Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:26, 5 August 2008

Samuel Johnson received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

This article uses British English, international date formatting, and does not use autoformatting on dates.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

Died of gout?

The 1945 Sherlock Holmes film, "dressed to kill" features a tour of Dr. Johnson's home, during which the guide makes a point of mentioning Dr. J died of gout. True?

Johnson suffered from gout, among other complaints. However, Boswell did not specify gout as the one cause of death. Shortly before his death, Johnson attempted to relieve an accumulation of dropsical fluid by making a deep incision in his body. This may have accelerated his death. In Dressed to Kill (1946 film), the cause of death was given as gout by the Johnson Museum guide. However, his pronouncements were dubious, as indicated by the skeptical reception on the part of the informed and intelligent woman who was touring the museum.Lestrade 12:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Any progress on this point? Exactly a year later, and while watching the same movie on cable, I see that this point is unsettled. Indeed, the main article makes no mention of his death besides the date and location. What was the average filmgoer in 1946 presumed to know about the good doctor that we do not? Why make the point that it was "gout, just gout" and why the dubious look? - Dravecky (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Saints banner and category

Based on this individual being included in the Calendar of saints (Church of England), I am adding the Category:Anglican saints and the Saints WikiProject banner to this article. I am awaiting reliable sources which can be used to add the content to the article. John Carter 17:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Samuel Johnson, Moralist, 1784" is included in the list of Holy Days on the C of E's Common Worship website. No individual is designated there as a "Saint," not even any one of the Apostles. His name is in italics, indicating "commemoration" on the date specified. This applies also to Christina Rosetti and John Donne, who may be esteemed in England but are not usually regarded as "Saints," and figures as diverse as Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a Lutheran pastor, who may well qualify), Valentine (on February 14th), Joan of Arc (a Roman Catholic saint), Ignatius of Loyola (also an RC saint), John Calvin and Martin Luther. If Misplaced Pages has Samuel Johnson in the "Calendar of Saints" of the Church of England, this must be an over-simplification. NRPanikker 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages over-simplify something? Say it ain't so! 138.23.77.251 (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Saints project, despite its name, actually deals with the articles on all individuals commemorated in religious calendars. On that basis, I have every reason to believe it was an appropriate addition. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Poet...

Describing Johnson as first a poet seems downright misleading to me... Cckkab 17:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot, for one, had a pretty high opinion of Johnson's poetry. I can find the quote if you like - it's in On Poetry and Poets. I will give a source in the article if I can find a way to fit it in. Lexo (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct Contradiction

This article states Dr. Johnson is the second most quoted person in the English language after Shakespeare. The Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson article says he is the most frequently quoted person in the English language. I don't know if this matters, as both facts are cited, and Misplaced Pages holds that they are thus both true. I would like to point out, however, that I could also cite from a logic textbook that (A • ~A) is a logical contradiction; as well, it is unencyclopedic (as no 'professional' encyclopedia would allow a blatant contradiction between two articles). I am not sure how to resolve this dispute; any ideas? Chris b shanks (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this type of contradiction can be resolved. Whether cited or not, an assertion that Person A or Person B is the second most quoted person in the English language after Shakespeare is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.208.66 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Article needs cites

On June 15 I added the tags "article needs additional citations for verification" and "the quality of this article or section may be compromised by wording which promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information" to the article, with the <!-- comment --> "Article contains many un-cited assertions, some of which appear to be solely opinion of the editor or original research. Please give good third-party cites for everything un-cited, or remove."
On June 16 User:82.3.229.226 removed the tags, with the comment "Removed meaningless and illiterate twaddle - if you think the article can be improved, make suggestions in the discussion." IMHO the first part of this was an unnecessary and inappropriate violation of WP:CIVIL, and I suspect was intended as deliberate trolling. This was User:82.3.229.226's only edit to Misplaced Pages to date. I rarely make comments like this, but I suspect that a random anon would not have bothered to do this, and that this user is someone who has previously edited the article from a named account, but who was logged out while making this comment.

My reason for adding these tags to the article are the large number of statements of fact without cites, e.g.

• "In 1736, Johnson established a private academy at Edial, near Lichfield." - Cite?
• "In 1755, after completion of the Dictionary, Johnson was once again a freelance writer." - Cite?
• "A few months later, Johnson met James Boswell, later to become his biographer, for the first time" - Important event in literary history. Cite?
  

-- Etc, etc, etc, -- too many to list here or to inline-tag individually. (Actually, looking through the article, this situation is really pretty bad. There are whole sections without cites. We really should have about three times as many cites in this as we do.) Please note that "everybody knows that -- look it up for yourself" is not adequate, nor is "that's included in one of the sources listed in References -- look it up for yourself."
If we don't provide cites for these things, users have no way of knowing that the editor didn't just pull them out of his/her hat -- Misplaced Pages is loaded with statements that are not in fact true.

Additionally, article contains some instances of "peacock" terms (WP:PEACOCK) or apparent opinion of the editor.

• "What's most captivating about the Samuel Johnson dictionary is the way in which definitions were derived." -- That's your opinion.

