| Revision as of 14:19, 15 April 2008 view sourceOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits response← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:51, 15 April 2008 view source Utgard Loki (talk | contribs)2,260 edits →Sermons of Dean SwiftNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *Hmm. I just want to know why they're "the sermons of ''Dean'' Swift." I would expect them to be the ''Sermons of Jonathan Swift,'' as an independent publication by the title "Sermons of Dean Swift" was pretty trivial. In other words, the ''book'' by that title didn't sell particularly well or have much of an effect on the world. A discussion of the sermons should be under the author's name, and there was a man named Dean Swift who was contemporary with Jonathan Swift. Perhaps the article is about ''his'' sermons? I don't think he was a clergyman, though. ] (]) 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | *Hmm. I just want to know why they're "the sermons of ''Dean'' Swift." I would expect them to be the ''Sermons of Jonathan Swift,'' as an independent publication by the title "Sermons of Dean Swift" was pretty trivial. In other words, the ''book'' by that title didn't sell particularly well or have much of an effect on the world. A discussion of the sermons should be under the author's name, and there was a man named Dean Swift who was contemporary with Jonathan Swift. Perhaps the article is about ''his'' sermons? I don't think he was a clergyman, though. ] (]) 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Dean is a position. Swift was "Dean Swift". That was the person who gave the Sermons. A discussion of the Sermons does not need to be under the Dean's name, because these were published works. ] (]) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | :Dean is a position. Swift was "Dean Swift". That was the person who gave the Sermons. A discussion of the Sermons does not need to be under the Dean's name, because these were published works. ] (]) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *So, there's a book called ''The Sermons of Dean Swift,'' and it was published when? It was a big seller or had a big effect on the world, and that's why we have an article on the ''book?'' I mean, the sermons of the man who was the Dean of St. Patrick's, as themselves, would be ]. You can show the successfulness of this book you're writing about, this ''Sermons of Dean Swift?'' I can't find a major publication like that, but, despite the fact that you say in the lead that such a book ''was not done,'' you must know about it. I wish you wouldn't keep it a secret. ] (]) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:51, 15 April 2008
Cleaned up. Feel free to drop a comment.
Sermons of Dean Swift
Just a quick note to say that I just spotted Sermons of Dean Swift, which seems to be all your work, and thought I'd just drop a quick note to say that it's a great article. Elegantly written and comprehensively referenced, I immediately assessed it as B-class, but I'm sure that it would fly through a good article assessment if you chose to submit it, and it is probably v close to featured article standard. Good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- "In these sermons, Swift attempted to impart tradition Church of Ireland values upon his listeners in a simplistic manner."? "Tradition Church of Ireland values?" Would one perhaps mean "traditional?" Would one perhaps know what these "traditional" values are? Can one perhaps be sure that they were intended to be "simplistic?" To be "simple," of course. To be "simplistic?" To intentionally deny their subtlety and to be reductive? That's quite a claim, and I wonder if "2" says so. Do try to be fair to the Dean, if at all possible. Never mind, I see that #2 is Temple Scott of 1903. Does the name Macaulay ring a bell? Geogre (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you are saying that a few typos that came before others have come to the page to make sure that there weren't any is being unfair to Swift, then, well... But seeing as how you claimed that "because" can't be used to connect two independent clauses even though the dictionary clearly says that its a conjunction that does just those things and uses two independent clauses as an example... Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the phrase is "simplistic manner", not "simplistic values", hence the use of "simplistic" as an adjective that modifies a noun. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- That was your quote, Bucky. "impart values in a simplistic manner" is the complete verb phrase you had. First, do you find that people impart values very often? I rarely see anyone impart values -- it sounds sloppy. The entire sentence is linguistically nil. To paraphrase: "In the sermons, Swift conveyed traditional Christian values in a clear and simple style." "Tradition" for "traditional" may or may not be a "typo," but "simplistic" is not, and "impart" is an evil verb, and the idea that there are "tradition Church of Ireland values" that are in some way distinguished from traditional CoE values, or even RCC values, is either chauvinist, bigoted, or ignorant.
