Talk:Joseph Priestley/Archive 2

Source query

For any Priestley experts who come by, I have a query. In writing this page, I have relied to a large extent on Schofield's biography. I also read the other biographies, of course. Unfortunately, in doing this work I discovered an unsettling series of factual errors and other problems in Jackson's book. Is it best to leave it out of the footnotes because of its manifest problems or is it best to leave it in (I can at least use it to validate what is correct)? I do not really want to endorse the book, but as a writer for wikipedia I am supposed to use the published material available. For Priestley, there isn't much in the way of biography, I'm afraid. Awadewit ^Talk 09:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I am not even 1% of a Priestley expert. But nobody else has attempted to answer this in a whole month so you deserve some sort of reply; and I'm reluctant to let a little matter like total ignorance prevent me from spouting off.

First, I only wish that it was normal for writers of biographical articles on WP to study a single good book about their subjects, let alone to consider it a matter of course that the writer should read more than one (perhaps all).

I wish that, too. I often try to convince people of the importance of reading a number of sources, since it is important to find what they agree upon, but I am often rebuffed. More people advocating good research is always helpful! (note, I did not use "for" - I am trying to train myself). Awadewit | talk 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To take this article as an opportunity to point out the flaws in Jackson's book would risk accusations of all sorts of things. Yet for you (who don't seem to have an axe to grind here) were to cite it in such a way as to suggest it was as valuable as any of its rivals would seem curiously irresponsible. There's no obligation to cite all the good books on a subject, let alone the rather dodgy ones. If Jackson's book is as you portray it, I'd be inclined to remain silent about it. (If on the other hand it's demonstrably excellent on this or that aspect of Priestley, cite it for that; or at the other extreme if it has a certain notoriety or has promulgated significant misunderstandings then this might be worth noting if you can do so in a way that seems neutral and not vindictive.) -- Hoary 11:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The one thing Jackson's book is good at, I think, is describing Priestley's experiments in accessible language for the lay person, but I could be totally wrong since I am not intimately familiar with his experiments in the first place - it just appeared that way to me. So far, I haven't tried to discuss Priestley's actual experiments. I thought that perhaps the oxygen experiment should be discussed, if any, but I am afraid to write that section, since I am not totally sure I understand it myself. I was hoping ragesoss could add that bit in. Awadewit | talk 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What I have done so far in the article is try to only cite Jackson's book when there are other sources to back it up and to discourage people from reading it a bit in my descriptions of the biographies in the "Bibliography." Let me know if you think that I should take out all of the references to it. Unfortunately, it is the only modern, readable biography available. Schofield's is a bit of a slog, even though it is the best and most detailed, and Uglow's has very little on Priestley himself - it is a giant biography of all of the Lunar Society members. However great it is (and it is readable and informative), it does not focus on Priestley. The other biographies are from the 1960s or earlier. I find the Gibbs (1960s) good but I am reticent to rely too much on something written in the 1930s or teens, as Caven and Thorpe were, since scholarly practices were so different then. Awadewit | talk 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Daventry Academy

One place in which this article is, I think, obviously too digressive is the description of Dissenting academies in the section titled "Daventry Academy". The material looks worthwhile, but it's very questionable in an encyclopedia article on one of the Academy's students.

I suggest moving the talk on academies in general (and their relationship with the universities), to a separate article, "Dissenting academy (England)" or some such title, and then of course linking to it and perhaps also summarizing it here in a clause or two. My uncertainty about the most appropriate title is one reason why I don't make the move myself. -- Hoary 02:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have included it for several reasons: to emphasize Priestley's separation from the "Establishment"; to illustrate the importance of Dissenters in the "Enlightenment" and how Priestley was a part of that; all of the encyclopedia entries I have looked at on Priestley mention these facts. If there is a way to cut down, I am all for that, but I do think it is necessary background knowledge. Awadewit | talk 07:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that there should be a separate article on Dissenting academies, but I do not have time to write it nor would this be a sufficient stub. Also, I have a feeling that something along the lines of what I have would be a summary of any real article. Awadewit | talk 07:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am currently trying to expand the Priestley Riots article so perhaps that section could be cut down in the manner you have suggested for this material. We'll see if that works out. Awadewit | talk 07:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Priestley Riots

