Talk:Drapier's Letters

Wikipedia contradicts itself as to the value of Wood's Irish coinage

According to the entry taken from the Wiki article on Wood (see below) the coins were not inferior, nor was the coinage a scam. Swift's attack on it may have gained him fame and approbation in Ireland as a patriot and saviour, but was it truly based. Has it just been assumed that Swift's accusations were accurate? Was the accusation of a debased coinage merely the 'conventional wisdom' or a popular myth at the time in Ireland (smarting under English rule and from secondary status) and, indeed even accepted today as fact without evidence, or was there proof positive of an attempt to debase the coinage for profit and at the disadvantage of Ireland? Might Swift have been deceived or self deceived on the matter, and so his rightous indignation, combined with his skill with the pen, found a facile target, and an outlet for his frustrated and devastating vehemance.

[edit] Wood’s Halfpence William hoped to make a profit producing coins for use in Ireland and America. During the first half of 1722 the king's mistress, the Duchess of Kendal, obtained a patent from the Earl of Sunderland for coining copper money for Ireland. Wood thought this would be a profitable enterprise so he purchased the royal patent from the duchess for £10,000. In his indenture from George I dated June 16, 1722 Wood was authorized to produce up to 360 tons of halfpence and farthings for Ireland at 30 pence to the pound over a period of fourteen years for an annual fee of £800 paid to the king. These Hibernia coins were heavier and thus intrinsically more valuable than the coppers then circulating in Ireland. They were certainly less profitable for Wood to mint than his lighter weight Rosa Americana issues. (Hibernia's weighed sixty halfpence to the pound as compared to 120 Rosa Americana halfpence to the pound!). When including the costs of production and the £10,000 fee paid to the Duchess of Kendal, Mossman has calculated Wood would have lost £4,871 over the fourteen years of the patent. Thus from Wood's standpoint the Hibernia coin specifications were too generous based on the cost of production.

Wood's coinage was extremely unpopular in Ireland as a result of the publication of Jonathan Swift's The Drapier's Letters, so these were recalled. Among other things, Swift suggested that the coins were of inferior quality, but assays carried out by Sir Isaac Newton, at that time Master of the Mint, showed that the copper “was of the same goodness and value with that which was coined for England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.178.21.37 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This results from the fact that Wood never minted his coin in the amount that would be necessary, therefore, one could never know. And Newton's assay didn't state what the assay in the English Privy Council's release stated, so there was some propaganda and exaggeration going on on both sides. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct title?

Which is the correct full title? The article name suggests "The Drapier's Letters", but the article is inconsistant but generally uses just "Drapier's Letters" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The title is "Drapier's Letters". The article name has an article that, if it wasn't at the beginning, would be lowercase. Ehrenpreis, Ferguson, Smith, and Scott all refer to the work as Drapier's Letters or an individual piece as a Drapier's letter. This labeling is used by the Oxford Authors and Oxford World's Classics edition of Swift's works. Herbert Davis is the only one to introduce "the" into the title, and his title is The Drapier's Letters to the People of Ireland. Swift did not name the work, except for the individual letters. The naming of this work is similar to The Battle of the Books and Gulliver's Travels, which were changed after the fact. According to standard scholarly usage, it is "Drapier's Letter I" or "the first Drapier's letter". Ottava Rima (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the article name be changed to the actual name of the work? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be something difficult. Which name do you use? It was originally printed as the original titles, or collected as "Fraud Detected"/Fraud Detected. Is it known by that title? Probably not. The original letter titles are used quite often. It is known as "the Drapier's Letters", but "the" cannot be properly italicized since it is not in a literary title except for one instance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since WP:MOS#Article titles prefers that we avoid 'The', except for proper names, as in The Hague, why not rename this page? When I Google for 'The Drapier's Letters' the top hit is this Wikipedia article, which is a bad sign. We are evidently the main online authority that believes 'The' is part of the name. We should reflect the most common usage, not pioneer our own. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am for a change if it will not interfere with the FAC review process. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing questions

Set 1

Well, this is fun! I always love reading about Swift! I'm going to start my list of copy editing questions here:

• He was later honored for his service to the people of Ireland. - Could his service to the people be made a little more explicit? When reading this sentence I was a bit confused - why was he honored, exactly?

1. His service was writing the letters which helped to force the withdrawal of the patent.

Let's make this clear in the sentence then. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• It seems like paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lead could be combined, since they focus on Swift as "Irish hero".

2. Readability would separate the two paragraphs, according to the SMOG rating system (which deals with paragraph lengths and readability).

The SMOG rating is irrelevant - the two paragraphs focus on the same topic - it makes no sense to separate them. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• When it was thought by many that William Conolly’s Commissioners of the Revenue might pay the military with the coin and the people of Ireland be forced to accept them - Don't we need to specify an "Irish military" of some sort here? It does not seem that the English government was proposing to pay the English military with these coins.

