Talk:Asylum confinement of Christopher Smart

Reversion rather than improvement

I will not interfere in the article again, but allow me to leave you with some comments:

The lede is particularly poor. The first paragraph is sloppily constructed, weaselly and repetitive, the second is awkward and unclear, and the third sets out facts that are not elucidated in the article proper (some attempt appears to have been made to correct this since the last reversion, but do not go far enough to support the claims - where is the plot to silence specifically? who are the many?). My "introduced errors" surely didn't extend to the whole lede, and certainly my changes corrected other small errors in the main text, though no doubt there are more. Usernamenotalreadyinuse (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm enchanted by the idea of a sockpuppet whose sole intent is to undermine the factual accuracy of the article on Christopher Smart's asylum confinement through considered copy-editing. Danger, Will Robinson! Usernamenotalreadyinuse (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You introduced many errors into the page. There was no reason for you to even be on the page. If you continue, you will be blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you are funny! (but if you continue to make jokes you will be blocked). Usernamenotalreadyinuse (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Context

One thing I do like for articles, especially shorter ones, is some form of context so the reader can figure out why some of the issues raised in an article are important. Question is, at what point do we draw the line and an article become an essay?

For instance, here we have a Background section, which attempts (successfully IMO) to set the scene of his confinement in asylums by briefly discussing the use of asylums and views of madness at the time. All looks good. I did wonder whether paragraph four, where Szasz is introduced, is starting to render the article overinclusive, but on imagining it with and without aforesaid paragraph, I feel the article is richer with it in rather than out. Others are welcome to state their opinions on this :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To give a little background/insight into the background section - Thomas Keymer's essay is a New Historicist essay that uses the view of Foucault, Szasz, and others to put together background. Although I did not copy exactly what he did, the pattern, or the language, I used his sources and used them in a small extent. The 18th-century sources are used by Keymer, Sherbo, and others. I would not want to use sources not used by the others based on the overall philosophy of original research, as I did not want to point out some kind of background/historical description that isn't already known in scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That was wisely done :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Some other isolated queries

• This sentence:

Regardless of the reasons why patients were admitted into mental asylums during the 18th century, their treatment was simple: they were to be fed daily a light diet of bread, oatmeal, some meat or cheese, and a little amount of beer, which were inadequate in meeting daily nutritional needs

why not just:

18th century treatment of inpatients was simple: they were to be fed daily a light diet of bread, oatmeal, some meat or cheese, and a little amount of beer, which were inadequate in meeting daily nutritional needs

• It is possible that Smart was confined by Newbery over old debts and a poor relationship that existed between the two - is the poor relationship causative to the first bit or is there supposed to be a comma after "debts"?

A comma after debts would denote a new clause in a compound sentence. Instead, these are to be seen as two parts of the same clause (A and B). It is know that Smart/Newbery had problems in general and there were debts, but it is not sure which caused which. If you have any suggestions for rewording or clarifying, that would be fine. The "debt" part can be removed, but it is important to Smart as a whole because he was in constant problems with debt and eventually died in debtors prison. It is possible that debt helped put him into asylum (as Newbery could keep Smart from spending money while he sold the works to recoup any of his loses) or asylum furthered Smart's debts (because he didn't receive any of the money owed to him off of his many, many publications). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn, that's a tricky one. I need to sleep on it methinks...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just passing through, but are "incurrable" and "nusances" as they appear in the original quotation? Didn't want to "fix" the spelling myself given how much spelling patterns can change over the centuries. Steve ^T • C 08:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find my copy right now, but excerpts from other sources see "nusances" as his spelling but do not verify "incurrable". My internet is being very frustrating today, so it will be hard for me to ask others. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 29, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 29, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The English poet Christopher Smart was confined to mental asylums from 1757 until 1763. Smart was admitted into St Luke's Hospital for Lunatics on 6 May 1757. While in St Luke's he wrote Jubilate Agno and A Song to David, the poems considered to be his greatest works. Although many of his contemporaries agreed that Smart was "mad", accounts of his condition and its ramifications varied, and some felt that he had been committed unfairly. Smart was diagnosed as "incurable" while at St Luke's, and when they ran out of funds for his care he was moved to Mr. Potter's asylum. Smart's isolation led him to abandon the poetic genres of the 18th century that had marked his earlier work, and to write religious poetry. His asylum poetry reveals a desire for "unmediated revelation", and it is possible that the self-evaluation found in his poetry represents an expression of evangelical Christianity. Late 18th-century critics felt that Smart's madness justified them in ignoring his A Song to David, but during the following century Robert Browning and his contemporaries considered his condition to be the source of his genius. It was not until the 20th century that critics reconsidered Smart's case and began to see him as a revolutionary poet. (more...)

Images

I feel that this article could use at least one additional image, if available. Perhaps of St Luke's Hospital for Lunatics? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Can this be fixed please?

• Keymer 1999, p. 188 Harv error: link from #CITEREFKeymer1999 doesn't point to any citation.

Also, I see some spaced WP:EMDASHes ... mixed with unspaced emdashes ... emdashes should be unspaced. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Think I took care of the above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Vincent van Gogh's health which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)