Jump to content

Talk:Joseph Priestley/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Related new article

There's a related new article, Science in the Age of Enlightenment, which appears to have been created as a student project for a class. It is being regarded quite positively in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#University Class + Wikipedia. Perhaps editors here would be interested in commenting on that article. doncram (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Praise from an IP

An IP editor dropped this note on my talk page: "Recent personal research into the Writings of Thomas Jefferson caused more than a passing personal curiousity regarding Joseph Priestley. The Priestley Wikipedia stub greatly exceeded my expectations when arriving there from a Google search. It's breadth and scholarship are of outstanding quality, and is deserving of especial éclat." - We get very little praise here at Wikipedia, so I thought it was worth highlighting that we do receive. Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why so much left-alignment?

I usually don't care much about image layout, because there are usually more important issues with an article. This one, on the other hand, is so great that image layout does stand out, and I've noticed that there are a lot of left-aligned images in it. As the placement of the lead image has been under discussion, I thought bringing the others.rather than just being bold would be a good idea. To clarify, I have no quarrel with the lead image: I certainly don't like that it's on the left, but it wouldn't be any better on the right, so we're pretty much stuck with that one. The ones I'm thinking of are the top images in the Needham Market and Nantwich (1755–61), Defender of Dissenters and political philosopher and Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air sections. MOS:IMAGE clearly requires the section's top image to be right-aligned, and I can't see any compelling reasons not to follow it in these cases. Also, shouldn't the "Print of the Priestley Riots" be in the Birmingham Riots of 1791 section rather than in the Defender of Dissenters and French Revolutionaries section, as per item 4 in WP:ACCESS#Images? -- Jao (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the MOS doesn't say anything about == level headers, so never mind the first of my examples. -- Jao (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you rearrange the images in a way you think would like to see them and let's see what it looks like. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
All right, I tried it out. I've left the images with Priestley facing right left-aligned, plus the image in the "Educator and historian" section, which is an example of good image-staggering, and the one in the "Chemical Revolution" section, where I don't really see a reason for left-alignment, but it doesn't seem to conflict with any guidelines, either. -- Jao (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I must be blind today. Where does it say that the section's top image should be right-aligned? I only see that about the beginning of an article, not a section. Also, I had the Birmingham Riots of 1791 image placed above the section header so it wouldn't violate the level 3 header rule at WP:ACCESS#Images and would still be staggered. I'm a bit concerned that the page is now too right-aligned. What about this version? Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
No, as I noted afterwards, it refers only the top image in subsections (=== and higher). If you prefer the grammar image left-aligned, then no problem, it was my mistake to include that one. But I still think it's extremely important that the riots image is in the riots section, as per WP:ACCESS ("Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the header and after any links to other articles), and not just before the header"). And yes, that means it cannot be left-aligned, but isn't the solution to that simply right-aligning it? I don't see what problem that causes. -- Jao (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no reasoning given in the guideline for why the image has to be in the section, so I'm not really sure why that rule exists. I'm not fond of following rules blindly. :) Also, as I said, the page is getting too right-aligned. Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why that is a problem, but all right. Anyway, the reason for the rule is, I suppose, that if you now tell a screen reader to read you the "Defender of Dissenters and French Revolutionaries" section, it will first read the header, then the "further" links, then the cartoon caption, then the entire text of the section, and finally the "Print of the Priestley Riots" caption, giving no explanation for why that image is included. (Clicking "edit" on the "Defender of Dissenters and French Revolutionaries" gives the same result, but that only affects editors, so is a smaller problem.) -- Jao (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, then, I guess we have to move it back. It just makes the page look so unbalanced to me. Oh well. Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm satisfied, then. The good solution to this, of course, would be to tweak Monobook (which I'm assuming is what most people use to browse Wikipedia) so that the image can belong to the riots section and still appear next to its header rather than below it. Such improvements have been suggested before, but I don't know how feasible they are. -- Jao (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't most people not use monobook, since they aren't registered users? :) Awadewit (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
No idea actually. :) I had assumed monobook was the default for all readers who hadn't chosen otherwise, but that was just an assumption. -- Jao (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Grave location

There is mention of and reliable reference for the location of Priestley's grave in Joseph Priestley House. "He was buried in nearby Riverview Cemetery in Northumberland.[47]" where ref 47 is "MacDermott, 43–44." from "MacDermott, Kevin. "Celebrating Chemistry History". Chemistry and Engineering News. 79.45 (2001): 43–44. Retrieved 3 November 2007." WOuld this be OK to add? One of these years I may even find his grave and get a picture of it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know if Priestley's current gravesite is his original one. Some of those oldtimers got moved around. Priestley has, apparently, overlooked the river (Susquehanna?) for the past century or so. -- Astrochemist (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Joseph Priestley House overlooks the North Branch of the Susquehanna. The cemetery is inland enough that I doubt you can see the river from it (despite the name), see map. I have no idea if his grave has been moved but I think he was originally interred in the cemetery where he still is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

American

As I understand it, JP became an American during his exile. If that is in fact correct, I think it should be made explicit. Kdammers (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ALthough he spent the last ten years or so of his life in the United States, he never became an American citizen (which is what I undertand your question to mean). This is explicitly addressed in the Joseph Priestley House article, with two refs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Asteroid

"An asteroid bears his name, 5577 Priestley, discovered in 1986 by J. D. Waldron.[1]" - This information was just added to the end of the "Legacy" section, but it seemed rather tacked on. Can we integrate it more seamlessly somewhere? Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about
Priestley has been remembered by the towns in which he served as a reforming educator and minister and by the scientific organizations he influenced. Two educational institutions have been named in his honour, Priestley College in Warrington and Joseph Priestley College in Leeds, as has an asteroid—5577 Priestley, discovered in 1986 by J. D. Waldron. In Birstall, the Leeds City Square, and Birmingham, he is memorialized through statues, and plaques commemorating him have been posted in Birmingham and Warrington. Also, since 1952 Dickinson College has presented the Priestley Award to a scientist who makes "discoveries which contribute to the welfare of mankind".
—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This reads well to me. Would it also be worth mentioning that his Northumberland house has been a museum run by Pennsylvania since 1970? The house is already mentioned in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who contributed asteroid-naming fact. I have no objection to the rewording. Being new to this (3 other contributions), I am unsure what to do next. I notified Mr. Waldron that I had made the original contribution (and sent him a copy). He responded that he did not see it on Wikipedia, otherwise I would not have realized it had been removed, because I received no notice (or am I not looking in the right place?). Any suggestions would be appreciated! At least I know my facts are 100% accurate (lol). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessecarllane (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the rewording flows better. Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The main picture

Surely it should be on the right? Ironholds (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:MOS#Images suggests that images face the text. Editors on this talk page have consistently agreed to right-align the image. Awadewit (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The image should be on the right side in the lead. The MoS clearly says to "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox." See here. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that the MOS says that, but it also says that the image should face the text. As long as the MOS doesn't tell us how to resolve this conflict, it's up for local consensus. For anyone's information, previous discussions are here, here, here and here. If you want to bring it up again, please read those discussions and make sure you have some reason to question the local consensus, or have some new arguments to add. —JAO • T • C 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The MoS says "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." So that must mean there are times when it is not preferable to have an image facing the text, such as when doing so violates the MoS on where to place the lead image. The MoS is very clear that you start an article with a right-alligned image. Nowhere does it say you can ever start an article with a left-alligned image. The image belongs on the right, regardless of which way he happens to be facing. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad nauseam here and in its FAC and the consensus is to keep the lead image left aligned. Ignore all rules trumps the MoS here I think. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, especially since the MOS is a guideline, not something to be slavishly followed without careful consideration. Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Most images of Priestley face right, and the one in the lead is the best available image. It and the page look beautiful as is. This image looks terrable right-aligned (it has been tried). Please leave it were it is. Finell (Talk) 03:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks hideous on the left. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

I semi-protected the article for a week as it has been the target of a lot of vandalism today. If regular contributors here would prefer it be unprotected, please say so and I will revert. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Right aligning and infobox

