleep in "night-cellars". Why should Johnson feel guilty about his own poverty? The context suggests, rather, that he felt guilty about his own relative affluence & comfortable life (he was, after all, living with a wealthy widow!), & abandoned them to show solidarity with the penniless Savage. Or do you mean that he felt guilty that he was living off his wealthy wife? If so, I suggest you say so explicitly. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• See if this clears it up for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does: excellent! I'll leave you in peace now ... Good luck. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Overgeneralized text

I corrected this edit to this because it introduced inaccurate text. Ottava, can you give me the exact wording on page 56 of Demaria, so I can make sure it's OK now? You had Demaria in a sandbox somewhere once, but I can't locate it now ... that was too long ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I think that's an unfortunate move, as that text set the context for the rest of his life early on. But it's a Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be pages 5 and 6, actually, and I sent both to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The precise wording is that Johnson's efforts to teach were almost certainly ruined by his physical appearance and his failure as a tutor was almost inevitable (with a reference to the contemporary expectation that a tutor would be above all a model of behaviour and deportment). This happily pressed Johnson towards the invisible occupation of authorship.

This is of course unfortunate; but it is far from the only instance of the eighteenth-century inhumanity towards illness; see Christopher Smart. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this after I pr/ar tonight; there's also the matter of "which some sufferers are observed to possess", which overgeneralizes consistent medical thought (it's one thing to say something about Johnson, another to extend it, I need to see what the text says, but this sort of outdated info is better left out when it doesn't agree with current general medical thinking). Will get to this later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

DeMaria cites Oliver Sacks to the effect that TS occasionally lends its victims great verbal and vocal energy. If the symptoms are more uniform than that, we will require great consensus to ignore so clear a statement (or perhaps clear demonstration that DeMaria has misunderstood his own quite reliable source). But I would see this as a particularizing statement: some do, some don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that would be the problem (citing Oliver Sacks); so I don't even need to bother to look. I deleted that text, as suspected. I should have remembered it was cited to Sacks. See his article, or see the talk page of the FAC for a thorough discussion. I believe an additional explanation is the date of Demaria; I think even literary types today understand that you don't cite Sacks for accurate TS info. Gosh, we've been going over and over and over this outdated TS info; it still shocks me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One of you already looked at this and removed my inline, correct? Done here? Been a long two days at FAC, so it's been hard for me to keep up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I wrote the page on Christopher Smart and the one on his madness. I would severely disagree about characterizing Smart as "ill". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's a POV; it is far from being consensus. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even for the well-meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By "POV" you mean POV held by most of the sources on Christopher Smart, which, according to WP:WEIGHT is the only thing that deserves to be mentioned. Even Johnson said that Smart was not ill, and that it was just an act by his father in law to get rid of him. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, this text is off. We spent so much getting this right, and now we're having to do it over again for the third time because FAC reviewers are unaware of subtleties of TS. "Although Tourette's Syndrome caused problems in Johnson's private life, and made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible, ... " We need to fix this. Tourette's does not make teaching or tutoring impossible (see Brad Cohen); it was impossible because of the lack of knowledge and societal norms at the time, and because TS was an unknown diagnosis then, they had no context for Johnson's behaviors. This is exactly what we tried to make the article do right before it was torn apart at FAC. We went from completely accurate TS text to subtly inaccurate. And I'm much too tired tonight after two days of wrangling FAC to deal with it. This text is not accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note tense; made can only mean for Johnson, not for everybody. But since this can be misunderstood, we can add for him, or even in his time; this is not intended to suggest that it is impossible, or even unduly difficult, now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I assume this is talking about this sentence in Samuel Johnson #Health:

'Although Tourette's Syndrome caused problems in Johnson's private life, and made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible in his time, this may have led him to authorship; it may also have lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy".'

• There's no need for the "Although".
• "Tourette's Syndrome" should be abbreviated "TS" for consistency with the rest of the paragraph.
• Which "problems in Johnson's private life" were those? I don't see support for that phrase in the above quotes from the cited source.
• The "great verbal and vocal energy" bit is derived from DeMaria, who says that TS "occasionally lends its victims great verbal and vocal energy". That "occasionally" is an extremely slender reed, and we make that reed far too thick when we turn it into a "may"; this stuff is sheer speculation, based on an older source (Sacks) who is not that reliable on the subject (Sacks was speculating too, based on a few cases; his was not a scientific study.)
• The phrase "made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible in his time" is dubious. Schoolmasters and their tics have been legendary for quite some time. I don't see support for this phrase in any quotation on this talk page from DeMaria, the cited source. I'm skeptical of a blanket claim that TS would have made it impossible for anyone to be a schoolmaster or tutor at the time.
• If we eliminate the problematic or duplicative phrases in that sentence, we have:

'TS's effect on Johnson's public behavior may have led him to authorship, a relatively solitary occupation.'

• I propose this as a replacement for the abovementioned sentence.

Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed Demaria. He is a fringe source, and only deserved to be placed when commenting on the childhood condition, as he is the only one willing to place it within the biography. He is not a legitimate source on the medical side, nor does he rely on legitimate source. Standard fringe source guidelines apply, and he cannot be reinserted into the Health section. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• What DeMaria said was: This syndrome ha,along with his other disorders, had damaging effects on Johnson's personal and professional lives. His applications to teach in established schools in Solihull and Brentwood and his attempt to rin his own school at Edial, for example, were almost certainly ruined by his physical appearance. His failure would have been likely today, and it was almost inevitable in an age that followed Locke's prescription of a tutor who served most importantly as a model of behaviour and deportment for the pupil. Johnson's physical condition may, however, have conferred on him some benefits along with its obvious liabilities. His incapacity to work in more public positions happily pressed Johnson towards the invisible occupation of authorship. Beyond that comes the possibility of great energy, for which the "ideot" story is offered as a wonderful suggestion. I think that should be toned down, and have been including it largely because it was in the text I found. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unjustified POV tag

Can anyone explain why the sentence suggested above by Eubulides isn't inserted to resolve this matter? DeMaria is not a fringe source; he was citing a fringe source (Sacks) on one particular part of his paper. The Eubulides sentence resolves that. If it doesn't resolve the matter, then someone needs to explain why the current text is POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Relatively speaking

For comparison, the review another literary bio got at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Russell Lowell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sad; almost as sad as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs. That is what happens when FACs don't include reviewers knowledgeable about the subject, or willing to research it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comparison with American National Biography reveals several omissions, some serious, and such confusions as the "winter in Italy" description of a fifteen-month trip (the fact that Lowell came home in October might have alerted some reviewer that something was wrong). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well maybe if all the FAC reviewers would actually review the other FAcs, someone would see that; but it seems everyone has been busy picking over every word at Johnson for six weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, we need more reviewers, and more people willing to check content. If I had seen Lowell nominated, I would at least have checked it with ANB at the time; but there are whole tiers of articles about which I know nothing. One problem with Johnson is that lots of literate people include him in their horizon. (All I intended to do was to encourage an inclusive approach and check for howlers; if I hadn't been immediately attacked, I'd have been through, and possibly supported.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What Johnson did at Oxford

At Pembroke, Johnson made many friends, but neglected a number of mandatory lectures, and ignored calls for poems. He did complete one poem, the first of his tutorial exercises, on which he spent comparable time, and which provoked surprise and applause.

There are only two problems with this: it isn't what Bate wrote, and it's wrong - both in fact and in diction. (What does Ottava Rima suppose comparable to mean here? Comparable with what?) Bate gives three stories of Johnson's idleness, and an explanation - all of them originate from Johnson himself, and he had impossibly high standards. All of this is summarized in the version below.

Johnson enjoyed Pembroke, learned much, and made friends; years later, he was to tell Boswell and Mrs. Thrale stories of his idleness, but his standards were high; he said he had never seen any man study hard: He did not know he was required to go to lectures, and spent the time "sliding in Christ-Church meadow"; he neglected to write mandatory Latin verses on the Fifth of November, and wrote a poem instead, called Somnium, about the Muse telling him not to dare to write on so high a theme as politics. He wrote a Latin oration the morning it was due, and when he had to recite it from memory, he improvised what he had forgotten; he said he astounded those who knew how little he had studied.

We may not need all three of these; we may not need any; but if we tell these stories we should get them right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd that you talk about "getting it right" but switched out Pembroke for Oxford when the quote above clearly states Pembroke. All that is missing is a historical "and" where the comma is currently. That should have been obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pembroke College is part of Oxford University. This is one reason for links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you looked, it already states that Pembroke is part of Oxford on the page. Putting "Oxford" later makes it very vague. Furthermore, there is no room for such details, as this is already over the size limits and only notable information is allowable at this point. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary's stature redux

This point remains unanswered. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

DeMaria fringe source

DeMaria is a biography. It is not a medical work. Any information that it provides that is informing about medical nature cannot be used in the Health section. Only legitimate sources can be placed in the Health section, as it is based on actual diagnosis, which DeMaria does not even claim to have. It was in the biography section because it provided a short mention of where a medical source could be placed in Johnson's life. That is it. Any other use of DeMaria is a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. Wiltshire is more of a legitimate source, but still not qualified to make large claims. Only a few people are qualified, and the one who is most qualified is Pearce. We have a secondary page that could mention fringe view points. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a biography, by an expert on the eighteenth century, which we cite repeatedly. The sentence OR has blanked is on the effect of Johnson's condition on his choice of career in that century; this does not depend on the diagnosis, as Johnson's tics were famous long before they were diagnosed. This is DeMaria's field, and his judgment on this matter is far more informed, and far more credible, than any twenty-first century doctor's is likely to be, unless the doctor also happens to be a professional historian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Its a popular biography and sold as a popular biography, not one by an expert in the eighteenth century. The claim that DeMaria makes is about biography. You added in the medicine section, which implies that it is part of the diagnosis. DeMaria is not a doctor and cannot diagnose Johnson with anything. And your last statement about DeMaria is absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else disagree? If not, I propose mediation; I trust the mediator will find OR's position less specious than I do, and will explain it to me as such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus and Sandy have already expressed their disagreement with your changes. Furthermore, the Health section is a medical section, and you cannot put in "historians" who are not doctors and who rely on a doctor who is, himself, a fringe source. This does not need to go to mediation, but straight to ANI because your persistence is in outright defiance against consensus and insulting others throughout all of your edits and changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that a historian cannot be cited, especially about the societal effects of a condition? I would prefer it if you permitted other editors to speak for themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hes a professor of literature, not a historian, and he is using Oliver Sacks on Medicine, not history or social conditions. This is also a medical section. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question is, as Sandy left it:

Although Tourette's Syndrome caused problems in Johnson's private life, and made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible in his time, this may have led him to authorship; it may also have lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy".