I have now greatly expanded the Priestley Riots article. Let me know if you think more can be cut from that section in this article. Awadewit | talk 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Charts

I think that I have enough material from enough different sources to write a decent "start" or "B" article on Priestley's Charts. That would help reduce space as well. What should I title the page, though? I think it is best to discuss the Charts and Descriptions of Charts all together. Awadewit | talk 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am breaking down an forking a Joseph Priestley and education page. I think that one will be the least disruptive to the page. Awadewit | talk 08:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Forks

Perhaps with only two forks, we can bring the article down to size: Joseph Priestley and education and Joseph Priestley and Dissent. What does everyone think? (It is so much work to fork well.) Awadewit | talk 08:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, splitting choronoliogically would be most sensible, with a break at each change of location, and would have other advantages such as enabling tighter categorisation; there are already precedents and tools for doing so. Andy Mabbett 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain what is illegitimate about this forking scheme (which also has plenty of precedent - see Isaac Newton's religious views and Isaac Newton's occult studies, for example). You may prefer chronology, but since I am the person writing all of the pages, I have tried to reduce the workload for myself by creating only two new pages rather than four or five (I might still have to do "JP and science," but I hope not). You might also look at the article titles in the "Bibliography" - many of them address specific topics in Priestley's career. Following the lead of the scholarship will make my job as an editor easier and will also lend credence to the forking scheme I have chosen. Awadewit | talk 09:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Categorization is a moot point; there are plenty of categories that relate to the new pages I created (in draft form). Also, there aren't really any useful "tools" for forking - human authors still have to write the articles - we don't have robots capable of that yet. Awadewit | talk 09:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you think that the forked pages are removing the wrong information and that I should create forks for "JP and science" and "JP and politics" (two other options that I thought of), please explain why. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 09:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"since I am the person writing all of the pages"; "my job as an editor" - I refer you, once again, to WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. What should I have said? "one's job" or "Awadewit, the editor writing all of the pages"? That is just sophistry. I am not going to get into another debate over this. I have better things to do (like write the article). As I have said repeatedly, I would love to have other editors contribute significantly to the page. I cannot help it if there aren't any. Please either make some meaningful contributions to the page or submit a meaningful critique of the article. Awadewit | talk 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review some of the recent AfD's. I was just involved in one over William Shakespeare's list of works that decided not to delete because "the author of the page" was going to expand it. See here for the discussion. Your complaints are more useful at debates such as those where WP:OWN is really being violated. Awadewit | talk 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not sophistry; it seems you need to read WP:AGF as well as WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett 11:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to "assume good logic" where there isn't any. Awadewit | talk 11:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right, Awadewit doesn't own the article or any of its proposed derivatives. I hadn't noticed any claim by her that she did own it or them. (A look in the article's edit history shows that the huge majority of the work that has already been done has been done by her; indeed, it seems that the content of the article after this point is by her alone. In reality, then, I'd say it's her article.) The nuggets that you've presented here are about the work that she envisages doing. Has anyone offered to help her, or to take over from her? I certainly haven't. While various other people could no doubt make little improvements here or there, I'm confident that the person most capable of breaking up the article well is, among all those who've popped up on this talk page, Awadewit. How should this article be broken up? Priestley's numerous moves and the continuity of his concerns make a chronological/geographical system look like a poor option to me. A thematic division seems better, and if such a division makes Awadewit's job easier that's a welcome bonus. -- Hoary 11:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like the thematic divisions you've proposed. Also, WP:OWN is about preventing changes that others try to introduce; if no one else is contributing (I still plan on putting more into this, but not just yet) it's a moot point.--ragesoss 17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ragesoss, do you think we should do a "JP and science" fork? If so, would you be willing to set up the basics of it? I really feel inadequate to the task (describing experiments and such). If you write a first draft, I am obviously willing to revise and copy edit away. Awadewit | talk 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to commit to it for sure at this point (as on-wiki time is time I ought to be spending on my dissertation prospectus), but I'll say "probably". That is, probably I will write a draft, if one is necessary. I haven't spent enough time with those biographies to say whether such a fork is appropriate.--ragesoss 02:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Let me know when you know. (Prospectuses are hard - saying your argument before you've done the research - a bit tricky.) Awadewit | talk 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley and education

I have posted Joseph Priestley and education. Please help me move over more information, if possible, and summarize more efficiently in the main article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to help me copy edit and reorganize a bit over at Joseph Priestley and education? I think that fork might be relatively stable now. Awadewit | talk 03:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley and Dissent

I have posted a very rough Joseph Priestley and Dissent. Please help me move over more information, if possible, and summarize more efficiently in the main article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"such a cluttered intro"

On this edit, and its move of the top photo from the right to the left: This tells us: Start the article with a right-aligned image. But it shortly thereafter adds: Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using {{TOCright}}. Since faces are not perfectly symmetrical it is generally inadvisable to use photo editing software to reverse a right-facing portrait image; however, some editors employ this controversial technique when it does not alter obvious non-symmetrical features (such as Mikhail Gorbachev’s birthmark) or make included text in the image unreadable.

I see nothing wrong with having the photo on the right looking rightward. I see plenty wrong with mirror-reversing. I left-aligned the rightward face as doing so didn't break any rule and seemed OK to me too. -- Hoary 07:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the side is as important with this portrait as it is will others in which there is a very clear L/R turn (see, for example, Mary Wollstonecraft), but since you seem to prefer the portrait on the L, what do you think about my most recent arrangement? I think that it looks slightly less cluttered, it has the portrait on the left and it doesn't have a big white space next to the TOC. Thoughts? Awadewit | talk 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If "you" is me, hm, I suppose I do slightly prefer it on the left, yes; but my strong preference is to avoid the risk that somebody will later mirror-reverse the image itself. Yes, I like the latest arrangement. (Psst: Apropos of clutter, and while the infobox police aren't looking, consider Hannah, in whose FAC nobody has yet mentioned the need for such additional junk.) -- Hoary 09:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• People reverse images? I guess I didn't think you were actually saying that since that is so appalling. Artists make certain decisions regarding facing - who are we to reverse those? That is horrifying - it is like changing an author's words and then claiming it is still a quotation. Awadewit | talk 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• That was an easy consensus. :) Awadewit | talk 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Infoboxes really matter to some people. It is odd. Have you read this essay on banners and infoboxes? I think you might like it. Awadewit | talk 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

10,000 words and break

Yeah! We have finally hit just over 10,000 words. Good copy editing should bring us down even further. If you add something, try to remove something of comparable size and of lesser importance. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 10:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a good time for me to take a break from this article. I will keep an eye on it to make sure it is not destroyed by vandals, obviously, but I need some time away. When I return with a fresh perspective, hopefully I can delete even more and spiff up the writing. Awadewit | talk 08:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oxygen

The discovery of oxygen is difficult to assign with certainty, but I noticed that the articles on Priestley, Scheele and Lavoisier all gave slightly different attributions! I have adjusted all three to match the carefully described sequence of events given at Oxygen. Mooncow 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that all three pages give different accounts. It is not entirely clear what the sequence of events was and historical accounts of JP, AL and AS will probably favor whichever person is being written about. The problem with your edit was that you introduced information without giving a citation for it. Perhaps you could add what it is you want to see in the article to the "To do" list and I will look for it in the biographies and my stack of articles? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The only information I added was drawn from the article on Oxygen (in the History section). I see there are no references given there. Perhaps you could use your resources to rectify that. I see you reverted my whole edit rather than just removing or marking the unsourced statement. Please read Help:reverting. Thanks. Mooncow 23:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting your edit to the lead again. The biographies I have read do not say that Priestley discovered oxygen - they say that both he and Lavoisier discovered it around the same time. Since you have no references for your statement (wikipedia pages do not count as references), this is a legitimate revert. Awadewit | talk 12:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Help:reverting. Once again, your revert removed more than the statement you objected to. Please try to improve, not revert, good faith edits, and if there is a dispute we should discuss it on this page to reach concensus.

• I was trying to discuss the issue on the talk page and I'm sorry that other things were reverted along with the oxygen bit. That was unintentiontial. Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that Priestley and Lavoisier discovered oxygen simultaneously is at variance with a substantial body of modern scholarship, as well as at variance with the Wikipedia articles on oxygen and Lavoisier. My claim is a more careful one: only that Priestley is "usually credited with" the discovery of oxygen. There is of course a balancing claim that Lavoisier recognised the significance of oxygen, identified it as an element, and gave it its name. I think those points are brought out well in the articles on oxygen and on Lavoisier, and I don't think they are immediately relevant to an already lengthy article on Priestley, so I've not added them to this article.

Of course, you are right that I should be able to substantiate the claim. I offer the following references:

• Senese, Fred. "When did Antoine Lavoisier discover oxygen". Retrieved 2007-08-09.

• This is a self-published website. Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Shell, Barry (2000-01-30). "Answer to the question: Who REALLY discovered oxygen?". Retrieved 2007-08-09.

• I'm not convinced of this site's reliability. Who authored this answer, for example? The statements in this article all come from Priestley experts. Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

*Weisstein, Eric. "Lavoisier, Antoine (1743-1794)". Retrieved 2007-08-09. ("Repeating the experiments of Priestley...")

• See here. Who is Eric Weisstein? Why should I trust him? This also appears to be a self-published website. Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Carey, John (1995). The Faber Book of Science. faber and faber. pp. pp. 40-43. ISBN 0-571-16352-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) "Two Mice Discover Oxygen"

• I will have to go to the library to check this one out. Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Anderson, Trevor (2001). The Chambers Encyclopedia. Chambers Harrap. pp. p. 616. ISBN 0-550-13001-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) "Discovered by [...] Joseph Priestley (1733-1804)"

• I'm off to the library. Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reference Encyclopedia. Oxford University Press. 1998. pp. pp. 797 and 1098. ISBN 0-19-9690730-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: length (help)

• Going to library tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bryson, Bill (2003 pages=pp. 98-89). A Short History of Nearly Everything. Doubleday. ISBN 0385-408188. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing pipe in: |date= (help) "Credit went instead to Joseph Priestley" and "The one thing Lavoisier never did was discover an element"

• I know too much about Bryson's other books to credit this one at all. Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I am not attempting to establish here that Priestley discovered oxygen; it is generally agreed nowadays that Scheele did that. The claim here is only that he is "usually credited with" the discovery, so I have focused on sources of general or popular science with I think bear out this claim overwhelmingly. I have added a couple of those references to the article. Mooncow 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to use these sources over and above the Priestley-specific sources I have used, which are peer-reviewed, academic sources written by Priestley scholars. They are more reliable. I am looking now for the precise wording they use about oxygen. Perhaps using their research, we can come to an agreement on this? Awadewit | talk 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant quotations