I put the image in an Infobox Scientist which neatly does away with the hideous left-aligned opening picture. I have neither the interest nor the intent of revisiting whatever justifications were proffered for left aligning the image in the lead nor the patience to listen to didactic recitations of WP:IAR or appeals to MOS:IMAGE's status as a "mere" guideline to justify reverting it. Moreover, I don't see why whatever peculiar practices of portraiture are binding on Wikipedia's style and see no need to accommodate these eccentricities. It is patently silly to have it on the left and flies against a huge body of precedent and consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia. MOS image clearly states "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox" and I can foresee no defensible reason to treat this article any differently than any other on Wikipedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the justifications and given the on-going nature of the debate should be revealing. I would be happy to open an RFC or another dispute resolution because I see a pattern of activity in which this issue is continually raised and invoked and a particular cadre of editors insists on going against the grain and privileging an unconvincing interpretation of a subsection of MOS:IMAGE over a wide body of stylistic precedent and consensus. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please calm down. There is no reason to immediately open an RfC. We have not even discussed the issue yet. Please note that WP:MOS#Images states "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text". Please also note that there has been a continued consensus to keep the image left-aligned and leave out the infobox (which is optional). Awadewit (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Pertinent quotes from MOS:IMAGE for reference
  1. "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox."
  2. "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. ...However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption."
  3. "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."
Examples of FAs contra-indicating alleged consensus for left-alignment and removal of Infobox: Sir William Bruce, 1st Baronet, of Balcaskie, Salvador Dalí, El Greco, El Lissitzky, Henry Moore, Sylvanus Morley, Roman Vishniac, and that's just from the "Arts & Architecture" section alone. In fact, I would wager based on this sample alone that there is not a single other FA that has a left-aligned image in the lead. While I loathe Wiki-lawyering micro-parsing of terminology, I would point out that the "it is often preferable" modifier in #2 is decidedly less convincing backing for your position than the unambiguous assertion of #1 above. It seems that the "continued consensus" is a function of the concerted effort of several editors (who have otherwise written an excellent article) to shout down the repeated discussions about the inappropriate placement of this photo in the lead from a variety of other editors over time as well as misleading appeals to archived consensus. While I see an ongoing lack of consensus rather than explicit consensus, I see no harm in revisiting and renewing any consensus that may or may not exist. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Further FA examples of scientific biographies with non-text-facing lead images as well as infoboxes: Norman Borlaug, Barbara McClintock, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Joseph Francis Shea, Emmy Noether, Blaise Pascal, Søren Kierkegaard, Hilary Putnam, Bernard Williams, Edward Teller. While I expect there to be attempts at WP:IAR and WP:WAX to refute this evidence, it nevertheless should show how out-of-step the current article is with precedent and consensus elsewhere. To be fair, I did encounter (and omit) examples of FA biographies with text-facing images as well as a handful without infoboxes, but neither am I arguing the illogical contrapositive that "it is never preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes never face the text." Madcoverboy (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Madcoverboy's logic and argument. Selectively quoting policy to justify the current format gets people nowhere. Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose First off, point three above (Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower)...) has absolutely no application here - this is the lead image and so is not in a subsection or under any heading. Second, where does it say in the MOS that an infobox is required? Third, as for the other FA examples, so what? Please see the spirit if not the letter of WP:Other stuff exists. Fourth, as has been noted repeatedly, this made it through WP:GAN, two peer reviews, WP:FAC, and a day on the Main Page and the consensus has always been that the article layout and the lead image are OK as is. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Also opposed. No one is "selectively quoting" — what they're doing is making an entirely reasonable decision about how to format an article based on aesthetics, mature presentation, and precedents. I'm close to indifferent on the alignment of this lead image, but I certainly oppose the infobox. They're not required and the justification for them rests with the editor wanting to add them (other than, as Ruhrfisch mentions, "other stuff exists"). Why don't I pull out a "not": Wikipedia is a not a textbook. We don't need juvenile easy-to-digest sidebars that over-simplify multifaceted historical figures. All of that "info" is usually presented in the lead paragraphs in any case. (Try chemical elements: infoboxes work well there!) You don't like wiki-lawyering and "micro-parsing terminology"? Then you're my kind of editor, except that everything you've said above suggests the opposite. Outriggr (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds like it's time for an RfC or mediation then. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Disagree on the infobox if you want, but the image alignment is something followed everywhere else on Wikipedia - why not here? Ruhrfisch argues that it went through FAC with no problems and is therefore fine, but that's moot. The issue was brought up at FAC and it was decided that it was a problem, but not a big enough one to kill an FAC over. Your argument shoots itself in the foot. Ironholds (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Again, the MOS allows such alignment if desired (and we have consensus for it here) and other articles (even FAs) do this. I don't see a reason for a mediation/RfC, which to me seems like a drastic step. Please realize that you are requesting an RfC over a layout option that is allowed in the MOS. It may not be common, but it is allowed. Awadewit (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • The MOS allows such alignment with good reason given, and specifically says that such alignment shouldn't be in place just to keep the eyes/face towards the text, which is your argument. Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A good reason is given. Where does the guideline say "that such alignment shouldn't be in place just to keep the eyes/face towards the text"? You may be referring to the language that says that the image itself shouldn't be reversed to follow the guideline of having faces point toward the text, because that would be a distortion of the image. Finell (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for the following reasons:
  1. There is no reason to invoke WP:IAR because no rule was violated in the first place. Nor is anyone here denigrating guidelines as "mere". There are two relevant guidelines in WP:IMAGE, and they are in conflict: "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox", and, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." The editors who designed this beautiful page (I was not one of those) made a reasoned decision to resolve the conflict between these guidelines, on this particular page, in favor of the second one. After very considerable discussion of this issue, a strong consensus of the editors of this page agreed with that aesthetic choice. The issue was raised during the FA review; the FA reviewers (many of whom are fanatics for following the MOS and other style guidelines) deferred to the editors' consensus and aesthetic decision. I personally agree with that choice, and I am an MOS fanatic: right-aligning this strong image, with not only Priestley's face pointed away from the text, but with his body turned even more sharply away from the text, looks horrid.
    I'm merely arguing that the conflict should have been resolved the other way given the unambiguous phrasing of #1, wide precedent and stable consensus almost every other FA biography, as well as the policy clearly hedging on #2 ("it is often preferable"). I greatly respect and admire the article created by these editors, but they do not own this article and their views should not necessarily prevail over concerns raised by other members of the Wikipedia community simply because they contributed more to the article. I likewise dispute your assertion that this is somehow a "strong" image when several of the examples I outlined above are decidedly "stronger" in their non-text-facing orientation. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    This is, I think, the core of the issue. We see the alignment one way and you and Ironholds see it another way. We are both "merely" arguing, of course. Can we both agree to acknowledge that neither side is "right"? Could that be a first step? Awadewit (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Madcoverboy was unjustified in ignoring that consensus, and was further unjustified in ignoring this comment, which was also placed on the page by consensus, and which he deleted: "This image is left-aligned to conform with the MOS and is a consensus. Please discuss any rearrangement of the layout of the lead on the talk page. Thank you." Madcoverboy should have raised his concern this on this talk page rather than edit against the consensus (it is not clear why he referred to it as an "alleged consensus", but the consensus is well documented on this talk page and in the talk page archives). To Madcoverboy's credit, however, he did notify prior editors of this article of his counter-consensus edit.
    I made a good-faith edit based on wide consensus on other FA biographic articles, but then again, that's how WP:BRD is supposed to work because consensus can change. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Madcoverboy misinterprets two of the guidelines that he quotes and relies upon above:
    The language about "images should not be reversed" is talking about flipping the image itself (so the subject's left eye becomes the right eye), not left- or right-alignment. The explanation of this guideline, as quoted above by Madcoverboy, makes that clear.
    I have never made an argument that the image should be manipulated to be text-facing on the right and only argued that the image should be on the right. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    As pointed out above, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower)", is inapplicable here because this image is below the article's headline, not "a subsection-level heading". Further the guideline explains its rationale: left-aligning an image below "a subsection-level heading ... sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it". That plainly isn't happening in this article.
    It demonstrates that there is clearly cause not to always left-align an image to ensure a text-facing orientation. Thus there are at least 2 policies in MOS:IMAGE that clearly indicate that an image shouldn't be left-aligned just to fulfill #2. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Madcoverboy was also unjustified in putting a Scientist infobox on the page. First, such a major change should not be made without first obtaining consensus, especially in an FA in which so many editors participate. Second, Priestley was not primarily a scientist. Third, most of the fields are unpopulated, which defeats the purpose of an infobox.
    Again, it was a good-faith edit made to bring the article in line with the consensus across the vast majority of other FA biographic articles. I haven't heard a defensible reason for excluding it. I didn't populate several of the fields owing to the contentious nature of Priestly's nationality, residences, beliefs, and contributions. Then again, there was nothing stopping other editors from going in and populating those fields until it was reverted, so let's avoid the tautologies denying the antecedent. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand Madcoverboy's suggestion of an RfA or mediation. This is simply an issue to be resolved by normal, collaborative editing and consensus. Finell (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC) [explanation added 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)]

  • Please identify the other FAs that have a left-aligned image in the lead as I have already outlined a substantial body of precedent that decidedly contraindicates the prevailing "consensus" on the particular interpretation of policy here. The only other example of a left-aligned lead image in a FA I could find is Mary Martha Sherwood. However, the fact that this article is substantially edited by User:Awadewit corroborates, in my view, that a problem in interpretation exists on the part of some editors rather than any well-recognized and stable precedent, consensus, or policy by many editors. Indeed, it's troubling that the repeated nature of this debate and the concerns raised by other editors over time are repeatedly dismissed by appeals to some more ancient consensus. What is also troubling is the repeated arguments about how Wikipedia's rules and guidelines need not apply to this particular article when, in fact, no convincing rationale has ever been proffered on what is so particularly unique about this article to grant to pardon it from the rules and guidelines that every other article operates under (aside from Outriggr's implication that because "Wikipedia is not a textbook" we apparently shouldn't have any standardization of content, style, or information). Moreover, I find the appeals to some sort of stable consensus on this issue dubious at best since it has been raised by no fewer than 11 editors (by my count: User:Ironholds, User:Rreagan007, User:LonelyMarble, User:UBeR, User:Tagishsimon, User:MaXim, User:Scartol, User:Medvedenko, User:Hoary, User:Wrad, User:SandyGeorgia) in the last 2 years with the only dissenting editors being User:Ruhrfisch, User:Awadewit, User:Finnell, and User:Outriggr. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but this is decidedly not a consensus. We all well know (and the same has been stated in these self-same talk pages!) that GAC isn't a consistently exacting peer-review process so the omission of the mention of the lead image alignment issue in a review by a single editor is likewise not an instance of any "consensus" (silence is the weakest form of consensus) on this issue, especially since the GAR reviewer is User:Outriggr. The appeal to some sort of consensus at FAC is also misleading since (as Ironholds points out above) the only consensus was not to hold up an otherwise snowball FAC over the image problem (per concerns by User:Fvasconcellos and User:Wrad). Thus, a closer examination of the record indicates absolutely no consensus on this issue so I don't understand the opposition to revisiting this issue and definitively establishing an explicit consensus on the issue if the opposing editors believe there is such solid consensus and firm policy and precedent to back their position. If there are other editors whom have also expressed views on this issue whom I have omitted, please include them in a response. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I will say that I also saw Madcoverboy's edit as a somewhat extrreme case of Bold, revert, discuss. Madcoverboy, you are confusing the individual consensus about what to to do in this article (which has been in favor of the current layout and left aligned lead image) with some sort of imagined FA-wide broader "consensus" about lead images and layout. While the left aligned lead image has always had its detractors (yourself and Ironhods among them), the clear consensus for this article has always been to leave the lead image left aligned. I personally think it particularly fitting that an article about such a prominent Nonconformist should not follow the example of most (but not all) FA with respect to lead image alignment and an infobox. If Wikipedia were based solely on what the vast majority of other articles do, then I could just as easily make the argument there should be no FAs (as over 99 percent of articles are not FA anyway). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's just me, but I don't think a Wikipedia article's content and stylistic formatting is the appropriate platform to be reflexive about the topic it covers. Then again, maybe the article on general relativity should be full of weaselly relative terms and Trinitrotoluene should have a flashing background just to keep things interesting around here. All kidding aside, it's disingenuous to paint 12 established and good-faith editors over a 2+ year period as mere "detractors" while also misrepresenting my argument that the vast majority of featured articles have a decidedly different interpretation of MOS:IMAGE. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Here is the basic argument again. The widespread and established convention in layout and design is that portraits should face into the text - this existed long before Wikipedia. To those who know and are aware of this convention, the right alignment of the Priestley portrait looks awful - the eye will follow the direction a face points and we want to lead the eye into the text and not away from it. Flipping the portrait so it faces the other way is dishonest, and is discouraged in the MOS (see above). All of the decent protraits of Priestley face the same direction and should be left aligned by convention. The MOS has two conflicting statements on image alignment, but one of them follows this convention of having a portrait face into the text. Sorry you didn't like my joke about nonconformism - I guess the point I was trying to make with it is that Wikipedia allows exceptions to the majority. This is one of those exceptions.
        • You keep bringing up other FAs, but there is no such thing as consensus across FAs. No one says in FAC for any other article "...and by the way, what do you think about the layout in the Joseph Priestley article?" (and if they did almost no one would care or reply, FAC focuses solely on the article at hand). So your argument is moot (see Other stuff exists). Still, I will attempt to explain why I find your argument "that the majority of FAs do this" is invalid. First, the majority of FAs do not have lead images of a person in them (which is the only place the left aligned image convention applies), so of course the majority of articles with a lead image have it right aligned. For example, every bridge FA and even the Joseph Priestley House FA all have right aligned lead images. So what? How does that apply here? Of the articles with lead images of people (biographies chiefly), the majority have an image where the person does not face away from the text when right aligned, so this is also not an issue. In a few cases though, the best or only available image(s) face right and so the question becomes which part of the MOS do you follow? I note that Yasser Arafat has a right aligned lead image in an infobox where the face points right (away from the text). I think it looks bad, but I will respect the choice of the editors who put a lot of time and effort into bringing the article to FA.
        • Finally, I am not trying to besmirch any editor who has commented on the layout in any way. But just as we do not look for comments across FACs, so too do we not tally !votes across time. My point is that each time this has been raised, consensus at that time was to keep the left aligned layout (even here now it is four for and two against). Since you seem dead-set on bringing an RfC or something on this, please be aware of WP:CANVASSING. I will not comment further unless an RfC or other process is initiated. Thanks for your obvious concern for the article's appearance, sorry that we disagree. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC venue

  • Okay, let's proceed with an RfC. The two questions I now pose to editors are (1) what is the appropriate venue or forum to host the RfC? and (2) what editors, projects, forums, or other constituencies that have not already been discussed should be appraised of the RfC? Since it is a matter that appears to be contingent upon on an interpretation of policy and style that affects at least 2 featured articles as well as an unknown number of other articles, I would argue that the RfC discussion take place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Leave your comments or feedback regarding the venue/forum over the next 12 hours on the forum and I'll take the lead on creating the RfC by 7:00 UTC. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What is the question? Quoting the WP:RfC page Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved. If the question is just about this article, then I think the RfC should be here. If the RfC is at the MOS, then I think the discussion should be moved to the MOS talk page prior to opening an RfC. I also note that the issue has been discussed here for less than 24 hours (this go round), which seems a bit premature (I know, this has been a vexing issue for 2.5 years). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the heart of the matter is a dispute over how to interpret MOS:IMAGE given its conflicting wording under some interpretations. Proposed question to be posed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: "Should MOS:IMAGE allow for a non-text-facing image to be left-aligned in the lead of the article?" Madcoverboy (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree. The controlling factor is what is best for this particular page, bearing in mind that (1) all guidelines permit departure from them where reasonable; (2) the MOS itself suggests left-aligning a right-facing portrait; (3) aesthetics is a sufficient reason for the choice made in this article: the portrait in the lead is the strongest available image, and it looks particularly bad right-aligned; (4) this article passed the MOS-loving FAC review with this layout. Finell (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I had assumed the RfC would be based at this page until your post at the start of this section. In the proposed question, I am unclear what a "non-text-facing image" is. I am pretty sure we have a text facing image that is left aligned here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Well points 3 and 4 are really moot to the present discussion of determining where to have the RfC since several editors have disputed the aesthetic considerations in light of other precedents and practices and consensus can change with regard to whatever styles or guidelines were the norm when this article was promoted ~16 months ago (although you are still misrepresenting the state of the consensus regarding the alignment at FAC).
            • Regarding points 1 and 2, it would be helpful if you could definitively assert whether (A) you believe the article is in compliance with MOS:IMAGE's reference to text facing images or (B) you simply want to ignore rules and guidelines given overriding aesthetic concerns about the image. These are substantively different and potentially contradictory grounds for opposition as you can't appeal to WP:IAR to back up your argument when you just argued that it is in compliance with policy. You can't have your exempt-from-rules cake and eat it too: either you get to appeal to MOS:IMAGE and have to be bound by it, or you get to IAR and re-legitimize the choice with every subsequent editor who patters on through.
            • As I stated above, there are at least 2 FAs, including this one, that appear to be in a similar position with regard to their interpretations of MOS:IMAGE as well as an unknown number of other ones. Moreover, the alleged reason for having the image left-aligned in the first place was because of inconsistencies in the interpretation of MOS:IMAGE that have lead editors to good-faithfully place the image where it is now given their interpretation of a conflict in the guidelines. This leads me again to believe that it is a more general style and policy matter affecting several articles, rather than an article-specific content dispute which should be handled locally here.
            • Finally, it is unclear with what Finell disagrees; propose another forum to have the RfC or another wording of the question. To Ruhrfisch's point, thank you for pointing out my confused terminology. "Should MOS:IMAGE be interpreted to allow for left-aligned images to appear in the lead to ensure the face and/or eyes are directed at the text?" Madcoverboy (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the RfC (if there is one) should take place here, since the discussion is only about this article. There have actually been several discussions at the MOS about this very issue - what you see is the compromise version. Ultimately, any discussion there will just boil down to "let the editors at the various articles decide", which is what we are attempting to do here. Awadewit (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I will only respond on this talk page once every 24 or 48 hours. As I state on my talk page, I do not operate in wikitime. Awadewit (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Real estate comments

For what it's worth, I think that what looks uglier than a right- (or is it left-?) image alignment is the large spread of white space at the top of the article. Are there simple, non-controversial wiki-ways to recapture some of that valuable real estate? -- And if you're interested in real estate, be sure to read about the continuing threat to the Joseph Priestley House. This morning I updated the link to the house's web site so that enthusiastic editors can stay informed and involved. The worst-case scenario appears to be closure in about 2 weeks. Is there a way that some of the passion displayed on this page can be directed to Priestley's US house? -- Astrochemist (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Could {{TOC right}} be an avenue for compromise regarding the long-running left vs. right argument? I tried {{TOC right}} and the page looked much better with all the dead space removed.
  • And not to confuse things, but in the Lyall portrait on the Priestley House page the subject's pose is similar to what's at the top in Priestley's Wikipedia article. However, one image is aligned left while the other is aligned right. Does the same reasoning (or personal preference) apply in both cases? - Astrochemist (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on lead image alignment

"Should MOS:IMAGE be interpreted to allow the lead image to be left-aligned to ensure the face and/or eyes are directed at the text?" Madcoverboy (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by nominator

Oppose There are currently at least two FAs that have a left-aligned image in the lead: Joseph Priestley and Mary Martha Sherwood. MOS:IMAGE's first guideline clearly states

"Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox."

Nevertheless, several of the current editors of the Joseph Priestley article assert that the following guideline in MOS:IMAGE overrides the former given their aesthetic concerns:

"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."

I argue that the former's clear and unambiguous language should clearly take precedence over the latter's hedging rather than the other way around. Moreover, MOS:IMAGE has a specific guideline further limiting the use of left-aligned images ("Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading .."). This is likewise further evidence that the interpretation of the face/eye-orientation guideline's primacy over the other aspects of the guideline is incorrect.

On the basis of this incorrect interpretation of policy as well as assertions of Ignore All Rules, 6 editors (User:Hoary, User:Ruhrfisch, User:Awadewit, User:Finnell, User:Outriggr [incorrect—O.], User:Bongwarrior) have reverted edits on Joseph Priestley to ensure the right left-align of the image. The interpretation held by these editors appears to be entirely contra-indicated by the preponderance of biographical Featured Articles with right-aligned images of faces, eyes, or body directed away from text: Sir William Bruce, 1st Baronet, of Balcaskie, El Lissitzky, Roman Vishniac, Norman Borlaug, Barbara McClintock, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Emmy Noether, Blaise Pascal, Søren Kierkegaard, Bernard Williams, Yasser Arafat, to name just a few. This is yet further evidence that the editors' interpretation of one guideline of MOS:IMAGE over another is incorrect.

These editors have asserted a "continued consensus" for the image to remain left-aligned. No such consensus exists. In the approximately 24 months since an infobox was deleted and the image first moved to the left (ironically, over the objections of User:Awadewit), no fewer than 17 separate editors (including 2 current administrators, a current FAC delegate, and a current bureaucrat) have raised their concerns about the placement at Talk:Joseph Priestley, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley, and in edit summaries:

Given the clear preference in MOS:IMAGE to start an article with a right-aligned image, the stylistic practices of the vast majority of other biographical FAs, as well as a clear lack of consensus over time by nearly 17 different editors, I recommend that the image be right-aligned and MOS:IMAGE be updated to reduce future confusion and contradiction. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break I

  • Neutral I don't really care all that much, although I am kind of irked that someone goes out of their way to point out that among those who oppose are two admins and a Bureaucrat. Awadewit could out-edit them better than Obama can kill a fly, bureaucrat or no bureaucrat. Wrad (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But that is an inaccurate number - "raising concerns" is totally different than "disagreeing". For example - Anonymous Dissident, you are listed in this number and you are "neutral" - should you really be counted? I don't think so. Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay. That doesn't negate the fact that there are 17 people who have moved the image to the right. It seems to me that moving it to the right and just forgetting about it would resolve most of the issues. I can't see a drive-by editor coming along and moving a right-aligned image to the left – but I can see (and we have seen) drive-by editors moving a left-aligned image to the right. You tell me what the simplest solution is. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Simple solutions are not always the best or the right solutions, though. Many editors come by and change the wording for the worse, though, too, for example. Should we just leave it because it is easier and it will happen anyway or should we keep the level of the prose high by fixing things? Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't say anything about critical. Remember, this is an FA - this is an example of "Wikipedia's best" - that includes layout. Decisions here are no longer haphazard - everything has been thought through very carefully. Awadewit (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but, from where I'm sitting, it looks as though Priestley's eyes are looking to the left anyway. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support left-aligned image. The MOS has ambiguity built into it so that issues can be resolved among editors, which they have been. There has been a continued consensus on this talk page (see, for example, Archive 2, Archive3, Archive 5, the the FAC, etc.) We cannot "count" the supposed "votes" of the editors in the way Madcoverboy wants to do - already two he claims want a right-aligned image have declared themselves neutral. Awadewit (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Does it really matter? The average reader won't care. Surely we must have more important stuff to argue about? :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

  • Follow-up. It's well known that I'm not a dogmatist about MoS issues, particularly not where there's reasonable leeway. So let's look at what the people at this website who know the most about images are doing (the featured picture contributors):
In other words, throughout the entire portrait section of Wikipedia's featured pictures, every right-facing portrait that is used as a lead image is right aligned. Every single one. The people who maintain the manual of style don't consult the people who actually contribute quality graphic work about esthetic issues, and the featured picture contributors--en masse--return the favor by ignoring MoS. It's a nice little arrangement, actually, and perhaps it's not a good idea to make waves by suggesting that (a) the notion a portrait should be placed as if it were looking at the text about its subject is rather facile, and (b) left alignment makes it harder to scrunch an infobox into an article (which many FA writers detest, and I don't much care for either). Anyway, the featured picture examples are in unanimous agreement, and many of them appear at prominent articles (several of which are also FAs). Now I'll toddle away from this little MoS squabble, because there are few things more time consuming and trivial than MoS squabbles. Cheers to all, DurovaCharge! 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Contributor of 202 featured pictures.
I don't quite understand your first sentence - could you explain it to me again? Thanks. (By the way, all art history books follow the "subject look in at the text" rule. It is not as facile as you think.) Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the first sentence expresses that this expands upon on the previous comment above at the thread. DurovaCharge! 04:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I still do not understand. If you could rephrase it, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I don't see you at MoS contributing your expertise on this matter ... Tony (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe that's why I've had enough time for 273 total featured contributions. ;) DurovaCharge! 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break III

  • Comment The only question that really matters here is whether we are serving the needs of the readers. Personally, I would move Priestly to the right, if for no other reason than that his eyes are actually looking left of center. As far as I can tell, that example violates both of the MoS suggestions. On principle, however, we have to measure the reader experience in each case. How is the reader affected by seeing an image on top of the TOC rather than text? It's certainly jarring if one has looked at more than a few articles here. We have a far greater chance of producing the reaction "That image is on the wrong side" than "That lad is not facing the text". One is an obvious "error" in the eyes of a casual reader who is familiar with our layout, while the other is an aesthetic preference they almost certainly won't be conscious of. --Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely. I guess what I'm saying is: The consensus we should be trying to reach is which side better serves the reader... not which side violates less of the MoS. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And I think the left-alignment serves both readers. Most people are flexible enough that they can continue reading when an image is on the other side and those with a sense of aesthetics will appreciate the attention to detail. If people cannot adjust, we might as well right-align all images (which we do not do, btw). Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It has also been suggested that the TOC be moved to the right (easy to do) but I was waiting on the outcome of this before doing that (unless people think it should be done anyway with the left aligned image). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about this - all articles have white space, whether the image is left- or right-aligned. The reason this one has a lot is because the TOC is long, not because of the left-aligned image. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • On my monitor there is almost an inch (2.54 cm) between the bottom of the lead text and the bottom of the lead image / top of the TOC. If the TOC were on the right, the top of the TOC would be directly below the last of the lead text and this inch or so of white space would presumably disappear. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am conscious of aesthetics and would prefer right-alignment in this case (and most if not all other instances). While I might be willing to entertain aesthetic arguments for eye direction, it really doesn't seem to apply strongly enougg to warrant exception here, if at all, as Priestly's eyes themselves tend left of center. I'd also argue, if consensus does prove to favor left-alignment, that the warning/comment atop the article, which states that the portrait is left-aligned to "conform" to the MOS, is misleading at best. I interpret left alignment, if merited, as a by-case exception to a style rule that has grounds in both consistency and aesthetics. /Ninly (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break IV

