Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Priestley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wadewitz (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 14 June 2007 (→Too long!!: what material, then). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Low-value external lk

I've removed this

Anyone enthusiastic could trawl it for gleams to add to the article, but it doesn't offer much. JackyR 16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck does "silly billys" mean?

Definitely not a valuable link. I don't know where you learned about Priestley, but I always learned about him as a writer and a thinker. The oxygen bit was always tacked on ("oh, and he sort of discovered oxygen"). I think it depends on the context - I was always introduced to Priestley in English classes. Looking at the "selected writings" that I have just added, you will see that he wrote about quite a few different topics. He was one of those cool eighteenth-century people who did a lot of different things. Have you read Scholfield's two-volume biography? That is the way to go. Awadewit 06:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding page

I am slowly expanding this page section by section. If you add information, please cite it using inline citations as that is now the style that dominates on the page. See WP:CITE. Also, there is no need to edit "later" sections to match the earlier, expanded sections as I will be doing this myself in the coming days when I expand those sections (I will end up substantially rewriting much of what is there, anyway, I think). Awadewit Talk 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance rating

Low importance? Are we sure about this? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's between "The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of the history of science" and "the article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of science." I would tend to go with low myself. The biography and philosophy rankings are both mid. I tend to agree with that. Priestley was perhaps more important outside of science than within it although he is oddly remembered for his "discovery" of oxygen. His contributions to theology, education and politics were probably more significant. At the time Priestley was considered a great scientist, but he is obviously no longer considered an integral part of the story of science. If one tells the story of theories that lost out, then one talks about Priestley. It just all depends on your point of view - are you telling a "Whiggish" history of science or not? Does a "broad understanding of the history of science" include the theories that were not correct? I have not often seen this kind of history although that would be a fascinating story. Scientific history tends to be told "by the winners," as they say. Priestley was not a winner in that sense. Awadewit Talk 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very interesting assessment. I was probably thrown off by the fact that the History of Science WikiProject apparently uses an "internal" importance rating scale—I can't imagine a print encyclopedia not having at least a paragraph on Joseph Priestley, and I'm not that familiar with his story myself. You make a fair point, though; thank you. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the ratings matter that much? I was working on the article despite its "low" and "mid" rating because I happen to be interested in Priestley and reading a Priestley biography. Awadewit Talk 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all sincerity, not to me, not much at least. I mostly edit pharmacology articles, most of which won't ever make it past "specialist knowledge". I like to regard importance ratings as a priority "flag"—articles which, in theory, are of interest and importance to a broad set of readers and editors, and are likely to be used as reference, etc. In a project like WP, though, the personal interests of editors will invariably trump general encyclopedic priority most of the time, and I personally don't think that's such a bad thing; just because an article has been assigned a "Low" importance rating, arbitrarily or otherwise, doesn't mean it should not be accurate, reliable, comprehensive... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Most of the articles I edit would probably be given a "low" or "mid" rating. Frankly, I don't want to get involved in editing highly-trafficked articles; I have a feeling that might result in extensive edit negotiations with uninformed editors. :) Awadewit Talk 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Leeds portrait

I think it would nice to have the "Leeds portrait" of Priestley in the "Leeds" section. I have not been able to find a copy online. If anyone finds one or is able to scan a good copy from a book, let me know. It is good portrait. Unfortunately, the artist and the specific date are unknown. Awadewit Talk 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some issues

I have the first volume of the Schofield biography and will receive the second later this week. But as I go through, my first impression is that you've done a very good job with the natural philosophy sections.

  • That's very kind, but I feel that the sections are completely inadequate. Can you tell what Priestley's most important contributions were from that book? I found Schofield's writing a little laborious at times and he does not always distinguish between "amazing discovery," "intriguing find," and "boring experiment" (or some such scale). I am definitely missing some material on Priestley's work with plants and light, though; I should have mentioned that more. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good job in terms of clarity, I meant. I agree about the balance issue, but I'll have to spend some more time with sources before I can contribute much to improving that, without just shooting from the hip.--ragesoss 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. It is precisely "balance" that near impossible to achieve with this article, I fear. Awadewit | talk 05:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I notice throughout is the use of piped links to avoid redirects; for the most part, this is neither necessary nor desirable when a simple link would result in a redirect to the proper article. It doesn't make big difference one way or the other, but it makes the markup a little easier to read and it can actually be helpful to see the "redirected from" at the top when readers follow a link from the text. (It's also part of the guidelines, though not universally followed.)

  • Do you mean that I shouldn't refer to pages by names other than what they have, such as [[University of Oxford|Oxford]] or [[Philosophy of mind|theory of mind]]? I am actually usually very careful about my links, so I can start justifying their names to you, if you want. Or do you mean I shouldn't do the apostrophe thing? I find adding the apostrophe to the link more aesthetically pleasing. It bugs me to see the "word" blue but not its possessive - it seems typographically wrong, to me anyway. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant things like (in the first sentence) [[theology|theologian]] and [[education|educator]]; theologian and educator already redirect to those articles. I didn't actually check much beyond that... now that I do, I see uniformly good linking practices.--ragesoss 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The explanatory footnotes are great, but unfortunately they will mostly be overlooked because of the sheer density of footnotes, most of which are simply citations. The more the citations can be merged, the better. --ragesoss 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I usually try to have no explanatory footnotes whatsoever (for that very reason), but I have been moving some information from the article to the notes as I try to cut down this ridiculously long article (I am not quite sure that forking is a possibility here). I have to cut at least 4,000 words. By the way, if you see any material that you think could be deleted, please either delete it yourself or alert me and I will attend to it. I have been trying to pare down the article, but I need to slash and burn. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I plan to merge the notes when I am "done." I find that doing it early on causes problems because sometimes templates are erased and sometimes the "ideal" combination is only clear later. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was worried that the pages would be put up for deletion. People can make arguments for Newton, but it is harder for Priestley - no one has heard of him. On the works, there is so little written on each work itself that I am even skeptical of the redlinks I did create. I am not sure that creating a tiny stub page that cannot currently be expanded (meaning, there is either little or no published scholarship on that work) is a responsible thing to do. Someone did suggest an "Experiments of Joseph Priestley" page as a possible fork. What do you think of that idea? I think the major problem is that I am incapable of writing in summary style and I cannot decide what is most important to include in the article. I wrote Mary Wollstonecraft with no problem (and there is a lot more scholarship there), but I knew what was important because I think about Wollstonecraft all of the time (she is in my dissertation). I am going through the Priestley scholarship as I write. Awadewit | talk 05:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably best not to bother with it. I don't think you would run into deletion problems (certainly not for short articles about any of his individual works), but it if it can't be done cleanly without a ton of extra work, it's not worth. Just seems like a shame to cut 4000 words that at least some portion of readers probably would have found useful.--ragesoss 07:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

  • The reason I had the picture of the "electrical machine" later in the article (next to the information about Priestley and his brother trying to sell it) was because the picture doesn't appear in the first edition of the text, that is, it does not appear in the version I am talking about in that paragraph. I thought it was disingenuous to place the illustration there, then. What do you think? Awadewit | talk 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Schofield's caption, the image is from 1767 (i.e., the first edition of History of Electricity, but in the text he refers to it as the advertisement for the 1768 (i.e., first) edition of Familiar Introduction. The latter is what I put in the caption, but in either case I don't see how it would be disingenuous. Perhaps the image was in the 1st edition but appeared again as the advertisement in Familiar Introduction, or perhaps Schofield has mixed some things up.--ragesoss 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the thing, though. I grabbed the image from the 1769 edition (2nd corrected and enlarged edition) of History of Electricity, so it is actually from that text. I thought it didn't appear in the first edition but maybe it does (I have read so many biographies now that I can't quite remember who says what). But, as a literary critic, I cannot bear to put incorrect information in the caption. Do you mind if we at least tag it with the title and date of the book I copied it from? Awadewit | talk 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks to be the same plate as the one Schofield lists as 1767. But if it bothers you, go ahead, of course. An alternative would be to scan Schofield's image. Or maybe I have electronic access to a first edition scan. I'll try to take a look at the first editions of each on Thursday and get quality photos of relevant plates, when I go up to school to pick up the 2nd Schofield volume.--ragesoss 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed you cut the "Catalogue of Books" - I thought that was cute and entertaining. Oh well. I do want to retain some entertaining anecdotes and quotations from Priestley, though; it helps him "come alive" for the reader. I have more that should really go in. I'm waiting to see whether I can fit them in. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Priestley continued his electrical and chemical experiments (the latter aided by a steady supply of carbon dioxide from a next-door brewery) - I wanted to leave out all mention of the brewery, since it is a myth according to Schofield (see footnotes). What do you think? Awadewit | talk 05:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to your footnote, it was a myth that he was doing the experiments "only because his house in Leeds was next to a brewery" [emphasis added]. Schofield seems to endorse the fact of the brewery, and that Priestley used carbon dioxide obtained from it; that seems to me a more interesting bit than the catalogue of books.--ragesoss 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that is correct. I just didn't want to add to the confusion by mentioning breweries at all in the main body of the article unless I was going to explain the whole thing. If we mention breweries in that sentence, can we move the big explanatory footnote up to that sentence? (Really? I thought the catalogue was funny, but maybe I only think that it is funny because I do things like that and people always laugh at me. I know nothing about breweries, so perhaps I don't find them suitably amusing.) Awadewit | talk 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brewing plays a surprisingly large role in the history of science, from the Enlightenment all the way to the mid-20th century. Thermodynamics, pneumatics and gas chemistry, the debate over spontaneious generation, the birth of biochemistry, industrial biotechnology (of the pre-genetic engineering sort), drug manufacturing... brewing comes up over and over. The footnote seems like it's addressing a pretty minor myth, but I suppose it could be moved up into the text; the use of the brewery seems to me much more significant than whether it was the sole reason for certain experiments. I suspect that the number of readers who have heard that myth in the first place will be very, very small; it hardly seems worth mentioning even in a footnote, in my view. Schofield takes issue with it, because it's something that he can point out and say "Priestley is wrong here about his own history" (as biographers are wont to do), but for our purposes it seems like an issue that can be left out altogether, both Priestley's claim and Schofield's rejoinder.--ragesoss 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: Please take all my edits as mere suggestions; you're the mastermind behind this article, and if you summarily revert any of my changes, my feelings won't be hurt.--ragesoss 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm hurt - you think I'm a "mastermind"? I know that I rank as Emperor Palpatine on some personality tests, but I believe that to be a deeply flawed assessment. I tend to be more interested in the logic behind edits than in reverting them (unless they are blatantly incorrect or written horribly). Hence the questions.

Too long!!

Come on, folks. To be blunt, there is obviously some solid and very informative material in this article. I would like to read it. I do an extraordinary amount of reading. I love reading; it is my absolute favorite activity of them all. However, I will not read through this entire article. It seems that you can two things to convince someone like me to read it: expand and publish it as a book-length biography or cut back to the more typical length of an on-line encylcopedia entry. The basic point is this: if you can't get me to read it, you're in big trouble with the vast majority of human beings who might come across this article. Cut down on the bio/history please, and let's have more of the science, philosophy and other matters. --Francesco Franco 10:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a work in progress like much of wikipedia. If you had read the talk page or looked at the history, you would notice that indeed we are working on cutting the page down. I am aiming to cut at least one-third of the article. If you have some specific suggestions of what to cut, I would be grateful for them. I cannot cut the "biography" material as you suggest since this is a biography page and occasionally I have to explain some history to contextualize Priestley's actions. Ideally, the page will mix biography and a discussion of Priestley's written works and scientific experiments, which are, of course, part of his biography anyway. The page cannot have a detailed analysis of all of his works (there are over 150) or his experiments (they are too numerous). Awadewit | talk 15:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the answer is to split off sub-pages, rather than loosing content? Andy Mabbett 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought of that, but I'm not sure I can justify them (see above on the talk page where this discussion arose). What subpages were you thinking of? I would appreciate any help on this. Awadewit | talk 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most straightforward would seem to be "JP in- " for each of -Leeds, -Calne, -Birmingham, -Hackney, & -Pennsylvania; with dates per the current section heads. That's a chronological divide, with clear cut-off points. That would also allow tighter categorisation, such as "History of Birmingham", on each. Tehre is a template for linking such articles. I don't think you need to worry about notability concerns! Andy Mabbett 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be easier than the more logical "JP and science" or "JP and theology," but I am not sure what such a page would look like or what the summary would look like here. The entire problem is that the material here is already a summary and a drastic reduction of everything that could be included in each section. If you could suggest specific elements of the sections that you feel are too detailed, I would appreciate it. Then maybe I would have a better idea how to proceed with such a project. Thanks for the help. Awadewit | talk 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're "too detailed"; just too long. Chronological sub-division is used, rightly, elsewhere (I'll try to dig out an example, later). Andy Mabbett 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, what material do you think is unnecessary? Awadewit | talk 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might just also mention, on a side note, that my research on JP is ongoing. I am hoping that by reading more articles, what is most important to include in the article will become clearer. Unfortunately, the major biography on JP does not make these choices clear. It was very difficult to turn that two-volume biography into this page, anyway. I have been using the one-volume biographies to help make decisions about emphasis. I am hoping that even more research will aid in this process. Awadewit | talk 17:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Priestley&oldid=138178057"