Talk:Samuel Johnson

May 2018
I have corrected a number of citation and MOS errors, and removed some text that has been added since the FA version. This article uses Summary style; when adding new text, please consider if it would better fit into a sub-article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw that you reverted some of the changes made to the article of Samuel Johnson, some of those edits being added by me. Your justification for doing this is, as per your words, either because you haven't verified the text or because you feel the edits are not needed. It's good that you're vigilant, but I wasn't aware that the article was under special status where Wikipedia rules don't apply. Unless an article is protected, as far as I'm concerned, we can edit it and add sources without having someone verify them. On top of that, you removed content because you felt it wasn't significant, but if that's the case, you can discuss the issue, and not just remove the text. The reason why I added his height--and him being three-in-one-thousand of that stature--is because his height and "robust figure" is mentioned in the article (as it should), and if we are to know that he was tall, we can just as well know how tall he was. Not only that, but Johnson's physique is, as you must know, a topic of interest due to his mannerism and unique way of expressing himself (his tics included). On top of that, the section deals with Johnson's physical appearance. Overall, the information about his height adds substance to that insight.


 * Since I believe that you have the best interest at heart--since no Johnson reader would be anything but sensible and aim for precision--I like you to believe the same about me and anyone who invests in that article, so I'm asking you to take a second look and perhaps find a context for that information and improve the flow. Note. You also removed the sourced info about Adams remark about Johnson and you say it's a repeat, but I searched the article and I don't find this information elsewhere. Thanks. --Cei Trei (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * in fact, I kept quite a few of your edits, and I did not revert any edits because I hadn't verified them (I noted that I hadn't verified edits when cleaning up MOS and citation errors that should not be introduced to an Featured article). For example, I did not remove his height; I moved it to a footnote, because it was introduced in a way that didn't flow.  Please review the policy page at WP:OWN; after you have done that, we can discuss your edits on article talk.  The article is quite large, and uses summary style, so often, new text can be added to a sub-article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Character Sketch - Views on women
Given the Character sketch section covers his views on slavery, religion, politics and cats - it probably deserves a sentence on his view of women in society. I don't have access to the books referenced, and don't want to change the article without context, but this thesis is a good place to start -- Spacepine (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you think of that source? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Masters theses are rarely good sources, unless they are widely cited in scholarship. It may be useful for other sources to use, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

