Talk:Early life of Samuel Johnson

Goal
I think, if Sandy is up for it (and not now, but as a later project) - create a section about TS and childhood. A few paragraphs. First a paragraph on using sources to find out about TS. Then some background information on how it appears at the age of 8, and then put in some biography. After that, a section about how it can develop after ailments or expand later on, with a little discussion. Some theoretical stuff, and just some general background so a reader can understand how TS progresses. There is enough information out there that having both together shouldn't be OR synthesis, since Wiltshire and Demaria refer to general books on TS in describing some of the aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that we will run into synthesis. Basically, we'll hit a wall where my knowledge of the TS research, and what is actually written about Johnson, can only be joined by synthesis, since none of the sources completely sew it all up well enough to encompass everything in the research.  If you read any account of Johnson, it's all there, but no single source ties it all together, so we risk synthesis.  It's tricky. For example, Pearch mentions Johnson's insomnia.  Insomnia is part of TS.  Pearce doesn't mention that insomnia is part of TS; he doesn't establish that known link in the text well, because, all of the writing about Johnson's TS is a bit outdated vis-a-vis how fast TS research in advancing.  Another example, Pearce describes intrusive thoughts, but calls them "scruples of fidelity".  And it goes on and on.   We are, simply, ahead of the curve here.  Soon, some journal will publish a new article on Johnson's TS, tying it all together.  Until then ...  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can give you the books that they cite if that helps. Wiltshire lists about 20 different works. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that your sources do tie it all together? I guess you'll have to tell me what books to buy, but I'm beat for now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

From Wiltshire (p 28, for a random section): "Whether one should give a medical account of behaviour depends obviously enough on the observer's sense of the limits of the normal or acceptable. Rolling or see-sawing movements whilst one's concentration is absorbed should hardly be called pathological. An early study of the subject, Meige and Feindel's Tics and their Treatment (translated in 1907) makes this useful distiction: (then he quotes).
 * Meige and Feindel's Tics and their Treatment (translated in 1907) ... can't even go there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

p. 29 - "Boswell, as we have seen, said that Johnson's movements were present both while he talked and mused. But on this crucial matter Sir Joshua Reynolds disagreed. When Johnson was left out of a conversation, he noted, 'he fell into a reverie...' Meige and Feindel, as disciples of Charcot, perceived ticqueurs as degenerate, suffers from 'mental infantilism', and extolled the power of the will. Thought tics differed from 'tricks' or 'stereotyped acts' in that they were abnormal and functionless movements, and their suppression caused pain, they could and should be controlled..." (quote some more). "TS (as it is now know) is at present generating much interest and reseearch. It has been proposed as a means of collecting together and explaining Johnson's varied symptoms, the latest and in some ways the most persuasive assertion of medical explanatory power over Johnson's behavior.

Then going through the history of diagnosis. Mentions Shaprio's Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome as a "comprehensive study" and quotes from it. Discusses T. J. Murray. Then says "TS begins in childhood, often with single tics - rapid, repeated, involuntary movements - of the eye and face; in time the movements tend to spread downwards, so that odd jerkings of the shoulders and the trunk occur simultaneously as well as other varieties of movements..." (summaries of the various works on TS and how it affects the body) "Shapiro argues that TS is not a psychological disease and on the evidence of controlled psychological testing of patients, he finds that it is not necessarily associated either with obsessive-compulsive character traits, or with the inhibition of aggressive impulses..."
 * Outdated btw, and doesn't connect the dots. (Shapiro argued strongly that TS wasn't psychological; it is now understood to be an interplay between genetic and epi-genetic factors, certainly adverse events have an impact, psychological factors can impact course of tic severity, see the text I already added).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then a discussion of case histories. Joseph Bliss. More quotes on TS movements. There is a good 8 pages with notes that goes through the brief history of research on TS, development of research over time, movements to expect, and movements in Johnson. I believe that opens the door to further elaborate. I can scan and send (if you do not show anyone else and use it for personal and educational only means, and for fact checking of course) the sections. You might have easier access to some of the sources that he discusses. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got everything on Bliss, but the problem is, Wiltshire is archaic in terms of TS research, and if he doesn't explicitly connect the dots to current understanding, we'll still be running into synthesis. I highly doubt that Wiltshire will be up to date on most aspects, so all we can use him for is anything that connects the dots between known info about TS and Johnson. Wiltshire was 1991; 1991 is nowhere wrt TS research.  Things started moving in 1998, and even that is old now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll need to get the whole 8 pages for context. He goes through the history of research to see how TS develops as a diagnosis, so, it may seem a little skewed. But yeah, its broad enough to justify stringing together various sources on development and TS. We can talk about this when you have free time. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And when will that be? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Christmas? Some break? Whenever you have time? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert Walmesley
George or Gilbert Walmesley? Victuallers (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh, the image was misnamed. Gilbert. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

concerning the lead
Reading this, I found the lead pretty insipid, and I've tried to add a bit more of Johnson's personality to it. I should say up front that I've probably read Boswell half a dozen times, but I know virtually nothing else about Johnson. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

