User talk:Jeff Dahl/sandbox/Priestly

"Around 1749 Priestley became seriously ill (perhaps with consumption and was convinced he was going to die. Having been raised a devout Calvinist, he believed a conversion experience was necessary for salvation, but doubted he had had one. Years later he described his torment: "I felt occasionally such distress of mind as it is not in my power to describe, and which I still look back upon with horror." As a result of the suffering he experienced during his illness, Priestley became an Arminian; he was drawn to the tenet that Christ died for all, not just the elect few. Consequently, the elders of his home church refused him admission as a full member." (114 words)

• This was a formative experience in his life - are you saying the quote is unnecessary? I think it is good to have him describe it in his own words. (Awadewit)
• Again, this is a turning point in his life; it must be included. I'm not sure how to make it more concise (Awadewit)

• Cut the quote? yes. This particular quote is not necessary, what new information does it add? How about something like this:

"Priestly seriously questioned his Calvinist beliefs after a bout of consumption threatened his life in 1749. His distress over the nature of eternal salvation convinced him that Christ had died for all, not just the elect few, a belief which alienated him from the [fill in the name of the] church." (45 words) Jeff Dahl 00:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

But this is just not as accurate. First of all, we think he had consumption (hence the perhaps in parens) and his torment was over his lack of a conversion experience. It wasn't until after his illness that his beliefs changed. I'm not sure what the name of his hometown church was, but that doesn't seem relevant here. Finally, you have elided over the fact that he was rejected from membership - a huge deal and something his biographers all focus on repeatedly. Schofield even attributes his desire to return to Leeds as a desire to prove himself to the community that rejected him. I also think the quotation helps readers understand that this was serious business for Priestley, but we have to cut something. How about something like this:

"Around 1749 Priestley became seriously ill (perhaps with consumption) and believed he was on his deathbed. Having been raised a devout Calvinist, he believed a conversion experience was necessary for salvation, but doubted he had had one. This emotional distress eventually led him to question his theological upbringing, causing him to reject election and accept universal salvation. As a result, the elders of his home church refused him admission as a full member." Awadewit | talk 16:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This version is better. But I don't think this kind of trimming here and there is going to address the readability issue. I agree with Qp10qp's analysis; the article must be refactored to make it engaging. Ask the question: what is it that is important to understand about the subject? Jeff Dahl 17:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please believe me when I say that I have actually already asked this question and I believe that what is in the article is important. I'm not sure how to make theology "engaging" to the modern reader; to some extent, you have to already be interested in history or theology to find that interesting. The personal details of Priestley's life were supposed to add to the "engaging" part of the article, but as those are often trivial, those are being deleted. Frankly, I'm at a loss. Awadewit | talk 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about this for about 4 days, I think I finally found an example of what I'm talking about. Take a look at FA Isaac Newton. This is pretty much a perfect example of what an article about an influential figure in science/religion/etc should look like, and is only 55kb. Jeff Dahl 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

But JP is nowhere near as influential the towering figure of Isaac Newton (often called the greatest scientist who ever lived). Even I know he shouldn't have the same amount of space. There certainly isn't the same amount of scholarship dedicated to him. No, I believe we have to cut the article if you and Qp really believe that this page is too lengthy. I already think it is ridiculous to have two spin-off pages for JP. Awadewit | talk 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put in the new, reduced version for now. Awadewit | talk 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

"I really like the chart, but not in this article Jeff Dahl 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)"

"Could you explain why? It is one of the most influential and popular works JP published. Awadewit | talk 21:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)"

Yes the work was influential. That is why we have the sentence: "The trustees of Warrington were so impressed with Priestley's lectures and charts that they arranged for the University of Edinburgh to grant him a Doctor of Law degree in 1764." You could even say "...impressed with Priestley's Lectures on History: A Chart of Biography and A New Chart of History that they arranged..." Keeping the image is okay, but I would cut down the prose. Jeff Dahl 02:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

But that sentence doesn't really demonstrate the work's influence. Priestley's degree is not really important at all.

Priestley also designed visual study aides for his Lectures on History: A Chart of Biography (1765)[26] and A New Chart of History (1769).[27] According to Priestley, they "impressed" upon students "a just image of the rise, progress, extent, duration, and contemporary state of all the considerable empires that have ever existed in the world".[28] Both charts had accompanying prose descriptions and were popular for decades—A New Chart of History had gone through fifteen editions by 1816.[29] The trustees of Warrington were so impressed with Priestley's lectures and charts that they arranged for the University of Edinburgh to grant him a Doctor of Law degree in 1764.[30]

There are currently four sentences on the charts - one introducing them, one explaining them, one detailing their reception, and one providing a conclusion/transition of sorts. What about this new version?

"Priestley also designed two Charts to serve as visual study aides for his Lectures on History, which "impressed" upon students "a just image of the rise, progress, extent, duration, and contemporary state of all the considerable empires that have ever existed in the world". Both charts were popular for decades and the The trustees of Warrington were so impressed with Priestley's lectures and charts that they arranged for the University of Edinburgh to grant him a Doctor of Law degree in 1764." Awadewit | talk 16:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)