Talk:Samuel Johnson/Archive 5

FA status

Congratulations to all! Few editors can have worked as hard on an article as the nominators of this one. Some of us may have given you a hard time, but I think it paid off in the end. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. well done Ottava. Sandy and I would have given up on the nomination some time ago, but you stuck with it to the end. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Samuel Johnson contributors. Everyone on there deserves to be thanked and praised. Also, can someone begin archiving some of the older sections of this talk page? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Beautifully done, great layout and refs. Joshdboz (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deformities of Samuel Johnson

This work is mentioned in the James T. Callender article as appealing to popular Scottish sentiment. I don't know about the subject matter myself, but was wondering if something about this work and its appeal should be included in this article. IMHO (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A reception history page about Johnson would be required and such information would be important there. I haven't been able to determine how notable the work is, and many biographies on Johnson neglect to mention it. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing quotations

1. Johnson .... has been described as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history".[1]
2. He is also the subject of "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature": James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson.[2]
3. ... Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language .... has been described as "one of the greatest single achievements of scholarship".[3]

These three sentences all contain direct quotations. This is the only way that wikipedia editors can make so-called "peacock" statements about great people, without being severely critised. However, in this case. I am going to be just a little critical.. .

What I'm criticising here is the fact that each one of these significant descriptions has only a citation in the footnotes. This is an OK way to cite material that is being included in the flow of the text. eg. Samuel Johnson commenced work on his dictionary in 1066.[10] The first draft is thought to have been destroyed by rats in 1492.[11]

However, direct quotes require a direct acknowledgement of the person who is being quoted, most particularly if the statement might be challenged. In each case, what is being offered is an opinion, not a fact.

Fame is relative. If the subject is Jesus, Leonardo da Vinci or Hitler, then one might be led to imagine that a statement of their fame would go unchallenged. But no. There has just been a very lengthy discussion of using the word "famous" in relation to Leonardo, even when the subject being addressed was specifically his extraordinary fame. And in the case of Samuel Johnson, he is simply not up there in the general public consciousness.

So to look at the three statements:

• In the case of the first quote "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history"[1], even when it is watered down by the word "arguably", we need to know who made a statement that uses the superlative term "most distinguished". Who is arguing this?

Thus: Johnson is described by Sigmund Bloggs as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history"[1]

• In the case of "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature", the words "most famous" must have a name to them.

This is an extreme statement. To a literary expert, it might seem obvious, but to your average reader, the use of "most famous" here is very different from saying "Shakespeare is England's most famous playwright" or "J.K.Rowling is the most famous children's author of the 20th century."

The problem with "the most famous single work of biography" is that it requires that word "single" in order for it to be true beyond doubt. If "single" means the biography of just one single person, the statement holds (perhaps) but if it doesn't, then we bring Vasari's Vite into the playing field, and there is an immediate challenge.

The statement can indeed be quoted, because it has indeed been written. But because it is an opinion, and not an undeniable fact, the person whose opinion it is, needs to have their name put to it. A footnote citation is simply not sufficient for a really challengeable quote. It needs to say According to Sigmund Bloggs ...."most famous bio.... etc etc".

• "one of the greatest single achievements of scholarship". In this case case the words "one of" broaden the statement to an extent where it could hardly be considered challengeable. The footnote is probably sufficient.

Amandajm (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Um

Aw, no mention of this? 86.133.54.158 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to know about the bitter and protracted discussions way back when, about whether or not the article should mention that he'd been included in Blackadder... Lexo (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Short term semi-protect??

14 IP vandals in 1 hour... Hadrian89 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've requested protection at the relevant page. Mike Christie (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing above the ordinary in terms of vandalism. See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection for more info. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize it was on the main page. Sorry! Mike Christie (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cock Lane ghost

I've started work on this article and it appears that Johnson was involved in this case. I thought it worth mentioning, in case it was worthy of inclusion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4

Editors here may be interested that BBC Radio 4 is doing a short season on Johnson, including a serialisation of Boswell's Life of Johnson starting today. I don't know if folks outside the UK can access this over internet radio or the BBC's Listen Again service. BTW: The BBC page links back to this first class article. Colin°^Talk 07:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing people in image caption

