Talk:Prosopopoeia

2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards?
how the bloody hell is this relevant?: Before becoming a Senator, John Edwards was reputed to have made such an argument in one of his most famous tort cases, representing the family of a girl who had been killed by a defective pool drain. --Ryan Heuser 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a well-known case and a clear example of the use of prosopopoeia as a rhetorical device - if I recall correctly, Edwards specifically told the jurors that the deceased was speaking to them through him (and not in the psychic sense). bd2412  T 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reality Game.
Is the swedish reality game really relevant. It doesn't have an article of its own, but that can be remedied. I just don't think it meets the notability criteria. It seems like it is just an advertisement to me; an excuse to link to their website.--66.102.196.40 (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree. Is there any good reason to keep it up there?  Does it help explain prosopopoeia in any important way? --Ahatcher (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

References broken
Two out of three reference links are broken. Fix? Delete? Keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.137.56 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Sonnet 129 reference be deleted? This looked wrong to me, and no sources I can locate (from a quick online search of several pages of Google results) identify Sonnet 129 as an example of prosopopoeia, let alone a primary instance. It is, however, an example of polyptoton (different conjugations of the same verb--in this poem, "Had... having... to have"). Perhaps this example was pasted to the wrong Wiki entry? Let me know what you think. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.72.28 (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bible/Biblical Apocrypha
Firstly my apologies for raising an issue, of some importance, but not directly relevant to, prosopopoeia.

I have reverted the change made by White Whirlwind on 13th December 2012 on two grounds.

Firstly that the Book of Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) is contained as a full canonical book within the Bible by the majority of Christians (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Anglican) both historically and today. This directly counters White Whirlwinds claim that "most modern Bibles do not contain Sirach" - more details of which books are considered canon, and by whom, can be found at the Wiki page Development of the Christian biblical canon.

Secondly historically the Christian Bible has come down through time from the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the changes made to it by the Protestant Reformers and subsequent sectarians are modifications of the original and the original should I feel be given more emphasis than the reesultant changed version.

I have added a link to the Wiki page for the book of Sirach as well as restored the link for the Bible (which covers the ground on the Canon and what books/which sect considers to be canonical.