Talk:Samuel Johnson/Archive 3

note to main author(s)

There are a couple of non-sentences in "Later Career" (the only section I've looked at so far):

• "On 8 June 1756, Proposals for Printing, by Subscription, the Dramatick Works of William Shakespeare, which explained his claim that editions of Shakespeare were edited incorrectly and needed to be correct."
• "However, the constant pleasure does not lead to satisfaction, and Rasselas escapes, with the help of a philosopher named Imlac, explores the world to witness how all aspects of society and life in the outside world are filled with suffering."

Also, FWIW, I didn't understand this phrase: "[Rasselas] appeared in many works of fiction through characters reading the book, ..." Whiskeydog (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Made changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. Also, this sentence doesn't really parse: The poem is an imitation of Juvenal's Satire X and seeks to be "the antidote to vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes" Whiskeydog (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Johnson was "more than a well-known writer and scholar"... whose quote? Whiskeydog (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Check the changes here. Note that the ref was from Cambridge Companion, a source which, contrary to popular belief, was used in various locations throughout the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To do list

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction:

During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that would influence how people viewed him in his later years, and which formed the basis for his posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome.

but ...

Although it is not known when Johnson first displayed the signs of Tourette syndrome, he exhibited the various tics and gesticulations associated with the disorder after 1731.

(Unclear what the "after 1731" sentence is accomplishing? The sentence appears to need reworking.)

Ottava, this change isn't working for me on several levels; can you tell me exactly what the source says, and I will try to rework the sentence to accord with current understanding of tic expression? Also, because I've been traveling, I'm losing track of where we are. As much as I dislike the way FAC often works (with the checkmarks of what's done and what's not, when actually, reviewers should be striking addressed issues), it may be helpful to keep up with the "done"s here. For example, we still need to sort that Bate reference below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiltshire mentions that after 1729, Johnson had a mysterious illness, physical, mental, etc, that is unknown. After this time, Wiltshire goes in to how they were "perceived, conceived and made sense of. Johnson's condition, even more in this than in other instances, varies with the observers' altering gaze. In the eighteenth century his strange gestures were usually held to be the result of a 'paralytic or' 'convulsive' malady..." Then on the next page it goes into how these were seen by Henry Grewold of Solihull, etc. So, these are the first major accounts of his gestures. Did they appear before? Somewhat. Were they well known? Well, the first set of multiple accounts comes after this time. Perhaps his depression, "illness", etc, exagerated his TS, or his TS brought on the mysterious "illness", etc. Two years are missing of Johnson's life. Afterwards, TS became very apparent in the accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, trying to sort. The text currently says:

• After this time, he openly exhibited the various tics and gesticulations associated with TS.

But we don't know if he exhibited them before and they just weren't written about as much, or if something caused an exacerbation in his tics at that age? It sounds like you're saying they were more written about after that time. Anything that impacts upon one's overall health (for example, allergies, asthma, other physical ailments, life stressors, etc.) can alter one's ability to manage and suppress tics. The sources don't tell us if that occurred or if his tics became more written about at that point? That's what I'm trying to sort. Did he actually have a change that led to a tic exacerbation (not uncommon) and a decreased ability to manage/suppress his tics, or did his tics become more written about at that point? The current text doesn't cut it for TS-knowledgeable folk, as that would be our natural question, and text leaves us wondering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources seem to be vague because of the two year gap. -I- believe from what I see in the various sources is that they were exacerbated. I am reinforced into this belief by him 1) being ill in some way (physically and mentally most likely) and 2) no one really saying much about his tics in college, and most seeing him as a "happy" and "cheerful" person who seemed to fit in (although he said they were idiots and wrong :) ). Wiltshire says (out of context, I know) "The third result of this illness was the development of the strangest of his characteristics. I shall call them, reluctantly, his 'tics and gesticulations' - the strange, awkward, repeated movements and sounds he made, which always attracted notice and were commented on by many observers." He then refers to McHenry's report for more information. When he mentions the "tics" (he says reluctantly because he doesn't want to diagnose but instead talk generally of reported actions as he is not a doctor) he is referring to the ones Boswell is mentioning, and not to the earlier symptoms discussed in Demaria which appear to be a milder form. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That helps. Can we change:

• After this time, he openly exhibited the various tics and gesticulations associated with TS.

