Talk:Eliza Acton

Englishness not in doubt

Um, Acton was certainly English, not sure why we can't say so in the infobox? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Boldly gone, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it's self-explanatory from her birth and death locations and the opening line of the lead. If you prefer it in there I won't demur, but 'less is more' is a good rule of thumb for IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well of course you are logically perfectly correct, but "IBs" are necessarily plodding plebeian pedestrian things, unable to follow such lofty patrician logic. They seem to be becoming Wikidata, too. Best leave it in there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No 'lofty patrician logic', just common sense. Wikidata is a straw man (it normally is in IB discussions): the wikidata entry already has her nationality listed, so it matters not one jot whether we include it here or not - it still exists on the deeply flawed and second rate mess that WD is. Either way, I've already said I'll not demur if you wish it to be retained, so I'll not take it out. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I mentioned data, if that's a sore thumb, but as you can see it's not the primary reason for keeping it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Spurgeon image

I'm having problems accessing the NPG site at the moment, but their description of the image dates it as 1803 - when Acton was four years old! We have the NPG version uploaded at File:Francis_Elizabeth_Acton.jpg. Given the dubious nature of the image, I think it's best not to use it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Shame. Maybe they've just made a typo in the date, for 1823 say? Even the NPG can nod. I'd be inclined to use the NPG version, with a footnote about the date: it would be different if the NPG had said it was a made-up portrait (like the one of Gilbert White, for instance), or more likely of somebody else, but given that they have not doubted that it's her, I can't see that we should do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed both the NPG and the ODNB (who refer to the image, but do not use it), with the question. I'd be happier leaving it out, particularly as it's been left out of Acton's most recent biography (the Hardy one) until they finish their investigations. I'd also add that she was never Mrs Acton. I suspect that someone jumped to a conclusion about it being this Eliza Acton, without actually establishing the connection properly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, I've managed to get into the NPG page for it now. This lists the image as "Francis Elizabeth Acton", who was the wife of Edward Acton and the daughter of John Grove Spurgeon. Not this Eliza Acton at all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so Longmans got it well wrong. Tant pis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Christmas pudding?

I'm curious by what standard or citation it's claimed that the 1845 cookbook is the first printed reference to Christmas pudding. A Christmas Carol contains such a reference and was printed in 1843. Sonar1313 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No, A Christmas Carol refers to plum pudding, not Christmas pudding. - SchroCat (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion (permalink) in errors for an explanation of the failed verification tag by the assertion that her book was the first mention of Christmas Pudding. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the "first printed reference" claim from the lead as it is unsupported by the body. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

And I have put in what is supported by the body. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cookery book

Surely it should be 'cookery book', the British English term, rather than 'cookbook', the American English one? Very interesting article btw, thank you to all involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.97.109 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite right, IP, and thanks for mentioning it: I've tweaked accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Links

Why is this edit wrong? Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Two mistakes ?

@SchroCat:

1. What is the right figure for the number of siblings : 5 or 9 ?

the eldest of the five children of John Acton and his wife, as written in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-73;jsessionid=55C8DB4304D8A9A10AF11660C5FC3BF8

While as u can read the second sentence of Early life section in the feature : She was the eldest of six sisters and three brothers born to John Acton, a brewer, and his wife Elizabeth, née Mercer.

So is it 5 or 9 ?

2. Mrs Acton or Miss Acton ?

Something is not clear in this featured article about who is the real Acton who has opened the BOARDING SCHOOL for YOUNG LADIES in Clayton, near Ipswich, in 1817 (if u're sure of the year).

Please look again carefully at the very first line of the Advertisement placed by Acton in The Ipswich Journal for her boarding school : as far as I’m concerned it’s written Miss Nicholson and Mrs Acton, I cannot read Miss Acton.

This means it’s Eliza’s mother, Elizabeth, who has opened the BOARDING SCHOOL for YOUNG LADIES, not Eliza, especially because the latter was only 18 years old in 1817, an age which I think is far too young to open and run a school… while also teaching, even with the help of another lady.

Thanks in advance for clarification on these two matters. --Bibliorock (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The ODNB source you cite agrees that it was Eliza who opened the school, not her mother. As shown on Google Books the Hardy source does include the six sisters and three brothers claim, as do some other sources, eg [1], [2]. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)