Talk:Elizabeth Mallet

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elizabeth Mallet widowed at 11?!

Elizabeth Mallet is said by this entry to have been born in 1672. Her husband, father of her child, is said to have died in 1683. That is to say, she was 11-year-old when widowed. Highly unlikely, even in an age when child marriage was all the rage. I have found no alternative sources, but this entry need be flagged for patent inaccuracies. Medovar (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

I'm afraid that you clearly don't understand what "fl. 1672" means. Your ignorance does you no credit. Eric Corbett 18:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about explaining the term instead of behaving insufferably? Fl. = Floruit = "flourished" — the time in which a person was most active. Not to be confused with a date of birth. best, Carrite (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) ping: Medovar

How about minding your own business and stop trying to get under the skin of other editors? Eric Corbett 12:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop being unnecessarily rude and chasing contributors from the project? Carrite (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you fuck off? Eric Corbett 17:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're a charming person. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of going after Eric, please analyse the OP's post a little more carefully. First we have the "?!" in the section heading. I don't know about you, but I find that type of punctuation a bit obnoxious. Then the actual post mentions: That is to say, she was 11-year-old when widowed. Highly unlikely, even in an age when child marriage was all the rage. I have found no alternative sources, but this entry need be flagged for patent inaccuracies. The analysis seems to me to be a bit OTT, including the conclusion this entry need be flagged for patent inaccuracies.. This type of commentary can be insulting to the creator of the article. In addition, a simple Google search would have yielded the explanation for the abbreviation of "flourished". To conclude, If someone does not understand what an abbreviation means, s/he should not go on the talkpage with all guns blazing to find the answer using sarcastic and disrespectful posts, especially if they also cannot use Google to find something so simple. Dr. K. 20:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interrobang ain't an obnoxious punctuation. (+1) to wot Carrite sed. ∯WBG^converse 19:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just agree to disagree on that. But I made further remarks regarding the OP which were not addressed by your response. Dr. K. 19:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a courteous way to address a misunderstanding and then there is the way that Eric approached it. The principle of DONTBITE used to be a thing here... Carrite (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is not a newbie. They have been around since 2006. They don't have many edits, but still. Also BITEing is a subjective thing. Being a newbie doesn't make you a saint. If a newbie post is on the obnoxious side you don't have to reply as if you are a saint. Dr. K. 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{floruit}} template to the article shortly after OP's post, as recommended at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Birth date and place, which has hopefully resolved the confusion. Boldly collapsing the above thread as it's off-topic from improving the article. If you wish to continue discussing the behaviour of the thread participants, there are other venues for that. the wub "?!" 21:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to extend this page with information about Mallet's involvement in the trade of 'last dying speeches' and how her business may have been the foundation of Fleet St as a newspaper centre. I will take the info from: Ezell, M. (2014). Dying to be Read: Gallows Authorship in Late Seventeenth-Century England. Authorship, 3(1). Maxted, I. (2004, September 23). Mallet, Elizabeth (fl. 1672–1706), printer and bookseller. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Wilson, C. Edward. “The First First Daily Newspaper in English.” Journalism Quarterly 58, no. 2 (June 1, 1981): 286–88 Andhobbs (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is too short, and although it includes the most important info, it would benefit from more info on Mallet’s previous publications, the location of her business and some context about women in journalism, printing and publishing. The invention of daily news is also significant, as many historians believe that frequently updated news changed people’s understandings of time. I will add links to "Fleet Street", rephrase "sensational tracts" to add a sentence or 2 about her "last dying speech" work, with possible links, and possibly add a link to a relevant Wikipedia page on women in journalism.Andhobbs (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]