to:

• After this time, his tics and gesticulations associated with TS were "commented on by many observers"

or some variation of that? That would fit with knowledge about tic disorders, while staying true to the sources. Even better if you can work in that he had been ill before that, as physical illness (as well as comorbid mental conditions) can lead to tic exacerbations. We can't say we know that to be the case for Johnson, but we can stay true to what the sources do say, when they agree with knowledge about TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better, but unless a source specifically says they became "more prevalent", I would avoid that. It's a fine point, but tics can be at the same level of severity and frequency, but just become harder to manage or suppress due to external factors (like other illnesses or conditions). Have to be very careful here to stay true to the sources, and true to info about TS, at the same time. He could have had the same level of tics, but they became more noticeable to others because he became less able to manage them. Unless the sources specifically address this, we really don't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done That's all dealt with now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Don't know what this citation is:

175. ^ Life of Gray

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Life of Gray is Johnson's Life of Gray. Its short. I'm going to trim that section. I reworked the other - I want to make it clear that these problems started to dominate his life more. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know which Bate this is:

96. ^ Bate p. 281

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unstruck from Awadewit

Resolved, Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• For me, the primary problem with the article is that it does not describe Johnson's works in any detail or his literary legacy.
  • I am impressed with expansion with the "Legacy" section, however, I am still opposing because I feel that the article's coverage of Johnson's works, particularly their themes and style, is insufficient and the use of quotations is confusing:
• There needs to be broader discussion of the themes of Johnson's works, either in a separate section or in a coherent way that the general reader can understand in the biography. In the "character sketch" section, the article states that "Johnson's Christian morality permeated his works", however, the reader would not necessarily know this from the descriptions of the works and the statement ends there, not offering an explanation.
• There needs to be a broader discussion of the style of Johnson's writing - what kind of a poet was he, for example? What poetic genres did he write in? How did he write as a critic? Was he acerbic, compassionate, etc.? We need to give readers an idea of his language.

• There are many places in the article where the use of quotation marks is confusing.

The items with the quotes shouldn't be there anymore, as they are on the early life. Even Palin used "airquotes" last night, so I still disagree with Awadewit on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a note to Awadewit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think that there are some ambiguous quotations, but I don't have the time or inclination to make a list of them now. It is my understanding that none of them are scare quotes or airquotes (a la Palin) but that they are all quotations from sources. Their provenance is not always clear, however. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll work back through the entire article tomorrow or the next day and work on those; with travel, I just haven't had time to plow through the whole thing again. Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lexo concerns resolved, now supports, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unstruck from Lexo

• It tells me that he is a notable subject, but does not demonstrate why he is so. There is too much trivial biographical detail. I can remember what it was like to know absolutely nothing about Johnson, and this article mostly tells me the story of his life - not why he is anything more than a figure on English literary history.

Unstruck from Shoemaker's Holiday

Shoemaker's Holiday mentions Francis Barber; other than that, he disagrees on summary style or is repeating Awadewit's oppose or wants this article to fit a certain mold. Malleus, can you tease anything actionable out of his early commentary? On the Francis Barber issue, echoed by DGG, is that being addressed in the new daughter article? Later on, Shoemaker's Holiday raises some specific issues:

Replied, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Francis Barber is said to have visited Johnson as he lay dying long before who Barber is is mentioned.

   This should be addressed now, correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   Addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. The literary criticism section is also cited almost entirely to one author, Greene. ... can you clarify which book by Donald Greene it, in fact, is, and perhaps clarify, e.g. giving a subtitle as well as the title. Regardless, the section really could use a second major source.

   The book is cited as Samuel Johnson: Updated Edition clearly. I don't know how to make it more clear. And there are no second major sources, except if you want Wain's rough introduction to Johnson's criticism, or include more info from the biographies, but the biographies are already covered heavily, and Greene was a major editor who does not get much of a say. A secondary source is mentioned, but the info on criticism is scant. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

3. The article lacks clear focus to many of its sections. For instance, this is the first paragraph of "Early career": ... This entire section appears to be an attempt to include every single fact known about this period of Johnson's life, however, it is not a particularly notable period of his life, and summary style would call for this to be spun off to a sub-article, and greatly compressed. For such a long article, it's hard to justify the extreme detail given in this section, when much of it has little to do with Johnson's notability.