I have made an edit which I believe to be in the spirit of WP:CAP#Special_situations, and it has been reverted twice now. I think the latest reversion is factually mistaken, since there is no "index photo with numbered silhouettes" in the current revision of the article. I think listing the people in the image improves the page by providing additional information in printed versions of the article, as well as making it more accessible for those who would rather not mouse over the image just to find out who is depicted. Do other editors of this article have an opinion? --Doradus (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the names listed in the caption, for the reasons you've listed. And there's no reason we can't do both, of course. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1. There are too many names to list. 2. Caption deals with individuals important to the article, and most are not. 3. Caption makes it clear that large groups are not to be listed out. 4. WP:WEIGHT would also suggest not devoting a large list to members of a group that -changed over time-. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For everyone's information, the image is missing these original members: Christopher Nugent, Topham Beauclerk, Bennet Langton, Anthony Chamier, and John Hawkins. If listing the members, it would have to explain why the club does not represent the original club. The caption would also have to mention Francis Barber who was ignored. These are just a few of the problems that come from such a change. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems pointless to implement an imagemap and to list the names in the caption. I'd also point out that the current caption is technically incorrect; the mouse pointer is not the same thing as the cursor. The cursor is where you type, the mouse pointer is wherever you've moved the mouse to. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's pointless to have both, but if we want to go with one or the other, I'd prefer to list the names, for the reasons I gave.--Doradus (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As another proposal that might be agreeable to all... Perhaps we can just omit explicit references to the individuals in the painting? Ottava Rima has a point, that the names are only barely relevant, but I don't think we need a tutorial on how to use image maps either. Can we just keep the caption simple and omit references to particular user interfaces that any given reader might not even be using? --Doradus (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want a flat image, then use a flat image. The image map was put into place as an alternative to the silhouette image. As such, once you remove that image map, you will have to create a silhouette image that is numbered. This is a very complicated thing for most people, which is why the image map always stayed. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want a flat image. I'm talking about the caption. --Doradus (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the caption page. It says for pictures with many people that the captions are not to include all of those people. What you do is you make an image map or you make a second image that silhouettes the individuals and puts numbers there with a key. That image is linked to the file page so people can click on the file and find it out. Those are the two options given for the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, here's what the caption page says:

Group portraits of a few people (presumably related to the article) should list the names of the individuals so that readers can identify individuals. Larger groups should have an index photo with numbered silhouettes and a key listing each person's name.

That's all it says. It says nothing about image maps so I don't know why you keep telling me about image maps. I've never proposed getting rid of the image map; I have nothing against it. I've also never proposed adding an index photo. I proposed adding the names to the caption, period. (I know you disagree with that, so I've removed the names for the time being.) So, going forward, I would like nothing more than to stop talking about index photos and image maps, and get back to discussing the caption. --Doradus (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For this particular case, listing all the people in the caption seems overkill. But the imagemap doesn't solve the problem either, as many people won't notice it. I boldly edited the caption to add a wikilink to the section identifying all the members, to identify Johnson in the image, and to remove mention of Reynolds (as he's not that important here). Eubulides (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks! --Doradus (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Effect on English spelling and tercentenary of his birth

Shouldn't the article say something about Johnson's influence in standardising the spelling of English, and as a catalyst for this in the future and in the Americas? Also, why is there so little overt mention anywhere that 2009 is the tercentenary of his birth?

Well, he was on the main page for the 300th. The math was simple enough if people need to know. Regardless, the Dictionary page can discuss the effects of the dictionary. However, it was not his intention to standardize language and he didn't during his life (as the spelling continued to be separate for a good 50 years or so after his death). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it was his intention, it appears to have been his legacy. And, like the tercentenary itself, this is something about which Johnson buffs appear to be keeping the English-speaking public in the dark - perhaps mistakenly?

It is not his legacy just as it is impossible to prove he did it. After all, he was not the -first- dictionary writer and linguists have proven that the printing press itself is what standardized language, which came about in Britain 300 years before Johnson's Dictionary. And no one kept anything about the tercentenary in the dark. It is obvious that if anyone adds 300 to the birth year that it appears now. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you name a pre-Johnson dictionary which had the same universal authority? There is no question that English spelling before the Dictionary was less standard, and open to regional variation.

As for the tercentenary, I (not a member of any Johnson Society or suchlike) was myself aware of it only via a chance reception of a local London radio item some weeks ago, whereas we are being bombarded, relatively speaking, with stuff about 'Darwin 200.' And does it not seem both morbid and disproportionate to have marked the bicentenary of the avatar's death (see article) and not his 300th birthday? It is hard to fathom the rationale behind these things, which incline one to the conclusion - disturbing, possibly, for Darwinists and Americans - that 'bicentenary' => 'bye bye.'

"universal authority" would not prove a standardization in spelling, especially when Webster has had more effect on the standardization of spelling (see: British vs American spelling). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Webster supports my argument: to create a distinct US spelling implies a pre-existing, British-based standard: and if not Johnson's, whose? Controversial wit Johnson's position on American independence no doubt gave impetus to the US spelling project: 'How is it,' he demanded, 'that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?'

