# Talk:The Shortest Way with the Dissenters

If Defoe wrote stuff in the pamphlet that's basically the same as what other pamphlets said, why the furore over it? --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably because of how virulent his language was. Once it was discovered that it was written by Defoe, there was opposition from both the High Anglicans AND the Dissenters! Because of the lingering doubt that Defoe might have held some of those views if he could make such a convincing display of them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
On the language issue, I don't get a sense from the article that his language was any more virulent than that of other publications by those who genuinely held the views. On the Defoe himself front, so what if he held those opinions? Why was that so controversial, when apparently lots of other people held the identical view without anyone caring. This is very perplexing. --Dweller (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest taking a look into the cited articles if you're interested, I can't really give you much more of an answer. Perhaps being ironic (or not, as the case may be), Defoe went simply further than anyone had been willing to go? Here's a selection, apparently, from where he advocates the execution of Dissenters:
If the gallows instead of the [prison] and the gallies instead of the fine were the reward of going to [their places of worship], there would not be so many sufferers. The spirit of martyrdom is over."
... and people afterwards were willing to support that sort of view, but presumably not to call for it themselves? Not sure. I agree, it's slightly odd. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How could a pamphlet written in 1702 criticize the conduct of the "Harley ministry," when Harley himself did not join the ministry until 1704? john k (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Literary Encyclopedia source which I made use of is obviously incorrect then; it says: "The ruling moderate Tory government, led by Sir Robert Harley (1661-1724), were not amused by the cause célèbre occasioned by a pamphlet which provided ample and embarrassing fuel to the political fire which blazed around their leadership." Relying on the author knowing what they were talking about, I didn't check the dates. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In 1702, Godolphin and Nottingham (and Marlborough) would have been the leading figures in the ministry. Harley, as Speaker, was obviously also an important personage in British politics at the time, but he wasn't in the ministry yet. As far as I know, he also wasn't a knight until after he received his peerage, and would never have been called "Sir Robert Harley." john k (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Shortest Way with the Dissenters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


### Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 17, 2013, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is indeed well written. It is written in such a way as to be accessible to the reader even if the reader is previously unfamiliar with the general topic and background.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. Good citation formatting.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all major aspects. Short and sweet.
4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone. Subsections Genre and style and Reception and legacy cover multiple contrasting viewpoints, in some cases at odds with each other, while presenting those viewpoints in a professional manner.
5. Article stability? Article edit history and talk page edit history stable upon inspection going back over one month.
6. Images?: Three (3) images used, hosted at Wikimedia Commons. Enough info to confirm free-use status for GA, but probably not enough for FAC. Would need more info on some of those image pages about author, date, etc.
Nice job overall.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for the review, and appreciate the comments. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)