   It has since been shortened. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

4. There's a lot of random interjections of facts. For instance, near the end of the section "A Dictionary of the English Language" - which is somewhat misnamed, as much of it is actually on other subjects such as The Rambler - we get this:

   ...Although the production's run had a rough start, Johnson received nearly £300 for the manuscript and the performances.[98]

   Johnson's wife died shortly after the final issue appeared. During his work on the dictionary, Johnson made many appeals for financial help in the form of subscriptions: patrons would get a copy of the first edition as soon as it was printed in compensation for their support during its compilation. The appeals ran until 1752.

   I don't know why his wife's death was reduced, or why it was placed there. I have since put it in its own paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

5. It seems simply bizarre to mention the death of Johnson's wife in the middle of an unrelated discussion, then never mention it again. Did his wife's death have no effect on Johnson whatsoever? That's the impression given.

   Rearranged some things, covered some others. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Historiography is not covered very well. Particularly, while there's a little discussion of Boswell's Life of Johnson, pulling it all into its own subsection of Legacy would make for better summary style, as it would then be clear that there's an important sub-article on the work. Also, a brief discussion of how modern scholars view the biographies that were published after his death would be useful.

   Boswell's biography was discussed in two paragraphs at the beginning. This was since removed since it was described by many to not really fit on the page. It was moved to Boswell's page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Not even one definition from the dictionary is quoted, nor is the dictionary's impact, nor the dictionary as literature discussed in any depth.

   Which definition? You can't favor one. What impact? I talked about its reception, but its hard to judge a dictionary's actual impact. Literature? Its in the lit philosophy section. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   I confess, no idea what Shoemaker's Holiday is trying to say here. Why would we include a dictionary definition? OK, on impact (and I know little of Johnson's work), it was always my understanding that his was the first Dictionary of English ... is that true? Can we add something to this effect to try to satisfy SH? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   Don't know what else to do with this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood, or even be looking in the wrong place, but my interpretation of Shoemaker's Holiday's early commentary was that he wanted the article to fit the formulaic 18-century author style, and either didn't like or didn't understand the summary style used. So I think you've covered all of the actionable points. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what formula that would be, considering there isn't one on Wikipedia yet. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic, capped, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my impression as well, but as I admit that I'm struggling to catch up after my travel, I wanted to make sure I hadn't failed to pull out something from there we needed to address. I see that gradually this article is working towards that formulaic approach to some extent, although Ottava originally had a very different vision of how to organize the large amounts of Johnson info. I'm somewhat disappointed that Wiki appears unable to handle what could have been a unique and ahead-of-its-time article about Johnson, taking advantage of research and information available in only the last ten to fifteen years, and not yet reflected in most other Johnson scholarship because of its age. Of course, it's a personal disappointment to me, having written Tourette syndrome, to realize that we still haven't overcome myth and misperceptions about TS on Wiki, that accurate information about TS still isn't the norm, and that misunderstanding about TS has created an obstacle on this article's FAC. The simple reality is, if you don't know Tourette's, you can't understand Johnson the man in context; if you do know Tourette's, every thing about his life, his work and his bio falls into line, in perfect context. I guess Wiki isn't ready for this in spite of the solid sourcing, and I'm a bit concerned that this means that the TS article has failed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it quite that way, that the TS article has failed I mean. I have always been in favour of more integration of Johnson's physical and mental condition into the body of the article. What I see here is a difference of emphasis between those who want to see an article about Johnson the man, as opposed to Johnson the author. I somewhat doubt that it's going to prove posssible to satisfy both camps with one article, but time will tell I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the "Johnson the man" camp is doing all the ceding on the FAC. That doesn't entirely bother me; it is what it is, but it's Ottava's decision as to how much he wants that star. My role here was to make sure accurate info about TS was included, and I've been surprised at the amount of work I had to do on that front. Now, I'm just trying to keep up with the list so we can see where the FAC stands. At some point, the decision has to be, will you go with the demands for a certain mold so you can have the star, or will you abandon the quest for featured status because demands are against the vision Ottava had for organizing the amount of information. I'm impressed that Ottava has been able to keep at it so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava has, I think, done a fantastic job so far, and his efforts deserve that little star. There does come a point though, in lots of FAcs, where the nominator has to say enough is enough; these proposed changes would compromise the article. I guess we each have our own threshold for when that point is reached. Ottava is doing a great job in sticking with his vision as much as he can, while dealing with what can reasonably be dealt with. The rest, I guess, is down to Raul. Glad I don't have his job. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember Peter Wall? I wish Jbmurray had stuck with it longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times: I don't want stars. I don't want FAs. I want to make good articles. I want both Malleus and Sandy to get a star for this article. I wont take one, nor do I really want to acknowledge this as an FA. I produce content. I don't meet MoS guidelines. I don't do the rest. I just upload content that I feel should be out there. I think Sandy deserves a star, and I think Malleus deserves one. I also feel that Johnson deserves to be on the main page next year for his 300 birthday. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and fair, but I can take no credit for this article, and since you added our names to the nom, we've all got to sort this to some satisfaction of the opposers, or decide not to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Other

