Talk:Samuel Johnson

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Dr Samuel Johnson → Samuel Johnson – this page rested peacefully at "Samuel Johnson" for years until a newish user moved it in Feb 2006, apparently without consultation. I propose it be moved back. Deb 15:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. Given that Samuel Johnson is now a redirect here, it seems odd to have this page at a disambiguated name. David | Talk 17:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Brand 01:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. David Kernow 11:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A move to Samuel Johnson (lexicographer) is okay, too. (making [Samuel Johnson] the disambig page ?) -- PFHLai 12:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Aldux 18:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In fiction

There was a whole episode of Blackadder covering Samuel Johnson and his long-awaited dictionary. I notice Da Vinci has a section on his use in fiction, is this worth adding here? DamienG 12:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Full stop after Dr

Is there a Wikipedia convention about traditional punctuation conventions such as "Dr. Johnson", versus 20th-century punctuation innovations such as "Dr Johnson" (which is not standard -- indeed, not known -- among most English-speaking people, but has become standard in England in recent decades)? -- Mike Hardy

It's covered somewhat in the style manual. I've generally been trying (and sometimes failing) to treat it in a similar manner to British/American differences in spelling (that is to say, trying to keep things consistent within an article, regardless of which is used). Hephaestos

We've dropped the period (we call it a full stop) in Wales and Scotland too! Deb

Please can we drop the full stop on "Dr". He was British. It's the British convention. And it looks weird :-( -- Tarquin 22:27 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

It was not a British convention that Dr. Johnson was aware of, nor his biographer Boswell. Boswell wrote "Dr. Johnson", "Mr. Garrick", etc. -- Mike Hardy

We accept both US and British English spelling, but there's an unofficial tendency to use British for acticles about British things and US for US... BTW, Mike, I've been seeing your name on talk pages for months... you planning on getting a user ID? -- Tarquin 22:43 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Putting a period (or "full stop") after "Dr" in "Dr. Johnson" is not more American than British, even though not putting it there is certainly more British than American. Some people who went to school in England before the convention of dropping the "full stop" became customary are still less than 65 years old.

Getting a user ID would entail admitting that I spend time on this stuff, but maybe I'll do it eventually. -- Mike Hardy

Sounds like a Wikipediholic in denial... LOL -- Tarquin

A full stop theory: I can't remember where I came across it unfortunately, but I heard/read somewhere that if a word is shortened such that it still contains the last letter of the original word, the full stop may be dropped, but if the last letter is missing, then it should be retained.

For example, Doctor becomes Dr and Road becomes Rd, but Professor becomes Prof. and Company becomes Co. -- Saintchris

I seem to have settled any argument over adding his Blackadder appearance. I think I'm just putting off doing proper articles for Erskine, Inchinnan and Bishopton like I've been meaning to.

A full stop theory(2):The article is now inconsistent in that it describes Dr Johnson, but also refers to "Revd. Samuel Lea MA". This would have to be "Revd Samuel Lea MA" according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

I have translate this article to chinese,please add a link,thanks

as the subject

To do this, you'd add [[zh:PAGE]], where PAGE is the name of the Samuel Johnson article. Unfortunately, I can't add this for you without knowing the title of it on the other wikipedia... Shimgray 13:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Alternative image of Johnson

Does anyone know which artist did this portrait? I think the current Joshua Reynolds images reinforce the "gruff, lovable clubman" stereotype; this shows him an entirely different light. Tearlach 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's a Reynolds as well. This National Portrait Gallery link shows a copy of the original portrait. It also has engravings and sculptures derived from the painting. InvisibleSun 00:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph

Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to fix this, but the first paragraph is clearly wrong. Could someone with some more information fix this? Bix783 17:20, 8 December 2005(UTC)

I fixed it. Someone felt compelled to preced the first sentance with "The son of a porn star...". I just deleted that. Feel sorry for all those kids copying and pasting their history reports. Going to get nasty marks from their instructors.--Jgreat 18:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)jgreat

Circa 2002

The picture says its from 'circa 2002'. That's not right. -Litefantastic 15:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Bon Mots

Could we have some examples of his sayings (though I guess we would then have to show their provenance)? My favorites are: a second marriage is "the triumph of hope over experience," and about the American Revolution that it was "curious that the drivers of negros should be the loudest yelpers for liberty." Everyone else has their own favorites, I would imagine. Eddieuny 01:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• On the other hand, that's what the Wikiquote link is for. When a Wikipedia subject has a corresponding Wikiquote page, and a fairly large one at that, it seems redundant to build a quotations section here in Wikipedia. I say this in a less than disinterested way, since I've done some work on the Johnson Wikiquotes recently and am still doing more, finding sources for attributed quotes, adding quotes and links, etc. InvisibleSun 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'd sure like to at least see his "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money" -- simply because of the delicious irony of it being in the Wikipedia article about him!