What part of this do you consider false and outside DeMaria's competence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

1. He is not a psychiatrist and cannot be used as evidence in the Health section. 2. He is not a psychiatrist, and his own words, not attributed to others, cannot be used to describe the disease. 3. He says "physical appearance", which could include thousands of things, and is too vague to say TS did it. 4. He does not have citations for individual sources, so you cannot take this as a critical source in this section. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

None of this answers what I asked. Almost all of it invents non-existent rules. (Upon consideration, the part about energy is tenuous anyway, so I will confine the RfC to the first part of the sentence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Robert DeMaria's Life of Samuel Johnson (1993), already twice cited in this article, says:

This syndrome, along with his other disorders, had damaging effects on Johnson's personal and professional lives. His applications to teach in established schools in Solihull and Brentwood and his attempt to run his own school at Edial, for example, were almost certainly ruined by his physical appearance. His failure would have been likely today, and it was almost inevitable in an age that followed Locke's prescription of a tutor who served most importantly as a model of behaviour and deportment for the pupil. Johnson's physical condition may, however, have conferred on him some benefits along with its obvious liabilities. His incapacity to work in more public positions happily pressed Johnson towards the invisible occupation of authorship.

This supports the following sentence for our article:

Johnson's condition caused problems in Johnson's private life, and made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible in his time; this may have led him to authorship.

This has been protested under several invented canons of citation; but I don't see why we should not take the judgment of Johnson's biographer on the effects of Johnson's symptoms (which were well known long before they were diagnosed) on his career. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that you confuse symptoms with signs demonstrates to me that your understanding of this matter is at best hazy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought it was the business of Wikipedia to explain things to the hazy. Do you have an answer whether we should include the summary of our biographer, or just namecalling and one-up-manship? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a relatively uninterested observer, I agree that it might be misleading to quote a historian in the midst of a very medical section. One way of lessening the impact would be to attribute it specifically in the text to a historian. According to biographer Robert DeMaria, Johnson's symptoms caused problems in his personal life and likely made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible for him; this may have led Johnson to authorship. DeMaria, as a historian, is not qualified to pass judgement on Johnson's medical diagnosis (and according to SandyGeorgia he used an inaccurate source anyway). This is DeMaria's speculation, not a fact, and so should likey be attributed to him anyway. I also think that the sentence is pretty vague and may confuse people. Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems quite reasonable, although if we are going to have pedantry about symptoms v. signs, some slight recasting seems in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not pedantry to insist on correct and well-understood terminology, even if that terminology is beyond your own limited comprehension. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, pedantry is insisting on correct and well-understood terminology when it is unnecessary for clarity. But you will, I trust, observe that the proposed text contains neither word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your notion of "clarity" is, I'm afraid, one that is completely foreign to me. I have already unwatched the Johnson FAC, and I am now unwatching this article. It's been distressing to watch the damage that's been done to it over the last couple of days. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've been watching this page and the FAC very closely all the way through the process, hoping to learn (and I've learnt plenty...) I've noticed that, until recently, issues of contention have been discussed - sometimes vigorously - either on the talk page or on the FAC page until a consensus has been reached before changes were made on the main page. I find it unpleasant that at such an advanced stage of the process the culture that had developed has been so disrupted. almost-instinct 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I regret if Malleus has little experience of technical articles. Both epimorphism and doctus poeta are well-defined and widely understood (for suitable values of widely), but we should not use either without necessity. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• What seems vague? Again, this is the advantage of a fresh eye. (personal life is no more vague than the source, so that's unavoidable.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's vague to me because we don't know (even from the source) which particular symptoms (or even if they are related to TS) which caused his difficulty. It also doesn't really explain that it was the attitudes of the time period towards someone with his symptoms that made it difficult for him to work - not physical disabilities that prevented him from working. Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This quote is preceded by a list of his ailments, of which TS is only one; it also provides a vivid description of the tics which justify the modern diagnosis. They do not consitute a "model of behaviour and deportment" for an eighteenth century gentleman. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs - "One way of lessening the impact would be to attribute it specifically in the text to a historian" Why would one biographer, of many dozens, have his ability to speculate on it and all of the others not? Why are we privileging him with the ability to know? And he is a literature professor, not a historian. His book is not notable, and his status within academia is not notable. Someone like Bate or Greene are severely notable and have won many awards for their scholarship. The article is already over the word limit, and allowing such information in, especially when he was previous quoted for a biographical detail, which did not satisfy Anderson (and so he moved it down to the medical diagnosis section and expanded). We have qualified experts answering the information needed, why should we add in another just because one user found a non-notable book and prefers a few lines from it to be mentioned? Sandy has copies of the pages if you would like to see them. The section refered to also lacks any citations or evidence, so it could all be speculation until he mentions Oliver Sacks, which has been since discredited. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A wider spectrum of views is always welcome; if you can find a biographer who has other opinions, we should include her too. (I doubt you will do so easily; DeMaria's view is how the eighteenth century worked - and a reason we are well off not living there.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The health section is already disproportionately long. This is a biographical conjecture on why Johnson failed as a schoolteacher, his unfortunate manner (plausible in itself and needing no knowledge of medicine or the eighteenth century), with a speculation added on top of it (that this failure led him to become a writer). The iatromancy already seems excessive to me. To add a guess built on a guess to that is taking it too far. N p holmes (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree that health section is already disproportionately long and speculative. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

