Talk:Joseph Priestley/Archive 5

Questions about new draft

Although Priestley's philosophical work has been characterized as "audacious and original",[4][73] it also integrates elements from earlier philosophers, even when no direct influence can be traced - I think we should a find a better way of saying this - of saying that Priestley was part of this milieu, essentially. This sentence suggests that Priestley used other people's ideas, although this cannot be proven. I'm not sure how valuable that statement is. What I think we want to suggest is that Priestley is part of a long line of thinkers on these issues. Awadewit | talk 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I often find when I am having trouble with a sentence or phrase that a direct quotation can be helpful (see, I am watching your articles ;-) ). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to hint that Priestley was borrowing from earlier thinkers, or that he derived his ideas quasi-genealogically from others and re-published them as his own. Quite the contrary! I was trying to say that his thinking was original (to the best of our knowledge), but contained elements that appear in the writings of earlier thinkers — perhaps because they were all grappling with similar problems and sometimes reached similar solutions. Does that agree with your understanding? However you want to re-word the sentiment is fine with me; I was conscious of having worded it awkwardly and I'm sure you could express it more agreeably and elegantly. :) Willow (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See what you think of the new version. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• In his writings, Priestley mentions other philosophers who argued for absolute determinism and materialism, such as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, John Toland, Anthony Collins and David Hartley. - I removed this sentence. Priestley may have mentioned these people, but he had vastly different views of them. For example, he followed closely in the footsteps of Hartley but not Hume. I don't think a list like this helps the reader, since these distinctions aren't made. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry about that; it resulted from trying to merge the quotes you gave me from McEvoy and McGuire above (pages 341-345) and from my own Colie source, which states that Priestley likely derived his thinking on necessarianism from Toland and Collins. I think it would be nice if we could include that information here, though, perhaps as two sentences. I think it would be unfortunate if we dwelt so long on Spinoza and Leibniz to the exclusion of others who might've had a more direct influence on Priestley's thinking. Willow (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering how much detail to include here and how much should really be saved for Joseph Priestley and Dissent and the articles about the works themselves. (Hartley is already mentioned earlier in this article, by the way.) Awadewit | talk 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the present paragraph coheres nicely as is, despite the regrettable loss of "glorious". ;) Perhaps we can forgo Colie and M&M? it might be trying to pack too much in. Willow (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we saying the same thing at exactly the same time?! Awadewit | talk 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, even our electrons are cohering. ;) Consider it the highest form of flattery ;) Willow (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• We need page numbers for the books - I really dislike referring people to entire books! Awadewit | talk 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll track those down tomorrow. Can you find the best Millennial reference? (#84) I can't seem to find my notes. :( Willow (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I will look for that, yes. Awadewit | talk 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Schofield in footnotes

There are many references to Schofield in footnotes. However, the bibliography refers to 3 books by that author. This could be clarified by giving the year of the work referred to after the author's name. Finell (Talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good point - I will fix this. Awadewit | talk 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if you would check my work. Awadewit | talk 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done. But now some of the other short citation forms, which use title rather than year to distinguish works by the same author, are inconsistent. I prefer the Harvard style (but in footnotes) for its brevity. Finell (Talk) 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• That is annoying. I will now fix those as well. *sigh* Awadewit | talk 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I changed them all, except the Autobiography. I want readers to know that the actual Autobiography is being quoted. Awadewit | talk 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page?

Would it be appropriate to nominate Joseph Priestley to appear on the Main Page on his next birthday, which is coming soon? I suppose that this would be the Old Style birth date per WP:DATE#Calendars, but I am not sure. Finell (Talk) 00:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• March 13 would be fine, but I don't feel comfortable nominating the article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. I nominated an article back at the end of November, so I think it is too soon for me to nominate another article. I already feel uncomfortable that this article is going to be on the main page - I have been the primary author of a number of articles that have appeared on the main page (one just a few weeks ago). I feel like I've been granted my TFA time and then some. Awadewit | talk 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that it is scheduled for the Main Page on March 1. Congratulations!! Finell (Talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you already knew that and were suggesting we try and shift it to the 13th. :) (The recent flurry of activity has been to make sure it is ready for the main page, by the way.) Awadewit | talk 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just ignorant; I haven't been here for awhile, but it popped up on my watch list so I thought I would stop by. But switching the dates might not be a bad idea. On the other hand, getting it on the Main Page is the priority, so maybe it's best to leave things alone. I would leave that decision up to you. If you think that trying to shift the date to his birthday is a good idea, I would be happy to be the one to propose it. Your call. Finell(Talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that much. It is OS, as you point out, and it isn't 2033 or anything. 1 March is fine with me. Awadewit | talk 02:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, folks; truly a well-deserved TFA :) I hope the... usual flurry of constructive anonymous edits isn't too unmanageable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading this article today (checking through the recent main pages articles), I wanted to deeply thank you for all the hard work here. It was a long 1h reading (make that 3 thanks to work interruptions) that I enjoyed every minute. I feel a shame that I knew nothing about this man, and specially his politics works, and dealings in natural philosophae. Thank you for one of the best, if not the best, articles I read on all my years at wikipedia. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead image on left?

Aesthetically to me it makes no difference at all and I can't see why it makes any real objective difference to have it on the left. Considering every single featured article I've ever seen has the lead image on the right, shouldn't this one too? All respected publications have consistency. I think it looks okay on the left, but I even more so think that consistency is very important. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been hashed out before, see Talk:Joseph_Priestley/Archive_3#image. Basically three conventions come into play that trump the "lead image on the right" guideline. First off, every decent portrait of Priestley has him facing this way. Second, the subject of protraits should always look to the center of the page (so the portrait has to be on the left). Third, flipping a portrait is forbidden. Hope this clears it up and thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In left-aligning the right-facing portray, this article is following WP:MOS#Images, which itself follows well-established and logical aesthetic principles. The left-aligned portrait has been discussed here and recently on the MOS page. Consensus for this layout was built before FAC and at FAC and consensus for flexibility in article layout was recently confirmed at the MOS at Wikipedia talk:MOS. There are other FAs with left-aligned images (e.g. Mary Martha Sherwood) and I believe that consistency should not trump logical layouts. Awadewit | talk 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I like the left aligned lead picture but I see the logic and I'm sure it was discussed before so I'll leave my comments at this, thanks for responding. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I read the discussion in the link you gave me and I understand the aesthetic view of facing center but I also think consistency on the right is important and the last responder in that discussion advocated the right also. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please leave the image on the left. Many people thought it looked dopey for Preistley to be gazing off into space, away from the article, when the image was on the right. It passed the sticklers during the FA review with this layout. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Priestley's eyes are actually gazing very clearly to the left so I don't see how having the image on the right is such a big deal in regards to this argument. You could actually say he is looking more away from the article as it is now. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Honest to God, is there a WP:FUCKCONSISTENCY essay somewhere? These conversations occur over and over. I don't fault anyone for bringing up a subject that they didn't know has been discussed ad nauseum, but the ever-increasing calls for "consistency" throughout wikipedia have sapped the spirit out of the project, IMO. People seem to treat articles more as "what's the difference between these two pictures?" puzzles than as self-contained instances of writing that explain a subject. Which one is an encyclopedia again? Ralph Waldo Emerson quote. –Outriggr § 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Outriggr! Nice to see you again! :) I think the essay you are looking for is ignore all rules. Awadewit | talk 03:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But what does having the lead image on the right have anything to do with the actual writing of the encyclopedia? I don't understand how consistency is ever a bad thing when it doesn't affect the actual content of articles, and this certainly does not. You seem to have an old grudge which my complaint has nothing to do with; transferring an image from left to right has nothing to do with content. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit! Nice to see you too! "Ignore are rules" doesn't have the same bite. :)

