Talk:Daniel Lambert

message: Source is at http://www.familylambert.net/History/bios/daniel.html - the text from this is commented out within the Wikipedia article.  The Stamford story is almost certainly apocryphal, as he happened to die in the town during a visit and was never a resident.  I'm also going to add some information from the Oxford DNB.  --  ajn</span> (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: This seems a bit quote-ish - what does the source say?
"His home was described as having the air of a fashionable resort, rather than that of an exhibition, and he declared himself greatly pleased at the politeness and respect he generally received from those paying to meet him, and at the fact that his visitors treated him with courtesy and not simply as a spectacle"
Its the "greatly" part that disturbs me.  If this is heading for FAC then someone will surely flag that. Parrot of Doom 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: His apartments there had more the air of a place of fashionable resort, than of an exhibition ; and as long as the town continued full, he was visited by a great deal of the best company. The dread he felt on coming to London, lest he should be exposed to indignity and insult from the curiosity of some of his visitors, was soon removed by the politeness and attention which he universally experienced. There was not a gentleman in town from his own county, but went to see him, not merely gazing at him as a spectacle, but treating him in the most friendly and soothing manner, which, he has declared, is too deeply impressed upon his mind ever to be forgotten. I was trying to keep as close as possible to the meaning and flavour of the original without quoting verbatim. "Greatly" can certainly go. – iridescent 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a mistake to borrow the style of another writer, particularly one who wrote so long ago.  I'd stick to your own style, and if you must use older prose put it into quotes; otherwise it stands out, as it does here. Parrot of Doom 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that work? I don't want to lose this completely—it's one of the few sources for his own feelings on going from "shy recluse" to "celebrity" almost overnight. – iridescent 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better, yes.  I changed visitors to customers. Parrot of Doom 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote? 

message: The thing is that when I first saw this article, I read it wrong. I thought he was a 739-pound goal keeper. I was about to say! Because if he had been a goal keeper, his team would have had a grossly unfair advantage!
Captainsiberia (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Question and suggestion. Isn't gaoler the more usual term and also less like to cause confusion with goalkeeper? GDallimore (Talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "gaoler" returns 40x more Google hits than "gaol keeper" and is much less confusing.  It should be changed. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 17:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not synonyms. A gaol keeper is the manager of the gaol (the governor, in today's terms); a gaoler is the guy who locks the prisoners in the cells (the warder, in today's terms). Calling a gaol keeper a gaoler is equivalent to calling a brothel keeper a prostitute. – iridescent 2 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A Gaol Keeper, Not a Goal Keeper

message: The images :File:Daniel Lambert.jpeg and :File:Daniel Lambert.jpg seem very similar - the latter appears to be battered and dirty compared to the former. There are enough differences, particularly in the face, to suggest that different artists were involved. But are both required? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ambivalent. If one is to be kept, I'd strongly favour :File:Daniel Lambert.jpg; despite the fading, it's of far higher quality (compare the faces). The main reason I kept :File:Daniel Lambert.jpeg is that it was the image illustrating this article when I started, and removing images from articles altogether sometimes causes arguments. They're intentionally spaced very far apart in the article. – iridescent 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd remove the more colourful image, I agree with you that the older, scratchy image, is superior. Parrot of Doom 19:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. Since the original uploader hasn't edited for over a year, hopefully there won't be a "how dare you" moment. – iridescent 20:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: is on now - will be available for a week on Listen Again.  Details here. 86.140.128.91 (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Radio 4 programme about Daniel Lambert and other big 'uns 

message: in the header of the article one sentence reads:
"In 1805 the gaol of which Lambert was keeper closed."
This sentence reads very poorly IMHO.  the article already tells us he was a gaol keeper so i don't think it is necessary to reiterate this in the sentence about the gaol closure.  
the "of which" is particularly cumbersome.  i suggest the line read something like "Lambert's gaol closed in 1805", "The gaol that Lambert kept was closed in 1805",  "In 1805 Lambert's gaol was closed" or any other permutation that doesn't do the "of which" thing.
LazyMapleSunday (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  awkward phrasing 