  • Support the left aligned image in the lead per the established convention in the "real world" that the face and/or eyes should not lead the reader's eyes away from the text. The MOS has two apparently contradictory statements, so articles with a left facing lead image will violate one or the other MOS statement depending on if the lead image is left or right aligned. To my thinking this should be decided on a case by case basis, all other examples from other articles - who cares? As I noted above the majority of articles here are not FA and have few refs - should we follow the majority here too? I have already wasted too much time here today - if more rationale is needed, please read my above comments. Good night, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the left aligned image in the lead. The MOS is very clear that you "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image". It is true that the MOS further states that "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." That must mean that there are times when it is not preferable to do so, and the lead image is one of those times. And the aesthetics argument is specious because on Wikipedia it looks very strange and aesthetically unpleasing to see a left-aligned lead image. There are 3 acceptable options to me.
    • 1: You can either just flip the image and move it to the right (yes I know certain people almost have a heart attack at the very thought of flipping an image, but it is allowed as long as you make a note of it in the image caption),
    • 2: You can move the image to the right and have him continue facing right (as thousands of articles do), or
    • 3: You can pick another image for the lead that already faces left. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I only have one more question: Can someone please explain how the argument about how the subject should be looking at the text holds in this case, when Priestley is clearly looking to his left? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • AD, it is about the eyes and body. Remember, the descriptions of the "lines" of the paintings from all of those art history articles you worked on? The "lines" of this painting lead into the text as it is currently situated. Awadewit (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank for repeating the obvious. The point is that this painting as it is situated directs the reader into the text using both the eyes and the body. If you would like a diagram and a long disquisition on how it does that, I can provide one. In a sense, this painting has more than is required by the MOS. Awadewit (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please do. The image does not do more than what the MoS requires. On the contrary, it does less, because the eyes are facing to the left. The MoS mentions the eyes and face, and only one of the two can be said to be looking to the right. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Like with text, altering images is not recommended. We do not alter the original, when it is so easy as to simply place it on the other side of the page. Moreover, this is far and away the best portrait of Priestley that there is (this is an FA and I have done the research to know that). We worked long and hard to find a better solution several years ago (believe it or not), but, in the end, this is what we came up with. Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If it's so easy to simply place it on the other side of the page then please do it. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
But it is worse aesthetically - why should we do something that is worse aesthetically? As I asked AD above, if someone comes along and makes the prose worse, should I just leave it because it is easier? I don't think so. Awadewit (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If it were worse aesthetically, this debate would not be occurring. It's quite plain that a number of people are not satisfied with the left alignment and that it's not clear that it is aesthetically superior. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There are also debates about better and worse prose - you need to decide what set of criteria you use to judge what is better and worse. Unfortunately, most people don't have a set of criteria to do that. What have the people who have said it looks worse said? Generally, they have said "it doesn't match the rest of Wikipedia". The implicit criteria here seems to be "standardization". You have to weigh aesthetics against standardization in this debate, essentially. Awadewit (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The truth is I have no inclination to expend any further time discussing this matter or viewing this discussion. I have not read Finnell's comment, for two reasons. The first one is that it is very long and the hour is very late where I am. The second is that I am entirely sure that the contents of the comment will not influence my opinion. Plainly, I think the image looks better on the right, and the subject's eyes, at least, agree with me. Looking at the two options with consideration for my own sense of aesthetics, I think the image looks better on the right, is less distracting to the reader, and is more in line with germane guidelines. However, I do not feel strongly enough about it to commit myself to fighting for one alignment over the other. I initially said I had no opinion one way or the other; I now realise this is wrong. I do have an opinion, but I do not care one way or the other. And I certainly don't care enough to embroil myself any further in a painfully extended discussion on the matter. I think it's already quite apparent that this discourse will come to nothing anyway. Wikipedia discussions have a way of hitting a critical mass whereat one just knows nothing definitive is to be produced. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the left! Although since JP's gaze is straight out at the viewer this case is not as severe as eg Custer, Grant, Queen Elizabeth II and the King of Bhutan in the interesting gallery above. To AD just above, I hadn't noticed anyone denying that for best aesthetic effect images should face into the page, but there is another issue of consistent design in having right-aligned lead images. Personally I think the former more important. Few if any professionally designed publications would follow the opposite view. Johnbod (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not that anybody is likely to be hospitalised as a result of seeing the image on the "wrong" side, but you might escape the terrible dilemma by using a different image. This engraving has him facing the "right" way, that is, to the left, even though the eye is drawn to the right. The original painting by Artaud — if anybody can obtain it — should face the other way, which satisfies both the vital overriding requirement to have the leading lines draw the eye to the text and those who must, absolutely must, have the image on the right ... though Priestley would actually be facing right — the "wrong" way. Noiseisnotasolid (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think using this image with right-alignment would potentially be an excellent compromise, though the cynic in me suspects that there would nevertheless be supporters who would invert their argument (just as the picture's cross-alignment is inverted from the current) to still support left-alignment simply for the oft-quoted need to simply be different. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For those citing the aesthetics rulebook, it actually argues for a right-aligned image: the subject's all-important eyes (gaze being the real reason for the rule) are facing slightly to the left. But really, any argument about aesthetics that relies upon or appeals to a bureaucratic rulebook is fundamentally invalid. It certainly can't be dictated by dogma. Yes, it "looks better" for the subject of a portrait to be facing inward from the edge of the screen. But it also "looks better" to have the lead of an article left-aligned. You have to look at the whole thing in context. In doing this, I find Johnbod's statement that "Few if any professionally designed publications would follow the opposite view [that consistent overall page layout is more important than which way the subject faces]"... surprising, because it is not supported by my experience. True, some publications don't particularly care about consistent layout (i.e. their "style" is to be random), but those that do... do. Wikipedia, as a publication that strives for consistency through a Manual Of Style, has always seemed to me to be one of the latter. Furthermore, Wikipedia is also an application and a consistent user interface becomes even more important in that context. From my experience as both a print publisher and a software developer, I think the greater priority of consistency should be clear. And when it comes down to an aesthetic gut check: I find an article with a left-aligned portrait stuck in the upper left corner and bumping the text around it... really ugly, even standing on its own. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break V

Comment: I cannot believe an RfC was started for this. I don't remember opposing left-alignment, as I supported it initially with Emmy Noether, when we were planning to use a different image of her. I think this has an importance factor of 0.000001%, so I'll just say that I like the "change the image" suggestion, but I'm also fine with leaving it left-aligned. Scartol • Tok 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • What a charmingly loaded question this RfC starts with! If my comment is requested on the question of whether the MoS should be interpreted in this or that way, then my comment is curt. ¶ However, I infer from other answers here that I'm instead expected to comment on positioning of this picture in this article. It's on the left. Our man faces the text. Nothing wrong with either. On balance the latter is actually desirable, although I do start to wonder whether the stylistic requirement that a head should look into the text is rather exaggerated. (Cf the never-explained fear among earnest novices of "widows" and "orphans" in [dead-tree] page layout.) A dispute over whether to prioritize head or eyeball direction would help elevate this RfC, already amusing, to high comedy; perhaps it will make it to WP:LAME. ¶ Left positioning makes a wonderfully refreshing change from the monotony of squillions of right-positioned pictures at the tops of bios, far too many of which pictures are in dreary, superfluous, and often plain misleading "infoboxes". (Above I'm reminded of this edit of mine; I'm rather proud of it.) Yes of course, leave the picture on the left. -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Align Right using common sense, it is perfectly clear in the MoS, and it looks completely ugly on the left. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If this is "completely ugly", I wonder how to describe this old page of B1FF's. Actually the Priestley page doesn't strike me as ugly at all, but de gustibus non est disputandum. Meanwhile, what has common sense got to do with this? -- Hoary (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If we can't reconcile tastes, then it doesn't make very much sense to use it as an argument! This is why this was framed as how to interpret MOS:IMAGE, not what looks best. Current supporters of left-alignment seem to privilege only taste rather than policy or precedent. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not just download this public domain image, "mirror" it (rotate it around its Y-axis) so that the image then faces to the right, and then align it on the right? That would seem to satisfy everyone's concerns. Esrever (klaT) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That would misrepresent both the image and the physiognomic facts (as far as we can ascertain them). And it would be boring. Plus somebody might attach a lame "infobox" to it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Although this is tangential to this particular RfC, I really don't understand the antagonism directed against infoboxes at all. Are we not as an encyclopedia fundamentally engaged in the practice of summarizing and standardizing information? Do infoboxes not accomplish this very purpose? While they shouldn't be required in inappropriate cases or otherwise fetishized, I am very much disheartened that editors would prefer to diminish the utility of an article for the sake of abstract aesthetics — then again, I am an engineer and scientist at heart. I just hate to see rhetoric and article ghettos singularly committed to the resistance against prevailing consensus simply for resistance's or aesthetic's sake. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Summarizing information, yes. But "standardizing information"? I don't even know what that means. If it means presentation in a standardized format, I don't see the advantage of this for most articles, but do see dangers in oversimplification and bizarre biases. -- Hoary (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
          • For things which are fairly standardized to begin with (say bridges) an infobox is fairly non-controversial. For people, especially a polymath like Priestley, no single box is sufficient. There are those who would argue he is a scientist, others a religious figure, others a philosopher or even an early political theorist. I know of at least one article where a very lengthy edit war started over the use of an infobox precisely because it was a poor fit in the opinion of several editors. Another problem is that you have to put one thing in the infobox - even with a bridge, there is an FA on a covered bridge with five different lengths published in five different reliable sources. Which one length should go in the infobox? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I suspect we can all agree he was a person at least? My point is, we have no way of pre-determining how readers will read a page nor what information they seek. This strange bias against infoboxes seems like a very possessive way of asserting that, "As an author, editor, and defender of this article, I want you to only be able to read this article in a way that I see fit!" Madcoverboy (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Actually, we should not use infoboxes precisely to avoid the bias you displayed in putting in the scientist infobox. Readers should read the article and make up their own minds. (Interesting fact, Priestley did not see himself as a scientist - he saw his scientific activities as a hobby.) Awadewit (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
                • I admit it was a mistake to use the Scientist infobox, but that shouldn't preclude one from summarizing information into the person infobox. Certainly someone who has accomplished so much merits some easily-digested summary. For example, I'm able to cram a lot of information into the infobox on Francis Amasa Walker using the general person template although this is still very much a work in progress. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support left lead pic alignment looks punk rock. perhaps the infobox can be moved to the left as well. basically, everyone should move left. Ameriquedialectics 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support First off, as a non-layout professional and a non-art specialist just looking at the picture, I intuitively think it's obvious that the "facing the text" guideline favours left alignment in this case—gaze notwithstanding. But the upper left corner certainly is not a good place for a lead image (I might be boring, but I don't believe that inconsistency in layout should be a goal in itself—that would rather defeat the idea of having an MOS in the first place). The easiest solution would of course be to choose another image, but I know that this one is very highly favoured, and I certainly understand that we can't discard an image simply because it creates layout conflicts. I also certainly don't like the idea of mirroring the image. So I'm leaning towards keeping the left alignment, but I had an idea (which may have been brought up and rejected before, but in case it has not): if the image is not in the upper right corner where the MOS dictates that lead images normally should be, then what says it has to be in the upper left corner? I think this lead looks immensely better, even entirely non-problematic, if the image, still left-aligned, is simply moved down to beside the next paragraph ("During his lifetime...")—so in that case, full support. The only problem is that I haven't seen what it would look like on a widescreen display, but even discounting the first paragraph the lead is hardly an unusually short one. If the image extending below the text would become a problem, it could probably also be combined with right-aligning the TOC (I like what Hoary's example above looked like, although I noticed that Template:TOC right says "Crossing a section division is probably a poor idea"). —JAO • T • C 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I take it from the wall of silence that I'm the only one who likes the look of this (I added it to the examples below) or thinks that it solves anything? —JAO • T • C 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Joseph Priestley isn't such a good example. If you place the image on the right, you can see the eyes look into the text, so it looks fine. But with a face that clearly looks to the right, the image should go on the left. The idea is that readers' eyes intuitively follow the eyes in a photograph; for the image's eyes to look toward the border, and not at the content, creates a jarring effect, which editors of magazines and newspapers are normally at pains to avoid (unless they're doing it on purpose). Ludwig Wittgenstein is a good example of how not to place an image. I can't think of a single reason that the lead image must invariably be in the upper right-hand corner, no matter the other aesthetic considerations. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per the arguments of Rreagan007, Anonymous Dissident, Durova, and Madcoverboy. My previous argument against the left-aligned image for this article can be read in the archive if necessary. Suffice it to say the image should not be left-aligned, so the best remaining option is to make it right-aligned. Regards, UBeR (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with lead images on the left where appropriate. It's not the biggest issue in the world, and it annoys me when driveby editors want to change the established design of a page. Where editors such as Awadewit (Joseph Priestley) and RelHistBuff (John Knox) have spent so much time writing high-class articles, in my opinion they have earned the discretion to apply the "facing in" convention to the lead picture. This is nothing to do with ownership, by the way, but to do with common politeness. qp10qp (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why call it ownership, control, or obedience when we have such nice euphemisms like politeness, discretion, and deference? Right o, I shall fall into line and never question the tastes of the FA cabal again! I think the reflexivity of the debate about a dissenting theologian (among other things) has now come full circle from Priestley-image-style-as-a-dissenter-from-hegemonic-standardization to Priestley-image-style-as-embodiment-of-elite-taste. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support left alignment. It's more pleasing on the left. I agree with those citing established practice in publishing. Anyone who has ever read a book on photography will have encountered similar advice: nine times out of ten, it's better to have the subject entering the frame than leaving it. On the left, he's just entered the room to greet you, on the right, he's on his way out.--MoreThings (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the left. At first I thought it didn't matter, but I was convinced when I moved an earlier version of the image for John Knox. It does make a great difference. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break VI