- I've read Swift's sermons, of course. You know why not that many people write about the sermons? I assume you do, since you know everything. Well, they are not terrifically unusual sermons, and even in Swift's day his friends thought them remarkably unremarkable. Now, some people make the case that that was intentional. Some see it as "day job." Few discuss the literary merit of the sermons, although some will use a discussion of a sermon to illuminate a theme visible in other of Swift's works.
- What the sermons are not, by any means, is something uniquely CoI. The "values" in the sermons are just Christian. The doctrine would be CoI, if Swift discussed doctrine in his sermons.
- I came here to find out if you were as proud and obnoxious with everyone else as you had been with me. I saw the praise of the Sermons, so I went to read it. I couldn't get three sentences in before seeing more empty phrasing, archaic views, and then, Lord help us all, a list of each sermon with a summary. I couldn't conclude from that that you were as impenetrable to sense with others as with me, but I could see that you content yourself with Lord Emmsworth-style pontifical writing. I am glad that you have an interest in Swift. I am glad that you're reading. I wish you would avoid the crime Swift satirized most: pride. Geogre (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- So, you admit that you are not here to create an encyclopedia, but harass users in order to push your own Point of View? Do find some other place to take such actions. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- 1. People impart values. Apparently, its common. Then there are derivatives of "impart my values" and "impart his values", etc. Now, this is obvious to most natural speakers of English, since this is a common phrase that has been used for a long time. 2. You can claim the sentence may need to be switched around, but it is grammatically correct and you are just pushing your own taste. That has nothing to do with grammar, and you should really know better. 3. Not that many people write about the sermons? Really? Because every major Swift scholar I've meet seems to find them important to consider. Eilon spent quite a long time on them, as with Daw, and even Cook. 4. And very few see it as a "day job". That view of Swift was laughed out of the scholarly field a few years ago. 5. Actually, you are extremely wrong about the values. He wasn't a Dissenter. He writes Sermons against dissenters. Thus, these aren't Christian values. They are Church of Ireland values. You would know this if you bothered to read the Sermons. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- "In these sermons, Swift attempted to impart tradition Church of Ireland values upon his listeners in a simplistic manner."? "Tradition Church of Ireland values?" Would one perhaps mean "traditional?" Would one perhaps know what these "traditional" values are? Can one perhaps be sure that they were intended to be "simplistic?" To be "simple," of course. To be "simplistic?" To intentionally deny their subtlety and to be reductive? That's quite a claim, and I wonder if "2" says so. Do try to be fair to the Dean, if at all possible. Never mind, I see that #2 is Temple Scott of 1903. Does the name Macaulay ring a bell? Geogre (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. I just want to know why they're "the sermons of Dean Swift." I would expect them to be the Sermons of Jonathan Swift, as an independent publication by the title "Sermons of Dean Swift" was pretty trivial. In other words, the book by that title didn't sell particularly well or have much of an effect on the world. A discussion of the sermons should be under the author's name, and there was a man named Dean Swift who was contemporary with Jonathan Swift. Perhaps the article is about his sermons? I don't think he was a clergyman, though. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dean is a position. Swift was "Dean Swift". That was the person who gave the Sermons. A discussion of the Sermons does not need to be under the Dean's name, because these were published works. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- So, there's a book called The Sermons of Dean Swift, and it was published when? It was a big seller or had a big effect on the world, and that's why we have an article on the book? I mean, the sermons of the man who was the Dean of St. Patrick's, as themselves, would be The sermons of Jonathan Swift. You can show the successfulness of this book you're writing about, this Sermons of Dean Swift? I can't find a major publication like that, but, despite the fact that you say in the lead that such a book was not done, you must know about it. I wish you wouldn't keep it a secret. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)