message: The whole article is a biography so it is redundant to have a "Biography" heading. I propose deleting this heading and promoting all its sub-headings up one level. I routinely do this with bio articles but as this is an FA, I am posting here to solicit other views. – ukexpat (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Richerman (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I concur. Raul654 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the #Causes section above. I don't think the 'Biography' heading is necessary, but someone wanted it added. – iridescent 2 10:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think it needs to be changed - three posters here agree that the Biography heading is unnecessary, one person above wanted it. I'll make the change later today unless there are strong objections. – ukexpat (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: He is not a Goalkeeper, he is a Gaol keeper (as in prison). My edit was reverted.Rmsuperstar99 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid ambiguity betweeen goalkeeper and gaolkeeper, which can be easily misread and confused, why not use 'gaoler' or 'jailer' instead? 81.129.134.7 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They're two different things. A gaol keeper is the manager of the gaol; a gaoler is the guy who locks the prisoners in the cells. Calling a gaol keeper a gaoler is equivalent to calling a brothel keeper a prostitute. – iridescent 2 10:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that distinction?  Wiktionary defines 'gaoler' as 'the keeper of a gaol', and Wikipedia doesn't make a distinction at gaol.  Good writing is important.  ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How important is it? Like Who Shot J.R.? important or being baptized so as not to spend eternity in the Eternal Lake of Fire? Do be specific as to how utterly important good writing is. You should particularly emphasize this to the editor(s) who wrote the article. Be pedantic and condescending for effect. We're all agog. --71.192.35.112 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goalkeeper? 

message: Given all the comments about his girth and his weight, is there any record of how tall he was? 149.171.155.164 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is stated in 'Medical Examination' that his height was measured to be 5'11". Fickce4 (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: I have not done a thorough search to see if this has been discussed previously, but I noticed this article does not contain Template:Infobox person. Would an infobox improve the article? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Infoboxes are useful for articles which are part of a series and there's a need to make the articles easily comparable (members of a sports team, towns and villages, animal species etc). They're inappropriate for "stand-alone" topics, as (assuming the lead is properly written) they add nothing that isn't already covered in the lead. – iridescent 2 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree - there are hundreds, probably thousands, of articles about individuals that have infoboxes, where the individuals are not "part of a series" - e.g. academics, artists, other historical figures. Infoboxes provide a useful snapshot of relevant information (hence the name) for the reader without having to read the lead or the rest of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no purpose for an infobox.  Basic information is contained in the lead (and an encylopedia does not have to cater to those with a three-second attention span), and filling in more detailed fields gives undue influence to the information added and often involves original research.  This article would not be improved by an infobox.  Kablammo (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox person? 

message: What a treat — a well-written article about a topic I knew nothing about before today.  This is what I love about Wikipedia!  :) MeegsC | Talk 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks! 

message: "He disliked changing his clothes, and each morning habitually wore the clothes he had worn the day before, regardless of whether they were still wet;[14] by Lambert's own account he suffered no colds or other ill effects from this behaviour.[15]"
The common cold is caused by a virus, right? It isn't caused by wearing wet clothes afaik. Does this need rephrasing? Wasbeer 21:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A common misconception is that cold cloths = catch a cold.  Perhaps Lambert also thought this.  Remember, nobody then knew anything about viruses. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: No; you're decades ahead of time; in this period medical orthodoxy was that disease was directly caused by environmental factors. The existence of viruses wasn't even suspected until the 1880s, and even bacteria were considered a crank theory until the 1850s; the common cold has its name because people in this period believed that it was caused directly by cold. – iridescent 21:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I was just wondering if there is a way to rephrase it so that it is clear that it wasn't necessary for him to worry about that. Wasbeer 03:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange sentence 

message: It really isn't a stretch to identify Mr. J. Drakard of Stamford, publisher, with John Drakard. Everyone agreed? Charles Matthews (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Drakard

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Lambert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010221638/http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/stamfordmuseum to http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/stamfordmuseum
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Lambert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603064030/http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/lc/leicester-city-museums/museums/newarkehouses/the-galleries/ to http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/lc/leicester-city-museums/museums/newarkehouses/the-galleries/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified