Discussion:Modeste Proposition
Autres discussions [liste]
- Admissibilité
- Neutralité
- Droit d'auteur
- Article de qualité
- Bon article
- Lumière sur
- À faire
- Archives
- Commons
Cet article est indexé par les projets Littérature britannique et Irlande.
Les projets ont pour but d’enrichir le contenu de Wikipédia en aidant à la coordination du travail des contributeurs. Vous pouvez modifier directement cet article ou visiter les pages de projets pour prendre conseil ou consulter la liste des tâches et des objectifs.
| Avancement | Importance | pour le projet | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bon début | Élevée |  | Littérature britannique (discussion • critères • liste • stats • hist. • comité • stats vues) |
| Faible |  | Irlande (discussion • critères • liste • stats • hist. • comité • stats vues) | |
Cet article ne comporte pas de liste de tâches suggérées. Vous pouvez saisir une liste de tâches à accomplir (par exemple sous forme d'une liste à puces), puis sauvegarder. Vous pouvez aussi consulter la page d'aide.
Une anecdote sourcée à partir de Modeste Proposition a été publiée sur la page d'accueil dans la rubrique Le saviez-vous ? le .
Texte de l'anecdote publiée :
- L’auteur des Voyages de Gulliver publia en 1729 une Modeste Proposition afin de réduire la misère et la surpopulation qui touchaient l’Irlande du XVIIIe siècle en se servant des nourrissons comme source d’alimentation.
L'archive de la discussion ayant mené à cette publication peut être consultée sur cette page.
Inauguration de la page de discussion[modifier le code]
je me suis permis de remodeler l'article. — Le message qui précède, non signé, a été déposé par Tarchleub (discuter), le 18 mai 2008 à 14:06 CET.
Anonymement?[modifier le code]
L'article dit "publié anonymement en 1729" mais le scan de l'édition originale, à coté, porte une signature... "By Dr Swift". Le fourbe et cruel Raminagrobis Miauler 7 septembre 2019 à 10:07 (CEST)
Tu as raison, pour l'instant, il est préférable d'enlever cette mention dans l'introduction, tant que l'explication n'en est pas clairement donnée dans le texte. Il semblerait d'après le débat sur ce point ayant eu lieu dans la pdd anglophone il y deux ans (ci-dessous) que l'ouvrage ait été publié initialement sans nom d'auteur, mais j'ai eu beau lire et relire cela n'est pas mentionné plus bas. Archibald Tuttle (discuter) 7 septembre 2019 à 11:52 (CEST)
- « It very often happens that works such as this are published anonymously - although we later find out who they were in fact written by. This happens often enough not to be at all "confusing". Really. If the editor who wanted to delete the "anonymously" from this statement is serious (surely not - we may not all be intellectuals here but we do assume basic literacy) then perhaps a fuller explanation might be included, but this is unnecessary (honest) - and would be hard to do neatly without giving the impression we thought our readers were small, not very bright children. The same for such totally unnecessary phrases as "for short". No need for it, and gives even the little ones the impression they're being written down to. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not quite sure why this article attracts so many peculiar remarks, but we may need something further here. The first edition was anonymous - meaning not more nor less than no author's name on the title page. Since Swift was well known for this sort of thing, and since it is very much in his usual style, the secret may very well have been out pretty smartly - but the fact that anonymity was at least attempted, even if it was soon abandoned is still relevant information, factual, succinctly expressed, and not in the slightest liable to cause any real "confusion". But its a detail that, while its worth including, is hardly worth elaborating at great length, even if we could do so without speculation. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Have you considered that attracting "peculiar remarks" might indicate a need for improvement? Parts of the article suffer from weak or awkward prose (I write for a living), but more importantly, it gives a false impression of Swift's willingness to take credit/blame for the essay. The way it reads now doesn't acknowledge that Swift ever abandoned the open secret of his authorship and put his name on it, let alone that he did so as soon as the first small printing of it sold out. This isn't like so many cases, where a mystery of authorship was eventually solved by academics (as the article now implies); it was a case where the obvious author promptly changed his mind and took ownership. (All of which transpired in 1729, not in 1728 as you incorrectly stated in your edit summary). Saying only that he "published [it] anonymously... in 1729" – when he also published it with his name on the cover that same year – is not (as you keep misquoting me) "confusing"; it is a half-truth: misinformation by omission. That accident of wording isn't a big deal, but I'd hope we could address it without so much knee-jerk defensiveness and condescension from you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- It was a pamphlet - if it hadn't touched quite such a raw nerve the first printing could very well have been the last (the usual case with such ephemera). Pamphlets in this period were more akin to journalism than literature. The "anonymous" bit, which you wanted to cut out altogether, is quite significant. What about just adding the word "initially", or "originally" before "published"? But I still can't see that the original text is "misleading", or actually needs emendation. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) »
- Have you considered that attracting "peculiar remarks" might indicate a need for improvement? Parts of the article suffer from weak or awkward prose (I write for a living), but more importantly, it gives a false impression of Swift's willingness to take credit/blame for the essay. The way it reads now doesn't acknowledge that Swift ever abandoned the open secret of his authorship and put his name on it, let alone that he did so as soon as the first small printing of it sold out. This isn't like so many cases, where a mystery of authorship was eventually solved by academics (as the article now implies); it was a case where the obvious author promptly changed his mind and took ownership. (All of which transpired in 1729, not in 1728 as you incorrectly stated in your edit summary). Saying only that he "published [it] anonymously... in 1729" – when he also published it with his name on the cover that same year – is not (as you keep misquoting me) "confusing"; it is a half-truth: misinformation by omission. That accident of wording isn't a big deal, but I'd hope we could address it without so much knee-jerk defensiveness and condescension from you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- En effet, il est écrit "printed in dublin, re-printed in london" donc peut être que c'est une 2e édition la même année? Dans ce cas c'est pas resté anonyme longtemps... Enfin faudrait trouver une source Le fourbe et cruel Raminagrobis Miauler 7 septembre 2019 à 17:50 (CEST)
Proposition d'anecdote pour la page d'accueil[modifier le code]
Une anecdote basée sur cet article a été proposée ici (une fois acceptée ou refusée elle est archivée là). N'hésitez pas à apporter votre avis sur sa pertinence, sa formulation ou l'ajout de sources dans l'article.
Les anecdotes sont destinées à la section « Le Saviez-vous ? » de la page d'accueil de Wikipédia. Elles doivent d'abord être proposées sur la page dédiée.
(ceci est un message automatique du bot GhosterBot le 31 décembre 2020 à 15:17, sans bot flag)