Talk:Joseph Johnson (publisher)/Archive 1

Plea for help
If anyone would like to team up on this article, please let me know. I have already listed the one major Johnson biography on the page. I can also provide an assortment of other sources as we go. Awadewit

Wollstonecraft
It might be prudent to qualify (use weasel words!) the number of Wollstonecraft's contributions to the Analytical Review. All of her contributions were anonymous, so it is not exactly clear what she wrote - there is dispute. Mitzi Myers' "Sensibility and the 'Walk of Reason'" (see Bibliography on Mary Wollstonecraft) has an excellent footnote discussing the issues. Awadewit Talk 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture
I don't suppose we can grab that picture from the DNB? I couldn't find another copy. Awadewit Talk 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not sure of what's proper here. A portrait that is 200 years old should legally be in the public domain, although the National Portrait Gallery claims to own the rights to this photograph.  Perhaps one might upload the DNB version here to Wikipedia with a fair-use justification?  It might be an acceptable compromise between "no image" and our asserting that the portrait is in the public domain.  I wrote a fair-use justification for an Encarta image for the Britannica article; if you think this is a good approach, I could try to write another.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to the electronic version of the DNB, so I can't see what the image looks like and whether it's worth the effort.  Willow 10:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Sneaking in from Willow's contribs list—hi Willow, friendly stalker here :) You may want to have a look at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, particularly the Examples section, and Template:PD-Old. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty decent image and I think the only portrait of Johnson. I've uploaded it with some information. Perhaps you could adjust it properly? Awadewit Talk 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. I'd say "Copyright owned by the National Gallery" is unnecessary, unless this image as well as the one Willow mentioned above is indeed accompanied by a copyright notice—is it? I don't have access to the DNB. You don't need a rationale either (used to illustrate...) if you don't like, as the image is in the public domain and not here under fair use; if you'd rather leave it in, though, I don't think there's a problem either. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the online DNB (where I got the image from) said that the National Gallery owned the image, so I thought I had to say it, too. I'm really kind of confused... Awadewit Talk 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. I hope I've not added to your confusion… I apologize, but I know where to draw my line: if you're still unsure, you may want to ask an user more knowledgeable on IP stuff and licensing. I certainly wouldn't want to cause any trouble here by giving inappropriate advice—that'll teach me to wander onto talk pages :/ Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your help, Fvasconcellos! You needn't worry that I'd take your deus ex machina advice amiss.  If you persist in wiki-stalking, however, I'll have to ask you to carry my train. ;)  Seriously, I'm much obliged and gratified, Willow 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Page structure
Do you think we should structure the page chronologically, detailing the growing prominence of Johnson's firm and his own personal influence over the decades and then, after his death, explain how he influenced various sectors of publishing? As I am reading, I am seeing good decade breakdowns. Awadewit | talk  01:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch, ouch, ouch...I just came back in from working all day! :p <- Willow wiped out


 * I think that's a wonderful idea, and what's more, I think...zzzzzzzzz. ;) Willow 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a nice sleep! Awadewit | talk  02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Willow, could you fix up the tables I added? They take up an inordinate amount of space, but I don't know how to place them next to each other, if you know what I mean. Feel free to fiddle with the column size as well, so that they are more appropriate. Awadewit | talk  21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation template
I can't make the citation template accept an issue number. See my note versus the "Bibliography" on Chard 2002. Awadewit | talk  02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New page for Analytical Review
We should really make a page for the Analytical Review sometime. Every article I edit I have a redlink for that publication on it. So much to do! Awadewit | talk  11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Willow! It looks great! Awadewit | talk  21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyson biography
My copy of the Tyson biography has arrived, so I will be reading it and adding material from it to the page in the next few weeks. Awadewit | talk  03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am throwing stuff up from Tyson. It is not necessarily in the most logical place or written well. I usually do all of that later. I will often include quotations that I later paraphrase as well. WillowW, since you have done a substantial amount of work here, let me know if this is acceptable. It seems like you work this way as well. Awadewit | talk  11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Awadewit, you should know by now that I trust you completely; feel free to spread your wings to their fullest reach! :D I do indeed work that way, too; I hope that our readers will forgive the article's transient dérangement until all of its notes are tuned into harmony.


 * I'm sure they will. It's wikipedia, after all. :) (And at least we have notes.) Awadewit | talk  12:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One word on my own organization. I tend to center biographies around pivotal friendships and relationships in the subject's life; I think that approach might be more interesting and more intelligible to readers, and seems well-suited to our good and gregarious Joseph. :) But I'm open to alternatives as well.  Willow 11:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I try to let a person's life dictate the biography and since I mostly write on authors, I tend to focus on books. Also, with many of my figures, that is all there is. We will have to work on bringing these two styles together. I assume it will make the biography all that much better. Awadewit | talk


 * PS. I like having a "Temperament" section to sketch JJ's warm character for our readers. It seems key to understanding much of his life, don't you think?  I'm not sure how to work it in, though; it seems a little awkward now, although it leads in nicely into the "Death" section.  What do you think? Willow 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Eek! I always suggest that editors remove such sections, since people don't have the same "temperament" their whole lives. I usually suggest that the specific examples be integrated into the article so that the reader gets a sense of who the subject is within a specific context. I think that examples of Johnson's generosity would work well this way. I also hesitate to describe him too beatifically, as Tyson does, because his evidence is largely drawn from eulogies or biographies written from friends. Such sources tend to distort a person's actions. What do you think? Awadewit | talk  05:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Double eek! Too bad I’m not an admin, that I can’t erase my edits without leaving a trace of them. ;)  I did have the sense that I was straying from a professional, encyclopedic tone, and I'm conscious of my own predilection to see a rosy nimbus around everyone. ;)  I normally wouldn’t be so rash as to try to summarize a human personality in words, especially on scanty hearsay, but JJ seemed like such an exceptional case.  I do mourn losing the chance to praise a modest man of sound sense and habitual generosity, which (to me) seems to have had historical consequences.  Should we work the quotes in elsewhere, or simply forgo them?  I’ll defer to your good judgment. :) Willow 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should erase them! I think that we should try to find a way to describe Johnson's interactions (the "human" side of him) right alongside his literary accomplishments. I agree with you that Johnson's actions seem to be a big part of his importance - his support of struggling writers, his support of Unitarianism which did not always help him financially, etc. I think if we write about individual examples of these things, the reader will gain the sense of his personality that you want to convey. It is more difficult to weave the examples throughout the article than to separate them off in their own section, but I think that, in the end, it is more effective and more "encyclopedic", as you say. Awadewit | talk  03:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to add more about Johnson's character, but I don't know if I've been entirely successful. Awadewit | talk  13:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes and bibliography
Can we decide on a system for the notes and bibliography now? It will save time later, I think. Awadewit | talk  07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm, I'll follow your lead here. Whatever seems good to you is fine with me. What a change from FAC, no? ;) Willow 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have adopted the policy of quoting the last name of the author and the page number of articles and books that appear in the bibliography. I only cite the entire work if I don't put it into the bibliography. I like to think of the bibliography as a starting point for research, so I leave out articles and books that would not be relevant for that (usually something I used for a single fact or quotation). Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk  05:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Another picture
In Chard 1975 there is a second portrait of JJ (artist unknown). It was "supplied by one of the publisher's collateral descendants". I wonder if we can find it anywhere? My photocopy is crap, obviously. (I guess my source is wrong - there is more than one Johnson portrait!). Awadewit | talk  02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Solidifying sections
What do we think of the sections and their order? I am not sure I am happy with them yet. I'm not sure that introducing more would be a good idea, but perhaps a judicious rearranging is needed? I want to do this before I start intensive work on the writing. Awadewit | talk  13:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks
There are a lot of redlinks in this article. I am going to try and create semi-decent stubs for many of them. *sigh* So much work to do. Awadewit | talk  13:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gotten side-tracked on Darwin's The Botanic Garden. Awadewit | talk  13:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Preparing for FAC
List to do before FAC:


 * 1) WillowW adds material
 * 2) Add material about death
 * 3) MOS check
 * 4) Citation check
 * 5) Read aloud again
 * 6) Roger Davies translates into BE
 * 7) Submit to FAC