I will not be adding these cites myself, for good and sufficient reasons. Nevertheless, I do think that they need to be added. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
(P.S. -- I now see a comment ("Uncited material") above from User:SandyGeorgia ("Sandy") dated 5 December 2006 complaining about the same problem. I see that my concerns are well-founded.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

After I finish with Christopher Smart and his works, I will fill in the biography and citations for Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I added citations and will continue to expand. I have three other books to add information. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A note

Don't agree. Uncited material is obvious because it doesn't have a cite. Its so obvious that users can find and tag uncited articles using bots its so easy. The primary purpose of this project is not for editting but for reading. I think templates that say "there are no referennces" or "please expand this article" are so obvious. A template for "this article is not in French" would be as useful. I'm not sure that wikipedia is "loaded" with incorrect facts.... and if they are then some of them are cited. Just thought I would note that alternative views exist (although incivility is undefendable.) This debate is useful here. Templates above the article should be reserved fot facts that are important and not obvious. Victuallers (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Boswell

Here are some excerpts from Boswell that are rather known. We should decide which ones should go in, and if they should go in the main body of the prose or on a fancy quote box on either the right or left side as an anecdote to fit in with various time periods.

1. From Mr Garrick's account he did not appear to have been profoundly reverenced by his pupils. His oddities of manner, and uncouth gesticulations, could not but be the subject of merriment to them; and in particular, the young rogues used to listen at the door of his bed-chamber, and peep through the key-hole that they might turn into ridicule his tumultuous and awkward fondness for Mrs Johnson, whom he used to name by the familiar appellation of Tetty or Tetsey. (p. 52 - Edial School)

2. Johnson: Now if any good comes of my addressing to Lord Chesterfield, it will be ascribed to deep polcy, when, in fact, it was only a casual excuse for laziness. (p. 60 - Plan for his Dictionary)

3. When asked how he felt upon the ill success of his tragedy, he replied, 'Like the Monument;' meaning that he continued firm and unmoved as that column. (p. 66 - on his play Irene being performed)

4. On occasion of his play being brought upon the stage, Johnson had a fancy that as a dramatick authour his dress should be more gay than what he ordinarily wore; he therefore appeared behind teh scenes, and even in one of the side boxes, in a scarlet waistcoast, with rich gold lace, and a gold-laced hat. He humourously observed to Mr Langton, 'that when in that dress he could not treat people with the same ease as when in his usual plain clothes.' (p. 66-67 - on his play Irene being performed)

5. His necessary attendance while his play was in rehearsal, and during its performance, brought him acquainted with many of the performers of both sexes, which produced a more favourable opinion of their profession than he had harshly expressed in his Life of Savage... He for considerable time used to frequent the Green Room, and seemed to take delight in dissipating his gloom, by mixing in the sprightly chit-chat of the motley circle than to be found there. Mr David Hume related to me from Mr Garrick, that Johnson at last denied himself this amusement, from considerations of rigid virtue; saying, "I'll come no more behind your scenes, David; for the silk stockings and white bosoms of your actresses excite my amorous propensities.' (p. 67 - on his play Irene being performed)

6. His defence of tea against Mr Jonas Hanway's violent attack upon that elegant and popular beverage, shews how very well a man of genius can write upon the slightest subject, when he writes, as the Italians say, con amore: I suppose no person ever enjoyed with more relish the infusion of that fragrant leaf than Johnson. The quantities which he drank of it at all hours were so great, that his nerves must have been uncommonly strong, not to have been extremely relaxed by such an intemperate use of it. (p. 83 - Johnson during 1756)

7. He now added, "Sheridan cannot bear me. I bring his declamation to a point. I ask him a plain question, 'What do you mean to teach?' Besides, Sir, what influence can Mr Sheridan have upon the language of this great country, by his narrow exertions? Sir, it is burning a farthing candle at Dover, to shew light at Calais." (p. 114 - Johnson during 1763)

8. Dr Johnson then turning to me, "Sir, (said he) a desire of knowledge is the natural feeling of mankind; and evey human being, whose mind is not debauched, will be willing to give all that he has to get knowledge." (p. 115 - Johnson during 1763)

9. After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus." (p. 122 - Johnson during 1763)

10. Johnson: "No, Sir, I am not obliged to do any more. No man is obliged to do as much as he can do. A man is to have part of his life to himself. If a soldier has fought a good many campaigns, he is not to be blamed if he retires to ease and tranquility. A physician, who has practised long in a great city, may be excused if he retires to a small town, and takes less practice. Now, Sir, the good I can do by my conversation bears the same proportion to the good I can do by my writing, that the practice of a physician, retired to a small town, does to his practice in a great city." Boswell: "But I wonder, Sir, you have not more pleasure in writing than in not writing." Johnson: "Sir, you may wonder." (p. 133 - Johnson during 1767)

11. During the whole of the interview, Johnson talked to his Majesty with profound respect, but still in his firm manly manner, with a sonorous voice, and never in that subdued tone which is commonly used at the levee and in the drawing-room. After the King withdrew, Johnson shewed himself highly pleased with his Majesty's conversation and gracious behaviour. He said to Mr Barnard, "Sir, they may talk of the King as they will; but he is the finest gentleman I have ever seen." (p. 135 - Johnson upon meeting the King February 1767)

