Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson

This is the talk page; use it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My kingdom for a horse of a different color

Building upon Shoemaker's point, I did a check: the Emily Brontë biograpny does get away with three lines about Wuthering Heights, but it's rated start-class. Faust takes up a bit more of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, which is B-class. Either of those seems a better analogy than Richard III and Shakespeare for the relative importance of Boswell's Life of Johnson to Wikipedia's biography of Johnson. Durova^Charge! 00:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's worse. He's using Richard III to claim that he doesn't need to describe ANY of Johnson's work in any detail. Based on Shakespeare, which is at least half a deep analysis of Shakespeare's work. He's refusing to discuss Boswell simply because he doesn't like Boswell. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of the "Works" of Johnson there are 15 volumes. However, every day of his life for over 20 years was written in the news paper, over 30 biographies came out on his life immediately, two famous women kept a detailed history of him in their diaries, and some of the largest names in criticism wrote a biography on him. His bouts of Depression have filled multiple books and were written on by some of the most famous people, and, afterwards, TS had the same attention. He wrote in over 8 important newspapers, wrote an incredible amount of letters, knew almost every major person during the time and has multiple accounts of those meetings, many from the primary source. His Dictionary was important, his Shakespeare was important, and his Lives were important, each in slightly different fields. He wrote many political pamphlets, and made a comment on just about every single topic imaginable during his time. Johnson also has a huge amount of paintings and sketches (many imaginary depictions) and societies built around him. He was everything there could be; he was the first celebrity. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. However, you seem entirely unwilling to look at an entire class of books related to him. You really MUST talk about his works and the legacy of those works, which means going beyond biographies as your sources. You cannot use one type of book and write a good article.

The article on Samuel Johnson lacks diversity of sources. It uses almost entirely biographical references. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have the right to claim anything about my sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. That's why you have to provide a list of them at the bottom. It's public record: I can look at which sources are used, and even tell when and how often they were used by looking at the references. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading a list of sources and understanding the sources and their place within academia are two different things. You have already proven that you didn't even bother to look at the titles to see that they weren't all biographies. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I did. But if you only use a work once or twice, or if it's only used in Sandy Georgia's Tourette's section, it doesn't make it a significant usage in your claims about your sections.. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A few questions for Ottava Rima

Having reread the changes a couple of times, I still have concerns about the space given critical reception and influence, although I agree it's better than before. A couple of new questions have also arisen.

Tourette

Starting with the (relatively) small and easy, it's a bit concerning to see it asserted editorially that Johnson suffered from a medical condition that was unknown to medicine until more than a century after his death. Attempts at posthumous diagnosis are often untrustworthy unless physical evidence can be recovered, as was the case in the 2005 forensic report on the remains of Agnès Sorel that determined she had died of mercury poisoning. Tourette's and depression cannot be known with the certainty of a chemical titration, so to devote more space to those conditions to most of Johnson's works runs some risk of undue weight. I wouldn't say it quite reduces the man to a collection of symptoms, especially placed low in the article. Yet it's the sort of thing to step back and reread from the viewpoint of, "If I knew nothing about this man when I loaded the page, would this article address why he's still studied and remembered more than two centuries later? Tourette's does not make a person noteworthy; literary output sometimes does. — Durova 05:03, 26 August 2008 — continues after insertion below

Your first set of questions is not directed at Ottava; that is (the only) text I'm responsible for. Your line of questioning suggests you may not have thoroughly read the sources, to realize how strong is the medical case made because of the strength of the writings (example, Boswell) about Johnson. The difference, for example, between a diagnosis of depression and Tourette's is that tics are physical movements, observable by the common person, and in Johnson's case, were documented. Precisely of medical interest is the strength of the medical consensus surrounding this diagnosis because of the evidence left in the numerous writings about Johnson. Tourette's does not make him noteworthy; it does provide context for his life, bio and work. Who besides someone with that energy and OC tendencies might write an encyclopedia? Durova, please do have a look at the strength of the evidence in the sources (and there are more sources), and the strength of the medical consensus surrounding this diagnosis, and the descriptions of how it impacted his life and work before discounting this info. It is just strange to see Wiki editors asking us to write the same article that could have been and has been written many times, 50 or 100 years ago, when we have current information that enjoys medical consensus and is by no means undue. If that isn't clear enough in the text, that's a different problem that may need to be addressed. I should also point out that an editor I believe to be one of Wiki's most thorough (Colin), who has worked on the Tourette syndrome related articles for several years, also disagrees that this info should be downplayed as suggested. This is exactly the strength of Wiki; that we can present info that the fossilized EB hasn't yet covered even though it is thoroughly documented and accepted in reputable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the expanded version, which gave more detail on the sources and which we reduced at Colin's request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if this article isn't suffering from the amounts of text and sources that have been cut by other editors, so that the case may no longer be clear. An earlier version included links to the many discounted alleged diagnoses of Tourette syndrome (for example, Mozart), with explanations of the strength of the Johnson diagnosis in relation to the Mozart diagnosis, which does not enjoy medical consensus. Johnson's TS diagnosis is not one of those long string of speculative posthumous diagnoses like you can find at People speculated to have been autistic; because tics are observable movements, and because Johnson's were well documented, it's a solid diagnosis, unlike the Mozart speculation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As a followup to this, we cut a portion that Colin questioned earlier:

The article says Johnson had "signs consistent with several diagnoses in the DSM" yet only gives us one: TS.

... because I realized it was going to be a stretch to get Wiki audiences to read and understand the connection between TS, tic-related OCD, and depression. Best just to cut that text, gloss it over, and not hope that the critics of this article will absorb the known links between depression --> OCD, OCD --> tic-related OCD, and tic-related OCD --> Touerette's. So, we cut that, and now only discuss Tourette's, because it is based on observable physical movements and sounds, even though medical consensus and evidence is clear on the links between all of Johnson's behaviors and conditions. Since Colin is up on TS, he'll understand this argument, so I'm adding it here, but I think explaining this would overburden the text, which is why I cut it. But it does answer the query about the depression diagnosis; when the evidence of TS and tic-related OCD is as strong as it is in Johnson's case, and considering the etiological link between them and the connection to depression, it's not a questionable diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm very well aware there are degrees of confidence in these matters. Harriet Tubman demonstrated classic symptoms of narcolepsy, while medical/psychological speculations regarding Joan of Arc were unknown until the twentieth century when a profusion of contradictory putative diagnoses arose. My question is twofold. First, because no medical doctor of Johnson's era did (or could have) diagnosed either Tourette or depression, and because these conditions are unknowable through autopsy, do we really take the extra step of asserting it editorially? I'm not saying definitely not to, but it's a careful decision and one worthy of questioning. The fact that it might conclude in the positive is one reason I took this matter to the talk page rather than the main nomination page; I don't want the doubt to prejudice other respondants. Second, suppose for a moment a neurologist and a psychiatrist visit Dr. Johnson by time machine and both return with positive diagnoses--what is the appropriate weight due that information? Is it more important than Johnson's edition of Shakespeare? Is it more important than his work with Garrick? Is it more important than Boswell? The sections on depression and Tourette are superbly crafted. Yet per WP:NPOV#Undue, I question the relative space devoted to these topics. The sources are not above reproach: some of the experts cited are writing far outside their field of expertise. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you (meaning, you in the plural, not you, Durova) have us in a Catch-22 because if we don't take the space to lay out the full evidence and strength of the diagnosis, it's questioned, but if we do lay it all out, it's called undue. We need to do just enough to show that it's a solid posthumous diagnosis and to show how the conditions impacted his life and work and all of the Life of Johnson folklore, a lot explained by TS and tic-related OCD. If we have failed to do that, I know that Colin is an editor who can be most helpful in this area, because he's thorough, competent with prose, knows TS, and can finesse that section without me having to bring him up to speed on TS. Next, I'm confused that you say we're asserting something editorially; we report what sources say, and considering that TS research is something I know like the back of my hand, I can say that I'm unaware of any source that disagrees with this diagnosis. (Reminder to self, look at Kushner book.) As to weight, if we haven't convinced you of the impact on his life and work, then that needs to be fixed throughout the text, which would result in even more discussion of TS, so we're back to the Catch-22. Tourette's explains a lot of the lore that is known about Johnson, written about by people who had no name for what they were observing in their day; that is the weight that should be accorded, and we would fail comprehensive if we left out contemporary reliably sourced medical consensus and discussions of the impact on his life just because the fossils were unaware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And by no means is Arthur K. Shapiro writing outside of his area of specialty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you take a child to a professor of English literature for a diagnosis if you suspected Tourette Syndrdome?[1] Regarding the rest, I wouldn't call this a Catch-22. There are three possible ways to adjust the proportionate balance of space: reduce the medical sections, expand the criticism and legacy, or both. Several people are requesting more attention to Johnson's work itself, so perhaps the best solution tends in that direction. Durova^Charge! 04:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First, you ignored Shapiro and the breadth and depth of the conclusions, supported by anyone who has looked at the question: a conclusion which enjoys solid medical consensus. Would you take a child to a professor of English literature for a diagnosis if you suspected Tourette Syndrdome? Yep, that's surprisingly close to how it's often done. Maybe even a neighbor who knows what a tic looks like: it's the most common way TS is diagnosed. Not only is the answer to that a solid yes, even though it's intended as a rhetorical question, any person who knows the signs can easily detect TS; it's that common, it's that easy, it's that simple, it's that apparent. Most TS diagnoses are not made by a specialist and most diagnoses never come to specialist attention. I know of many families who received their TS diagnoses in just the way you mention, and in fact, if you want to take the time to read some of the TS literature, you can find many sources backing this up. If you so strongly disagree with the fundamentals of Johnson's life that are supported by a solid and unanimous amount of reliably sourced research and documentation, I suggest that a more reasonable approach would be to produce one source, one medical person, one expert, one accounting of Johnson's behaviors that disagrees with Johnson's TS diagnosis, just as there exist many disagreements for the case of Mozart. I can tell you if any disagreement exists, it's hidden under a rock I've never found. This line of reasoning gives the appearance that you are grasping at straws to oppose the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, having read the Murray and Pearce articles, I am convinced the case is strong. Even without a contemporary diagnosis, Johnsons extreme behaviour forms such a constant and in-your-face aspect of his life, that it would be quite wrong for a biography to omit it. There are currently two places where Johnson's TS is discussed: Johnson's article and the S&CTS article. I think Ottava proposed at one point creating a Johnson's Character article, which might yet become a third. My experience with historical figures and epilepsy (also diagnosed clinically) is that even if TS was known then, its diagnostic criteria would be far less soundly described or applied.