Reminder list. Awadewit | talk  19:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes and questions
A section for stray thoughts as I re-read the article after an all-too-long absence. Hello again! :) Willow (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

 * "Modern-day biographer" might become dated in a few decades? Perhaps we should give Tyson's publication date (1979) or say "20th century biographer" or "principal biographer" or something specific like that? Willow (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point - changed to "principal". Awadewit | talk  18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead reads really well — kudos! it's much sleeker than as I remember it last. :) Willow (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I find leads difficult to write, so it's nice to know that it reads well. Awadewit | talk  18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyson's references
Tyson lists the Timperley reference (on p. 217) as



He also gives a volume number 109 for Aikin's obituary, but that seems inconsistent with the two Oxford DNB biographies that I managed to find, and also with the yearly numbering of volumes of The Gentleman's Magazine, which began in 1831. Willow (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyson also cites two early biographical notices of Joseph Johnson





But I'm guessing that we're ignoring them because Tyson calls them "anecdotal and largely unsubstantiated"? Willow (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was why I didn't hunt them down. :) Awadewit | talk  18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks
I rearranged the order of the textbooks to put related textbooks together. Was there a finer point being made that I was missing? The referencing for the two sentences might need to be fixed, although I daresay they won't be contentious. Willow (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Awadewit | talk  18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1780s:Success
The final sentence about Johnson opening his home to Fuseli and Wollstonecraft seems a little out-of-place; could we lead into it better somehow? Willow (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - I just deleted it because the article discusses Johnson helping both Fuseli and Wollstonecraft in other places. Awadewit | talk  18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

New additions?
Here are some things we might consider adding to the article? Willow (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More on the Theological Repository? E.g., the advertisement in St. James's Chronicle (24 December 1768) (Tyson, 27 and 228)

In this Repository not only will room be given to the freest objections to natural or revealed religion, but they are sincerely requested; and nothing that is new shall be rejected, if it be expressed in decent terms.


 * I think that this is an excellent quote for the TR page. I worry about going off on tangents on this page (it's already long!). Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Tyson p. 70, we might also mention the revival of the Repository in 1785 — despite that it had been a financial fiasco and was likely to be so again — as evidence of Johnson's willingness to publish good books even at a loss. Willow (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - added: Although the journal lost Johnson money in the 1770s, he was willing to begin publishing it again in 1785 because he believed in its values. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Tyson p. 75 and note 14 on pp. 238–239, we might mention Johnson's 1782 publication of William Nicholson's Introduction to Natural Philosophy, which is mentioned in his article. Willow (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What would we say about it? Overall, I tried to mention publications that we could say something interesting about. I was worried that the article might become a list of Johnson's publications (a bit like Tyson's book itself!). Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But cross-referencing within Wikipedia is a boon, no? Perhaps we can sneak him in between Rossignol and John Hewlett in the textbook paragraph ("Revolution in children's literature")? Willow (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add it in and we can see how it works? Awadewit | talk  08:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, how's that? Willow (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Awadewit | talk  19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Tyson pp. 140–141, it might be nice to mention Johnson's role in publishing and championing German literature in England, e.g., the enthusiastic call for all of Schiller's work to be translated into English (Analytical Review, 25, 278, March 1797). That also might be worth discussing in the main Analytical Review article as well.  Willow (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to do this in "Translations" - do you think I should add the Fuseli information? (I left the AR bit out of the Johnson article as he did not write it, but we should add the Schiller quote to the AR page.) Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I got the impression from Tyson that Johnson was publishing much more than moral philosophy from Germany, e.g., the Schiller. That was a pretty significant time in German literature, and if Johnson was the main person responsible for introducing it into England, that seems likewise significant, no?  I don't really know enough about his role to form an opinion, though. Willow (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an article that I read specifically on Johnson's translations (Esterhammer, I think) and that is what it emphasized, so that is what I emphasized in the article. I was trying to be as specific as possible - do you think the specificity watered down Johnson's contribution? Awadewit | talk  08:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I was left with the impression that Johnson introduced English readers mainly to philosophical works. If he was also responsible for introducing them to contemporaries such as Schiller, Goethe and I daresay Lessing, then that would seem very significant to me.  I also remember George Eliot's mention of needing to know German scholarship in Middlemarch (Will to Dorothea re:Casaubon's work).  Mentioning those names might also set Johnson in a historical German context, telling the reader what was being published in Germany then; that might be nice, since some readers will be less familiar with German lit-history than the American, British or French counterparts. Willow (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of Goethe and Schiller and the Fuseli connection. See what you think. Awadewit | talk  19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's excellent — short, but gets the essential points across well. I think I'd better go, though, since I've lots of work to do in the real world! Flitting off, Willow (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Tyson pp. 143–144, I would like to have a discussion of Johnson's 1798 publication of Mary Hays' Appeal to the Men of Great Britain, and Geddes' positive review of it in the Analytical Review. Maybe it would go well in the Laws Regarding... section?  Willow (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added into the second paragraph of the "Legacy" section - see what you think of it there. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good! I tightened the wording slightly, I hope it's OK. "Tyrannical" was a nice touch, by the way. Willow (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Tyson p. 146, put more weight on Johnson's publication of Malthus and his philosophic contrast with other authors published by Johnson? Malthus is pretty well-known even today, although I recognize that the article already discusses Johnson's willingness to publish heterogeneous viewpoints. Willow (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added more, but I don't know if this is what you were really looking for. Let me know. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We probably could've said more, but your new sentence seems the right measure for the article; I'm sure many readers will recognize Malthus' essay and can follow the link. A clause to the wise... ;) Willow (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Should the material on Thomas Christie in Tyson pp. 149 and 253 be included in Christie's article? Willow (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is probably a lot on Christie that could be added. I tend to focus on "one-ish" thing at a time. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A few facts from Tyson pp. 166–168 about the Anti-Jacobin Review might be added to its article and to that of the Analytical Review, especially the creepy sentence