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From Ben MacDui on FAC

• I presume "threw more light on his authour" contains an archaic spelling rather than a typo

• Correct, [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthuor is archaic. Also, Sandy's ref is nice. :) However, I feel kinda uneasy that google books has so much of his book online. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the use of italics in the William Gerard Hamilton quotation

From the source. I didn't understand the use either. Perhaps that is how it was printed? I think it shows emphasis in speech that cannot easily be described. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable that "Literary philosophy" uses a single authority as a reference.

I added in a second, minor author for two points. Some of the other uses of Greene are quotes from Johnson from various notes, sometimes unpublished, etc. Others are from sources that would be hard to track down, except in their primary form. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I need an answer here I can add to the FAC page. First, there is no section called "Literary philosophy", and since I've been traveling, I have no idea what this refers to. Second, what exactly is the other source you added, what makes it a good addition, so I can give a specific response? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sandy. It was renamed [theory]. The other source was John Needham's work. Needham takes the work of I A Richards and tries to see if anyone agrees with it. It does little to actually focus on Johnson, and has even fewer "quotable" moments. I used it for two citations, which was hard to accomplish. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay" and "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" are nonsenses and if MOS supports such usage, it should be changed.

The names can be shortened, but I just used the article title's. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you know how to shorten them without violating "something", we can use Easter egg links on those. I wouldn't know how to shorten. Baron Macaulay? Baron Tweedsmuir? I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either, as tehre were many Macaulays who were important. It shouldn't be actionable, as they are per MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I too found the "dead wife" a little odd.

I fixed that with a paragraph on his wife's death. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't even know what the issue was, can you point me to it, so I can put a diff showing it's fixed on the FAC? It helps to be very specific on FAC about exactly what was done to address issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I had one line saying "his wife died". That was the issue. Here is the Diff of the change. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From Moni3 on FAC

I can't decipher that Moni3's concerns have been addressed; even if we don't know or have answers, other readers may have similar questions, so some resolution of her questions is needed. Still outstanding:

• Now I'm totally confused. If his wife is well off, why is he so poor?

  I can't decipher that we have satisfactorily answered this query; if you want to gain Moni's support, it would be helpful to resolve the query, even if sources don't provide an answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• How does Johnson resolve his impoverished past with his comment that if Americans wanted representation they should purchase an estate in England? Surely this logic was as misguided in 1775 as it is today, or am I simply an unfortunate obdurate helpless American?

  Ditto above here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems more of a personal reflection than a problem with the text. Ottava Rima(talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not returning earlier, and thank you for the reminder. I'm reading the 3rd 4th and 5th paragraphs in Early career. OR commented on my talk page that Johnson married Tetty, but when he left her, her money would only support herself in a manner in which she was accustomed. The confusion comes from the marriage (after a courtship where Tetty supported provided Johnson with substantial savings), no explanation that Johnson might support himself during the marriage, then his being penniless. I've read this section 4 times now, just to make sure I haven't missed it. And I don't think I have. During the initial reading, I was quite confused about the courtship, a jump back to the previous June, then going to London. I completely lost track of time and it was more significant than the content. I'll watch the article. --Moni3 (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The jump is to the previous month to say that he was rejected, only because it would seem weird in the middle of the marriage paragraph. Also, try this and see if it helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, that did it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I get confused about the switching of times after he met Tetty, then was penniless, then brought her to London.
• Gosh, he wrote a dictionary that became influential in the English language. Should that be in the lead? I would think so.