Nope. It does not. There were many spellings and Webster said that he would go back to the Greek for Greek words and Latin for Latin words, which is why there is an "ize" in certain words and "ise" in others. It had nothing to do with Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither nerdy neoclassicism nor US bias alter the historical landscape, nor turn Johnson's milestone oeuvre into dust.

As the individual who championed this page to its current form from a pitiful state, someone who created dozens of pages on Wiki about Johnson where there were only a few stubs, and the guy who has promoted Johnson as an important individual in the field of Linguistics, do you think I would not want to make such a claim if there was some way I could? As Eubulides points out, there are no reliable sources to really verify your statements. It is only speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done for your efforts to date; but the contention that the main, leading dictionary of the day prescribes spelling is not 'speculative,' but a universally familiar truism. Steve Bett, incidently, points out that Johnson's influence on spelling may not be welcome universally: 'Some have argued that without the authority of Johnson's dictionary, English spelling might have worked itself out and come to a more phonemic and consistent standardization.'

Mentioning the 300-year anniversary would be WP:RECENTISM. I briefly looked for reliable sources on Johnson's effects on the standardization of spelling and came up dry; if we can't find good sources on that subject it's better to say nothing. Eubulides (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

'We know that the spellings found in English correspondence started to change about 20 years after the publication of Johnson's dictionary. We can't say for sure that Johnson was responsible for that change. I think this change can be traced back to Johnson. This does not mean that many others were also involved. Webster was one of the few dictionary authors who challenged some of Johnson's spellings. However, he accepted far more than he challenged.' Steve Bett

Spellings in correspondence started to change after 1490 when Caxton's printed works became well-known, and exponentially increased with the Authorised Version and the Book of Common Prayer. All predate Johnson significantly. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

None of which appears to directly contradict the preceding.

Essay on Johnson in NYRB

for interest, this essay in the New York Review of Books [1] reviews one of the references used in the artice. Tom B (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That review is almost disturbingly horrible. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, if I may say so, that's one of your more absurd remarks. I thought O'Hagan's essay was generous and eloquent, not to mention a much-needed tribute to Johnson the writer. Lexo (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Scepticism

• In Cock Lane ghost, I've referred to Johnson as a sceptic, with regard to searching out the true nature of the "haunting". I don't have access to any of the sources in this article, so I wanted to ask...is this strictly correct? Or did he just have a generally enquiring mind? Johnson (according to my sources) was a believer in the afterlife, and in spirits. While I'm here

• "By 1762, however, Johnson had gained notoriety for his dilatoriness in writing; the contemporary poet Churchill teased Johnson for the delay in producing his long-promised edition of Shakespeare: "He for subscribers baits his hook / and takes your cash, but where's the book?""

• Churchill also ripped into Johnson for his involvement in the above scandal, and I wondered if that might not be worth mentioning. I know little about Johnson, so I'll not just barge in and edit it myself. Parrot of Doom 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I only have the TS sources; unless Malleus knows, you might have to e-mail Ottava. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest emailing Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see my remarks in the FAC review and the references therein. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If no one has looked into this, I can. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Awadewit, I'm reasonably happy its been sorted now. Parrot of Doom 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

BISWAJIT JASU

Someone seems to have changed his name to BISWAJIT JASU in the article, and I see no source for this. --124.149.38.202 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No popular culture section?

Is there a reason why there isn't one for Samuel Johnson? A notable episode of notable British sitcom Blackadder had him in it, for example. I'm going to make one unless someone tells me not to.

I'm telling you not to. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to have a popular culture section - there are many references to Samuel Johnson throughout literature and history. If we list them all, the section will turn into a WP:TRIVIA section, which is discouraged. Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But how come Einstein for example gets a whole page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein_in_popular_culture and other people can't even have a paragraph? Or should Einstein's page be deleted? In which case you may thank me for drawing it to your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.145.217 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And Einstein is not a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I was going to put the following in the popular culture section but then read this above discussion - there is a Twitter account for Dr Samuel Johnson [2] and the owner has written in The Guardian and at the moment is appearing every lunchtime on BBC Radio 4's flagship The World at One news programme to comment on the election. But I guess not ... 81.157.194.152 (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A request: any mention of Edmond Malone?

