User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 11

If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. By the way, User:Ceoil and User:Karanacs decided to tag-team mentor me (yeah, I'm so wild that I need two! :) ). So, they will most likely watch and/or join in any discussion. - Ottava Rima

Samuel Johnson[edit]

In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.

1. "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." This will be moved to its own page when there is a chance. Its just left over from the beginning.
2. "', 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." You can blame Bate for that one. The citation is a summary from what Bate says. It is no longer necessary after I created a page on the poem and can be removed.
3. "which is a rather ugly passive" Many different writers and many different tweaks. Feel free to rewrite and blame anything improper on me. :)
4. "much-needed article on The Vanity of Human Wishes" I've been meaning to also. I have 11 sources on the work and title page and the rest. If you are willing to wait a few days, we can whip something up together.
5. I relied on Bate because his would be the most renown based on the Pulitzer. However, I do rely on multiply biographies, and I did leave out Lain because of the year. I've been wanting to add parts from Robert Demaria's The Life of Johnson (1993) and John Wiltshire's Samuel Johnson in the Medical World (1991), but the new information they provide is on the medical side, which the MoS would prefer the doctors speaking instead of the biographers. However, I do plan to incorporate them into the various "works" pages that I have slowly built. Note - there are two Bate sources used, and its a little hard to see them as different from a first glance.
6. Thanks once again for the help.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a prompt and polite response. I've already started on the Human Wishes article but am hampered by not owning a copy of the Yale edition of the poems, so my bibliographical data is a bit skimpy. I am not a Johnson scholar by any means, just a lifelong reader of the guy and (though I say so myself) a reasonably good editor. I look forward to working with you. BTW, you do know that the Hibbert (i.e. Penguin) edition of Boswell's Life is abridged? I have the OUP unabridged version. It seems strange to be using an abridged edition of Boswell in an article on Johnson. Lexo (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But heres the thing - the abridge version was easier to find the quotes used in the quote boxes. :D I guess I'm lazy. I will post some information on the poem here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the notes - am still trying to work out how to structure the article so as best to incorporate them. I have ordered a copy of the Yale Poems so as to flesh out bibliographical detail, because right now I am working from the Penguin Complete English Poems which was intended for students. At the moment, my draft structure is as follows: Intro; Source - Juvenal; Composition history; Structure; Publication history; Reception; Critical responses; Legacy; Notes. If you have any comments, let me know. I have sources for the influence of Johnson on Samuel Beckett, incidentally. One last question: how acceptable is it to use Boswell as a source? I know that Boswell scholarship is a field in itself and that the Life is not always trustworthy, but does that mean that it should never be cited at all? Lexo (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing: I have a copy of the Clarendon edition (ed. C. Tracy) of the Life of Richard Savage, and would be interested in working on that article too, as I've always liked that book. (I used to be able to quote bits of it from memory.) Lexo (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful. I put Life of Mr Richard Savage on hold to work on some other pages. I have Richard Holmes's Dr Johnson & Mr Savage and a few other books that go into depth, but it would be very important to take some notable passages and place them on the page so everyone can see what the work is about. Feel free to work on anything, and if there is a problem we can work it out. Be bold and clean up later. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some more work on the Human Wishes article. Please let me know if there's anything in it that you think is glaringly bad. It's only a start, but it's better than a stub. Lexo (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I think your changes have greatly improved my fairly hopeful effort. I read and reread Eliot on Johnson this afternoon and failed to find a genuinely full-throttle positive remark, although it's clear that he approved of the poem. There are a couple of small typos that I will clean up but I think it's looking pretty good for an article that didn't even exist a few days ago. I defer to you as the Johnson expert; if there is anything else you can point me at, I will look at ways to incorporate it. While I'm here I thought I should let you know about the limits to my small library of Johnsoniana; apart from the Penguin English Poems and Clarendon Life of Savage, I only have Chapman's dual edition of Johnson's Journey to the Western Isles & Boswell's Journal of a Tour; an old pocket-sized Oxford edition of the Lives of the Poets with no notes or apparatus of any kind; Donald Greene's OUP paperback selection of the "Major Works", and Boswell's unabridged Life, also an OUP paperback. I have no secondary literature of any kind - looked in a bookshop this evening for the Cambridge Companion and Bate's Johnson but no luck. Lexo (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and you have done quite a bit yourself. :) Whatever you can add, feel free. I will just follow behind and fill in more details. We can move onto the two journey books and work on them together next if you would like. I have a lot of the secondary literature, but I always get frustrated by what primary information to put in; I can never seem to decide. :) So, if you have any favorite passages from the Vanity, feel free to add them. Right now, I have access to the biographies by Wain, Demaria, Bate, Lane, Hibbert, Wiltshire (on Johnson and medicine), Normal Clarke (on Johnson and women), and Richard Holmes (on Johnson and Savage). I also have the Cambridge Companions, Bate's first book on Johnson, Yung's collection of important Johnson primary documents and paintings, the Thraliana, the Johnsonian Miscellanies and a handful of other works. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments. I have been weighing up the usefulness of acquiring a copy of the Miscellanies myself (Amazon has some used copies going for the equivalent of €50), but have regretfully decided that my credit card has taken enough beatings lately. I will have to clock off from the articles for the weekend (my wife and I have a 15-month-old daughter) but I will get back to the Human Wishes article on Monday. Being an Irish contributor I want to drop in a (short) mention about Samuel Beckett's unfinished play about Johnson, which was called Human Wishes; Beckett was a major Johnson fan. I have a copy of it (it's in a collection of Beckettian miscellanies called Disjecta) and will provide a note. Lexo (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably easier to "long term borrow" from an old professor of yours (like I did) than pay for it. Last time I checked, it was going for 450 dollars on the US amazon. Beckett could be mentioned in the critical response section if you can find some quotes (and gratuitously mention the play too). I will continue to update the page while you are gone. Enjoy your weekend. By the way, I will need to rely on your "Irishness" for some other pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the article and cleaned up the style a tiny bit; also, I managed to find a source for Eliot saying that it was Johnson's best poem in a readily available book (On Poetry and Poets). My Irishness is at your disposal but it's not altogether to be relied upon - I should point out, perhaps, that I don't have a degree in English lit, or for that matter in anything else, so I have no old professors to borrow stuff from. I just have (and have read) a lot of books. Lexo (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found the quote, and thats okay, I was being silly. abebooks and some other listings might have the miscellanies for a low cost. They are mostly a massive collection of anecdotes, but some are very interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got my copy of the Yale Poems. It turned out to be less comprehensive than I'd hoped (for example, unlike the Penguin Poems they modernise the capitalisation, which I disapprove of) but still useful. I added one interesting bit to the Composition section and provided citations according to your style rather than my own clunky manner. I had hoped that there might at least be a facsimile of the title page, but I see that you added one. (Do you actually have a copy of the first edition, or what?) There is a photo of a page of the MS in the Yale edition (the "Toil Envy Want the Garret and the Jayl" bit) that would be worth scanning and uploading, but I lack the software to do so. Lexo (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity notes[edit]

Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:

Bate - Samuel Johnson

p. 277 - Written during Dictionary, imitation of Tenth Satire of Juvenal, written autumn of 1748, "told Geogre Steevens he wrote the first seventy lines 'in the course of one morning, in that small house behind the church.'" (found in Johnsonian Miscellanies Vol II 313-314, I have a copy if you need more detail of quote).
p. 278 - VoHW "discloses the inner landscape of his mind - that is, it reveals the image of reality that was fixed in him, and to which his experience naturally assimilated itself - more completely than any other single work"
p. 279 - VoHW "has a denser, more active texture than would be tolerable in essayistic writing. There is more activity within phrases, and therea re more interwoven strands of connection between phrases. All that is going on helps form and refine our sense of Johnson's imagination, its habitual processes and vision."
- "deeply personal"
- "Loosely based on a satire of Juvenal's, it adopts the closed heroic couplet of Dryden and Pope."
- similar argument to Augustine's Confessions, Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying, and William Law's Serious Call (the argument is "the complete inability of the world and of worldly life to offer genuine or permanent satisfaction"
- leaves out "Juvenal's coarseness of imagery, and he voices less anger and contempt", less "playful" than Dryden or Pope, more meditative
- "formally a satire, but his irony differs essentially from that in most classical or Augustan satiric writing"
280 - irony is "in the world", "Johnson is closer to Hardy than to Pope"

- follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism

281 - two themes - first is "he dwells on the helpless vulnerability of the individual before the social context", second is that he "traces the inevitable 'doom of man' to inward and psychological causes", "inevitable self-deception by which human beings are led astray"
282 - beginning lines about "natural passions of man", "betrayal is from within"
- "When at the end of the poem Johnson turns to religion as the only true and lasting source of hope, the turn of feeling and argument is expected, magnificently handled, and yet also raises central problems of interpretation. Ultimately, they are problems in interpreting the character of Johnson's religion, and naturally cannot be explored in the context of this poem only." Problem stems from his use of Roman satire
285 - "The imagery of The Vanity of Human Wishes is constant, condensed, concerely pictorial, and expressed with gusto."

Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World

p. 113 - "This serious, sober, pessimistic work reflects clearly enough his state of mind at the time, which is one of total disenchantment with life. The statesman, soldier, scholar are alike victims of delusion and disappointment; nothing is permanent or safe; even the rich man and the virtuous are doomed, and the poet, the dedicate writer, is no expection."
p. 114 - (important - "first to carry his name on title-page") "A theme so stoical and gloomy, so sternly expounded, was not likely to be popular with the public, and the poem, for which Dodsley paid Johnson fifteen guineas, sold less well than his London, which had run through several editions. Garrick, though anxious to praise his friend's new work, the first to carry his name on the title-page, found it heavy going: 'When Johnson lived much with the Herveys, and saw a good deal of what was passing in life, he wrote his London, which is lively and easy. When he became more retired, he gave us his Vanity of Human Wishes, which is as hard as Greek.'" (quoting Boswell's Life book I)

Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson

p. 36 "Each side profits from the process of questioning and asking. To be sure, as poetic narrator Johnson normally is the superior questioner, but so long as we also learn, engage various intellectual faculties, and are variously pleased, our dialogues with Johnson, with ourselves, and with our culture proceed generously - aas we shall see in the "Drury Lane Prologue" (1747) and in The Vanity of Human Wishes.
p. 45 "London and The Vanity of Human Wishes are Johnson's longest non-dramatic public poems. Each falls into that rich eighteenth-century genre called the 'imitation,' in which an earlier or even contemporary poem is adapted to modern or different circumstances."
p. 46 "London is well worth reading, but The Vanity of Human Wishes is one of the great poems in the English language. It follows the outline of Juvenal's tenth satire, embraces some of what Johnson thought of as its 'sublimity,' but also uses it as a touchstone rather than an argument on authority."
p. 47 "He unifies different portraits through a common denominator of vain human wishes and through interlocking metaphors, like collapsing buildings and life as a battle."
- "As guide, Johnson uses a plural pronoun to suggest that he shares our human weakness."
- "When Johnson invokes the laughing philosopher Democritus (49-72) to mock eternal folly in human farce, he reminds us of the importance of continuing our search before we draw inferences: 'How just that Scorn ere yet thy Voice declare,/ Search every State, and canvass ev'ry Pray'r' (71-72)."
- "Johnson shows his skill in human and moral psychology in several of the character portraits. Cardinal Wolsey rose so high that he seemed to threaten his monarch."
- "The Portrait of Charles XII of Sweden (1682-1718) is deservedly famous. He was the overreaching monarch and general whose bold but finally fatal attacks terrorized much of Europe. The passage skillfully includes many of Johnson's familiar themes - repulsion with slaughter that aggrandizes one man and kills and impoverishes thousands, understanding of the human need to glorify heroes, and subtle contrast with the classical parent-poem and its inadequate moral vision."
p. 48 "Johnson's ultimate target and audience is the human situation - hence he includes Juvenal and his parochial treatment of the North African Hannibal, Juvenal's original Swedish Charles. When reading the Vanity our response includes pity for Charles, for Europe, and for ourselves. In contrast, Juvenal enjoys the barbarian lunatic's death and miniaturization into Roman school-boy's declamation."
- "Johnson is cosmopolitan; Juvenal is local. Johnson is sympathetic; Juvenal is vengeful. Like Democritus, Juvenal is an inadequate guide for the Christian empiricist. The conclusion to the poem further illustrates its moral and poetic grandeu, and satisfies a key expectation of formal verse satire - praise of the virtue opposed to the vice attacked."
- "The final portrait before the Vanity's conclusion exploits that most enduring and endearing emblem of human renewal - the birth of a child. After all, what parent does not wish to have an attractive child? That child, alas, becomes a prisoner of the dangerous, cloudy, snare-encrusted world of Johnson's first paragraph, but now with the special reference to female fragility."
p. 49 "The antidote for vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes; the antidote for an unreliable monarch is a reliable God; the antidote for overreaching is trust in God's knowledge of what is best for us."

Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.

p. 130 "Johnson's greatest poem"
- "a distilled statement of the central theme of his work of the late 1740s." "Although Johnson is in some ways an expressive writer, he was a professional writer capable of separating his personal and public lives. He continued to carry on a scholarly life that was concerned with particulars rather than the grand ends of learning, and he continued to be interested in particular political issues after he shifted his professional literary focus away from these areas."
- Robert Dodsley helped Johnson "broaden his audience and thereby achieve greater professional independence" knew Dodsley while writing for his Preceptor
- "Johnson called Dodsley his patron, and he frequented Dodsley's shop at Tully's Head."
- "the Vanity also seems written with Dodsley in mind, and it eventually became a part of A Collection of Poems by Several Hands, an anthology Dodsley brought out earlier in the same year that he purchased the rights to Johnson's great poem." Note on 321 says "Johnson revised the Vanity for the fourth edition of Dodsley's Collection (1755); he contributed other poems to the first edition of 1748."
p. 131 "In The Vanity of Human Wishes Johnson displays the moral blueprint of his Dictionary."
- "The Vanity is a great poem, and it therefore deserves and rewards treatment as a literary phenomenon unfettered by any but aesthetic and intellectual associations. As T. S. Eliot shows in his introduction to the Haslewood Press edition, the Vanity belongs in the artistic world defined by the poetry of Juvenal, Dryden, Pope, and Horace. It ias also, however, an artefact of Johnson's professional life in the late 1740s."

Irene[edit]

