Talk:A Modest Proposal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Plagiarism

A cursory glance at http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/modestproposal/summary.html seems to show some of this Wiki page to be plagiarized.


I agree that this is clear plagiarism, and I also note that SparkNotes has a clear policy (from SparkNotes Help)
Can I use the content on a SparkNotes page on my site?
You cannot copy content directly onto a page, but you are welcome to link to the appropriate SparkNotes page.
I'm reverting the article. Unfortunately, the last original article seems to be from May 8, 2005. --RemoWilliams 05:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Is this article against Wikipedia's nonbias policy? I will wait for an answer, but if I don't get one, I'll edit out the "Christian ethics" portion. - masmith

What's wrong with it? --68.38.174.6 21:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] public VS publick

someone changed the full title to omit the final k - not sure about the English of that period, but maybe it was written "publick" back then? (clem 20:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

I changed it back to Publick, which is the original spelling, then someone reverted it, and someone else reverted it again.

With all due respect to everyone involved, spelling in 1729 wasn't the same as it is today, and was actually quite a bit less formal. So the question, really, is whether the title of the wiki should correspond to the original title on the pamphlet itself, or modern spelling. I've been unable to find a wiki policy that directly relates to this matter. Perhaps someone can enlighten everyone?

--RemoWilliams 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the title of the essay should retain the original spelling. A supporting argument is that texts which include a paraphrased version of "A Modest Proposal" cite the original text as a source. Wikisource shows the title as "publick." Dan Slotman 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

In my view this entire article is Not Notable at best. It is certainly not NPOV, it is not relevant in any way to the phrase "A Modest Proposal", and it seems more like an attempt to vandalise Wikipedia. In short it does not belong on Wikipedia, hence the {{delete}} notice. DO NOT remove this notice without a discussion on the topic.

—gorgan_almighty 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, what? This is exactly where the prhase "modest proposal" comes from. It's a notable article by a notable author. Thus, I have removed the deletion notice. DS 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


  • If that is where the term "Modest Proposal" comes from then there may be a case for keeping the article. But it needs to be rewritten because in no place in the article does it actually state why this Catholic babies thing is mentioned. There is no statement that it is the origin of the phrase. The article reads more like an argument supporting the case of eating babies.
—gorgan_almighty 18:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The name of the pamphlet is A Modest Proposal. And in it, the author makes a case for eating babies. I don't think it could be any clearer. — Slicing 03:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you think this article is about a non-notable piece of brilliant, if dark, satire that is extremely well know by the brief title "A Modest Proposal", would you also propose deletion for articles on the works of A. Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens, L. Frank Baum, and (to include other satirists Rabelais and Voltaire? wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, for future reference, articles like these do not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. If you tag it as such and someone (most likely an administrator) removes the tag citing that it does not fall under the critiria, don't re-add the tag. If you wish for people to discuss the merits of an article and whether it should be deleted, please nominate it for deletion, where it will be debated for a week about whether the article should be kept or deleted. (Though it should be noted that this article would almost certainly pass AfD as a speedy keep.) Thanks a lot! If you have any questions, please don't hesistate to contact me. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove {{cleanup}}

I believe this article is now (19 December 05) at a stage where the {{cleanup}} notice can be removed. What do others think?

—gorgan_almighty 10:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with the article and was surprised to see a cleanup tag on it (I've written a couple of other Swift-related articles) so yes, it's fine. And, to answer the top point, the original title does have a final "k" -- I have a reproduction of the title page in my Swift collection. The explanation of "modest proposal" is good - usually a "modest proposal" is both grandiose and deliberately arguing the opposite viewpoint for satiric effect. The Iron Mountain one is a great example. One of Phillip K Dick's short stories is also based on A Modest Proposal but for the life of me I can't remember which one. Back to my point, yes, take the cleanup tag off of it.AxS 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the cleanup tag is no longer warranted. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satiric and Ironic Nature Requires Explanation

It is pointless to claim it is satirical or ironic and not explain how or in what way or by what evidence you are making the claim. By not giving such evidence, you merely support the position of those who think he was speaking from 1st person and very serious. By not giving such evidence, one could claim he later claimed it was satire and not 1st person only to save his butt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.214.99.108 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps this is a radical idea, but, as the essay is linked in the article, and the essay is rather short, why not just read it? It is common knowledge that the essay is satire. You can read it and form your own opinion. Coleca 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm a different person that the one who commented above, but:

The page claims that the problem of people misunderstanding the essay was oweing to the difference between satirical intent and serious tone.

Satire is, by deffinition, ironic. It's intent and tone are necessarily opposed. The wording of the page so far makes it seem as though, in this instance, the problem was that people mistook the serious tone for serious proposal, whereas this is a continual problem with ironic works, especially satire (see Chris Morris, Brasseye Paedophelia Special, Polonius' advice in Hamlet).

The problem was that the natural state of satire, that of ironically adopting the flaws one hopes to explode, and then seriously exploiting those flaws to a humourous effect, tends to cause people to mistake the topic for the subject.

The subject of A modest proposal is indifference to suffering of the Irish poor, but the TOPIC is cannibalism. (there's a good bit on that by Menken and later discussion of Menken's ideas by Will Self, i have no time to resaerch any links however.. sorry :( )

I'm in no position to provide sources right now, as i'm at work, but it just seems weird to read, on a work of satire, that in this instance the tone and content were at odds. That's what satire is. It's like saying "the reason that these atlantic swimmers got wet is because in the atlantic, the ocean is made of water, and the atlantic water is of the wet variety."