the health section doesn't seem overlong to me, although it could use some stylistic polishing.

as to the question at hand: "Johnson's symptoms caused problems in his personal life" seems to me too vague to be an interesting addition; and speculation that his condition contributed to his becoming a writer doesn't seem very meaningful - everything in his life contributed in some way to his becoming a writer.

what about something along the lines of "According to biographer Robert DeMaria, the attitudes of the era were such that Johnson's symptoms rendered him unsuitable for public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor"? to me that historical insight *would* add something useful to the section; and since it's a historical observation, not a medical one, a biographer is a relevant source for it. Sssoul (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The section was significantly longer but shortened to allow other areas to expand. There is a limit of words that was hit, and we are already above the limit, so this has to be balanced against others. We have Samuel Johnson's health for more detailed information. Also, this biography line was in the biography, but the above user wanted to move it into health and expand on it. One of the issues is is that this guy is a biographer, so his information is better left to a section on biography. Here is the diff that caused the problems. There were no problems with the original placement until Pmanderson wanted to move it down and expand. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• my comments, all slightly cynical at this point, being based on the discussion:

1. Pedant is being used in the sense of "someone who does have academic authority, but does not support my position"
2. literary scholars do literary history, and tend to thing historians naive when they discuss the motivations or reception of literary figures (similarly for the other professions); historians regard literary (etc) scholars naive when they discuss historical context. From the point of view of a scientist, both of the professions tend to uncritically use whatever scientific or medical hypotheses are fashionable and support their views.
3. An academic scholar whose writings agree completely with everyone else would not get them published--academic quarrels by their nature exaggerate differences
4. we know a great deal about what symptoms were thought in his time to cause him difficulty--a major salon topic during his life. We also know that some people avoided him because of that, and some did not. We know, for example, what his students felt about his love-making. We also know that the 18th century was prone to ridicule people based on externals when they wanted to ridicule.
5. some people compensate intellectually for physical difficulties; some do not. some even do equally well without the physical difficulties. Using the difficulties to explain the compensations is not logical.
6. 18th century physiology and psychology are relevant in explaining why people in the 18th century wrote of him as they did, but not in explaining why he actually did as he did.
7. One cannot practically in an article about someone apparently or possibly suffering from a condition, go into detail about the current scientific views and controversies about the condition. All one can do is give the various views and attribute them. We include all non-splinter fringe views--we do not evaluate them. People wanting to know the current state of TS studies should not expect to find it in this article.

Personally, I think Karanac's wording is fine as a compromise to get this settled. A good compromise does not make either side happy. DGG (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved this up, I hope you don't mind. Just to point out, DGG, there isn't a historian vs literary debate. DeMaria is a literature professor, and is no different than Wain, Bate, Green, etc etc. What the problem is is that this diff shows a simple statement being moved into the health section, which consensus said to shorten, and is relying on someone not qualified to make the judgments about his health condition. The information in the previous section was perfectly fine. However, the above user wishes to expand the information to suggest that TS is 100% the "physical appearance" that DeMaria mentions as the reason why Johnson may have had problems, and it also relies on Sacks, who (mentioned on the health page for historical note) is no longer reliable as a TS expert on Johnson, as Pearce has supersceded him. Those are the points of contention. I have sent Sandy scans of the pages in question, and I can forward them to you also, or anyone else, if they want to see the pages, and see that DeMaria doesn't even quote Sacks on Johnson (as Sacks did write about Johnson), but instead quote Sacks generally, without actually providing any specific references in the section (making it impossible to see which is conjecture or not). It would be biased also to provide conjecture of one biographer and not the others, especially when you have someone like Wiltshire devote his biography to Johnson's medical history at the same time and with DeMaria even specifically mentioning it as a better source of information on the subject. I hope this clarifies the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

O.R., you are right that there are other relevant physical characteristics. His general bulkiness was also frequently characterized, as was his nearsightedness. DGG (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And those really, really, really nasty scars on his face that were ignored in every drawling and painting (and only see in the death mask). I know that DeMaria would want to pump up the amount of information that TS could explain, as he would be the first popular biography that would contain the information. I like Martin's more cautious approach. But yeah, three biographers now, and what, 7 medically trained people with Pearce being the most recent expert. I really have no problem going through each approach to it and the biographers applying it on the health page. My only concern is the weight issue and moving a biographer down. I hope that is over now, as the passage is back in, but slightly reworked and higher up to put it after the failure of Edial, which is nice context. I copied below Peter Martin's approach to it, and I believe both DeMaria's and Wiltshire's approach are on Wikipedia somewhere (either in the archive here, Sandy's talk page archive, or on one of my subpages) in chase someone wants to make an effort to expand the health page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs' wording:

According to biographer Robert DeMaria, Johnson's symptoms caused problems in his personal life and likely made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible for him; this may have led Johnson to authorship.

is an acceptable compromise because as worded, it's not medically inaccurate as some earlier versions were, it does not in any way deviate from what is supported by current TS research, and it doesn't delve into any of Sacks' unsupported fringe theories. If we want to lend more clarity to why it may have led him to authorship, we could add the clause from Eubulides' version:

According to biographer Robert DeMaria, Johnson's symptoms caused problems in his personal life and likely made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible for him; this may have led Johnson to authorship, a relatively solitary occupation.

I hope we can use some version of either of those and move on. I'm unsure why we're concerned about length, since we're now down to one sentence, the same that we earlier had in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If Malleus does not object to symptom, that's alright by me; I think it can be tweaked a little (for example, Robert DeMaria, Johnson's biographer, held... would be slightly shorter and active voice). Aside from symptom, this makes no medical assertion that I can see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of minor problems

• "An important innovation of Johnson's was to illustrate the meanings of his words by literary quotation": I take it that this should be "An important innovation in English lexicography was to illustrate the meanings of his words by literary quotation". It was standard in large scholarly dictionaries of Greek and Latin to illustrate usage with quotations.
• "With the birth of Johnson's brother, Nathaniel" etc. When? You're marking other changes in Johnson's environment by this, so the date matters. N p holmes (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% right on the first point and I used your wording. I think I originally meant "English literature" when I said literature, but as it reads it is definitely not specific. Please see this for changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Later career

• Johnson's only other friend who was present at the time, Bennet Langton, had just returned home and later set off to school in 1757. Obscure: please make it clear just where Langton was at various times in relation to SJ.
• pressured him to take on a free slave, Francis Barber, as his servant. Do you mean persuaded? Ie did SJ actually take on Barber? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking about Langton. Do you mean all the various moments? I think that would be far too complicated to address and would add a lot of content to make that clear. I decided to try and minimize any confusion and recrafted the sentence by bringing up another sentence that can be seen here. Pressured is the right word, as Johnson was very reluctant to take on any help but was forced into it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK now. I've made a few minor improvements here & there.

"The Club", a social group that included his friends Joshua Reynolds, Edmund Burke, David Garrick, Oliver Goldsmith, Topham Beauclerk, Bennet Langton, Christopher Nugent (Burke's father-in-law), John Hawkins, and Anthony Chamier (although the membership would vary over the next few decades, expanding to allow individuals such as Adam Smith and Edward Gibbon to join). This list risks comparison with the refrain of Widdicombe Fair ... At the very least, pare it down to surnames only; & I suggest removing the references to Nugent, Smith & Gibbon. The list doesn't have to be exhaustive: interested readers can follow the link. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk

You can cut the whole listing of names if you think its appropriate, or just say, "included many of his friends and those like Adam Smith and Edward Gibbon" or whatever. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, with the recent change - I think MoS does not allow "king" to be capitalized while on its own, and you have to mention the first name with the last name on the first mention of an individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about king: change it if you want. As for first & last names, I haven't been able to find any specific guideline about names occurring within articles (as opposed to names that are the subjects of articles). In any case I've trimmed the list. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem either way. I'm a little disappointed that Topham Beauclerk is no longer wikilinked. heh Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Another biography

I just wanted to note that I just received Peter Martin's shiny new biography on Johnson. Two pages are on TS - only the mention of a few accounts, Boswell saying that it was involuntary, Reynolds claiming that it was voluntary, and Martin saying it "remains a complicated matter". Martin doesn't seem to offer biographical detail that isn't best put on the secondary pages, as there is nothing new (and it serves as a critical biography - standard details followed by critical opinion about works). You have the occasional interesting, but not notable, claim of "Johnson would be painted by twelve painters during the rest of his life, and by Reynolds three or four more times. Only Pope was painted more often in the eighteenth century, but Pope was rich and had many aristocratic friends. Johnson was quite taken with the honour of Reynold's portrait and the depth of understanding of his character, the 'colouring' of the mind, that he felt the painter had caught in it." (pp. 327–328). None notable but interesting synthesis to make a quite point. The book also has some images that are "cleaner" than the ones we have (Thrale in color, Johnson "gesticulating" with less yellow glare. Also, there is a little more detail about his house keeper/friend Anna Williams. I'll add a little note on her (now that we have some more information). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, these authors with no medical training :-) Boatloads of entire papers have been written over the voluntary/involuntary nature of tics, which is why the TS research and community coined the term unvoluntary; a temporarily suppressible but semi-voluntary response to an unwanted urge. See the article on tics; this is more of same. It's a complex medical issue, which is why tics appear to be voluntary to those not in the know, or involuntary to those equally not in the know. Apparently it's hard for non-ticquers to grok that sometimes tics can be controlled, sometimes they can't, some manage better than others, some manage better at some times than others, which is fully consistent with observations of Johnson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, Sandy, I think you overlooked that it is still a complicated matter to explain the nature of TS, especially in a biography not on the topic. :P Plus, there is the possibility that Johnson was just "funning" people (if you believe Reynolds). :P Here, I'll give you the whole line: "In any case, retrospective medicine is a risky business, and whether or not Johnson's well-publicised eccentric physical movements were due to Tourette's Syndrome exclusively remains a complicated matter." (p, 326) You would love to know that he quotes Wiltshire as evidence that the matter is too complicated to bother with. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. And likely not a one of them understands why real TS experts endorse the diagnosis :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Its because it makes their careers appear to be more interesting. Okay, now I'll run away so you don't end up murdering me. :)