  • I know I'm a bit late to the game, but still: Oppose left alignment. First of all, the MoS commands right-side images in intros while only suggesting some aesthetic left-side images. Commands beat suggestions. Since that argument has clearly failed to sway much of the opposition, I'd also like to note that it just plain looks bad. When this page loads up, my eyes are automatically drawn to where the text starts. In the spot where it starts in any other Wikipedia article, Joseph Priestley gives me an eyeful of his ugly mug. I ignored what the text even said so I could come back here quick as could be and tell you how ugly left-side intro images look. Going back again, I see now that this guy was a scientist and philosopher of some repute. If only we had right-side "infocrates" or "infocubes" that could solve this whole debate... --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose left align per Durova and AnonDiss. Ironholds (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose left alignment per MOS. What's the point of having a MOS if we don't conform to it? Besides I don't see what's the point of trying to make it look like he's looking at the text... why not photoshop in a gag sign that says "I'm reading Wikipedia!" --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on lead image alignment: A picture is worth ...

Just so we all know what we are comparing, below is the lead of the article as it is followed by the lead with the image right-aligned. I suggest that further discussion of this RfC proceed below these examples. Finell (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Present, long-stable version (left-aligned)


Joseph Priestley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Priestley by Ellen Sharples (1794)[2]

Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an 18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150 works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[3]

During his lifetime, Priestley's considerable scientific reputation rested on his invention of soda water, his writings on electricity, and his discovery of several "airs" (gases), the most famous being what Priestley dubbed "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen). However, Priestley's determination to defend phlogiston theory and to reject what would become the Chemical Revolution eventually left him isolated within the scientific community.

Priestley's science was integral to his theology, and he consistently tried to fuse Enlightenment rationalism with Christian theism.[4] In his metaphysical texts, Priestley attempted to combine theism, materialism, and determinism, a project that has been called "audacious and original".[5] He believed that a proper understanding of the natural world would promote human progress and eventually bring about the Christian Millennium.[5] Priestley, who strongly believed in the free and open exchange of ideas, advocated toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters, which also led him to help found Unitarianism in England. The controversial nature of Priestley's publications combined with his outspoken support of the French Revolution aroused public and governmental suspicion; he was eventually forced to flee to the United States after a mob burned down his home and church in 1791.

A scholar and teacher throughout his life, Priestley also made significant contributions to pedagogy, including the publication of a seminal work on English grammar and the invention of modern historiography. These educational writings were some of Priestley's most popular works. It was his metaphysical works, however, that had the most lasting influence: leading philosophers including Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer credit them among the primary sources for utilitarianism.

Proposed revision (right-aligned)


Joseph Priestley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Priestley by Ellen Sharples (1794)[6]

Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an 18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150 works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[7]

During his lifetime, Priestley's considerable scientific reputation rested on his invention of soda water, his writings on electricity, and his discovery of several "airs" (gases), the most famous being what Priestley dubbed "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen). However, Priestley's determination to defend phlogiston theory and to reject what would become the Chemical Revolution eventually left him isolated within the scientific community.

Priestley's science was integral to his theology, and he consistently tried to fuse Enlightenment rationalism with Christian theism.[8] In his metaphysical texts, Priestley attempted to combine theism, materialism, and determinism, a project that has been called "audacious and original".[5] He believed that a proper understanding of the natural world would promote human progress and eventually bring about the Christian Millennium.[5] Priestley, who strongly believed in the free and open exchange of ideas, advocated toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters, which also led him to help found Unitarianism in England. The controversial nature of Priestley's publications combined with his outspoken support of the French Revolution aroused public and governmental suspicion; he was eventually forced to flee to the United States after a mob burned down his home and church in 1791.

A scholar and teacher throughout his life, Priestley also made significant contributions to pedagogy, including the publication of a seminal work on English grammar and the invention of modern historiography. These educational writings were some of Priestley's most popular works. It was his metaphysical works, however, that had the most lasting influence: leading philosophers including Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer credit them among the primary sources for utilitarianism.


The alternative proposal (left-aligned, further down)


Joseph Priestley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an 18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150 works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[9]

Priestley by Ellen Sharples (1794)[10]

During his lifetime, Priestley's considerable scientific reputation rested on his invention of soda water, his writings on electricity, and his discovery of several "airs" (gases), the most famous being what Priestley dubbed "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen). However, Priestley's determination to defend phlogiston theory and to reject what would become the Chemical Revolution eventually left him isolated within the scientific community.

Priestley's science was integral to his theology, and he consistently tried to fuse Enlightenment rationalism with Christian theism.[11] In his metaphysical texts, Priestley attempted to combine theism, materialism, and determinism, a project that has been called "audacious and original".[5] He believed that a proper understanding of the natural world would promote human progress and eventually bring about the Christian Millennium.[5] Priestley, who strongly believed in the free and open exchange of ideas, advocated toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters, which also led him to help found Unitarianism in England. The controversial nature of Priestley's publications combined with his outspoken support of the French Revolution aroused public and governmental suspicion; he was eventually forced to flee to the United States after a mob burned down his home and church in 1791.

A scholar and teacher throughout his life, Priestley also made significant contributions to pedagogy, including the publication of a seminal work on English grammar and the invention of modern historiography. These educational writings were some of Priestley's most popular works. It was his metaphysical works, however, that had the most lasting influence: leading philosophers including Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer credit them among the primary sources for utilitarianism.


RfC on lead image alignment (continued)

I prefer right aligned lede images, fullstop. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Compositionally, I would have no problem with centering the portrait horizontally and vertically on the lead. But that would be a radical departure from Wikipedia's normal layout. Finell (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But left-alignment in the lead is not a "radical departure from Wikipedia's normal layout"? Just checking! Madcoverboy (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the left-aligned image for this particular article and oppose the proposal to change the layout of the lead in Joseph Priestley. [NOTE: language in red added at request of Madcoverboy —Finell (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)]]

In my opinion, the question in the RfC is misstated. The real question is: What is the best layout for this article? Comparing the two lead layouts above, the one with the left-aligned portrait is much more attractive than the alternative.

For those who believe that, as a matter of interpretation, the MOS statement about beginning an article with a right-aligned infobox or image trumps the recommendation about how portraits should be aligned, the answer is that it is permissible to depart from the MOS, which is a guideline, when there is good reason to do so—and in this case aesthetics strongly favor left-aligning the Priestley portrait. For those who believe that the MOS does not prescribe the alignment because these two MOS guidelines are in conflict, aesthetics provides the basis for resolving the conflict. This is not a matter of WP:IAR; that is a straw man, or red herring.

But wikilawyering over MOS interpretation is really beside the point in this case. For people with some background in art or design, right-aligning this Priestley portrait looks awful. To me, it is a bit like the sound of fingernails scratching a chalk board. (The strongly right-facing, right-aligned portrait in the George Armstrong Custer lead, cited as an example above, looks even worse, in my opinion). To many other individuals, alignment toward or away from the page's edge makes no difference. Almost no-one believes that facing toward the page's edge looks better than the alternative. Madcoverboy never said that right-aligning this portrait looks better or contributes positively to the article, nor has anyone else; his sole point is based on a narrow and rigidity reading of the MOS. Likewise, the argument is not merely that there is is a very long standing consensus in favor of the present layout, but that the supporters of the consensus do so for a reason.

The MOS's guideline about aligning portraits grows from a basic proposition of page design, which in turn comes from composing figures (people) in drawing and painting. Normal composition is for figures to be generally oriented toward the compositional center of the work; the closer one gets to the edge of a painting, the more jarring (worse) it is for a figure to face the nearest edge. When a major figure in a painting is near the edge of the composition and is facing away, it is usually to signify that the person is alienated from the other people or to create a feeling of tension and unease. In photography, one is instructed not compose a shot so that people look like they "are running out of the frame"—unless the intention is to show that they are running away from the scene. This same principle carries into page composition in books and periodicals: if a picture of a person is aligned at one edge of the page or the other, the person should be facing toward the center rather than away; if the image is centered, it does not generally matter which way the figure faces, although the layout of other figures on the same page may affect this.

In this particular image, Priestley's body (a line through his shoulders) faces about about 60 degrees toward to the right of the composition (his left), his head or face (a line through his ears) is about 45 degrees right, and his eyes look straight forward. These angles (give or take a bit), whichever way they face, make for a harmonious, graduated composition. Priestley's black coat emphasizes, or strengthens, the body angle. This painting calls for left, or center, alignment.

Historically, the MOS-sticklers at the FA review promoted the article, although a couple of them questioned the left-alignment. However, the majority of the FA reviewers voted for FA without even commenting on the left-alignment, and the few who raised the question seemed satisfied by the reasons given for it. The discussion has followed the same path to the same conclusion on this talk page both before and after the FA promotion, and the consensus has thus far always favored the present alignment. Finell (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I would urge you to change your bolded comment to something "support current alignment" since your position is in line with the previous "supports" rather than "opposes" above.
Second, the question in the RfC itself makes no mention or WP:IAR, only how to interpret grounded policy because appeals to aesthetics and design are inherently subjective and get us no where since as Hoary stated above: "de gustibus non est disputandum". Thus, the rest of your argument about which layout better suits your tastes and preferences is moot and I have purposefully never tried to ground my argument in any assertion of whether alignment "looks better or contributes positively to the article" precisely because disagreements about matters of taste cannot be objectively resolved except by appeals to precedent and policy. Therefore, I don't take kindly to your characterization of my differing but wholly uncomplicated interpretation of MOS:IMAGE or my attempt to reach an actual consensus (or at a minimum, definitively demonstrate the lack of any consensus for left-alignment) as "wikilawyering" simply because you are opposed to it, or as some editors here seem to intone, that they are opposed to the policy simply for the sake of resistance. I request that you strike the aforementioned comment to demonstrate your good faith in this process of consensus-formation.
Third, you continue to mischaracterize the FAC process and decision as some sort of immutable and eternal stamp of approval on the layout. This is false because consensus can always change, especially in the 16 months since this article passed through FAC. Moreover, several editors at the discussion at the FAC explicitly stated that the FAC is not the forum to negotiate inconsistencies in MOS:IMAGE, indicated reluctance regarding the on-going left-align, but still supported given the other merits:
  • "In all fairness, and if this is indeed a make-or-break point for others, Priestley is facing right but looking outwards." User:Fvasconcellos
  • "Well, I personally Support anyway. I just personally think the image should be flipped and moved to the right." User:Wrad
  • "For the record, to make that single issue the make-or-break point on this article seems rather petty. As has already been pointed out by several others, the MOS is ambiguous on this one...To hold up this articles featured status over an issue that the MOS can't even agree with itself on seems unreasonable." User:Jayron32
The lack of discussion of this alignment by the rest of the commentators cannot be interpreted as an explicit endorsement (as you continually construe it) since silence is the weakest form of consensus. Please stop misleadingly appealing to FAC as the penultimate arbiter of MOS or that there was an explicit consensus to have it remain on the left when neither of these are the case.
Fourth, I would propose using the engraving (identified by User:Noiseisnotasolid) with a right-align in the lead as a compromise as the body would be oriented towards the text (despite the eyes potentially being oriented away), but as I indicated above, the cynic in me suspects that all the MOS:IMAGE naysayers will all of a sudden have a change of heart and will abandon the cause of "aesthetic IAR" to once again be guideline acolytes as they cite the eye/face guideline to still enshrine left-alignment simply for left-alignment's sake. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to using the far worse engraving listed above - it is not in color, it is a far lower resolution, it is an engraving of an earlier work. All in all, it is a poorer choice for a lead image. We should choose the best image for the lead image, which the current one is. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This black and white image conveys much less information to the reader about what Priestley looked like, which is a sufficient reason for using the current image in the lead. In addition, it does not have nearly the visual impact of the present image. We shouldn't choose an inferior image just to have a right-aligned image. Further, while I am normally an MOS-stickler (a large percentage of my edits overall are wikifying), the purpose of the MOS is to make Wikipedia's presentation better, not worse, and should be interpreted with that goal in mind. The left-aligned image complies with the guideline on placing images of people and makes the page look better—or, more precisely, right-aligning makes the page and the image look odd. Finell (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions from a non-contributor

Here are some comments and questions from an outsider who is eager to learn:

  1. It seems that a lot of the Wikipedia bios I call up have a right-facing picture on the right-hand side. Here are some examples: William Blake, Goethe, David Ricardo, J. D. Salinger, Franz Schubert, Isaac Newton, Joshua Reynolds, Ernest Hemingway, Jonathan Swift, Keats and Byron and Southey, George Meredith, Wilkie Collins, Edward de Vere. Is the placement incorrect in each of these cases?
  2. Given the fervor seen on this page, I wonder if the editors of the pages for the just-mentioned people will be easily persuaded to change what seems to them to be satisfactory image placement.
  3. There hasn't been much response to either the picture gallery shown above or to the accompanying observation about how so many good Wikipedia articles have right-facing pictures on the right side of the page. If the uppermost picture of Priestley is put on the left-hand side then will there need to be a Wikipedia-wide movement to switch all of those images in the above gallery as well, or will the Priestley photo's placement just be an outlier, coming across as an oddity?
  4. If a facing-the-text rule governs image placement then how does one handle pictures with more than one person? Holbein's Ambassadors or David's Lavoiser? I don't know enough about this to have an informed answer.
  5. Some Wikipedia editors do not write in English. How do writers in German, French, Spanish, etc. handle image placement?

Thank you for some interesting reading. - Minored (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

re

  • 1) See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. None of these are FAs I think. The cases vary - I would say Blake is ok because the body faces left & his gaze is up and right in a very Romantic way at, it is implied, some outside mystical vision. Goethe & Schubert are bad.
  • 3)There are many other left-placed lead images, and there are many that were placed left by the authors, but have been moved right. Part of this is about the ability of editors working on an article to decide such matters.
  • 4) Not all images have a strong alignment, but the issue can get complicated. There are other factors than the human figure. See here for a discussion touching on the issue. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When all else fails, read the directions

Since one of the main arguments against left alignment (besides variations of it's ugly / I don't like it) is that many other articles right-align left-facing lead images, I thought I would rererad the Manual of Style. Right at the top it has something I find very relevant to this RfC:

An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article.

and

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

I also find it interesting that we we have at least one single purpose account commenting on this (User:Noiseisnotasolid). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Very relevant finds; I hope that you are not now subjected to accusations of "Wikilaywering" because we're suddenly debating guidelines and policy! I agree that both sides of the debate absolutely need to move beyond "It's ugly and I don't like it" as I have repeatedly stated above.
I don't believe anyone is disputing that images should never be aligned on the left, only that images in the lead should never be on the left. As there is only one lead image, there isn't a great deal of consistency within the article to enforce, thus I believe the first point is generally moot. It's easy to imagine a painful line of wikilawyering arguments about interpreting the phrase "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole", but I don't believe either side would or should want to go down that path.
To the second point of "stability", I would interpret that as one shouldn't edit war over Oxford commas, British spelling, etc. which are optional styles often contingent upon cultural context and history. The dispute here centers on a much-acknowledged inconsistency within MOS:IMAGE, rather than competing styles. Some would prefer to privilege one interpretation of the MOS:IMAGE policy over another, others the opposite. The point of this RfC was to see if any consensus existed about which guideline should prevail with the Priestley article merely as a test case. I likewise find the deference recommendation somewhat surprising given its connotations of ownership, but I understand its spirit. Nevertheless, as AD argues aboves, the stability and consensus to have this image on the left has been repeatedly contested by a non-trivial number of established editors over 2 years which certainly says something. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious, but I will spell out why I quoted the first two passages in the MOS. The first point says to look at consistency within an article, not necessarily between articles (as I have said all along).
For the second point, it is important to remember that the MOS is a guideline. There is no requirement that an article have an infobox. There is also no requirement that an article have an image (as has been brought up at FAC). Thus there are at least two notable exceptions to the first point cited in this RfC, "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox." The MOS allowing the left alignment of the lead photo is another exception, which is why I quoted the second point: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style. To spell it out, the left aligned lead image is one guideline-defined style and the right aligned lead image is another. I have not seen "a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style" raised here. What happens then: Don't change the existing style. Furthermore where there is disagreement, "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" which here is Awadewit. Case closed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I say this half in jest only to point out the ridiculous implications of ownership this implies, but the style first used by Awadewit was an infobox. So Awadewit, it's totally and completely up to you since you've done the most here—no one else should ever have a voice again in this article. Is this how we want to do things? Seems like a very dangerous precedent. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is from the MOS and I believe the main purpose is to avoid edit wars - say you started an article and got about 2/3 done. Then another editor came along and worked on it. Suppose you used inline citations and American English, but the new editor used parenthetical refs and Britsh English. Instead of arguing or having to spend a lot of time converting the 2/3 you already did to the different style, the MOS says the article was established this way and should continue in the style already established. Here although various things were tried early on (infobox or not, right or left aligned lead image) the long established style choices hold now (as I see it). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Flipping the image and moving it to the right

I have proposed this before and I know that there are image purists that are very opposed to the idea. But flipping an image is permissible if it is noted in the image caption. The response has always been that flipping an image should only happen if there is a good reason, and this is not a good enough reason. My question is, if this situation is not a good enough reason, then what other situations would be a good enough reason to flip an image? This situation is the best reason I can think of to flip an image. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support this as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Reversing a person's portrait is not justifiable because it is not an accurate representation of what the subject looked like. Neither faces nor bodies have perfect bilateral symmetry. An explanatory caption doesn't cure this. Finell (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
And I suppose painted portraits have never been embellished or less-than-accurately rendered? Are paintings always accurate representations of what the subject looked like? This realist argument would be defensible rationale for a photograph perhaps, it carries considerably less water as a painting mediated by artistic "interpretation." Madcoverboy (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A simple mirror image is a very accurate representation of what a person looks like. If you look at both images side by side, it looks like the same person to me. Is it 100% accurate, no, but then again neither is a painted portrait, as a human artist can not recreate an image of a person perfectly. But it's close enough to get an idea of what the person looked like, and that's the purpose of the image.
I reject flipping the image on the grounds that it misrepresents the art work. There is simply no reason to flip the image and misrepresent the art work so dramatically when there is such a simpler solution - move the image. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, I thought you were against moving the image? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I am. There is no reason to flip the image when we can just place it on the left - a much simpler solution that does not misrepresent the painting. Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't let's do this. It's a very sloppy practice (unless, as sometimes happens, showing a old print that is itself a sloppy reversal of another portrait). Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Test

Priestley by Ellen Sharples (1794)[12] The image has been rotated. See original.

Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an 18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150 works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[13]

During his lifetime, Priestley's considerable scientific reputation rested on his invention of soda water, his writings on electricity, and his discovery of several "airs" (gases), the most famous being what Priestley dubbed "dephlogisticated air" (oxygen). However, Priestley's determination to defend phlogiston theory and to reject what would become the Chemical Revolution eventually left him isolated within the scientific community.

Priestley's science was integral to his theology, and he consistently tried to fuse Enlightenment rationalism with Christian theism.[14] In his metaphysical texts, Priestley attempted to combine theism, materialism, and determinism, a project that has been called "audacious and original".[5] He believed that a proper understanding of the natural world would promote human progress and eventually bring about the Christian Millennium.[5] Priestley, who strongly believed in the free and open exchange of ideas, advocated toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters, which also led him to help found Unitarianism in England. The controversial nature of Priestley's publications combined with his outspoken support of the French Revolution aroused public and governmental suspicion; he was eventually forced to flee to the United States after a mob burned down his home and church in 1791.

A scholar and teacher throughout his life, Priestley also made significant contributions to pedagogy, including the publication of a seminal work on English grammar and the invention of modern historiography. These educational writings were some of Priestley's most popular works. It was his metaphysical works, however, that had the most lasting influence: leading philosophers including Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer credit them among the primary sources for utilitarianism.


