This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Jonathan Swift is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Can anybody confirm my guess, that the word from Gulliver's Travels was used on purpose for the name of the www portal?
Thank you.
Erichkleibl (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, the idea is this, print up a couple of fliers, once I get to school and start hanging posters around the English dept. so people can clean up these rather skimpy entries! Swift was a veritable superstar in his time.
Currently in the main article there is this paragraph:
When he returned to Ireland in September he was accompanied by Stella — now twenty years old — and her friend Mrs. Dingley. They were ecstatic to see each other, and in the moment, they fornicated repeatedly. The church almost even revoked his ordinance as a priest for his premarital fun. These two even gave each other oral sex, which in the time, was looked down upon. It has been said that Esther "liked the cock." But these hormones are not uncommon for a twenty year old. There's a great deal of mystery and controversy over Swift's relationship with Stella. Many hold that they were secretly married in 1716. Although there has never been definite proof of this, there is no doubt that she was dearer to him than anyone else, and that his feelings for her did not change her throughout his life.
I checked four other sources/biographies on Jonathan Swift and none of them say anything about this. Where does this information come from? Regardless of the information being offending or not, information that is not obvious such as this, expecially presented in such a unprofessional manner ("liked the cock.") should be cited before added to the main article.
-- The guy who wrote that is a vandal. Look at 209.36.39.2's history. His IP address indicates he's a Christian military cadet (http://www.fuma.org/AboutFUMA/index.html). Either that, or they have been hacked. I have reverted it.
I have significantly revised and expanded the Writings section. This includes establishing categories (Major Prose, Essays etc., Poems, Sermons & Prayers, Miscellany), and greatly expanding the number of Swift's works listed, and providing external links to most of those works where possible. I also corrected some of the dates. The sheer breadth of links may be an issue--do you think there are too many? Should we stick to Swift's most important works and provide links to general collections only? I thought about doing this, but Swift texts are so scattered all over the internet one must do a great deal of textual sleuthing just to find a few different works. I thought it would be apropos to offer a more centralized listing. If someone disagrees please say so. I plan to revise some parts of the biography in the future as well, focusing on documentation. *Note: the revision is logged under 65.151.124.216 but it's mine: I forgot to log on prior to submitting it. TickleText17:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"He soon, however, obtained the living of Laracor, Agher, and Rathbeggan..."
Might be good to clue readers what a "prebend" is too -- some specific kind of religious venue? Milo 08:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oxford English Dictionary, my friendFearwig 14:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh, for "prebend" I mean. I'm not sure the rest would be in there. *snicker* Fearwig 14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A 'Living' is a clergyman's benefice or position, and Laracor is a parish in Moyfenrath barony in south Meath, Agher is in Deece barony just north of it, also in Meath, and Rathbeggan is north-east of both of them in Ratoath barony, also in Meath. If you're really curious, you can see precisely where they are on this map. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was Swift's political satire politically effective?
Was his satirical writing instrumental in obtaining legislation, social reform, or other change? I read somewhere an account answering this question, but couldn't find it again. Milo08:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
jonathan swift is a cool writer dude.[reply]
some people think that he was just a good writer but he was even better than people think he had written alot of books,poems, prayers and things like that most people don't care about other than writers. Also his satirical writing instrumental in obtaining legislation, social reform, or other change? I read somewhere an account answering this question, but couldn't find it again.
I think it would be hard to assess his actual impact on the political scene of his time...he was more of a
political pampleteer, supporting causes where others were the primary actors. One case where he may
be generally credited for effecting a change in policy is his "Drapier's Letters". Public opinion was already
against the contract for the new coinage, but Swift provided a rallying point that helped force the
withdrawal of the proposal. Here is one eminent opinion:
"Swift must be allowed for a time, to have dictated the political opinions of the English nation." Dr. Johnson [as quoted by Thackeray, The English Humourists]
As to his quality of his writing, here's a few good quotes:
"pray forgive an admirer of you, who ows to yr writings the love he bears to yr language..." Voltaire, letter to Swift, 14 December 1727
"One can only repeat what Scott says somewhere about Swift's style, perhaps the purest and strongest we have in the language. "Swift's style," said Scott, "seems so simple that one would think any child might write as he does, and yet if we try we find to our despair that it is impossible." XVI. Webster. ¤ 7. Webster's Developed Style. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature. 1907-21. http://www.bartleby.com/226/0707.html
"Swift's style is, in its line, perfect; the manner is a complete expression of the matter, the terms appropriate, and the artifice concealed. It is simplicity in the true sense of the word." Samuel Coleridge, Lecture on Style, 1818
"No better style in English prose was ever written, or can be," William Dean Howells, "Preface," Gulliver's Travels, 1913. [quoted by Noel Perrin, Dr. Bowdler's Legacy. New York : Atheneum, 1969, p. 224.]
"... Swift, the greatest writer of English prose, and the greatest man who has ever written great English prose..." T.S. Eliot, Clark Lectures, 1926 in The Varieties of Metaphysical Poetry. Faber & Faber, 1993
Ldjaffe22:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC) ldjaffe[reply]
please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah?20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Works section is a mess. Whoever wrote it seems very disrespectful of his subject, whom he insists on referring to as "Jonathan" rather than the more appropriate "Swift". I've deleted the redundant and sloppy biographical material that was there, but it requires a thorough going-over before it can be considered worthwhile. Ldjaffe 06:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)ldjaffe
I think I bit off more than I can chew. Rather than try to "fix"what is already there -- I'm a little uncertain what to do with what others have written except when it is clearly wrong and there is so much I'd have to rework -- I've started a second version
(take two). Ldjaffe21:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)ldjaffe[reply]
I've taken a pass at cleaning up the Works section...I incorporated the "second version" into the first, since it's confusing to have two different Works sections. I think it's more encyclopedic to have one section that we can fix than to try to maintain two parallel and competing sections. Fumblebruschi23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Among the other "messes" in the works section is the misspelling of the editor of his poems--Pat Rogers. And Yale UP would be the more appropriate publisher of the collected poems.
The publication of Davis' edition of Swift's prose ranges from 1939-68.
The publication of David Woolley's edition of Swift's correspondence, which is in four volumes, ranges from 1999-2007.
Before that, the standard edition, still cited by many scholars, was Harold Williams' _The Correspondence of Jonathan Swift_ (Oxford UP, 1963-65). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.186.35 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in the main body of the text. Printed in 1720'sm, there was at such a time no such thing as a 'children's book', it is a fairly recent (i.e. 19th or 20th C) construction. 'Confusion' may arise because there is an 'edited' children's edition that is largely divorced from Swift's original work.
Tsop00:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
would smeone please tell me why it is not considered a children's book, because i read "Guiliver's Travels" as a child and it seemed like children's book?
but why? is the edited version also by Mr. Swift- why does litriture have to be so complicated, is it how it was in the olden days or is there some other reason(user:swosim 16:03,9 September 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.254 (talk)[reply]
The edited version is fairly recent, and I believe it removes the latter half of the book (along with some adult-themed events, such as Gulliver's encounters with the maids of honor... but I shan't go into that.) I daresay that Gulliver's Travels is absolutely not a childrens' book. 12.157.120.212 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their is a road named after him in Dublin , i feel this should be mentioned but couldnt really find a suitible place to add it (Gnevin18:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The term "Anglo-" is being abused in a lot of introductions. Given that the term can be confusing, it is not a nationality and is basically obsolete in this sense, it's not needed as an intro..he is shown to be of English origin later in the text. Furthermore, if we are to put "Anglo" in front of every person who has English origin in the intro, we should have balance and equality and use "British-Irish" in the intros of millions of people born in Britain with Irish blood or origin, which I think is also unnecessary.
Well said maybe the Beatles and Oasis should be cited as Hiberno-Saxon if people continue to use the term Anglo-Irish.
Is there any proof that any of the members of the Beatles actually had any Saxon ancestry at all? After all, while the Saxons had a huge cultural impact on England, they apparently had comparatively little genetic influence on the English (5% at most?). --98.122.20.56 (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be following the "Be Bold" theory of Wikipedia, but a question:
The link to Modern satire in the style of Jonathan Swift (at http://www.swiftonia.com/) shows a website with a forum on it. In this forum are all of nine posts across nine topics.. and a sum total of, you guessed it, nine members. Since very little of the website even relates to Swift - more than half being forum rules, one being a verbatim copy of A Modest Proposal, another a copy of this Wikipedia article - I don't think it has much use in this article. Only two items on the forums even vaguely fit the category of "modern satire in the style of Swift." Thus, I'd suggest removing it. Barring anyone else bolder than I or a cogent argument for keeping it, I'll probably do so in the future.
Shigernafy06:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've only read his poetry so am no expert, but I got the impression Swift was also a novelist who wrote novels. The word novel does not appear in the text of the article, neither does novelist. If I am right, I think someone should add such terms where appropriate, eg in the very first sentence. Tommy-Chivs14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an addition, it has been found that Swift had what is known today as Meniere's Syndrome, a disease of the inner ear which causes nausea, dizziness, temporary deafness, and extreme pain. This is what was thought to be insanity for a long time. In 1740 he suffered a paralytic stroke that caused aphasia and loss of memory. In 1742 he was declared incapable of caring for himself and was appointed guardians, he died 3 years later. I realize some of that is in the article, but I'm expounding upon most of it.Gotmesomepants (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Tale of a Tub has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Please do not perpetuate the nonsense than a supposedly 'ethnic' Briton who is of Irish parentage, born and raised in Ireland and of the Protestant faith is 'Anglo-Irish' - that person is indeed Irish. Please do not be neo nazi intolerant twats with your misanthropic view of human history. Please try and think clearly without conducting yourselves in a hate filled manner. Perhaps your ethnic hatreds belong at metapedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.170 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Swift's mother was English and his father's father was English. Had he had his way with his career, he would have spent it in London. He was a member of the social class known as the Anglo-Irish. They don't exist any more but they did in the 18th century. Britannica calls Swift Anglo-Irish and I could cite other sources which simply describe him as "English". Now who's the bigot insistent on ethnic purity, Mr Anonymous? --Folantin (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this take on people that were born in Ireland of English parentage, give us the right to refer people born in England of Irish parentage as 'Anglo-Irish'. It's is an absolute disgrace that editors in Britain are getting away with this, especially when there aren't many editors from Ireland on this site. It suggest that Jonathan Swift be described as Irish.--MaxPride (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete referenced material. We have an entire article on Anglo-Irish. It isn't just some random ethnic term - historically it had a specific social meaning. I'm getting sick of bigots rewriting history without knowing a thing about it (just like the Serb and Croat editors refusing to admit anybody saw themselves as Yugoslavs). --Folantin (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This term "Anglo-Irish is certainly interesting. In the specific case of Swift, I agree that because he had an English mother and English grandfather he could be referred to as an "Irishman with English lineage." However, it seems that many other Protestant IRISH writers of yesteryear are being referred to as "Anglo Irish" because they spent a lot of their lives in England. In which case are we setting the precedent for Samuel Beckett to no longer be called simply an Irishman but a "Franco-Irishman" because he spent so much of his life in France? The absurdity of it is no greater than this colonial over-use of the term "Anglo Irish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.125.40 (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From an unbiased point of view (being neither Irish nor a Brit) if people like Swift were Anglo-Irish then shouldn't modern "celebrities" like Wayne Rooney should be Irish-Brits or something like that?
No, because Wayne Rooney is English and as far as I know he has never stressed the importance of his (probably distant) Irish lineage. Swift on the other hand had an English parent and was firmly a part of the English academic tradition. Anglo-Irish is an accurate description, and it was certainly more of a substantial subsection of society in the 19th and early 20th century than is currently portrayed on wikipedia. Being English with Irish parentage myself, I understand the reluctance to acknowledge such a phenomenon, however I find that there is far more importance in the factual integrity of wikipedia articles, than there is blind nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.252.88 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC) s[reply]
Irrelevant, also sources would be nice, the only thing that matters is what Swift identified as, Swift makes it clear in his writing that he wasn't English, He wrote several peices on Ireland exposing England's abuse and colonial exploits of his country and People. He was Irish and the term Anglo-Irish didn't exist when J.Swift was alive. What you're doing here is equivariant of identifying Americans solely based on their ancestry and its a pathetic attempt at British cultural colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.38.197 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't worth the time arguing about this. The consensus will always turn out in favour of "Anglo-Irish" for people like Swift, as he fits the description given in that particular article, is cited in that article, and is described this way in reliable sources.
