Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Joseph Priestley

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography | Peer review

Joseph Priestley

edit

Joseph Priestley was an eighteenth-century polymath. He was a theologian, scientist, educator, political theorist, and minister. He published around 150 works. Writing a succinct biography of him is therefore quite difficult. This article, despite having two spin-off pages Joseph Priestley and Dissent and Joseph Priestley and education, is still quite long. It is just around the 10,000 word mark the last time I checked. Obviously, any suggestions regarding deletion would be helpful; however, it has been edited quite rigorously and we are still left with this much material. The article is currently GA and we would eventually like to take it to FA. Please help us clarify, copy edit, and whatnot. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox? DrKiernan 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As infoboxes are optional, the consensus was reached on the page to delete it and arrange the lead as you see it. The layout of the lead is a consensus that was reached after a bit of a kerfuffle over something. (BTW, when you think about it, this page certainly does not need anything added to it.) Awadewit | talk 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dahl (see sandbox page for further discussion)

edit
  • 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)[reply]
  • You might want to try: {{TOClimit|limit=2}} for your table of contents, that will limit the depth to only the ==level 2 headings== and make it much shorter which, as I'm sure you know, is FA requirement. Just place the template right after the intro paragraphs. More comments to come... Jeff Dahl 17:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I see a really good article with lots of information. Lots and lots and lots of information. Too much information. The actual prose is well written in terms of sentence structure, grammar, spelling, references etc. But from the overall standpoint, it is just too much. One reason the article is so long is because it is overly detailed. It is painful to have to cut out information, but when the reader's eyes start to glaze over such passages it is time to adopt more of a summary style. One element that continually contributes to the problem is the little bits and pieces of information, almost trivia, sprinkled throughout. There's a saying I've heard that applies here: "Perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
An example: "...when he began a lecture series based on his Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, a text he started writing at Daventry but did not publish until 1772." The part about when he started writing the book and when it was finished, I think is too much detail.
Because of the complexity involved, I created a sandbox page for this work. Check out this sandbox. I highlighted passages in gray that seem too detailed and need to be deleted or reworded. I did a few sections to highlight what I mean, but I can't do the whole article this way because the wiki-markup takes about ten times longer than doing in on paper. I don't suggest simply deleting the gray passages, and please take these as flexible suggestions; some material in gray should be kept but will need simplification or rewording to make it fit. The prose should not stray off-topic trying to cram in every little detail. Jeff Dahl 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I would recommend is copying the text to a sandbox or whatever, to be used as a base for spinoff articles, of which many could be created. Then, examine each sentence and ask, "is this really necessary?" If the answer is no, then zap it. If it is necessary, then start summarizing the information. Tell us only the most important parts.
  • That is precisely what I have already tried to do. In fact, I have already created two spin-off pages. What you are asking for is much harder than you realize. In fact, I have asked many people to list the things that should be deleted and they have not been able to list anything (in fact, one editor who insisted on spin-off pages said there wasn't too much detail in this article, confusing me enormously). If you could please list what needs to go, I would be happy to rework it, but I have done my best to present what the biographies say is the most important material and I have continually asked for help regarding deletion. If you would be willing to work with me, point by point, I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another problem is the "-isms" I know it is just impossible to define each in the article due to size, but as it is, many sentences are unreadable by a layman. For example:
"...researching and writing the work eventually convinced him to adopt Socinianism, a form of Unitarianism." What does this even mean?
  • This is another problem. Explaining all of this only balloons the size of the article. I can explain and make the article twice as long (explaining theology is long and tedious) or I can rely on wikilinks. I chose the latter in most cases. If you feel that there are isolated instances, such as this, where more detail is needed, please list them. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another example "...This work marked an important change in Priestley's theological thinking that is critical to understanding his later writings—it paved the way for his materialism and necessatarianism." Again, I am baffled. Might want to double check the spelling of "necessatarianism." Although the article documents Priestly's religious associations in microscopic detail, I still don't get a feeling of what those beliefs actually were, because of all the jargon. Try summing up the themes of his beliefs using normal words and sentences rather than tossing up an -ism, and leave those details to their own article.
  • Help would be appreciated on this because none of the sources use any other language than this, and, frankly, these are the best words to use because they are the most precise and the most concise. In most instances, I have tried to introduce Priestley's beliefs using these precise words and then explain them using lay vocaboulary. In the case you point out, I did not because I go on to explain those things later in the article. Repeating the explanation would only make the article longer. Again, a detailed list would be helpful at this point. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture captions might be a little more interesting, telling us something about the item rather than just its title.
  • What kind of information are you looking for? We have given more when more was necessary or available, I think, but perhaps you could list which images you think need more explanation? Awadewit | talk 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia:Captions for some great tips. I think the idea is to add some more information besides just a title. Sometimes, you can actually use the caption to describe the work and take that part out of the main text. Jeff Dahl 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done of this. See whether you think more could be accomplished. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of these (PriestlyFirstPrinciples, Stephen Hale - pneumatic trough, PriestlyCartoon, PriestlyMedal) do a fine job, though some images have only a title. Jeff Dahl 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more, but I can't really see anything to do with the rest that wouldn't take too much out of the text. Awadewit | talk 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's enough for now, I'll do more later. Jeff Dahl 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qp10qp

edit

One point, before I read the article. I have never believed that a page about someone on Wikipedia is a form of boiled-down biography. I remember you raised an eyebrow at the Anton Chekhov FAC when I said I had deliberately missed out stuff about his love life and much else. But if you had seen the door-stop size of some of his biographies, you might have sympathised. As a history graduate, I suppose I have very little admiration for biographies. I wouldn't necessarily regard it as a virtue that you have tried to do justice to the information in Priestley's biographies. Biographies give one the kitchen sink and all, whereas I think a Wikipedia article should concentrate on notablity. In other words, I believe the criterion should be: what are the notable things about this figure? For a major figure about whom the information is copious, the biographical details should be restricted to what is notable or essential, I feel. The rest may justifiably be excluded. qp10qp 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You must know I sympathize with this view to a large extent. That is why I read the long list of "other secondary sources". The other thing is that Priestley biographies are not the kind of personal biographies one usually encounters and that I think you rather despise. The most recent and most thorough, Schofield's, is more of an intellectual history. This article reflects that. I don't think that you will be upset by the level of "what Priestley had for breakfast" detail. :) The problem with Priestley is that he was notable in so many fields and in so many areas that are now rather difficult to explain - natural philosophy and theology, to name two. I think when you read the article, you will begin to see the difficulties that I have been struggling with. I don't anticipate any serious methodological differences. There is no room for "breakfast" details because there is so much other stuff to cram into this bio. I have only included a few to placate the masses. :)
  • Franklin was considered a British expert in electricity for some reason. I think it is because he spent a lot of time there, discussing his experiments. See, he was part of this club... Awadewit | talk 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one can't be American on the one hand but British according to what one studies, surely. By that reasoning you yourself would be part British. With a Yorkshire accent probably.
I'm simply repeating what I read: these were the foremost British experts on electricity. How about we just say "in Britain" then? Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now read the whole article, and it took me a while. I enjoyed the parts about air, the contrast with with Lavoisier, and about the Birmingham riot, and this may be because at those points I felt the material was quickened by its obvious notability. I would not suggest substantive changes to those parts.
However, I don't think this article works overall. Before I go on to give my reasons, I'd like to commend you (main editor Awadewit) for the depth and detail of this work and for its usefulnesss. On balance, I would support it at FAC on those grounds; but I'd caution against submitting too early to that forum since I fear that objections to length and digestibility might be lodged.
My suggestion is going to seem quite extreme. (I doubt it will be accepted; if it isn't, I will try to come up with a plan B.) I think there must be an attempt of some sort to reduce the length and emphasise according to significance of information. By the time I reached the "Legacy" section, I had decided that the article would be better divided into clear parts, by topic rather than chronology. Then I read this: "His scientific discoveries have usually been divorced from his theological and metaphysical publications in order to make an analysis of his life and writings easier". So I am not the only one; but you quote opposition to that approach, and you will doubtless say that his interests were thoroughly intermixed. I take that point, but it is ambitious to organise the article on that basis, I think. Anyway, I will forge ahead with my suggestion.
I believe the chronological approach and headings would be better ditched. In my opinion this structure imposes a dutiful and oppressive comprehensiveness on the article, a grinding determination to provide information of some sort about everything he did and wrote. In my opinion, however, the article would more lucidly address Priestley through a hierarchy of what he is known for.
I would start with a short biography, lightly covering the main external details of his life, where he lived, marriage, jobs, awards, etc,, but cutting down on the less notable information, for example some aspects of his life in America.
I would then address his science: however, I'd cut to a minimum mentions of his less significant scientific work, for example on optics; some light treatment of electricity would be in order, followed by a major treatment of his work, theories and controversies on air. Why? Because this is what he is mainly known for. And even though his significance in this field is clearly vulnerable to counter-arguments, I think his notability stands, because his discoveries, even if he didn't understand them, cannot be taken away from him. This is often the way with scientific discoveries, that the discoverers and the best theorists aren't always the same people: this was the case with Alexander Fleming, for example, who also didn't quite understand what he had discovered.
Next I would look at religion, using the transition from science to address the way the two overlapped in Priestley's view. Gradually I would move into a treatment of his dissent. I would however cut a great deal of the information on that, in particular the reporting of each of his writings and the scrupulous but slightly indigestible mapping of all his different beliefs and shifts in emphasis in that regard. I would not say too much about his odder beliefs: after all, many famous scientists had odd beliefs, astrology, for example (and Newton was obsessed with alchemy), but these are largely overlooked when we assess them.
Finally, I would address philosophy and politics, using the transition from dissent to lead into his political views and his clashes with authority and the masses in the context of the effect of the French Revolution. Detail of the Birmingham riot might be interesting here, having perhaps been touched on in the biographical part.
I would cut down the legacy section, reducing the number of eulogistic quotes, which, in my opinion, have the effect of repetition.
Along the way I would cut much of the minor detail. There is often, in my view, so much undifferentiated material that it is at first difficult to tell what is most significant. I would provide detail according to the following criteria of significance, the first requring more space and emphasis than the second: 1. What is significant about Priestley for the present day? 2. What, though it might not be significant now, was most sigificant about Priestley for his own day? Anything else I would consider cutting.
I advise aiming to reduce the article to 80kb or under, which would still leave a mighty read.
In making these suggestions, please don't think I don't appreciate all your awe-inspiring and time-consuming scholarly work here. Cutting things that took hours and hours to research and write is a heart-breaking prospect, I know. But I honestly think it would make a better encyclopedia article.qp10qp 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that anything you cut out can be put into a spinoff article, nothing has to be wasted! Jeff Dahl 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But no one really reads those. The main biography page of a person is the core information. How many readers are willing to read three or four pages on a figure? Not many. That is why I am not really a fan of the spin-off page. I resisted spinning-off JP pages for a long time for precisely that reason. Awadewit | talk 06:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I don't want to do that. One reason is that I simply don't want to invest the time at the present moment. If that means the article has to stay un-FA'd until I or someone else feels like it, that's fine with me. But anyone else, in my opinion, is going to have enormous trouble doing what you have asked. The scholarship, except for the early twentieth-century biographies, do not say "this is more important than that". In fact, that is biggest flaw of Schofield's work - he details everything. It would be quite difficult for any editor to justify why they have elevated one set of things over another, in my opinion, without going back to the early biographies. Occasionally I used these biographies to do this out of sheer desperation, but it is one of the things that I feel is actually the least supportable about the article.
One of the reasons I chose the chronological approach is because that is the approach followed by most of the biographies. It also allows the reader to see Priestley's intellectual development over time, which is quite significant.
Of course, the biographies are chronological, but that is not the only way to arrange information in an article. One can show Priestley's intellectual development within other sorts of sections and structures.qp10qp 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you recommend cutting down on the America section. This section is already severely reduced. Priestley's time in America is one of the most well-researched aspects of his career, but it receives little attention here. Cutting it still further would create a further imbalance in that already subjective choice.
The reason I suggested it was that he doesn't appear to have done anything very significant over there.qp10qp 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true - that is the initial reason I cut it down in the beginning. Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You emphasize in your description "what Priestley is known for" but that is different than "what Priestley had an influence on". I think that what he influenced is actually more important than what he is known for - reputations can be deceiving.
I'm not sure what "odd" beliefs you are referring to. Most of Priestley's religious beliefs were fairly common among Dissenters. Priestley was first and foremost a theologian, not a scientist. In fact, he was not a scientist at all.
I mean his beliefs about the relationship between science, nature and religion.qp10qp 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But according to everything I read, those beliefs are at the core of his philosophy. They may be odd by our standards, but if they are his core beliefs, we have to explain them. Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question #1 (Priestley's significance for the modern day) is the last thing I think we should consider. I really am actually very tired of hearing this question about every eighteenth-century topic. Most have only a distant significance to the modern day and any influence they might have had on our world is indirect and near impossible to prove. These questions are so speculative that I feel that they are best relegated to the fluffy "legacy" sections.
Perhaps I didn't explain this well enough; "influence" would do just as well. What I mean is that in my opinion the article would be clearer if it gave aspects of Priestley's life and work that connect to the present day priority over those that don't. By "connect", "influence", "significance to the present day", or whatever, I mean that historical and scientific figures are most important to us for their position in the development of knowledge (or society, religious thought, or whatever). Those who made no contribution are usually forgotten. It seems to me that there is too much in the article that is either insignificant to us today or was insignificant (or markedly less significant than other aspects of Priestley) in its day. If the article tells us, as I feel it does by implication, that everything Priestley did was equally significant (in fact, I get the impression that you would like to say that he was less significant as a scientist than as a dissenter), then commonsense tells us that this can't be so. Even someone who knows nothing about science would surely feel the article come to life at the moment it describes the discoveries Priestley made about air.qp10qp 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is highly debatable whether Priestley was more influential as a natural philosopher than as a Dissenter. Oxygen was discovered earlier by someone else who communicated this fact to Lavoisier, so that is no big deal, really. It just happens to have received a lot of press. Priestley's philosophical and theological writings influenced people like J. S. Mill and Kant - how is that not important? Perhaps even more important than his half-discovery of oxygen? Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question #2 (Priestley's significance for his own day) is far more important. Priestley's notability rests on that. No one now cares about much that Priestley cared about, but during his own time, he was one famous guy. I think that this article should try to explain why it was that Priestley was such a controversial figure in his own time and why what he said was so inflammatory. It is difficult, because the debates are foreign, but it is essential, in my opinion.
If you come up with a Plan B, let me know. I understand your desire for a "Priestley's theology" paragraph or two, but the reductiveness of such a thing frightens me. The DNB doesn't even do that. :)
I do realize that this page is a tad long for many readers and dense in places, but I am just not sure how to discuss theology and philosophy without being a little technical. These concepts were very important at the time and deserve to be mentioned. I do not think that the article should be dumbed down too much. Then it will look like Joe Jackson's biography on Priestley, which radically misrepresents Priestley at times, the French Revolution, the British reform movement, etc. all in the name of sensationalism and readability. We need a better balance. Awadewit | talk 06:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not just a tad long; it's horrendously long. I mean by that that it's so long that it doesn't really work as an encyclopedia article, accessible for the average reader interested in the overview of the subject. The principles for a large subject like this are different from those for a smaller subject, where one can afford to be fully comprehensive. Plan B would be for me to list sections of the article that I think should be thinned or removed and then for me to do a copyedit on top of and as a result of that, to take 4 or 5 more kb off the article without much changing the content in itself (the copyedit would be too little on its own, though).qp10qp 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am suitably chastened. Could you try it in the sandbox that Jeff has set up? Perhaps we could work out a new version there together. If that doesn't work out, I will rewrite the whole thing from scratch. I view that as a last resort, though. Awadewit | talk 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos

edit

I'd like to note that I am not a member of this project, and the sheer extent of the discussion above leads me to believe I won't have much to add to this review. I do have a few comments, however, before we get to trimming the body text (which is currently a 20-page printout, with tight leading and no images):

Lead
  • I've added convenience links to theism, materialism, and determinism.
  • "Because many of his texts were written during the French Revolution [...]" this seems to "downplay" the nature of the controversy surrounding him; from what I gather reading the text, his work was surely always controversial, due to its very content and not only the "atmosphere" (sorry, no pun intended) of that particular time? Perhaps I'm misreading things here.
  • "[...] Priestley's determination to reject Lavoisier's 'new chemistry'"—perhaps a link to Chemical Revolution would be appropriate here, if not ideal.
Early life and education
  • "Priestley was born to an established Dissenting (i.e., they did not conform to the Church of England) family"—I think Priestley was born to an established Dissenting family (that is, they did not conform to the Church of England) would be clearer. I agree with Jeff's slight trim of the first paragraph, although I feel the remainder of the section is significant enough to stay as is.
Needham Market and Daventry
  • "His series of scientific lectures, titled "Use of the Globes", however, was more successful"—this seems somewhat lacking in context. Since we don't want to add to the article, perhaps rewording it to something like He also presented a series of [scientific] lectures titled "Use of the Globes", which was more successful.
  • "[...] his time there was happier. The congregation cared less about Priestley's heterodoxy and he busied himself learning to play the flute [...]" I realize this is a nice indication of a (likely important) change in his state of mind, and in keeping with the article's overall tone, but it seems too trivial.
Warrington Academy and subsections
  • "Priestley moved to Warrington and assumed the post of tutor of modern languages and rhetoric at Warrington's Dissenting academy"—the town's Dissenting academy?
  • "He fit in well at Warrington and quickly made friends with another tutor, John Seddon." Is this really significant? I read this as early evidence of how Priestley's views usually isolated him. Is this accurate? As you mention Seddon again later on, it might be best to leave this in.
  • "The couple played several games of chess or backgammon every day [...]"—again, a nice touch of humanity, but at the risk of being harsh this doesn't add much to the article, if anything at all.
  • "His millennial perspective was bound up with his optimism [...]"—that's an awkward construction, a little too idiomatic; it doesn't really match the overall style.
  • "Despite his busy teaching schedule, Priestley decided to write a history of electricity." Why? :)
  • Benjamin Franklin described as British—I can't get my head around that. My impression is that Franklin visited the Society's meetings on occasion. Is British necessary at all? I see you've tried to tackle this above.
  • The description of The History and Present State of Electricity could, in my humble opinion, be shortened considerably; after all, there's a main article.
Leeds and subsections
  • The summary of the Institutes is a bit long-winded. I realize this is important, but perhaps it could be shortened further?
  • "Priestley also founded the Theological Repository [...]"—when exactly?
  • "[...] he believed that science could increase human happiness"—increase sounds a bit weak here.
  • "[...] it was the only English history of optics for 150 years. Priestley paid careful attention to the history of optics [...]"; redundant-sounding, although clearly different in meaning; could you reword either?
  • "[...] Lord Shelburne delicately wrote to Priestley [...]"—why delicately?
  • Right, sorry :) Well, "wrote delicately"—as I said before, why delicately? In my opinion, a mention that "Shelburne was afraid Priestley might be insulted" is warranted. Then, we have, "insulted why?" I presume the reader would be interested in knowing—I would. By the way, in a completely unrelated matter, I see you moved mention of Priestley's birthplace to an image caption. I really think it should be in the main text :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just removed "delicately". Going into the rest of it would just add unnecessary detail in an already too-long article. What does it read like without the "delicately"? I can't tell anymore. Everything looks horribly truncated to me. I have moved West Yorkshire back into the main text but left the other details in the caption. Is this acceptable? Awadewit | talk 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reads fine. As for everything looking horribly truncated, trust me—it's just a matter of strategic distance :) The article is excellent. Regarding his birthplace: that's also enough, no problem. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priestley debated whether to sacrifice his ministry and accept the position; after intense soul-searching, he resigned from Mill Hill Chapel [...]"—intense soul-searching may be accurate, but it doesn't sound it in the article's context; just overly emotional.

I'll take a break here—more to come later. Sorry for my trivial suggestions; I hope they're somehow helpful. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC), revised 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for all of these helpful suggestions. I have to take a break from editing for the moment because I have some sort of horrendous flu. I hope to be recovered in a few days and back at it, though, so please don't think that I don't appreciate your help. Awadewit | talk 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2

OK, here we go. I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to this.

Calne and subsections
  • "Priestley also became a political adviser to Shelburne, gathering information on parliamentary issues [...]"—I'm interested in this "Priestley as spy" (I know, I know) aspect. I know you're trying to trim, but could you add a little more detail on this? How did he gather such information? Where and who from? If this is too much trouble, never mind; just a curiosity.
  • "He criticizes those whose faith is shaped by books and fashion [...]"—"shaped by books and fashion" sounds like a direct quote, and perhaps should be formatted as such? If it isn't you're really a great writer :)
  • "[...] the world and the men in it will eventually be perfected."—the world and the people in it? ;)
  • "Priestley believed that mankind could be perfected through a study of nature." From what I read directly above, Priestley's philosophy involves the concept that mankind is invariably, if slowly, headed towards perfection; if so, this sentence is a little confusing. I realize perfected is meant in the sense of improved, but perhaps the word could be changed? I'm taking this article as my sole source on Priestley right now, so if I misunderstand, please let me know.
  • Priestley is confusing. It is not entirely clear to me whether Priestley was a postmillennialist or premillennialist. Nothing of what I read made that distinction. However, the books and articles often use the word "perfected". Are humans perfecting themselves? Is God perfecting them? Again, this is not totally clear. I have a feeling that it is because Priestley is not clear or consistent. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, the volumes [...]"—Furthermore? Please don't hate me for this.
  • "[...] the discovery of several airs:"—several substances? Some slightly more modern terminology may be welcome here.
  • This change I will resist. One reason for using Priestley's terminology is that he thought of the "airs" this way - he did not think of them as "substances". I think it is good to remind readers that Priestley and others at the time conceptualized these "things" quite differently. The words do that - and readers can still understand what is being said. Awadewit | talk 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham and subsections

More tomorrow. Again, I apologize for getting sidetracked... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back :)

  • "Because New Meeting paid Priestley only 100 guineas [...]"—how often? ;)
  • "superior [in] dignity and importance."—if the original quote is of superior dignity of importance, that could actually sound better. If not, just ignore this.
  • "The text addresses issues from the divinity of Christ to the proper form for the Lord's Supper."—issues ranging from?
Pennsylvania
  • "They were immediately feted […]"—I presume very appropriate language, but maybe a little over the average reader’s level? It took me a few seconds to parse (I usually expect a circumflex on fete. Bad habit.)
  • "[…] the couple began building a home in rural Pennsylvania."—a home in the countryside? I think ‘’Pennsylvania’’ is pretty clear from the preceding sentences.
Legacy

That's all from me. I've reread the (now copyedited) article, and in my humble opinion nothing has really been lost. The last few sections, from "Birmingham" onwards, seemed particularly excellent; I maintain my opinion that this article is one of the finest I've read on WP, and I eagerly await that gold star at the top right corner of the page :) Congratulations, by the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

edit
  • I have started removing quotations (sigh). More will probably have to go.
  • Following Jeff's suggestion, I have moved information to the captions.
  • I have rewritten the "Materialist philosopher" section. Please let me know if it is more comprehensible. It is also more concise.
  • The article is now at 9000 words (81kb). I am aiming to shave off another 1000 words or so. Those will be even tougher. :) Awadewit | talk 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scartol

edit

First of all, I'd like to say: Pass the Lavoisier!

Okay, now about the JP article: It's clear from the above discussions that I can only really insert my own perspective on the large-scale questions, and offer copyedit services.

  • I can actually see both sides of the structure discussion. Qp10qp's suggestions are very convincing to me, but on the other hand I agree with Awadewit in general that chronology is the way to go. I think if concision is really what is needed (and if there's no other way to do it), restructuring – painful as it would be – is a good choice. However, as Awad said, maybe it's better just to leave it un-FA and whittle away at it. I don't really feel very strongly one way or the other.
  • Since it is already down to 9000 words, I feel like whittling is the way to go at this point. If, after whittling and revising, people still feel it is too long and boring, then I will put it away for awhile until I feel like undertaking a major rewrite. Awadewit | talk 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, then, can be done about the length? I don't feel sufficiently wise to offer suggestions on what to trim. All I can really offer is to do more of the ruthless red-pen-ism I've demonstrated with this sample. It's not pretty, but it will cut down on words. If you like, I'm willing to do more of the article in a similar fashion, to show how I'd revise sentences and paragraphs.
  • I think most of these suggestions are good. Do you want to go section by section? It would help me a lot. One English teacher copy editing another. It is the best of both worlds. :) Awadewit | talk 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just lemme know. Good luck on this, and sorry I can't be of more assistance. – Scartol · Talk 23:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made more suggestions on what might be trimmed, to the end of Educator and historian. – Scartol · Talk 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Poessel

edit

Just some notes following a brief read-through (and I apologize for not collating with earlier comments).

  • "to cling to phlogiston theory" - as a courtesy to less knowledgeable readers, might one something like "to cling to the phlogiston theory of heat" to at least give an impression of what this is about?
  • The last remaining thing on my "to do" list is "explaining phlogiston theory better". I find it very difficult to do, however. I will add this phrase. If you have any insight on how to explain the theory itself, please let me know. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even given your efforts to keep the article short, I think that to "In the eighteenth century, it was believed that flammable substances could burn because they contained an essence called phlogiston." should be added something like ", which was released during combustion." - something to give at least a hint of the role played by that substance. On the other hand, I am puzzled by "dephlogisticated" and more concretely by the sentence "Priestley believed that the reason the gas burned so well was because it lacked phlogiston—what he believed was the essence of flammability" - if phlogiston is the essence of flammability, why does a lack of it mean that something burns especially well? --Markus Poessel 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear to me that all of the phlogiston theories in the eighteenth century actually accepted the idea that phlogiston was released during the burning process. (There was more than one phlogiston theory, apparently.)
  • I am going to remove that second sentence - explaining it means explaining Priestley's experiments, which I don't have space to do. A better place for that will be the subpages, I think. Awadewit | talk 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the age of four he could perfectly recite the Westminster Shorter Catechism" - again, if I have to click on the WSC in order to find out what's so great about this, the sentence loses much of its direct impact. "...could perfectly recite all 107 question-answer pairs of the Westminster Shorter Catechism" would be more informative.
  • "In order to earn extra money, Priestley tried to open a school, but local families refused to send their children." - doesn't sound quite right. Did he open a school, but nobody sent any children, so it folded? Did he float the idea, but no local family said they would send their children?
  • "had a daughter, who they" - especially in an article about a historical subject, a "whom" might not be inappropriate? In particular in a sentence like this, where the "who" is misleading until you read the next word?
  • "which he believed would "impress" 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" - surely that quote refers to a different chart? One that, say, shows empires? And perhaps covers a more extended period of time than just Ancient Greece and Rome?
  • I can't find a picture of the other chart and I was encouraged to move text to the captions to reduce the word count. New caption reads: A redacted version of Chart of Biography (1765); Priestley believed his Charts would "impress" 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". Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Athens of the North" - capitalization, and isn't that epithet more commonly applied to Edinburgh?
  • I'm not disputing that it was applied to Warrington, as well, but current usage (you have sources, I have Google...) appears to be Edinburgh; as such, a nod towards current usage might be appropriate. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes, I see. Now reads: The intellectually stimulating atmosphere of Warrington, referred to during the eighteenth century as the "Athens of the North", increased Priestley's interest in natural philosophy. Awadewit | talk 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some scholars of education have described Priestley as the "most considerable English writer on educational philosophy"" - as it stands, this might be taken as a statement that more than scholar of education used this exact wording. The reference is to two works, from which one is the quote? It might be clearer if you were to quote the whole sentence, i.e. include the appropriate versions of "some scholars of education have..." inside the quotation marks.
  • I just reworded to avoid the confusing quotation - there is no longer a quotation. Schofield doesn't provide much documentation for this claim. That he is the source is supposed to be clear from the "see also" in the note. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the Benjamin Franklin issue raised by others might be addressed even more completely by changing "John Canton, William Watson, and Benjamin Franklin" to "John Canton, William Watson, and the visiting Benjamin Franklin" or similar?
  • "..and was prompted to undertake his own" - "and began to design experiment of his own"? In a very real sense, the earlier experiments were "his own", too, if he was the one doing the experimenting; the important thing appears to be that he then began to design his own experiments.
  • As for "The History and Present State of Electricity": since this was published after Priestley was accepted by the Royal Society, presumably those who were impressed enough with it to nominate him had access to a draft version, or the manuscript? If yes, this should be mentioned; otherwise, readers might wonder about the order of events.
  • "Based on experiments with charged cylinders, Priestley was also the first to propose that electrical force followed an inverse-square law, although he did not generalize or elaborate on this." - sounds a bit mysterious. Surely long cylinders would follow a one-over-r law? It would help if the summary would give a slightly better idea of what the experiments were.
  • "Priestley believed that by educating the youth of the congregation, he would unite it again" - not my favourite sentence. The "it" presumably refers to congregation, but could refer to "youth"; "unite again": did he mean to lure back those that were lured away, or simply strengthen the congregation's unity to prevent future lurings-away?
  • "Priestley believed that by educating the youth of the congregation, he could strengthen its bonds". Adding on something about seducing straying members back will start to sound repetitive, I think. I'm just paranoid at this point about adding words, I'm afraid. The general point is about his educational program. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that sounds more like chemistry. Still sounds weird to my ears, though - strengthening he bonds of youth. "..he could strengthen the bonds of the congregation by educating its youth"? --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For necessitarianism, a brief half-sentence of explanation would be great. Especially as the information that can be found in the wikilink at the moment amounts to "Necessitarianism is a metaphysical principle".
  • Now reads: This work marked an important change in Priestley's theological thinking that is critical to understanding his later writings—it paved the way for his materialism and necessitarianism (i.e., the belief that a divine being acts in accordance with necessary metaphysical laws). Awadewit | talk 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientific readers did not appreciate seeing science used in the defense of religion" - to me, that is a very surprising statement. We're still in the 18th century - was it, at that time, really the prevailing attitude among scientists that science not be used in the defense of religion?
  • It is not that surprising when you think about how many "scientific readers" there must have been. Those that were sufficiently interested in "science" (if one can call it that) to know anything about that were most often also the ones that were questioning religion. Enlightenment and all of that. Also, this is the end of the eighteenth century - we are moving away from Newton's worldview. Priestley obviously wanted science to explain God's creation, but many French scientists were not so (ahem) dogmatic. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, really, I'm just shocked. Are you telling me that you have had no time while you were cramming your head full of knowledge about relativity to look up eighteenth-century religious or scientific history? :) Awadewit | talk 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Natural philosopher of air" sounds a bit weird.
  • With no mice mentioned in the section on "The Discovery of Oxygen", the connection with "See also: Wikisource:The Mouse's Petition" might be a tad too subtle.
  • The quote about the mice is gone now? The mice that proved the air is good? That has to go back in. Or at least an explanation of how he used mice. That was a big deal. Working on it. (Isn't that poem great?) Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's passing mention of mice in another section, but no mention of their unwilling employment in the sections dealing with Priestley's science, as far as I can see. Looks like something has gone agley, there. The poem is sad, and I find the reference to metempsychosis intriguing. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poem is supposed to be a rousing call for liberty - for women, Britons, and mice. Barbauld put the poem in one mouse's cage, supposedly, and Priestley was so affected by it that he let the mouse go free. A nice anecdote that is now gone. :( I'm trying to put the mouse sacrificed on the altar of science back in. Awadewit | talk 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1777, Antoine Lavoisier had published Réflexions sur le Phlogistique pour servir de Développement à la Théorie de la Combustion et de la Respiration, his first sustained attack on phlogiston theory;" - "his first sustained attack" sounds a bit strange. In what way is one book a "sustained attack"? Or was it the first thrust of sustained attack? The first of what prove to be a series of attacks?
  • "Furious, Priestley lashed out with his Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries (1769), correcting Blackstone's grammar, his history, and his interpretation of the law." - unless the question of grammar was very dear to Priestley in this context, this should probably be something like "correcting Blackstone's interpretation of the law and, incidentally, his history and grammar as well"?
  • Grammar was very important to Priestley - I thought I made that clear in describing his grammar book? Ah! It is all such a mess! Neither was history "incidental" to Priestley, as I tried to make clear earlier in the article - Priestley thought people could practically bring on the Christian Millennium by studying history. This is the hardest article I have ever written. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did realize from the article that grammar was very important to Priestley. But when it comes to defending the rights of Dissenters, one might think that grammar is not considered to be of the foremost importance, however fond of it the person in question might be. At least, this would appear to be so from a modern perspective. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is where we moderns differ (at times). In the eighteenth century, grammar was part of the culture wars (sometimes it is part of ours, too). The first "real" dictionary was published by Samuel Johnson and the first steps towards a standardized set of grammar rules and spelling rules was being laid down (imperialism does that to a nation). You can imagine how easy that was - it was kind of like wikipedia. No, Latin doesn't have a split infinitive and the Romans were great, so we shouldn't have a split infinitive either! But we are greater than the Romans and we should distinguish ourselves from them by having the split infinitive. And on and on it went. Grammar and language were at the heart of Thomas Paine's trial over the Rights of Man when he was tried for treason and sedition. There are many books on this topic which are all fascinating. I could actually go on and on about it - but I have said enough. Grammar was highly politicized at the time. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the interesting tidbits that, on its own, are enough to make reviewing on WP worthwhile. Please, point me to a book! Apart from that, I still think this is alien enough to most modern mindsets to merit special mention in the text. Otherwise, it's a bit of a stumbling block. --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might start with something like John Barrell's English Literature in History 1730-1780: An Equal Wide Survey. There is a chapter in it on Samuel Johnson's dictionary that would be particularly interesting for you, I think. Also, Olivia Smith's The Politics of Language. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now reads:Furious, Priestley lashed out with his Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries (1769), correcting Blackstone's grammar (a highly politicized subject at the time), his history, and his interpretation of the law. - Much more and I'll have to launch into the speech above! Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does not altogether distort Priestley's view, I would still think that a re-ordered "Furious, Priestley lashed out with his Remarks on Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries (1769), correcting Blackstone's interpretation of his law, his grammar (a highly politicized subject at the time), and history." would read more fluently with modern eyes. --Markus Poessel 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such experiments demonstrated Priestley's early and ongoing interest in the relationship between chemistry and electricity" - that sentence sounds a bit off. With the charcoal, Priestley had investigated a physical property of one particular material. In what sense does this reflect an interest in the interplay of chemistry and electricity? Or did his investigations of charcoal go further?
  • The discovery that charcoal is a conductor was the novel part, but he also reported experiments on the conductivity of a range of other substances. I've expanded that passage; hopefully it's clearer now.--ragesoss 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't get the chemistry connection. Testing different substances for certain physical properties sounds like physics to me. The connection between chemistry and electricity makes me think of, well, electrolysis and things like that - where there are actual chemical reactions taking place. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chemistry was (and physical chemistry still is, partly) the domain of the study of physical properties of substances; matter theory was a chief concern of 18th century chemistry.--ragesoss 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I just mention something here? I don't think physics was conceived of as a discipline in the eighteenth century the way we think of it now. I haven't read of anyone doing "physics" - studying fundamental interactions and forces, for example - at this time (Newton comes the closest, obviously, but I don't think he conceived of himself as a "physicist" - we just say that in retrospect). Also, this was the actual moment that the idea of "chemical reactions" was developed (chemical revolution). That is one reason it is so difficult to describe this time. Using our vocabulary really distorts what these (mostly) men were doing and thinking. It is really important to me not to be anachronistic in this article with respect to the "science" (another emerging concept!). I hate even using that word in the article. Awadewit | talk 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what Awadewit just said, but to reinforce that passage from a modern perspective: conductivity wasn't the only things he was testing; electrical explosions (coronal discharge) were also one of the main things he was studying here, and these phenomena do involve chemical reactions.--ragesoss 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you suggest a rewording? I'll check with my live-in physics expert here who has read a bit about Priestley as well; he'll know if what you have written jives with Priestley's experiments, I think. I'm just so nervous about saying something really silly. After the whole "discovering oxygen" instead of "oxygen gas" gaffe... Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't worry so much about the oxygen gas if I were you. Frankly, I don't think I know enough about what Priestley did to offer a re-write. What I meant was basically to replace the sentence by "Priestley also showed an early interest in the relationship between chemical reaction and electricity, as exemplified in his experiments on [insert some experiment that without a doubt shows that P was interested in the relationship between c.r.'s and e]." --Markus Poessel 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Perhaps ragesoss can help us out here. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost there, in my opinion - in that sentence, I would replace "This and other experiments" by simply "other experiments", since I don't see how the experiments stated involve chemical reactions/chemistry (admittedly in the modern sense). --Markus Poessel 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it would make more sense to replace every instance of "chemistry" with "chymistry" (though I don't think that's necessary). For Priestley and others working in the traditions of 18th century chymistry, studying the properties of materials is part of chymistry. It's a misleading use of the source to imply that the experiments on the conductivity of materials are not part of Priestley's interest in the relationship between chemistry and electricity.--ragesoss 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is, of course, from a modern point of view (which is probably the p.o.v. of most Wikipedia readers). So if that is the confusion, then certainly some qualification of "chemistry" - either an explanatory sentence, or, as you suggest, use of "chymistry", which word should also be explained on the occasion of its initial occurrence, would be very helpful. --Markus Poessel 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've found a solution: I replaced "chemistry" here with "chemical substances", avoiding the ambiguities of modern/historical scientific/natural philosophical disciplines/traditions altogether.--ragesoss 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fourth part of the Institutes, An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, became so long that he was forced to issue it separately." - aren't we talking about a time when even much shorter books were published in separate installments?
  • I'm not sure, but I thought the practice was much older - publishing books in installments, which could be bound together after the book was complete. The book where I seem to remember last seeing this was from the 17th century. But I've never seriously looked into this, and might be mistaken. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought you meant deliberately publishing works in three volumes to make money off of them or deliberately writing longer works so that they could be split into three parts (common nineteenth-century practices associated with fiction). Many books were published in installments, but not necessarily so that they could be bound together later. Almost all books until the nineteenth century were published unbound - buyers paid for their own binding. I'm confused, really, about what you think this section should say. Sorry. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about installments, whether for binding-together or not, and my point was merely the following: if you're publishing your book in installments anyway, why is it a big deal if one part is "issued separately"? In a modern, bound-book world it might be, but not when all the installments are issued separately in the first place, methinks. --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I see. I am being dense. I don't know - perhaps they could only bind so many pages together at one time? I am just repeating what the sources said on that. I can't really explain any more than I have, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "the latter aided by a steady supply of carbon dioxide from a neighboring brewery" - minor point, but: did he really transport carbon dioxide from the brewery to his own house, or did he simply perform some of his experiments at the brewery?
  • I'm not totally sure - the whole brewery story is a bit shrouded in mystery, anyway. Priestley seems to have misremembered some of these details. I once had a big, long footnote explaining all of that, but it is gone now. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have been clearer - the note would not have answered your question, anyway. I tried to find it, to show you what it was, but it is lost in a sea of changes. The note was about the reliability of the brewery story itself. There is no firm answer to your question, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it is only Schofield who explains the limited reliability of the brewery story. The other biographers just accept it. So I only have one source for that (although it is the most recent and reliable of the biographies). This point is rather small. Ragesoss and I discussed it - I wanted to include the caveats you are discussing and even more, but he thought them unnecessary. Considering that even more caveats have been dropped from the article since then, I don't think that adding this one back in would clarify anything for the reader. Awadewit | talk 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His colleagues therefore believed that they could easily reproduce his experiments in order to verify them or to answer the questions that had puzzled him." - this sentence sounds as if it should continue with "But they were sadly mistaken; in fact...". So: did his colleagues manage to replicate his experiments easily? Did they find it straightforward to continue his work?
  • As I read Schofield, that belief that the experiments could be reproduced was part of why others believed what Priestley wrote (and by implication, why they didn't have to actually reproduce them.) It's not clear whether or not people actually did replicate them. Historically speaking, replication of experiments doesn't actually happen that often; it's more the principle of potential replication that matters.--ragesoss 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I would think that the important point is that his descriptions did contain sufficient information to allow anyone interested in doing so to replicate his experiments. If yes, might it not be put in this way, leaving out the question of "belief"? --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If factually true, then my choice would be "Priestley also invented cheap and easy-to-assemble experimental apparatus, described in sufficient detail as to enable any interested colleague to reproduce Priestley's experiments, verify his findings, or even go beyond his findings to answer questions that has puzzled Priestley." --Markus Poessel 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except your sentence doesn't emphasize the "belief" bit which is the most important part - his contemporaries believed they could replicate his work. It is not clear whether they actually did or not. What is clear is that they used his apparatuses (sp?) to engage in their own experiments - something more along the second half of your sentence. But I would hesitate to suggest to that Priestley set the research agenda or anything like that. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, that brings us back to my original complaint – emphasis on the belief part is commonly taken to imply that the belief is unjustified. If they did use his apparatuses, they are likely to have reproduced at least some of his experiments – if only to check that what they had built was working properly (my impression is that this is how most reproductions of experimental results take place nowadays – replicate some experimental set-up; do some measurement with known outcome to ensure that your set-up is working). As for the last sentence, the "puzzled him" was in the original – was that meant to be a "puzzled them"? Given your last remark, how about "Priestley also invented cheap and easy-to-assemble experimental apparatus, described in sufficient detail as to enable his colleagues to use them in their own experimental work (and presumably check on a number of Priestley results in the process)."? --Markus Poessel 10:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I don't think "belief" is unnecessarily unjustified - perhaps just another word there? Also, I don't think we can assume that his contemporaries replicated his experiments just because they used his apparatuses - these were basic experimental set-ups, as I understand them (according to Jayron32, we still use them today). Furthermore, the kind of checking of apparatus that you are describing that goes on now did not go on in the eighteenth century - they had no values to check their experiments against. Remember, there isn't even a periodical table at this moment in history. Finally, nowhere have I read that Priestley's contemporaries definitely checked his results; we can only speculate and given what I have read, I would say that it is wild speculation to say that they did check his results. When Lavoisier "replicated" Priestley's oxygen-discovering experiment, it was done quite differently, in a way that we would not consider replication at all: his sample was not the same purity, it was a slightly different compound, etc. (That is why initially he got different results.) Everything was just so much messier and so much more ad hoc. I cannot express this enough. I'm concerned that you are foisting a modern interpretation of science back onto the eighteenth century. People like Priestley and Lavoisier may have been forerunners of today's scientists, but they did not practice "science" the way you and your colleagues do now. They were much more cavalier about the whole enterprise, in my opinion. One good example of this is that Priestley did not practice the scientific method as we think of it today: he did hypothesize, test, analyze, and conclude. He left out the hypothesizing step. :) Awadewit | talk 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Priestley and other Lunar Society members argued that the new French system was too expensive, too difficult to test, and unnecessarily complex." - "too expensive" sounds so unusual by modern standards that some explanation would not come amiss.
  • I haven't read the sources used for this bit, but it's not surprising to see "too expensive" raised as an objection to certain research methods in the 18th century, referring to the cost of the special apparatuses used by French chemists. The French system consisted not only of new nomenclature and the replacement of phlogiston theory, but also the introduction of the experimental methods of physics into the study of chemistry; much of Lavoisier's Elementary Treatise on Chemistry is devoted to detailed descriptions of the kinds of apparatus that he and other advocates of the new chemistry argued were necessary to practice modern chemistry. The English scientists had a system that they thought was quite sufficient for pushing forward the science of chemistry, and would not want to have to spend the resources necessary to battle the French system on its own terms. Lavoisier, who was an important government official and managed French mining and processing of saltpeter and other minerals, had an unprecedented level of state patronage. But "too expensive" doesn't seem unusual by modern standards to me, either; after all, this was a frequent complaint against the Human Genome Project, and a continuing complaint against high-energy physics collider research—of course, the ones complaining are the scientists doing related work that doesn't require the same level of capital.--ragesoss 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I later thought of the SSC, as well; still, expense is not usually an argument agains the science in question, just about ways of pursuing it. Here, we are talking about competing scientific models, so, by modern standards, "too expensive" should not be an argument. --Markus Poessel 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think of the "new chemistry" as simply a theory or scientific model, in the modern sense. It's called the French system for a reason, because it not only entailed new theoretical and linguistic tools for making sense of chemistry, but also specified the kinds of experiment that were and were not appropriate for the study of chemistry. I think if you looked hard enough, you could find analogous situations in 20th century science, but I digress... "too expensive" may sound weird today, but it makes sense in context.--ragesoss 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that was the SSC I was talking about. And I think that, for the modern reader, you should at least make it clear in a sentence or so that the "new chemistry" is much more than a theory or scientific model, and why "expensive" is not a surprising argument in this context. --Markus Poessel 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These have now been added. Awadewit | talk 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not going to be that much detail on these issues on the JP page itself. Other pages like Chemical revolution or even some of the JP subpages will go into more detail. I really do think it is acceptable as it is. It is supposed to be a summary - not a comprehensive explanation. If readers want to know more about the debates over the acceptance of Lavoisier's system, they can read about elsewhere. This is not the page to detail that in full. This page is supposed to explain JP's life. Awadewit | talk 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, and your call, of course. But please keep in mind that the text should also be self-contained. Something like the unexpected "expensive" makes it just that little bit less accessible. And there's always the motto "When in doubt, leave it out", of course. --Markus Poessel 13:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, really. Overall, quite an interesting read. --Markus Poessel 14:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Joseph_Priestley&oldid=169621777"