The other object of our immediate attacks, the Analytical Review, has received its death-blow, and we have more reason to congratulate ourselves upon the share which we have had in producing its dissolution, than it would be expedient here to unfold.


 * I had only quoted the "dissolution" word in the AR article, but feel free to add that whole quote in, if you feel it helps. I think I have everything valuable from Tyson in the AR article, but I might be wrong. It has been expanded significantly. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, it's funny how parallel the Anti-Jacobin's "Reviewers Reviewed" seems to a more modern review of a certain quixotic encyclopedia. Similarly, when others complain that it's misleading the youth of our generation, I can't help but smile, thinking of Anytos in Plato's Menon and his successors in every age. Remembering history doesn't prevent its repetition, but at least it can sometimes be more fun that way! ;) Willow (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely thought of that myself. :) Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, but the Anti-Jacobin's parody "Love of the Triangles" sounds really funny! (note 78 on p. 257 of Tyson) Can you upload it to the Wikisource, pretty please? :) Willow (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this responding to something that I missed? I'll see what I can do about "Love of the Triangles". Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it's just that I love geometry and poetry and, well, I might have overly high hopes for this one, but I can't help grinning while thinking how good it might be. Knowing Darwin's poem only adds to the charm, and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief that the AJ could write something humorous. ;) Willow (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It probably can't be worked in, but I find Coleridge's account of Johnson, quoted on p. 173 of Tyson, paints a vivid portrait of Johnson the person, and would contribute to the article. Willow (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also the touching testimony of Joel Barlow and his wife in note 41 on p. 254 of Tyson. Willow (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I deleted those because I couldn't find good places to put them. If you find good places, I'm all for putting them back in. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it; I see your point about the quotes not finding their niche. :( Willow (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per note 26 on pp. 236–237 of Tyson, we probably will never be able to make a Wikipedia article about John Bonneycastle, so we should probably de-wikilink him; that red state will never turn blue. ;) Willow (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, Tyson's book was written in 1979 - more might be known about Bonnycastle now. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * However, see note 59 on p. 240 of Tyson — another good example of a schoolbook? Willow (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I think we need a reason to list it. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bonneycastle is also remembered in Johnson's will, an annuity of £50, remarkably the same as Fuseli received (Tyson, p. 213) Willow (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't list everyone in the will (there is a whole article on the will). Do you think this is important enough to include? Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was only thinking that Bonnycastle must've been very important to Johnson, if he put him on an equal footing with Fuseli. But I agree that we should look for more scholarship on Bonnycastle; much could have been discovered over the past thirty years! Willow (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per note 9 on p. 261 of Tyson, mention Hunter's connection to Anna Laetitia Barbauld and Johnson's possible guardianship? Willow (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so - if Tyson relegates it to a footnote, he must not think the likelihood of guardianship is very high. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He does mention it again as something believed in the main text of the final chapter, but he doesn't give any more evidence for it, as I recall. Perhaps it's not significant to mention here. Willow (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More description of the history of scholarship on Johnson, along the lines of Tyson pp. 217–218, perhaps noting that it really began in earnest in 1964 with Phyllis Mann's paper? Willow (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think? I tend to think that non-academic readers are not interested in this material. I added the bit about the discovery of the letter book because it was cool, but it could easily be removed without any real loss to the article. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I thought it interesting, but then every shiny thing can hold my attention. ;) Willow (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've lost my notes on Johnson's infirmity, although I remember it being discussed in the Oxford DNB as a vague respiratory problem. In Tyson, there are some clues on pages 176, 206, and 214, which mention "asthma",  "spasms", "difficulty walking" and significant weight loss.  That's the best I can do for now — sorry!  Hoping it was helpful, Willow (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added "chronic respiratory disease" from DNB. That's about all there is. Awadewit | talk  18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The DNB doesn't give a reference as I recall. The primary text of a letter from Miles to Maria Edgeworth says explicitly that Johnson was incapacitated with spasms and asthma; should we add that as well? Willow (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure - more sources are always good. Do you have the source for that one? Awadewit | talk  08:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, did so. I think I'm done — are you happy?  If so, please feel free to take it to FAC — buena suerte, amiga! :) Willow (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuando la victoria, no mi victoria, sino la gran Victoria llegue, aunque esté muda debo hablar: yo la veré llegar aunque esté ciega. I'll probably take the article FAC later today, after I've finished my last read-through. Awadewit | talk  19:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to get Roger Davies to translate it into BE first, though. Awadewit | talk  20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lunar Society

 * Tyson: "Joseph Johnson had numerous contacts with the Academy at Warrington [list in note of people], and through them he became the major publisher for these Dissenting intellectuals. Johnson's first awareness of the school probably came through his Liverpool friends, Matthew Turner, surgeon and chemist, and his partner, Thomas Bentley....Tutors at the Academy also made contact with the intellectuals in Birmingham who were later to form the Lunar Society quite literally by accident." (18) - This seems to assert a more indirect route.


 * Tomalin: Unfortunately I now have only my notes for this, not the original source, but my notes indicate "Priestley introduced JJ to the LS".


 * I can't find the spot in The Lunar Men where it says Fuseli introduced JJ to the LS, but I'm relying on the index.
 * "... in May 1784, on the recommendation of Henry Fuseli, who had offered to illustrate it, Darwin approached the publisher Joseph Johnson..." p.389 in the Farrar, Straus and Giroux paperback (October 1, 2003) ISBN 0374528888. This doesn't rule out JJ having been introduced before, Fuseli could just be recommending him. Yomangani talk 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that one, but I thought it meant that Fuseli recommended Darwin publish his poem with JJ. This might not even indicate an introduction. Awadewit | talk  00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Introduction by Priestley seems the most likely to me, but there is a danger in thinking of the Lunar Society as an individual. It's possible that all the above are true and Johnson made connections with different members of of the society at different times. Perhaps it just needs rephrasing in the article to avoid the apparent contradiction. That Priestley was a tutor at Warrington isn't mentioned the first time, and the second section is basically a repeat apart from that fact, so sits oddly in the article. Yomangani talk 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it is not really clear, I have removed any precise assertion - I just left the first claim about Warrington Dissenters leading JJ to the Lunar Society. That, I think, is indisputable, whether it was Priestley or not. I removed the second instance of the claim. Awadewit | talk  02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it, but yes, that fixes it. Yomangani talk 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what you have. Awadewit | talk  02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)