Samuel Johnson should be this article not a disambig

There are about 470 links to Samuel Johnson, the overwhelming majority refer to this man. His A Dictionary of the English Language was the first real dictionary of the English language language and has been hugely influential on the language we are using now. I propose that the disambig page should be Samuel Johnson (disambiguation). --JBellis 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Doctor

I think the article would benefit from a short sentence explaining why he is called Dr Johnson (and not Mr Johnson). I assume it is because of the honorary doctorates he is said to have received from Trinity and Oxford, but the article doesn't nail it on the head. Lupine Proletariat 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation

I have added the requested citation for Johnson making Barber his residuary legatee. Richard Pinch 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hated Cucumbers?

I just looked up "cucumbers" in Johnson's dictionary. It didn't say anything about his hatred of cucumbers. The closest it came was a distinction of the common cucumber to a superior variety grown in Holland. I think this needs to be deleted. Any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.139.21.42 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, for the actual citation is from Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides (Oct.5, 1773), where Johnson mentions that "it has been a common saying of physicians in England, that a cucumber should be well-sliced, dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out." It looked odd--thanks for inducing me to check. Out it goes. Insert your favorite replacement. DGG 05:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Influence of the dictionary

Would like to see more here about the initial reception and subsequent overall influence of the dictionary, the arduousness of it's making, it's few quirky definitions, the controversy over patronage and Johnson's letter to Lord Chesterfield etc.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move per WP:SNOW. Clearly, there is no consensus for the move, nor will there be. Suggest that if you wish to create a dab, then to relist under WP:RM under something like Samuel Johnson (author) along with a move from Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) → Samuel Johnson. However, by the current results, it appears that likely won't pass either, and I would advise that it's probably not worth the effort. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson → Dr. Samuel Johnson — {{{3}}} TonyTheTiger 06:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

• Support Since the Feb 2006 page move, 6 new entries have been added to the Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) page including Sam Houston Johnson, a Presidential sibling, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr., a Presidential father, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr., a Presidential grandfather, Samuel Johnson (footballer), an active footballer, and Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr. the patriarch of the richest family in Wisconsin. The primacy of Dr. Samuel Johnson versus the remaining field of Samuel Johnsons should be reconsidered. This move would enable replacement of the dab page at Samuel Johnson TonyTheTiger 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me clarify my statement above. The reason for having an article at a human name page is because the majority of people who enter that human name are searching for that individual. This survey is a reconsideration of whether we continue to believe that to be the case given that we have now realized that at least 6 other notable Samuel Johnsons exist. The most important consideration in whether you support the move is whether you believe that the majority of people entering Samuel Johnson and press go are looking for the person located there now. If that is not the case a dab page should be there or that page should redirect to a dab page. TonyTheTiger 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeI think it would not eliminate the dab p., because we'd still want to link from his true name, and that would be the only way to do it. At present, Dr. Samuel Johnson redirects to Samuel Johnson, and that accomplishes everything you intend. DGG 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 'I suggest instead changing the name of the page to Samuel Johnson Ll.D. DGG 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe you are saying that that you support moving the page, but disagree with the Dr. Samuel Johnson destination. If I am interpreting your response incorrectly let me know. I have added the move options template as a result so that we can discuss the destination if the move is supported. I also took the liberty of formatting the indenting of your response. TonyTheTiger 06:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for formatting. I fixed your spelling :). To be precise, if we leave the page as is,we will continued to need a redirect from the dab page, and from Dr.Samuel Johnson (& I forgot about the other one). We will not need a redirect to Samuel Johnson, because that goes here directly. If we change the name of the page to Dr. Samuel Johnson, we will continue to need a redirect from the Samuel Johnson dab p., and searching for "Samuel Johnson" would need to go to the dab page not directly here.(Otherwise people looking for one of the lesser Johnsons would first go to Dr. SJ, andthen be directed elsewhere , which is more confusing than at present. The only reason for using Samuel Johnson Ll.D was if it was desired to have a distinctive title for the page. I do not think it necessary, and would rather leave well enough alone. DGG 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • See revised directions directly below my initial statement of support. TonyTheTiger 07:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - maybe it's my age (I'm over 40), but Samuel Johnson, philosopher and pioneer of dictionaries, is someone about whom everyone learned when I was going through high school. None of the others mentioned come close to having such notability (the footballer MIGHT if an American football star, but he is in fact what is called in the U.S. a "soccer player", as plays in Ghanda). In fact, all but two of the other articles linked to from the main page are essentially stubs. John Broughton | Talk 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose and remove the proposal, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) is very clear on the topic. Sandy (Talk) 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It does not violate naming conventions. Read both 1 and 2, not just 1. There is little debate that the current Samuel Johnson is the most recognisable. The question is whether 70% or 30% of the people entering "Samuel Johnson" are actually looking for the person that is there. I added the second template so that a move could be considered to any number of destination names. Clearly there exist acceptable destination alternatives and clearly it is a worthy debate as to whether Samuel Johnson is the primary desired search result. That is what this survey is about. The survey questions whether you believe the majority of people entering Samuel Johnson are looking for the person who is there now. TonyTheTiger 22:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, Google reveals (as expected) that this Samuel Johnson (writer) gets the largest number of hits, and no disambiguation to his name is needed. Sandy (Talk) 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • On any dab there is always someone who gets the most hits. That does not mean a dab is not necessary. The question is whether Samuel continues to be by far the most sought search result in light of new evidence. TonyTheTiger 22:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In fact, I believe the question is whether he is sought more than the aggregate of the other page members. If not then the dab should be at the ambiguous name.TonyTheTiger 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything works fine now. I continue to suggest that we leave it alone, and not discusse it every 6 months. DGG 00:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure if there's any easy way to resolve objectively, but from an admittedly subjective sense of things, there is only one Samuel Johnson with a nearly universal level of name recognition. older ≠ wiser 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Only one person comes to my mind for that name and I suspect that is the case for most of us. Steve 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd like to direct everyone to the relevant naming convention and suggest instead that any move goes to Samuel Johnson (writer), Samuel Johnson (philsopher) or similar. Natalie 00:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You are correct in your destination page suggestion. I apologize for misinterpreting the relative significance of Samuel Johnson.
• Oppose - the old guy is still head and shoulders above the young pretenders in name recognition. BlueValour 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per all above. None of the other SJs even come close. FiggyBee 18:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That was never the point. The point is whether SJ is a more desired search result than the others combined, which he may be based on the responses. That is how you determine whether a dab or an article should be on article name. TonyTheTiger 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that is what I meant. I think that the majority of users will be looking for this Samuel Johnson. FiggyBee 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose and deprecate wasting WP:RM's time. Dr. Johnson will remain the primary bearer of the name, even when the dab page is complete (as it is not; where's "Julian" Johnson, the pamphleteer?) Septentrionalis 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:LEAD