fact tag
Malleus added a tag to my recent edit saying "source needs to be cited". That's fine, I have the Oxford World Classic edition of Boswell right in front of me and know where the line comes from, but I'm not exactly sure of the proper way to cite a quotation like that. Should I cite the specific edition and page number, or is there a better way? Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the citation as being inappropriate for a lead. The information would be appropriate for a page on Irene itself, however. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I added it because I thought it gave some insight into Johnson's personality, but I wasn't all that sure of its appropriateness myself. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can add it to the page on Irene if you want. It was more of a concern about weight, as the play was not performed during this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Typo
The fifth reference (Clingham) says "pp. 161–19`". The mark after 19 is a typo that requires access to the offline source. Art LaPella (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The other articles in the book lack the page numbers to the specific chapter, so I will be removing it from that one (since the page numbers used are given already). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Isn't a frontpage article supposed to be a little bit more neutral? It starts as the biography of a Soviet leader - "he was a genius ever since he was 2 years old". 94.109.65.177 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He was one. That is a fact. It is in every biography. You are confusing neutral with purposefully making people look worse than they were. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does the article say "he was a genius since he was 2 years old"? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article
There is only one proper reaction to Samuel Johnson's early life being made an FA: I offer my most enthusiastic contrafibularities. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Relative worth in 2009 of monetary values quoted
The relative worth today of the amounts listed in the sections on Cornelius Ford and Early career (£40 and £20 respectively) seems to be based purely on inflation using the retail price index (or CPI as it is also known). This does not take into account the relative modern-day worth based on average earnings.

For example, in 1700, the average daily wage for a carpenter in London was 31.5d. If you calculate this using only the RPI/CPI, it comes out at £17.50 – hardly equivalent to what a carpenter in London makes today. Much closer an approximation is the Average Earnings index, which puts that figure (31.5d in 1700) at around £218.29. Whilst this figure may be generous compared with the average earnings of a carpenter today in London (approximately £25 per hour / £200 per day – assuming an 8 hour working day), it gives a more accurate indication of what 31.5d meant in relative terms.

Some other comparisons using the RPI and average earnings calculations for the year 1750:

Housemaid’s annual earnings - £6 - £8 per year. Value in 2008 based on RPI = £865 - £1153. Based on average earnings = £8,987 - £11,983

Coachmans’s annual earnings - £12 - £26 per year.Value in 2008 based on RPI = £1,730 - £3,748. Based on average earnings = £17,975 - £38,946.

You can verify this for yourself at the following sources. (Apologies for my incompetence at using the Wikipedia citation system)

http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/dover.php

http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/index.php

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Coinage.jsp

It is worth mentioning that there are words of warning regarding the danger of using the RPI on the measuringworth.com site: “It is a fair statement that the RPI is used far too often without consideration of its consequences.”

I therefore suggest that the calculations be changed in each of the sections to give a more accurate picture of what these amounts of money meant to people in Samuel Johnson’s day.125.37.72.194 (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.37.72.194 (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no "right answer" here. The £40, for instance, was a legacy used to pay school fees, it wasn't a carpenter's wages. So the "correct" comparison would be to look at school fees in 1700 vs school fees in 2009, which is hardly practical and would be like comparing chalk and cheese anyway. It seems perfectly reasonable to me therefore, to give some idea of the relative buying power of £40, which is what the CPI does. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. What carpenters in London today charge and what they actually earn are by no means the same thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes in tables
Why are all of the pull quotes in this article in wikitext tables instead of in quotation templates? This leads to fragmentation of formatting styles and "style rot". It also makes the article more difficult to edit. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Heading Qualification
In this article, the main heading doesn't neccesarily qualify what counts as early life. This article, in my opinion, could benefit from a qualification of the dates it encompasses.  Majestic Pyre Soapbox 22:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wet nurses, etc.
Anonymous IP 83.44.49.151 has repeatedly added material about a wet nurse that is unsourced and confusing (were there two nurses or one?). Can anyone track this down and correct/add a source? Nadiatalent (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anon's version: "'His mother did not have enough milk for him, and so he was put out to nurse. Johnson's health improved and he was placed in the nursing care of Joan Marklew. During this period he contracted what is believed to have been scrofula,[9] known at that time as the 'King's Evil'. From his nurse he contracted the infection, which inflamed the lymph glands and spread to the optic and auditory nerves, leaving him deaf in the left ear, almost blind in the left eye, and dim of vision in the right eye.'"

Previous version:"'Johnson's health improved and he was placed in the nursing care of Joan Marklew. During this period he contracted what is believed to have been scrofula,[9] known at that time as the 'King's Evil'.'"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadiatalent (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Jarvis Jervis
The article says "His stay with Hector and Warren was not to last, and Johnson moved into the house of a man named Jarvis on 1 June 1733."

Was this a relation of his future wife Elizabeth Jerivs? I ask because at that time the family used both spellings (see here). -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Noble family
''Michael's father, William Johnson, was described as a "yeoman" and a "gentleman" in the Stationers' Company records, but there is little evidence to suggest that he was from a noble family. ''

In the context of 17th/18th century English society, I doubt William Johnson's family would be considered "noble" in the first place. Nobility usually referred to aristocratic families headed by members of the peerage (then all-hereditary) that were landowners to a wider extent than the "gentlemen" (usually referred to as gentry). "Yeomen" were generally independent farmers, usually not tenants, who made good enough to have freehold, leasehold or copyhold land of their own.Cloptonson (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)