Talk:Emily Post

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable descendants 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified