Talk:Joseph Priestley House/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fact checking

• I removed the information about "chemical library". I noticed that was sourced to the ACS website - I feel that is a less reliable source than the biographies I have read for the Joseph Priestley page and the information from the House itself. I am going to add supporting notes from the biographies - I just haven't had time yet! Awadewit | talk 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am also worried about the carbon monoxide statement. I'm pretty sure that I read that JP "discovered" CO earlier, just didn't realize it, so the story is more complex than this. We need to get these details correct. Again, I can add other sources in on this since I've done all of the reading - I just need time. Awadewit | talk 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, "chemical library" was my paraphrase of this sentence from the MacDermott Chemical & Engineering News article: "His library was equally impressive; he had amassed roughly 1,600 volumes of chemical research before his death in 1804." I think it is clear that the library held many volumes about chemistry, but I am sure religion and other subjects were covered too. The CO claim is made on the ACS website ("There Priestley continued his research, isolating carbon monoxide (which he called "heavy inflammable air") and founding the Unitarian Church in the United States.") and on the Priestley house website ("In his last 10 years, Priestley identified carbon monoxide as a distinct "air" and published more than 30 scientific papers." [1]) and in the Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine article linked there it says "In Priestley's ten years in Pennsylvania, he identified carbon monoxide as a distinct "air," published more than thirty scientific papers, and wrote more than a dozen religious works, including his six-volume History of the Christian Church. He traveled to Philadelphia to present lectures on religion; his 1796 lectures on "Evidences of Revelation" led to the formation of the First Unitarian Church in Philadelphia. His library and laboratory were probably the best in the country at the time." page 4. When I toured the house, his library and discovery of CO (the only gas he isolated in America) were mentioned by the guide. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The little guidebook from the JP House states that "Some sixteen hundred books on science, history, and theology once stood on bookshelves lining the walls of Joseph Priestley's library." (39) - I can only imagine he had books on more than one topic - what do you want to do about that?
    • In the Schofield biography, Schofield claims that Priestley isolated CO earlier, in the 1770s, but did not know what he had done: "Priestley had produced carbon monoxide by the action of carbon dioxide on hot iron. He described what are the standard, modern indications for carbon monoxide and correctly queried its production from iron and acid, but it did not occur to him that this might be a different kind of inflammable air, or that iron and fixed air might be included with heat and chalk as reactants in his experiment. Carbon monoxide was not accepted as a species of gas by other 'chemists' either until the late 1790s..." (103) When Schofield turns to describing the 1801 experiments, he goes on for three pages, describing Priestley's endless confusion over the whole discovery. He certainly did not identify CO as CO, having rejected Lavoisier's theory and the chemical revolution. This is what I mean about this whole thing being so complicated. How do you think we should handle all of this? Awadewit | talk 08:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the current sentence is fine - I am not sure Priestley identified any of the gases he discovered / isolated by their modern names, so I am less worried about that. He did come up with a reproducible way of producing CO and wrote enough about it that every source I read says he [insert past tense verb here] carbon monoxide in Northumberland. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the small brick museum dedicated to Pond - is that the same building that was originally designed as a fireproof museum of Priestley's stuff? I can't quite tell from the guidebook. Awadewit | talk 09:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not have a source that says they are one and the same, but it makes perfect sense. The brick building was the only outbuilding on the grounds until the recent reconstruction and renovation project. Do you know about ARCH (Pennsylvania NRHP database)? Here is the link to the nomination form, which has lots of useful data: [2] and mentions the 1926 brick structure as an intrusion on the property (as well as the railroad and former canal). The overall page is not directly linkable (searchable database), but has some free black and white images. See http://www.arch.state.pa.us. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • So, I added in another sentence, assuming this is the case. Awadewit | talk 08:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality rating of article for WP:NRHP

The article is nicely written and would merit "B" rating given to it recently, in terms of its language and completeness if it was a regular NRHP site. However, the site is also a National Historic Landmark, and needs some development based on the multiple available sources for NHL information. Criteria for quality rating of NHL articles is under discussion at WP:NRHP, but the proposal is that an article is stub if it does not meet Start criteria: (CURRENT STATUS INDICATED)

1. a short intro is written that is factually and grammatically correct. DONE
2. NRHP infobox is included. It may appear late in the article, if the article is started by another infobox, or it may appear just following another infobox. DONE
3. NHL designation date is included within the NRHP infobox. NOT SURE DONE
4. NHL summary source is referenced as source for NHL designation date. NOPE DONE
5. NRHP inventory/nomination text or NHL nomination text is linked (if available). NOPE DONE
6. accompanying NRHP photo set is linked (if available) NOPE Not available on-line from National Park Service. There are 3 photos at the Pennsylvania state source for the NRHP document for the house, not sure how to describe (are these NPS photos or not?) and/or to use them Photo 1, Photo 2, and Photo 3.
7. that any "official site" of the owner or controlling organization, if any, is included as an External link." NOT SURE YES
8. that External links section exists and includes at least one link. NOT SURE YES
9. that See Also section exists and points to List of NHLs in the state. NOT SURE Skip this one, though List of National Historic Landmarks in Pennsylvania is making progress....

It would be easy to edit the article to meet these criteria, but for now I am downrating it to Stub as not all criteria are met. Please feel free to correspond about these sources or the criteria. Nice work on the article, already. doncram 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's really funny - a set of criteria that doesn't include anything significant about content? :) Something seems a little off there... Awadewit | talk 02:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And going by WP:ASSESS, this is a B-class article regardless of anyone's project requirements. Daniel Case 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To Awadewit et al.: You are free to join ongoing discussion in Talk of WP:NRHP about what should be standards for articles about NHLs for them to have WP:NRHP support. I have a proposal there that is intended to encourage use of the good, official sources that are available on-line for most NHLs. The proposal is a bit lop-sided that way, it is meant to be a little provocative. You do seem to have three other good sources for this article, but as a general rule I observe that articles on NHLs suffer from the absence, if they do not draw on and cite the NRHP text and photos documents, in particular, and also the NHL summary. Without seeing what those sources provide on the Joseph Priestley House (and I can't right at this very moment because a NPS server is down for maintenance) I can't identify all that this article is currently missing by not having sourced from them. But Ruhrfisch mentions below that he has the NRHP text and that it has useful information for developing the article. Also, I infer there is confusion in your collective understanding to date of what is NRHP designation and what is NHL designation. The 1965 date reported for NRHP shown in the infobox is incorrect, as the NRHP system was not created until 1966. As Awadewit observed in his edit note putting that error in there, "shouldn't the year (in the infobox) match the year in the article"? Yes, well, my specific requirements would have had the NHL designation date included in the infobox, in addition to having the NRHP date show, to avoid such confusion. Daniel Case, in some of his other article-writing, has enjoyed my support by my locating and putting references in for him and others to draw on. He acknowledged elsewhere--on my talk page-- that the sources that I mention should in fact be included in this Joseph Priestly House article for it to go through GA or FA review. It is my personal view that it is useful to use the WP:NRHP assessment process to encourage their use sooner rather than later. I would prefer not to be in the position of opposing GA status on articles because they did not incorporate these basic documents relating to the official designation of NHLs, without having tried to communicate my views that using these sources matter, beforehand. Cheers, doncram 06:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this article. I don't know enough about NHL at large to contribute to such a discussion. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is settling down now. I do see that the 3 references for NRHP and NHL matters are not in the same system as your Notes and Bibliography referencing format, sorry about that but I don't know exactly how to remedy it, either. Better to have the sources in, nailing down facts on NRHP/NHL matters, even if the reference listing is not in perfectly consistent format. I'll leave it to someone else to add the NRHP document describing the Northumberland Historic District as another source, if it can support some additional perspective about the house versus the area it is in, in the article. doncram 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Material to add

Do you think we should add material on:

• JP in America
• History of the area
• History of the renovations (if we can find it)

What are other people's thoughts? Awadewit | talk 09:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Those all sound good to me. There is a Friends of Joseph Priestley House that does a lot of the volunteer work there and puts on special events and demos in the lab.
I also plan to add the info from the NRHP nomination form (lots, acreage, neigboring streets, dimensions of the house itself, etc.). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For an NRHP entry, it's always good to have some on that last one. I have always loved being able to find information on the evolution of a building and incorporate it into the article. Daniel Case 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't live near the house - do they have any published information about the renovation we could cite? There is more in the guidebook I have that I can cite, but not much. Awadewit | talk 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found one newspaper reference to the renovations, but have to get to a library that has the newspaper to see what it says (database only had title). Since it is a PHMC property, I would imagine there was at least one official Pennsylvania press release on the renovation, but have not yet searched the official state site. I am in a FLC that has me pretty busy (I also want to finish reading the JP article before weighing in on the FAC), but will see if I can search the state site in the next three hours or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very busy writing my dissertation at the moment, but I will add in more information on JP in America in the next few weeks or so (let's not pressure ourselves into hour-by-hour timelines!). It would be wonderful if you two could take over the rest of the material. Awadewit | talk 07:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving paragraph from lead

I have copied this paragraph from the lead. It's tone is not yet encyclopedic. Let's work out what needs to go in the article from it rather than confusing the reader, shall we?

• "There are actually two Joseph Priestly Houses listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Northumberland. One, at 472 Priestly Avenue, between Wallis Avenue and Hanover Street, was built in 1794 and listed on the Register in 1966. The other, at 100 King Street, was built in 1820, and listed in 1981. (Are they both part of the current property?) The former (or both together?) was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1966."

I looked at these sources and I don't see what Doncram is referring to as the second Priestley house built in 1820. What am I missing? Awadewit | talk 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The library in Northumberland is also a house built by a Priestley (a descendant presumably, there are still some around in Pennsylvania). Here is a link to the NRHP nom for it: [3]. The site http://www.arch.state.pa.us has all NRHP data for Pennsylvania, where I found this and the real Priestley house nom form linked above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, but a discussion of the library built later by possible descendants does not really belong in this article, right? Awadewit | talk 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would list it as a dab of some sort at the top of the page For the 1820 structure sometimes known as the Priestly House, see the Priestley-Forsyth Memorial Library, but otherwise no. Just to clarify, it was built as an inn, and purchased by Priestley's great grandson who used it as a home and medical office about 1880. Made into a library about 1920 and still is - see official library website. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not previously know of that Pennsylvania source for all of its NRHP listings. Thanks. I've created stub articles for the Dr. Joseph Priestley House (alternative name for Priestley-Forsyth Memorial Library) and also for Northumberland Historic District which includes both of the Joseph Priestley Houses. The main source for the Historic District, a NRHP document now referenced in its article, is another potential source for this article on the Joseph Priestley House, as it describes it and its renovations separately. It also describes this house relative to its environs. Perhaps someone else can review that source. I think it would be appropriate for this article to refer to the Northumberland Historic District article, if only to say that this Priestley House is a "gem" of the district, as it is described. doncram 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good work! Just so you know, about 1998 the museum started some renovations including reconstruction of a carriage barn and other outbuildings (know from records) and some other work on the house and lab. The barn was finished in 1999. Other work has continued since, but we are looking for reliable sources and more details on that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)About the "author unknown" NRHP document describing the Northumberland Historic District, which now is referenced in this article: someone should put in an email request to the National Park Service to get a hard copy of the document. There exists an author for it, there exists a date, there is more in the document. The problem is that the Pennsylvania-scanned version of the document is incomplete. Put in a request (just send to nr_reference@nps.gov ) and you will receive it by postal mail in a week or so. doncram 09:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made the request. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have received the photocopied form, which is more complete, but need some time to read it all and digest it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

As soon as Joseph Priestley is FA, I'm going to send a request to the JP House for permission to use some of their photos. :) Awadewit | talk 09:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've emailed them now. Awadewit | talk 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• We are now in discussions. It might work out! They seemed impressed with our article and Joseph Priestley. Awadewit | talk 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wonderful news! I know the Friends of Joseph Priestley House publish a newsletter a few times a year which could be a primary source for some basic assertions (date of completion of renovations, for example). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. They will allow us to use a couple of the photos, but not under GFDL, unfortunately. What do you want to do? Awadewit | talk 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to be slow in responding here - busy in real life and doing some spam cleanup here. What license do they want to release the photos under? Creative Commons? If it is not GFDL or CC I am not sure it is something we can use on Wikipedia. It has been a while since I was inside the house. I seem to recall photogaphy was allowed, but could be mistaken or the policy could have changed since I was there. I found no policy on the website, and see there that the house will be closed from Jan 1 to Mar 10, so if you want me to try and get there and get some photos twere best done quickly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is not under any kind of free license. I was afraid that wouldn't be usable. Well, we'll just have to go with what we have. It would be great if you could get more pictures, but if that is not feasible at this time, it just isn't. I was hoping to use images of Priestley's scientific instruments. Awadewit | talk 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I will see what I can do next week. Besides photos of anything the Priestleys owned (especially instruments), any other requests? I thought to try to get his grave, the exterior of the house from the river side (assuming the weather cooperates), the lab and library and other interior shots. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever you can get will be good. Awadewit | talk 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I emailed the JP House back and said we couldn't use their photos unless they were under the GFDL or CC license. We are now in discussions again. Awadewit | talk 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thanks - could you also ask them if photography is allowed in the house? If not, perhaps they might be agreeable to letting someone (i.e. me) take some photos for the article. If needed, I could bring my tripod and avoid flash photography. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• These are beautiful! Thanks so much! See what you think of the placement, etc. Awadewit | talk 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like them. The placement is fine - I made some minor tweaks to the captions (one globe, original burning lens is 5 feet tall). I have a photo of the bed in the bedroom, but it is so dark I did not upload it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

More tweaks

I made some changes and am about done with my additions to the article. Feel free to revert or tweak as needed. Here is what I changed and some questions.

1. In Location I thought the sentence "Following the Seven Years' War (1756–63) and the migration of Native American tribes westward, German, Scots-Irish, and other European immigrants settled in the central Susquehanna Valley." was incomplete and added two sentences that the land that became Northumberland was only purchased from the Iroquois in the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, and that Northumberland was evacuated in the Big Runaway in 1778 during the American Revolutionary War and not really resettled until 1784. Not sure if this is in Hirsch - the NRHP nomination for the Historic District was the most concise source here.

   It was not in Hirsch - this is definitely better. Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

2. The NRHP history also definitely states Northumberland was laid out in 1772, which is more precise than "about 20 years before", so I tweaked that.

   Excellent. Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

3. I was also hesitant about referring to Northumberland as a town because "town" has a specific legal meaning in Pennsylvania (which is not applicable here). It became a borough in 1828, so I thought "village" was a more accurate description of it at the time Priestley lived there.

   I didn't know that - thanks for the correction. Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

4. The NRHP nomination for the Historic District had some nice quotes about the house I added (mansion, finest Federal style), as well as the info on the wood being dried on site and the "frieze board with triglyphs". It also says the house was completed in 1797, which conflicts with the article (I did not change this).

   According to the guidebook, the laboratory was completed in 1797, but the rest of the house wasn't completed until 1798. How annoying. Do you want to add a footnote explaining the discrepancy and use 1797-98 as the date? Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   I now have the complete NRHP form for the Northumberland Historic District, let me read it and get back to you on this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   McMinn's NRHP form for the Northumberland district says: "Most important is the Joseph Priestley House, a five bay, 2 1/2 story Federal House with symmetrical wings that dates from 1797 and is arguably the finest Federal building in northcentral Pennsylvania." Greenwood's NRHP form for the house itself only says "Priestley built the house circa 1794." I added a note, but think Hirsch is more reliable here, so I did not change the date in the infobox (know how much you love those anyway). If you think it best, feel free to take the note out (this talk page discussion will be here in any case). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Scientifically, I have read in at least one place that Priestley "identified" carbon monoxide in Northumberland, which would be a more nuanced verb allowing his earlier isolation of the gas, so I changed the verb. I also would like to add back the phrase "with a magnifying lens" to the end of "...Priestley's experiment producing oxygen by heating mercuric oxide." as I think most people think of a furnace for heating, not sunlight and a magnifying glass.

   It's interesting. I couldn't find any verification of that in my biographies. They suggest, but never say explicitly, that he performed his carbon monoxide experiments the same way he did his others, which is with something similar to this. However, if your source is explicit, we should use it. Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry for the confusion, there are two separate issues here. First I agree that Priestley would very likely have collected carbon monoxide (CO) as a product of (incomplete) combustion, just as the illustration shows. I meant that changing the verb from "discovered" to "identified" seemed to me more allowing of his having discovered it earlier and realizing what he had in Pennsylvania (quoting from your comment in the Fact checking section above "I am also worried about the carbon monoxide statement. I'm pretty sure that I read that JP "discovered" CO earlier, just didn't realize it, so the story is more complex than this.").

   "identified" is probably more accurate Awadewit | talk 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   OK, thanks - if you can think of a better word, feel free Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Second, the isolation of oxygen was different from that of CO, and the meeting of chemists that led to the formation of the ACS was on the 100th anniversary of Priestley's heating HgO (mercuric oxide) with a magnifying lens and sunlight to produce O₂ (oxygen gas) and liquid Hg (mercury). The sentence currently reads "The date was chosen to mark the hundredth anniversary of Priestley's experiment producing oxygen by heating mercuric oxide." and I was proposing to change it to "The date was chosen to mark the hundredth anniversary of Priestley's experiment producing oxygen by heating mercuric oxide with a magnifying lens." (or similar wording). I need to double check a ref that this is indeed how he did it (just my best recollection now), and I apologize that it sounded as if I meant CO was isolated this way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

   It was a "burning lens" (magnifying glass with sunlight). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Got it. Sorry for my denseness. Add away. My sources are just very vague on this point. Awadewit | talk 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   I added it and a link to ACS National Historical Chemical Landmarks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know Awadewit is planning to add more on the Priestley's activities in Pennsylvania - I hope this includes their sons' plans to extablish a colony north of Northumberland. I was wondering if some information on Priestley's legacy in Pennsylvania and the United States should be added. For example in Northumberland there is the Priestley Chapel Unitarian Church and the bridge to Sunbury is the Priestley bridge. Given the ACS focus of the article, we should probably mention the Priestley Medal, the highest honor the ACS can bestow. Hope this is useful, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• The material I have is mostly on Priestley, not on his sons. Are you sure the colony you are referring to isn't the one I already described, with Coleridge and Co.? Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I will also check on this - it is one of those things I have run into reading about completely different material, so I need to do some digging. My best recollection is that it was land in what became Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Probably worth a sentence or two on the sons. Here is a link to a history of Sullivan County that mentions Joseph Priestley Jr. purchasing land there on Loyalsock Creek [4] and this more modern ref on it [5], as well as this ref [6]. There is an article in Now and Then (a historical society journal from Muncy, Pennsylvania on "A bit of history : Priestley, asylum and pantisocracy." that I can look up if you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Schofield says that it is not entirely clear whether the Coleridge scheme was part of the Cooper scheme. There are scholarly articles that argue it is and articles that argue it is not. We should add ambiguity to the page, I think. Awadewit | talk 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that Priestley's legacy should be mentioned. Does Dickinson College have sort of link to Priestley? They also have an award named for him. See Joseph Priestley#Legacy. Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I will see what I can find out, don't know what the link is now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dickinson College has been giving the medal out since 1952 [7] and has a collection of Priestley's apparatus purchased from a friend of his just after JP's death, including "the Burning Glass Priestley used to discover oxygen" [8] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Priestley in America

Here are my initial thoughts on a "Priestley in America" section:

• Lands in New York - feted
• Philadelphia - disliked city; opulent Quakers
• Refused professorship of chemistry
• Northumberland land dealings
• US knew Priestley as a political reformer, defender of the American revolutionaries, and friend of Franklin
• Helped found First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia
• William Cobbett attacked Priestley
• Tried to found Northumberland Academy [less sure on this one]
• Correspondence with Jefferson regarding education; dedicated General History of the Christian Church to him
• Summary of scientific achievements
• Summary of religious publications
• Death

Thoughts on this? Awadewit | talk 04:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I know he corresponded with Thomas Jefferson and dedicated a book to him. I would at least mention his land holdings (know it is already in the article). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only other thing I can think of here is how did he afford the trip, building a house described as a mansion, and purchasing what Monty Pyhton would call "huge tracts of land" (especially when many of those who wanted to join him couldn't even afford the trip)? Also (not really this section) but what do you want to include in the legacy section? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Priestley's financial situation is a mess - Mary Priestley's relatives lent them money, but the repayment of it is a confused affair. I'm not sure this tangle is that relevant. Awadewit | talk 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the material from Joseph Priestley as a start, but some things will need to be changed and more details on his American publications added. Awadewit | talk 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all you work on this - it looks good as a start. I do not think there needs to be anything detailed on finances, I just was curious and thought perhaps there was a simple answer (i.e. perhaps his book sales made him wealthy, or his patron or friends financed his emigration, or he had insurance or somehow was paid for his house the mob destroyed, etc.).
I am not sure there needs to be a separate legacy section - the ACS Priestley medal could be mentioned with the other ACS items (I think the house has a copy of the medal for display). If the ACS medal is at the end of ACS, then the Dickinson connection could either follow the ACS Priestley Medal (Dickinson awards another Priestley medal, then mention they have many of his personal items) or perhaps after his death (describing what happened to his effects, then mention their medal). The chapel could be in with the Historic District (it is a contributing structure), or perhaps in with his contributions to Unitarianism in America. The Priestley bridge could be mentioned at the end of the Historic District. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just for your own information - Priestley did not make money off of his publications. In fact, he often lost money on them. Also, although he tried to get restitution from the British government for the burning down of his home and the loss of his property, he was never paid everything he was owed (that is also a tangled mess). Friends definitely helped him, but it is not entirely clear who or how much.
• There is a picture of the medal at Priestley Medal we can use.
• We could also mention Dickinson's holdings when we mention that the museum has some of Priestley's instruments. A sort of "this institution has this, this institution has this other stuff" thing. I'm so eloquent.
• By the way, I just found a whole book on JP and Unitarianism in America. *sigh* I don't have time to look at it now, but I can when finals are over. I'm currently swamped with grading. Awadewit | talk 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification on his finances. I can write the Fair Use rationale if we use the ACS Priestley Medal photo. The article is looking good, take your time (no hurry). The lead paragraph will need to be expanded once everything else is done (again no hurry). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I've just added two sources by Richardson. Does anyone have access to these? I feel they may be available locally. I would have to get them through interlibrary loan. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are not in the libraries I have easy access to. If I were to make a photo pilgrimage (see above), I could also see if the Priestley Forsyth library has these. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get them through interlibrary loan first. That's easier for everybody. Awadewit | talk 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the Northumberland library does not have either (!), if its online catalog is correct. The Historical Society wants $25 for Volume 32, so ILL is best. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Eek. Already requested. Awadewit | talk 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Historic District question

In the article there is the phrase about the Northumberland Historic District: "There are 163 contributing and 73 non-contributing structures in the district, including one other building already on the NRHP" with a note that this was unclear. The boundaries of the historic district are chosen so as to maximize the relative number of historic buildings within it - if these meet the NRHP guidelines, then they are considered "contributing structures" to the historic district. There are also buildings which do not meet the guidelines - they may be newer than the original structure with which they are associated, or newer than the 1930s, or they may be historic but have had modern architectural modifications (siding, additions, etc) that render the buildings ineligible under the guidelines. I think the word structure is used just because garages etc. count (so the 1926 Pond Museum on the grounds of the Priestley House is not a contributing structure as it is not original to the house).

Basically within a NRHP Historic District there are three types of structures: 1) those already on the NRHP (here there are two - this Priestley House and the Dr. Joseph Priestley House, the 1820s inn / house which is now the borough library); 2) those which meet the guidelines and are contributing structures to the district (technically the first type is contributing too), and 3) those that do not meet the guidelines and are not contributing. Since this is not clear in the article, any suggestions on how to make it clearer are welcome. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not even sure we need this detail about the number of structures. I would be tempted to just delete it and cut the Gordian knot. Awadewit | talk 10:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I took out the numbers of structures, but did not remove your comment on it being unclear. Since it is a contributing structure to the district and is home to the descendant congregation of the Unitarian services Priestley held in the house, I thought it was OK to add the Priestley Memorial Chapel. The chapel has a detailed website, here is a link to the page where Priestley is listed as first minister [9]. The chapel is in the the Historic District form, so I used that ref. Should the chapel's website be added to the refs too? Is it OK that the chapel is in? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Other questions

I found a brochure from a previous visit to the house (have not been yet to get more pictures). The brochure is from 1992 (print date) although I got it in the late 1990s. It has a quotation from a letter Joesph Priestley wrote: "The Priestleys' pleasure in their new habitation is reflected in their letters. Joesph Priestley wrote I do not think that there can be, in any part of the world, a more delightlful situation than this." (italics mine to set off the quote from Priestley within my quote from the pamphlet). Is this worth including?

• Does it say where the quotation is from? Do we have a source for it, like Priestley's autobiography or something? I would like to see it context first. I remember a quote like that but with some not-so-positive things surrounding it, so I would like to check it out first. Awadewit | talk 10:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• No context other than what I gave already. I agree that a brochure is not the best source here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'll keep looking for the quote. I'm hoping that it will be cited in the Graham book that I'm rereading. Awadewit | talk 10:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I got Lester Kieft's "Joseph Priestley and the Priestley House" there - it says the above quote is in a letter to Thomas Belsham and gives a longer version: "I do not think that there can be, in any part of the world, a more delightlful situation than this, and the neighborhood and conveniences of the place are improving daily." There is a lot more material in Kieft - I need to sit down and read it carefully but cannot for several days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the Graham biography I'm reading, there are other quotes from that same letter to Belsham that are like the ones I put into the article - Priestley complains about the isolation of Northumberland and how he wants to live in Philadelphia part of the time, etc. I don't think this is a representative quote. Awadewit | talk 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The brochure confirms that the 1926 brick structure was originally a museum (see above discussion).

• Great - add that. Awadewit | talk 10:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• It already says "In 1926, a small, brick, fireproof building—intended as a museum for Priestley's books and scientific apparatus—was built on the grounds and dedicated to his memory.[31][45]", so I think it is OK. This was discussed above, and was not 100% clear there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the brochure, at least the following items in the house belonged to the Priestleys in America: Joesph's globe (used for the Northumberland Academy), his chess board (played several games a day), his microscope, and their Bracket Clock. It says the house's laboratory has replicas of his apparatus (presumably the surviving apparatus is what Dickinson College has).

• This is in the trailguide as well. I can add it from there, which is more reliable. I just didn't want to go crazy with details. Awadewit | talk 10:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was more thinking what I could hopefully get photos of for the article and to add to Commons (add {{Commonscat}} to allow interested readers to see more images than there is room for in the article). Hope to get there this weekend. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. We could even do a gallery on this page. Thanks again for going up there, especially on a holiday. Awadewit | talk 10:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• {{Commonscat}} has been added - it was fairly dark and overcast there, so the indoor pictures are a bit dark / grainy even with the tripod. I got a more detailed shot of the Lamborne plan, but it is a bit keystoned, so the one you uploaded is better for the article (and mine for reference). I did not find the cemetery (and his grave). I forgot to get the Priestley Avenue side of the house again - wanted to get the NRHP or NHL plaque. Saw the Memorial Chapel and Library, but it was really getting dark so next time I am there hopefully. Please pick the images you like to add to the article - I did add the panoramic shot showing all the buildings on the grounds at the bottom. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally it notes that he stayed in London for three years after the mob destroyed his home in Birmingham, and adds

"During that time his sons Joseph, William and Henry joined with other Englishmen to form a company to purchase land 60 miles north of Northumberland to establish a colony for dissenters. The colony never materialized, but wishing to remain near his sons and disliking Philadelphia, Priestley elected to stay in Northumberland."

It includes a map showing the lands - I think the location of the lands should be included in any map for the article (and can scan this map and send it to Kmusser or make a map myself). I also think the article should note Priestley was in London between the riot and emigration. Finally, the quote seems a fairly succinct summary of the whole sons and land issue and might be useful as a quote or model sentence or two for the article.

• Yes, Priestley did stay in London for three years after the mob destroyed his home, but the riot is still what precipitated his move. However, I agree we should make the time lag clearer. I have added the dates on his sons from the Graham biography. Graham explains that the Cooper scheme is the same as the sons' land-buying scheme. The land-buying scheme is actually fairly complex and the details are not at all agreed-upon by scholars. I don't think we should quote a brochure on that issue. I'm collecting the articles on that topic right now. Sometimes things just aren't clear cut, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 10:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for making the time lag clearer - it seems as if Joseph's family was important to him. I know he stayed with one of his sons while the house was built, and the fact that they were in that part of Pennsylvania seems to have at least played a role in his locating in Northumberland. I can sympathize on conflicting or misisng information. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nearly there?

I have added most of the things from Kieft I felt comfortable adding, but have a few questions on the article in general and some more on things to perhaps add. I will go through the article in order with my questions.

In the lead paragraph, it currently states "The Joseph Priestley House was the American home of eighteenth-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural philosopher, educator, and political theorist Joseph Priestley and his wife from 1798 until their deaths." Since Mary died before the house was completed, is that really accurate? Since she played a major role in the design of the house, perhaps that could be mentioned instead?

• Changed to: The Joseph Priestley House was the American home of eighteenth-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural philosopher, educator, and political theorist Joseph Priestley from 1798 until his death in 1804. Located in Northumberland, Pennsylvania in the Susquehanna Valley, the house, which was planned by Priestley's wife Mary, is of Georgian design with Federalist accents. - I think this is more accurate. Awadewit | talk 09:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is better this way, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Priestleys in America section, should it be mentioned that the Birmingham Riots started on the second anniversary of the storming of the Bastille (Bastille Day)? Kieft writes that the ship to America was the Samson, not the Sansom as the article states. I assume one of these is a typo.

• I think that the Bastille detail is best left to the Priestley Riots article, but if you feel strongly about it, we can add it. Awadewit | talk 09:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• For me it made more sense, and also helped emphasize his political nature - i.e. part of why the mob attacked his house and church was his sympathy for the French (and American) Revolutions. Having said that, I am OK leaving it out since the Riot article is linked and makes it clear there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I thought mentioning the FR was enough, but perhaps not. You have to remember, I've been immersed in eighteenth-century history for almost a decade now - many of these things seem obvious to me. It's good you're here. Added. Awadewit | talk 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I checked my source again on the name of the ship - it says Sansom - it could be a typo. What do you want to do? Samson makes more sense. Awadewit | talk 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• How about we change the name to Samson in the article but add a note that says something like "The name of the ship was Samson according to Kieft (p. x), but Schofield gives it as Sansom (p. y)."?

• Good solution. Awadewit | talk 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In terms of things to possibly add here, Silverman writes that Priestley lived in the house with one of his sons (Joseph Jr.), his daughter in law, and their two children. Presumably there were some servants as well (quarters in the attic). I think this should be added, probably here or perhaps in Ownership and Museum (where it talks about Joseph Jr. and family moving back to Britain and selling the house).

• Yes, that would be good to add - early in the "America" section, perhaps? Awadewit | talk 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I will add it next - the house tour I had also talked about Joseph and his son's family, Joseph teaching his grandchildren to read, etc. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kieft has two quotations that may be worth adding. The first is from Priestley's memoirs: "The settlement was given up, but being here, and my wife and myself liking the place, I have determined to take up my residence here, though subject to many disadvantages. Philadelphia was excessively expensive, and this a comparatively cheap place; and my sons, settling in the neighborhood, will be less exposed to temptation, and more likely to form habits of sobriety and industry." (Kieft, 7.) There is also one from Mary writing to William Vaughan: "I am happy and thankful to meet with so sweet a situation and so peaceful a retreat as the place I now write from. Dr. Priestley also likes it and of his own choice intends to settle here, which is more than I hoped for at the time we came up... This country is very delightful, the prospects of wood and water more beautiful than I have ever seen before and the people plain and decent in their manners." (Kieft, 7.)

• I added these quotes into the article - they are good. Awadewit | talk 09:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Glad you liked them - I may try tweaking the article sentence with the memoirs quote to avoid the insertion of [Northumberland] into the quote itself. I later found that the memoirs quote is also in Bell, not sure if that is a better cite as it is online and Kieft is not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but I think anyone who wants to read Priestley's Memoirs will probably be willing to go to a library. :) Awadewit | talk 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Architecture and landscaping section, I could swear I read somewhere that some carpenters were brought in from Philadelphia to work on the house, but cannot now find this. Do you recall this from your sources? If so, is it worth adding?

• According to the trail guide and to the Richardson article, Priestley tried to get carpenters from Philadelphia (he wrote to Benjamin Rush), but it was very hard to acquire them. It is not very clear from either source whether he managed to do so or not. Richardson suggests not, as he points out that the stairwell was not assembled correctly. Awadewit | talk 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since it was a five day one way trip, it makes sense to me that it was very difficult to get carpenters from Philadelphia to come. Since it is unlcear, I guess I would leave it out. I may have read about the carpenters at the house itself, in one of the displays in the visitor center. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Ownership and museum section, would it make any sense to make a new section entitled American Chemical Society for the last three paragraphs?

• Yes, it would, and I have. Awadewit | talk 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, some very general points. Joesph Priestley is referred to as both Priestley and Joesph - is this OK or should it just be one?

• I tried to refer to him as Priestley generally and Joseph when we needed to distinguish him from Mary. Awadewit | talk 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me - a little variety also helps keep the prose interesting. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kieft was originally published by Bucknell University in 1983 which would be:

Kieft, Lester. Joseph Priestley and the Priestley House. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University, 1983.

but the version I have is the second printing by the Friends of the Joseph Priestley House so I cited it as

Kieft, Lester. Joseph Priestley and the Priestley House. Northumberland, PA: The Friends of the Joseph Priestley House, 2006 (Second Printing).

Which do you prefer? The text is the same, although there is a new introduction and information on Kieft in the new printing.

• I'll just adjust it in the bibliography. Awadewit | talk 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I am not used to MLA style. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, it's really easy. Here is one of thousands of websites that details how to do it. (It is much easier to remember than Chicago-style. Note that strictly speaking the article isn't in MLA because it has footnotes - footnotes are Chicago style and parenthetical citations are MLA. However, the bibliography is entirely MLA. Don't you love this stuff?) Awadewit | talk 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert / edit what I have added. Hope it is OK, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I just rearranged a few things - I put some of the history of the property in the "Location" section and I put the paragraph about the house becoming a national whatever in the main museum section rather than in the ACS section. See what you think. The other changes were minor. Awadewit | talk 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Loose ends

• A contributing structure in the district is the 1834 Joseph Priestley Memorial Chapel, home to a Unitarian Universalist congregation which considers Priestley its founder. - This phrase "contributing structure" is still vague, I think. Awadewit | talk 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I wikilinked it to contributing property, plus rewrote the sentence to emphasize the chapel over the contributing property aspect of it. Is this better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent solution. Awadewit | talk 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting to get that other Richardson article, but I don't think there will be much new in it. Awadewit | talk 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it could go to WP:PR while you wait. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. Awadewit | talk 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Do you want me to read that JP and Unitarianism book or do you want to call it good on that front? Awadewit | talk 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we can call it all good (unless you have a burning desire to read it ;-) ). I have a brief article on Unitarianism in Pennsylvania in a larger book on 300 Years of the Religious Experiment, if you want another source. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I'll skim it next time I'm at the library, but I think we have enough. Awadewit | talk 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• How much more do you want me to read on the Coleridge/Cooper land speculation? I haven't really dug into that yet. Awadewit | talk 11:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the article is on the house first, I think a few sentences would be sufficient. Perhaps something about the the sons owning land along the Loyalsock Creek between the North and West Branches of the Susquehanna River, and it not being clear if this was the same scheme the father and Cooper et al. were involved in or not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Added bit. Awadewit | talk 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• What do you think of the stamp illustration? Awadewit | talk 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I like it and tweaked the caption Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nice work. Awadewit | talk 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Do you think we need a map? Awadewit | talk 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. Maps are always helpful when dealing with geographic questions. Not many people are going to known where Northumberland is. Dincher (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I know Awadewit has asked Kmusser for a map. I can certainly make one - show every place mentioned in the article in Pennsylvania associated with Priestley (Philadelphia, Northumberland, Germantown). I would also show the lands on the Loyalsock Creek the sons owned. I am afraid if we include New York City, the scale will be too big and the other places in Pennsylvania will be less clear. What about including the modern places mentioned - State College, Sunbury, Danville, Scranton? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think NYC need by included if Philly is. The other places mentioned should be included as suggested. Dincher (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        • It would be great if you could make the map - I certainly can't (and see below). Awadewit | talk 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm about ready to say we should go for peer review. What do you think? Awadewit | talk 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I ran the semi automatic peer review script and the only major suggestion was to expand the lead (need three paragraphs for the length of the article). I do have a few other tweaks to make and need to reread the article carefully, but should get those done in the next few hours. I also imagine the wait for a review will give us time too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I wouldn't take the bot's recommendations too seriously. Let's judge the length the lead ourselves. :) Whenever you feel ready, sign us up for a peer review. I'll try to find some reviewers. Awadewit | talk 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I only have two questions left. One is the removal of the quote by Priestley on the beams / wooden house: Joseph wrote "A house constructed with such boards I prefer to one of brick and stone". Kieft has a fairly long quote from Priestley on the whole trenches and board drying on site system that ends with this sentence. Previously the sentence was based on a NRHP source and read Joseph felt such lumber was the equal of stone or brick in durability. Should some version of this be in the article? The other question is do we want to include the fate of his lab equipment, with much ending up at Dickinson College (and their Priestley medal)? I will list it at Peer Review next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think that the boards, brick, stone business is all that interesting. Also, our sentence expresses a sentiment regarding "durability" which is not the same as Priestley's stated "preference" in the quote. However, if you can find a way to spice it up, be my guest. I've adding something on Dickinson College. See what you think. Awadewit | talk 04:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I agree that the actual quote is better (why I switched to it originally). I will look at it tomorrow - need a break for now. I will do the PR next. Dickinson addition looks good. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Picayune point about footnotes: Within Protected Areas infobox, NHL date shows 2 footnotes and NRHP shows none, while showing 1 footnote for each would make sense to me. In the infobox HTML code, there are 2 for the first and 1 for the second (but the last does not show). Seems like there is duplication of same full footnote, too, when second invocation of same reference does not require full text (use 'ref name="nris"' first time with the full info, use 'ref name="nris"/' second time without full info, note followed by a slash mark, instead. I tried editing this but am unfamiliar with this infobox format, and preview showed that my edits didn't fix it. Hope this helps someone else fix it. doncram (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks - the duplication of notes was intentional because I also could not get the note to work for the NRHP date added (I left the second full note in as a reminder to self that that is where it belongs). The second ref not showing up is a bug / glitch in the Geobox template - I need to ask User:Caroig if it can be fixed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • PS Caroig is on Wikibreak since late December. I know someone else who may be able to help and will ask. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Garrett bibliography entry not cited in article, at least not appearing in Notes: I only notice because I was visiting the article to find an example of news article reference formatting, for my use in an unrelated article. The Garrett item in the Bibliography seemed closest, then I scanned the notes to see its in-line reference, only not to find it there. In general, should items not referenced in the article be listed in the Bibliography? It would not be normal in an academic article, where if you don't cite it it does not belong in the references. So, cite this one somewhere. Perhaps check if others missing citations also. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it is very common in academic circles to have a "Bibliography" that includes more works than the ones cited in the notes. That is why this list of works is called a "Bibliography" and not a "Works cited". A "Works cited" would be exactly what you are asking for - a list of the works used in the article. I like to give readers a little bit more than that - helpful citations on the topic. I hope to read the Garrett article someday, but it is not totally necessary for the writing of the article. One function that I think wikipedia can serve is a place for "first research". A good bibliography in an article is one way that it can do that. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for response. But that is not my experience in academia. I would generally equate "Bibliography" with "References", which are definitely only the references used in the paper. Seems like this Garrett item would belong in a "Suggested other reading" list. Not sure how the crime of "padding the bibliography" is defined, whether that is listing something which is not actually read/used in a paper. I guess this depends on how you define "Bibliography". If it was clearly an Annotated bibliography that would be different, but this is not, so as a reader I would assume it is of the "reference list at the end of an article or book" kind of Bibliography. I don't mean to have an argument, i don't feel strongly about this, was just pointing out something small that I assumed was an oversight, your reply is that it is not an oversight. doncram (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• What field do you work in? In literary studies (my field) authors often list all of the books they consulted in a "Bibliography" and the books they quote in the "Notes" (be they endnotes or footnotes). While this can lead to the "padding" crime to which you refer, it is generally viewed as helpful to other researchers, who are looking for a set of books on the topic. I actually really dislike separating the "Bibliography" into two lists based on the distinction of what is included in the wikipedia article (too arbitrary for my taste). For someone interested in the sources, one list is far more efficient and since that who is going to be looking at the list, why not make it easy for them? Awadewit | talk 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Peer reviewed chemistry articles only include sources that are actually cited in the article, however there are usually very general statements early in the article with many different sources referenced, so things that might be additonal reading here get cited there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Peer reviewed business research articles are as Ruhrfish describes, AFAIK. A single sentence, perhaps at the end of the article, could state that Garrett, ____, and ____ are additional sources available. That would facilitate a reader/editor's future entry into expanding the article. Otherwise, Garrett and others could effectively be hidden: it is pretty hard for an interested reader/editor to figure out which sources are available and have value not yet tapped, although you have gone through some trouble to identify those sources. Thanks for your replies already. doncram (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think this article is closer to a peer-reviewed literary or historical article/book (which is what I am familiar with) than a chemistry or business article, at least topic-wise. If readers want to know the sources used, they can look at the "Notes" - that is their purpose. I don't think this is difficult at all. Awadewit | talk 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Map for illustration

Railway map

For the Joseph Priestley House, it seems relevant to show a partial view of a state map, with its location relative to Philadelphia, and the Susquehanna River, and the railroad line. The state level view, with railroad lines, is available in the Penn Railway image here, but that image is too busy.

An inset could show the house location relative to the river, the former canal / the railway, and Northumberland. But i don't know where to start in actually drawing one. I'd like to learn how to draw a map that can be used to illustrate an article like this. doncram (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch is "the man" when it comes to maps. I am sure that he can help you. Dincher (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I had originally asked Kmusser to do a map, but he never responded. If Ruhrfisch can do one, all the better. S/he is familiar with the article's contents. Awadewit | talk 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will work on the map - I think I may base it on the eastern half of Image:Pennsylvania Locator Map.PNG (which I made from US Census maps). That has county boundaries though, which are inaccurate for Priestley's lifetime, so I may just make it with the rivers shown (no counties). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Map of eastern Pennsylvania showing important locations in the history of the Joseph Priestley House

I think that it would be interesting to make the map with the county borders as they were. Interesting to me at least. But I really like maps! Dincher (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I say we graciously accept whatever he makes. :) I don't want to send him to the county historical records office and force him to trace out county lines on an etch-and-sketch in the dark of night! Awadewit | talk 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(Puts Etch-A-Sketch away, switches off flashlight, and sighs) OK. Actually, I do not have a good source for the county borders then, and it was a time of flux in borders (Lycoming County was formed from Northumberland in 1795, Centre County was partly formed from it in 1800), so the map would be different depending on when it was made for. I think I can get the rivers and streams OK and fairly quickly. I need to look at the sources I have for the closeup map and am not sure how doable that is for me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. I say we go with the rivers and the towns (I know that not even the states had firm borders at this time). Awadewit | talk 04:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania's borders were set with the purchase of the Erie Triangle in 1792. (Aside to Dincher: I thnk I may someday do this shifting county borders map and a zillion others like it for the development of PA counties list we've talked about). Here is a brief overview of how I make some of my maps for anyone who is interested. I looked at the Census website and the detail map seems possible, but I will do the towns and streams for now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Here is the map at 300 pixels wide here. Please let me know if there are errors or it needs changes. I will let someone else add it to the article when it is ready - I would suggest using this width. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Map of Northumberland showing Priestley House, railroad, rivers

• I think it's great. The only thing I would recommend is removing the word "Pennsylvania" from it. Some people might think that one of the rivers is named that. The word is just kind of floating there right now and caption makes it clear that the map is of Pennsylvania. Another alternative is to make the word "Pennsylvania" bigger so that this confusion cannot arise. Awadewit | talk 11:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind words. I removed "PENNSYLVANIA" and added 10s to the mile scale and 20s to the kilometer scale. I don't see how to make the inset on this map - will make a quick map of Northumberland, the rivers and railroad and upload it here too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I switched the infobox over to one that could display two maps and added the first map and a second based on doncram's suggestion. Comments on it are also welcome, but I was bold and added the second map so I could see how the whole layout looked. Hope this is OK, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• In the Northumberland map, the railroad along the West Branch Susquehanna River is NOT the North Shore Railroad. It is the Norfolk Southern, and the railroad on the south side of the North Branch (lower right corner, barely in the map) is of course the Candaian Pacific. Should these be labled on the map for clarity? I labeled Packer Island (despite it not being mentioned in the article) to make it clearer that the North Branch of the river is split by the island here. I can see labeling the NS, but the CP has relatively little room for a label. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like them. Too bad we have to have the invasive infobox, too. Awadewit | talk 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Per Ruhrfisch's comment on my talk page, I have removed the infobox as a test. What do we think? (I like it). We can rearrange the other images later, if we decide to go with it. Awadewit | talk 03:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am OK without it - the test removed a couple refs and broke at least one. I think we should also make sure the all of info from the box is in the article - can add the {{coord}} for latitude and longitude, add elevation in location, perhaps have to add the dates for NHL and NRHP, add thr NRHP # to a note maybe. I'd have to check these and on the rest. I would add the stamp portrait back in too, if the box stays out. I am also OK without the second map - not sure it adds that much. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Map of eastern Pennsylvania showing important locations in the history of the Joseph Priestley House, with inset showing location of the house in Northumberland, with railroad and rivers

• Do people really want the coordinates? I'll rearrange the page again and add the stamp portrait back. *sigh* Awadewit | talk 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like coordinates in general as they are wikilinked to various maps for those interested. I also think if we are going to justify removing the infobox then we should make sure all the info that was in it before is also in the article now, including the coordinates. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• That is fine - thanks for checking out the infobox and taking care of all of that. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Glad to do it - I just tweaked the image layout so that the pictures do not "overlap" except for the two maps. See what you think. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I usually try to avoid having images be in two sections, but as there aren't a lot of solutions here, I suppose I will have to accept this one. :) Awadewit | talk 21:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I tried a third map, combing the two, which was doncram's original suggestion. I also made a version with the inset in the lower left corner and moved some stuff around (not on Commons). I am not sure if I like it or not - is it too busy? One map would make the Location section look neater. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Might be a bit busy. People might wonder what is under the inset. Awadewit | talk 06:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, the corner version is not any better. Oh well, if there is a major push to go back to an infobox, this at least takes up less space than two maps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the 3rd map is too busy. Dincher (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I like the 3rd map with inset. It carries more info per square inch. Map people like me can click on it to enlarge and enjoy it; does use up less space for non-map people.... doncram (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Same basic map but with inset in corner, moved "Susquehanna River" and "Priestley Land" captions, scale

Thanks doncram, maybe I should not be so quick to jusge the other inset version, which is here now. I promise this is the last version of this (these) map(s) I will make (barring typos). Feedback welcome. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Map part 4 looks the best. I like that the inset is in the corner. Dincher (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the inset looks worse in the corner because the towns are all bunched up against it. Sorry to disagree! Awadewit | talk 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• As long as the two separate maps in the article are OK, I am fine with keeping both in - this was more an experiment and I learned some aout insets that should be helpful for future maps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC checklist

After having gone through FAC so many times, I developed a little checklist. Although it is laborious, it makes FAC much easier. See what you think.

• Peer review
• Copy edit

• One copy edit done by Awadewit | talk —Preceding comment was added at 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Be sure article adheres to WP:MOS
• Proofread
• Check all citations (page ranges, commas, lost citations, etc.)
• Check all links to make sure they go to the right articles
• Read article aloud one last time
• Nominate for FAC!

Feel free to add/take away from the list. Awadewit | talk 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, thanks. User:Finetooth does great copyedits - do want me to ask? If so, when? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Usually I just do the copy edit myself. Between the two of us, we can probably fix all of the major problems and the PR and FAC will find the minor problems (those reviewers can serve as our "fresh eyes"). I don't think we have any major prose problems here. It is just that I like to sit down and focus on copy editing every once in a while. Awadewit | talk 03:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I like printing out a version and going over it with a red pen. I also would do this better if I did not look at the article for a day or two, to let it be "fresh" (or fresher). It looks like you are done editing the article for now, so I may double check what was in the box and add the coords back. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I agree. This is usually a multi-week process for me. Awadewit | talk 05:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good. I think all the infobox material is back in the article in some form. If there were a third a paragraph in the lede, perhaps it could have more on the ACS activities and mention the National Historic Landmark and National Historic Chemical Landmark status. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I revised the lead. I added information on the ACS and on the NHL. I think the NHCL is less important. That can wait for the article. Awadewit | talk 07:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks very nice, thanks. Agree NHCL is not as important and general ACS and NHL. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfish, how are you feeling about the PR situation? Should we try to find more peer reviewers? My experience has been recently that you have to solicit reviews - they rarely come to you. I could go either way. Since I usually write articles all by my lonesome, I usually aim to get two extensive peer reviews. However, since there are two of us checking over the article, I am a little less concerned. Tell me your thoughts. Awadewit | talk 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, I see three options. 1) I know a couple of editors who have said they would be glad to return favors, so I could ask one or both to do a peer review. One has been very helpful on reviewing my creek articles, but I have not seen reviews by the other one. 2) We could submit it for Good Article, which would be a review of sorts. There is a backlog there, but my guess is a well-sourced article like this would probably be reviewed (and passed) fairly quickly. 3) We could go straight to FAC after we finish the checklist. For the third option, I note that this talk page is 89 kb (the article is 39 kb) and I think we have discussed every major change on it. We have also been very fortunate to have input from Daniel Case, doncram and Dincher on several topics (hope I am not forgetting anyone). I have only skipped GA once on the way to FA. While I am near certain this is ready for FAC (after the fine polish of the checklist), I think it would be good to get one more set of eyes to look it over before FAC. Which would you prefer - that I ask for another peer review or GAN? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found GA reviews, in general, to be more praiseworthy than helpful and they have a huge backlog (some articles have waited over two months). I rarely skip GA on the way to FA, but I am beginning to feel more comfortable doing so (after fourteen FAs, I think I'm getting the hang of it). I feel like I have currently tapped out my favors at the moment, so if you could call in one, that would be helpful, because I feel like we still need one more good review. After that, we can finish off the checklist. Awadewit | talk 16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben MacDui has been very helpful in reviewing my creek articles - I will ask him. If he is unable, I will ask the other person I have in mind. I have been trying to help at GAN, but am a slow reviewer. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Wait! I have finally received Joseph Priestley in America, 1794-1804, the exhibition catalogue, from interlibrary loan. It looks like it has a lot of good stuff. *sigh* I am reading it now. Awadewit | talk 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben MacDui is currently busy and may not get to the article peer review until the first weekend in February. I can ask him to wait until you are done with the new source (no hurry on your part either). Unfortunatley User:Neutralhomer, whom I made a map for, has retired. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

February is fine with me. I have two articles at FAC right now as it is and another about to go. I'm a little FA factory. :) Awadewit | talk 06:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Soon "FA" will just mean "from Awadewit" - I left a note on MacDui's talk page that we would let him know when you were done adding from the new source. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got all of the interesting stuff out of that book. The Unitarianism book is full of stuff, but I think I should just stop with the "Introduction". Everything else is probably too detailed for this article. Let me know what you think. We probably need to copy edit, since I just kind of threw things into the article. Sorry about that. Awadewit | talk 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I knew that the chapel was built by a grandson of Joseph - it is in the chapel's history on its web site (which we could probably add as a ref or possibly as an external link). That made me think of all the other things I know that aren't in the article yet, so I will try to make a list of those. First I am going to reread the article and make notes. Stopping now on the Unitarianism book is fine with me. I have few things from the book I have, and will check them. More to follow. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment

Ruhrfisch, I thought you would enjoy this comment in the Unitarianism book I am looking at. There is a section in the introduction that argues Priestley's influence on American Unitarianism has not been fully appreciated. It states: "Even a visit to the Joseph Priestley House and Museum today, located in Northumberland, Pennsylvania, is likely to leave the visitor with a less-than-whole understanding of Priestley's religion and the role he played in the course of the nation's religious history." (10) Awadewit | talk 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I agree that the House and Museum emphasizes the scientist side of Priestley over the religious and political sides. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have one for you - in 1976 Robert Schofield appeared via videotape as "Dr. Joesph Priestley" at the ACS festivities. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. We should add it as video-media to the commons. :) Awadewit | talk 08:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing

• I'm doing a copy editing run through right now and I think that the last paragraph of the "Location" section is still a bit unclear. Since I haven't read that material, I wasn't sure how to fix it. (I might just be tired, though.) Awadewit | talk 07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hopefully clarified. I am much happier with the paragraph now - what do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Much clearer. Awadewit | talk 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rev. James Kay, pastor of the Northumberland Unitarian congregation, and his family lived in the house next. Charles H. Kay, son of James, purchased the house in 1845. James Kay died on 22 September 1847 and his widow likely lived in the house until her 2 October 1850 death - I wonder if we can't make this a little more intuitive. It may be strictly chronological, but it seems odd. Awadewit | talk 10:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Kieft is awkward / not totally clear here too - it seems that the Kays lived in the house without buying it until 1845. Plus Charles Kay seems to have died (his children sell the house, not him) but this is not explicitly mentioned. I will see what I can do here next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I just moved the sentences around a bit. It now reads: Chapman died on December 4, 1835, and Rev. James Kay, pastor of the Northumberland Unitarian congregation, and his family lived in the house next. James Kay died on September 22, 1847 and his widow likely lived in the house until her October 2, 1850 death. Charles H. Kay, son of James, had purchased the house in 1845, a few years before his parents' deaths. In April 1865 Charles Kay's children sold the house to Henry R. Campbell for $2,775. I wound up changing the last sentence from "In April 1865 Henry R. Campbell bought the house from Charles Kay's children for $2,775.", to follow through on the Kay theme. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So much better! Awadewit | talk 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since it is not known what was originally in the home, it is furnished and decorated with artifacts donated by descendants of the Priestleys and with ones similar to those listed in Priestley's testament of what was lost in the fire of his Birmingham home.[78] In particular, portraits, prints, maps, charts, and books have been carefully selected to replicate the Priestleys' holdings.[79] A room on the second floor is dedicated to an exploration of the life of an eighteenth-century woman.[80] On display are also Joseph Priestley's balance scales and microscope.[81] Nearby Dickinson College also owns a collection of Priestley's apparatus and other personal belongings (sold to them by Priestley's friend Thomas Cooper[82]) which they exhibit each year when presenting the school's Priestley Award to a scientist who makes "discoveries which contribute to the welfare of mankind".[83][84] - This paragraph doesn't really flow yet. Perhaps you could take a whack at it? Awadewit | talk 10:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I will look at all three of these on my read through. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I tried changing the order to this: "After Joseph's death, Thomas Cooper sold a collection of some of his friend's apparatus and other personal belongings to nearby Dickinson College,[78] which exhibits it each year when presenting the school's Priestley Award to a scientist who makes "discoveries which contribute to the welfare of mankind".[79][80] The house lost its original furnishings when Joseph Jr. and his family moved back to England. Since it is not known what was originally in the home, it is furnished and decorated with artifacts donated by descendants of the Priestleys and with ones similar to those listed in Priestley's testament of what was lost in the fire at his Birmingham home.[81] In particular, portraits, prints, maps, charts, and books have been carefully selected to replicate the Priestleys' holdings.[82] A bedroom on the second floor is dedicated to an exploration of the life of an eighteenth-century woman.[83] A number of items that belonged to Joseph and Mary are on display, including Joseph's balance scales and microscope.[84]". What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This is so much better. The only thing is that I wonder if someone might think that the balance scales and microscope are on display in the upstairs bedroom. It's that last sentence that seems a bit out of place still, I think. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I made the bedroom sentence the last one (swapped it with the scales and miscroscope sentence and added "as well" to it to tie it to the previous sentence better). How is it now? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
          • It's better, but I'm still not totally happy with it, but perhaps inspiration will strike us in a few days. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
            • I moved the balance sentence last again and added "throughout the house", so the last two sentences are now: A bedroom on the second floor is dedicated to an exploration of the life of an eighteenth-century woman.[21] A number of items that belonged to Joseph and Mary are on display throughout the house, including Joseph's balance scales and microscope.[22] My last stab at it for now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Here are my copy edit questions, by section. I am making minor edits myself, but things I was not sure of I am asking about here.

Location:

• Would it make sense to add "its" to "After [its] land was purchased from the Iroquois in the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, Northumberland was..."?

• I'm not sure a village can own land in this way. The agency in this sentence has always been problematic. Awadewit | talk 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Aha, that helps. Here the agency was the colony. How about: "Northumberland was laid out around a central village green in 1772, on land originally purchased from the Iroquois by the Province of Pennsylvania in 1768, as part of the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix." Puts the focus on Northumberland and clarifies who bought the land originally. Better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Much. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops forgot to add it until now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Would it make sense to add the modern baseball field to the front yard? Something like "Beyond the railroad line is [a baseball field, and beyond that lies] the Susquehanna River, which was the original southeastern boundary of the property." to give some idea of the scale of front yard lost?

• Yes, that would be a good addition, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Done, I linked Baseball field so non-Americans could check its dimensions if so inclined. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good thinking. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Priestleys in America

• Early on I think we should either add a new sentence or make an existing one clearer about the Priestleys' three sons. Each is mentioned in the article, so I think it would be helpful to list them, and give their names and relative ages (something like "The Priestleys had three sons: the eldest was Joseph Jr., then William, and finally Harry.). Alternatively we could tweak this existing sentence and add one [additions in brackets]: "Two of their [three] sons, Joseph, Jr. [(eldest)] and Harry [(youngest)], had already emigrated to the United States in August 1793, along with Joseph Priestley's friend, the radical activist Thomas Cooper.[14] [Their middle son, William, had moved to America from France at the start of the Reign of Terror.] (Kieft, 6) I guess w could also have the new three sons sentence early and save the William in France until the accusation against him section ("Priestley's family relations deteriorated even further in 1800 when a local Pennsylvania newspaper published an article accusing William Priestley, intoxicated with "French principles", of trying to poison the entire Priestley family—both father and son vigorously denied the story. [William had moved to America from France at the start of the Reign of Terror.] (Kieft, 6)")

• I think this is a good idea. I like this one the best: "Two of their [three] sons, Joseph, Jr. [(eldest)] and Harry [(youngest)], had already emigrated to the United States in August 1793, along with Joseph Priestley's friend, the radical activist Thomas Cooper.[14] [Their middle son, William, had moved to America from France at the start of the Reign of Terror.] (Kieft, 6) By the way, Harry's real name is Henry, but he was called Harry. Do what you will with that information. Awadewit | talk 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Done. I think Harry is fine as a name. No need to expand the article. I have wondered if Harry lived with his parents and oldest brother's family, but found no info on that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Kieft (p. 6) lists New York Governor George Clinton as one of the people who met Priestley on arrival in the US - is this worth adding? Perhaps add it before, to, or after "Immediately upon his arrival, he was fêted by various political factions vying to gain his support."?

• I don't think this is worth adding. Schofield lists a whole host of dignitaries. I could have filled the "Priestleys in America" section with this kind of information, but it is not the focus of the page, I don't think. Awadewit | talk 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed the house should be the focus, fine with not adding it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that Priestley never became a US citizen (in Kieft)? Perhaps after the sentence "He wrote to John Adams that he "made it a rule to take no part whatever in the politics of a country in which I am a stranger, and in which I only wish to live undisturbed".[16]" I already mentioned above about possibly including the fact that Philadelphia was the captial of the US when they arrived - did the desire to avoid politics also play a role in not settling in the capital?

• That fact might be worth mentioning and that would certainly be the spot. If political considerations played a part in Priestley's decision not to settle in Philadelphia, I haven't read about it anywhere. Awadewit | talk 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The politics angle on settling in Philadelphia was a guess on my part (I know, WP:NOR). I know I have read Joseph never became a citizen of the US but cannot find it in Kieft at the moment. Let me check some more. It may be in the NRHP nomination forms or possibly the newspaper article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I saw it somewhere, too. I'll check as well. Better to have several refs, anyway. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Richardson, "Current Interpretation", 22. Awadewit | talk 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is also in McMinn, so I cited both and added Priestley never became a citizen of the United States.[10]. I know it is rather a bald statement, but McMinn only supports that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Richardson, too. Awadewit | talk 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the current sentence "On their way to Northumberland, the Priestleys stopped in Philadelphia, where Joseph gave a series of sermons and helped found the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia." is misleading. Kieft says they were in NYC 2 weeks and Phila. only 3 weeks in 1794. According to the book "Penn's Example to the Nations: 300 Years of the Holy Experiment", Joseph made a return visit to Phila. in 1796 and the "First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia was organized in 1796". It is also "the oldest permanent religious body bearing that name [i.e. Unitarian] in America". The same book says Priestley "delivered his first sermon in 1796 in Winchester's Lombard Street Church (Universalist), the only pulpit open to him in the city." (Philadelphia). Presumably this is the start of the series of sermons?

• I'll check that massive new Unitarianism book I have. This will take me a day, though. Awadewit | talk 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear - sorry to make you dig through that. Kieft (10) also places the founding of the First Unitarian Church to Priestley's 1796 visit to Philadelphia, and mentions the speeches were on "Evidences of Revelation". Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The length of Priestley's stays in NYC and Philadelphia sound right to me from Schofield (do you want the page numbers?). I think the sermons really did start in 1794. According to Bowers, there was a reaction against Priestley in NYC and Philadelphia and his "first sermons, delivered immediately upon his arrival in Pennsylvania" were published in 1794 and 1796 and they were A General View of the Arguments for the Unity of God (74). Bower lists the Winchester sermon (published as Unitarianism Explained and Defended) as a follow up to a series published earlier (Discourses on the Evidences of Revealed Religion) (which would make sense, if he had been preaching since 1794). Bower does agree that the "First Unitarian Society of Philadelphia", was the first Unitarian organization in the US (I guess "society" and "church" are interchangeable here?), and was formed on 21 August 1796 (75, 79).

• Perhaps Society became Church? Agree they are likely the same. Is this resolved? No hurry if it is not, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is resolved. Awadewit | talk 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that the modern Unitarian Univeralist Church in eastern PA and other Mid Atlantic states is organized as the "Joseph Priestley District"? (See http://www.jpduua.org) If so, should we mention this here or after the chapel in the Ownership and Museum section?

• No, I don't think so. Names are less important than the facts of his influence, I think. Awadewit | talk 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fine with me, just trying to be thorough. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I recapitalized the North and West Branches of the Susquehanna River. Kieft (p 6) gives the amount of land they owned as 300,000 acres (1,214 km²) and gives the distance from Northumberland as about 50 miles (80 km) are these figures worth adding?

• Sorry - I thought "North" and "West" were just directional. Those figures are probably worth adding, although I worry that we have too many figures in the article. Awadewit | talk 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• West Branch is official. North Branch is common, but not official. I have added the acreage but not the distance as the map makes the distance fairly clear. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I really like the way the three land schemes are now described (Cooper, Priestley sons, poets) but I wonder if the sentence "After the failure of Cooper's endeavor, Priestley attempted to convince other friends to move to Northumberland, particularly those he had made in America, but to no avail.[32]" is now too narrow in its scope - i.e. should it somehow mention all three land schemes as failing?

• Priestley didn't know about the poets' scheme and since we don't really know how distinct his sons' was from Cooper's, most sources say "after Cooper's scheme failed". Let me know what you want to do there. Awadewit | talk 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am OK leaving it this way, especially if that is the standard formulation. I really couldn't think of a way to say all three schemes failed succinctly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing seems to be succinct about complicated failed land speculations. :) Awadewit | talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why was the fact that Stone and Williams were living in France at the time removed from "His political fortunes took an even worse turn when Cobbett obtained a set of letters sent to Priestley by the radical printer John Hurford Stone and the liberal novelist Helen Maria Williams."?

• It said they were living together; I felt that their unorthodox living arrangements were not really germane to this article and distracted the reader from the main topic - Cobbett's attack on Priestley. Awadewit | talk 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I was more thinking they were seen as evil because they were in France, hotbed of Revolution. Missed the cohabitation "hotbed" angle (sorry, couldn't resist), and forgot that used to be shocking. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, they were seen as "evil" for living in revolutionary France, but living together freely while unmarried was actually more shocking. Of course this was seen as related to the Revolution - those liberal values, you know. :) Awadewit | talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I am fine with keeping it as is, thanks for the explanation, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Kieft (8,9) has some details on the attempt to establish a college at Northumberland, with Priestley as president. He drew up plans for it and rules for the operation of the college. Although one building was built, which later became the Northumberland Academy, the college never materialized. Priestley wrote of it to Thomas Jefferson "I poroposed to give lectures gratis, and had the disposal of a valuable library at the death of a learned friend, and had it in my power to render them important services in many ways. Yet, owing I suspect, at least in part at least to religious and political prejudices, nothing more has been done so that I have told them I shall resign.". Is this worth including?

• I think the information that is included is enough. Schofield actually has a great deal more on the NA. Again, I felt that too much detail would start to detract from the JP House. JP is a very diverse figure. I felt that a few sentences on each of these topics was enough, since the article is supposed to be about the house, not JP in America. What was your overall philosophy? Awadewit | talk 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• No problemo - I was just squeezing the last few quotes from Kieft to see if they fit. This did not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Architcture

• Kieft (9) has this quote from Joseph Jr. written "completing his father's memoirs" "Toward the end of 1797, and not before, his library and laboratory were finished. None but men devoted to literature can imagine the pleasure he derived from being able to renew his experiments with every possible convenience, and from having his books once more arranged." Again, is this worth adding in some form?

• It's cool, but it could be considered fluff, I think. We have the information on how it was the first laboratory in America, the first laboratory JP built, and the first part of the house completed. That is much more important, I think. I can see an argument being made for its inclusion, but I'm starting to worry that the article is excessively detailed. It is always good to remember that we are more enthusiastic about the subject matter than our readers. :) Awadewit | talk 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. As someone who loves to write about obscure creeks in Pennsylvania, this (It is always good to remember that we are more enthusiastic about the subject matter than our readers. :) ) should be engraved on my computer and notepad. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's a mantra for people writing dissertations. We have a habit of launching into long explanations on obscure topics. Most people think we are crazy. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps add after the sentence "The Priestleys built their home out of wood, dried in trenches on the site,[2] because no stone or brick was available in the area." [Joseph wrote a detailed description of the drying process, concluding: "A house constructed with such boards I prefer to one of brick and stone".(Kieft, 8)] I know we have discussed this before, and you are less focused on the building materials, but it is one of the few quotes I know of by Joseph on the house itself and so I think it worth inclusion. I promise not to bring it up again if you still do not want it in.

• I've reconsidered. Since it is about the house, let's add it. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, back in. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ownership and Museum

• Should we mention that the Pond Museum was dedicated as part of the 1926 ACS meeting (Kieft 12, 13)?

• Yes. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Added it to the ACS section as it fit better there. Now reads On September 5, 1926, about 500 ACS members met again at the home to dedicate the small brick museum and to celebrate.. Is that OK? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• In the current sentence "The renovations included a restoration of the laboratory, a removal of ornamentation added in the Victorian era, a return of doorways to their original locations, and a window restoration.[75]" I think "window restoration" is too vague. The windows were replaced and "the shutters were returned to their original locations inside the windows". Kieft (14)

• That was part of my effort to make the sentence have parallel structure. Perhaps we need two sentences there? Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention - Kieft also says they switched the main entrance from the back door (on the street) back to the front door (facing the river) as part of this work too. Will see what I can do tomorrow - calling it a night for now. Thanks for all your comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed, I think. Tried to keep the parallel construction and added part of the quote from Kieft. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Forgot to put the back door / front door switch - is that worth including? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• You make the call. Awadewit | talk 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I added it to the existing reference as a note. Done, I think Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some restoration / renovation work was done in the 1920s when the house became a museum. Worth a mention? (in Kieft)

• Yes. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sentence now reads Some restoration of the house was done in the 1920s,[7] and a small, brick building—intended as a fireproof museum for Priestley's books and scientific apparatus—was built on the grounds and dedicated to Pond's memory in 1926.[8][9] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Excavations were also used as a basis for the 1998 reconstructions of barn etc. Worth a mention? (from tour)

• I am reticent to include anything that cannot be verified using print or internet sources. Oral sources are much more difficult to verify. I don't want to be in the position of asking readers to go to PA to verify our information. However, I think this information is in Hirsch. I will check. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hirsch, 32. Awadewit | talk 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Changed it slightly to These structures were based on T. Lambourne's drawings of the house and grounds that had been discovered in 1983, other records, and excavations.[15] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• nearby Dickinson College - do we want to mention this is in Carlisle, Pennsylvania? If so, I should add it to the map as all other PA places mentioned are on it.

• Yes. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Added Carlisle - we do not include "Pennsylania" for any of the cities mentioned, so I did not here. Will fix map after this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Removed "nearby" and added it to the map (may have to WP:BYC to see the new version). Done, I think Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ACS

• Nobel Prize recipient and ACS president Glenn T. Seaborg presided at the 1976 meeting. The ACS also broke their normal pattern of two national meetings a year and added the third Northumberland meeting in 1976.

• No - more interesting to an article about the ACS, I think. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fine by me. He's got an element named for him already (dead now, but at the time was one of only two living persons to unambiguously have one named for them). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• A Priestley great-grandson was chosen as head of the Northumberland citizens' welcoming committee for the 1874 gathering of chemists (Kieft, 10). He is the son of the chapel bulider, and is the Dr. Joseph Priestley of the other NRHP house.

• I don't think so, but what do you think? Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The chapel grandson connection flows better - I can add this to the Dr. Joseph Priestley House article someday. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• There are two official websites - the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission has one here, and we have a link to the Friends of Joseph Priestley House site here under External links. I think we should mention the Friends in the Museum section - the official wording is "Administered by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission with support from the Friends of Joseph Priestley House". The PHMC has only two staff there now - all the rest is done by volunteers from the Friends.

• Yes, we should mention the Friends. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I added a sentence The PHMC is supported by the "The Friends of Joseph Priestley House".[15] I can add more - Kieft has what reads like their mission statement, I think. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I tried expanding the Friends description: it now reads The PHMC is supported by the "The Friends of the Joseph Priestley House", who help with the visitor center, tours, special events, and outreach, as well as with clerical and museum work.[80]. Ref is still to Kieft, could also cite the Friends own website here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• From the tour I had, there are plans to restore the brick Pond museum, and restore Joseph's lab once again. Should this be included somewhere?

• See above comment on tour information. Again, I'll check Hirsch. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've only got info on the Pond museum - Hirsch, 47. Awadewit | talk 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Added There are plans to restore the brick Pond museum.[18]. I have a brochure from the Friends from my recent visit that mentions restoring the lab again. Do you think this is a reliable source? If not, then I have no source (imagine it is in a Friends newsletter or two, but I do not have access to those). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to be leery of brochures. Not even a whiff of peer review, you know. Awadewit | talk 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• No problem leaving it out - not sure how I would have cited it anyway. They seem to restore the lab there more than display it :-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Once the copyedits are done, I think we can rearrange the pictures - move Mary up a bit, move a picture of the house up after Mary, switch sides on the Lambourne plan and move it down to be solely in the Arch. section, etc.

• Fine. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I moved them. The initial image and maps are all in a row on the right, then the images alternate, with all but the first map in just one section (it overlaps the TOC). I added back the Priestley Medal image on the left in the ACS section, revert if you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's a little crowded - besides, we should let your lovely photos dominate the article. It is also a fair use image - we might have trouble justifying its inclusion. Awadewit | talk 02:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I made two new versions of the inset map - they are both at User:Ruhrfisch/map. The advantage is that you can click on either map and see it completely. What do you think of this?

• I still like the separated maps, but you are the map guy, so do what you think is best. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• No problem leaving it as is - I learned a new trick making it. If we have to go to an infobox for FAC, I might try the inset map as it takes less space than two. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Carlisle on the map ruins the lower left corner inset version. I am OK with leaving the maps as they are now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• No matter what changes are made, I think we should end with the procession to the grave and leaving red roses there. I think good articles tell a story and that is a nice end to this story. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's it - sorry to be so picky, I just figured if a grandson was worth mentioning on the chapel, then these might be worth adding too. I agree with the earlier statement that the house should be the focus. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to take out the grandson bit, we can do that. By the way, be happy I didn't list all of the information from the 200+ pages of Graham's Joseph Priestley in America. We'd be here for months. :) Awadewit | talk 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. The chapel grandson is OK. Kieft is only 16 + 2 pages, so I thought it might be more "dense" in useful material. Hope this was not too much to go through, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is it OK to ask MacDui to Peer Review this now? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - bring it on. :) How do you feel about archiving some of this talk page? I feel like I have to scroll through a lot - but maybe I just have small screens. Awadewit | talk 02:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I archived the peer review, since the WP:PR page is broken, due to too many reviews being listed. I hope you don't mind. We can always start a second one or have other reviewers post their comments here. Awadewit | talk 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for doing that, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)