Hi all,

A slightly off-topic request: I'm doing some work on Edmond Malone and having trouble finding good sources to use for the article. Could those of you who have the various good bios of Johnson (and Boswell, for that matter) take a quick peek at the index and let me know whether any of them discuss Malone or Malone's relationship with Johnson? Also, Peter Martin wrote the only recent biography of Malone, and went on to write a Life on both Boswell and Johnson, but the Life on Malone is strangely silent about Johnson (and even a bit vague on Boswell). If anyone has the two latter works, could you let me know whether the deficiencies of the former is because he saved the material for the two latter (i.e. does he discuss Malone in the bios on Johnson and Boswell)? Any other suggestions for sources to consult would, of course, also be much appreciated. TIA, --Xover (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping Anyone? Even responses in the negative (knowing which bios do not mention Malone) would be quite helpful. My local library is crap, and She Who Must Be Obeyed has a severely limited patience with me ordering books just to see if they might possibly contain relevant stuff. --Xover (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi - sorry for not replying earlier but I don't visit this page very often and wasn't sure what you meant by 'good bios' of Johnson - it took me a while to figure out that you meant not-Boswell. I have the 2-volume Birbeck Hill edition of Johnsonian Miscellanies, which contains numerous recollections of Johnson and numerous references to Malone, but I figure you already have that. Bate uses Malone as sources for a few quotes, but has little to say about the kind of relationship Johnson had with Malone. In the meantime, although it's unrelated to Johnson but significant about Malone, and because I'm sure you're doing a Google Book search anyway, there's a 19th century biography of Richard Porson that contains a fairly detailed account of Malone's exposure of William Henry Ireland's Shakespeare forgery: see here, pp. 144-152. Lexo (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lexo. Thank you so much for your response!

By "good bios" I simply mean those out of the many Johnson bios that stand out as good scholarship. I am insufficiently versed in Johnsoniana to accurately make that determination myself. Boswell would indeed not qualify but mostly because he in this context is essentially a primary source.

As for other works I am currently relying only on Martin and Prior (and I know Schoenbaum has some material in his Life), and would appreciate any and all suggestion for other sources even marginally relevant (which is actually a prime reason for this request). I merely limited myself to that related to Johnson on this article talk page in order to stay at least marginally on topic.

I will make sure to check out those sources you mention above, but if you may have left out any based on the assumption that I already knew of them-or because you assumed I was only after sources directly relating to Johnson-I would very much appreciate it if you could take the time to point them out to me. I would of course also very much appreciate fresh eyes on Edmond Malone and its talk page (whether substantive edits, peer review, opinions, or random comments; any form of participation would be very helpful for me and much appreciated). Granted this is a long-term project for me-not least because getting my hands on many of the sources takes quite some time-but I tend to get stuck on particular thorny bits and having a second pair of eyes helps me get my act together and make progress. (but please don't feel obliged to do so due to my appeal; it would be appreciated iff you have the interest and inclination, but I realise it is an obscure topic and a peculiar obsession of mine that isn't shared with many others. Your time would be better spent on an article in whose subject you have a direct interest).

In any case, thank you so much for your suggestions. I'll be sure to check them out. --Xover (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Having acquired Meyer's The Struggle on the chance it had relevant material, I'll note that while it does contain Malone as a headword in its index, he in fact only cites Malone for a few quotes on Boswell and Goldsmith; Malone himself and his relationship with Johnson is not touched upon. Oh well, c'est la vie. --Xover (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A similar request: any interest in Robina Napier?

I've proposed an article on Robina Napier, a 19th-century antiquarian who wrote/edited a couple of books about Johnson, as well as one about medieval English cookery (which is my interest). Are Napier's works of any "notable" interest to Johnson scholars? If so, could somebody add the relevant information to the proposed article? Sbloch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Pursuit of Happiness"

I cannot verify that Johnson coined the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in 1759, as mentioned in the article. However, whether or not he was first, his 1759 use appears in Idler No. 62, 23 June 1759. He also used it in his 1770 political pamphlet "The False Alarm." Frank Lynch (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr Johnson's House

Off Fleet Street, London, near the Cheshire Cheese pub I think. Surprised not mentioned. 92.15.13.70 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Rather pithy, I thought. Occasionally nowadays rendered as "If a man is nice to you, but rude to the waiter - do not trust him." Or some variant of "you shall know a man by how he treats those less fortunate" and a fairly popular sentiment. A better placement for the quote on the page and a better source might perhaps be found by someone more knowledgeable than I? Pär Larsson (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A Wikiquote link is given in the article. Also, please review WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source. Thanks Span (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know this quote has yet to be found in Johnson's works, letters, or contemporary accounts of his conversation, and attributing it to him is unfounded. Primary Source Media, a unit of Thomson Reuters, used to publish a CD ROM of Johnson and Boswell. It contained all the Yale Johnson editions to that point; earlier editions of Johnson's works (including the Parliamentary debates); contemporary biographies of Johnson (Boswell, Hawkins, Piozzi, early biographies which predated Hawkins, lots of stray stuff which was collected in George Birkbeck Hill's Johnsonian Miscellanies) and even Boswell's Hypochondriac and Trip to Corsica. In short, it is extremely comprehensive. This quotation does not appear anywhere in that CD ROM. So far as I know it has not been found in a reliable source. If anyone can point to one that would be great. Frank Lynch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