List of works needs references
Per WikiProject Bibliographies, WP:V is applicable here as well. This needs some sort of off-Wikipedia reference to verify the names, publication dates, etc. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 19:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:BIB's guidance to its members has no particular bearing: it's a local consensus for WP:BIB that binds no one else. Second, WP:BIB's scope is standalone bibliography articles (i.e. the hypothetical Samuel Johnson bibliography), not lists of works in other kinds of articles. Third, even were it relevant, the applicable phrasing there is If an entry does not have a Wikipedia article and there might be any doubt that it belongs in the bibliography, it should be cited with a reliable source that verifies its relevance (my ephasis). Most of the works there have their own article (cf. the first bullet in the list you linked to), and if you genuinely and non-POINTily believe that any of the works in that section are not relevant in a list whose inclusion criteria is "major [as opposed to minor or incidental, and also as opposed to a comprehensive list of all works] by Samuel Johnson", then please tag each such item individually including a specific (actionable!) rationale.But WP:BIB's guidelines are, as mentioned, not really relevant here. The bottom line is that all items in that list are already cited: they are implicitly cited to themselves, as they are reliable primary sources for their own existence (per WP:PSTS and WP:RS). Thus to require further sourcing (from a secondary source, say) there must be some actual additional concern, and that concern must be explicit and specific (just a is not sufficient). --Xover (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The question being, how does one verify that these titles and dates are actually accurate, especially the ones without articles, and when they aren't even mentioned in the article text? I don't see how you can just ignore WP:V. — howcheng  {chat} 20:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One consults the primary source, as with all other information on Wikipedia that is verifiable through citation to a reliable primary source. A list of works contains no interpretive statements or novel synthesis (i.e. OR), so there is no particular need for a secondary (vs. primary) source. V in the sense you (aiui) mean it, comes into play if, for example, there is genuine dispute over authorship, or where there is genuine uncertainty about a date of publication (over and above the normal uncertainty of these dates I mean: even modern publications are often off by a year, or provide a completely bogus date at day-resolution, for marketing or logistical reasons) in a way that matters (was it written before or after an event, say: in these cases, ironically enough, the secondary sources will discuss it and thus tell us that we need a secondary source :)).Also, don't get me wrong: I'm sure there's lots of discussions to be had about that list (are the inclusion criteria too wide, too narrow, specific enough; should it be covered in prose rather than be a list; etc.), and while I'm not aware of any instances of genuine controversy there I'm also not saying it is impossible that one or more such exist. I'm only saying that the mere listing, in general, satisfies WP:V (i.e. does not apply) and any specific concerns must be dealt with individually. PS. My Wikipedia time is a bit erratic and unpredictable so I always appreciate a ping in replies so I don't forget to check back in to a discussion next time I'm online. And apologies in advance if I'm late in replyiing, for the same reason. --Xover (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the statement that the mere listing is verifiable to itself. Now if you can put links into the works at Google Books or the Internet Archive or OCLC numbers, I'm happy with that. Something to prove that the item actually exists, you get what I'm saying? — howcheng  {chat} 23:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (thanks for the ping. and apologies: dashing off this reply in a few minutes before heading out the door.) The listing isn't verifiable to itself: that would be the very definition of circular. Each individual work listed, though, is verifiable to the physical work itself. And we don't generally require existence proof for works or simple facts about that work: again, the work itself serves as a source for that. Since my plot summary example appears to be insufficient, let me add that of track listings for a CD: we don't need secondary sourcing to say that a CD contains tracks "Foo", "Bar", and "Baz". Simple facts like that can be readily found on the work itself with no specialist knowledge.We also do not place external links in the article body (I'd have to dig to check whether that's a policy or a MoS thing, but my impression is that the consensus for that is both wide and strong). I would also personally object to Google Books links as advertising for a commercial actor with a problematic record for georestrictions and really rotten bibliographic data (I'm afraid I'd be unable to characterise their observed quality there without resorting to profanity: it's pretty grim in my experience).Of the 29 works listed, 17 have Wikipedia articles. A further 6 are discussed in article prose (and, as interpretive statements, are cited there) or are adjunct to such an entry. That leaves 6 out of 29 works in the list that are only supported by an implicit primary source citation to that work itself. And so far as I know—with the caveat that Johnson is somewhat peripheral to my field—there is no controversy regarding Johnson's authorship of these works (or related issues that would require a secondary or ternary source). Thus, absent specific concerns regarding specific works, the "Major works" section is more than sufficiently cited for the purposes of WP:V. --Xover (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Influence on Johnson"
I have removed this section as it is undeveloped and so creates a problem of undue weight, as well as generally diluting the quality of the article. There is the problem that influences are discussed in the "Character sketch" section and elsewhere in the article but not in this new section, for example. It needs major work before it is re-added if it is to be in keeping with the article's featured article status. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the section as written:


 * Be aware that "undue weight" is weighted against "reliable sources", not the personal views among Wikipedia editors, cf the guidelines: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
 * Normally, an Oxford University Press book by a Princeton professor is considered a reliable source, not a "dilution". The info seems relevant, scholarly, and interesting. Leanne47 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Leanne47 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A book published by OUP is a (presumably) reliable source, but due weight is determined relative to the entire body of knowledge on the topic. --Xover (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The first two points are sourced only to Boswell's Life, a primary source which we wouldn't replicate in full, so a secondary source would be needed to evaluate if these were so significant as to feature in this article – if they are, they should be incorporated into the relevant bio sections, and not separated out into a new "Influbences" section. Boswell's translation of the book by Jerónimo Lobo is already covered in the article, the "book by a Princeton professor" might supplement that but not by adding a new section for the non-notable Wendy Laura Belcher and her vague argument that Boswell was "formed" by the translation from French and abridgement of Lobo's book. More detail is needed even to evaluate if something of her argument should be in the article, preferably another source commenting on anything new she's said. . . . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion
Recent edits to this article are being discussed at Education noticeboard/Archive 19. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Patriotism
The article currently contains the following claim about Johnson's views on patriotism

But Johnson's statement was in fact aimed at John Wilkes (who Johnson opposed) and not Bute (who Johnson supported). As it happens, this is pretty much what the source cited by the article - Griffin's Patriotism and Poetry in Eighteenth-Century Britain - actually says. Here's the relevant quote from page 21 of Griffin:

I've tagged the claim in the main article with "failed verification" for now, but it should ideally be amended either to remove the discussion of who the target was, or to make it clear that scholars believe the line to have been about Wilkes' false patriotism. -- 86.136.14.26 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As nobody's objected so far, I've gone ahead and changed the second sentence quoted above. It now reads: This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but what Johnson considered to be the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Wilkes and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. -- 86.136.14.26 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

New category
There is a new Wikipedia Category:Conversationalists. Would it be an impertinence to add the Doctor? 45ossington (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Taking Samuel Johnson out of context
It is very common for writers to take Johnson out of context and you see it all the time with what is arguably his most well known quote, "how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?". A quick reading of the whole Tract proves quite distinctly, that he is not at all criticizing southern slaveholders on some mythical grounds of hypocrisy. However, even though this wiki article does not go down that specious road, it still does not really clarify just what that section is all about. Johnson wrote: But there is one writer, and perhaps many who do not write, to whom the contraction of these pernicious privileges appears very dangerous, and who startle at the thoughts of England free and America in chains. Children fly from their own shadow, and rhetoricians are frighted by their own voices. Chains is undoubtedly a dreadful word; but perhaps the masters of civil wisdom may discover some gradations between chains and anarchy. Chains need not be put upon those who will be restrained without them. This contest may end in the softer phrase of English Superiority and American Obedience. We are told, that the subjection of Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties: an event, which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? Now this article does elude to Johnson's view of England's domination over the thirteen colonies, it doesn't really clarify. The point is this: if you have a writer who is quite open about the view of England free and America in chains, and Johnson is in fact making this point, then it makes perfect sense that you hear the loudest yelps among the drivers of negroes (to use Johnson's characterization) because those on British plantations are seeing first hand what British domination looks like and they're seeing it closer than anybody else can see it. Of all the people that the British Empire dominated, nobody was more brutally treated by the British than those that Britain shipped out of Africa. So the British slave-owning citizens on those plantations were on the front lines of seeing exactly what their future looked like, Johnson is saying. And they're yelping because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.27.34 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree from that quote that he is not making a comment about hypocrisy. But to me it seems like he is saying that 'some people say that if we use repressive measures against the Americans, our own liberties in time will suffer, as repressive policies become normal and spread, however, those people are wrong, because slave-owners are in immediate proximity to repressive measures (slavery) and yet still yelp for liberty.' He is disagreeing that anti-liberty will spread for it has not spread to the hearts of slave-owners despite them being right next to it. Am I reading it wrong? LastDodo (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ‘elude’? Are you trying to say ‘allude’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3020:1C00:8DDE:44A:70AD:1E4E (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * it’s ALLUDE lmao Hhtesntwr (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Article sorely needs a bibliography
The article sorely lacks a bibliography. Is there a project/someone working on it? Gulielmus estavius (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible upgrade of article?
The article is an FA, but it was promoted in 2008, since when our FA standards have risen more than somewhat. Not that there is anything wrong with the article, but it could be better, and I'm not sure how to approach an overhaul. One doesn't want to barge in and meddle extensively with an approved FA, so how best to approach rewriting to bring the article up to current FA standards? Advice, please, colleagues. (If the consensus is that the article doesn't in fact need upgrading I'll pipe down, of course.)  Tim riley  talk   20:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither of the original main editors are still around (Malleus and Ottava); you haven't specified anything that needs to be addressed, which would be helpful. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pre-TFA review
asked me to have a look at this before it runs at TFA next year, so here's some brief comments. I am by no means an expert on Johnson or his works, so my perspective is almost that of a lay reader. I'll make minor copyedits as I go, but larger issues I will only flag for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (and anyone else); I've worked my way through this; the article appears to have held up quite well for an FA this old. No glaring omissions are obvious to me. There are some issues with clarity or voice that I've noted below. I cannot fix these without access to the precise edition used here, but I don't believe any of them are serious enough to prevent this from running at TFA. A few other issues I have fixed to the best of my ability, save a lead rewrite, which I will return to. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead
I'll return to this later, but some thoughts on a first look:
 * Somewhat inconsistent use of the Oxford comma. I would prefer it be used throughout, as there are presently ambiguities
 * Overall, a somewhat brief lead for an article this weighty.
 * Also, the ordering is odd to me; information about the impact he had, in particular, is found in each paragraph.
 * Made some tweaks to the lead, with the benefit of having stepped away for some time. Happy to discuss any of it, but I believe it reflects more closely how we would structure the lead at FAC these days. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Early life and education
Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "was put to wet nurse" strikes me as archaic, but is perhaps an EngVar issue?
 * I'm not sure about the need for scare quotes around "man-midwife"; it was unusual, but I believe not unheard of, for men to be midwives.
 * "In later life, he told stories of his idleness" This is an odd fragment, especially given the footnote and the rest of the paragraph. Clarification would seem appropriate.
 * I've removed this, as it still sticks out to me, but if anyone disagrees I will not contest it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some redundancy in the second-to-last paragraph.