12. Mrs Thrale and I had a dispute, whether Shakspeare or Milton had drawn the most admirable picture of a man. I was for Shakspeare; Mrs Thrale for Milton; and after a fair hearing, Johnson decided for my opinion. (p. 272 - on the Lives)

13. He certainly was vain of the society of ladies, and could make himself very agreeable to them, when he chose it; Sir Joshua Reynolds agreed with me that he could. Mr Gibbon, with his usual sneer, controverted it, perhaps in resentment of Johnson's having talked with some disgust of his ugliness, which one would think a philosopher would not mind. (p. 272 - Johnson during 1781)

14. Mr Thrale's death was a very essential loss to Johnson, who, although he did not foresee all that afterwards happened, was sufficiently convinced that the comforts which Mr Thrale's family afforded him, would now in great measure cease. (p. 273 - On the death of Thrale)

15. A few days before his death, he had asked Sir John Hawkins, as one of his executors, where he should be buried; and on being answered, "Doubtless, in Westminster Abbey," seemed to feel a satisfaction, very natural to a Poet. (p. 341 - On Johnson's death)

I can provide more if needed, but I think this is a good basis to chose from. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Flow in posthumous section

The flow here is off, because ... in his day, they didn't know what Tourette syndrome/OCD was, so they didn't have an explanation for what they observed. The TS paragraph is last, but the earlier paragraphs about miscellaneous descriptions of his behaviors are best understood in terms of his posthumous diagnosis of TS, for which the evidence is compelling. The section needs to be recast to introduce it this way; perhaps some of the sources provide the bridge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

An old professor of mine never understood the use of the term "flow". She hated it. However, I agree. :) If someone was really crafty, we could create a separate page for the mental state, and summarize it with one line general fluff, one character background, and three lines of diagnoses. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Some of "Legacy" needs to come back; these two (at least) should be worked into the text:

• Samuel Johnson Prize
• Hodge, Dr Johnson's cat

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I incorporated Hodge (and added some to Hodge's page). The Johnson Prize will be tricky, since that is a recent item, and the "legacy" section is also tricky, based on few verifiable sources and the potential of pop culture references drifting in. I dumped it because I couldn't figure out how to salvage it, lol. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Links for legacy:

• BlackAdder - Episode Homepage.
• Johnson Prize - Info site but without any reason why its called the Johnson Prize.
• Birmingham Central Library - I couldn't find a source for the frieze at the Birmingham Central Library.
• Lillian de la Torre - Doesn't have a Misplaced Pages page, possibly not notable enough
• Musicians - One or two lines in a song, or use of a quote isn't really notable "legacy" (no dedication to him).

Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Things that might go in a legacy section:

• Dedications of buildings, properties, monuments, etc, to Johnson
• Dedication of prizes and awards to Johnson
• Museums/exhibits

Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

50p coin image

That 50 pence coin image looks problematic to me. To start with it's copyrighted, and I can't see a fair use claim succeeding for this article. Perhaps just as importantly though, following the link to the source of the image, it looks like the coin was never produced anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be dropped. I'll try and find a first edition title for the Dictionary. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are two images (volume one and volume two) of the first edition: Volume 1 and Volume 2. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better, and lots more relevant. If you can only find room for one, I'd go for the first one, as it's a bit sharper. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PS to SandyG. Don't get too aerated about still finding dash problems, we're a bit away yet from that being our biggest problem I think. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but I must inflate my edit count :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter what you do, you'll probably end up behind me. I like to make lots of small, easily undone changes rather than go for the blitzkrieg approach. Which is why, of course, edit count is not a reliable measure of "significant contributor" ... oh wait, wher I have heard that before ...? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Who knew? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If they measured it by bulk size and not edit count, I would have 50k attributed to my name. Go me. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're bearing in mind that I'm only helping with this article so that I can boost my pathetic WP:WBE tally.<JOKE> --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add your name to a long Rick Block list, but figured you'd probably just revert me. <NOTJOKE> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Often on wikipedia I feel the force of Shaw's comment that we are two nations separated by a common language. I've got no idea what the Rick Block list is, but if it's a nice place to be, then why not. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick Block = WP:WBE; see next week's Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case you're right, I would have reverted you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You will need to become MalleusBot before you can compete. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I never understood that one. It clearly has a mother saying "Don't eat all the cabbage", but shouldn't we encourage people to do just that? I'm so confused. But yes, MalleusBot. JohnCarter is almost bot like in his mass editing effectiveness. I'm sure you can do it too. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Karanacs will probably deal with this, but I'm not sure about this edit; the boxes are viewed as more professional looking at FAC (see also WP:MOS#Quotations). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've had problems with {{rquote}} at FAC before. The best compromise, I think, is to use {{cquote}} inside a box, as per my original example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as we can figure out how to use the cquotes inside of the blocks without the formatting growing excessively, then there shouldnt be a problem with going back to cquotes inside of the blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Back. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Page error