Within article text, I think the S&CTS article is best place to give a full discussion of the issues surrounding posthumous diagnosis and to contrast Johnson with Mozart in this respect. My intinct is that this article should not devote body-text to the issues other than to be honest with the reader that this is a posthumous diagnosis. For comparison, many biographies of Walter Scott state that he was made lame by polio as an infant, yet this is also at 20th century disease and so the diagnosis is retrospective. Scott's description of his illness is considered sufficiently detailed yet amounts to a paragraph or so. Reading two of the sources for Johnson (Murray and Pearce) one is aware that those authors are only presenting a mere selection of examples of the documentation supporting Johnson's diagnosis.

Durova questions (rightly) whether we are sure enough of this to be able to state it editorially. She does so in the role of a reviewer, not a reader. While some readers may wish to read more on the issue in order to be persuaded, many will be happy to accept the opinion of experts and read on. Remember, that much of history is subject to debate and we don't litter our historical articles with such matters unless the controversy is itself highly notable. I think we can handle the "proof" aspect by using either a footnote or by directing the reader to the S&CTS article/section (with a section hatnote perhaps).

If TS had no effect on the man's life it could be covered briefly like some childhood illness. This is not the case. His odd behaviour makes a profound impact on anyone who meets him, and there is evidence that it affected his career opportunities and no doubt his personal relationships. There are three aspects I can think of that the reader would be interested in:

1. The manifestation of his TS: a description of his bizarre behaviour and compulsions.
2. The effect this had on his relationship to others, and how they viewed him.
3. Very briefly, how TS is speculated to have contributed to his achievements or directed him towards a particular vocation (such as writing a dictionary).

The version of this section that came to FAC listed six people who have posthumously diagnosed TS (Pearce, McHendry, Shapiro, Murray, Kammer, Sacks). My complaint was that these are six people who were not part of Johnson's life and so overloading the reader with irrelevant names detracts from getting the point across. The current version lists four reports (with dates) which again isn't relevant information in a biography. IMO, all the reader needs to gather from this is that the cause of Johnson's behaviour has been the subject of scientific scrutiny for quite some time and that since the late sixties, various researchers have concluded that TS aptly fits as a diagnosis.

Here's a dump of some thoughts I've gathered from quickly reading two of the sources.

• Murray quotes someone who describes his "perpetual motion"; "almost constantly"; "almost perpetual convulsive movements". The current text doesn't convey the impression that this behaviour was constant, rather than just a frequent habit. However, both Murray and Pearce note that Johnson could still himself when required (for example, for a portrait).

• In addition to what the article notes regarding "gesticulations" at the threshold of hours or in doorways, Murray quotes Boswells comment about him requiring a certain number of steps be made or a certain foot be used when passing through a doorway. He also notes Johnson avoided the cracks of paving stones and would be compelled to touch every post along a street (even going back to touch one he had missed). This builds up a picture of his OCD-like symptoms.

• Murry notes that "Johnson's ticks and gesticulations often surprised and shocked those who met him for the first time, expecting his phyical appearance to reflect the intellect and wit of the greatest man of the day". The effect was "surprise and ridicule". "his gestures were so extraordinary "that men, women and children gathered around him, laughing."

• Johnson was twice rejected the position of school headmaster on the grounds that his odd behaviour could make him an object of ridicule by the pupils. This concern was realised when Johnson began his own school. [This is covered by the article in the Early career section]

• Johnson's close friend, David Garrick, delighted friends with an impersonation, even doing so at the wake. [This could be noted elsewhere].

• Johnson's "solvenly peculiarities were forgotten the moment he began to talk." Useful, perhaps at the end of a description, to remind the reader that Johnson was not a clown.

• Murray states that McHendry's 1967 report did not diagnose TS (which this article states) but that, of the spectrum of tics and gesticulations Johnson made, some of them were consistent with TS's convulsive tics.

• Murray can find only two instances where Johnson himself discusses his own behaviour. One is the "bad habit" response already mentioned and the other is to explain his "motion was involutary, and the action not intentionally rude".

• Pearce lists Johnson's various illnesses. In addition to depression, he had "crushing guilt, habitual insomnia, and he endured a morbid fear of loneliness and dying, about which he spoke and wrote at length." Johnson's stroke, aged 74, is not mentioned in this article and surely should be.

• Sacks article is lightweight and it is disappointing that his musings over the relationship between TS and ability are based on personal anecdote rather than reviewing any scientific literature. He adds no new information about Johnson or the diagnosis. I suppose the only reason to mention his opinion is that it is stated with conviction and comes from a recognised name.

