Talk:Henry Mayhew

General
he wrote a flower girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.42.74 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this supposed to mean something? Paul B (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Under 'Early Life' we see "He was born in London, one of seventeen children of Joshua Mayhew." Another fine example of asexual reproduction by the fathers of notable figures.

hear, hear Actio (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Figaro in London, a play
Was there a play and an illustated weekly with the same name? --Radh (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology
If he fled to Paris in 1835, and spent 10 years there, how was he able to become co-editor of Punch in 1841? AuntFlo (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s also confusing that one paragraph ends: “However, this venture lost Mayhew so much money that he was forced to appear in a court of bankruptcy in 1846.”, to be followed by : “In 1842, Mayhew contributed to the pioneering Illustrated London News. By this time, he had become reasonably secure financially, had settled his debts, and married Jane Jerrold, the daughter of his friend Douglas Jerrold.” It}s hard to follow what state his finances were in, or how stable, especially when events are given in reverse order. Jock123A (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Henry Mayhew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105212618/http://nils.lib.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A4000.01.0140 to http://nils.lib.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A4000.01.0140

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope no one will object too much if I comment that this, and the article on London Labour... miss the forest for the trees. This work has been of immense importance and is essentially a work of early anthropological attention to the lives of poor city dwellers in the home country for which it was written, yet this is lost in minor details, and even more so in the article on the book itself, which actually denigrates the extremely detailed descriptions of the work of the people who are profiled as "almost pedantic."

It is enough to cause a person to weep. In this article, we read of the worried responses of some of the people studied but nothing of its effects or reception by others—those for whom the articles and then books were written. Further, there is no reference to the work in the two articles on Andrew Halliday. I write this in the hopes that someone will give this ground-breaking work—evidence of its importance is alluded to but not explored in the two Wikipedia articles themselves—its due attention, with neither fear nor favor. Please! Actio (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)