3. The military in Ireland was the English military, because Ireland was still under the control of the King, and the army controlled by English officers.

The sentence needs to make this clear, then. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• During this time, Lord Carteret, one of two British Secretaries of State, pushed Walpole into defending Wood's patent while he simultaneously attempted to destroy the patent in order to remove Walpole as his rival in the king's favor. - The "he" has an unclear referent - grammatically it could be referring to "Wood" or "Walpole", but I think it is supposed to refer to Lord Carteret, is that correct? This needs to be reworded for clarity.

4. "he" refers to Carteret. It sounded funny to put Carteret again before "simultaneously". If you can rework it to remove the potential silliness, feel free.

I haven't the time, but the sentence needs to be fixed. Currently it is ungrammatical and nonsensical. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jonathan Swift, then Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, was already known for his concern for the Irish people and for writing several relevant pamphlets. - Can we be more specific here than "relevant"? Can we describe their pro-Irish concerns a little more specifically?'

5'. Should read "political pamphlets" and not "relevant pamphlets".

Has this been fixed then? Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The obvious disadvantages of Wood's inferior coinage were forensically detailed in the first of the pamphlets - Is "forensically" the right word here? It sounds a bit anachronistic.

6. Forensics has been around for a very long time. The word comes from Latin, forensis (sp?).

That is not the issue - we need to think of readers. I know what my undergraduates would think: CSI. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• a talented and skilled draper who was connected to the people of Ireland and religiously devout - What does "connected to the people of Ireland" mean?

7. Have roots in the community? Irish as Irish can be? Not an English citizen who was basically exiled into Ireland based on political opposition? Take your pick.

So pick one and make the sentence specific! Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is debate in the academic community over how much Swift may have wished his audience to identify him as the Drapier through the Drapier's constant inclusion of religious imagery - I'm not quite sure what this means - does it mean identify Swift personally or does it mean identify with the persona of the draper through religious imagery? This needs to be reworded for clarity.

8. It means Swift=Drapier. There is debate over if he wanted to be identified as the Drapier or not.

So please clarify the sentence. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Although Swift knew that the Duchess of Kendal was responsible for selling the patent to Wood, he rarely mentions this fact in the Letters. Instead, his first three letters emphasize how Wood was the mastermind behind the patent. - Is there any speculation in the scholarship why this might be?

9. No. When my paper is published on the issue, then maybe. But then I wouldn't be able to cite myself. So no.

You can cite yourself if you are published. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Although the Drapier constantly asserts his loyalty to the King, his words did not prevent claims of treason from being leveled against him after the publication of the third and fourth letters - Accusations of treason were leveled against the drapier or Swift or the author?

10. Both. However, there was no legal evidence to prove Swift was the Drapier. But "his" refers to the Drapier in context.

• the Drapier was condemned like William Molyneux, whose Case of Ireland pleaded for independence for the same reasons - Could we get a publication date on this?

11. Published 1698. Ferguson gives dates and background of Molyneux and his work on p. 20

So add it! Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The letter written to Middleton was signed with Swift's name[2], and the "Humble Address" was published after the conflict had ended - Were both the sixth and seventh letters published after the controversy? This is a bit unclear.

12. Yes

So clarify the sentence! Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• It was titled as "Fraud Detected" by the Drapier Club in 1725 - I don't understand this - what is the Drapier Club? Did they republish it? This statement needs expansion and context.

13. The "Drapier's Club" was, basically, Faulkner. There is no real information on who were members, what they did, etc. The term is vague, unsure, but they published the first letter in the Dublin Journal (owned by Faulkner) as "Fraud Detected" and later as a small collection (of the original five public letters) on October 2, 1725 as Fraud Detected: or, The Hibernian Patriot. Ehrenpreis details this on p. 317.

Add details to the article to clarify this. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Although it was titled "to the Shop-keepers", the internal address is "To the tradesmen, shop-keepers, farmers, and common-people in general of Ireland". - Can you say anything else about the "internal address" or subtitle? If not, I would delete this sentence - the reader already has the subtitle and without any analysis added from the scholarship, repeating it is not of much help.

14. The wording was to distinguish between the placement of "shop-keepers" in the title. There is no criticism on why the name changes, so it would be impossible to add an explanation.

So we should delete this sentence. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• This letter was also included in a letter sent to the future lord lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Carteret, on 28 April 1724 - This also needs more historical context - what letter? sent by whom? why?

15. Just a random letter from Jonathan Swift. Possibly to brag.

Please add explanation to article. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Throughout his monetary arguments, the Drapier constantly acknowledges how humble his station in life is, and incorporates theological and classical to mock Wood. - "theological and classical" what?