More later, if I can. Colin°^Talk 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for investing the time, Colin, to add one of your typically thorough reviews. This should be doable with your advice. The tricky part of working these aspects into the article is that all of the behaviors and descriptions are either classic TS or are known comorbid associations with TS (the insomnia, tics are temporarily suppressible, the tic-related OCD, depression high comorbidity with OCD, etc.) and they were prominent aspects of his life and personality, but explaining that to the reader (as opposed to just focusing on the tics) will take some finesse. I don't disagree with leaving out the details of the scientific support for his TS and working those in via link or hatnote, although ... we should account for the fact that the strength of his TS diagnosis appears to be something that some readers jsut aren't even aware of (the reaction to this information has been surprising, so we need to somehow at least firmly establish the strength of the diagnosis in the article, even if the details are elsewhere). Sacks presents a particular dilemma; he is (unfortunately and incorrectly) the name most laypersons recognize as an expert when it comes to TS, and in this case, every recognized expert and the Tourette Syndrome Association and the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada (whose medical and scientific advisory boards reflect hands down the world's most recognized and esteemed TS experts) happen to agree with him. In this case, Sacks is spot on, and I'm afraid we're stuck mentioning him, because the public perceives that he's a TS expert and is less aware of the respect of an Arthur K. Shapiro in relation to Sacks', who is more recognized for literary accounts of the bizarre and extreme rather than for his clinical skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to add that the TS diagnosis is relied on in two important biographies which have incorporated the information to explain aspects of his life. So we can talk about minimizing it, but it still has received significant coverage and as an important explainer to Johnson's character and writings. I have not seen a biographer or a paper on the topic that disagrees with the diagnosis since Pearce. If it is there, then we can say that this isn't a solid, mainstream idea. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia asked me to look in. I turned up these relatively-recent medical sources:

• Fine LG (2006). "Samuel Johnson's illnesses". J Nephrol. 19 (Suppl 10): S110–4. PMID 16874722. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
• Murray TJ (2003). "Samuel Johnson: his ills, his pills and his physician friends". Clin Med. 3 (4): 368–72. PMID 12938754.

The former source (which is deliberately old-fashioned in style) talks about tics but not Tourette's; it focuses on his other medical problems. The latter mentions TS but also focuses on other medical problems. Sample quote from the latter: "From other records and diaries, there is little doubt about his scrofula, depressions, gout, sarcoma of the testis and Tourette syndrome. The autopsy indicates that he had pulmonary fibrosis and cardiac failure. Rolleston and McHenry argue that his right heart failure and other illnesses of late life were due to hypertension, a condition unknown in that era."

• Google Scholar lists only 3 papers that cite Pearce 1994; one of them, Williams et al. 1995 (PMID 8541765) is clearly critical: it's a parody diagnosis of Squirrel Nutkin with TS. Another is a crossword puzzle.
• One quick data point: Bate (1977), a well-received biography published before the TS hypothesis was documented, does not mention TS at all (of course), and devotes, by my count, about 5 pages to depression and tics, which is about 0.8% of the book's text. Samuel Johnson currently devotes, by my count, 753 words to depression and TS together, which is about 6.5% of the article's text.
• From my admittedly-limited reading the TS hypothesis is well-accepted. I would have no qualms with the article mimicking Murray's wording on the subject. Here's one more source, if you're interested: "It is now widely accepted that Dr Samuel Johnson had Tourette’s syndrome." Stern JS, Burza S, Robertson MM (2005). "Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome and its impact in the UK". Postgrad Med J. 81 (951): 12–9. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2004.023614. PMID 15640424.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• It does seem like there's too much weight, though. Samuel Johnson #Tourette syndrome has some redundancies ("contemporary diagnosis" vs "condition unknown during Johnson's lifetime"; two mentions of Boswell's accounts of tics) plus a lot of text attribution that isn't needed ("a 1979 journal paper", "a 1967 report was the first" [who cares?], "Noted TS researcher Arthur K. Shapiro", "documented evidence", etc.). And personally I could do without the last quote: it's speculation. Overall, I expect that Samuel Johnson #Tourette syndrome should be substantially reduced, by at least a factor of two, preferably three; and Samuel Johnson #Depression should also be substantially reduced.
• Maybe there should be something about his hypochondria, his cancer, his heart trouble, etc.?

Eubulides (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bate was building off of Brain's diagnosis that Johnson was suffering from Depression, and Bate, as a Freudian psychoanalytical critic at the time, has a long discussion of the depression. This is featured in its own category. This was the previous scholarly view. I have already cited the two major biographies that discuss Johnson's Tourette Syndrome. Plus, without dates on when he was first diagnosised, you leave the reader with a vague impression and a lack of understanding the topic. The section has already been reduced by half, anything more would destroy its accuracy. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Eubulides (in particular, thank you for uncovering more sources). I will work on some adjustments and incorporating your newer sources and wording suggestions as soon as I get some free time. I can see where some cuts can be made, but I'm concerned about cutting too deep, as we are encountering some rather stunning and surprising disagreement with the strength of the TS diagnosis from other reviewers. I'm also uncertain about leaving out, for example, Arthur K. Shapiro, when we have the most surprising claims being made on this page that the diagnosis is not well supported and is put forward by experts writing outside of their realm of expertise. I suppose I shall now have to start an article on Mary Robertson, to demonstrate that she is the UK's single most recognized contemporary TS expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't see this stunning disagreement on the strength of the diagnosis you talk about. We have a variety of 1st class sources written by 1st class experts who are convinced about the diagnosis. Nobody has offered a contemporary source that casts doubt on this. Be confident in this and state it with confidence. Armchair speculation by Wikipedian amateurs is utterly irrelevant for the reader and should impact only on the talk page -- please do not write a defensive article; that's not encyclopaedic style. Defending what your write is part of the review process, which is internal to Wikipedia. Colin°^Talk 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Was this "stunning and surprising disagreement" on some other page? I briefly reviewed this talk page, and the parent project page, and saw a pretty strong consensus that Johnson had TS; the main concerns seemed to be about weight. Durova did express some doubt about the consensus opinion, but Durova's concerns seem to be addressed by followup comments (at any rate, Durova hasn't commented more recently, after further evidence was presented). Other commenters seem uniformly supportive.
• By the way, I agree with Colin's comment in the project page (which I just now read) that "The section tries to prove the case in front of the reader, rather than describe and state the conclusions to which authoritative minds have agreed." I also had the impression that the section was making an argument, rather than merely summarizing what reliable sources say; and Colin's perceptive comment captures that impression well. This was part of my motivation for suggesting the removal of self-justifying phrases like "Noted TS researcher Arthur K. Shapiro".
• To follow up on Ottava Rima's comment about weight: which are the two major (and presumably recent) biographies that discuss Johnson's Tourette syndrome, and what percentage of these biographies are devoted to TS? That might give us further guidance as to how much weight to give here.

Eubulides (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiltshire, who does a full medical history of Johnson and how it affects every aspect of his life, devotes 11 pages to biographical appearances of "tics and gesticulations", a page to its appearance in Boswell, 2 pages as being described as regular habits, Frances Reynolds reaction for a page, and 5 pages devoted to the diagnosis of these as Tourette Syndrome and understanding Johnson's critical works with this in mind. There are also about 3-4 pages worth of notes that coincide with this. That is approximately 1/10th of the work as a whole, and not including an introduction which emphasizes the importance of Oliver Sacks. The other is Demaria, Who devotes 4 pages directly to a discussion of Tourette Syndrome with 4 pages worth of notes tracing the diagnosis through the people that Sandy, for the most part, has listed. He also argues for the diagnosis being important to understanding his life and works. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note - there was a lot of discussion about this section on the talk page. Throughout Johnson's life, he was afraid that he was "mad", according to 18th century standards. It consumed a lot of the biographical data, and there were many accounts of his strange behavior and mannerisms. There are three camps in criticism about 18th century madness - the Freudian, which feels that it expresses inner feelings and reflects on the author, the Foucault, which believes that "madness" is a false term created to isolate political opposition, and the medical, which, in this case, is TS, and thus, it would not fall into either of the two camps, and would define how to interpret the physical/mental attributes in regards to the works. A medical history page should be created about Johnson, because there are tons of important things that should be discussed. However, the TS section would be at least twice of what it originally was, as you would need to trace the diagnosis so that you can see how it developed, instead of just authoritatively declaring it so. Otherwise, people wont understand why this wasn't always known, or they may think that the older theories may still be just as valid, or more valid. Once the TS diagnosis became secure, most of the old proponents moved on to embrace the new, more logical diagnosis. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the stats. Wiltshire focuses on medicine so it's a bad analogy. Demaria is not a full biography either (it focuses on his reading) but it's the better of the two for comparison. Demaria is devoting 4 out of 247 pages of main text, or 1.6%, to TS. Samuel Johnson is currently devoting (by my count) 363 / 11305 words of main text to TS, or 3.2%. So by this little informal sanity-check, the current size of Samuel Johnson #Tourette syndrome is high by a factor of two. Of course this is just one test and it is not at all definitive. Eubulides (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would amend that a little - Wiltshire actually focuses on what Johnson knew of medicine. :) He traces Johnson's interactions with doctors, and his own views on medicine during his long life. Then he explains the various usages of medical theories in Johnson's writings and the left. Regardless, it is hard to explain an intense concept in such a brief time. Also, if you add in the pictures, quote boxes, and the rest, which are not devoted to TS (as I removed the picture that does somewhat relate), then that kind of rebalances it some. Anyway, you have to remember that the biographers are not doctors, and they also came out before Pearce's article on the matter, which would rebalance it later. Plus, we have the consideration that the beginning paragraph of the TS section deals with general biography and not so much about TS. I think that should be more than enough to justify it being above 3%, and even above 4% of the text. Thats just me, however. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) We're going to have to go work this out on the article talk, because we're dealing with competing and sometimes contradictory factors. First, there's the Sacks' factor, which keeps cropping up. I'd be happy to almost completely eliminate Sacks other than one sentence and a citation, but readers still perceive that he's some sort of TS expert (just yesterday an IP was inquiring why he's not mentioned at Tourette syndrome). Second, we have the claim that the TS diagnosis is put forward by sources working outside of their realm of experience; I hope this talk page has dispelled that notion and we no longer have to explain either the surety that is attached to the diagnosis or the reputations of Shapiro and Robertson; if we're over that hump, we should be able to minimize that "defensive" text and just state it based on the authoritative sources. I agree with Eubulides and Colin regarding the strength of the sources and just stating it rather than defending it, but we've most strangely had to defend it here on this talk page. Third, I'm uncomfortable with the division in the article between depression and TS, because readers knowledgeable about the medical aspects will recognize TS --> tic-related OCD --> OCD --> depression. Would combining everything into a health section work? Fourth, I agree with a comprehensive article on Johnson's health, and this article linking to it. If we combine all of it, can we then include a hatnote to the new article? The timing on this nomination, (which is Ottava's nom, I am only included because of the TS aspect and because of my high edit count as a result of watching and cleaning up this article for two and a half years), is very bad for me; I have pending travel. I fully trust Eubulides and Colin to work this out; can we interest you in helping on that section? I would minimize Sacks, emphasize Murray, Robertson and Shapiro, and just state that contemporary medical consensus is that he had TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts - Oliver Sacks needs to stay. Why? Because Wiltshire even dedicates the beginning of his book to the valuable doctors and medical researchers who have studied Johnson and singled out Sacks. That says a lot. And Sandy, I think they were combined once but you didn't like the title. Was it "psychology"? Heh. It was split because of labeling problems. If you can fix that, feel free. Now, here is a proposal - we table any of the TS and Depression issues right now and will not let that interfere with the article's status. In its place, when Sandy gets back, we all (or, whoever wants to) set to building together an appropriate article, myself providing a bulk of the evidence in the various books for some of the other aspects. Then, once that is established, we can discuss Summary style and figure out how to address it. However, we must remember that until that page is created, it would be an imbalance to cut the material down right now, because there would be no option for people to turn to to find the whole history. Does that sound appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall (could be wrong) that my problem before was the actual section heading; don't remember what it was, but it wasn't appropriate. If we include all of the health aspects that others have asked for, it can be called health. Yes, Sacks is a factor we seem to be most unfortunately stuck with, but I would still like to see him minimized. He hasn't done any studies; he writes almost fictionalized accounts of conditions that focus on the bizarre and extreme, and his views are not always accepted by his more clinically-oriented peers. I could point you in the direction of some UseNet posts made by Roger Freeman MD (see the Tourette syndrome article if you want to know who he is), but since UseNet isn't a reliable source, no need. I am not in favor of furthering Sacks' idiosyncratic views any more than we must; I would still like to see him minimized. We cannot "table any discussion" during a FAC unless we want to withdraw the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for Sacks being moved to a secondary page. However, I just don't want him dropped now, because someone might ask about him. The two biographies were written before Pearce made his paper, so Sacks was the one they were forced to rely on. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that can be solved by Eubulides having uncovered two new, and quite authoritative, sources. And I'm not saying to drop Sacks; I'm saying to minimize him. You are right, however, that someone will ask about him. I keep these fringe elements segregated into daughter articles at Tourette syndrome so they won't contaminate the main article. (By the way, Shapiro's views on Sacks, mirroring what I'm saying, are sourced and documented in the Kushner Histories of TS book.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Update, I did a bit; the word count on Tourette syndrome is now about half of what we started with, Colin or Eubulides may be able to do more. I suggest we combine the Depression and Tourette syndrome into a section called Health, and include some mention of the other health issues and autopsy results raised in that section. I also suggest that depression should follow Tourette syndrome, as depression is correlated with OCD, and a subset of OCD is thought to be etiologically linked with TS. That is, the depression is better understood in the context as a comorbid condition to OCD, which can be a comorbid with TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, have you got a source that claims Johnson's depression is linked to his TS? I know you are aware of a statistical link and could no doubt cite some paper on that, but it doesn't prove Johnson's case so linking these would be OR. — Colin 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

No, I'm not claiming a source on that; I'm saying that TS-knowledgeable readers will be aware of the link between OCD and depression, and between TS and OCD, so that the article flow will be better if we move the depression to under the TS. I'm not saying we should make that claim in the article; merely reorganize the flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A Health section sounds a good idea, and could spawn a daughter article as suggested -- there certainly seems to be no shortage of sources discussing his health, poor man. There's a bit of confusion in the text as to when his tics started. It is mentioned in the middle of the Early life section and and the start of the Early career section (the latter I had a go at editing, not having spotted the first mention). This needs sorting. The sentence in the Later career notes the children laughing at him, but it seems almost in passing and I wonder if the reader fully appreciates the extent of this behaviour. So I'm partly wondering if we should have more on his behaviour and the reaction of people he meets earlier in the article. Not sure. — Colin 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I don't have those sources so I can't sort that part. I know Ottava found a source indicating tics starting at the age of eight, and since that is utterly classic to the point that Leckman et al were able to mathematically model it in the time course of tic severity study, that should be included. It's another strong indication of TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy Ottava's reasons for keeping Sacks (unless there's another Sacks paper from the one I read): that those biographies relied on it because Pearce hadn't written his yet. Murray predates them both (1979), is cited by Sacks as his only reference on Johnson, and Sacks adds absolutely nothing. If those biographers cite Sacks then they are lazy researchers because the credit should go to Murray and McHendry, who supply much more detail. Sacks' article is IMO the musings of a guest writer in the Christmas edition of the BMJ; not a scholarly work. In addition, his speculation about TS driving Johnson's wit and creativity is merely a talented rephrasing of Murray's own speculation. I don't believe we need to mention him at all. If nobody here regards him as a scholar on this matter, why are we so timid about excluding him. Are we still so concerned about our case that we need a little stardust sprinkled on it?