In the third para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest for those in the Deaf community that the title for the school for the deaf be in capital letters, as it includes "dumb" (Edinburgh School for the Deaf and Dumb), or the word be changed to "mute".

I think capital letters should only be used for proper nouns, which is not the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to the more politically correct mute, since it is not a proper noun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Other

I can't sort Durova's position, and can't see anything that can be done to address Davemon never having heard of Johnson or not understanding his importance.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I'm trying to catch up. I don't know the resolution on anything that remains uncapped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Richard Bathurst and where did he come from? This is the first mention. (Tony1 hates "in order to".)

In order to help Johnson around the house while he was busy with his various projects, Richard Bathurst was pressured Johnson to take on a free slave, Francis Barber as his servant.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Bathurst was Johnson's physician at the time. Correction. Bathurst was a physician, and a member of Johnson's "Club". I've added that to the text, and dumped "In order to". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, as far as I can tell, this is all that's left. We need a concrete answer/resolution to each item, so I can put it all in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about now? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a week; can you please tell me where his wife's death is now covered? I can't find it on search, and don't want to plow through the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Diff from above Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I still need resolution for everything left uncapped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all the actionable ones are taken care of. The rest are either unactionable, or personal opinion that may or may not change. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We still need to put a polite resolution of each on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we simply put a canned message on individual's pages that says: Please look at Samuel Johnson once again and see if it has met your standards for the Featured Article class. If there are any outstanding problems, could you please direct them to Talk:Samuel Johnson so we can quickly correct them. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as the person who has to read through these things :-) That's backwards; Raul has to read it as well. First, give an answer to the remaining issues (put something here and I'll "translate"); then invite revisits (I'll be glad to do that, too, or you could ask Malleus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is an example of the "objectivity" of the FAC process. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm beat. First, Ottava launched this FAC just when I had exhausting, bone-breaking travel (that was no vacation), and then Malleus launched a road war on my talk page, so I have to hide from my own talk page :-) You two are too mean to me! Now that Moni3 is watching, will wait for those issues to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... um... I can make the health and the early life pages almost FA worthy and force you to take two more FA stars eventually on topics dealing with TS. :P You could have your own featured list - "Sandy, Johnson, and TS". It would be nice. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And how interested do you think I am in that? If I ever got a break, Colin and I would go back to our year-old plan of bringing History of Tourette syndrome to status (now there's some fascinating literature there, just waiting to be added to the internet), and then all the TS daughter articles. Where did you get the idea I was interested in old, dead British guys who wrote books? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes

1. Someone, somewhere in this mess actually told us they didn't know what "diagnosis" meant, so we linked it. [2] Awadewit has justifiably reduced the overlinking, so what do we do about the reviewer who wanted to know what diagnosis meant ?  :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'd be happy to answer your question, but I'd likely be blocked for a week if I did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry to interrupt the cosy little chat here. There are many words that one has a reasonable understanding of, but that one would be hard-pressed to give a good definition of, not knowing what the limits to the various possible meanings might be. For example, the other day I couldn't give a good definition of "supercilious". To one who knows little about TS other beyond the popular culture jokes about shouting rude words in public, meeting the concept of a diagnosis of it made two centuries posthumously raised several questions, one of which was "well, what exactly does diagnosis mean?" We all have our areas of specialisation, and thus we all have areas where our understanding is more hazy. This is what I wrote back in August: '"During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that would influence how people viewed him in his later years and would eventually form the basis of him being diagnosed with Tourette syndrome" - to me this sentences reads as if the diagnosis came during his lifetime, not two and a half centuries later ... (btw, like most people on the planet, I am unsure of the exact meaning of "diagnosis")' almost-instinct 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Almost, perhaps you weren't aware of the push-pull by reviewers that the Roman Catholic Church FACs went through, that we're all familiar with and referring to? Please don't take the commentary above (referencing our "battle scars") personally; one reviewer asked for x, the next wanted x removed, and so on. Do you think we should relink diagnosis? I'm sure Awadewit won't be concerned. Diagnosis in this case means what Diagnosis (medical) says: the process of identifying a medical condition or disease by its signs and symptoms (in this case, the signs and symptoms are explained in the Tourette syndrome link). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   This is my line in the sand! I will not let the link stand! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   LOL ! And I forgot to personally apologize to almost for any misunderstanding. Yes, it's true we're all a bit cozy here, so it was somewhat of an insider joke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   I just wrote this on M-F's page but really I should have put it here: “I was making the point that for a non-specialist eye, coming across the concept of a posthumous diagnosis for the first time is quite a startling experience. Now I've had opportunity of reading the WP articles on TS—yes, and diagnosis—I can begin to understand. Remember: for a sizeable chuck of the populace "Tourette's" means little more than wandering about town centres shouting "Fuck!" at random. A sentence like the one I quoted can shock on first viewing; the possibility of a diagnosis being done in an environment considerably different to, say, a doctor sitting in a clean, white-walled room with a patient can be new. In a state of momentary bewilderment various questions, including "what exactly does diagnosis mean?" come to mind. If WP's text causes the reader to doubt his understanding of a "common word" then something needs sorting. A wikilink wasn't what I had in mind when I wrote that comment.” M-F ridiculed my failure to understand the word "diagnosis"—which, if I agreed with him, would make me wonder why a Diagnosis (medical) page exists. almost-instinct 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, overcoming misperceptions about TS has been a larger obstacle than I expected on this FAC; in my naive world, I thought we had advanced farther on that front. The text has changed since then; is the current text clear and satisfactory to you, or do you think we need to link diagnosis or make any other adjustment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   What I actually ridiculed was mainly myself (reference to the one week block) but also the wikilinking of a common word like "diagnosis". In an attempt to gain a broader insight into this discussion I was curious to see what the Julius Caesar says of his posthumously diagnosed epilepsy: "Caesar may have suffered from epilepsy. He had four documented episodes of what were probably complex partial seizures. He may additionally have had absence seizures in his youth. There is family history of epilepsy amongst his ancestors and descendants. The earliest accounts of these seizures were made by the biographer Suetonius who was born after Caesar died. However, the claim of epilepsy is disputed by some historians and is countered by a claim of hypoglycemia, which sometimes causes epileptic-like seizures." I note that it studiously avoids using the word "diagnosis". Is that perhaps a way forwards? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   I also saw it as MF's jab at his own block history :-) In contrast to Caesar, I'm comfortable with diagnosis precisely because there is no dispute in Johnson's case, and it is "the process of identifying a medical condition or disease by its signs and symptoms". No one disagrees, the evidence is strong, so diagnosis seems to fit, noting that sources tell us it is widely accepted (I would say universally accepted, and there's not much written about TS I haven't read). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Note - I added a link to the section in Johnson's health about posthumous diagnosis, and wikilinked diagnosis there. So, they should be able to follow the links to the appropriate locations. I also created an intro paragraph, and I need to spend some time to put together an accurate history of the various diagnosis (at least the notable papers on them). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. (after edit conflict) Yes, I think "During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that would influence how people viewed him in his later years, and which formed the basis for his posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome" breaks the news to us ignoramuses much more gently. I think one underestimates the stupidity of the herd mentality at ones peril. For example: not only was I in possession a reasonable amount of knowledge about Sam J before reading this article, but I used to have a friend with mild TS—and yet, and yet... almost-instinct 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, while we're on the topic :-) "Mild" TS is redundant, since the vast majority of TS is "mild" or even undetected; severe TS is the exception, hence sometimes is singled out with the adjective. Trivia lesson for the day, but I'm always intrigued when I see the term "mild" TS, as if we would have to specify "mild" allergies or "mild" asthma or "mild" freckles or a "mild" cold :-) Now that you've read the TS article, you know that impairment in functioning is not part of the diagnosis, because most individuals with TS have no such impairment. OK, tell me to shut up now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

   Well, you have to admit it's funny :-) I was thinking it was overlinking when I added it on demand !! I think I will be an all-new FAC delegate after this experience :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. We lost a condition unknown during his lifetime, which is there to explain why his contemporaries had no context for his behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Doesn't "posthumous" cover that enough for a lead? Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   There was no context whatsoever during his lifetime for understanding his tic-related behaviors, other than people thinking he was simply mad. It's intended to convey more than just "posthumous"; that they had utterly no concept for understanding the man, and in fact, that understanding didn't begin to unfold until the 1980s. It would be good to reinforce that info in the lead, because it provides context for how his contemporaries viewed him, needed before the rest of the article unfolds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Could we add a bit more to the lead so that the health, character, and legacy sections are better represented as a whole and then this information could be more seamlessly integrated? Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think we'd all like that (Ottava, Malleus and me) and we initially headed that direction, but then removed a lot when we encountered resistance to the TS info. We should take some time to carefully craft that text, to keep everyone happy. We might work that out here on talk tomorrow or the next day (I'm beat, and you've got travel, too). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Sounds like a good solution to me. At least with Johnson, you avoided the great what killed Austen debate. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Who are these people and why do we care? During this time, he befriended Edmund Hector, nephew of his "man-midwife" George Hector, and John Taylor, with whom he remained in contact for the rest of his life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Taylor comes up a few times in his life. Hector comes up some. Taylor was a friend who Johnson wrote some sermons for, and was at his wife's funeral. Hector gave some accounts about Johnson's early years. They were mildly important in their own right, but I don't know if they have wiki pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Don't tell me :-) The names need to be explained in the article; they currently have no context or definition, and we don't know why they are included. In fact, it seems the entire sentence can be deleted, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   They were school friends. I think that was in there. There isn't more context needed, as they were just friends, but nothing big happened (John Taylor is mentioned during his wife's death. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Shoemaker's Holiday has been insistent that we add more info on the Dictionary; Awadewit has trimmed. [3] I like Awadewit's work, but will Shoemaker's Holiday be satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I actually think the material on the Dictionary is quite good. I was going through the lecture I give to undergraduates on the dictionary and all of my main bullet points are in this section except for the definition of lexicographer. That is such a gem. Perhaps that would satisfy whoever it was who was asking for a definition as well as SH? Awadewit (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think the Dictionary section is fine now; hope others will agree. Thanks for all the help, Awadewit, and please go enjoy your trip! We'll work on that lead issue soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The challenge

Friends and colleagues, the issue raised about a summarizing sentence or two for the lead needs to be addressed, and I have yet to catch up from my travel. Actually, I'm swamped. It's well past the middle of the day here, and I have 11 critical pending items on my "To do" note pad, in addition to reviewing FAC. I can't craft sentences for the lead today; it requires full concentration.

We lost a condition unknown during his lifetime, which is there to explain why his contemporaries had no context for his behavior. Awadewit suggested that "we add a bit more to the lead so that the health, character, and legacy sections are better represented as a whole and ... could be more seamlessly integrated".

We really need to do this to better set the context for Johnson the man. Can we get some ideas on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead use to be four paragraphs but that was cut. I don't know how legacy could be summed up, as I don't have any examples. Health mostly talks about TS, as thats his biggest health issue. Character? There isn't really one thing to say about his character that could really summarize. If anyone can think of anything, feel free. I can't. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the "a condition unknown during his lifetime" was lost as part of the collateral damage caused during an effort to reduce what was seen as overlinking. So I've restored it, but without its previous wikilink. I'll see if I can come up with anything else to address this challenge. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think doing this will benefit the article; I just don't have a clear mind to focus on it right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added two or three sentences to the lead. I'm not sure there's much more that can be done, or at least much more that I can do anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference section

Is there any reason why the last item in the list isn't in alphabetical order? almost-instinct 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm on dialup and it doesn't load to the bottom of the page when its a standard Wiki page, so I never notice. Fix if you can. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it says "see also" and sometimes "main article:". Is there a reason for this or is it just an inconsistency? Btw, I think the way subsiduary articles are spun off like this throughout has been very well done. almost-instinct 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LAYOUT, WP:SS, {{main}} and {{further}}. Main is used for summaries of articles, another template is used when they are just further info. When the text here is not summary style, then main shouldn't be sued (but many articles mistakenly do so). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I am sure that many of the hard workers here and on the other pages (such as Lexo) will appreciate your words. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson Template

I wanted to note that this is a discussion about the template at Template talk:Samuel Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Playfulness of Dictionary definitions

User:Marskell suggests in the FAC that there should be some reference to the playfulness of some Dictionary definitions. Apart from the famous definition of oats ("a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people"), the following would be worth mentioning:

• lexicographer: "a writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words"

• network: "any thing reticulated, or decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections" --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go on the page about the Dictionary? We could create a style section there for such a thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anachronisms and ambiguities