Why, o why

I think the aggressivness and persistance over such a small matter displayed by Madcoverboy‎ here is a good example why many talented editors are giving up on the project in disgust at the pettiness of it all. 17 Admins? Good grief. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add this entire discussion to WP:LAME myself. :) We have to be able to laugh at ourselves. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I dont want to throw petrol over a damp and pointless fire, buT. The lead Lucy pic makes more sence, and looks better, left aligned.[21] I suppose if it comes to an argument worthy of RfC, we can just cut and past from above the reasons why this makes sence. Over and over and over again. If I was you, I de-watch the page for a day or two, let them have thier drama, come back when they have moved on to the next outrage. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm smiling now! (I do try to comment just once or twice a day, ya know. Did you see the thread about this over at WR? That's when you know you should stop!) Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
So much I could say, but I'm just too nice, he he! Yeah, I saw the thread; but all this is navel gazing to the n'th degree. Grin and bear, have a listen to this; all this stuff usually passes quick enough. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I heartily second adding this to WP:LAME. One of my good friends who attempted to become involved with Wikipedia characterized it as a "black hole of the pedantic". But at least we're all building and contributing to something truly historic rather than pointlessly flaming away on Usenet or slaying dwarves on WoW. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Madcoverboy. Your lack of self awarness is truly amazing! But whatever, if you think obsessive bullying tactics are best; you go boy. If it works for you! If thats what your in to. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your personal attacks in what has been an otherwise good faith, nay even light-hearted, debate. I'll proceed to ignore your taunts, jibes, and implication that one should simply ignore this whole process and hope it passes quickly enough. Cheerio! Madcoverboy (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
self awarness? If you think you are conducting this as a light hearted jaunt, then well, I'm sorry, you have no idea what is going on. Your behaviour is appalling. This whole episode is a fine example of what is wrong with the project, and is an embarrassment. By the way, Im not implication, I'm saying. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Values

My preferences are not very strong, although this article, and some others, would look better if the extensive dead space at the top was reduced. The arguments appearing on this page seem to come down to what has the highest priority in one's system of values. Here are some candidates mentioned to help decide left vs. right alignment: aesthetics (varies from person to person), practice among art-book designers, current common (but not universal) Wikipedia practice, preferences of those who have invested much time on this article, desire of some web-experienced people for a consistent web page layout, Wikipedia style manual (apparently open to interpretation), faithfulness to original image (to flip or not to flip), and seniority ("the first major contributor"). -- See you at the Priestley house! Astrochemist (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And to think we had nothing else better to do than negotiating all of these at once! All in a hard day's work :) Madcoverboy (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The following compromises appear to have all been implicitly or explicitly rejected by the "left-aligners":
  • Right-align with no infobox
  • Right-align with rotated image to preserve text-facing gaze
  • Right-align with a different image to preserve text-facing gaze
I welcome any of their suggestions towards building a consensus or compromise because it seems the evidence might suggest they are simply opposed to any right-alignment. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Astrochemist sums up the problems well - we are operating on different value systems here. The "compromises" you provide are not predicated upon ours, so, of course, we reject them. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Which raises the question which, in retrospect, should have been asked at the outset: are you willing to make any compromises to address the concerns raised above? Madcoverboy (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Order of my preference: 1) Left-align current image (the best portrait we have); 2) Right-align current image (the best portrait we have); 3) Right-align a different image. I don't consider rotating the image an option, since there are so many other options. We don't need to alter images. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

About moving the image down

Since nobody still has commented on my alternative proposal above (keeping the image left-aligned but moving it down a notch), I thought I'd be more explicit on how I'm thinking on this. As I see it, left-alignment of a lead image poses three possible problems (each editor will see problems in any personal subset, perhaps even an empty one, of these):

  1. The image is not where it usually is, creating Wikipedia-wide inconsistency. I think there has been too much focus on this one. Sure, consistency is good and if there had been no reason to left-align the image, that would have been a very good reason to right-align it. But as pointed out above, Wikipedia-wide consistency is a weak point in comparison to making an individual article look good. So let's not focus on that one. I can't imagine that anyone will have problems looking at the image because it's in an unusual place. Therefore, this should not be about the image at all, but about what it does to the text, namely the following two things:
  2. The text wraps around the image, making the lines start in different places. Now, I do see this as a little problem for readability. But that applies everywhere, not just in the lead. Sure enough, if I were the sole author of the MOS, I would prescribe that all images be right-aligned unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise. (There are several such reasons: apart from making a portrait face the text, there's also alternating images that would otherwise stack up. Probably others too.) But that point is moot here, because there is good reason to left-align it. I can't see how the lead is damaged more by this wrapping than any other section. Which leaves only the last point:
  3. The text does not start in the upper left corner. For me, this is the one point that makes left-alignment really problematic. I expect the text to begin there and find it unnatural that it doesn't. But that can be easily solved without right-aligning the image.

Hence, for my personal experience, where 1 and 2 don't matter much but 3 does, my alternative proposal would sell me entirely on left-alignment. It would be interesting to a) hear from the more vehement right-aligners if their personal experience varies; and b) hear if anyone has found a problem that moving the image down creates. Otherwise, I still think (although I'm starting to feel very alone on this) that this would be the best solution. —JAO • T • C 09:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that two unusual things (left alignment and lead image not at the very top of the article) would be seen as more objectionable by most editors. The other problem I see is that on some monitors there is already excessive white space at the bottom of the article because the image extends below the text and the left aligned TOC starts below the image - moving the image down would only exacerbate this (although if the TOC were right aligned this would be less of a problem). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I suggested it could be combined with a right-aligned TOC, of course. But you have a point in that the article will then probably be seen as even more non-standard. —JAO • T • C 13:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilove

A serious restoration (nearly 20 hours' labor).

Rather than continue a quarrel that's really ripe for candidacy at WP:LAME suggested illustration, decided to do something useful and restored a high resolution caricature of Joseph Priestley (at right}. Would be glad to use it (the latter) at this article if other editors want it. It's also encyclopedic at other places, so would be fine either way. Best, DurovaCharge! 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As an amazing coincidence, it appears that the John Calvin article (which has a left-aligned lead image) has a today's featured article request for July 10. It will be interesting to see how many times someone tries to move the lead image over the day it's on the main page. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The FA cabal in their perfect aesthetic knowledge will surely revert the usurpers of consensus so that politeness and deference will reign once again. The barbarians of right-alignment must be repelled in the name of text-facing orientation above all else! God save good taste from the plebeian onslaught! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Am, did you mean to have a point here, madman, or was that just invective. Either way, you amuse me; I love following you contibs as you are so consistenly wrong headed. You should have a HBO show! Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, right. So does anyone want to use this 20 hour restoration job within the article perhaps? DurovaCharge! 22:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to the Joseph Priestley and Dissent article. The appropriate section for this image in Joseph Priestley is "Defender of Dissenters and French Revolutionaries", which discusses the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts. Currently, it has a cartoon of Priestley trampling the Bible. That is a wonderful, evocative image, so I hate to remove it. I've added the cartoon you restored along with a caption. There's some text sandwiching. Are we prepared to let that slide to have two cartoons in this section, which actually does mention all of the cartoons published against Priestley in the article itself? Awadewit (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More wikilove

This wonderful message was left on my talk page today:

Dear Awadewit,

I would like first and foremost to thank you for your articles regarding Joseph Priestley. I recently translated and adapted some of them in french. Joseph Priestley House is now a FA on the french Wikipedia and Jospeh Priestley is proposed today as FA. If it may be of some interest to you, the "Featured article candidate pages" in french are Discussion:Joseph Priestley House/Article de qualité and Discussion:Joseph Priestley/Article de qualité. Should you have any questions, about this or any other matter, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully. Giovanni-P (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The wiki at work. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a nice color, text-facing, right-alignment image there: [22] Any takers? Madcoverboy (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
We've already covered this issue above - please don't drag the RfC into other areas. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I've located a reliable source for that image at somewhat higher resolution: about 350K if memory serves. If people are interested would be glad to upload. DurovaCharge! 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That would expand our options for high-quality images. Thanks, Durova! I know you are busy, so whenever you get a chance, that would be wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Major options

In an attempt to try and wrap this up, please indicate your preferences (highest preference = 1, lowest = 7).

A) Left align Sharples image - File:Priestley.jpg (1,058 × 1,400 pixels, 323 Kb, color)

B) Right align Sharples image - File:Priestley.jpg (1,058 × 1,400 pixels, 323 Kb, color)

C) Right align and flip Sharples image - File:Priestley-flipped.jpg (1,058 × 1,400 pixels, 323 Kb, color)

D) Right align Holloway/Artaud image - File:JPriestley Portrait.jpg (397 × 554 pixels, 89 KB, grayscale)

E) Right align Humphrey image - File:Joseph Priestley by Ozias Humphrey.jpg (300 × 389 pixels, 67 KB, color)

F) Left align Sharples image with {{TOC right}} - File:Priestley.jpg (1,058 × 1,400 pixels, 323 Kb, color) - see diff

G) Left align Sharples image, but nudge down slightly into the text - File:Priestley.jpg (1,058 × 1,400 pixels, 323 Kb, color) - see Talk:Joseph Priestley#Joseph Priestley 3

If I forgot an option, please add it. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was typing a similar list at the very moment you posted yours. I would only add these that have been suggested:
[removed and added to list above] Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll post and revert suggestion (F). Astrochemist (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
MCB, please indicate the order of your preferences, using the numbering system indicated above. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yah, I just caught that note after I hit the submit button. I'm going to forgo ranking any of the left-align options for obvious reasons. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I would not support flipping an image under any circumstances. I very much prefer the Sharples image and think it much superior to either of the alternatives proposed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. You can't flip images of people under any circumstance. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If that's really an absolute rule, shouldn't it be written down somewhere official? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The people who believe it was given to them on stone tablets don't need anything of the sort, plus it'd be too much hassle getting a consensus behind it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what stone tablets you're talking about, but it should be written somewhere, yes, because people are not symmetrical, paintings are drawn a certain way, and so forth. Find me a single art book in the world that has Guernica flipped. Well, Jay, is it really important not to flip an image? It's not Picasso. Is it really important not to manipulate the color of the clothing? Is it really important not to photoshop the pyramids into the background? Of course it's not really important in the grand scheme of the universe. That's a lousy reason to muck up an encyclopedia. An image facing off a page is a trivial transgression compared to flipping a piece of art which is itself trivial compared to, you know, the situation in Iran and anything that might be written on stone tablets. Let's not lose sight of the prize here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A better way to make what should be an obvious point is to compare flipping a painting with flipping photos. No one in their right mind would flip a photo of the Statue of Liberty, the Daibutsu of Nara, the Venus de Milo, etc. and call it acceptable. Does one really need written rules or stone tablets to state the obvious? --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Unwritten "obvious" rules are almost always a bad idea in my opinion, as what is "obvious" to one person is often not obvious to everyone. Would it be difficult to get this put somewhere official such as Wikipedia:Images? It probably would be difficult, but not impossible. And just because something is difficult does not mean you shouldn't try. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