In any case, what is the rationale for plonking one of Johnson's many pithy remarks in the middle of the article, a propos of nothing?Straw Cat (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Love of an expression, Straw Cat. That's what I think. And the idea that it might even have come from Johnson enhances it. That's been my experience in gathering Johnson quotes and batting away apocrypha in the last 15+ years. Frank Lynch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

Cleanup

It's been four years since this article was promoted, and I think it's due for a tuneup. I've been disappointed to see how long vandalism has been left to stand at times, especially for an article claimed by no less than TEN WikiProjects. I will be comparing the current version to the version at the time it passed FAC and making judgment calls on whether changes since then are truly improvements. This will probably mean quite a lot of edits, with explanatory edit summaries of course. If you disagree with a decision I have made, please bring it up here; I am quite willing to discuss. Maralia (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following material (in green below) for discussion here:

A. The name Columbia, a poetic name for America coined by Johnson, first appears in a 1738 weekly publication of the debates of the British Parliament in the Magazine.

sources: The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 8, June 1738, p. 285 Retrieved 22 August 2009 and Debates in Parliament, Samuel Johnson. Retrieved 22 August 2009

Obviously original documents, cited alone, cannot testify to being the 'first' at anything. The Columbia (name) article is a bit more circumspect about the attribution—"appears to have been" etc—and cites an additional source, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Dec. 1885, pp. 159-165, which is supportive. However, that source is quite old and it's entirely possible that modern scholarship would not agree.

B. Johnson feared that he was dying, and referring to his struggle with depression, which he and the Thrales called "the black dog", wrote...

source: this was cited to the same source as C.; see below.

C. Johnson and the Thrales later referred to these bouts of melancholy as appearances of a sinister "black dog",a metaphor later borrowed, and popularized, by similarly afflicted Winston Churchill.

source: http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/docs/McKinlay.pdf

The cited source is a paper submitted to a writing competition here: [3]. While the paper is well written and cited, the assertion that 'the black dog' explicitly equals depression appears to be OR.

D. Initially, he was suspicious of the poetic language used by Milton, whose blank verse he believed would inspire many bad imitations, but he later praised Paradise Lost as "a poem which...with respect to design may claim the first place, and with respect to performance, the second, among the productions of the human mind".

The green portion was added after FAC. The direct quote is unsourced (thus my removal), and the way it was included substantially changed the meaning of the sentence.

E. Removed the unsourced assertion that Johnson was "(6'0 – 183 cm)".

F. One of Samuel Johnson's famous quotes, "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." was used at the beginning of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson's book, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and in the movie adaptation, as well as Avenged Sevenfold's song, Bat Country.

Removed this as crufty pop culture references; it was entirely misplaced within the article, and is an amusingly random choice of references.

G. The Economist published a column about language in the 1990s called Johnson, named after Samuel Johnson, and the name was revived in 2010 for the magazine's language blog.

source: Lil Jon, grammaticaliser, The Economist.

Obviously this is a bad cite. The relevant article is here [4]), but is it worthy of inclusion?

I would welcome any input about the above issues. Maralia (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

CLEANUP NEEDED: If there is no objection, I propose to give this otherwise excellent article a close copy edit, concentrating mainly on correction of the many punctuation errors. There is a serious deficiency involving the placement of punctuation outside of quotation marks, which not only violates the strict print standards of Chicago style, but also the comparatively lax WP MoS 9.2.2. SamJohn2013 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"On the Death of Dr. Levet." Another Poem by Johnson

I hope someone can help here. I can't source it, but "On the Death of Dr. Levet" is found in some anthologies of poetry. Dr. Levet was a member of Dr. Johnson's household. His specialty was doctoring the poor for very low fees if any. (It would be nice if there were more on the eclectic handful of people with whom Johnson shared his house in London, because it says much about his magnanimity, his tolerance, and his unwillingness to forsake those who remained in, and represented, his former very modest, humble circumstances. For example he took on a servant and left him a legacy, not so much because he needed a servant, but, to give the man a position.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

An unlikely claim - any views?

Not particularly planning on adding this but it is from a moderately reliable source, albeit an elderly edition (1936).

From Geography, the peer-reviewed journal of the Geography Association, a suggestion that Johnson was considered considered himself for Captain Cook's second voyage to the Pacific from 1772-1775 as a replacement for Joseph Banks:

"Incredible as it may appear to us, the appointment was offered to that master of universal knowledge, Dr. Samuel Johnson. During a discussion as to whether Cook's ship ought to be christened Drake and Raleigh or Resolution and Adventure, Boswell asked, " Had not you some desire to go upon this expedition ? " and Johnson replied, " Why, yes ; but I soon laid it aside, sir ; there is very little of intellectual in the course. Besides, I see but at a small distance. So it was not worth my while to go to see birds fly which I could not have seen fly, and fishes swim which I could not have seen swim."