I note that the Yale Poems contains the complete text of Irene, which I've never before possessed. I have been looking at it in a worried kind of way, knowing that I'm going to try to read it and start an article about it. Interested? Lexo (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding all the stuff to Irene. I am really keen on working on this, because it appeals to my sense of humour to work specially hard on an article about a really bad work by a major writer. :) At the moment I am collecting critical responses to it; I have never read anyone with a good word to say about it. I read it this afternoon, and even after 15 years working as literary manager for a professional theatre company, I have to say that it almost defies synopsis, because the first two-thirds are so incredibly boring. The eyelids just droop in mid-speech. Then towards the end, something happens that happens with so many bad plays written by intelligent people - Johnson begins to sense that everyone's attention is waning, and he suddenly boots the plot into fourth gear, Demetrius arrives to rescue Aspasia, Irene gets done in and everyone goes nuts. Don't worry, my synopsis will be a bit more responsible than that. Lexo (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the Bate quote. He pretty much hits the nail on the head. I actually enjoyed reading it on a weird level because bad as it is, at least it's sincere - I read far worse, more stupid, more ugly, more cynical plays in the course of my professional duties. You can see that it's by the same guy that wrote Vanity of Human Wishes. And none of the versifying is actually inept or stupid - well, the bit where Demetrius runs on and says, more or less, "We are undone!" and Aspasia replies, more or less, "Is everything okay?" is pretty inept. It's just very boring, as Johnson himself admitted somewhere - if you have a note of where I will put it in, but I expect it's in Boswell somewhere. Lexo (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Went through the article and added some more Irene-bashing. I undid your edit that moved the play's alt title "Mahomet and Irene" to the intro, sorry - I have known about the play for years, but only found out today that Garrick retitled it for the original production, and I thought it was confusing to list it in the intro as a proper alternative title when almost nobody apart from Johnson scholars would regard it as one. After all, it's never called "Mahomet and Irene" in the literature. It's not like e.g. Frederic Manning's novel "The Middle Parts of Fortune" being legitimately also known as "Her Privates We"; "Irene" is only ever called "Irene". Lexo (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about the lead, but right now I think the lead is too short to load it with quite so much info. I put "Mahomet and Irene" in bold later on to emphasise it. I really must get around to reading the MoS one of these days. (I'm the kind of person who has all three editions of Fowler, and reads them for fun.) Lexo (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A query - these two sentences are inconsistent with each other:

He spent years trying to finish the work, and could not fully move onto another until he finished Irene. However, in 1737 he put off finishing the play and turned from it completely in order to work on other projects.

If Johnson started writing the play in 1737, couldn't "fully move onto" anything else while he was writing it, and "spent years trying to finish" it, how can he then have put off finishing it in 1737 and "turned from it completely"? Can you post the actual references from Bate on my talk page, so I can redraft these? Thanks. Lexo (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know about losing the para - it was out of place, belonging in stage history rather than in background. I deliberately cut it so as to put it where it now is. Well spotted, though. Lexo (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are enough pictures of Johnson floating about. I don't really see the need for a picture of Tetty on any page other than the article about her; that she liked the play isn't really a good enough reason to have her picture here. A picture of Garrick would be great, but best of all would be a picture of Hannah Pritchard, who after all played Irene. I have found a good one here, and have written to ask about copyright etc. Perhaps you can tell better than me how free this picture is. Lexo (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candide's FAC[edit]

I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do anything right now. You can tell Sandy that mine has been moved to a "comment" without any obvious opposes. I'd need to have a closer look to move one way or another, and I wont be able to do so for four more days. I hope you see this message. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it reads cleanly, and you should be commended on the work that you've put into the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Will do. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies[edit]

I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Once I remove something from my talk page, its because its no longer important to the here and now. I don't archive my talk page, because the only things that matter are the future tasks and duties. This is an encyclopedia. All that matters is the encyclopedia. I do feel bad that I removed my "thank you" to TravisTX before he could have seen it, which is a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to post at Travis's page regarding that? S. Dean Jameson 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that in a few days. Time doesn't really matter too much. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contact my email about the following - I would like to ask you not to talk to Abd anymore. I also would like for him not to respond to you anymore. What is past is past, and I do not want to be the source of future conflict. I supported the move to indef me because I saw that there would only be more future strife between multiple parties, and that did not work. If either one of you happens to mention the other or the other's actions, I would ask that you take it up in my email and use that in order to express yourselves instead of going after each other. I would rather be able to deal with my emotional stress over this privately than have it aired all over the board. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to leave this one last bit here. Further will be through email. If Abd ceases to claim that I've harassed anyone, I'll cease to defend myself against these accusations. Other than that, I have no desire nor inclination to communicate with Abd any further. S. Dean Jameson 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have rollback rights, but I hadn't really considered adminship. The main thing I enjoy (though I periodically am distracted from it) is writing. Why do you ask? S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to get to know you. Not much I can really do at the moment except for small talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that kind of stinks, but there just wasn't consensus to overturn the block at ANI. Again, I'm sorry for any mental misery my posting the proposal put you through. S. Dean Jameson 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred to stay blocked. The only problems that really affect me right now is the fighting between you and Abd. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no more problem there, as far as I'm concerned. I've extended an olive branch at his page, that I hope he accepts. S. Dean Jameson 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship[edit]

Hi Ottava. I assume you have been communicating with User:Ceoil offline, but just in case I wanted to post here. I've offered to help him mentor you, if you are agreeable. I think that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and I'm hoping that with a bit of guidance you can contribute a bit more effectively. If you'd prefer to keep this discussion offline, let me know and I'll email you. I'd like to become familiar with any discussions you've had with Ceoil or parameters the two of you have agreed on for how this might work. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, I could not say no to someone with your experience and reputation, regardless of the offer. I've sent you an email with my contact information, and I can share anything else required. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to talk over you Ottava) Karanacs, we have been talking offline, but only as regards possibility of mentorship and if he'd accept me taking it on, not really about any specifics yet; this probabaly the best venue for that. Very broadly, my idea would for a series of probationary editing restrictions that would immediatly take Ottava out of potential areas of conflict, and allow him to develop away from a wide glare and likely repeats of the past. I'd be in favour of scaling these, so that [for example only, and I havn't decided on any specifics yet) he is restriced from FAC/FAR for three months (nominating at FAC prohibited, although that is likely to be tricky in the extreme!) interacting with editor X, Geogre or Z for 2 months, and topic are A, B, or C for 1. Instead, he is encouraged seek out people to collaborate with, to more closely to listen to others point of view, and to argue more constructively (ie not rehash the same points over and over and over).

