Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christopher Smart's asylum confinement/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:29, 13 September 2009 [1].

---

Christopher Smart's asylum confinement

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Christopher Smart's asylum confinement/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Christopher Smart's asylum confinement/archive2

I am nominating this for featured article because the previous FAC failed from lack of reviews. It has had two people perform thorough checks through afterward. The sources are all clean and I can provide any information needed. The page represents every major piece of criticism on the matter and performs an analysis on a very interesting experience that changed Christopher Smart from major poet into someone who forever lost his place along side of those like Alexander Pope and Samuel Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note - The page lacks disambiguation wikilinks needing to be fixed, has alt text, and images have been checked in the previous FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: Interesting article, I shall be reading it in greater depth shortly. For now a couple of things:
  • Is there a reason "mental asylum(s)" isn't linked?
  • "confined in a private madhouse" isn't madhouse colloquial? Would a private psychiatric hospital not be better?
  • "Smart was diagnosed as "incurable" wouldn't "Smart's condition" be preferable, especially on account of it being mentioned just before?
  • "Mr Potter's asylum" this asylum isn't mentioned before, could detail be added that it was also in Bethnal Green?
  • "All that is known of his years of confinement is that he wrote poetry." would that be in the first asylum, the second or both. Or do you think it's implied?
  • The section on "Release" seems to be ordered slightly oddly for me. It starts with his release, saying that he "left the asylum", but doesn't linger on it. This made me think, as it continues with the meetings with a parliamentary commitee on the subject of his release, that he hadn't been officially released by this point. Maybe it's just me, but even so, could you clarify it a bit for me? ;)
• That's all for now. Hopefully you won't be short of reviews this time around, you certainly deserve them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. A link would do very little for an individual as the word is best found in a dictionary if someone needs to know it. However, if you want to link it feel free. 2. "private madhouse" is from the sources. It was not a "private psychiatric hospital" nor did they have "psychiatric hospitals" 200 years ago. It was not even a hospital. It was literally an individual's home that took care of people who were considered "mad". 3. -Smart- was literally diagnosed as incurrable, not his condition. That is how it was perceived back then. The person was ill, not the person had an illness. 4. I haven't heard any information that Mr Potter's house was in Bethnal Green or that any later biographers knew anything about it except that it was a house owned by one "Mr Potter", and was later referred as "Mr Potter's house". The only time it is mentioned as being at Bethnal Green was by Smart's daughter who was too young at the time to really be a reliable source. She gets many details of the events wrong. If you have any further information missing from the article that could establish where the house was, I would like to see (and would make updates). 5. To be honest, we don't know at what time Smart wrote his poetry while in asylum or how much he wrote while in asylum. Instead, we have two poems that are definitely written sometime during those 7 years and many poems and translations that were possibly written during that time. Jubilate Agno has been suggested to start at various times. It is possible that a lot of his poetry is also missing, which makes it further harder to establish when what was written and where. We don't even know where he was first held. There is also speculation that he was in asylum before his official admittance into St Luke's, which causes further problems. 6. The section on the release starts off with his daughter's claim of the events of the release and then goes into what scholars claim are the events of the release. I reorganized the section a little to make it more clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the swift explanatons.
  • 2. A note of this should be included in the Background then, or as a separate note. At the moment it's flown over as if everyone is familiar with the term private madhouse. The case for this is made more important by the lack of any article or mention of it on Wikipedia.
  • 3. Again, some kind of note would be good, after "An institution like St Luke's, run by Battie, held both "curable" and "incurable" patients." would be most appropriate.
  • 4. No I was merely going on the information given by the young daughter.
  • 5. Okay, fair enough.
  • 6. Much improved.

• More comments:
  • The first image; could it give the approximate production of the painting (circa. 1745), and some kind of context (i.e. produced before his confinement)
  • "his mysterious "fit"" I can only assume refers to "disturbed mental state", although how this translates to fit I'm unsure.
  • "Smart's own testimony that he "blessed God in St. James's Park till I routed all the company" (Jubilate Agno B 90–91) as representing his religious madness is equally dismissed as resulting from drinking, as he was known for pulling pranks and the Board of the Green Cloth, the government body that controlled St James's Park, would treat most disturbances in the park as resulting from madness." is an awkwardly complex sentence. My suggestion is "Smart's own testimony, that he "blessed God in St. James's Park till I routed all the company" (Jubilate Agno B 90–91), representing his religious madness is equally dismissed as a result of drink; he was known for pulling pranks and the Board of the Green Cloth, the government body that controlled St James's Park, would treat most disturbances in the park as resulting from madness." MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to explain private madhouse, as there is no real definition beyond a place where they kept people that were accused of being mad. Each one was very different, as there were no regulations and, as partly discussed in the page, they were just starting to reform the whole "madness" system. It could have ranged just from a normal house operating as a home to a place being used like a prison. We lack details on all of the places besides St Luke's, and even then some. I'll see what I can do to try and make it easier for this point and the point about "incurrable". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (striking out interchange with main editor and will start new comments later - hamiltonstone (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)) This is impressive scholarship, but has some issues. I may have to pop in and out erratically.

