Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nominative determinism/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2016 [1].

---

Nominative determinism

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A lawyer named Sue Yoo? Authors of the book The Imperial Animal called Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox? Coincidence? This is the story of nominative determinism, the hypothesis that people tend to gravitate towards areas of work that fit their name. After the success with the Jacob van Ruisdael article, this is my second article I nominate here. I look forward to your comments.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't think it's necessary to use a non-free magazine cover in this case

Thx for checking Nikkimaria. Is it not sufficient to have the magazine's explicit permission?

Wikipedia-only permissions still require that the image meet the non-free content criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Image removed. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• File:WilhelmStekel.jpg: source link is dead, missing US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it. Would https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Abraham.jpg be ok? Published in 1926. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That one would also need a US PD tag, as well as the author's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

A fascinating article, interesting to see that this oft-mentioned phenomenon has actually been studied. Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• popular science magazine New Scientist in 1994—is the "science" redundant given the title? Your call
• New Scientist is not italicised on at least two occasions
• It's a big ask to assume all your readers know "onomastic" without a link or gloss. I'd also be tempted to link some of the medical specialities
• "Lord Chief Justice in England"—he's the head man for England and Wales, as the link makes clear, no reason to omit part of the jurisdiction
• Sue Yoo—nationality would help. if she's Hongkong Chinese, presumably less relevant than if she's American
• et al. I think should be italicised
• Maryl, Mass (x2), Calif—it's convention here to not abbreviate US states because not all your readers are American. I'm not convinced that those abbreviations are standard even in the US
• Oxford University Press (Fowler ref) needs a location

Thanks very much for your comments Jim. Much appreciated. I've made all the changes.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

All looks good to me, changed to support above Jimfbleak (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

A couple of minor points:

• "The term aptronym is thought to have been coined in the early 20th century by the American newspaper columnist Franklin P. Adams. Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym in 1992." I don't think you can have both these sentences without comment, even if the comment is only to point out that the sources contradict each other.

Thanks Mike for taking the time to comment. Would something like this work better for you: "Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym, without an 'r', in 1992"? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't realize they were the same spelling! Yes, that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• I love Car Talk and can see why you include it (personal favourite: costume designer Natalie Drest), but since there's no secondary source citing it I'm afraid I think it should go. Otherwise what's to stop some other editor from adding every humorous show that ever makes a similar pun?

I think I did come across a secondary source. Let me see if I can find it again.Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I can only find blogs that mention nominative determinism and Car Talk at the same time. I, regretfully, have removed all Car Talk reference, including the photo. I shall continue my search for a reputable source in the hope to be able to restore it. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You removed the Car Talk note but the source is still in the source list; I assume that can go. I think that's everything from me. I see Dudley raised an interesting point below; I'll wait till that's addressed but expect to support assuming that gets sorted out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed now. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. I made a few final copyedits; please revert if you disagree with any of the changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• This is an interesting article, and I have only so far looked at the lead and background section, but I have some doubts about it.
• The first comment I checked is not in the source cited. "In England it was not until after the Norman conquest that surnames were added. Surnames became useful when one name no longer uniquely identified a person, for example if there were too many Williams or Robins in one area.". This explanation looks wrong as people are often difficult to identify in Anglo-Saxon England because so many have the same name, so names did not uniquely identify one person even before the introduction of surnames. I therefore checked the source cited, Weekley, 1914, p. 2. There is nothing there to support the text.

Thanks Dudley for commenting. Good spot for the reference mismatch. All the sources were there, but I have added a reference now for each sentence. The Weekley p.2 source is for the four types of surname. The Weekley p.68 is for no surnames before Norman conquest. The Fowler p.11 for surnames as a way to disambiguate people. As for your view that the explanation is wrong, sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow you. Before the Norman conquest, people had one name only. In urban areas this probably did not uniquely identify people, thus leading to the need for surnames. I've removed the example with "too many Williams and Robins" as maybe you interpret them as surnames.

I was querying the relevance of "Surnames became useful when one name no longer uniquely identified a person" as an explanation of the introduction of surnames after the Norman Conquest. One name did not uniquely identify a person before the Conquest, and this causes problems when historians want to identify witnesses to charters, but in texts such as Asser's Life of King Alfred, people are distinguished by means such as giving their title and where they are from. I do not have access to Fowler, but I should be surprised if he said that there was ever a time when a single name was enough to uniquely identify someone. Surnames do not uniquely identify people (e.g. sons often had the same forename as their fathers), but they do identify which family an individual belongs to, and it would be interesting to know whether that is why they gradually increased in popularity. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I can make this more clear and try to find more sources. I don't think any source is saying that surnames solved all identification problems, just that they reduced them, so I should make that more clear. Here is what Fowler says on page 11: "The need to disambiguate reference supposedly led to the development of fuller names with a particularizing addition: among many Edmunds, Edmund Ironside would stand out, and among Swein, Swein Forkbeard. With the higher population densities of towns and eventually cities it took more than a single name or patronymic to specify individuals." I will try to find more sources that talk about how and why surnames gradually increased in popularity. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Fowler is an authority on Anglo-Saxon history, and he qualified his view with the word "supposedly". He does not seem to be aware that Anglo-Saxon charters were commonly witnessed by several rural thegns with the same name. It may be, as you say, that surnames made it easier to distinguish people (although in that case it is puzzling that sons often had the same forename as their fathers), or it may be that they were adopted to show which family people belonged to, or it may be just that the Normans were importing a Norman or French custom. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the article doesn't need it, I've simply removed the statement about surnames disambiguating reference. It now just states that surnames were introduced after the Norman conquest. I hope that resolves the issue.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Much of the background section discusses people being named after their occupation, a very different case from people adopting an occupation which reflects their name, but this is not spelled out in the discussion. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this section is just the lead up to how names come about in the first place. The next section deals with the main topic of the article, people gravitating. I think that generally the Background section is meant to set the scene. Would you like an opening sentence of the Background section spelling this out? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Something like this perhaps? "Before people could gravitate towards areas of work that matched their name, many people were given names that matched their area of work. The way people are named has changed over time." Edwininlondon (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Further comments.
• "theory of synchronicity (a meaningful but acausal falling together of events):" This does not make sense until you look at synchronicity and see that it is connected with Jung's belief in the paranormal. Maybe it would be better to use the definition in the synchronicity article, "no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related".

I'm not sure it is possible to explain fully in one sentence what synchronicity is, but here's my best effort : "(events without causal relationship that yet seem to be meaningfully related)"? Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• "an affection for objects and concepts that are chronically associated with the self, such as their name" I don't think "chronically" is the right word. The dictionary connects it with disease or expressions of disapproval.

Pelham et al use chronically in their definition, but I've removed the adverb altogether. "concepts that are associated with the self" still works. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Mallenbaum, Carly (3 November 2014). This is listed as a source but not used.

Ah, I just removed all Car Talk content as per request from reviewer Mike. Forgot to remove this. Done

• A first rate article, but I would like to see better evidence that surnames were introduced to disambiguate people. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the controversial statement altogether. If I ever find a better source than Fowler and a clear explanation about why surnames came about, I shall include it as a footnote. The article as a whole is not dependent on it. Thank you for calling it first-rate. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Cas Liber taking a look now....

::Not fond of isolated sentences - could the last sentence of the lead slot onto one of the previous paras? As para 1 is about definition my thinking is it could go there ok.

Done

There are alot of "surnames" in para 1 of the Background section - if any can be trimmed without losing meaning I think it'd be a Good Thing...

Done. Good catch, thanks.

Other than that, can't see anything else to complain about...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Edwininlondon (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops. many apologies for forgetting about this one..all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.