Talk:A Modest Proposal

Delete

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

—gorgan_almighty 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• If that is where the term "Modest Proposal" comes from then there may be a case for keeping the article. But it needs to be rewritten because in no place in the article does it actually state why this Catholic babies thing is mentioned. There is no statement that it is the origin of the phrase. The article reads more like an argument supporting the case of eating babies.

—gorgan_almighty 18:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The name of the pamphlet is A Modest Proposal. And in it, the author makes a case for eating babies. I don't think it could be any clearer. — Slicing 03:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you think this article is about a non-notable piece of brilliant, if dark, satire that is extremely well know by the brief title "A Modest Proposal", would you also propose deletion for articles on the works of A. Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens, L. Frank Baum, and (to include other satirists Rabelais and Voltaire? wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for future reference, articles like these do not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. If you tag it as such and someone (most likely an administrator) removes the tag citing that it does not fall under the critiria, don't re-add the tag. If you wish for people to discuss the merits of an article and whether it should be deleted, please nominate it for deletion, where it will be debated for a week about whether the article should be kept or deleted. (Though it should be noted that this article would almost certainly pass AfD as a speedy keep.) Thanks a lot! If you have any questions, please don't hesistate to contact me. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

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

It had one for a while. I guess I don't really see the point since the spoiler warning would be wrapped around essentially the entire article, but I don't think it would hurt anything either. Dan Slotman 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If A Modest Proposal needs a spoiler warning, so does Romeo and Juliet (oops! it doesn't have one! better get cracking). The very suggestion is pretty hilarious (I'm not attacking you, really! I laughed heartily). It's easily Swift's best known essay, and it's hundreds of years old. I think the cat is out of the bag. --RemoWilliams 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But Romeo and Juliet wasn't exactly known for its surprises. Lots of people back then knew the story, albeit in a different form. --Raijinili 04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely you jest. Romeo and Juliet didn't have a surprise ending? Juliet takes a potion that makes her appear as dead, and Romeo, finding her in this state, kills himself, not realizing that she's still alive and well. It's a shock ending, and probably quite unexpected at the time. You can only say it didn't have "surprises" by viewing it through a modern lens where you already know the ending.

But it also doesn't need a spoiler tag because it's incredibly well known and hundreds of years old... just like AMP

Neuralsim (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Political Satire playing on the original idea

A humble suggestion on how to deal with the child crisis

First Dog on the Moon

Political Cartoon

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/23/a-humble-suggestion-on-how-to-deal-with-the-child-crisis?CMP=share_btn_fb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.223.205 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"Eating babies" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Eating babies. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Eating babies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Italics title

The title is currently in italics, but it should not be, per MOS:MINORWORK. I don't know how this can be changed. If anyone knows, please fix it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It was published as a stand-alone chapbook (booklet), and falls under MOS:ITALICTITLE. MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs Ah, I have reverted my edit. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)