There's something wrong with the cite id tags; they're causing weird spacing. I've never used those tags, so don't know how to help, but the References and External links are a mess, and if you remove the cite id tags, they go back to normal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the spacing? It doesn't seem to register on my computer (that doesn't say much though). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IE7 here; there is an extra asterisk and space between every item after the first cite id in References and External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats absolutely freaky. Do you get the same thing for the Drapier's Letters page by chance? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Based on the comments DGG just left on the peer review, I think you need to switch to Harvnb anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Found; the cite tags weren't closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that too, lol. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Illness

Johnson suffered from number of illnesses: gout (at the end of his life), asthma, scrofula, anxiety attacks, melancholy/depression, poor eyesight, weak muscle coordination (first in his hands, later in his legs). Some are worked into the page, others aren't. He was a rather energetic fellow who got around a lot, but also suffered from many problems throughout his life. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, though I'd say the Tourette syndrome should be given the most weight. This talk-page section seems to be a continuation of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine #Samuel Johnson. I like its suggestion of spinning off a subarticle about Samuel Johnson's illnesses (using Charles Darwin's illness as a model) and summarizing the result in Samuel Johnson #Character sketch. That would be some work, though. Eubulides (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the "illness" idea, but I am sure that "Tourette" probably shouldn't be called an illness, and probably not depression and anxiety attacks. Is there another term that can adequately lump these together? "health" perhaps (Samuel Johnson's health)? If so, we could have a section for hereditary disorders (i.e Tourettes), chronic health problems (depression, anxiety, asthma), degenerative (eye sight, muscle coordination), and illness (scrofula, many colds turning into bronchitis). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For the current statement in the lead ("... conditions unknown to 18th-century physicians", we have History of Tourette syndrome, but in case we need it: " In the seventeenth century, obsessions and compulsions were often described as symptoms of religious melancholy. ... Modern concepts of OCD began to evolve in the nineteenth century". (ocd.stanford.edu) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Smart's diagnosis was "religious mania" for feeling compelled to pray openly and quite often (or, if you believe a lot of scholars, his real diagnosis should be "upsetting his father in law and not working for him enough"). Johnson talked about being afraid of having the same diagnosis thrown against him, and was afraid to publicly speak out too openly about Smart's case. Johnson was one of the few that actually visited Smart while he was treated. He would have seen first hand what the 18th century could do to individuals that it considered "mad". It is strange how the two paralleled each other so greatly, only to diverge in opposite directions. The two use to talk often (when Smart was not imprisoned, and sometimes, while in prison), but Boswell doesn't talk about him often because Boswell dismissed Smart as "mad". Johnson said of Smart, "Many a man is mad in certain instances, and goes through life without having it perceived: - for example, a madness has seized a person of supposing himself obliged literally to pray continually-had the madness turned the opposite way and the person thought it a crime ever to pray, it might not improbably have continued unobserved" (book four of Boswell's Life). Another report of this went: "Madness frequently discovers itself merely by unnecessary deviation from the usual modes of the world. My poor friend Smart shewed the disturbance of his mind, by falling upon his knees, and saying his prayers in the street, or in any other unusual place. Now although, rationally speaking, it is greater madness not to pray at all, than to pray as Smart did, I am afraid there are so many who do not pray that their understanding is not called in question" ( book two of Boswell's Life). Johnson told Charles Burney: "I did not think he ought to be shut up. His infirmities were not noxious to society. He insisted on people praying with him; and I'd as lief pray with Kit Smart as any one else. Another charge was, that he did not love clean linen; and I have no passion for it" (book two, Boswell's Life). Baptist Noel Turner described a conversation in which Johnson stated that "Kit Smart was mad" and when Johnson defined what "mad" meant, he replied "Why, Sir, he could not walk the streets without the boys running after him", and then wrote "Beauclerk said to us, 'What he says of Smart is true of himself;' which well agrees with my observation during the walk I took with him that very morning" (Turner's Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century book 6). Boswell claimed Smart was a man "with whose unhappy vacillation of mind he sincerely sympathised" and that insanity "was the object of his most dismal apprehension" (book one, Boswell's Life). Hester Thrale/Piozzi visited Smart with Johnson, and that was the basis for her many accounts on both of their mental states. The one quote I placed on the man page is far longer than what I put forward: "A friend once told me in confidence, that for two years he durst not ever eat an apple, for feat it should make him drunk; but as he took care to consign no reason for his forbearance, and as no man is much solicited to eat apples, the oddity escaped notice; and would not have been known at this hour, but that he told me many years after he had recovered his senses to perfection, and told it as an instance of concealed INSANITY." Then she describes Smart's "confinement for MADNESS" before the quote that I produced on the article page. I omitted this from the article because I did not want to seem bias towards Smart (having recently supplied the page on Smart) or my personal bias towards working with "Enlightenment" writers who suffered illness or were claimed "mad". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation checks