All that said, I have no interest in unilaterally imposing any restrictions; they would need to be fully agreed with Ottava before-hand. If he were to feel they were too harsh, punitive or if were to resent them, well this just won't work. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. You are the two who stepped up for this, so you two get to work out the best action plan. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, you are not a third party in this; the meditation is something you are voluntarally undertaking in order to win back community goodwill. And neither is it something you can passively ride out, you have to participate and demonstrate that you take it seriously and are willing to learn from the process. By that token, you have full say in suggesting which areas where there have been problems before, and where its best you avoid for a while; its not just us two lawing down the law and you abiding.

By the way, do me a favour an disengage from George. What do you hope to gain from posting to his talk? I'm not saying who is right or wrong here, and I wont pretend to have the knowledge to pass an informed openion, but its best to keep these things to article talk only. Phff, you where blocked during the earlier stages of the argument...If you were Irish (and I'm beginning to suspect you are) they'd be writing rebel ballads about you! But rebel don't cut it here ;) Ceoil ^sláinte 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be fine, since it was the section that he was originally looking for. And Geogre actually brought it up 4 days into my block. :) Btw, I think this shows that it is best that I don't have a say in this because my views are radically different than yours, and mine keep getting me blocked. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out fine, you were fairly civil, listened, and nobody's dead. But you had to be aware of the fact that is was dangerous ground given all that happened in the last week. You were pushing it considerably; to be fair. But its the "my views are radically different" notion that's at the root of this; wikipedia is a (exceptioanly broad) community with necessarily strict social norms and behavourial expections, and well.... ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2) In theory this sounds fine. However, given that Ottava's area of interest overlaps with that of Geogre, I don't know that they will be able to completely avoid each other for that long! As I understand, some of the nettles at The_History_of_Sir_Charles_Grandison were because Geogre saw the article at DYK.

What I would suggest as "operating rules" (in addition to the broader rules above) would be the following:

a) if/when Ottava sees a conflict developing, it would be best to let one of us know before engaging (like you did this morning), so that we can help moderate if need be. But, Ottava, if you find that too micromanaging we can try something else.

b) either Ceoil or I may impose a temporary topic ban from any discussion/issue if we feel that Ottava is in danger of becoming tendentious. If Ottava disagrees with that assessment of the situation, he is free to discuss our interpretation of the behavior on one of our or his talk pages or via email. Disregarding the temporary ban could be grounds for a short block.

c) Remain civil and AGF at all times

d) if Ottava feels that we are being overly harsh or are giving restrictions that make no sense, he should say so immediately. The goal is to help you, not drive you off Wikipedia!

Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unindent - based on what Karanacs proposed: limit myself to 0RR, 1 talk page response to editors that I have a "history" with when there is no third party at the page and notifying others immediately, and any disagreements to stop discussion and contact the above. Sounds rather standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) TO Karanacs: Agree with the principal and susbtance of the above. Ottava and Geogre's interests closely interect alright, and I'm thinking that a topic ban would thus be unfair and unworkable. And FAC / FAR are both short of content focused editors as is. So yeah, this should focus on behaviour only, rather that on area restrictions. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a sub page with restrictions/patterns of behavior should be created and linked at the top of my user page. This will allow others to see the state of things and understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, althogh broad principals along with common sence might be better than minutely detailing "restrictions/patterns of behavior". Ottava, I assume you are older than 12. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think creating a separate page would be a good CYA measure. Due to the recent ANI threads, Ottava may be under increased scrutiny, and a clear explanation of what we are doing might be helpful to either those "watching" or those Ottava is editing with who might wonder why Ceoil or I show up occasionally. Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people tend to like a "prescriptive" focus, i.e. something they can compare actions to for clarity. Remember, having defined limitations is a benefit for myself when I am to show to others that I am keeping within my boundaries. Its one thing to say something generically, its another to to demonstrate to someone beyond a reasonable doubt. But yeah, you two are in charge here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in on this conversation, but I just wanted to give you this link to another user's editing terms that you might find useful as a template. Obviously, the terms involving this mentorship should be different in their content, but the style may prove useful. Cheers to all, Risker (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, fancy. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats a good basis. Ottava, sorry but I'm going to have to leave this go for tonight before Marskell becomes, um, displeased[1]. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, good luck with the mentorship, OR. I hope it goes well. Regards, ^S._D.Jameson 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, maybe this is a little late now your block has expired, but having been block myseld a few times, here is a good prison song. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 09:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this embarrasing to mention, but we need a device to let other know that myself and Karen are mentoring, and need to be involved in any disputes you might happen to come across. I would think a banner over your talk would be demeaning, so probaly the best option is that you hold you tongue and keep in close email contact. We wont get involved in the substance of the dispute - we will only provide general guidance as to your and others conduct. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the top. Expand if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Ceoil if I'd take a look at this and consider participating. I am willing, but several things should be clear at the outset.