• Background: The views of Szsz and Foucault are respectable, and reliable sources. However, there is an issue of clarity in the context of this article; and an issue of undue weight. Taking the first, less significant matter first: the para beings "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view;..." This needs to be clarified - i believe this should read "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of the nature of mental illness and of societal responses to it;" This is improtant in recognising that these authors are addressing mental illness / madness in general, not specifically Smart's condition, nor British 18th century regulatory reforms. The second issue is that, while the work of Szasz and Foucault (and others) in recognising the social construction of madness is very important scholarship, I do not think it reflects the prevailing contemporary view (and certainly not the prevailing contemporary medical view) of madness. I confess that, while I have proposed a revision to adderss my first point, I am not sure I have a proposal to address the second, except to say that other contemporary views about the nature and treatment of conditions such as experienced by Smart would appear to be desirable.
• Asylum: "...many of his friends, including writer and critic Samuel Johnson, began to write in the Universal Visiter to fulfil Smart's contractual obligation" What contractual obligation? This lacks context.
• "His praying began in regular intervals but slowly devolved into irregular praying..." Devolved?? Appropriate words might be "developed", "degenerated" or "altered".
• The lead makes references to the commencement of Smart's confinement in May 1757, but the section "Asylum" actually does not. It begins with some further background, and then in a fairly vague manner brings us to the point "Hunter reports that Samuel Johnson visited Smart during the latter's confinement", which appears to be the first explicit statement that he is in an asylum (or similar). This needs to be made clearer (as it is in the lead).
• "There are other possibilities" By this point i am confused: other possibilities in respect of what? What is the subject here? And indeed, because I was confused, I became less confident that i had grasped the subject of the preceding para. I think there needs to be some editing to mae the subject of sections and paras more clearly defined and signalled. This might include ditching some of the text (esp. Johnson's quip) about The Universal Visiter, as i can't see its relevance. Why not simply begin along the lines:

• "Smart, though confined to asylums, at no time ever believe himself to be insane. His friend Johnson did not share Smart's opinion. Johnson had begun meeting with Smart before his confinement, assisting Smart in meeting contractual obligations to contribute to The Universal Visiter (or however editors wish to express this). Johnson wrote "for poor Smart, while he was mad, not then knowing the terms on which he was engaged to write ... I hoped his wits would return to him", thus demonstrating Johnson's own interpretation of Smart's circumstances as being "madness". Another theory suggests Smart's actions were a result of alcohol, and had nothing to do with a mental imbalance.[ref] This may also have been related to the actions of Smart's father-in-law and publisher, Newbery. Newbery may have used the imprisonment of his son-in-law as leverage to control the publication of Smart's work and as a warning to others who worked for him not to cross him. Smart may have been imprisoned for embarrassing his father-in-law in some way, which could have resulted from an incident in which Smart would drink.[ref] Hester Thrale reinforced this latter possibility when she claimed that Smart's "religious fervor" tended to coincide with times that Smart was intoxicated.[ref]..."

• 20th Century and contemporary: "Ainsworth and Noyes are not completely skeptical about Smart's diagnosis when they continued..." mixed tenses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonstone (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As per your first objection, those two are used by sources who have written on Christopher Smart's asylum confinement. There are no other experts or individuals on the matter used by Christopher Smart's sources. Therefore, anything but mentioning of them would be a severe breach of original research. I follow Keymer's analysis to a T, including his description of scope and the rest. To make the changes that you propose would violate not only multiple policies by basis philosophy that is done at Wikipedia. As per that, your first objection can only be considered unactionable.