Keymer citations need to be checked. Biblio has one page range, citations have another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Keymer is 177-194. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed page ranges from biblio, given in citations, not needed there anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson Life of Fenton is in the citations, not in the biblio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not a citation, it was a note, and somehow got lost in the mix. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you want to fix it; not sure what you mean. Right now it's an unexplained citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if there would be any more quotes from the Lives of the Poets before I found an appropriate edition to pull the page numbers from. Its a short piece and easier to lump in with a collection volume instead of having to deal with multiple volumes. Since it is the only Life quoted, it could probably just be linked from the SJ website. Pittock's ISBN is 052100757 .Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Boswell Aetat. 75 transcribes Johnson's will What is this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to remember my latin to remember the official name. Its a document number. Its not part of a bound printed work, but a manuscript. I don't remember if it made it into The Private Papers of James Boswell from Malahide Castle. Bate says that it is reprinted G. B. Hill's 6 volume edition of Boswell's Life of Johnson (1934-1950). However, I do not have a copy of that edition available to double check. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the only other incomplete citation; can you figure out how to cite it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you cite the manuscript. Sir John Hawkins describes his account of writing the will and the will's contents/process of writing the will in The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL. D. (1787) London pp. 566-582. Bate talks about Frank being in the will (which is the context of the ref) on 596. Frank was the only one in the will for many months before Johnson returned to writing it just before his death. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I added what ISBN's I could (see the ISBN finder in the userbox on my user page), but I can't add anymore; some of the books have multiple versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson and madness

This information was moved from here.

I think we need to have a subheading that restores the term "madness" and a page to discuss the issue. Johnson was afraid he would suffer from it. There are a lot of accounts of him possibly being mad. There are quite a few scholars today that discuss it. The term "madness" needs to stay because of the social/political ramifications of the diagnosis and Johnson's own relationship with Christopher Smart. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How about Talk:Samuel Johnson? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean a wikipedia article page. Its own new page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - and to clarify, I mean claims of "madness" as opposed to actual diagnosis or a medical condition. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:Samuel Johnson; consensus isn't developed by spreading article discussion across multiple editor pages. (And, it's hard for me to get anything done when discussion which belongs on an article page ends up here, and my talk message light is going off :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The above information was moved from here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the page you propose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Samuel Johnson's alleged madness"? Start off with an autobiographical account, then contemporary accounts, then current reflection on the matter. A background section could discuss Johnson's fears, the 18th century asylums, and his experience with Smart/visiting Smart/seeing first hand how people would mock Smart/witnessing the "treatments" used upon Smart. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the definition of madness for this purpose, or why the term is needed. There weren't terms then for conditions known today, so I'm not sure on the article title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a historical term used by the runners of asylums. This is about the 18th century, not about the modern era. Stop thinking medically and think 18th century about it. Its a label that was applied to people who were then locked up in places like Bedlam. There are many critics who use the term "madness" (especially Foucault), as did Johnson, Piozzi, William Battie, etc. Battie stated "We..find that Madness is, contrary to the opinion of some unthinking persons, as manageable as many other distempers, which are equally dreadful and obstinate, and yet are not looked upon as incurable, and that such unhappy objects ought by no means to be abandoned, much less shut up in loathsome prisons as criminals or nusances to the society." (His A Treatise on Madness 1758 - he diagnosed Smart and Johnson knew him). It would be completely inaccurate, along with historically inaccurate, to look at this from our perspective, especially when we are trying to figure out the social reality that Johnson lived in. Johnson was deathly afraid to be treated like Smart in the asylum institution that existed in England before the 1774 "Act of Regulating Private Madhouses", but the later conditions were not much better. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a rough version of Smart's madness as an example of how the issue would be dealt with, but instead of the "asylum" times, it would have notable incidents of Johnson praying for sanity, praying in general, etc. Note - that page is about half way done, so be gentle with it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that you felt it necessary to put quotation marks around every mention of "mad" or "madness"" rather proves SandyG's point. As well as making the article look rather awkward and contrived. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, maybe you haven't paid any attention, but I never said that he was mad, hence "alleged" madness. The term was used by them, and it occurs in both of their lives and plays an important role. Being diagnosed as mad in the 18th century has serious ramifications, just as being called "atheist" in the 17th century might have. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think I've been paying very close attention. I am quite aware of the subject matter, so please don't take me for a fool. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement right there obviously contradicts the above. It was clear by use of quotes and "alleged" what I meant, and your questioning, if what you say is true, served no actual purpose. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have your sails dead set against the obvious. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If by "obvious", you mean use of a term by Johnson, Piozzi, Boswell, etc etc, along with Johnson's biographers, and many essays devoted to the topic which use "madness" in their title, then you would be correct. Except that it would be you, and not I, that is dead set. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand. So you have a start of an article about someone else's "madness"; how does that relate to Samuel Johnson? Johnson was afraid he'd be treated like Smart, and considered "mad"; how does that relate to this article, and why does that topic have to include the word "madness"? Is there evidence that Johnson was psychotic or insane or schizophrenic or whatever current terms we might apply to "mad" or "insane"? Given that we now know he had TS/OCD and depression, how does it all tie together, and why does this article need to concern itself with whatever that article is/does? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, its common for similar topic pages to follow similar patterns. I made that clear above that Smart's page would be a model on what I intended for Johnson. This isn't about current proof about insanity. Why can't you understand that? Its about 18th century perceptions and being labeled something that really has nothing to do about actual mental state. Ottava Rima (talk)

