Talk:Emily Post

Untitled

There is no such verb as "to opinionate". "Opinionated" is an adjective, not the past tense of a verb. So "what she opinionated to be proper etiquette" is grammatically nonsense. "Opined" would be correct but is a bit obscure... I have changed it to "considered" instead. TomH 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Her date of birth

We currently say 27 October 1873.

Her grave says 27 October 1872.

This says 3 October 1873, and professes to refute alternative dates - “Emily Price's birth date is variously reported as October 3, 27, or 30, 1873”.

So that makes at least 4 different dates. Which, if any of them, is actually the correct date – and how can we be sure? -- JackofOz (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Her 2008 biography indicates there is no solution to the problem. Emily Post gave her birthdate as 27 October 1872. However, her brother, William Lee Price, who died in infancy, left behind (contemporary) burial records that give his dates as 18 April 1873-6 December 1875. But he can't have been born 5 months and 21 days after his sister. That she was born six months after him is equally unlikely. So something is awry, and it's apparently unresolvable from primary records. The likeliest explanation is she was born earlier and lied about her age; that burial records confused a 2 years old child's birth date is possible, but less likely. - Nunh-huh 10:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nunh-huh, I missed your response at the time. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems silly to lie about being only one year younger. I don't think that you should assume she deliberately falsified her date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.70.168 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The NYTimes seems happy to go with the 3 October date - http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/on-this-day/october-3/ - I think we should flag on page that there's some debate about the date, no?

Yes, I've just edited the page to indicate that the birth date is questioned. - Nunh-huh 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable descendants

Are they? Notable, that is. The litmus test for notability would usually be having their own article, so Peggy Post would be (if she was a descendant, which of course she isn't), whereas Peter Post wouldn't. There's also more than a little promo, with links to Amazon and non-notable blogs. Any thoughts? Bromley86 (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's worthwhile noting that a number of her relatives have carved out careers in the etiquette game, but these could be reduced to a simple list under a more appropriate heading. And yes, we should not be suggesting that Peggy Post was a descendant. - Nunh-huh 07:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emily Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/emilypost.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402112930/http://weddings.emilypost.com:80/ to http://weddings.emilypost.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://https
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://https

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Post in 1912

• ... that Emily Post (pictured), an American socialite who wrote Etiquette, endorsed female smoking?

• Source: https://archive.org/details/emilypostdaughte0000clar_f0p1/page/300/mode/2up?q=cigarette "Emily, who saw no reason these days to censure women's use of tobacco [...]"

• Reviewed:

Created by OfferThemSomeTea (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

OfferThemSomeTea (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC).

• Sorry, OfferThemSomeTea, but it's not eligible. The article has not had a five-times expansion or been designated a WP:GA within the last week. The last non-reverted edit was on March 2. The article is currently over 3300 prose characters, so an expansion probably isn't feasible, but you could get it promoted to Good Article and then renominate. Please see WP:DYK for general information. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)