LonelyMarble, it's hard to bridge this gap, I guess, because to me you've answered your own question... if it doesn't affect the content or quality of an article, what is the discussion? Consistency isn't invented for its own sake, and I have this funny feeling that the love of consistency on wikipedia is an outgrowth of the age of many of its users. I loved counting and collecting and putting things in a row when I was younger too. (After EC: I won't deny it's a grudge.) –Outriggr § 03:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for my own sake, I'm arguing because in my opinion Wikipedia should be consistent in certain things and this seems like one of them. Humans like consistency and symmetry, and Wikipedia should stick to this. You could say this is for my own sake but I think most official publications remain consistent for whatever reason. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As this debate has already been hashed out multiple times on this talk page, at FAC, and at the MOS talk page and come to the same conclusion (we should have a left-aligned portrait), I am disinclined to begin it all over again. I see no compelling reason to do so as of yet. Awadewit | talk 04:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we can just have a discussion here, and it can be kept the way it is for now. Ideally, in my opinion, there should be some kind of consistency but I am open to exceptions. However, in this case it is my opinion that in this picture his eyes are clearly looking to the left and therefore those arguments don't hold much ground and for consistency purposes the picture should be on the right. But that is simply my opinion. But I do ask, doesn't he still look like he's looking off into space as it is because he seems to clearly be looking to the left. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lonely: It has nothing to do with a grudge. Personally, other things being equal, I prefer consistency (my version of the MOS would be much more prescriptive than the present one). But other things are not equal here. To many people who are trained in graphic design or artistic composition, a right-facing image at the right edge of a page jumps out as an eyesore and looks like a mistake. Many people disagree with you and what you think is best for Wikipedia and its readers on this one issue. So please leave this one alone. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 04:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The placement of Priestley's body and head are crucial to determining the "direction" of the portrait, as they establish the sight-lines of the image. Some portraits are obvious to anyone (e.g. Image:Ulrich-Zwingli-1.jpg), others you have to think about a bit more (e.g. Image:MA-Lebrun.jpg). As with Priestley, Marie Antoinette's body position helps determine the way the portrait should face. Awadewit | talk 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent, ec x 2)How about consistency with MOS? I quote (link above): 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. Notice it is based on the head and not the eyes. I am done with this discussion - thanks very much for all of your input, but this is the proverbial dead horse we are beating here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am done complaining. I just thought it jarring enough for a main page featured article that I wanted to start a discussion, which I have. If other people have a problem the discussion is open but I respect the old discussions and I am done. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you enjoyed reading the article! Awadewit | talk 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for joining this discussion late, but I've just stumbled upon this article. Immediately I noticed the image created a very awkward layout, being on the left. Before committing to any edit to fix that, I noticed it said there was a consensus about the layout. Unfortunately, the original "consensus" seems to be between only two editors, which I would hardly consider a consensus of the editors. Subsequent discussion had plenty of dissenters, including this one.

True, the MOS states that one could use a left-aligned image if the portrait is right-facing (from the reader's perspective). However, it do not say we must. Additionally, the MOS suggests starting the article with a right-aligned image, but clarifies that, generally, subsequent images may be centered or left-aligned if necessary. Even further, if someone somehow does make the strained argument that the MOS supports a left-aligned image in the lead, it is wholly unnecessary. The image looks fine when it is right-aligned (probably because Priestly is actually looking to the left, or towards the body of text, from the reader's perspective). It is for these reasons that I suggest moving the image to the right. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Who are the two editors? I think the archive and the FAC discussion reveal that this is a WP:CONSENSUS (which is not a vote, by the way). This follows the MOS and the principles of aesthetics as laid out by art historians, as has been explained multiple times here by myself and others. I have made these arguments several times in response to the same arguments you are bringing up (feel free to read my postings above, at the FAC and the archives), so I don't feel the need to repeat them. Other people can chime in again, too, if they want to. Awadewit | talk 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The two editors were Hoary and yourself. I am surprised you were not aware of that. Unfortunately, none of your above replies address what I've just written, except for the strained argument about body position, which I really don't think quite works for Priestley's portrait. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as you can see above, Ruhrfisch, Outriggr, and Finnell also all supported leaving it the way it was. Fvasconcellos supported this at the FAC during the debate there and Jayron32 pointed out how ambiguous the MOS was. So I don't really see how you can say it is just Hoary and myself. (I have addressed all of these arguments at one point or another - like I said.) Awadewit | talk 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I said the "original 'consensus,'" which was indeed two people. The subsequent discussions have had its share of dissenters. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is relatively quiet, so I doubt that there would be an "original consensus" of more than two for anything. Despite that, consensus has built over time (believe it or not, this is the most contentious part of the article!). The dissenters, none of whom are regular contributors to the article I might add, have usually decided that the debate was insignificant and not worth carrying on. Anywhoo, I hope you enjoyed the article - Priestley is a fascinating guy (he wrote so much!) Awadewit | talk 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he did. Nevertheless, it does not take a regular contributor to notice an obvious flaw. Lest we have forgotten, articles are not owned. We are all contributors to Wikipedia and so we should all have a say in and the right to fix whichever articles we see to be unfit. That is the nature of being bold. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no "obvious flaw" if there is a substantial number of editors who can agree on the left-alignment with reasonable arguments AND the MOS can be used to justify such an alignment. Awadewit | talk 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen gas