My personal views, however, are that it's an idiotic label used retrospectively on people who never identified that way while they were alive. It's an invented identity, well after these people were good and gone, that's now forced upon people who wouldn't understand what it means, who aren't here to defend themselves. The idea that someone like Swift, born and raised in Ireland, whose earliest memories were of Ireland, who got homesick for Ireland when he left, was "Anglo-Irish" is surely preposterous. These people lived in Ireland, were identified as Irishmen when they were in England, and identified themselves as Irishmen if they had anything to say about it at all.
But if we're going to do this try at least to be consistent about it. Richard Brinsley Sheridan should be described as "Anglo-Irish" on his page. Remember, this wasn't an ancestry group more than it was a particular social class with a common religion (Anglicanism) and cultural behaviors. While Swift's ancestry appears to have been entirely English, many of the other Anglo-Irish were more mixed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth discussing this. I guess Brendan Behan might have described Swift, had he lived in the 1900s Ireland, as a "horse Protestant". It's as good a classification as "Anglo-Irish" - but I doubt it would find much favour here. "Reliable sources" and all the other gibberish that embeds Wikipedia firmly in the Anglophone Establishment viewpoint in all global matters, would no doubt reject the HP usage here. So, as you say, let's be consistent: start with establishing the cut-off date for an Irish person being designated "Anglo-Irish" per Wiki and its imaginary "reliable sources". Was Yeats "Anglo-Irish"? Was he was born thus but became a mere Irish person after circa 1922? Now lets talk about Bruce Arnold and Kevin Myers or maybe Erskine Childers father and son. Was one an Anglo-Irishman who transitioned? Or was the other deprived of his Angloness by dint of the creation of the Free State? We need to get our definitions sorted before we start throwing this accusation at all pre-1922 Protestant Irish people. Sarah777 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently the file File:Jonathan Swift by Francis Bindon.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. I also placed a new lead image. Dcoetzee02:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a normal amount of research into Swift, one would know that Swift did not have sexual relations with any woman. Vamhomrigh (Vanessa) and Esther Johnson (Stella) had different relationships with Swift' Stella was much more obedient to Swift's strict rules of behaviour and engagement while Vanhomrigh pursued him and harried him to some extent because of his lack of passion and his total unwillingness to marry her. Before she died, Vanhomrigh destroyed the will that had passed on much of her estate to Swift. When Stella died, Swift refused to see her on her deathbed, had her removed from the Deanery for fear of scandal (although she had been living there for decades, when he was present and absent) and declared that he was too ill to attend her funeral. He was not too ill, however, to sit up doing the painstaking work of writing about Stella, and recording her time of death, etc. It is important not to whitewash Swift's behaviour, even in a short Wikipedia article. -- Aldous Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.2.97.163 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard that Swift was an agelast, one who has no sense of humour, (greek for inability to laugh). This is perhaps trivial but interesting due to Swift's satire (which shows he had empathy). Is this true? Can someone who is knowledgeable of Swift please confirm or deny this, and if it is true it should be added to the article with a reliable source.
Link at bottom under "E-texts of works" includes a link "jeffebros" which was probably legit but obviously sold out to commercial interests, Remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcalvitti (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please change: "Inserted into this story, in alternating chapters, Swift includes a series of whimsical "digressions" on various subjects." to "Inserted into this story, in alternating chapters, the narrator (or if you prefer, author) includes a series of whimsical "digressions" on various subjects.": It seems unsupportable, given Swift's career of communicating through satirical personae, to assume that a Tale of a Tub, with its strange diversions from the 'parable', can really be associated with Swift. It would probably be both safer and more accurate to treat the work as another satire and attribute the words to one of his characters?
Swift had a deep love of Ireland and most certainly saw it as his homeland. I have no problem with this, however, I have changed the source, the EB search query lists him as Irish but the main article lists him as Anglo-Irish. Weird. --Nutthida (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I currently have an 1872 copy of Gulliver's travels which, at the end of a long and illustrated memoir to Swift, claims he died in 1744, not 1745. It still has his birth-date as 1667. Is this just a matter of date formatting, or a simple error in my lovely old copy? OR is the article wrong? :( --Nutthida (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Section Works, sub-section "Essays, tracts, pamphlets, periodicals". The link on the second from last bullet point is said to lead to Swift's essay "An Essay on the Fates of Clergymen", when it actually leads to a SCAM website. Please remove or replace this misleading link.
Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - That noticeboard is monitored by Administrators who can decide on protection/unprotection, and implement the decision. If you have a specific edit you would like made, please propose it here, along with any needed reliable sources to support it, and reactivate the template. Thanks. Begoontalk07:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the intro, it tells that Swift has published under pseudonyms, one of which is "T Swizzle", a nickname for not Jonathan Swift, rather Taylor Swift. This is a blatant falsehood that someone added as a joke. Please change it.
Jwerbs1217 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jonathan Swift/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Someone seriously needs to edit the first paragraph of this article. It's embarrassing.
Last edited at 12:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 17 external links on Jonathan Swift. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The summary about the Drapier's Letters significantly mistakes Newton's significance in the controversy:
It was widely believed that Wood would need to flood Ireland with debased coinage in order to make a profit. In these "letters" Swift posed as a shop-keeper—a draper—to criticise the plan. Swift's writing was so effective in undermining opinion in the project that a reward was offered by the government to anyone disclosing the true identity of the author. [...] The government eventually resorted to hiring none other than Sir Isaac Newton to certify the soundness of Wood's coinage to counter Swift's accusations. In "Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift" (1739) Swift recalled this as one of his best achievements.
In other words, the excitable Irish got worked up about nothing, and it took Newton to calm them down. On the contrary, Newton's assay took place between Letters II and III; Letter III contains a thorough refutation of it as any indication of the value of the actual coinage meant to be introduced in Ireland; the Letters continue up to VII, and the halfpence controversy continued, because neither the assay, nor the report of the Privy Council that touts the assay, did anything to answer the basic constitutional, political, and economic grounds of complaint. (Namely, that Wood's patent was obtained in England—by paying off the king's mistress (!); that Wood meant to introduce the coinage to Ireland by force, in the teeth of objections by the Irish Parliament and people; that Ireland was in serious need of silver coins like sixpences, not of halfpence and farthings that were not legal tender anyway; etc.) Since name-dropping Isaac Newton here is so misleading, would anyone object if I cut this sentence altogether? Q·L·1968☿20:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His mother returned to England after his birth, leaving him in the care of his uncle ... At the age of one, child Jonathan was taken by his wet nurse to ... England ...His nurse returned him to his mother, still in Ireland, when he was three.
So, his mother left Jonathan for England but later his nurse returned him to his mother – "still in Ireland"?
This contradiction can only be caused by error or by a confusing gap in the story. Did his mother return to Ireland while the child was in England with his nurse? O'Dea (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the article at one point it is mentioned that "the episode in which the giant Gulliver puts out the Lilliputian palace fire by urinating on it can be seen as a metaphor for the Tories' illegal peace treaty; having done a good thing in an unfortunate manner." I think it would be interesting if somoene could cite this somewhere for further reading 2A01:CB14:B09:EE00:7DF3:A12B:B4BB:A605 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified statement regarding the death of John Partridge
This is regarding this paragraph in Major Prose Works, para 3: "According to other sources,[citation needed]Richard Steele used the persona of Isaac Bickerstaff, and was the one who wrote about the "death" of John Partridge and published it in The Spectator, not Jonathan Swift."
This is hearsay and I could not find any evidence to substantiate it. This is a quote from another book which makes the same claim without providing any information as to the "other sources." It occurs on page 293 of Lovely Professional University, Unit 27 Swift: Thoughts on various subjects. The book is Prose DENG502 Edited by Dr. Digvijay Pandya of Lovely Professional University.
"According to other sources, Richard Steele uses the personae of Isaac Bickerstaff and was the one who wrote about the “death” of John Partridge and published it in The Spectator, not Jonathan Swift."
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 22:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so not sure I fully understand the definition of reliable sources. I think this is her christening record http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/IGI/individual_record.asp?recid=100307229826&lds=1®ion=2®ionfriendly=British+Isles&frompage=99
and certainly the Wikipedia page about Wigston mentions her as being from there(but unsourced) but can't find anything definitive online (her monument is in Leicester cathedral about 4 miles from Wigston and I think I remember the reference coming from Arthur Mee's County history of Leicestershire and Rutland, but as it's not online I can't prove it. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAvoncroft (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - That noticeboard is monitored by Administrators who can decide on protection/unprotection, and implement the decision. If you have a specific edit you would like made, please propose it here, along with any needed reliable sources to support it, and reactivate the template. Thanks. Begoon talk 07:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Thank you -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
