Talk:Joseph Priestley

Template:Maintained

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)

• Yes, that works. As I told Astrochemist, I was going to go to the library and check in a biography, but why choke on the dust in the stacks, eh? Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• OK< I'll let you add it to this article. Have a good Thanksgiving! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I look forward to that picture! :) Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like Astrochemist beat me to it. Awadewit (talk) 06:14, 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." - 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)
        • The following editors have also previously moved the image to the right citing precedent and MOS:IMAGE: User:DubaiTerminator [1], User:GateKeeperX [2], User:El C [3], User:Anonymous Dissident [4], User:Icairns [5], User:Ben Tillman [6], User:Drufin [7], User:Premeditated Chaos [8], and User:Pigsonthewing (predates right alignment). I guess that makes 19 !votes now. Incidentally, Awadewit appears to have had a change of heart regarding infoboxes! :) This is in addition to LonelyMarble [9], IronHolds [10] mentioned above already. Incidentally, the image alignment problem seems to have originated with this revision by User:Hoary. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • We cannot count "!votes" in this way. As you point out, people can change their minds over time. I changed my mind regarding the usefulness of infoboxes. Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 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)

• I'm going to go ahead and post the RfC here (as a token of good faith) and post notice at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as well as on all of the previously-involved editors' talk pages. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:57, 18 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)

• Amen to that. For what it is worth, we got the House article on the Main Page to try and raise interest / awareness of the closure. I have written the folks in charge and contributed to the House. Pennsylvania is talking about closing 35 state parks, cutting ALL state funding to public radio and tv, slashing state aid to libraries, and even with all these cuts they still say they need to raise the state income tax. I fear the Priestley House will close. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• PS Isn't there a way to force the TOC to be on the right? Would that help the white space issue? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • {{TOC right}} does the trick, but it might fuss up image layout. Not that this article has any disputed image layout issues :) See Technological and industrial history of the United States. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:12, 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, 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:

• Users whom have dissented from the "consensus" at FAC or on Talk: User:Ironholds, User:Rreagan007, User:LonelyMarble, User:UBeR, User:Tagishsimon, User:Scartol, User:Medvedenko, User:Wrad, User:SandyGeorgia
• Diffs of right-aligning being reverted with dissenting editor name: User:DubaiTerminator [11], User:GateKeeperX [12], User:El C [13], User:Anonymous Dissident [14], User:Icairns [15], User:Ben Tillman [16], User:Drufin [17], User:Premeditated Chaos [18], User:LonelyMarble [19], and User:Ironholds [20].
• Previous discussions at Talk:MOS: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_108#Clarification_regarding_images, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive 98#Break out image usage?

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)

• Might you add John Knox and John Calvin to the list of biographies with left-aligned images? Who knows how many more there are? Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break I

• Fixed. Not a serious issue. Durova^Charge! 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've undone your edit to the previous consensus that this RfC is attempting to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Yes, I agree. Adminship or bureaucratship shouldn't come into this. The figure of '17' is to be given consideration, though. It's not one or two people disagreeing – it's 17. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing that. Although I was kind of proud of my Obama joke and now I'm striking it :P Wrad (talk) 03:33, 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 Dissident^Talk 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 for one would not consider the alignment of the image critical in any respect. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:02, 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 Dissident^Talk 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)

• You know we don't. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Funny thing is, I only swung by to use the article as a template for another Renaissance man Francis Amasa Walker. I should totally be writing that article instead. :( Madcoverboy (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• So, go write. :) That's what I'm trying to do. Trying to find sources for Taeko Kono. Want to help? Awadewit (talk) 04:52, 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):

• 
  Frédéric Chopin: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Walt Whitman: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Michele Merkin: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Lillian Gish: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Josh Blue: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Woody Guthrie: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Babe Ruth: lead image, right aligned
• 
  William Tecumseh Sherman: lead image, right aligned
• 
  George Armstrong Custer: lead image, right aligned
• 
  George Atzerodt: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Golda Meir: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Ulysses S. Grant: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Malcolm X: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Mary of Teck: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Elizabeth I of England: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Thomas More: lead image, right aligned
• 
  Louis Brandeis: lead image, right aligned

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, Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. ;) Durova^Charge! 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)

• But people conscious of aesthetics will be, so shouldn't we take that into account as well? Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 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)

• That makes sense. Well, you've sold me. I don't think the left-aligned image is a problem. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 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)

• On my monitor there is tons of text there - I have no white space. Just goes to show that none of these layouts are ever perfect. Awadewit (talk) 04:50, 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 Dissident^Talk 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)

• The MoS mentions the face and eyes: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:55, 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 Dissident^Talk 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 Dissident^Talk 05:07, 18 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)
• Support left lead pic alignment looks punk rock. perhaps the infobox can be moved to the left as well. basically, everyone should move left. Amerique^dialectics 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Even punk rock has sold out to the infobox and right-aligned machine :) Madcoverboy (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You are right! How tragic. The editors of Iggy Pop (who somewhat resembles Joe Priestly) should take notes from the formatting of this article. Amerique^dialectics 16:50, 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)
• 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)