16. Probably "allusions" and was dropped during an edit.

Well, add it back in! Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• However, the final judgment was not yet, and the Drapier also emphasized the immediate reality of threat to business and persons along with his scriptural claims. - Is this supposed to be an actual reference to the Final Judgment?

17. The Drapier refers constantly to the final judgment or to "God's judgment".

I would add a link then. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are many Anglican overtones the Drapier's combination of a duty to God with duty to one's king and country. - If we can't explain this, can we at least give an example?

18. "duty to God with duty to one's king and country" is an example of an Anglican concept from the sentence.

That is not only an Anglican concept, however, which is one reason this is so confusing. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• However, the final judgment had not yet come, and the Drapier also emphasized the immediate reality of threats to business and persons. - This needs to be explained in more detail - we have lost sight of Swift's argument against Wood's coins here.

19. The threat to businesses is part of Swift's argument against Wood, as with the threat to the soul. Swift emphasized the moral and economic components of the threat.

What specific moral and economic threats? No answer here yet. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The language and examples the Drapier uses to describe the possible harm resulting from the introduction of the coin into Irish society were viewed as extreme or exaggerated, but many critics and historians have determined that Swift's imagery was grounded in truth. - Meaning what, exactly? This needs to be explained in more detail.

20. Critics have stated that Swift is actually using the truth even though he may appear to be exaggerating. No more, no less.

This is quite odd - can you explain more please? Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Even Swift's personal attacks upon Wood's character represented a common depiction of people in Wood's class and occupation. - This doesn't mean that Wood deserved the attacks - I don't know how justified it is to include this sentence after a sentence claiming that the pamphlets were rooted in "truth".

21. The author cited goes to great lengths to show how the attacks were true. If there is a competing point of view, then it would be introduced to defend Wood. However, unlike Walpole, Wood did not have a historian willing to take up a defense of his character. Even Coxe, Walpole's defender throws Wood under the bus.

This still makes no sense - the sentence claims he based his attacks on a stereotype. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just keep adding as I go. I hope this is helpful! Awadewit (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Set 2

• Although the Drapier may allude to the Duchess of Kendall in the first letter, he shifts his focus in the second letter to put the blame on the Whig party. - I'm not sure why this sentence needs an "although" - what am I missing?

1. "Although" is part of "may". Turn the sentence into a "definite" tone and the "although" can be dropped.

So please do so. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• In particular, Wood's offer of three proposals alongside the Privy Council's report were a source of criticism. - This is unclear - what kinds of proposals? why were they criticized?

2. This would need to be put in an article about the Wood's halfpence, because it deals with a tangent issue. Three of Wood's proposals, according to Ehrenpreis - Woods offers to change the amount to produce from 100,800 pounds to 40,000 pounds worth, no one to accept more than five pence halfpenny per transaction, and to sell the coin at 2s 1 d a pound or his unminted copper at 1s 8d a pound. p 226, the Drapier's attacks are on p. 229-230 and p. 249-250.

It is not a tangent - this sentence makes no sense to someone who doesn't know this information. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Drapier emphasizes his humble nature and simple understanding in accord to his audience, the nobility - I don't understand - how does his "humble nature" and "simple understanding" appeal to his noble audience? This needs to be clearer.

3. Playing dumb to a politician is a way to win favor. People in power tend to be jealous. If Swift was to say "I'm way smarter than you and here is why", then his work would be ignored by them.

Please make this rhetorical move clearer. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The basis of the attack is on the full printing of the "Report of the Committee of the Most Honourable the Privy-Councill in England". - Unclear - do you mean something like "After the full printing of the "Report", the Drapier unleashed his attack..."?

4. Sure

Please fix it in the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The central argument in the letter is that the English have negated the rights of the Irish people by not relying on a completely English system to pass the patent without any respect to the Irish Parliament. - I can't follow this and it seems to contradict the last paragraph of the section.

5. Here is a rewrite - "The central argument in the letter is that the English have negated the rights of the Irish people by relying on a completely English system to pass the patent without allowing the Irish Parliament a say."

Better. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• This image resonated with the people, and a message was written by people of Dublin in regards to the Drapier and Swift - "a message"? to whom? Is this really the right word?

6. There was a sign put up that said those words.

Let's add that to the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Paragraphs 3 and 4 of "To the Nobility and Gentry" are a bit hard to follow - can we explain everything in a bit more detail?

7. Probably.

Than do so. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff! Awadewit (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the big block quote in the "To the People of Ireland" section, are some of the words supposed to be underlined?