Ref is: Mill, Hugh Robert (September 1936). "The Romance of the Antarctic Seas". Geography. 21 (3). Geographic Association: 187. Retrieved 30 September 2013.

Interested in views on the veracity of this claim. Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine him embarking on such a wild trip, especially at the age of 60! Interesting, though; will keep an eye out for other takes on it. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm lucky enough to have Primary Source Media's CD ROM of Johnson and Boswell (bought it back in 1997), so I was able to find this pretty quickly. The better reference for the quote is the standard edition of Boswell's LOJ, the Hill-Powell edition from Oxford, volume 2, pps. 147-148. If you want the date, it falls under Saturday, 21 March 1772. As for veracity beyond Johnson's word, I always found him to truthful except on rare occasions (such as denying authorship on something he'd ghosted, for instance that "when a man knows he is to be hung in a fortnight" denial). As for his age, he was 63 when he went to Scotland. It wasn't until he suffered a stroke that he began to doubt his vigor, I think. (I could also consult the published Boswell Journals, but I think Boswell pretty much milked those dry for his LOJ. (I hope I know a bit of what I speak, as I've been running http://www.samueljohnson.com since 97.)

Above by me, I thought I signed it, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenab (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading this further and giving it thought, it seems very Johnson. Boswell had to overcome significant resistance to get Johnson to go as far as Scotland. But Johnson wasn't uniformly against travel, having remarked about travel's benefits and the acclaim one could accrue for having visited the Great Wall or Italy. His journal of his tour to Scotland doesn't really note naturalistic wonders, as one might expect on a voyage like Cook's. All Johnson is really saying in this quote is that he considered what it would be like and decided it wouldn't be so desireable, for him with his eyesight. It's not like he always stayed in London, though: he visited France and Wales with the Thrales.Frank Lynch (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Being on a Ship

If memory serves me Dr. Johnson said that; "Going to sea is like being in prison, with the added possibility of drowning." Anthony Gumbrell 16:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs)

Close. "No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned." From Boswell's Life of Johnson.Frank Lynch (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Closer: The exact quote is: "No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned." The quote appeared in Life of Johnson in 1789, (p.211, Modern Library Edition), but Boswell had taken it from his own previous work, The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, where it originally appeared in 1785. (3rd edition, p.126) SamJohn2013 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A Proposal to re-assess the Tourette Syndrome angle in this article:

I think that there is entirely too much emphasis placed on Tourette Syndrome in this article. It is, after all, only speculation, and has little or nothing to do with the actual life of Dr. Johnson. Tourette is herein emphasized far beyond its real importance. It should be mentioned once, in an appropriate context, and the reader should be allowed to decide its relevance. As it is, the subplot appears at least three times, outside of the "Health" section, where it should be confined. I think this over-emphasis has little value as a way to "explain" the life of Johnson, and does him an injustice by giving to the average reader a distorted picture of him as some kind of spastic freak. Of course Johnson was a strange and singular character, but our aim here is to present his writings and life as concisely and clearly as possible, without the inclusion of irrelevant material that could be seen seen as a personal bias of the original author. I think that the "Tourette Theory" material should be left where it is, in the "Health" section, but mostly removed from the rest of the article. Interested readers could be referred to the "History and Research Directions" section of the Tourette Syndrome article, where the entire issue of Dr. Johnson and TS could be addressed at length.