And Sandy, please explain why a page on Johnson calling himself possibly "mad", along with many others calling him possibly "mad" would not have "madness" in it? That is extremely confusing. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I understand? Because you haven't made it clear :-) I still don't know how that article relates to this article: Johnson wasn't "mad". He may have feared being considered "mad" and being treated like Smart, so where would you link that article to the text here? I guess you have a vision for this article that I'm not seeing: in particular, I'm not seeing how it differs from what we have now labeled as "Character sketch". I guess the best thing for you to do is to write that article, and then see where you link it here. But it doesn't replace what's here; in fact, this article still needs to integrate Johnson's TS/OCD with his work, life and personality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a "main template" for the depression section and it would contain information that would surely surpass the amount written on Smart. I never thought that it would replace what is here, but only expand on the various details and accounts of Johnson dealing with the concept of "madness". It would be a biographical, not a medical page, and would be a companion to a page on his Tourettes. Smart's page serves as a model for how it would be integrated into the text (see Christopher Smart#Asylum confinement). The concept of the page is grounded in Michel Foucault's theories and current critical movements that look at the term "madness" in political, not psychiatric, terms. (On Smart's page, I have yet to add the large body of information that suspects Newbery of using the asylum to get rid of Smart based on personal/political reasons, and Smart's inability to free himself/sue St Luke's et al based on similar political problems). Also, Johnson's Rasselas contained many anti-asylum beliefs and attacks the common views of madness. Such a page could tackle the Johnson's own views and the views of others concerning his state, and include aspects modeled on pages like this one. There is a lot of information on this topic, and it could easily be as large as the main article page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, it sounds like 1) your only concern is how to title the article, and 2) we could later discuss whether it's a "main" hatnote or a "for further information see" hatnote. Neither of those need to be decided now. If you write the article, and the name is an issue, the article can be moved to a new name. (Madness right now doesn't work for me on any level, but maybe after you write it, I'll see your vision.) If this article doesn't strictly use Summary style to incorporate that article, the template can be changed from "main" to a different hatnote, or just a link in the text. I have a very hard time imagining how you can work "madness" into this article, when he wasn't "mad". But once you write the article, I might see it. Titles and templates can be changed. On this article, the concern is how we can reflect the impact his TS/OCD had throughout his life and on his work. The "madness" concept holds no interest for me, so beyond a read-through once you're finished, I'm not sure how involved I'll get. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Other topics

How will we incorporate the other standard topics of "literary themes" and other views? Make a page for them and main template them under Character sketch? Or put a separate heading under character sketch to discuss it in short, then main template that to another page? Themes range from religious (Anglican), political (pro England, anti Hanoverian), gender (he had some nice things to say about women, or female authors - for instance, he included in his dictionary two quotations from Jane Collier's book (among other female writers) immediately after its release while he claimed that the quotes are supposed to be from works held as "traditional" or "canon"), and critical (biographies, criticism, state of 18th century poetry/rise of Romanticism). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA

The page is fully cited, MoS compliant, and copyedited; why not close out the peer review in a few days (allowing for possible Karanacs input) and submit to GA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets set a deadline for Sunday? I have a few other people who said they they will look it over and weigh in when they have a chance. If necessary, there can be a second peer review opened up in order to allow for comments that would help in a final push. Also, I can comment "lightly" on a potential FA, but I will keep out of it to the best of my abilities (still not August yet, after all :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing from the article

An analysis of how his Tourette syndrome (TS) or tic-related OCD affected his entire life, personality and work is missing from the article. TS is dropped in to the last paragraph, when in fact, it explains a good deal of his life. Sources have dealt with the topic, but it hasn't been woven throughout the article. A discussion of his TS should not come up in the last section only, rather should provide context throughout. There are specific mentions of how his TS/OCD affected his life throughout the sources. Examples: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• (Murray p. 1611) Miss Frances Reynolds, younger sister of Sir Joshua Reynolds, noted that in her company at- Twickenham Meadows his gestures were so extraordinary "that men, women and children gathered around him, laughing."
• (Murray p. 1611) When aged 27 Johnson was rejected for the post of assistant headmaster at a grammar school in Staffordshire because of his peculiar appearance and odd movements. It was thought that his involuntary motions would make him an object of ridicule with his students.'3 That same year he applied for another master's position at Solihull School but was again rejected because "he has the character of being a very haughty, illnatured gent., and yet he has such a way of distorting his face (which though he can't help) the gent. think it may affect some young lads."
• (Murray p. 1611, discussion of portraits) Sir Joshua Reynolds painted a portrait of Johnson in which he showed Johnson's fingers and hands in a twisted and contorted position; other portraits showed facial distortion and squinting. ... As shown in many of his portraits, his wig was often awry because of the twisting of his shoulders and the motion of his head.
• (Murray 1612) Miss Frances Reynolds vividly details his peculiar -and complex compulsive behaviour. She wondered why none of his biographers had noticed his tendency to repeat expressions and thoughts over and over.