8. The block quotes are copied right from the original text with the original formatting.

Actually, according to this image of the text, those words should be italicized. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The rest of the constitutional debate was split over the nature of Poynings' Law, a law that was later used to usurp Irish parliamentary independence, and the Drapier picked up Molyneux's merging of proof against the law being used to control Irish parliamentary procedure with Locke's political philosophy - This is not clear.

9 Poynings' Law was interpreted to remove power from the Irish. Molyneux argued that Poynings' Law was not to be interpret that way. The Drapier used this argument and combined aspects of Locke into it.

Please make this clear in the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lord Carteret read passages about the Irish constitutional independence to the Irish Privy Council and claimed that they were treasonable - passages from the letter?

10. From Letter 4.

Please make this clear in the text. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Archbishop King responded to the letter by saying they were "ludicrous and satyrically write".[9] - Just checking that this is the correct spelling - if so, should there be a "[sic]" after "write" or is punning?

11. "writ"

Has this been fixed? Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lord Carteret wrote that the matter was an "unfortunate accident" and he did not want to respond in such a way - I don't think it is totally clear what "the matter" was.

12. Treasonable quotes.

Please make this clear in the text. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• he Archbishop publicly supported the constitutional actions more than the other three, which caused others of political importance to criticize him.[10] - Do we know what others criticized him? Or at least who they were aligned with? This is a bit vague.

13. It is vague, because it was a whisper campaign.

Ok. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking a small break to get something to drink! Awadewit (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Drapier begins his letter with three quotations: Psalm 109, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 7, and Virgil - What Virgilian text?

14 here is the original page. "Non iam prima peto Mnesttheus, neque vincere certo: Quanquam O! Sed superent, quibus Hoc, Neptune, dedisti." Virgil in Book 5 is the main hit. However, in Swift, the "i" of "iam" is with a "j" character.

So, we should say "and Virgil's Aeneid". Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The letter serves one other purpose: to delight in the Drapier's lack of being captured and his victory over Whitshed - Who/what is Whitshed?

15William Whitshed, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland. I couldn't find an appropriate wikilink. He was the man putting Harding on trial. Ehrenpreis, on page 289-290 and 293, explains that Whitshed was the one who origanized the trial, and a letter, "Seasonable Advice to the Grand-Jury", written by Swift but not as the Drapier, was used to guide the Irish jury to stand up against Whitshed's wishes to throw Harding in jail and instead let him go.

Explain in article. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Drapier's fifth letter, A Letter To the Honourable the Lord Viscount Molesworth, at his House at Brackdenstown, near Swords, includes the most pseudo-biographical information on the Drapier - This makes an odd introduction - what happened to the publication info? That was a good way to begin.

16 published December 31, 1724.

Add to article. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• In a letter to Motte in May 1736, Swift undermined Faulkner's legal right to publish the works but admonished the attitude and action of Motte as a publisher.[8] - Why "dmonished" if there is a "but"? This doesn't make sense.

17 He wanted to allow the Irish to publish the work, but he was legally not allowed to. "admonish" "Motte" would help Faulkner.

Please make clearer in article. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can we integrate the list of references to the Drapier's Letters in Swift's later works in the article in appropriate spots? This section looks a bit too much like trivia right now.

18 Unsure, that was the section in the original.

Take it out, then. No reason to keep it. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it! Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudobiographia

The 5th letter opens with a claim that the letter contains the most pseudobiographical information but leaves it as that. Here is the information cited by Ferguson:

• "I was bred at a Free-School where I acquired some little Knowledge in the Latin Tongue, I served my Apprenticeship in London, and there set up for my self with good Success, 'till by the Death of some Friends, and the Misfortunes of Others, I returned into this Kingdom, and began to employ my Thoughts in cultivating the Woollen Manufacture through all it's Branches."

Ferguson's claim is:

• "in the Letter to Molesworth that there occurs the fullest biograph of the Drapier, included not so much to enhance the persona's reality as to afford Swift the pleasure of indulging in a thinly veiled account of his own career" p. 128
• "The Drapier portrays himself as an obscure private citizen who offered his small contribution for his country's welfare (he does not make the observation, but he might have noted that he has behaved exactly as the Dean of St. Patrick's had recommended in a sermon recently preached at the cathedral)." p. 129 (Referring to Sermons of Dean Swift#On Doing Good.)
• "The Drapier is more discouraged because in none of his Letters is there a sentiment so dangerous as those he has read in the works of Locke, Molyneux, and Molesworth himself. Because he got his political education from these liberals Whig philosophers, he based his attack upon the halfpence on the wrong foundation: 'I foolishly disdained to have Recourse to Whining, Lamenting" etc (the rest of the quote is already provided in the article). p. 130

I do not know how much of this information is necessary.

Questions on sources

• Coxe, William. Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford. 1798. - This needs publication information.

1 Books before 1920 don't necessary have modern publication detail nor is it required.

Books published in the eighteenth century have "printed by" information and most often locations. It helps locate the copy you used. My library has many copies of this book, all published in 1798. If I want to check your references, I cannot - there is not sufficient information here. We aim to give readers all of the information we can. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I went to World Cat, and if that is trustworthy, then there you go. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Volume IX, VI. 19. "Pamphlets on Irish affairs: Drapier’s Letters." - This needs an author/editor and publication information.

2 Cambridge is the publisher, and there are too many editors to list. Such works don't require such.

• *Mason, William Monck. History of St. Patrick's Cathedral Dublin, 1820. - This needs publication information.

3 See number 1.

• *Craik, Sir Henry. Life of Jonathan Swift. Vol. II. London, 1894. - This needs publication information.

4 See number 1. Plus "London" is the publication detail.

• • Swift, Jonathan. Correspondence. Vol. IV. Ed. Harold Williams. Oxford: 1965. - This needs publication information.

5 Oxford is the publication detail.

This is ambiguous - it could be a place or a publishing house. Let's not be silly - these are incomplete notes. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Worldcat says Clarendon Press]. Added.

• Although the letters were condemned by the Irish government, in line with orders from the English government - This statement seems to be referenced to an eighteenth-century primary source - is there anything more reliable? If not, I'm not sure we should include it.

6 So, letters from the 18th century are no longer reliable? I guess Ehrenpreis et al need to burn their books for refering to these sources to form their arguments. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not the issue - we are not Ehrenpreis. We are lowly Wikipedia editors. We must rely on people like Ehrenpreis to determine what is reliable from the primary materials and what is not - please review WP:V and WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And Ehrenpreis determines it is reliable. All of these sources before 1910 have been used by Goodwin, Ehrenpreis and Ferguson. I have not added any of the sources that have been deemed speculative. The 1911 Britannica is also a guide to which ones deal with potential rumors. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Drapier's Letters are the most important of Swift's "Irish tracts", and are his most politically important work after Gulliver's Travels (1726), A Tale of a Tub (1704), and A Modest Proposal (1729). Above all, the Drapier's Letters are a primary reason why Swift is seen as a hero to many Irish people, for he was one of the earliest writers to defy England's control over the Irish nation - This paragraph is sourced to a 1910 biography and not one which is the standard. Such a definitive statement should be sourced to the most authoritative and modern scholarship.

7 Smith is not a biography, but a history of events happening while Swift was Dean. This work is authoritative and hasn't been disagreed with.

Historical methods have changed since 1910 - we need to verify this information with modern scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica mentions Smith along with the credible accounts. The 1911 Britannica is part of the core of Wikipedia's verifiability. Also, criticism then and now hasn't really changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the 1911 Britannica is not reliable. It is used as something to fill in the gaps until we have real articles based on modern scholarship. The 1911 Britannica is filled with inaccurate information. Literary criticism and history have changed dramatically since 1911. For example, Hayden White revolutionized the study of history, introducing new methods that emphasized "discourses". Think also of the historiography of the French Revolution - we used it think it was a bourgeois revolution, but after the revisionist French Revolution history of the 1970s and later, we now know there were many more causes. Literary studies has been dramatically altered by the introduction of feminist literary criticism, deconstruction, and many other ideas which have made their way into history. Let's not ignore the dramatic changes in the last century of scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To Wikipedia, the 1911 Britannica is reliable. Sorry. Wikipedia has whole pages built around it. I don't think you understand the difference between "critical" source and "reliable" source. Even revisionist history belongs on Wikipedia. There is another Wiki that deals only with "critical" sources that may be more suited to you. And the burden is on you to take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard if you want it to be deemed as a non-reliable source. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"To Wikipedia, the 1911 Britannica is reliable." No, not at all. There's even a project dedicated to verifying articles using the 1911 Britannica. If it was indeed considered reliable, there would be no need for this project to exist. BuddingJournalist 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Budding - checking a source's contentions is common practice and done for most things. However, the only objection I've seen to wholesale use of Britannica is that Wikipedia is forming its own encyclopedia and doesn't want to rely on another. Read: "can in some cases be used as a source of material for the English Wikipedia." That means it means "verifiability" criteria on basis and then, like all others, need to be checked to see if criticism disputes it. Now, being mentioned in the 1911 Britannica, especially when published the year before, IS a big deal, and thus, she is widely known and credible on that basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Although Swift knew that the Duchess of Kendal was responsible for selling the patent to Wood, he rarely mentions this fact in the Letters. Instead, his first three letters emphasize how Wood was the mastermind behind the patent. Although the Drapier constantly asserts his loyalty to the King, his words did not prevent claims of treason from being leveled against him in response to the third and fourth letters - This is also sourced to the 1910 biography - why hasn't Ehrenpreis been used?