For information sake, here is some more detail on how Martin sets up the quote above (Renny is Frances Reynolds) - could have married Johnson, wrote in her diary "the impression I felt in his favour, on his saying that as he returned to his lodgings about one or two o'clock in the morning, he often saw poor children asleep on thresholds and stalls, and that he used to put pennies into their hands to buy them a breakfast", his "best dress was, at that time, so very mean", she claimed his movements were "scarcely credible" and "Sometimes he would make the back part of his heels to touch, sometimes the extremity of his toes, as if endeavouring to form a triangle, or some geometrical figure, and as for his gestures with his hands, they were equally as strange; sometimes he would hold them up... sometimes at his breast in motion like those of a jockey on full speed; and often would he lift them up as high as he could stretch over his head, for some minutes", she saw his "antics both with his feet and hands, with the latter as if he was holding the reins of a horse like a jockey on full speed" and "men, women, and children gathered round him, laughing. At last we sat down on some logs of wood by the river side, and they nearly dispersed", she was astonished by "his stretching out his arm with a full cup of tea in his hand, in every direction, often to the great annoyance of the person who sat next him, indeed to the imminent danger of their clothes... sometimes he would twist himself round with his face close to the back of his chair, and finish his cup of tea, breathing very hard, as if making laborious effort to accomplish it" (pp. 324–325). Then he gives Boswell's description. Then he gives Joshua Reynold's description and says: "Joshua Reynolds disagreed with Boswell's assertion that Johnson lapsed into these movements both when actively engaged with persons around him and when he was alone or musing, lost in thought. He maintained that the movements were not wildly involuntary and were noticeable only when Johnson withdrew into himself: 'His mind appeared to be preying on itself; he fell into a reverie accompanied with strange antic gesticulations. but this was when his mind was absent or deep in thought; he never did when his mind was engaged by the conversation.' Reynolds's opinion was that the movement 'proceeded from a habit which he had indulged himself in, of accompanying his thoughts with certain untoward actions'. Mrs Thrale never saw him move like this in church, and Renny plausibly maintained that without the ability to control his body he could hardly have sat for portraits that her brother and she painted of him." (p. 326) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As Sandy says, none of those observations are inconsistent with TS: tics fall into a nebulous zone where neither the word "voluntary" nor the word "involuntary" cleanly applies. My own concern would be that, while it is completely clear that Johnson had some type of dyskinesia, there are a group of them with somewhat overlapping syptoms, and it isn't completely obvious that a modern neurologist would diagnose TS. My personal opinion is that Johnson had some autistic characteristics too -- he was a prime example of what I call a "verbal savant", along with a small number of other remarkable people like Thomas Aquinas and Isaac Asimov. (Obviously it would be OR to say anything like that in the article.) In any case, it is quite difficult to make detailed diagnoses at this distance in time. Looie496 (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with any possible claims about any time of autism for Johnson or Aquinas, but that mostly deals with the advance levels of their social and moral understanding. But that's another discussion and also from OR based on my own training and involvement with special needs individuals. One of the problems with genius is that many people want to pass it off to a mental problem in order to cast doubt on the greatness of their intelligence. But yeah, we can discuss this all in private if you would like. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a line in Boswell that's a little bit thought-provoking:

 It may indeed be observed, that in all the numerous writings of Johnson, 
 whether in prose or verse, and even in his Tragedy, of which the subject 
 is the distress of an unfortunate Princess, there is not a single passage 
 that ever drew a tear. (in volume 4).

(To which one reader replied that the Preface to Johnson's Dictionary brought tears to his eyes every time he read it.) Looie496 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested format change in Dictionary section

This section currently contains images of the title pages of both Vol I & Vol II. I suggest removing the latter, which doesn't add anything, & replacing it with a box containing the powerful quotation from the letter to Lord Chesterfield (as so effectively done already with a number of quotes from Boswell). This would enhance the impact of the quotation, which at present is lost in a sea of text. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have the quote (in the text): "Is not a patron, my lord, one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help? The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind: but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it; till I am solitary and cannot impart it; till I am known and do not want it." How much more or less would you want to add? I would prefer an image from Irene or David Garrick. The boxes from Boswell are "well known" but not confirmed in many sources to be used as evidence, whereas, something like the letter is 100% real. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply suggesting moving the existing quote from the text to a "quote box". I don't see why such boxes should be taken to imply unreliable evidence from unconfirmed sources! I just feel that showcasing the quotation from the letter in a box would make it stand out more forcefully. In any case, it's up to you. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Hmm. If we remove those lines, then the paragraph is cut nearly in half, and the next lines would seem off. Any suggestions for how to work it? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if you put the quotation into an Lquote (or something similar), sourced to "-Johnson, letter to Lord Chesterfield", then you don't need to cut the paragraph. I tried it, and it seemed to look okay. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Looie just beat me to it! I'd written the following:

What about this:

Johnson wrote a letter expressing this view and harshly criticising Chesterfield. [text moved to box] , saying "Is not a patron, my lord, one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help? The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind: but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it; till I am solitary and cannot impart it; till I am known and do not want it." Despite the hostile tone of the letter, Chesterfield accepted it without any ill will and, impressed by the language, kept it displayed on a table for anyone to read.

Hmmm. Any suggestion on where to integrate the tiny paragraph? I would also like Malleus's opinion this. He has an eye for balance of text. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you feel the para is now too short, that's a different matter! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section

According to Jbmurray's edit, he believes that the section in Legacy is a trivia section. According to Wikipedia:Trivia sections, such sections are described as lists with bullet points or numbering, and not a section based on theme and dates. This is further explained at Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Trivia sections. "In some cases, trivia is written in prose form, and trivia that is written this way may or may not be problematic. If the prose is effectively a list of disconnected items that isn't bulleted, it is not an improvement over a list" Yet they are all connected. So yeah, if there is any problem, it is with the idea of having a Legacy section, which I originally did not want, but many editors demanded such. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment here referred to a specific paragaph, not the entire section. My point is about content, not form. There's a big difference between evaluating the legacy of a major figure such as Johnson, which is absolutely necessary, and listing his appearances in fiction or television comedy. The latter is trivia. Its inclusion here brings the whole article down. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already expressed an agreement with you above and on previous occasions. However, I would like other people's opinions on the matter. The Black Adder and other appearances were on the page before I came here. Sandy has also expressed in some form her wanting the Samuel Johnson Prize to be mentioned, so this is a consideration that must be included when deciding. (My suggestion is that if the paragraph is removed, to tack the Prize on the next paragraph which deals with organizations about Johnson. If the section is merely too large, it could be reduced to Johnson being a figure in literary and television fiction without detail and then combined with the next) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I am in complete agreement with Jbmurray; it does trivialise what was until then a serious article on an important subject. I'm not thinking about the prize, which seems fine to me, but the Black Adder and other film/TV appearances. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to see where this wikipedia explosion of trivia will end. Is the fact that a character in The Simpsons once had a dog called Samuel Johnson really the sort of thing that anyone of even moderate intelligence would be likely to care about? (I made that example up, but my point remains. Not blaming Ottava, he simply inherited that nonsense.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave people plenty of time to bring up the issue when I originally moved the Legacy section to FAC, but no one really responded. Any ideas on what to salvage and what to toss out? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've chopped out what I consider to be the trivia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I expected half the page to vanish after that comment. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not a butcher. Clinical, surgical strikes is my style. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At one point, I did want to salvage the Samuel Johnson Prize; I do agree that some other trivia crept in because FAC reviewers demanded MORE LEGACY !! I hope it's now been addressed; honestly, I don't have time to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to hidden comments

I removed the hidden comments from the page because its hard to respond to them and for people to participate in the wider discussion. I have placed the one response above. Here are the rest:

• "this doesn't seem relevant in the Appleby community" I believe this was justifying the removal of a wikilink. Not sure, doesn't seem to be an issue.
• "street could be linked but the destination article is not helpful to a reader" Doesn't seem to be an issue at this time.
• "Why does this quotation have two citations, neither of which is to Taylor?!" Taylor didn't write this down. The quote comes from Bate, who attributes it to a 1930 source not written by Taylor. The Boswell citation - I don't remember, and it can be removed.

  Then 1) it should be referenced "qtd. in Bate" and 2) the Boswell citation should be removed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like some precedence for saying that it should be stated as "qtd. in Bate", as Bate does not say "as quoted in this other work" nor do any of my sources do that with all of their citations, so I do not believe it is an academic nor Wikipedia standard. Also, the Boswell citation was removed 11 minutes before your comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is standard in MLA style, at least, and for good and obvious reasons. Funnily enough, after I googled "MLA 'qtd. in'", the very first hit used an example that had to do with Johnson. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MLA is not the preferred system for literature. That is still the right of Chicago. I see no point in putting up potentially confusing additions to the ref when Bate refused to do it himself. p. 607, Chapter 8, ref 2. I can scan if anyone is interested. I can also scan page 116 where Bate does not mention the source in the text except to directly attribute it to John Taylor. I can also provide other portions that do exactly the same. And this would be utterly silly, as the other quotes would also have to say "qtd in Boswell", "qtd in Thraliana", etc. The silliness comes from the fact that the line before says "___ says ____", which implies a quotation. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment the amusing notion that the MLA style is not the dominant and preferred one in literary studies... I did a quick check, and it seems that:

• MLA requires "qtd. in"
• Harvard requires "cited in"
• Only Chicago requires nothing