• Gibbs, 80: Regarding the 6 November 1772 experiments: "In the hands of Scheele, the Swedish apothecary's assistant, similar experiments led to the independent discovery of oxygen, although Priestley was not aware of this at the time he wrote."
• Gibbs, 118: "Priestley obviously enjoyed telling about the way he came to make one of his greatest discoveries"
• Gibbs, 127: "This is one of the experimental rocks on which Lavoisier's theory (that all acids contain oxygen) was to founder, and may well have been one of the reasons why Priestley could not accept the name 'oxygen', as the acidifying principle. He did not, however, make use of such an argument explicitly"
• Schofield, 106: March 1775 - Priestley does final experiments to prove that his "air" is new (Gibbs agrees on this date)
• Schofield, 106: JP writes to John Pringle on 15 March about his new air; letter is read to the Royal Society on 23 March (he writes several other letters to the same effect)
• Schofield, 106: All in all, three letters are read aloud to the Royal Society; published also in Philosophical Transactions
• Schofield, 107, note 27: "This is the first printed reference to the gas that was ultimately to be called oxygen [Experiments and Observations, vol. 2], while the reading of the letter to the Royal Society on 23 March 1775 gave the 'publication' date for the discovery. It is generally agreed that Carl Wilhelm Scheele had discovered the gas sometime between 1771 and 1773, but he lost credit for the discovery as his work was not published until after Priestley's account; see Parrington, History of Chemistry, 3:219-21."
• Schofield, 111: "In a "Pli cachete" of 24 March 1775 Lavoisier described experiments with precipitate per se. As a candle flame will burn in the released air (' a part of these facts have already been published by Mr. Priestley'), 'it follows . . . that the elastic fluid fixed in mercury precipitate per se is common air.' Lavoisier, Oeuvres de Lavoisier: Correspondence, 2:474-77."
• Schofield, 112-13: "This circumstantial account of his [Priestley's] work on dephlogisticated air serves only to confuse the issue of when 'exactly' Priestley 'discovered oxygen.' The 'Observations' paper shows that he had produced an air, later identified as oxygen, from saltpetre sometime between the end of March and November 1772. He recognized the 'extraordinary and important' nature of this air but did not pursue the matter. On 1 August 1774 he procured the air from mercuric oxide and noted some of its quality, but did not distinguish it as a unique species of air. Not until 12 March 1775 did he commence the task of discriminating between it and other airs, and it appears to have been sometime between 10th of March and the 15th, when he first wrote to Pringle, that he concluded that he had found a different kind of air. As he called it dephlogisticated air and never conceded all of the properties Lavoisier gave to 'oxygen,' it may be argued that he never quite did discover oxygen. Of course, in that sense, Scheele did not discover it either. . . . The discovery was, as Priestley insisted, accidental in the sense that he had not expected that the air he obtained would have the properties that it had. Scheele's work, on the other hand, appears, at least as he presented it to the public, to have been a deliberate effort to uncover a gas with the particular properties represented by his name for it, 'fire air.'"
• Kuhn, 53-54: "At least three different men have a legitimate claim to it [the discovery of oxygen], and several other chemists must, in the early 1770's, have had enriched air in a laboratory vessel without knowing it. . . . The earliest of the claimants to prepare a relatively pure sample of the gas was the Swedish apothecary, C. W. Scheele. We may, however, ignore his work since it was not published until oxygen's discovery had repeatedly been announced elsewhere and thus had no effect upon the historical pattern that most concerns us here. The second in time to establish a claim was the British scientist and divine, Joseph Priestley, who collected the gas released by heated red oxide of mercury as one item in a prolonged normal investigation of the 'airs' evolved by a large number of solid substances. In 1774 he identified the gas thus produced as nitrous oxide and in 1775, led by further tests, as common air with less than its usual quantity of phlogiston. The third claimant, Lavoisier, started the work that led him to oxygen after Priestley's experiments of 1774 and possibly as the result of a hint from Priestley. Early in 1775 Lavoisier reported that the gas obtained by heating the red oxide of mercury was 'air itself entire without alteration [except that] . . . it comes out more pure, more respirable.' By 1777, probably with the assistance of a second hint from Priestley, Lavoisier had concluded that the gas was a distinct species, one of the two main constituents of the atmosphere, a conclusion that Priestley was never able to accept." (This goes on for several pages.)

What are we to make of this mess? Honestly, I'm not sure what the best presentation of this material is. I could add more sources, too, if you want. Awadewit | talk 03:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing picture

Does anyone know what happened to the portrait in the Hackney section? Awadewit | talk 13:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it got deleted from the English wikipedia, because it existed on commons as well, but the version on commons had a slightly different name. Should be fixed now. Hemmingsen 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. People should really be encouraged not to change file names. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GA preparation

I am going to work on revising the article in preparation for submitting it to GA. I do not believe that I need to finish the research before GA. I'm hoping to be able to return to JP research soon. My Mary Wollstonecraft series of articles is almost finished. Awadewit | talk 07:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. (But see below.) -- Hoary 09:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists, plural, of works

The separation of the selected list of works from the bibliography of primary materials seems odd. I mean, I thought that his works were primary materials. (Perhaps the latter bibliography is a bibliography of works pertaining not just to JP in general but to the creation of this article on him.) Whether or not it's better separated in this way, I'm not entirely sure why there's a list of redlinked works by JP, as there's also a fuller list just a click away and a lot of the works listed anyway appear (and are linked) within the main text. Any list would be a lot more attractive if it weren't of redlinks. In your place I might delink them; they can always be relinked later.