BTW, I will be rather busy over the next few days and might not have any big chunks of time. Colin°^Talk 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am always happy to lose Sacks, but it's an uphill climb everywhere. Trying to get some balance to his article has been a struggle. Apparently, many layreaders are uninformed of the anecdotal and literary vs. clinical rigor. I will do that now; it's always hard to be the only one clamoring to lose Sacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the biographers cite a lot more than Sacks. However, Sacks's general writings, along with his paper on Johnson, are discussed, and Sacks was cited as the exemplar for "neurology" in Wiltshire's preface. As I stated before, if there is a sub article, then I don't mind Sacks being dropped from the main article. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the current version and it's much improved. A few minor suggestions for further brevity:

• "of his performing these actions" can be removed; it's redundant.
• "poet Christopher Smart's niece, a young child at the time," → "a little girl"
• 'was the first to diagnosis Johnson with the syndrome; the posthumous diagnosis is based on various accounts of Johnson displaying physical tics, "involuntary vocalisations" and "compulsive behaviour"' → 'was the first to diagnose Johnson posthumously with the syndrome, based on accounts of his behavior'
• "... [the] case of Dr Johnson accords well with current criteria for the Tourette syndrome; he also displayed many of the obsessional-compulsive traits and rituals which are associated with this syndrome. ... " can be removed; it's redundant.
• "Because of these feelings, Johnson feared becoming insane." can be removed; it's redundant.
• "in reflecting on Johnson's states," can be removed.
• 'Hester Thrale Piozzi claimed, in a discussion on Smart's mental state, that Johnson was her "friend who feared an apple should intoxicate him". In her Thraliana, a personal diary that describes Johnson's life that "I don't believe the King has ever been much worse than poor Dr Johnson was, when he fancied that eating an Apple would make him drunk."' These two sentences are duplicative; remove either one. If you keep the former, you can remove its phrase ", in a discussion on Smart's mental state,".

Eubulides (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed everything but the Pearce quote. I couldn't see it duplicate its conclusions as much as you do, and I still feel it is a good quote to summarize the relationship between TS and Johnson's writing. If it needs to go from the body, can it be added as a quote box? Or should another quote be put into a quote box? Ottava Rima (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't asking to remove the Pearce quote: its conclusions (the 2nd sentence) are important. I see now that part of the 1st sentence is not duplicative. How about removing just "[the] case of Dr Johnson accords well with current criteria for the Tourette syndrome;". Surely that part is duplicative?
• A minor thing: how about joining the "Details provided by the writings of Boswell..." sentence to the previous paragraph. That paragraph break is visually distracting and is not needed logically.
• A more important thing: it's very odd to have a Health section that discusses only depression and TS. I suggest adding an introductory sentence along the following lines:

Johnson had several health problems, including childhood tuberculous scrofula, gout, testicular cancer, and a stroke in his final year that left him unable to speak; his autopsy indicated that he had pulmonary fibrosis along with cardiac failure probably due to hypertension, a condition then unknown. Although Johnson overall was probably as healthy as others of his generation, he had two notable conditions, depression and Tourette syndrome.

Eubulides (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, I agree. Can we continue this on my talk page or the Johnson talk page? Its hard for me to discuss this topic here. I'm busy putting together some information about Johnson's gout for his health page. I owed someone a favour from a while back and have busy working on Ada Lovelace's page, so I had to delay finishing the Johnson health related sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All of that sounds fine; I just don't have time to get to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Boswell

Second issue is Boswell. Whether or not Boswell is the definitive biography among modern scholars--or even accurate--it is the foremost work of biography in eighteenth century English literature. It is one of the best known writings that relates to Johnson and one of the works that a casual reader is most likely to know. Now in the main FAC discussion (if I understand correctly) you respond to Shoemaker's Holiday to say that Boswell is not reliable, and Boswell is quoted in quote boxes for illustrative color rather than factual accuracy. Well if that's the case then wouldn't it be more suitable to fill those boxes with quotes from Johnson's own writings? And how is it that the main article text cites Boswell for so many factual assertions? If Boswell isn't trustworthy, then as much information as possible ought to be sourced elsewhere, and the rest segregated into a Boswell subsection. It would also be very informative to the reader to provide background on the historiography of the matter: what omissions, fabrications, or biases does Boswell contain? And how have subsequent scholars reached these conclusions? Durova^Charge! 05:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Donald Greene would probably rant and rave if he read that description of Boswell. I'm sure Geogre would too (hehe). "wouldn't it be more suitable to fill those boxes with quotes from Johnson's own writings" No, because people want to know the image of Johnson. These are the same as the paintings - not read, just depictions, but depictions that add flavor to the text. What would you quote from a text? Johnson writes extremely long passages that cannot be understood through a cursory glance. "cites Boswell for so many factual assertions?" Because he has some things right, and these citations are the ones held both by Wain, Johnson, Greene (amazingly), and Lane, among others, as being correct. They use to have double citations. These were dropped because the article had too many citations. I began the biography section with a two paragraph analysis of the biographies of Johnson and what was trustworthy or not. As per DGG and others, I dropped that and instead moved it to the Life of Samuel Johnson page. Consensus ruled that it was better over there and out of place in an article about Johnson's life. See this for the transfered section. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually this gets to areas closer to my formal training: priority of sources and historical method. The Pericles biography gets away with quotations from Thucydides because no surviving documentation comes closer. At Joan of Arc the source material was better, and I selected her actual letters because those were the most reliable original documents available. For similar reasons I've been locating original source documents for featured picture candidacies--two of the latest I've completed are a French engraving from 1789 about the storming of the Bastille and an original Beethoven manuscript for one of his late piano sonatas. Recently an administrator from Wikisource asked me for help restoring a newspaper transcript of George Washington's first State of the Union address, and I returned with Washington's handwritten notes for the speech. Since you're writing a biography of a writer, why not quote the writer? Or better yet, upload digitized files of his letters in his own handwriting (if they can be had). I don't see the logic of stating one's intention as illustration and then preferentially selecting an inferior source. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