What say all of you? SamJohn2013 (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking out the Fungo Bat. My own feeling is that whether or not he actually had Tourette Syndrome is not the entire point. There is the prevalent perception that he did, and its prevalence suggests (to me) that one mention is not enough. I don't think it's a disservice to SJ or neutrality to have the point mentioned more than once. That's my humble view, although I won't hesitate to mention my bona fides as running The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page.Frank Lynch (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the errors in this edit and others.[5] Please review WP:PUNC and avoid furthering the inaccuracy that tics are related to "nerves". Also, please become familiar with the abundance of high quality literature on Johnson's Tourette syndrome ... there are few posthumous historical diagnoses anywhere in the history of medicine as well documented or acknowledged as Johnson's TS. This was quite well covered in the Featured Article Candidacy, and is well borne out by very high quality medical/journal sources. (And the "spastic freak" comment above is strange: here we have a most accomplished man of letters whose behaviors at the time were not understood, but can now be understood in the context of TS/OCD, and I'm unsure why or how that understanding brings us to anything close to a "spastic freak". Perhaps it is in the eye of the beholder: I see only an understanding of what were then misunderstood or undiagnosed differences.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Such claims should be immediately referred to The BMJ as a breakthrough in medical science as not only have they claimed to have correctly diagnosed a patient who they have no access to, they have also claimed to be able to correctly diagnose a patient who is in fact, dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has been long enough. This matter must be settled. There is no place in biography for posthumous diagnoses of mental illness and excessive psychological speculation. These matters can be mentioned in passing under a separate heading, but are completely out of line when using up an entire paragraph in the Introduction! The man's writings and accomplishments are what define his life and his importance. This perverted emphasis on his mental health is despicable. It adds nothing, explains nothing and justifies nothing. Yes, he may have had Tourettes, depression, irregular bowel movements, and a toothache, but so what? It had no effect on his writing at all. The use of modern popular psychology to "explain" Samuel Johnson is a cheap cop-out. It cannot be used in the article as a primary theme. Tourettes does not define Dr. Johnson any more than blindness defined Helen Keller. It is a simplistic, degrading, and negligent fashion of exposition, which contaminates the text and introduces far more subjective judgment and personal opinion than can be allowed in a serious article. Samuel Johnson was a man of letters, his biography is to be written as such, and not given over to "very high quality medical/journal sources," as has been suggested.

Therefore, after another brief period of comment, and if there are no further objections, I will proceed to edit this article properly. SamJohn2013 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@SamJohn2013: Your disagreement appears to be with the reliable secondary sources that Wikipedia policy requires that we follow, rather than with this article. As SandyGeorgia mentioned above, this article has been subjected to (frankly, rather intense) scrutiny by the most exhaustive peer review process on the project. You are, of course, free to suggest improvements here on the article's Talk page and attempt to gain consensus for them; but I would caution against unilaterally making radical changes to the article. While we encourage everyone to be bold in improving the project, under the obtaining circumstance it is likely that what you imply here would be considered disruptive. --Xover (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I would counsel you to make no such sweeping changes SamJohn2013, based as they are on your own rather idiosyncratic views. Eric Corbett 19:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

SamJohn, the matter is settled ... not by us, but by highly reliable sources. (Not to mention an extensive FA review.) I've reread your 2014 post, and it still shows lack of knowledge of either Wikipedia policies, WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, the quality of the sources and the information in them, Tourette's, and Johnson. Johnson and TS is the prototypical example of how Wikipedia articles should handle posthumous diagnoses ... based on QUALITY sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Helen Keller is a C-class article; I am thinking you might put your talents to work in excising any mention of her blindness from that article, and see how well that works out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, as an example of what I am talking about, regard the opening of the section "Early Career"

"Little is known about Johnson's life between the end of 1729 and 1731. It is likely that he lived with his parents. He experienced bouts of mental anguish and physical pain during years of illness;[42] his tics and gesticulations associated with Tourette syndrome became more noticeable and were often commented upon.[43]"

This is completely defective, both in conception and in composition.

The subject is the years 1729-1731. Why the end of 1729?

"It is likely" ? Who made this guess and why? (Pure speculation, regardless.)

The time reference given is then changed without explanation to "during years of illness;" What years are these? (Just bad, manipulative writing, manipulating toward, of course, Tourette.)

So, all we get out of this entire paragraph is a couple of wild guesses and Johnson at his parents house gesticulating. This kind of rubbish cannot be allowed to to contaminate the biography of Dr. Johnson. SamJohn2013 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Reasons for leaving Oxford

The article says: "After thirteen months, a shortage of funds forced Johnson to leave Oxford without a degree, and he returned to Lichfield." A newer biography of Johnson by Jeffrey Meyers gives a more nuanced view. Meyers says that "There are two oft-repeated misconceptions about Johnson: that he left Pembroke for lack of money and that later on he was unable to study law without a university degree..." Johnson "left Oxford... for the same reasons that cause students to drop out today. He had very little money, felt unable to work, loathed the discipline and despised his teachers (p. 41)." While Johnson undoubtedly had financial problems he also had options if he had really wanted to continue - he could have worked as a servitor, he could have obtained a scholarship (which Meyers thinks was attainable) or he could have sold his books. Meyers also points to Johnson's non-attendance (he was fined for missing more lectures and tutorials than any other Pembroke undergraduate) as evidence that something was going on beyond just financial hardship.

Peter Martin's biography is a bit more equivocal. "As it turned out, Johnson's days at Oxford were numbered. Perhaps his depression, "the flying vapours of incipient madness", brought matters to a head and sent him packing... On top of all this, the money was just not there."

I'd like to change the Wikipedia text to say something like this: "After thirteen months, Johnson left Oxford without a degree, and returned to Lichfield. He had run out of money, but his depression and his frustration with the quality of the education he was receiving may have also contributed to his decision to leave."