Of course, Wikipedia uses its own style, and this is not, as far as I know, covered. I'll just leave it here, however, with this note that in two of the three major references systems in the Humanities and Social Sciences, such an indication is required. It is indeed an academic standard (if perhaps not the sole one). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. fwiw, it's my understanding that Chicago MOS (per Ch. 17 Sect. 274) requires 'quoted in' (rather than the abbreviation) when one can not access the original source and must cite a secondary one.[2](free) and [3](subscription required). fyi -- Makeitup (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. Thanks for this. That's three out of three. Anyhow, I recognize that on Wikipedia, what counts is not MLA or Harvard or Chicago, but the MOS. Even so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In my list below, not one of those authors do such a thing, so, if this is the new Chicago decision, they have neglected this concept). I only go from my experience. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed message, because it doesn't need a response, but this does - Makeitup is a new account and this was his first post. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? If you are suggesting that I am sock-puppetting, then you can go take a short walk off a long pier. Enough. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm a she. And second, I've decided I don't like having my ip address all over the place, especially not pasted onto talk pages, so I made a damn account so I could try to help in your damn conversation. So excuse me for typing. -- Makeitup (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, I never said you were one. I only pointed out that there is a new account. As I pointed out, I'm not going to fight over what the link says, because you can see below what I am basing my knowledge on. If you honestly want the "qtd." or "quoted in" to be listed, then you will, according to the above, have to list it over 80 times. However, seeing as how the only times these are "quoted in" another work come up with biographical detail that has a first part of a sentence from the surrounding context of the quote, with the quote, it may mislead people to think that there is no reference at all, or it is OR. So, there would be a lot more text, confusing references, and a duplication of information. If you want, you can put a "qtd in" in every reference following any quote from an 18th century person. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can chalk it up to my being taught by old professors from the old system. I'm only once removed from Bate, IA Richards, M. H. Abrams, etc. I just checked Martin (who is my contemporary) and he leaves it out, but he follows a mostly Chicago with a little house style pattern. DeMaria, who I don't know much about, tends to use a house style that combines Chicago with a lengthy background on his thoughts. If you can find a footnote or citation in John Wain's book, bless your heart. I can check the others if you would prefer. However, even the new generation, of Clement Hawes and Peter Sabor tend to rely on the Chicago method. Maybe the next generation will change. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• "This preceeding sentence really has nothing to do with "legacy," and indeed there's little or no transition to the following sentence" The section is talking about celebrity status and biographies. The first lines say that Johnson was constantly appearing in newspaper biographies, the Bate quote says that Boswell was inspired to his biography by biographies Johnson wrote and biographies on Johnson. They are all on the same theme - biographies of Johnson.

  Um, no, the section is entitled "Legacy." And at present, as I point out it's unstructured, and lacks transitions. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Transitions between? This is the first paragraph in the section. Please be very specific. The lines transition into each other based on time progression and how Johnson was viewed. Each section also historically goes through how Johnson was viewed and in different ways. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Transitions between sentences, as I made clear. But Ottava, I'm not going to argue the toss here. I've noted the issue, and am moving on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't stated which sentences transitioning into which. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are the ones that seem to be unaddressed to this point. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note, I have removed the double ref for the Taylor quote. Bate covers the information. If anyone has an opinion on the last point, please respond so we can form a consensus over language. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary as part of legacy

Actually, my main gripe with the Legacy section would be that it leaves out the most important part, the dictionary. My understanding is that it was the dominant resource on the English language for a hundred years, until the OED—which it surely influenced greatly—was written, and was considered essential equipment by any serious writer. Looie496 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - Legacy info for Dictionary comes up in the Dictionary section in a similar way to the later uses of Rasselas comes up. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then perhaps the legacy section should start with a short para pointing out the the most important parts of his legacy, such as the dictionary, have already been discussed. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While working on the Legacy section it might be worth splitting up the monster sentence beginning Among many accounts of his life were ...: in any case it tries to cram in too much information.

And did Macaulay really consider SJ an idiot savant? I merely pose the question! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I've zapped the reference to GBN Hill: too obscure, especially in conjunction with TS Eliot. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now tamed the monster sentence without, I hope, omitting anything of importance. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GBN Hill too obscure? You mean the greatest Johnson scholar? Oh god. Sigh. Okay, I can't look anymore. I'll be back next week. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No offence intended to the shade of scholar eminent in his field—but I doubt whether Hill is widely known among non-specialists. In any case he's certainly not a major literary figure of the stature of Eliot: so it struck me as rather ludicrous to say literary figures such as George Birkbeck Norman Hill and T. S. Eliot came to regard Johnson .... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Literary figure does not mean poet. It means literature scholars, or those who are involved in determining what "literature is". Eliot was a scholar first and foremost. A "poet" does not regard someone as a serious critic. Another critic does. And yes, Hill is one of the greatest literary scholars and figures during the end of the 19th century. If it weren't for him, those like Eliot wouldn't have even bothered. If Winters, Leavis, and Wilson belong there, then Hill definitely needs to be reinserted. I don't want to argue about this, and I'm really upset that this was removed. However, a good 99% of what we have on Johnson comes from Hill's work. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)