HDid Johnson write a diary, though? If not, quotinbg from one of the most famous biographies in existence, compiled largely from Boswell's own diary, is probabæy appropriate. That said, I do think we sould at least quote some of his definitions in the dicttionary, and as many of his other works as are relevant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"of a writer, why not quote the writer?" I am not writing a biography of a writer. He even considered his own writings hack worth and written just to make money. I am writing the biography of a celebrity and an intellectual. He was known for his personality and who he knew and who he spent his time with. 90% of people know Johnson's life, very few know his individual works. Regardless, he has been quoted quite a few times. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." is just one of many statements by him in his writings that are scattered throughout. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You compare the quotes to illustrations and call the subject an intellectual. Isn't an intellectual best illustrated with his own words? If he's actually a hack, it'll show. Durova^Charge! 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Isn't an intellectual best illustrated with his own words?" I have his most famous quotes in the biography (his attack on patriotism, his attack on Berkeley, and his final words). Beyond that, there wouldn't be as many quotes as well known. He isn't Mark Twain. And yes, those quote boxes from Boswell are images, and were included based on consensus of multiple reviewers who said they would like some of the creative descriptions of Johnson's life as found in Boswell. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

At least some of his dictionary definitions have popular currency. Anyway, are those specific Boswell quotes that well known? I mean, if you're using little-known quotes already... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Those quotes were decided on by consensus of a lot of people during the peer review. Some were added during that time, some were dropped. Those who are very familiar with Johnson, like DGG, requested a few points to be shown. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Which means that you're accepting Boswell as quotable, even if the quote isn't well known, but opposing Johnson, the subject of this article, being quoted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

diseases

I think Tourette's is overwhelming probable, and supported by almost all modern views. OCD and depression certain, based as much upon Hester Thrale as on Boswell. Boswell's factual accuracy remains I think fairly reliable for what he knew & included--of course his interpretation is of his time. Anyway, depression=melancholia was a 18th c. diagnosis & obvious from anybody writing about him. . But extensive discussion of this in the article will bring up to many personal views on the psychatric conditions which will get us far astray and just be another thing never to be settled on Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be best to spin off the Tourette's into a subsidiary article, though. Expand it out a little, add in the sections by Boswell and others (or a sampling thereof) used in the diagnoses and that'd be an easy (if short) FA. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary

The FAC is so long that it's hard to see who's where:

Neutral

1. Durova (talk · contribs)

Oppose

1. Pmanderson (talk · contribs)

Support

1. Tony1 (talk · contribs)
2. Maralia (talk · contribs)
3. Dincher (talk · contribs)
4. Yannismarou (talk · contribs)
5. GrahamColm (talk · contribs)
6. Colin (talk · contribs)
7. Taprobanus (talk · contribs)
8. Lexo (talk · contribs)
9. Joopercoopers (talk · contribs)
10. Ben MacDui (talk · contribs)
11. Brianboulton (talk · contribs)
12. Moni3 (talk · contribs)
13. NancyHeise (talk · contribs)
14. Awadewit (talk · contribs)
15. Ndsg (talk · contribs)
16. Grahamec (talk · contribs)
17. Giggy (talk · contribs)
18. Eubulides (talk · contribs)
19. Jayvdb (talk · contribs)
20. Marskell (talk · contribs)
21. Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
22. Una Smith (talk · contribs)
23. almost-instinct (talk · contribs)
24. Dave souza (talk · contribs)
25. Giano (talk · contribs)
26. Slgrandson (talk · contribs)
27. Ling.Nut (talk · contribs)
28. Tufacave (talk · contribs)
29. Eusebeus (talk · contribs)
30. Aude (talk · contribs)
31. Davemon (talk · contribs)
32. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs)

Peacockery found

I don't know how to source these as I found them in my local library online; I'm certain Ottava has better sources, but FWIW:

• Samuel Johnson; Compton's by Britannica 12-01-2005 "The most famous writer in 18th-century England was Samuel Johnson. His fame rests not on his writings, however, but on his friend James Boswell's biography of him."

• JOHNSON, SAMUEL (1709-1784); Young Students Learning Library 01-01-1996 "Samuel Johnson first became famous when his great Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755 after eight years of work. It set the style for all dictionaries from that day on. Johnson was the first to explain the meanings of words with quotations."

• Johnson, Samuel (1709-1784); Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia 09-08-2005 "His Dictionary (1755) provided the pedigree for subsequent lexicography and remained authoritative for over a century."

• Source Citation:Boswell, James. "Criticism by James Boswell." DISCovering Authors. Online ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Discovering Collection. Gale. 15 Sep. 2008 "Labelled the greatest of English biographers and best known for his Life of Samuel Johnson (1791), Boswell firmly established biography as a leading literary form through a conscious, pioneering attempt to recreate his subject by combining life history with anecdote, observation, dialogue, theme, and plot."

I'll stop there because I'm certain these are inferior sources, Ottave has included better sources, but they give examples of some of the sourced "peacockery" we might include in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitchings writes that in creating and publishing the dictionary "Johnson had fashioned the most important British cultural monument of the eighteenth century". (p.1) almost-instinct 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Bates quotes Ottava placed on the mainpage should do the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)