8 Because Ehrenpreis doesn't care enough to say the above? Ehrenpreis's motives are different than Ferguson's and Smith's.

Yes, but I reiterate the problem with 1910 sources - they weren't fact-checked like works are now, they didn't go through the same peer review, etc. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The basis of the attack is on the full printing of the "Report of the Committee of the Most Honourable the Privy-Councill in England". This document was released by Walpole as a defense of Wood's coin and argued that the coin was important to the people of Ireland. However, this document was not officially released by Walpole in the Parliament's Gazette, but published in the London Journal in August 1724. Some scholars have speculated that this was a way to ensure Walpole would not be connected directly to Wood's coin, but it allowed the Drapier to undermine the credibility of the report - This is based on an 1820 source - we must have modern verification.

9 So the Bible is wrong unless "moderns" go and "verify" it? Sources aren't outdated unless a later source comes to prove it wrong. NOR would require all view points regardless of year.

Actually, yes. The Bible is wrong about a great many things - it is not rigorously researched historical work. Sources can be outdated for many reasons - including the fact that their methods have been supplanted. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Bible isn't wrong about anything according to Wikipedia Verifiability and NPOV standards. Even lies are part of Wikipedia if there is a strong enough source to back it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is now off topic, but...Using NPOV, we have to introduce the works of Biblical scholars, who dispute the veracity of parts of the Bible. For example, Bart Ehrman demonstrates in Misquoting Jesus that the Bible has been tampered with - stories were inserted by later writers for political and theological reasons. Second, countless scientists have disputed the creation story and the resurrection story, among many other tales. The Bible does not stand as a reference on its own - like every book, it must stand the scrutiny of scholars. Awadewit (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They can dispute it all they want, but they cannot remove the Biblical passages. NPOV requires both sides based on how much main stream belief is backing them, regardless if "critics" think their idea is more right than others. Many 9/11 skeptics, for example, have tons of "scholarship" and "criticism" backing them up, but they aren't mainstream and they don't deserve such. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some residents of Dublin placed banners and signs in the city to recognize Swift's deeds as the Drapier, and images from the letters, such as the Drapier comparing his campaign to David fighting Goliath, became themes in popular literature. - More from the 1910 biography - if this is the only source to mention these events, their reliability is questionable as historical methods were different in the early twentieth century.

10 If you have a problem with Sophie Smith, you must go here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Or we can debate it here like rational Wikipedians. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources aren't really debatable. You need a community consensus to condemn one. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect - you only need one person to point out that a source is unreliable according to WP:V. That is what I have done and that is what is done at FAC consistently. Awadewit (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, thats a citation as not having a reliable published source. You have to go to the noticeboard and ask for a source to be deemed by consensus as not reliable if you wish to remove an piece of evidence that has a citation behind it. And Smith's work is famous, so your chances of having her removed are slim to none. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lord Carteret read passages about Irish constitutional independence to the Irish Privy Council and claimed that they were treasonable - From the 1798 work - are we sure about this? If so, let's use the modern source.

11 How would we be more sure than a person who was there during the events?

People misrepresent their own lives, etc. Remember the recent Hilary Clinton debacle about Kosovo? Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to add in "misrepresentations", and OR would keep us from determine what is right or wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The purpose of the sixth letter was to ensure that Midleton would stay true to his opposition of Wood's patent. Although the extent to which Midleton was influenced by the letter cannot be known, it is certain that Midleton believed that the patent would harm Ireland and that he would resist it at all costs - The 1798 primary source - we need verification.

12 See above

• I'm curious why none of the modern literary criticism on the Drapier's Letters has been included here. I saw several promising articles and books in the MLA database, such as The Pamphlet Controversy about Wood's Halfpence (1722-25) and the Tradition of Irish Constitutional Nationalism (2003) by Sabine Baltes.