Your second - "What contractual obligation?" His contractual obligations to write in the Universal Visiter. This is implied in the statement that they were writing to meet his obligation. Any more detail would take paragraphs to explain and would be severely off topic. Your third objection seems to have no real merit - devolved is a synonymy of degenerate, a word you chose. To say that one is acceptable and another not would be inappropriate. Your fourth point - "By this point i am confused" The grammar has a colon. That means that the other possibilities will be explained. Your own sentence above complaining about this sentence uses a colon and operates in the same manner. The topic was clearly the same topic as the previous sentence - asylum, which is the section header. The rest of the phrase after the colon even makes this clear. I fixed the tensing. However, your other statements are inactionable and would require the violation of multiple policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, taking some of Ottava's points in order. You have clarified for me that Szasz and Foucault explicitly discussed Smart. Therefore, I suggest the section begin "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of Smart's confinement;" I think this clarification is desirable because an alternative interpretation (which I indeed mistakenly took) is possible; and the cited Szasz source is his general work on Madness (ie. as a reader, checking the title of the cited source did not encourage me to think that Szasz really had been writting specifically about Smart). This is a minor clarification that i think will help readability. You then remark that you "follow Keymer to a T", yet footnotes 6,7 and 8 are not to Keymer. If you are citing Szasz and Foucault from reading them / seeing them cited in Keymer, the footnote should reflect that. If not, then I'm not sure what you meant by "follow Keymer to a T", but I'm assuming there's no issue, so that's OK. Then we come to the "contractual obligation" point. Once i had read more of the article, it became clear what that contractual obligation was about; my point is that the reader needs the information at this particular point. Since this is the first time it is mentioned, it does need explanation. I cannot agree that it "would take paragraphs to explain and would be severely off topic". It would take approximately one sentence and would avoid mystifying the reader. Next: "devolved" is not a synonym of "degenerate" in this context. The common meaning of "devolve" is "to transfer or delegate"; you I think are seeking a word that implies a change in Smart's 'condition', specifically some form of deterioration. On your next point, i see what you are saying, and i think I was thrown by the practice, which I would avoid, of beginning a paragraph with a sentence that stylistically reads as a continuation of an existing para. "There are other possibilities:" does not stand in its own right as setting out the subject - the "other" is referring back to an earlier point. But the additional difficulty is that the previous para does not make explicit that we have entered a discussion of theories about why Smart was confined.
• Ottava, your response to my suggestions felt somewhat terse. I am sorry if i am not adequately articulating my concerns; I'm doing my best to assist with what I have found to be a difficult text to read. I do not doubt the quality of the scholarship, which is outstanding, but I still have concerns about clarity and readability. I hope to come back and assist further in time. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• My responses always come of terse, but mostly because I write hastily as I am busy with too much to really think about what I say. 1). Anyway, I see that I wasn't clear - Szasz and Foucault do not specifically address Smart's condition in those works. However, critics (i.e. biographers) in Christopher Smart criticism -use- those two works and apply the theories to Christopher Smart's case. In order to avoid original researcher, I followed Thomas Keymer's argument step by step (he was the model for the page). I introduced some of the perspective on the two and on Battie from other biographies. If you want, I can provide copies of the pages from Mounsey and Keymer and you can see that the quotes from Battie, Szasz, and Foucault are directly quoted in those works. The line from Keymer bridges the two in the article: "This description agrees with Smart's 1760s writings on the subject in which, according to Thomas Keymer ..." I do not have to cite Keymer when I am quoting from another source even if it is quoted in Keymer. That would be silly and would keep a reader from finding the original quote and verifying the original quote in context. I merely use Keymer's and Mounsey's text as a guide for what to include. 2) "The common meaning of "devolve" is "to transfer or delegate";" Definition 2 of dictionary.com "To degenerate or deteriorate gradually:". I would hope that the dictionary could be seen as reliable, as it uses both degenerate and deteriorate in the definition. 3) I have expanded the sentence to read "There are other possibilities beyond madness or religious fervor that led to Smart's confinement". I hope that clarifies. 4) I mentioned expanded the contractual obligations to "to fulfill Smart's contractual obligation to produce content for the magazine". However, he was obligated to produce content for the magazine and not allowed to produce content for any other magazine for a term of 99 years. He was contracted with another individual and the story behind it is very complicated (as are the terms of the contract). The contract was seemingly broken when the magazine ended after a dozen issues. It is a highly complex issue and I worry about any further detail on the matter as it would snowball. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, and thanks for your note at my talk page. Couple of points. From WP:CITE: "It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." Unless you yourself read Szasz in original, do it as "Szasz (1972) p. xxx cited in Keymer (2003) p. xx." Re the dictionary definition: I am most surprised by dictionary.com, and am sticking to my guns on this one. The Macquarie Dictionary (a large Australian dictionary ) does not have this as any possible meaning of "devolve"; ditto the Concise Oxford. Devolution is used to have a meaning similar to "degeneration" only in biological contexts (ie. in contrast to evolution). I have never seen "devolved" used in the manner used in the text here - surely it is preferable to use a word that will be immediately understood? Your little expansion re the contractual obligation thing is exactly the sort of clarification I was looking for, and is fine. Hopefully i will get back to this article another time. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you want, I can get my camera out and take pictures of both Foucault and Szasz. I also have Scull's The Most Solitary of Afflictions, which is another great work that I could have added. They are necessary for my own work (I wont get into that, as it is off topic). I am confused by Macquarie - devolve should be in all dictionaries since it is from the latin (volver - circle or rotate, and de means to cycle back). De is the opposite action as e (i.e. "evolution" and "devolution", sometimes also called "de-evolution"). Regardless, I will just change it to degenerate, even though degenerate has a stronger negative connotation than necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Not sure if we are at cross-purposes on some things here. You say "I can take pictures..." - i assuume that means you have Foucault and Szasz there: in which case, everything is fine - i just thought your earlier comment here was saying you had sighted then in another source. On devolve, again we might be at cross purposes. The word is in the dict, but not the definition you found at dictionary.com. And if you want something less strong than "degenerate", you could try "deteriorated" or even just something like "changed". hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• It must be an Americanism. "Changed" would not have the connotation of falling apart. "Devolve" is just used from my experience (obviously, American) as a polite way of saying degeneration. It doesn't matter, as some people would consider rambling around in the street, harassing people, and asking them to do stuff a "degeneration". "Deteriorated" would imply a more physical/health condition than a mental/social condition. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - Wow, reading the above comments demonstrated how much thought some people put into articles. I really don't think that I could buckle down and go into that level of depth on an article that I was not involved or highly interested in.

