Talk:Drapier's Letters

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia contradicts itself as to the value of Wood's Irish coinage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Then shouldn't the article name be changed to the actual name of the work? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am for a change if it will not interfere with the FAC review process. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct title? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry. Improving the article at this point in time was very tactless of me. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's it. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: First sentence

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  letters patent≠patent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Most important of the Irish tracts? 

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