The lead needs attention, per WP:LEAD; rather than summarizing the article, it presents information that is not included anywhere else in the article. Sandy (Talk) 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncited material

The article is growing with a lot of uncited text, which (in the absence of citation) reads like original research, with a lot of weasle words. Direct quotes should also be cited. Some of the weasly phrases are:

• Among students of philosophy, Dr. Johnson is perhaps best known ...
• .. it is possible that Johnson put words into speakers' mouths ...
• ... often on moral and religious topics, tended to be ... according to whom?
• (Some readers have had this experience.) don't know what this sentence is.
• It is widely believed that ... by whom?
• Scholars have often noted ... what scholars?

If this text isn't cited when it is added, it will be hard to cite it later. Sandy (Talk) 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations from Boswell

I have corrected the account of Boswell's first conversation with Johnson, but am not sure how to give a citation - I could give page number in my (Everyman) edition, but there are many editions. The abridged edition in Project Gutenberg which is cited in the article doesn't appear to be paginated. One way might be to give the date, as Boswell is basically chronological; but it takes some searching to establish the date. If I knew how to do it, I could give more citations from Boswell. JohnCD 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Refutation", not Refutation

I have placed so-called "scare quotes" around the word "refutation", because a student of philosophy would not agree to call it either a refutation or a confirmation. The amusement in the anecdote stems from the fact that Dr Johnson deemed it a refutation, whereas it could not possibly be anything of the sort. It is as though Stephen Jay Gould were to kick a dinosaur egg and say, "I refute Creationism thus."Writtenright 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright

Removed from external links - not an external link

John Wesley wrote in his journal,December 18, 1783 "I have spent two hours with a great man. Dr. Johnson, who is sinking into the grave by gently decay"

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Had a few positive things to say about Scots

I think Dr. Johnson is misunderstood by the author who claims that the man admired Scots. The quote used to support this assertion does not even need to be contextualized to show that Johnson thought Scots (Highlanders especially, in this specific quote) allowed their love for their own country to blind them to what Johnson saw as a lack of any noble or civilized tradition. Stephen Kinch 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

..."about dogs"?

There is a sentence in the third paragraph under "Legacy": "Johnson is often able to find ways of comparing things or people with dogs." ...which as far as I can tell makes no sense regarding Johnson, and really doesn't mean much in the context even if it refers to his parody in Blackadder. Whoever monitors this page might consider deleting it. --Greg Bryant

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

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 Wikipedia 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)

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

Poet...

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