• My concern is a bit more practical. I noticed that in the text, the abbreviation Mr. was written as "Mr" with no period. Now I am no english major, but this seems to be, well, wrong. The same issue occours with the abbreviation "St" which I have never seen without the dot in a professonal context.
• Secondly, I took minor issue with the wording of the header "Reaction" as it seems slightly misleading. Most of the text below could be better described as "Analysis." Reaction tends to imply a period of time closer to the event. This is especially true for the 20th century and contemporary section.

I expect to throw in my support soon, I need to read it again though. Nezzadar (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you about punctuation after "Mr" and "St". However, the subject deals with a British individual so follows British punctuations. It is an annoyance. I changed the heading to "Analysis" because it seems like a good neutral way of describing the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I read and copyedited this a while ago - the degree of material for context is tricky, but I feel the article has the right amount of background material to provide context without it being superfluous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support
• I have undertaken some copyediting and attempted some clarifications of obscure or ambiguous phrases.
• The background is good, but it lacks a key first sentence I think—something like: "Christopher Smart was an English poet who was confined to asylums during a time of debate about the nature of madness and its treatment."
• "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view:..." Can we add a few words about precisely what it is about which modern critics have a more cynical view, as well as making clear they are referring to cases such as Smart's when being discussed? I am thinking: "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of why society confined people such as Smart in asylums:..."
• "...during the previous century that he was placed in St Luke's." I think what is meant here is "...during the century prior to Smart being placed in St Luke's." If so, it should be amended.
• ""Commission of Lunacy" was taken out against Smart..." The nature of a commission for lunacy needs a brief explanation - a few words as a subordinate clause in this sentence.
• "was confined by Newbery". This sounds as though Newbery was administering St Luke's Hospital and needs revision. Is the point here that Newbery made the application for Smart to be confined? If so "It is possible Nwebery sought Smart's confinement..." would be a better wording.

More another day, but generally I feel the later parts of the article are stronger. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Done. At first, I was hesitant, then I realized that the source actually says the above, so, I made the change without a problem. 2. Wrote "have a more cynical view of the 18th-century use of the term "madness" when diagnosing patients". 3. Done. 4. I couldn't find anything that would help, so I just removed the phrase. 5. "Newbery was administering" - I changed it to "at Newbery's behest". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• My above concerns all addressed, thanks. Next:
• The Analysis section. This should begin with as sentence that foreshadows in plain english what Johnson and Piozzi's opinions are. The quotes are long and in (of course) antiquated English, so their point is not immediately ascertained by a contemporary reader.
• "Most journalists knew of..." Yet the next sentence says "In particular, poet William Mason..." This implies a poet is an example of a journalist, something I would suggest any poet would resile from.
• In addition, this short para needs a new first sentence. It would read somethig like "While friends like Johnson did not believe Smart to be insane, others argued to the contrary."
• "Although it took a century before a positive twist was put on Christopher Smart's time in asylum, Robert Browning later remarked in his Parleyings (1887)..." Having read this twice, I think what is meant here is that Browning was the person who put the positive spin on Smart's time in asylum. If that is correct, then recommend revise this to: "It was a century before a positive twist was put on Christopher Smart's time in asylum. Fittingly, it was another poet, Robert Browning, who remarked that A Song to David was great because Smart was mad at the time of its composition. In his poem Parleyings (1887), Browning writes:"
• It would be good if another editor could have a careful look at the use of tense in the "20th century and contemporary" section. I have amended a couple of instances where the manner in which tense was expressed had caused a sentence to be ungrammatical; however, there does seem to be some switching between present and past tense in introducing the various analyses.
• One structural question. I wonder whether the paragraph in the Background section that begins "Modern critics however..." might better be part of the 20th century analysis section. Any other views on this?

This otherwise now looks good, and i expect to support promotion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the tensing corrections, added some information before Johnson, Piozzi, and the next paragraph, and some other fixes. In terms of structure, the background section merely deals with the overall approach to "madness". It is necessary to understand what "madness" is and how the "mad" were treated. The later responses by critics is the disputed explanations for why he was specifically deemed "mad". These range from the idea that he was indeed crazy to conspiracy to religious persecution. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very sharp work and all my concerns are addressed. I think this is good to go. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This article has an unusually low density of links, with whole sections containing less than 1 link. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Correct linking is not a matter of counting links or density. Please see WP:OVERLINKing and WP:MOSLINK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if I ever finish work on Christopher Smart, there would be four more pages (Mrs Midnight, her oratory, some other publications) that would be added as links. There is no page on John Sherratt, Christopher Hunter, or Elizabeth LeNoir unfortunately. There are also many major critics that lack pages. Not much that can be done. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Redlinks? Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• FAC does not approve of redlinks in general, and you would have to add about 10 or so that may or may not ever have articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what that means, but the notion that FAC discourages redlinks is incorrect. Anything that meets notability should be redlinked. See WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandy, I remember many instances at FAC of "there are too many redlinks". For some reason, I'm willing to think that you even made such a statement before. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nope; whenever I see them, I post the disclaimer. An article has to be comprehensive. Our concern here is that, if the link is red, the article may have to provide context (as needed), or the link can be filled in. As long as this article is OK, that article can be redlinked. I am aware of one reviewer who frequently complained about the quality of linked articles (even removing links to articles she considered incomplete, which is not good practice-- articles are less likely to be improved if they are delinked!), and neither is that part of WIAFA. As long as this article is comprehensive and terms are explained, redlinks or inferior quality links are not an issue, and redlinks to articles meeting notability are encouraged and should be included (see my recent changes to FAC Icos, which no reviewer picked up). That article is perfectly understandable with two redlinks in the lead, and since those articles meet notability, those links *should* be included, and the nominator is under no obligation to stubbify those links, since context is provided at Icos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it may have been a while ago. I could look if you want. :P Regardless, as I pointed out - there are no more bluelinks that can be added, and there is no ability to justify a redlink, as there is no way to claim that these individuals are notable with the current sources now (and right now, I have all of the sources on Christopher Smart published after 1965 and many sources before, as per my commission to write a biography on him). There are two links that would be splits from the main Christopher Smart article -if- I manage to finish it and get it to size enough to justify to content splits. However, those would be two links that have very little connection. Anyway, it is a poor substitute for bluelinks to suddenly fill a page with redlinks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you're right in saying FAC doesn't approve of redlinks "in general". Obviously seas of red print are undesirable, but since you have added "unfortunately" to the list of three pageless names above, one would think that these were likely candidates for future articles and could be redlinked. Not a major issue, but something to be borne in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I never said those names were necessarily notable or deserve pages. However, they are the only candidates for bluelinks. It would take a lot of research, for instance, to justify Christopher Smart's daughter who, as of right now, seems to appear only in a very fringe way in only 4 or 5 sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: I've removed two cases of what I consider to be weasel words and also removed "harsh" from "harsh reviews"; it seemed too subjective for the article, the reader can decide for themselves whether it is harsh or not. I'm still concerned about the Background for the article; it doesn't cover either madhouses or the fact that the patient, rather than the illness, was curable or incurable. I think those two points are crucial to understanding and fully benefiting from the article, and therefore they should be included in the Background surely? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They were "harsh reviews". That is not a "weasel word". Harsh is a description say that they destroyed him in a review. They -destroyed- him in a review. Please don't make such changes unless you find a source that dares to claim the reviews were not harsh, as there are none. From the source "The Critical was brief and harsh" (p. 248). Please don't make such changes again. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, all of the comments and approaches about "curable" and "incurable" are based on what the sources say. To characterize it in any other way is original research. Furthermore, what do you want to know on "madhouses", especially since there has been a full paragraph about them: "18th century treatment of inpatients was simple:". I wont be going into original research, which it seems by your concerns that you want such. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "harsh" was a weasel word, please read the revision history again. I removed it because the statement seemed to me to be written by someone who was obviously sympathetic to Christopher Smart's confinement, which is against what (I feel) an encyclopedia is about. If it transcludes what the sources say then I think it needs to be made obvious. Also, I find your tone incredibly antagonistic. I would prefer if you didn't, in future, litter my talk page with the pretence of being someone wih any kind of impact on how I edit on Wikipedia. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "in order to" is not a weasel word nor even close. You have shown a misunderstanding of two things so far. My tone is antagonistic because you have damaged a page while promoting something that is patently absurd. I'll be sure to just take you to AN or ANI since you don't want me to "litter your talk page". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Moni3 will support if resolved