It's even more awkward when there's a third list, of "full-text links". Those of these links that aren't to "selected" works, I'd skip. (They'd still be linked from the "List" article.) For the remainder I'd integrate them to something like:

For a complete bibliography of Priestley's works, see the list of works by Joseph Priestley.

"(G)": Full text (Google books)

"(T)": Full text (other)

• The Rudiments of English Grammar (1761)
• A Chart of Biography (1765)
• Essay on a Course of Liberal Education for Civil and Active Life (1766)
• The History and Present State of Electricity (1767)
• Essay on the First Principles of Government (1768)
• A New Chart of History (1769)
• Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion (1772–4). Vol. 1: (G), Vol. 2: (G)

. . . etc. Incidentally, note the much shorter, session-unspecific URLs for Google books. -- Hoary 09:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PS Of course only bother with abbreviations such as "(G)" and "(T)" if there are a lot of examples of these. -- Hoary 10:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Primary materials" lists modern publications of Priestley works. I think that is helpful for someone wanting to read Priestley - it helps the researcher. The "Selected list of works" helps the person wanting to get an idea of what Priestley wrote and when. Awadewit | talk 16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My background in this kind of academic area is shaky at best, and I don't have a large dictionary at hand; I may therefore be completely wrong, but I'd thought that "primary materials" on a long-dead author would include works by him and published long ago (perhaps during his lifetime). Don't hesitate to correct me. But even if I'm wrong (not unlikely), I'd be inclined to think of some other way to conflate and streamline the lists within this article, reducing duplication and the risk that the reader looks in one list when she should really be looking in another. -- Hoary 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "Primary sources" are any materials written by people during the historical time period under question. For this page, I have tried to make a distinction between primary materials published as a collection by a later editor that would be easily available to most readers ("Primary materials") and Priestley's individual works ("Selected list of works"). This division helps those interested in finding any of these works. It is a division based on utility. Also, I do not believe there is any current overlap and I don't anticipate there being any overlap. Awadewit | talk 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• I am slowly making stubs/starts for all of the red-links. I wasn't going to submit the article to GAC until I had finished that process. I'm afraid I only managed to make three articles yesterday. Awadewit | talk 16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You're doing really well; no need to apologize! -- Hoary 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• How do you find the session-unspecific URLs for Google books? (Maybe you could replace them?) Awadewit | talk 16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Briefly, by guessing which bits are superfluous, seeing if deleting them matters, and using the results. Yes, I'll happily do this for the article. However, I'm off for a day of manual labor (first time in years) and I'll have to wait till I return or (if my arms ache too much) till tomorrow. -- Hoary 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah. Trial and error. Whenever you get a chance, that would be great. (Perhaps you could also paste the links into List of works by Joseph Priestley?) Would you mind also explaining the benefits of the non-session specific link to me? What happens when other people click on the link I have included? Are they not directed to the text? Awadewit | talk
      • I've simplified the links as (I think) requested. The complex links that you gave did indeed work, but it's imaginable that they specified something suitable for you but not for some others, or that they'll become unavailable more quickly than the simple links, or both. (All things being equal, they're also a minor waste of bytes.) Each was obviously a similar concatenation of a necessary and an unnecessary component, so I deleted the latter. The two shortened links that I tried both works, but there's no guarantee that the others will. However, I'd be very surprised if they don't (unless, of course, one of us has made a typo). ¶ Above, I should have said physical labor. It resulted in a 16-hour break between meals (and indeed any food whatever), among other unusual experiences. -- Hoary 12:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)