 * both of the main editors of this article (Mally and Ottava) are long gone, and I did only/can only contribute on the Tourette syndrome portions; pls feel free to address anything you are able, as the rest is outside of my realm. Unless we find someone who is versed in the rest of Johnson, I'm unsure how we will answer TFA queries ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will still post comments here so as to make it clear to watchers what I'm doing and why, but I'll then go ahead and attempt fixes myself if nobody picks it up. Nothing I've raised so far is a bar to TFA, in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan! If you have issues on the TS portion, I have the sources and can answer (although I'll need to rummage through some very old files to find those papers). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Early career

 * "a Proposal was soon printed" very unclear what "proposal" refers to, difficult to fix without access to the precise edition of Boswell.
 * " 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 Gentleman's Magazine." This fragment isn't sourced, and a cursory search suggests it came from our article on the Gentleman's magazine, where it is sourced only to primary sources. I've removed it pending the discovery of a secondary source.
 * Agree on this one; I don't have sources on the rest unfortunately. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's very unclear why Pope, who we're told didn't know the author of London, lobbied for a degree for Johnson.

Dictionary

 * It would be worth including a modern value for 1500 guineas.
 * "was the patron of the Plan, to Johnson's displeasure." not knowing how patronage worked, it's unclear to me why Johnson was unable to choose otherwise.
 * It strikes me as odd to place the dictionary's impact before its writing.
 * Moved. - Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Three different time periods are used to describe Johnson's time working on the dictionary; 8, 9, and 10 years. I've reworded to omit the latter two, but if it's the first that is in fact incorrect, adjustments may be needed.

Later career/final works

 * I do not see the utility of the paragraph beginning "In February 1767, Johnson was granted a special audience". It's straight from Boswell, who in a lengthy biography could chronicle incidents like these; in a much shorter article here, I do not believe it is due weight, as it narrates nothing of significance beyond the occurrence of an audience. I will remove it when I work through my own comments, noting this here for explanation.
 * The article goes on about Johnson's views about patriotism without explaining them.

Literary criticism

 * "Johnson emphasises God's infinite love and shows that happiness can be attained through virtuous action." This fragment is, intentionally or otherwise, presenting Johnson's articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice.
 * I have linked "Spenser", but "Hooker" and "Bacon" are not previously mentioned, and ambiguous to my limited knowledge.
 * The source is regrettably ambiguous too; I suspect Bacon is Francis Bacon, but Hooker could be Richard Hooker or John Hooker (English constitutionalist), and I have no way to be sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

 * I'm confused by the use of the Boswell source for the statement "Above all, Boswell's portrayal of Johnson is the work best known to general readers." I hope this comes from annotations, but lacking access, I cannot verify it. Other uses of Boswell appear to be okay, some exceptions noted above. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am following your progress, and can't comment on any of the above ... out of my field ... unless someone else shows up to help, my take is do as you think best ... I can only help on the TS stuff ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done what I can, I believe, excepting the lead which I will return to with fresh eyes. I don't see anything here that is a bar to running at TFA or to continued FA status, but it would be nice if someone could clean it up. I understand that's not likely to be many people, but unless someone chooses to gift me the annotated 1986 Boswell, not much more I can do. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain I have Boswell but in storage ... and buried under lots of other boxes of books ... planning to dig through that storage next spring (2023) for a booksale fundraiser ... can let you know then ... have you checked archive.org ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is the overabundance of editions; without matching page numbers I'd need to read the whole thing, which is quite impossible. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see :( Well, if I can locate the book next spring, I'll plow through it then ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

December 9 edits
Most of the additions here seem to be trivia, and they introduce CITEVAR issues. I would support a revert. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)