The introduction states that "He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen gas". Shouldn't this just say oxygen? I am going to change it. Window Mattress (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm - it makes sense from a modern perspective to say he discovered oxygen (and omit the word gas). However, from Priestley's perspective, what he found was a new "air" or gas. While he discovered oxygen gas, he didn't realize it was the element (since he was an adherent of the phlogiston theory), nor did he call it oxygen. Most people don't realize that oxygen is 20% of the air and a large percentage of the earth's crust, since most rocks are oxides or otherwise contain oxygen (carbonates, sulfates, silicates, etc.). I guess I would favor leaving the word gas in (in some way), since that is the form in which he discovered it (albeit from heating mercuric oxide, HgO). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • He discovered the gaseous form. I'm changing it back. The statement as it now stands is not accurate. Awadewit | talk 16:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it is accurate and I think saying "oxygen gas" sounds a bit silly, like a school assignment. Maybe we can say that he discovered oxygen my identifying it in its gaseous form, but just sayin that he discovered oxygen gas makes it sound like we don't understand that oxygen is an element that can exist in multiple states. Window Mattress (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This was decided in the various extensive peer reviews for this article. The article originally said "oxygen" but was corrected by scientists. Awadewit | talk 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Which "scientists"? I'm sorry but no scientist would say the "Priestly is credited with discovering oxygen" was wrong. Here is a link to the biography of Joseph Priestly from Joseph Priestly college [1] which clearly states that he is credited with discovering oxygen, not oxygen gas. It could say something like "credited with discovering oxygen, by detecting/isolating it in its gaseous state", but the current description just sounds silly. Window Mattress (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I think it was Markus Poessel who brought this up the first time around. I deferred to other editors such as ragesoss for the scientific information as they are much more informed than I on that front. I've left your change and removed a redundancy. (I'll check my books again for verification - they are peer-reviewed and more reliable than a website without an author-attribution.) Awadewit | talk 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Being bold, I reverted it back to just plain "oxygen gas" - the lead is supposed to be a brief clear introduction to the article and I really don't see the difference between "discovered oxygen gas" and "discovered oxygen, having isolated it in its gaseous state" semantically, but I do prefer simplicity and clarity. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Saying that he discovered oxygen is broader than saying that he merely discovered oxygen gas, and is accurate. Oxygen is a chemical element; oxygen gas merely one of its forms. It might have been possible for someone before Priestley (although not very much before) to have discovered oxygen in solid or liquid compounds without necessarily discovering that it was a gas at normal ambient temperatures. If you look at scientific histories (which are the most reliable sources for this fact, rather than a biography by a non-scientist), I believe that they will refer to the discovery as oxygen without the gas. I am tempted to be bold myself, but I will wait awhile. Finell (Talk) 04:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
                • One of the reasons this is so disputed is that Lavoisier understood oxygen was an "element" while Priestley did not - that is one reason I am disinclined to say "oxygen" over "oxygen gas". Awadewit | talk 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Would it make any sense to say something like: He isolated a gas he called "dephlogisticated air", now known to be oxygen, and is usually credited with its discovery, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim.[2] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• (unindent) I was trying to avoid introducing the term "dephlogisticated air" until later in the lead. Awadewit | talk 06:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Could it be that "oxygen" is inexact at best while "oxygen gas" sounds pleonastic (even if it isn't) and therefore strange? If so, perhaps a third formulation would be better. Above, "discovered oxygen, having isolated it in its gaseous state" is promising, but not quite suitable: the reader could well think: "Hang on: you're suggesting that somebody had previously isolated liquid oxygen? That must be wrong" and revert it all. -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a tricky one. If you say oxygen gas, then it sounds like he is only credited with discovering its gaseous state, which I feel is incorrect. I think that saying "credited with discovering oxygen, having isolated it in its gaseous state" - separates the fact that he is credited with discovering oxygen and also indicating that he did so be discovering it in its gaseous state as two separate statements. It seems that concern is that it may sound like he was only the first to discover it as a gas (rather than in another state) - which actually is the originally concern with saying that he discovered "oxygen gas" rather than just "oxygen". I personally feel that the "oxygen, having isolated" makes the distinction clearer, but may some other wording could make it even less ambiguous. Window Mattress (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would also be in favour of simply saying that he is credited with the discovery of oxygen and leaving the details of how he discovered it and in what state until the main body of the article. Window Mattress (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Table of Contents Error

What happened to the table of contents? It does not show the sub-sections. ♫ The Grand Harp ♫ (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is a deliberate choice - there are so many subsections that the TOC becomes unwieldly. Awadewit | talk 03:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I do not see anything in the code that would even imply that. ♫ The Grand Harp ♫ (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the text of the lead, the code reads {{TOClimit|limit=2}}. Without this, the TOC would be too long. Again, this is part of the layout agreed upon long ago. We all agreed it was a good idea as there are so many subsections in the article. Awadewit | talk 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a problem is this article followed the MOS suggestion (i.e. "In such cases, it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using {{TOCright}}"). ~ UBeR (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "may" did not mean the same as "must". I also support keeping the lead image in its current position. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, I didn't say "must." ~ UBeR (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not trying to put words into your mouth, as it were. I just meant the MOS is not prescriptive here ("may be appropriate" is not saying the change in the TOC must be made). Your mileage may vary, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying it wouldn't be the case if you followed the MOS suggestion. That's all. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There would still be too many subsections for the TOC, even if it were on the right. The number wouldn't change. Awadewit | talk 12:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the number wouldn't change. There just wouldn't be a huge white space if it were expanded on the right. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just tried it. You can go back in the history and check it out. There is indeed less white space, but the long subsection headings force the TOC to take up a large part of the space on the screen. I still think this is the best solution. Thanks again for offering that solution. Awadewit | talk 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may revive this discussion, I also think that the principal scientific subsections should appear in the Table of Contents. Probably the majority of readers will be interested in JP's work on oxygen, which is rather hard to find at the moment if you don't know where he lived when he did this work. I understand that there is opposition to removing the TOClimit parameter so that all subsections appear, since that makes the TOC too long - 32 lines instead of 14 when I tried it. As an alternative I suggest promoting the most important scientific subsections from level 3 (===) to level 2(==) so that they appear in the TOC. This means the TOC would become a mixture of place names and some scientific subsections - perhaps History of Electricity, Different Kinds of Air, Discovery of Oxygen and Chemical Revolution for a total of 18 lines (including the 14 present now). Comments? Dirac66 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry

The article is deficient in describing many of his experiments and should be improved for what he is remembered by most people: the discovery of oxygen. Peterlewis (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Priestley did many experiments. It is not possible to describe them all, as I am sure you realize. We already have Joseph Priestley and education and Joseph Priestley and Dissent subarticles. I've always thought that eventually we would have a Joseph Priestley and science subarticle. Perhaps that would be the best place to expand on Priestley's experiments? Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• This article has been carefully balanced to reflect the scholarship on Priestley which explains his importance in many more fields than just science. Considering his contributions to politics, theology, etc. it was very difficult to write a comprehensive and concise article. Priestley's oxygen experiments are given more space than any of his other experiments precisely because they were the most important. Again, I think than an expansion of this material could take place in a subarticle but adding more material to this already long article is probably not the best route. Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be here in the main article I think. Even the earlier Britannica articles give it due prominence. There is also very little about the Lunar Society and the riots when Priestley was nearly killed. I have replaced the Earl by Scheele. He is far more important historically because he shares with P the discovery of this vital gas. Peterlewis (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On reading the article again, I note that there are only two pics of apparatus, and the most famous one of oxygen is missing entirely. I will try to find the famous engraving from Phil Trans Roy Soc, because it should surely be here and given the prominence it deserves. That single discovery helped transform our ideas about the nature of matter, and paved the way for Humphry Davy and John Dalton. Peterlewis (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted yet again the deletion of my image of Scheele. So the Earl of Sherburn can claim credit for the discovery of oxygen? To say that this earl should be included rather then Scheele is incredibly patronising. On the same principle, my landlord should get some credit if I publish something new and interesting? His influence is zero, like the Earl's. You will have to rewrite all the history of science textbooks to include the info as written. . Scheele had already discovered that oxygen was a separate component of air but Priestley published first, a point which also ought to be brought out in the article. The paper by Priestley in Proc Roy Soc is one of the great classics in the history of science, and not to discuss it in detail is absurd for what claims to be a "balanced" article. Peterlewis (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC) PS Do any of the editors working on this topic have any scientific qualifications to be dealing with his scientific achievements? Peterlewis (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I restored the picture of Lord Shelburne to the article, which is about Joseph Priestley after all. I note that the Oxygen article has pictures of both Priestley and Scheele, while the Scheele article does not have an image of Priestley (or Lavoisier). Peterlewis, when I read your brief Biograpy on your User page I note you acknowledge your employer (the Open University). When chemists today publish, they acknowledge their employer (right after their name - although this is typically a college or university or chemical or pharmaceutical firm) and they also acknowledge their source of funding (National Science Foundation, etc.). For Priestley Shelburne was both his employer and his source of funding for the only ones [years] in his life dominated by scientific investigations; they were also the most scientifically fruitful. and I think deserves an image. Without Shelburne Priestley would not have traveled to Europe and met Lavoisier either. Scheele is very important to the history of chemistry and oxygen, but not that important to the article on Priestley.
• As for scientific qualifications, I have them. I am also an anonymous user and recall the Essjay controversy, so I don't expect you to believe me ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be employed by the OU, but I have not mentioned them in a paper I am shortly publishing because they had nothing do with either the content or the work or the funding or my time. So why should Priestley? Did he acknowledge him in Proc Roy Soc? He did not acknowledge Scheele because he did not know of Scheele's work, and that is where the interest lies. His discovery of oxygen dominates all his other work, as you will read in the histories of science, chemistry, physiology and medicine. The casual reader of this article will be amazed by the omissions. By the way, in your final comment, are you suggesting that I am unqualified? Should I put a facsimile of my doctorate on my website? I suggest you apologise for the slur. Peterlewis (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I apologize for my completely unintended slur - it was never my intent in any way to offend you and I am not sure how you read that into what I wrote, but I apologize fully and unreservedly. I was refering entrely to myself (I have the qualifications, but since I am anonymous and do not plan to reveal my identity or more specific details on my qualifications, you have every right not to believe me). I do want you to be aware of WP:3RR.
    As fr the image of Scheele, you yourself point out that Priestley did not know of his work. Why then should Scheele be pictured in an article on Priestley, and at the expense of Shelburne, who was Priestley's patron? This article is about Joseph Priestley, not primarily about the element oxygen (although he is one of its discoverers) or primarily about the discovery of oxygen (although he is integral to that story as well). Forensic engineering publications seem to have different style conventions - the chemistry publications I have read will list the authors with superscript symbols which then give their university or firm in a footnote: Adam Aardvark* Benjamin Bee# then the footnote is *ABC university #XYZ Chemicals Inc. There is also contact inforamtion for the led author which is typically their work address. Would you like to work on a Joseph Priestley and science article? I promise to let you put Scheele's picture in it ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A fresh start

Peterlewis - what (besides the picture of Scheele) do you think should be in the Joseph Priestley article that is not already there? I know you mentioned a picture of his apparatus (presumably the burning glass heating the mercuric oxide - there is a photo of a modern replica of the burning lens in Joseph Priestley House - the original lens was presumably destroyed in the Priestley Riots, but the replacement lens Priestley owned is on display at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania). What else needs to be in there? Wat are the omissions a lay reader would be amazed at? I would like to hear your ideas for additions, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK apologies accepted. I added the point about mercuric oxide which was then edited out. Here are a number of key points: 1. reaction needs naming (simple decomposition of HgO) 2. The article demands the classic picture from his original paper in Proc Roy Soc, which shows the sun's rays focused on the oxide within a globe floating on mercury (the current picture is not just poor quality but also not exactly what he used) The picture he drew also shows another globe with a mouse enjoying oxygen. 3. brief mention of the discoveries by Scheele and Lavoisier (re:phlogiston and Priestley's own mistaken interpretation of the experiment)and probably earlier possible discoveries of the gas (Boyle??). 4. brief mention of the significance of the discovery for physiology and medicine as well as the context of chemistry, and the industrial revolution (Watt, Wedgewood, Boulton and other luminaries). That should satisfy a reader who wants to learn something about his major achievement (oxygen is the most important reason why he is remembered by ordinary people)Peterlewis (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1) One reason we left out lots of the complicated chemical names and reaction descriptions was to try and make this article accessible to the general reader, but if you have a good way to describe the reaction scientifically and accessibly, by all means we should include it.

2) It is not always easy to obtain good images that fall under Wikipedia's image guidelines. Again, if you could obtain a good copy of the original paper describing oxygen, that will only improve the article.

3) There is already a brief discussion of Scheele and Lavoisier: His paper narrated the discovery chronologically, relating the long delays between experiments and his initial puzzlements; thus, it is difficult to determine when exactly Priestley "discovered" oxygen.[97] Such dating is significant as both Lavoisier and Swedish pharmacist Carl Wilhelm Scheele have strong claims to the discovery of oxygen as well, Scheele having been the first to isolate the gas (although he published after Priestley) and Lavoisier having been the first to describe it as purified "air itself entire without alteration" (that is, the first to explain oxygen without phlogiston theory). - How would you suggest changing this? Please note that there is not actually total agreement among scholars that Priestley should be given credit for discovering oxygen. Thomas Kuhn uses the oxygen story to demonstrate how difficult the attribution of scientific discoveries actually is.

3) Early in the "Oxygen" section there is a brief discussion of phlogiston: Priestley's years in Calne were the only ones in his life dominated by scientific investigations; they were also the most scientifically fruitful. His experiments were almost entirely confined to "airs", and out of this work emerged his most important scientific texts: the six volumes of Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air (1774–86).[87][88] These experiments helped repudiate the last vestiges of the theory of four elements, which Priestley attempted to replace with his own variation of phlogiston theory. According to that 18th century theory, the combustion or oxidation of a substance corresponded to the release of a material substance, phlogiston. and the "Chemical revolution" section goes into the phlogiston debate in more detail. However, I think that you are right that the oxygen discovery itself and Priestley's mistake with phlogiston should be made more explicit. How would you suggest wording this?

3) I do not think that going all the way back to Boyle would be helpful in this instance. That would probably be more helpful at oxygen or chemical revolution.

4) The physiology context is mentioned already in the "Discovery of oxygen" section - In his paper "Observations on Respiration and the Use of the Blood", Priestley was the first to suggest a connection between blood and air, although he did so using phlogiston theory. In typical Priestley fashion, he prefaced the paper with a history of the study of respiration. A year later, clearly influenced by Priestley, Lavoisier was also discussing respiration at the Académie des sciences. Lavoisier's work began the long train of discovery that produced papers on oxygen respiration and culminated in the overthrow of phlogiston theory and the establishment of modern chemistry.

4) I do worry about overplaying Priestley's discovery. According to the scholars I have read (most of which are listed in the bibliography), it was really Lavoisier's discoveries and theories that revolutionized chemistry, not Priestley's. We have to be careful that everything we include in the article is backed up by solid scholarship.

5) I have to agree with Ruhrfisch that the deletion of the Shelburne image in favor of the Scheele image is not the best choice. Shelburne was Priestley's patron - Shelburne funded and stocked Priestley's laboratory; Priestley taught Shelburne's children; and Priestley was involved in political dealings for Shelburne. Priestley did not know Scheele or communicate with him, making his picture much less relevant to the article.

5) I noticed that a picture of James Watt has also been added to the article. I think we need to come up with a reason for its inclusion. There are many members of the Lunar Society that could have been pictured - why Watt? Adding a caption to justify the image will let the reader know why the image is there.

Thanks again for taking an interest in the article. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Critique

Thanks for your considered response. The current article rambles along with poor imagery such as the frontipieces of long-forgotten books, and underplays the key discovery which Priestley made. Every patient who receives oxygen should remember Priestley for that single discovery and revere his memory. I will try to find the classic image and upload. By underplaying technicalities you are in effect dumbing down the article, and not using the power of Wiki to educate and inform. Placing an image of Priestley's landlord seems typical of that philosophy: he doesn't sound like the great benefactor at all when he evicted the great man because his wife didn't like him. Scheele is far more important and much more relevant, especially as his inclusion makes a key point about publication of scientific discoveries. Priestley's paper in Proc Roy Soc is one of the great classic papers of British Science and is actually very easy to read and digest. The article also underplays the radical and revolutionary ideas that Priestley espoused, and I think you should include much more on the Lunar Society and his contributions with famous friends like Watt and Wedgwood at a formative time in the industrial revolution. Peterlewis (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added the diagram showing various experiments P conducted in his many discoveries of new gases, especially oxygen (crucible at left and in a bell jar) as well as his photosynthesis experiment (upper right). A mouse can just be seen in the centre bell jar in the foreground. I will obtain his articles for higher resolution pics. Peterlewis (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but the license is wrong for the image. You can not be the copyright holder because you did not create it. It is probably {{PD-old}}. You must also give the source - where did you find it? Please note that this article and List of works by Joseph Priestley‎ are both featured, i.e they have been identified by the community as some of the best content Wikipedia has to offer. Additions to them also have to follow the highest standards. The image you added has a size (width) specified, but per WP:MOS#Images sizes should not be set in most cases to allow reader preferences for image size to set the image sizes. The change you made to the list incorrectly implied Priestley called "dephlogisticated air" by the name Oxygen, which he did not. It also changed most famous to most important. Since claims like that are based on reliable sources, I will leave it to Awadewit to see if the sources back that up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Peterlewis, please understand that the purpose of the article is to provide accurate information based on solid scholarship. It is not to "revere Priestley's memory". The editors who wrote this article, of which I was one, spent a lot of time researching Priestley and his times and drafting this article to make it both accessible and accurate. So, I'm glad we both have the same goal. However, I am concerned that you either do not know or are not following Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. For example, you added a sentence to the article regarding photosynthesis that was unsourced and incorrect. I know what experiments you are referring to, but Priestley did not understand them in terms of oxygen, carbon dioxide, or photosynthesis. Describing them in this way fundamentally misrepresents the experiments. If you want to add a description of this experiment, please source it to reliable sources and explain it correctly.

Also, please understand that this article, relying on scholarship, is trying to present Priestley as a historical figure. It presents images of books, for example, that were very significant in the eighteenth century. That the average person doesn't know them anymore is irrelevant. They were extremely important in the history of Priestley's life, as is clear from reading the biographies of Priestley. The article also tries to make clear why they are important.

Moreover, insisting on calling Shelburne Priestley's "landlord" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of their relationship. As I have already explained, Shelburne was his patron. He paid for Priestley's laboratory; Priestley educated his children; and Shelburne and Priestley were involved in political dealings together. Shelburne even supported Priestley financially. This is not a landlord-tenant relationship. You complain that Shelburne "doesn't sound like the great benefactor at all when he evicted the great man because his wife didn't like him". However, this is the information in the scholarship. We are presenting an accurate picture, not a whitewashed picture of history.

Please understand that this article is very carefully researched. That it could be improved I have no doubt. However, additions and revisions need to made with care and need to be sourced to reliable scholarship. Thanks again. Awadewit (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Awadewit: Very well stated. I agree with you completely. Finell (Talk) 06:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Scholarship

I have no doubt it is carefully researched but have you accessed all his scientific works? Making the science articles readable on Wiki is a very worthwhile process, having seen innumerable badly written science and engineering articles, but will over-length, over-written articles on major scientific figures address the problem of accessibility? The reader will turn to the many other sources available on the web. The reader will also want to know about his scientific achievements without too much waffle, and over-egging with ifs and buts. Peterlewis (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who spent some serious time reviewing every single sentence in this article with an eye toward cutting away as much as possible, I must take umbrage with referring to it as "over-length" or "over-written". As Awadewit said, it can surely be improved – but I've never seen an article on Wikipedia so meticulously revised to balance readability with comprehensiveness. – Scartol • Tok 20:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't answered my question about Priestley's scientific works. This is the nub of the issue, not your assiduity in copyediting (which I do not criticize). Editors also have to make a reasonable decision about what stays and what goes to keep articles to a reasonable length. Otherwise Wiki would be a library of very large and rather turgid books. Is he a major scientific figure or not? If so, then the science has to be addressed with good visual aids such as diagrams of his apparatus. Peterlewis (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Peterlewis, I have not read every single of one of Priestley's hundreds of works. I doubt anyone but his biographers have. Even if I had, it wouldn't matter. The article has to be sourced to secondary sources, not primary sources. I feel that reasonable decisions have been made regarding what to include and exclude. Some of them were very painful, actually, but the article is a fair representation, in my opinion, of the best scholarship on Priestley. Priestley is much more than a scientific figure and the article must reflect that. As I have said, if you can find good images of his apparatus with the correct copyright, we would welcome them. Please list any other specific improvements you would like to make to the article. I have responded to the ones you listed above and asked for your help in wording them. Thanks again. Awadewit (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)