Please someone make a ruling on this. It's just a little thing, but it's the kind of thing that always drives me crazy.. it's not majorly significant as a factual reconstruction of the piece and it's critical reaction in the UK, but it's just sort of sloppy thinking. Maybe decreases credibility to the article and the site in general.

I think you are right. Feel free to edit it to make it more clear. P.S. You can sign your name by typing ~~~~ after your comment. Dan Slotman 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To say that this article is not clearly satirical is a bit ridiculous. Given the context of other works by Swift and his standing as the most renown of English Satirist, shouldn't some things be deemed evident for literary consumption and study? Are we to disect and reference every point and line in every body of work in order to accomodate those who may be completely ignorant of the subject? Granted this is where people come to gain information, however, by presenting this information in an overly-analytic, even Kabbalistic way, the information would no longer be pallatable to the general population. I see no problem with stating that Swift was a Satirist without attempting to prove that he was working with satire throughout this work. Otherwise we must also prove that Shakespeare had a sense of humor or that Milton had a strong sense of religious conviction --where would it end? 72.178.116.85 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)72.178.116.85 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A_Modest_Proposal"

[edit] Sealab reference should be removed

The reference to Sealab 2021 doesn't add anything to the article. I think it should be removed. 66.171.218.105 17:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the last sentence in this article sums up everything wrong with wikipedia.--74.37.46.145 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the Sealab reference should be removed. The show is often funny and smart, but why is its reference to A Modest Proposal any more notable than another. Plus, its a cartoon on basic cable. J P M7791 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Since it's on WikiSource are links to two external versions necessary? --Kilrae 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally no, but people keep adding them back when removed because they don't notice the wikisource link. I don't seen any harm in linking to Project Gutenberg and an HTML version, though I'd like to see a better host for the HTML version. Academic sites are pretty transient. Dan Slotman 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning

Should we maybe add a spoiler warning to this article? (Eeesh 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

It had one for a while. I guess I don't really see the point since the spoiler warning would be wrapped around essentially the entire article, but I don't think it would hurt anything either. Dan Slotman 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If A Modest Proposal needs a spoiler warning, so does Romeo and Juliet (oops! it doesn't have one! better get cracking). The very suggestion is pretty hilarious (I'm not attacking you, really! I laughed heartily). It's easily Swift's best known essay, and it's hundreds of years old. I think the cat is out of the bag. --RemoWilliams 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
But Romeo and Juliet wasn't exactly known for its surprises. Lots of people back then knew the story, albeit in a different form. --Raijinili 04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structuring: Known-New Contract

In essay composition, the "known-new contract" says that you should generally move the reader from what they're already considered to know into what they're considered not to know. Paragraph three violates the known-new contract by making reference to "the children," which the reader will not understand until the description of "Swift's solution" in paragraph four. Perhaps these can be rearranged or reworded to better support the known-new contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.15.243 (talk • contribs) 05:44, June 4, 2007

[edit] Irony statement

The suggestion that AMP is widely considered to be one of the great examples of irony (and/or satire) in the English language is not controversial. It is taught in grade schools largely for that very reason. I've looked around, and there are many, many sources saying that Swift was one of the greatest satirists/ironic writers in the English language, and that AMP was his one of his greatest works. Ultimately, how can this (widely accepted) assertion be "proven"? Must we find a source that says exactly this? --RemoWilliams 06:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still an opinion, and until a section appears with a countervailing opinion, we ought to keep it out. It is all the more damaging to write it here because it is such a popular opinion. --VKokielov 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
But if you kept all opinions out of every article about literature, they'd be a paragraph each. Literary criticism is all opinion.--RemoWilliams 17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, keep it out while it stands alone; it's unfair to the other side. And even then the fairest and justest thing to do with literature is to say, "Read it, and make up your own mind." We are in the business of enlightening, not confounding. --VKokielov 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
How is it "unfair to the other side"? What "other side"? The side that thinks A Modest Proposal is not one of the foremost examples of satire in Western literature? When you mention the word satire to anyone with a college or even high school education, this is probably the only example they can think of. Just because someone can take a contrary position, doesn't mean that they can't be considered wrong. A statement that this is one of the great examples of irony or satire is about as debatable as stating that the Bible is one of the foremost example of religious literature or that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest playwrights.J P M7791 (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted uncited stuff from UnCyclopedia

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that AMP was misunderstood, or that his peers didn't understand it was satirical, or that he nearly lost his patronage, any place that I can find, other than UnCyclopedia: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal.

Please add a citation before editing that content back in. RemoWilliams 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "epitome of satire"

It is not universally accepted that obvious irony serves in that capacity. --VKokielov 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1/4th

Hey I'm reading this for English and I was wondering whether anyone could clarify some of the background on a mistake I found in A Modest Proposal.

Milton suggests retaining a breeding population consisting of 1/4th males and states "...one male will be sufficient to serve four females." However, with a population of 1/4th males there will be three females for each male. I'm not sure whether he means that one male would be sufficient to serve four female, whther he made a mistake in the mathematics, or whether he made the mistake in a highly obscured tongue-in-cheek manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.186.166 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Yes, so obscured as to be irrelevant... I'm no expert, but I suspect what he is talking about is a ratio of four to one, so his calculations are correct. In any case, I think you are reading way more into that than was ever intended. It really has no bearing on the argument of the piece. You'll have to try another angle if you want something original to justify an A ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.39.87 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

None of the links work. Can they be removed? They go to error pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdprier (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)