It's an impressive article, but when I got into reading it some phrases struck me as anachronistic or ambiguous. So far I've noticed the following in the #Early life and education section –

• "his family was no longer able to maintain the lifestyle it had previously enjoyed." – suggest "his family was no longer able to live in the style to which it had been accustomed."
• "There he bonded with Cornelius Ford" – they bonded in the 18th century? Suggest "There he became a close friend of Cornelius Ford" (probably best to avoid Darwin's phrase that he "was intimate with" : )
• "His condition would not change until Sarah Johnson's cousin" – "condition" suggests illness, but presumably means poverty, so why not "Their poverty lasted until Sarah Johnson's cousin" or "They remained in poverty until..."
• "The poem later appeared in Miscellany of Poems (1731), edited by John Husbands, a Pembroke tutor, and was the earliest surviving publication of any of Johnson's writings." – surely it is the "earliest surviving publication", perhaps better put as "edited by a Pembroke tutor named John Husbands, and is the earliest of Johnson's published writings which still survives." Needs some thought.

I've not had time yet to read further, could someone try looking over the article for similar problems, and make appropriate changes. Thanks for all the evident hard work, . . dave souza, talk 11:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note - I prefer "was, is, and will hopefully remain to be" when dealing with statements of being. :) Not really. I made the changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Boswell references

• As I mentioned on the FAC page, this sentence in the lead is repetitive: He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, described as "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature". I would suggest relegating the final clause (described ... literature) in its entirety to a footnote. The lead is no place for verbiage & repetition.

• The first mention of Boswell in the article proper (ie after the lead) comes in the early life section: In 1776, he returned to Pembroke with Boswell and toured the school with his previous tutor Adams. This (proleptic) reference should be wikilinked, since readers cannot be assumed to know who Boswell is at this stage. A further unlinked reference occurs in the Dictionary section: The Vanity of Human Wishes, was written with such "extraordinary speed" that Boswell claimed Johnson "might have been perpetually a poet". Indeed it isn't until Johnson's later career that we finally meet Boswell & see him properly linked. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ndsg, we have multiple reviewers at FAC practically insisting that peacockery be added to the lead, so we added more. If we move that to a footnote, they may complain again. Can you suggest an alternate solution, that will satisfy everyone? Open to ideas, but we have conflicting requests, as everyone wants something wrt Johnson, and the requests are often competing. Boswell is linked on first occurence, in the lead, so I'm confused about your second point?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to deal with the second point first: I thought that a wikilink was supposed to be provided for the first reference in each section—particularly when, as here, the sections are quite long. Readers wanting to know about the Dictionary might well skip straight to that section; so why not help them, rather than forcing them to right back to the lead to identify Boswell?

As for the peacockery ... Well, how about this:

His enduring fame is also due in no small measure to James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, described as "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature".

Maybe slightly verbose, but seems to flow in the context. Note that I've removed the helpful information that SJ is the subject of the Life of SJ! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a change before I saw your recommendation. My change can be found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: a great improvement. I still think some of those early Boswell references should be wikilinked, though. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable; I've not had time to catch up here today (crazy watchlist day), would you mind linking those yourself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Also some references to Hester Thrale. If I've overlinked, feel free to remove some of them. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were going to add a couple; six links could open the article to charges of Wp:OVERLINKing (and there is actually no guideline that terms need be linked in every section. Not a big deal unless someone complains. But the sentence added to Legacy was uncited, and seemed like WP:TRIVIA, so I removed it ... perhaps discuss here first? Uncited text will surely sink a FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to raise the very same point about overlinking that SandyG has just done. The rule I have always followed is that terms, whether or not they've already been linked in the lead, should be linked on their first occurrence in the body of the article. Not on their first occurrence in each section of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)OK, I accept that I may have overlinked poor old Boswell.

As for the Private Eye material, it probably could be cited (I certainly recall reading the column); but it probably isn't worth the effort. (I should have noticed that the reference I linked to in Jonathan Miller was uncited.) In fact, I've just checked that you can see snippets of the column by searching for "private eye" and "dr. jonathan" in Google Books: so it isn't pure trivia. Since there are references in this FAC article to the Times and Punch parodies of SJ's style, it certainly wouldn't be out of place to refer to Private Eye as well. I leave this to the other editors to decide. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can anyone else cite to a better source, fix the spelling, and decide if this is needed? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)