I do not believe that Ottava was properly blocked. I became involved when I saw an AN/I report re the block, and I originally dropped a consoling note on OR's Talk, without making any conclusion as to block propriety, but saw what appeared to have been a collision of philosophies, where OR was "right" but not "politic." As a result of that note, an editor, intimately involved with the block, showed up on my Talk page to attack OR, even though it was utterly unnecessary, no appeal was being made, simply a consoling note. That led me to realize that something darker had happened. I am not trying to stir that up, OR knows, I'm sure, what I'm talking about. Others can discover what I mean, easily, by investigating, but I'm not suggesting that. This is merely background.
Given that OR was improperly blocked, then mentorship as a requirement would likewise be improper. However, it is possible that we can structure mentorship so that it is a gain for all involved, so a mature view would be that, if it's good, it doesn't matter what crap we had to go through to get here.
So, to me, the issue is how editors can help each other, for mutual benefit and the benefit of the project.
It is very difficult to have a balanced view of one's own position in a dispute.
There is a saying in the circles where I hang out in real life: we are all crazy, but we are not all crazy at the same time. When we can connect with other people and communicate with them, with some level of mutual trust, we can help each other through our bouts of insanity. So to speak.
I cannot spare the time to watch OR's contributions, a close sponsorship or mentorship would involve that. However, I suspect that OR is quite capable of understanding, if he or she (it would be nice to know which it is just so I'm not juggling the dual language all the time) thinks about it, that an edit would have a reasonable possibility of being controversial, and thus it would be prudent to consult, first. Having a number of users to consult would be useful, and there is a simple way to arrange this. OR, you could create a page, call it User:Ottava Rima/WATCH. It's in all caps to help make it stand out in a watchlist amid the flood. Those who agree to help you watch that for questions from you, or announcements that you are encountering some problem, or that there is something that might otherwise merit our attention, and you can also drop a note on my Talk, and I presume that of others as well, but the WATCH page will centralize discussion and separate Talk notes might not be necessary. Besides, you can edit that page without it being considered canvassing, if the situation you are involved in is some kind of !vote process.
Ottava, you remain free to make your own decisions, but if you decide against the advice we give you, of course, we aren't responsible. If, on the other hand, one or more of us approves of what you plan to do, r even suggest it to you, we (those who approve) become responsible as "co-conspirators" should it come to that, and we would sink or swim together, generally.
It is not my goal to keep you out of controversy, though if that is what you want, I'd help with it. Rather, there is controversy that helps the project and controversy that disrupts it, and I'd seek to channel your energy into the former rather than the latter. And it should be understood that I'm still figuring out how to do this, as, I think, we all are. I have ideas, but last time they were proposed here, the community clearly wasn't ready for them, and my opinion is that this condition continues. I will say, though, that the WATCH page I suggested is a piece of one of the ideas.
Welcome back to Wikipedia. I've said, many times, that if an editor has never been blocked, they haven't been trying hard enough to improve the project, or they have been lucky. Rule Number One: Ignore All Rules, i.e., if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia (or, by extension, the community process that produces and maintains it), ignore it. If users follow Rule Number One, they are sometimes going to violate guidelines and policies, and, sometimes, they will be blocked for it, particularly when the review process is defective. (There are others for whom Rule One means "do whatever you want," but they simply haven't understood it. Rules are important, too, they are merely not the goal. And there are others who are incompetent, i.e., what they think will improve the project won't, and these users should be following rules. Or not editing at all.) --Abd (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its "he" and you can think of it as "adoption" if you really want. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, its important to stress that the view taken about Ottava is pragamatic, and all we hope for is that he adopts a workable personality. As regards you 9 pointds; tldr ;)Ceoil ^sláinte 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the watch page and a page for commentary on the set of guidelines so users can comment on my progress or lack thereof. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - Real life has been nutty since Friday. I won't be on wikipedia much until tomorrow.... Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, it might be an idea to also post the link to your pledge at the top of your talk along with the watch link. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its there. Look close. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little on the slow side tonight it seems. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry! I hid it there so it wouldn't seem too tacky. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand, fair enough. Me bones are hurting tonight, so I'm not fully sure whats going on. It might be an idea to archive this section, and move on. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't archive because of the nature of this page. There are comments that are months apart, and there are comments that are left as reminders. The history is the only way to accurately see the progression of the talk page, and it would be too jumbled. Normally I just let things "die". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candide's redlinks[edit]

Thanks for the work on the redlinks in Candide. I'm especially impressed that you found an article for Great Council of Geneva... I search Google for at least an hour trying to figure that one out! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candide[edit]

There are two points at the Candide FAC that I would like to hear the other reviewers' thoughts on. I have listed them at the bottom of the FAC. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson[edit]

I think is ready for PR, before you submit to FAC. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still has some work. If you want to start up a second PR, that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outline what work is needed here, and I'll lend a hand before the 2nd PR. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving Sandy some time to think of how she wants to use the biographical data on TS to incorporate some mentions into the biography. Then we need to figure out how to work a legacy section. We would need to see if DGG or Karanacs still have major outstanding issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Geogre might also be a valuable voice before this goes to FAC. Why not; we all want the article to be as good as it can be. Better ye reach a tatcit understanding here, than continue as it is. If you are prepared to listen, that is. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask him to look over it and see if there are any glaring details left out. Also, I have plenty of other biographies, so ask him if there is a section that is too heavy on Bate and I can swap him out for another. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Will do. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he replies he's likely to be harsh. But in my exerience of review, the harsher the better. I took a fair battering here[2] but came out of it with a vastly improved article. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When forging a sword, you need a combination of harsh treatment and graceful precision, at alternating times. I think its about time for someone to be harsh. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you checked your em-dashes on Johnson before you typed that; cause I'll cut your fecking head off for less. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...–––... Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open up the PR. Ceoil ^sláinte 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byron et al[edit]

Item 22 on your list, but can you give some help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud? DGG (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan P.[edit]

I don't "think ill of him" for his action, why would I? He just did what he thought was appropriate. I am just suprised and disappointed by his decision, that's all, and I think it was a wrongheaded one. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley[edit]

Okay, I may have overspoke a bit. It isn't exactly clear. It is certainly cast in a positive light, including in quotes by him. He seems to bring it up uncoerced here: [3], but maybe it was already known or something. It's possible that he feels he has to talk about it, but it certainly doesn't seem presented that way to me, but something that he feels is an important episode in his life. I haven't personally spoken to him about it, nor do I know that anyone has, but given the CNN example, it certainly seems like something he'll cop to unprovoked. My own thoughts here might be a minority, but I do think if you read BLP properly, it does say "don't impose our morals on subjects, respect theirs". With respect to privacy, it'd probably be outrageous to list an American paleontologist's blood type, but it would be totally appropriate to list a Japanese Pop singer's blood type. Wily D 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original hook read "... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?" The assessment took place ~1943, so I think you'd have to be daft to think race was irrelevent, though it might've been simple indifference, assigning of incompentent teachers to black schools, racism on the part of the tester or who knows what. Not sure he's said anything explicit, can't find any.

It's probably just a "I was disadvantaged, nobody thought I'd amount to anything, but I worked hard and I did." This generic read could be applied to a lot of young black people from poor backgrounds, so I'm not sure there's an explicit equation here. I don't know his mind well enough to say.

There's also some discussion here: [4] but this first link I gave you is the best, at least the best cited. Wily D 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, about half the links in the article cite the diagnosis. So presumably it's "known". Wily D 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my hook, I only found out about it after the whole brew-ha-ha over the hook. I think the hook cannot be read without an implicit "The diagnosis was wrong", but it would've been unharmful to be more explicit for poor readers (and English Wikipedia gets a lot of readers with poor command of English). The huge punch-up seems over the top, though, yeah. Wily D 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wrong at all[edit]

By "hook" I meant that particular one mentioning mental retardation. Swapped with another hook linking to the same article. Sorry for the confusion. I've got to get away from the computer now -- someone's waiting for me. My point was if we give a few extra hours of publicity (with two hooks) to that one article is insignificant -- certainly less so than sending the wrong message to editors that mentioning mental retardation is somehow controversial. When I get back I'll look it over and maybe clarify my point. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your suggestion on the AN/I page. Noroton (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Angels[edit]

I no longer look at the 40K articles - Wiki, or should I say, certain editors, have completely ruined the whole series of articles, so there's no point in bothering to even look at them. So, as for whatever you suggested, go for it, I don't care what happens to them. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List[edit]

Sorry, I haven't got time to look at that now, I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

encouraging.[edit]

You comments on my talk about changing your ways are encouraging to read, I hope you can rise to the challenge, best of luck. As to the email, We'll see, I've provided thoughts on the matter at AN/I, and think that's sufficient. I oppose it, but if consensus goes another way, so it goes. ThuranX (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candide's FAC (again)[edit]

Hello again. I have noticed that you have heretofore refrained from supporting Candide's FAC nom. Is there a specific reason you have not done so? Do you see any problems with the article? If the article can win your support with my efforts, I'd like to try... Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to request from OR) - My only real remaining concern is the "Legacy" section. I feel that it is a bit haphazard and 18th-century literature is not well represented, but I don't have the time to do proper research to figure out what exactly should be included, so I'm supporting the article now. There wasn't a "Legacy" section before the FAC really and now there is one, so that is definite improvement. If you know of anything that should go in this section, that would be very helpful. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppetry[edit]

I fear you do not understand the significance of your accusation of my being a sockmaster, and most especially having done so directly to Raul who is obviously already gunning for me. This is unbelievably unfair.

You claim to have evidence, what is it? I prefer to have these things out on the table so that they might be addressed rather than referenced in vague and damaging statements on WP:ANI.

I have never done anything against you and we seem to share a common admiration of User:Abd so I don't know why you would launch such a damaging attack. --GoRight (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very serious caution on the Theobalds[edit]

Remember how I was talking about people picking up the polemics of their favorite authors and unknowingly repeating them? Well, dumb old Theobald is a major case in point. His reputation can be divided into three periods: 1730 - 1780: During this time, Theobald was part of the war of the dunces. Whigs supported the dunces, and tories opposed them. This is a repeated cause. Numerous poets who were not very good got praised to the skies because they had the right politics. Lewis Theobald was so much of a nothing that other enemies of Pope thought he was an "ideot." However, Alexander Pope was monumental, and anyone who disliked his politics needed to find someone to put up against him. 1780 - 1870: The rise of bardolatry: Shakespeare's editors had every reason to prefer Theobald. Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was far superior to Pope's. As Shakespeare moves (see Shakespeare's reputation) from great to "greatest," and as he himself moves from "natural genius" to "greatest genius in the language," the battle of the 18th century editors looks laughable. Pope's edition is wrong and from a bad impulse, and Theobald's is the positivist impulse at work. Indeed, some major editors get forgotten in his favor. However, this is with no consideration of his writing. Double Falsehood is an adulteration of Shakespeare every bit worse than Pope's "corrected" meters, and look to see how rarely the play has been staged. 1870 - 1960: Macaulay history: Thomas Babbington Macaulay's "whig history" of England is an overwhelming work. It sets "common knowledge" for a century. We are still shaking off the hangover of Macaulay. Macaulay sets down the common knowledge of Robert Walpole the first prime minister, mercantilism being a work of genius, Jonathan Swift being a crooked misanthrope, and Alexander Pope unfairly picking on virtuous authors because he was short and mean. Macaulay history sees Theobald as a hard working, brilliant editor (who, mysteriously, became an editor by accident, late in life, when he kept trying to be a poet before and after) who was smashed by Pope.

Since the 1960's, we've been digging out from under the pile. I think I formulated current understanding appropriately when I said that Theobald was as much a better editor as Pope was a better poet. As an editor, Theobald is invaluable, but he is also a one shot creature. Most of his life and profession was attempting to be a poet and a playwright, and he failed according to all sources at these.

Therefore, it's easy to find people saying things like that which you quoted. During the 18th c. itself, there is an ongoing political battle, with Welsted, Smythe, and Cooke (less so) writing, the extremely wealthy Colley Cibber (gee, a theatre manager), and the vicious and prolix Edmund Curll pouring money into attacks on Pope. In Victorian and early 20th c. criticism, it's easy to find "poor Theobald; he was virtuous, and mean Pope mugged him in a dark alley." I think we're getting more balanced now.

Samuel Johnson is a special case. He was his own man throughout. He did not very often pick on an author out of political matters, or at least not those alone. Instead, he had his own principles, as I'm sure you know, that he valued above all else. Notably, though, he doesn't seem to like any of the Augustans. He has nasty things to say about Swift, many nasty things to say about Pope, many more to say about Gay. He dismisses them all. Now, it's tempting to see Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence at work, but it's just as easy to see Johnson as having a different notion of what a writer should be than those writers ever had. SJ is the writer as philosopher. This is radically different from his predecessors. They were writers and political actors, and SJ saw that as quite inappropriate.

The po-faced Johnson we get in Boswell is absolutely inappropriate, but it's absolutely true that he held up even his friends to philosophical standards. He ridiculed his good friend Thomas Warton when the latter took up the "churchyard" ballad form. It was too trivial. He ridiculed Percy, his friend, for scrambling for appointment -- too grubby. So, for Pope, whose gifts Johnson admits, to duke it out with bad poets is quite ill, from Johnson's point of view. He constantly criticizes Pope's political work. (Johnson was quite political, of course, and Donald Greene will haunt me if I don't say so, but he tended to be overt. He didn't use his poetry or his Ramblers to do it. He would come straight out with a Letter or a complete essay. I think he didn't like the mixing of "high" art and "low" politics.)

Anyway, I just wanted to say that one needs to be careful in critical assessments of Theobald and read each of them with an eye on the speaker's motivation. Geogre (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edmond Malone[edit]

Oh, excellent. Thanks, and kudos on all your hard work on these articles! --Xover (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. By the way, User:Ceoil and User:Karanacs decided to tag-team mentor me (yeah, I'm so wild that I need two! :) ). So, they will most likely watch and/or join in any discussion. - Ottava Rima

Samuel Johnson[edit]

In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.

1. "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." This will be moved to its own page when there is a chance. Its just left over from the beginning.
2. "', 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." You can blame Bate for that one. The citation is a summary from what Bate says. It is no longer necessary after I created a page on the poem and can be removed.
3. "which is a rather ugly passive" Many different writers and many different tweaks. Feel free to rewrite and blame anything improper on me. :)
4. "much-needed article on The Vanity of Human Wishes" I've been meaning to also. I have 11 sources on the work and title page and the rest. If you are willing to wait a few days, we can whip something up together.
5. I relied on Bate because his would be the most renown based on the Pulitzer. However, I do rely on multiply biographies, and I did leave out Lain because of the year. I've been wanting to add parts from Robert Demaria's The Life of Johnson (1993) and John Wiltshire's Samuel Johnson in the Medical World (1991), but the new information they provide is on the medical side, which the MoS would prefer the doctors speaking instead of the biographers. However, I do plan to incorporate them into the various "works" pages that I have slowly built. Note - there are two Bate sources used, and its a little hard to see them as different from a first glance.
6. Thanks once again for the help.