!vote tallying

There doesn't seem to be much consensus so far. Maybe we should have added "Option H: No lead image for the article". - Astrochemist (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So, how are we going to decide now? I've crossed out two that obviously don't have enough support. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Usually if there is no consensus, the result is to maintain the status quo. I also noted above in the MOS something which seems to say the same thing: Stability of articles
"The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've gone through and run the basic descriptive statistics for A, B, E, F, G. (!vote count, mean, median, mode, P-value compared to A)
  • A: 12, 2.42, 1.5, 1, n/a
  • B: 18, 2.72, 2, 1, .56
  • E: 11, 3.09, 3, 3, .32
  • F: 7, 2.71, 2, 2, .60
  • G: 10, 2.70, 2.5, 2, .79
None of the means were significantly (p<.05) different from A (the current consensus), so for whatever these !votes are worth, any differences in average scores can only be attributed to statistical noise from this small sample. This is all a fun statistical exercise to quantify what I'm sure we've all already surmised -- there is no consensus on lead image alignment.
Ruhrfisch made an earlier argument under Talk:Joseph Priestley#When all else fails, read the directions that left-alignment is the established style choice and should hold however, the root of this dispute (in my eye) concerns the much-acknowledged ambiguity of MOS:IMAGE over what should prevail, the history of this dispute (see arguments from Anonymous Dissident under AB I), and apparent lack of consensus even now all suggest that mediation may be in order. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was reviewing the FAC for John Calvin and I see that some of the participants in this debate supporting left-alignment have used this FA as a precedent to argue for their particular interpretation of MOS, again over the objections of reviewers at FAC. This seems to be further evidence that rather than sweeping this under the rug, the issue of lead image alignment needs to be definitively resolved rather than steamrolled. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not willing to take this to mediation - we've both agreed above that this is, ultimately, a minor point. If we are willing to enter it at WP:LAME, we should not waste mediation time with it. The fact is that the MOS allows for leeway on the issue and allows editors to make choices. No set of editors is going to agree unanimously about that choice. If you think editors should not be allowed to make choices regarding lead image placement (a larger issue), perhaps we should start a discussion at the MOS. Awadewit (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Assuming the MoS allows the option of a left-aligned lead image, the image should stay where it is as there is clearly no consensus for a change. However, I am still unconvinced that the MoS allows for this. A larger discussion on this should take place so we can conclusively say that the MoS does or does not allow the option of a left-aligned lead image. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to minor things, Wikipedia allows many options - after all one of the Five pillars is Ignore all rules, or as the five pillars page says for IAR: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here." Just as an article on a river can use either {{Infobox river}} or {{Geobox}} river or no infobox at all, or any article can use one of several different citation styles, or lots of other examples where several different choices are allowed, Wikipedia is not a "one solution fits all" project. This is the free encyclopedia after all, and I think that part of that freedom is being able to have a layout that does not look like most other articles, as long as the article is well sourced and neutral and well written (which this certainly is). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm slightly miffed on several points. (1) My (self-deprecating) comments about the substantive frivolity of this issue and its inherent lameness are now being wielded as a cudgel against my good-faith attempts to get to the bottom an issue on which there is obvious discord and lack of consensus. The lameness of the issue does not diminish the intensity of the disagreement nor should it disqualify it from dispute-resolution. That being said, no one can be compelled to mediate so I suppose I'll grin and bear this newfound stubbornness. (2) In the earlier discussion on which forum to hold this RfC, I repeatedly argued that MoS is the most appropriate but relented to other editors' claims that "the RfC (if there is one) should take place here, since the discussion is only about this article" and "The controlling factor is what is best for this particular page." That discussion having now appeared to conclude, I am faced with the bait-and-switch response of "well you should have done it at MoS all along". The responses I write are not meant to be partisan screeds to be automatically rejected or opposed out-of-hand but good-faith attempts at building consensus on basic issues. I would appreciate more attention in the future. (3) I do not accept Ruhrfisch's implication that even if this article's style is out-of-line with the any potential consensus reached at MoS about lead image alignment, editors may still be justified in appealing to IAR simply to have freedom to "not look like most other articles." This isn't a difference over what Infobox to use, but whether featured and other prominent articles need to hew at all to a common style which is clearly stated as a featured article criteria (2: "It follows the style guidelines"). Madcoverboy (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have stated my opinions on this matter on this talk page several times. I have tried to help work out a consensus. Unfortunately, that did not happen. As this discussion seems to be continuing beyond the RfC and/or going elsewhere, I am going to disengage at this point. I simply don't have any more time to dedicate to this particular issue. Thanks to everyone who participated here and have fun! Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lunarsoc comments

I'm interested in the members of the Lunar Society. The pictures at the top of their Wikipedia articles are on the right hand side of the page, with the exception of Joseph Priestley. Shouldn't Wikipedia be logically and graphically consistent with the Priestley article? I read the discussion above and see that which way the person faces is important. The shoulders of both Priestley and Boulton are turned to my right, so why is Boulton's painting on the right side of his page and Priestley's on the left? I see that you wrote part of the Boulton page and lots of Priestley's. Is there a reason for the inconsistency in picture placement? I'm confused. 66.205.171.79 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If you've read all this page, you've seen the arguments pro and con. There is no consensus to move the image as you did, hence my revert. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I would prefer specific and straighforward answers in plain English to my two questions. The arguments on this page show that there is absolutley no agreement on having the first image on the left side (unconventional) as opposed to the right side (conventional). I'm still confused. 66.205.171.79 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no agreement either way and when an RfC ends with "no consensus", the page remains where it started, in this case with the image left-aligned. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that still doesn't answer either of my two questions. Also, I just now added a book to the article on "List of works by Joseph Priestley" and saw that the top picture there is similar in orientation to the one on Joseph Priestly's page, but it's on the right side there and on the left here. Still confused as to how anyone can argue for a different placement there (and with Matthew Bolton). Lunarsoc (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
One might imagine there being editors being singularly committed to left-alignment for the sake of left-alignment simply to rationalize the amount of time and effort invested in reverting other editors' attempts to impose a modicum of standardization as you exhaustively note. I too initially had to deal with this unexpectedly intense opposition, but it appears to boil down to either this article is allowed to ignore all rules or a minority's interpretation of MOS:IMAGE is allowed to prevail because they have edited the article more than anyone else (even if they claim they don't own the article). You're welcome to read the tortured discussion above, but it appears that in the minds of the well-connected powers-that-be the image shall never move. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I copied the gallery shown higher up on this page and inserted some pictures of Lunar Society members. Only the last member, Joseph Priestley, isn't shown on the righthand side of his page. Lunarsoc (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A gallery of pictures from other articles. Lunarsoc (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No one has yet answered my two questions. Also posted on this same page page is an unanswered question about non-English Wikipedias, and so here are the first images of Joseph Priestley at the ten languages listed on http://www.wikipedia.org/. Only the English language's version doesn't have the first picture on the right side of the page. Lunarsoc (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Japanese Wikipedia right aligned
    Japanese Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • Spanish Wikipedia right aligned
    Spanish Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • Polish Wikipedia right aligned
    Polish Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • Portuguese Wikipedia right aligned
    Portuguese Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • Dutch Wikipedia right aligned
    Dutch Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • Russian Wikipedia right aligned
    Russian Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • Italian Wikipedia right aligned
    Italian Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • French Wikipedia right aligned
    French Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • German Wikipedia right aligned
    German Wikipedia
    right aligned
  • English Wikipedia left aligned
    English Wikipedia
    left aligned

Dear Lunarsoc, we have just finished a long and tiring discussion and RfC on this question which lays out all the arguments pro and con. You claim to have read all this, so I do not understand your questions (since I assume you have read the answers to them above). Very briefly: 1) Priestley's body and face look to the right, so layout convention is that the figure should face the text to draw the reader's eyes into the page (and not away from it). 2) The Manual of Style allows left alignment of images. 3) The RfC had no consensus to change the layout, so it stays as is. 4) There is no requirement that articles look like each other and especially none that English Wkipedia articles conformto other language artickes. I am done with this topic, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Another image

It only took me a year, but I finally tracked down an image of Priestley's pneumatic equipment. I just now added it to the article and removed the picture of Hale's trough I posted about 1 year ago. I have no idea whether the pneumatic trough is facing right or facing left, so I aligned it on the right-hand side. - Astrochemist (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Awadewit (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

New fact that needs a source

"In June 2009, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, renamed its chemistry and biochemistry building the Joseph Priestley Building; before this, the building was named after Walter Besant. " - This was added to the article. I looked on Google for a source really quickly, but didn't see anything. Let's find a source before we add it to the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked around a bit more now. This is a very obscure piece of news. It doesn't seem to have been reported anywhere that I can find. I think it is best to leave it out. Awadewit (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The college is now called Queen Mary, University of London although, according to the Wikipedia article, the name on its charter is still Queen Mary and Westfield College. According to the minutes of a meeting of the Council of Queen Mary, University of London, on 8 July 2008 (p. 9), the Council renamed the Walter Besant Building as the Joseph Priestley Building, effective 1 September 2009.[23] A map of the college's Mile End Campus shows already the Joseph Priestley Building as one of two buildings occupied by the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences.[24] Directories of the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences show personnel with offices at the Joseph Priestley Building.[25][26][27] Finell (Talk) 08:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw those. I just don't think they justify including that piece of information in the article. The first source are the minutes from a meeting. The other ones are from the college's website verifying the building is called that. There are no news announcements of this change or anything, as I said. Compared to other things we have in the paragraph, I don't think this is important enough to include. Your thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who hung the {{Fact}} tag when an anon added the fact. I was responding solely to your statement (as I understood it) that you were removing the fact until an adequate source was found. These are sufficient sources for verification. As to whether the fact should be in the article, in my opinion Queen Mary college naming a building after Joseph Priestley is not a significant honor or significant part of his "legacy", given Priestley's position in history. In my view, the renaming of the building would not be a more significant honor if it were reported in three newspapers. Personally, though, I try to accept contributions from anons and new accounts in marginal cases, even if it is something that I would not personally choose to add to an article; I would draw the line somewhere before, say, a chemistry professor named his cat Joseph Priestley. It this case, it is not an important addition to the article, but the fact could be added with the sources without offending policy. If it were my decision, I would restore the fact that the anon added, cited to the sources we found. It is a wiki. Finell (Talk) 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Dictionary of Minor Planet Names" 5th edition p.474 by Lutz D.Schmadel published by Springer
  2. ^ McLachlan (1983), 28–30.
  3. ^ Kuhn, 53–60; Schofield (2004), 112–13. The difficulty in precisely defining the time and place of the "discovery" of oxygen, within the context of the developing Chemical Revolution, is one of Thomas Kuhn's central illustrations of the gradual nature of paradigm shifts in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
  4. ^ Tapper, 10.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Tapper, 314.
  6. ^ McLachlan (1983), 28–30.
  7. ^ Kuhn, 53–60; Schofield (2004), 112–13. The difficulty in precisely defining the time and place of the "discovery" of oxygen, within the context of the developing Chemical Revolution, is one of Thomas Kuhn's central illustrations of the gradual nature of paradigm shifts in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
  8. ^ Tapper, 10.
  9. ^ Kuhn, 53–60; Schofield (2004), 112–13. The difficulty in precisely defining the time and place of the "discovery" of oxygen, within the context of the developing Chemical Revolution, is one of Thomas Kuhn's central illustrations of the gradual nature of paradigm shifts in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
  10. ^ McLachlan (1983), 28–30.
  11. ^ Tapper, 10.
  12. ^ McLachlan (1983), 28–30.
  13. ^ Kuhn, 53–60; Schofield (2004), 112–13. The difficulty in precisely defining the time and place of the "discovery" of oxygen, within the context of the developing Chemical Revolution, is one of Thomas Kuhn's central illustrations of the gradual nature of paradigm shifts in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
  14. ^ Tapper, 10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Priestley/Archive_6&oldid=1253580767"