13 What modern criticism? What you have in the document is the whole of the criticism.

I hope this is a joke because I cited a book in my comment that is not used in this article. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that they aren't academic or critical, or they don't apply with needed information. The one you cite there is here. Not a credible publishing house. You talk about looking for credible books and you put forth quite a lot that isn't really credible. Also, you probably ran into many foreign language documents, which aren't really acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Peter Lang (publishing company) is a very reputable publishing house. Here is their website. My university's library has at least 2600 books published by them. Second, I was not referring to anything written in a foreign-language. And let's be clear: just because something is written in a foreign language doesn't make it poor scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources should be in English and your publisher citation prints German works. Furthermore, Sabine is a Marxist critic, she does not deal with the rhetoric or the Drapier's letters as they are, but sees them as part of a pseudo Marxist proletariat struggle in the 18th century. Her work is not mainstream, nor is it published in English by many academic sources. If you want to make a separate section dealing with such a thing, go ahead. However, it will be mostly off topic and inappropriate. Notice how most of your hits aren't about the Drapier's Letters, but about the Halfpence controversy, which had hundreds of pamphlets written about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The website clearly indicates that most of the firm's works are publishing in English. Furthermore, as you have repeatedly pointed out, it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to judge the worth of scholarship - precisely what you are doing here. Just because you disagree with the method doesn't make it "off topic". Finally, I carefully looked for sources on the Letters themselves - there is plenty of modern scholarship on the work. It needs to be used for an article to achieve FAC. Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. If you looked at your link, you would see many German texts. Her main language is also German. 2. I've never stopped you from adding in properly sourced information, so your complaint is completely moot. 3. There may be modern scholarship on the work, but they don't say anything different than Ehrenpreis, and Wikipedia standards require the most authoritative source and most widely held to be the one to say it when there is a choice between sources. 4. FAC has nothing to do with having all of the sources. This article could be a FAC with only 50 citations. FAC does not mean an article is complete nor exhaustive. Perhaps you need to relook into what a FAC is. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it on sources! Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see much point in continuing this conversation. I spent hours copy editing this article and listing questions I had about it. I have also carefully evaluated all of the sources and asked questions about the ones I felt were unreliable. Rather than seriously engaging in a discussion, you have consistently challenged my statements (which have been accurate) and referred me to the administrators noticeboard. I think it is clear that you do not want to engage in a discussion about this material. I'm sorry that I am wasting our time. Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that I have not bothered to edit anything? Or that it is my responsibility to make changes? Or are you even saying that you are unwilling to follow standard Wikipedia procedures to ask for a consensus on a reliable source at the notice board? You ask questions, and if you are unsatisfied with the answers, why did you ask? Many of your statements haven't been accurate, but are quite misleading for Wikipedia verifiability. If you have a complaint about a source, you go to the proper place. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of the noticeboard until now and I have been editing here for a year and a half and have written over twenty featured articles. If you nominate an article for FAC, it is your responsibility to fix the article, if you want it to pass. If you don't care about it passing, then, no, of course you don't have to change anything, but usually people nominate articles because they want them to pass. My statements have been accurate - I have backed them up with policy and logic. I have applied WP:V as I understand it and as it is applied in FAC discussions. Furthermore, I have assumed that discussion and consensus could be reached on the sources and other points without having to resort to noticeboards. Awadewit (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a competition. Writing "FA" does not mean you are a quality editor. It means that you got a consensus of people willing to push it towards Featured Article, which means that its a type of article worth the audience reading. Its not my responsibility to do anything on Wikipedia. You are an editor. If you don't like something, you change it. Thats how Wikipedia works. WP:V allows for sources that are blatantly wrong to be included as long as they represented a widely held view point. The only exception is for living people. And you can't argue about experience and then argue that you haven't seen the proper forum to deal with questionable sources. Once again, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Right at the top: "See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources."

To remove any questions about the sources - Ehrenpreis and Ferguson are two leading Swift scholars. Ferguson's work dealt primarily with Swift's relationship with Ireland, and Ehrenpreis's was a more complete biography. They were contemporaries and wrote many articles as response to the other. They are still highly regarded. Between the two, all of the sources pre-1900 are used by them. Furthermore, both base their work on the Drapier's Letters on "Wood's Halfpence" by Goodwin, which was one of the first modern histories of the controversy.

Previous histories of the controversy come from Lecky's Leaders of Irish Public Opinions and Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, Froude's English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century and Leslie Stephen's Swift. These sources would also be added, except that they deal more with the controversy as a whole, and would be fitting only for a page on such. Goodwin is dealing with Swift's involvement, and relies on Monck Mason's History, Craik's Swift, Coxe's Walpole. Ehrenpreis and Ferguson apply their own interpretation to the sources Goodwin choses.

More recent scholars, such as Carl Daw, follow primarily what has been stated by Ehrenpreis (Ehrenpreis three volume work on the matter is, by far, the longest work). New critics, such as Richard Cook, abandon the previous scholarly works for a close reading. However, all of them regard Scott's and Davis's editions as being complete. And still, Ehrenpreis's work is still seen as the main authority on the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are defending sources I never questioned, such as Ehrenpreis and Ferguson - I know they are major figures in the field and are important to include in the article. In fact, I asked you to use Ehrenpreis more. If you want to quote what Ehrenpreis or Ferguson say about the older sources, fine, but I doubt they accept those source in toto - we must rely on them to evaluate these less reliable sources, as I said above. Furthermore, my main point is that modern scholarship from the last 20-30 years on the Drapier's Letters has not been included. From your post in the "Sources" section, it is clear that you rejected the book I mentioned because it was Marxist criticism (thus the article does not represent the full range of opinion on the Letters) and/or because it was published by someone who spoke German (a bizarre reason). Finally, using so few scholars' works to source an article on a work by such a major author as Swift does not demonstrate one of the important parts of the FAC criteria: "accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge". In my opinion, this article only partially represents the "relevant body of published knowledge". Awadewit (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do accept the older sources. Why? Because these are records and letters to other individuals about feelings. You cannot challenge them unless there is a differing opinion from another primary source, and guess what? Wikipedia standards would require both to be included. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GA