The problem is with the nature of biography. If an incident of such actions was a notable incident, then it should be in there. It should also be followed by an explanation of such. One of the problems is that the biographers do not use the medical analysis and you could run into OR problems (not problems with me, mind you :P ). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on the second Murray excerpt - the "odd appearance" were the well defined scars that do not appear in most of his portraits but do appear in his death mask. (I have a picture if anyone is interested). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic, OR. Boswell's bio was used to establish Johnson's TS, and it was certainly well covered there. The other sources used extensively in this article—Bate, 1977; Lane 1975; Watkins 1960—were all written before TS was widely recognized or understood at all (which began to occur in the 1980s) and were also all written before the publications that established Johnson's TS—Murray 1979; Pierce 1994 and others. So, naturally, the older bios we are citing here don't incorporate the TS, which of course, is no reason for us to not write a more current article, given that we do have reliable sources that cover the territory well. I got distracted this afternoon, but I'll continue adding above some excerpts that we can work in. I also don't see any potential problem with original research given that we have reliable secondary sources that analyze many of the earlier bios and primary sources (and there are numerous early sources that discuss his tics, see the references in the Murray and Pierce papers), exactly in line with policy. Given current reliable sources, I don't see how we can comprehensively write a Johnson bio without incorporating these sources, and no reason to neglect them just because older biographers didn't have access to modern information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"written before TS was widely recognized or understood at all" Thats why I said to watch out for potential OR problems. I'm not saying they would be definite. Just saying there is a potential risk that we have to be careful about. :) The problem I see is that the 20th century bios don't have TS in them, and the TS diagnosis is from the 18th century bios, which rely on different information (potentially). It was easy for me to introduce "scrofula" because it was the same thing just renamed. Its a thin line to walk down. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with SandyG here. There is adequate evidence that the signs of Johnson's condition were noticed by his contemporaries, that they affected his life, and probably also his work. To dismiss what may even have been the source of Johnson's creative drive to what presently appears to be almost a footnote does credit neither to him nor to the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people don't appreciate how little understood TS was until the 1980s or that it only became more widely recognized in the 1990s. We can't expect secondary sources prior to the 1980s to have covered it much (see History of Tourette syndrome), but we can still use what little we have.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) turned down a 1972 grant proposal from the TSA because "the reviewers believed there were probably no more than 100 cases of TS in the entire nation", and a 1973 registry reported only 485 cases worldwide. However, multiple studies published since 2000 have consistently demonstrated that the prevalence is much higher than previously thought. The emerging consensus is that 1–10 children per 1,000 have Tourette's, with several studies supporting a tighter range of 6–8 children per 1,000. Using year 2000 census data, a prevalence range of 1–10 per 1,000 yields an estimate of 53,000–530,000 school-age children with Tourette's in the US and a prevalence range of 6–10 per 1,000 means that 64,000–106,000 children aged 5–18 years may have Tourette's in the UK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be pedantic, to make a point. By definition, Johnson didn't have TS, as TS hadn't been identified in his time. In the same way that I do not have Carpington Stafford Syndrome, a condition only recognised in the late 22nd century. The issue for me isn't his TS, it's the effect the signs of his condition had on his life. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Murray's wording (above) seems accurate in that sense; the sources talk about gesticulations and motions, etc. I'm not a good wordnerd; if anyone wants to work in the few points I excerpted above, I'll continue searching for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you. But perhaps we'd be better to let the literary bods finish off and then we psychologists can sprinkle our magic dust? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson in the Medical World

Samuel Johnson in the Medical World by John Wiltshire is a book that tries to combine medical evidence (on all of his conditions, not just TS) with biography in order to trace which problems happened when.

The below was moved. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

--- I don't get a sense that Wiltshire has a medical background, or more importantly, specific knowledge about Tourette syndrome (TS) or tics, and several of the excerpts above dramatically miss the mark. Perhaps Wiltshire is a good general source on Johnson, but medical sources on Johnson's medical conditions would be better. Unfortunately (perhaps because of 1991 publication date, or perhaps because he's not an expert on tics or TS), a good deal of the content above wrt tics and TS is info that is now known to be incorrect or is less than useful when viewed in the context of current understanding. I don't find much usable there (when reading things like a 55% rate of coprolalia, now known to be about 10%, we know we're dealing with outdated information). By the way, Shapiro is Arthur K. Shapiro, one of the founders of the Tourette Syndrome Association, described as "the father of modern tic disorder research". His work is a good source for this topic, although even his statements have to be viewed in the context of the bulk of his work having been done many years ago, without the benefit of current knowledge of TS. Given suppressibility of tics, their unvoluntary nature, and lack of understanding about tics and TS during Johnson's lifetime, I'm not sure these attempts to place dates on Johnson's tics should be given play in the article; when viewed in the context of current knowledge, they no longer make much sense. Another example, Wiltshire tries to pinpoint a date for the origin of Johnson's tics, but several of the primary sources describe childhood behaviors (one source mentions that Johnson was aware of scrupulosity by the age of 10). We're better off relying on sources that are acknowledged to be accurate and up to date by TS experts (for example, even though Sacks doesn't always hit the mark and seems attracted more to literary analyses of sensational and bizarre factors of common conditions, the previous sources -- now deleted from the article -- showed that while the TSA and other TS experts never embraced popular diagnoses of Mozart, they did attach credibility to Sacks' opinions on Johnson.) Specifically because knowledge of tics and TS has advanced so much in the last 10 years, care must be taken when using older or non-expert sources discussing his tics or TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC) ---