I'd like to hear other editors' thoughts. Thanks,GabrielF (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Subsection "Attribution"

The subsection "Attribution", in the "Biography" section, appears to have been intended originally as a footnote, or as an editor's note for future expansion, but seems to have been forgotten by its author. It bears no relationship to the surrounding text, and is written in a telegraphic style. It casts little or no light on Johnson's life, and, as it presently stands, strikes me as a trivial side-light. I am deleting it, but would welcome its reintroduction in a more appropriate form and context. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That does seem like a strange addition best deleted. Eric Corbett 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Patriotism

The article says,

On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism.

Is all this explanation really necessary? Does anybody really believe that Johnson was inveighing against genuine patriotism, and need to be set straight on that account? I would delete everything after the quotation itself, but for the informative reference to the Earl of Bute, and I wish some better-informed editor would recast the sentence so that it still informs us of the context for Johnson's statement without the condescending explanation. (I would also not refer to Johnson's remark as a "line", as that implies a written text from which the "line" is excerpted.)

Incidentally, I wonder if the patriot-minister, with reference to Bute, shouldn't appear in quotation marks? I gather it's what Bute or his adherents called him, and not an objective characterization. I'd make the change myself except that I'd be guessing.

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(For starters, the author even has the quote itself wrong. I have corrected 'the scoundrel' to 'a scoundrel' in the article.)

I agree with your criticism of this passage. The first problem, and one that I consider a serious flaw in this entire article, is that the reference for the quote refers to the Penguin Classics edition of Boswell's Life of Johnson, which is an abridged version! It is unacceptable that the most important and most quoted source used here is an incomplete and corrupted edition. We must stay true to sources, especially one that is so important to its subject as Boswell. I would suggest the single volume, unabridged Modern Library Edition of 1931, Herbert Askwith, ed.

I also agree that the entire reference to John Stuart is completely irrelevant. Boswell explains the "apophthegm" (i.e. a terse remark or short, pithy saying) quite completely and adequately by by saying, "But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self interest."(p.525) This "line" was given in the context of a conversation with Boswell and others in a tavern. Any attempt to claim that Johnson was making reference to the Earl of Bute is speculative and false. There is also no basis whatsoever for the statement about Johnson's opposition to "self-professed patriots."

I propose the following recast for this segment:

On the evening of 7 April 1775, in a tavern conversing with Boswell and several other friends, Johnson uttered one of his most memorable quotes: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Although many were shocked by this remark, and Johnson himself surely intended it to be terse, Boswell was quick to point out that, "...he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self interest."

SamJohn2013 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: @Eric Corbett: Regarding the discussion above, and this correction of a typo that existed in the version that passed FAC, I don't have either of these editions, but my concern is that we have Boswell 1969 and Boswell 1986, so the 1996 typo could have referred to either. Can anyone verify, but more importantly, do we need to address the comment above ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the comments from November and a quick web search the quote seems to be from the Life of Johnson, so in retrospect I think it's safer to assume 1986 rather than 1969. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Country (state) of birth in the infobox

Why is mentioning the sovereign state in |birth_place= controversial? In 1708, England was part of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Alakzi (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

England's status within the Kingdom is distinct, as is Scotland's. I'll split the difference and still be accurate with "London, England, Kingdom of Great Britain."--Akhenaten0 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A state is not necessarily a country, and it may be better to identify a birthplace by country, rather than state, where the two are not coterminous. Nobody would say that Johnson and a contemporary Scotsman shared the same birthplace, though they were born subjects to the same state. The state in question has changed names several times ("Kingdom of Great Britain", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", etc.), while the country's name (England) has remained the same. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to end with "North Sea, Europe, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Known space," but it seems reasonable given the political nature at the time to end with the Kingdom, given that structures such as the English Parliament had since transformed into the British Parliament. I don't think the Englishness should be silences, but I also don't think the Britishness should be silenced.--Akhenaten0 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the recent edits by DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, which Akhenaten0 reverted. The question to be answered is, "Where was he born?", not "Of what political state was he born a subject?" The answer to that question is, "England". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite. All the rest is just nonsense. People don't seem to understand what a sensitive and complex area this is. It was fine before saying England and London - everything else is just cruft. DBaK (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

PS I am sorry, though, that I just ploughed in and started editing it without seeing this. I got to the article by quite a different route and assumed that the argument in the edit summaries was the whole story. Oops and apologies, though I am impressed that Akhenaten0 and I both came out with the same "My House ... Milky Way, Universe, AllOfCreation" thing. Best wishes to all. DBaK (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2017

Did he own slaves? Takoateli (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)