First of all, congradulations on this article being promoted. The lead is brilliant. Gives a diverse scope of what is to come later in the article. There were only an few spelling and grammar problems(which were fixed). There are never any edit-wars, from what I have seen there has never sctually been active vandalism on this page. All refrences suuport all statements from great sources. Is written from NPOV, and all images are covered WP Fair Use(great job!). King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

The fact of Swift being Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral hardly deserves the prideful place it currently has in the first sentence. In fact I don't see what the factoid is doing in an article about the Drapier's Letters at all; it's fine in Jonathan Swift, obviously, but not here. Especially not unbalancing the very first sentence! See WP:LEAD. I'm removing it. If there is some unknown reason for its presence and prominence, please just put it back, preferably with an explanation. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Seeing as how a sermon given while he was Dean promoted the actions within the Drapier's Letters, that he was chosen by ArchBishop King because he was known in the position of being Dean of St. Pat's, seeing as how he is sitting in the Dean's Chair in the frontispiece referring to the Drapier's Letters, seeing as how the fact is present in the article and is in the lead per WP:LEAD, seeing as how there are mentions of Swift's sermons which were done in the position of Dean within the article in multiple places, and seeing as how the celebration about the success of the Drapier's Letters happened at St Patrick's, you have really little ground to argue. Seeing as how you have aided a sock puppet used by an admin to harass me on this very subject and your actions in that have been brought up lately by multiple people at ArbCom, it is almost impossible to assume good faith in your current actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Improving the article at this point in time was very tactless of me. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

By improving the article, you mean inappropriately removing things while making patently absurd comments in an area that you had a long history of damaging articles and attacking them in order to harass me? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's it. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

<ri> As the connection didn't seem very obvious on my reading the lead, and really required a look at the body of the article, had a think about it. I knew Swift was Irish, but didn't automatically connect St Patrick's Cathedral with Dublin, so for someone less aware of the connection this could be confusing. Having made the connection explicit I'm happier with the lead. There also seemed to be repetition, and by combining the first two sentences the ideas seem to flow more naturally – that part's a stylistic edit, do feel welcome to revert it if you don't like it, but I do think the mention of Dublin helps to clarify things and my first edit should stand. . dave souza, talk 00:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Swift is at best Anglo Irish, and considered himself an Englishman trapped in Ireland for a very long time (until the Drapier's Letters, where he shows a close affinity with the Irish). By the way, you could have just removed the Wikilink piping so the ", Dublin" would have appeared. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his position always seemed rather ambigious and I read Gulliver's Travels long before thinking there was any Irish connection. His sense of humour doesn't seem to be appreciated by some modern Irish editors. Did think of unpiping St. Pat's, but thought the Dublin link was more useful – some might see that as overlinking of a commonly known name, so either option is ok by me. . dave souza, talk 09:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

letters patent≠patent

"William Wood was granted a letters patent to mint the coin, and Swift saw the licensing of the patent as corrupt." A letters patent is not the same thing as a patent: which was granted to Woods? This should be addressed before appearance on Main Page. Kevin McE (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In many cases, like here, that patent is used as a short form of letters patent, as in Patent of Toleration. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Most important of the Irish tracts?

I've reinserted the tag for the claim that these are the most important of Swift's "Irish tracts." I would have thought that that honor would go to the most famous of Swift's short writing, "A Modest Proposal," but I wouldn't object to the claim if there is some scholarly support for it. John M Baker (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim is a little problematic. In The Mind and Art of Jonathan Swift (Oxford, 1936), p. 346 Ricardo Quintana refers to a Modest Proposal as "Not only the greatest of Swift's Irish tracts; it is also the best introduction to his satiric art." Of course, this is one scholar's opinion, but it does suggest that Drapier's Letters has competition. -Dhodges (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality of Wood's coins

The point was raised above four years ago, but we are still saying in this article "Although Wood produced copper coins, assays showed his coins to be significantly underweight, undersized, and made from inferior materials" while Wood's halfpence article says "assays carried out by Sir Isaac Newton, at that time Master of the Mint, showed that the copper was of the same goodness and value with that which was coined for England". --Rumping (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a corrective, based on Sydney Martin's published study of the coinage. Lachrie (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)