• and it is possible that the self-evaluation found in his poetry represents an evangelical Christianity. Would it be better to say that the poetry represented an expression of evangelical Christianity? The way it is currently worded makes it seem as if there is a type of Christianity called Evangelical, which would introduce the fine points between Pentecostal and other types of Protestant forms of evangelicalism.
• I certainly get the impression that it did not take much to get someone committed if Smart's father-in-law was able to do so. Standards for commitment have changed through the years. I recall that it took very little to get a woman committed in the US at the turn of the 20th century: just a male relative attesting that she was mad. This case, however, is more curious and I am curious to know what it took to get a fully grown intelligent man committed to an insane asylum. The only other case coming to mind is the Marquis de Sade who was committed because his nobility kept him from prison (my understanding of it, at least).
• Who characterized Smart's fit?
• I don't understand the "issued" of Smart's Hymn to the Supreme Being. Does that mean he published it or had it printed?
• Can you give a sentence or two about Smart's accomplishments, how he earned his living and what he had previously published before his confinement? Should this appear on the main page, readers will have little concept of who Smart was beyond this article.
• Otherwise, I found it a challenging and engaging article. Interesting. It is possible I may have missed the above requests...I get constantly interrupted sometimes and find it difficult to keep track of what I read. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I think I originally said "type of" but then that got changed at some point. I made the change. Also, I later say "self-examination represents an evangelical type of Christianity". I conformed the language to the change in the lead. 2. "This case, however, is more curious" Indeed it is, but there is little information on the matter. Chris Mounsey (the most recent biographer) takes up the idea that Newbery was doing this all as part of a power dispute, but doesn't say -how- he was able to do it. No one has really effectively explained how it happened, but this is probably because no one knows when it actually happened (as there are few dates and solid bits of information). It is unfortunate. 3. I'm not sure which line you are referring to. Was it the line: 'some kind, possibly a "disturbed mental state"'. 4. "issued" means published, printed, and sold. I could change it to any of the three if you would prefer one over the other. 5. I added a paragraph. I don't know if that provides you enough information of Smart pre-confinement. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• which came after a mysterious "fit" was resolved That fit. Asylum section, second paragraph, second sentence.
• Issued is either quite dated or does not really express what might have been a rift between the two. Printed and sold certainly gets that point across.
• Good with the new paragraph. That adds some context.
• Bummer about the details of his confinement. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• "express what might have been a rift between the two" - I changed it to "published". I also rewrote the "fit" paragraph. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.