Just a few notes (I don't disagree with the points) - John Wiltershire relied on many experts: "Miss E. Allen, Curator of the Hunterian Museum; Professor Harold Attwood; Dr C. H. Brock; the late Professor Kenneth Dewhurst; Dr J. D. Fleeman; Dr Graham Nicholls of the Birthplace Museum. I am especially indebted to Dr. Dennis Gibbs of the London Hospital. Also, the book would have been finished around 1989. In the section pertinent, he relies on around 60 citations, of note are- Henry Meige and E. Feindel (1907), McHenry, A. K. Shapiro (1978), T. J. Murray (1979), Arnold Friedhoff and Thomas Chase (1982), Joseph Bliss (1980), Russell Brain (1960), R Macdonald Ladell (1929), Edward Hitschmann (1945), William Kennedy (1960), Peter Wright and Andrew Treacher (1982). These are a mix of psychiatrists and others. The rest of the medical excerpts deal with asthma, gout, and depression. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of those are respected names in TS research, but unfortunately, because it's all very dated research, the text should be approached with caution and viewed in context of subsequent research and current knowledge. For those who want to delve further, a good starting place (albeit also dated now) is: Kushner, HI. A cursing brain?: The histories of Tourette syndrome. Harvard University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-674-00386-1. More current info on all fronts is at Tourette syndrome and History of Tourette syndrome. If I ever dig out from under (ha!), I have enough material to work towards bringing History of Tourette syndrome to featured status; for now, it's a brief but accurate overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Logical quotation

An IP is altering all the logical quotation; I don't think I've corrected all of it, and the page will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing from the article

I don't think that much is actually missing from this article. If anything, it appears to be too long. I have redrafted the intro in an attempt to provide a more concise summing-up of Johnson's career; I will provide inline citations as soon as I have the books to hand. Generally speaking, I would say that this article is suffering from a certain amount of original research. The first two paras of the biography section take an inordinate amount of time to sum up questions about Johnson's biography that are, although interesting, not quite as relevant as all that, and probably more relevant to the article on the Life of Johnson.

There is a mountain of good sources and photos and detail here. Almost certainly too much, in my opinion: the para on Johnson's London: a poem, to take a random example, is too involved and flits forward a couple of centuries to call in TS Eliot's (unsourced and unquoted) opinion, something that should really be removed to a properly cited footnote, before bouncing back to the 18th century via a quick nod to Walter Scott. This article is supposed to be about Johnson's life; surely there is room in WP for a separate article on the poem which can include some of this stuff?

In the very next paragraph we get a sentence like this:

Soon after, in August, Johnson was denied a position as master of the Appleby Grammar School because a Masters degree from Oxford or Cambridge was required for the position.

- which is a rather ugly passive construction and which itself contains too much detail for just the one sentence. I notice, too, that a great deal of reliance is put on Bate's biography; doesn't anyone have a copy of John Wain's?

I intend to limber up for working on this article by doing a much-needed article on The Vanity of Human Wishes - in the meantime, I hope whoever worked on the previous version of the intro will not be offended by my edit of it. Lexo (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Cohen DJ, Jankovic J, Goetz CG, (eds). Advances in neurology, Vol. 85, Tourette syndrome. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, 2001, p. xviii. ISBN 0-7817-2405-8
2. Abuzzahab FE, Anderson FO. "Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome; international registry". Minnesota Medicine. 1973 Jun;56(6):492–6. PMID 4514275
3. Scahill, L. "Epidemiology of Tic Disorders". Medical Letter: 2004 Retrospective Summary of TS Literature. Tourette Syndrome Association. The first page (PDF), is available without subscription. Retrieved on June 11, 2007.
   * Kadesjö B, Gillberg C. "Tourette's disorder: epidemiology and comorbidity in primary school children". J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000 May;39(5):548–55. PMID 10802971
   * Kurlan R, McDermott MP, Deeley C, et al. "Prevalence of tics in schoolchildren and association with placement in special education". Neurology. 2001 Oct 23;57(8):1383–8. PMID 11673576
   * Khalifa N, von Knorring AL. "Prevalence of tic disorders and Tourette syndrome in a Swedish school population". Dev Med Child Neurol. 2003 May;45(5):315–19. PMID 12729145
   * Hornsey H, Banerjee S, Zeitlin H, Robertson M. "The prevalence of Tourette syndrome in 13–14-year-olds in mainstream schools". J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;42(8):1035–39. PMID 11806685
4. Cite error: The named reference LombrosoScahill was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference CommunitySample was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Robertson2005PMJ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles