Talk:Sylvia Plath

Poetry

There's plenty of talk about her poetry out there, quotes such as:

Often, her work is singled out for the intense coupling of its violent or disturbed imagery and its playful use of alliteration and rhyme.

are easy enough to find, as well as contrasts between the structured Colossus poems verses the free-flowing Ariel poems. I think someone(possibly me) should split life and poetry, and just write a section on the characteristics of her poetry. (will probably start soon if no one else wants to)
Ink Falls (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! Source it well, by books if poss. Good luck Spanglej (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

... need to check out books, will wait for summer. If anyone else has some expertise feel free to go ahead and start one.Ink Falls (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Journals

"Hughes sealed two of them until February 11, 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of Plath's death."

The above information does not make sense and also does not correspond with the rest of the article. Can someone please correct it to the right date, i have no knowledge of when it is but assume it to be 1974. Can someone confirm the date please.--Goapples (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I read her journals. The date refers to when they would have been reopened, not when he actually did the sealing. If my memory is correct, he unsealed them for the unabridged publication. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Shura?

There's no mention in this article of "Shura", a daughter who died with Plath?, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3857472,00.html" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.152.154 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Shura was Assia Wevill's daughter and died with her, not Plath. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

possible unreliable source used on this page

"Sylvia Plath (1932-1963)". pseudonym Victoria Lucas, Books and Writers, www.kirjasto.sci.fi (2000). http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/splath.htm. Retrieved on 2007-06-25

The above website appears to not meet the requirements of being a reliable source since it is self published. There is a discussion [here]. There is also a discussion at the [plagiarism talk page] about how to handle this issue.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a website. Websites function by plagiarism - that's what they are, largely, I would have thought. That doesn't make it right, just bog standard. Most articles feature dodgy website sources somewhere. If going for GA status, then, no, it may not stand. Otherwise, most of the weblinks are duff if you examine their sources, wouldn't you say? Spanglej (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Bar Jar never mentions that Esther attended Smith College. Any thoughts? I've read four different versions of The Bell Jar and have not seen it. Am I blind? I do hope not, as my latest specs cost a fortune!24Seven365 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC) -24Seven365 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24Seven365 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

Are these images fair use and if so can somebody upload them? Sylvia Plath Exhibit If so we could make a gallery at the end of the page. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a repository for images. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Their first encounter

I think we should add info about their first encounter. That Sylvia bit him on the cheek, hard(drawing blood), and the ominous foreshadowing of her writing that he will be "the death of her" after their initial encounter are two colorful facts I think would be interesting to the reader. Ink Falls 23:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure - add it in, with several good books refs. Go for it. Spanglej (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Kk, gimme like a week, right now I got midterms to study for. ;) Ink Falls 04:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ted Hughes controversy?

Just because a large amount of wikipedia entries have "Controversy" sections, it does not mean that this article requires one. The first sentence in this section (and there are only two (2) sentences, reads:

"In the realms of literary criticism and biography published after her death, the debate concerning Plath's literary estate very often resembles a struggle between readers who side with her and those who side with Hughes.[24]"

A rather vague and pointless statement, which is in turn referenced to a rather recent newspaper article. Hardly a scholarly source. The second sentence states that

"Hughes has been accused[25] of attempting to control the estate for his own ends although royalties from Plath's poetry have been placed into a trust account for their two children, Frieda and Nicholas.[26]"

Here the source seems more appropriate:

Gill, Jo (2006) The Cambridge companion to Sylvia Plath Cambridge University Press p9-10 ISBN0521844967

However, I have just read those two pages (9 and 10) the terms "accused" and "for his own ends" seem to be overstating the facts. What the book says, in those very same pages, is that Hughes found himself in an awkward position: facing "financial anxieties" due to unpaid back taxes as a result from the royalties from Palth's books. The irony is that the financial misfortune stemmed from the literary gift of his wife, in addition to -probably- Hughes being slightly inept when dealing with money. Again: "accused"? "for his own ends"? This is the person who championed Plath's work the most. In any case, what pages 9-10 depict the most, is Hughes' interest in avoiding being unfairly demonised by biased biographers.

And, in any case, simply because something made it into a book (an anecdote, a minor footnote, etc.), it does not mean it should make it into an encyclopedic entry. For that matter, "Richard murphy, an Irish poet (...), accuses Plath of unwelcome sexual advances during a brief stay as his houseguest in September 1962" (from The Cambridge Companion to Sylvia Plath, p. 10). I don't see a "Sylvia Plath controversy" section in this page. I am, of course, not suggesting that one is needed. I am only hoping maturity and sound judgement will prevail. 134.219.202.104 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure Hughes put all the money from her estate into a trust fund? Articles after his death say he made money off of her estate. He died with an estate of a million quid, and serious poets don't make that kind of money. (I mean, the pay for a poet laureate is something like 32 bottles of claret annually.) Social phenomena like Plath do. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture references

I think the pop culture reference section is important enough to stay. It shows her legacy and how she continues to influence our culture to this day. Ink Falls 18:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

While I will not revert your edit (which was in fact a revert of mine), I advise you to rethink your strategy. WP:TRIVIA -- an MOS guideline -- advises that such trivia-related sections should be avoided for a myriad of reasons. Important information as to Plath's influence and imprint on popular culture (which I honestly do not believe includes or encapsulates one Lady Gaga song) should be integrated into the article, not stand alone as a collector of fancruft. Such sections have been killed on sight before (see here for example, and check the history), so this is not new. I strongly advocate the current section's removal. María (habla conmigo) 18:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia say on pop culture reference sections? Do you know, I will try to check. Btw, you can revert my edit if you feel like it, I do not mind, you have a fair point. Ink Falls 18:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the WP:TRIVIA and found this(which seems to support its inclusion):

• This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
• This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
• This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

Ink Falls 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information". It's a guideline, not policy, which is why common sense comes into play. Here's the summary: trivia sections (including pop culture refs) are discouraged as a whole; they have consistently been removed from this article in the past; Lady Gaga songs, Simpsons and Family Guy one-liners are not crucial to the understanding of Plath's influence or legacy; if it cannot be integrated into the rest of the article, it shouldn't exist in fancruft form. Anything else? María (habla conmigo) 18:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would vote for a total trivia cut. I don't think any of it serves to explore Plath's legacy. Spanglej (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding refs 29 June 2010

Re the various edits I made today - I haven't removed anything. I've added references and extra biog and crit detail. There is some re-arrangement that makes sense of the new material, fixing of links and WP syntax and that's about it. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work so far, Spanglej. I've gone through the first half of the article and made some fixes/changes. The references are a bit of a mess, and we need to decide whether we're using citation templates or not for web-based sources. Also, perhaps there should be a separate "Works cited" section to list all utilized books and journal articles, so that short hand references (ie, "Kirk, p. 23") can be listed in the reflist. Either way, there are some book sources that are missing crucial information, such as page numbers, ISBNs and/or city of publication. Be on the lookout for these. María (habla conmigo) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Maria. Do citations always ideally need a page ref and a city or publication? Different articles seem to do it differently. Citation insight is def a weak spot with me. I have some WP rulebook reading to do. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Different articles are wrong, unfortunately; book sources always require page refs and complete bibliographic info per WP:CITE. Cites should be formatted consistently and correctly to help readability and academic/encyclopedic awesomeness. If there is a specific page number to be cited, then cite it; if there's a publisher/city of publication, then list it. Readers will thank you for it. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a general good practice preference for citation templates? Spanglej (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is, but they're not required by any means. Some editors prefer them because it helps take the guess work out of what goes where and how; I used them heavily in the past for that very reason (see Knut (polar bear), which uses all citation templates), but now I do them by hand because I have a fairly good sense of what to do know. Whatever is easiest for the primary contributors, really. María (habla conmigo) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Spanglej (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatted refs, notes and bibliography Spanglej (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Images, section titles

This edit undid several recent changes I made. Firstly, there's no rationale given for arbitrarily downsizing the images; on high-resolution displays it makes them tiny compared to the article body, rather than scaling appropriately. Secondly, an article on a person is by definition a biography in its entirety; it therefore makes little sense labelling one section of such an article "Biography".

The reply I received on my talk was:

The heading "Biography" is apt for the narrative description of her life - early years, college life, death. There is a section on Works including impact and critique of Plath's publications. If the photos are at automatic size then Hughes' head is larger than the Fitzroy Square house. It seems appropriate to re-size the images accordingly.

Again, the whole article is a biography: if one were to buy a hardback biographjy, one would not expect the chapters on the subject's life and works to be titled "biography". As for the images, it is highly unlikely that a reader is going to be confused or disoriented by Hughes's head being larger than the house: readers are presumably aware that not all of our photographs are to scale with each other. These changes should be added back. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In terms of GAs and FAs, Samuel Johnson and Albert Einstein use the heading "Biography". William Butler Yeats, Philip Larkin, Charles Dickens and Emily Dickenson use "Life". As 'biography' means 'the study of a life' it really seems to change little. Does "Life" work better? Whatever works. In terms of images - It wasn't an arbritary edit and it wasn't so much an issue of confusing the reader. At auto size Hughes' large scowling head is the bigger than the house. It looked daft to me and disproportionate in terms of page design. Those were the reasons. No biggie. Spanglej (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Life" is a fine compromise for me; I'll get to fixing Yeats and Einstein in time. As for the images, MOS:IMAGES gives a list of examples when resizing images might be appropriate, and this doesn't seem to be one. Given that the portrait is of Hughes at an advanced age, rather than at the time he and Plath were married, might it be that it could simply be removed? It's arguably confusing simply having it, being as it was taken thirty years after her death. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thumperward, I think you're right. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories

One of the categories is "People with bipolar disorder." Nowhere in the article is this mentioned. I'm no Plath scholar, but I've read a couple biographies and many articles and have never seen a diagnosis of bipolar disorder mentioned. Now, I could be wrong, but the Wiki article doesn't mention it so why is it here?Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bi-polar disorder is a recent diagnosis. It's difficult make retrogressive (or 'historical') diagnoses. There is evidence from her GP (mentioned) that he prescribed her anti-depressants. Unless there is evidence, the Bi-polar category should not be applied. Spanglej (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Carbon Monoxide poisoning?

The article cites carbon monoxide poisoning as the cause of death, but then describes conditions under which CO poisoning would have been impossible. To wit, "At approximately 4.30 am, Plath had placed her head in the oven, while the gas was turned on, with the pilot light unlit." Carbon monxide is the result of combustion. If the pilot light was "unlit" (sic), there would have been no source for carbon monoxide. 24.131.254.12 (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've edited to reflect what is stated in the current biography sources given - official given cause of death by Carbon Monoxide. I can find no good source for an unlit pilot light. Thanks for the flag. "Rage, rage, against the dying of the pilot light", as they say. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You moron. Carbon monoxide CAN be produced when hydrocarbon fuels such as petroleum are incompletely burned but, in those days in the UK, it was produced - by the destructive distillation of coal - for use as a fuel in its own right. When burned using gas appliances, it then became carbon dioxide (itself a suffocant, rather than toxic). Your sort of uninformed comment shows why Wikipedia is such a stupid idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.238 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The original point made was that carbon monoxide poisoning can only happen when gas is burnt. As the oven flame was off and there was no pilot light burning no carbon monoxide could have been produced. Poisoning by inhalation of gas would have killed her if the oven's gas was turned on without a flame.Span (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, it turns out that in the 1960s most domestic gas supply in the United Kingdom came from coal gas which in its unburned form contains high levels of carbon monoxide. Just inhaling the gas would kill you of carbon monoxide poisoning, a popular method of suicide until Britain switched over to natural gas by the early 1970s. More Plath biog detail would be needed to ref why she died - if it was from unburnt coal gas inhalation if more specifics are needed. See "The Urge to End It All", New York Times July 6, 2008 Span (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What is it that you people cannot grasp? Of course 'coal gas' contained CO: it is a useful fuel and is still widely used in industry. It is always toxic, and does not have to be produced by burning, although burning of the methane in coal gas might increase the amount of CO present. The pilot light was probably extinguished by Plath in order to avoid an explosion. The pilot light usually ignited only the 'rings', and the oven had to be lit with a match. On some models, the gas could not flow to the rings if a bimetallic strip was not being heated by the pilot light. So, to reiterate: CO is always toxic. It does not have to be burned to make it toxic and coal gas did not have to be burned to produce CO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.11.238 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that the entry on her death certificate would be quite conclusive, regardless of gas composition, pilot lights or bimetallic strips etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Martin, the source in biogs I have seen just say 'carbon monoxide poisoning.' Dear IP 238, we are discussing this because of the good faith question raised by the IP at the top of the section. These talk pages are here for asking questions. We like questions. Span (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Span - I'm sure you're right. If anyone is interested, a Goggle Images search for "Sylvia Plath" + "death certificate" yields a few examples of uploads that appear to be perfectly genuine, if a little creepy. The entry for "Cause of death" seems to me to read as follows: "Certified by Geo. H. Molyan, Deputy Coroner for the County of London to be Carbon Monoxide Poisoning (domestic gas) whilst suffering from depression. Did kill herself". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

stray references

I can't find what the first reference in the list refers back to in the article. Is it just leftover from another version? If so, should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.36.146 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first three refs (1,2 and 3) appear to be glitched and superseded long ago. Not sure how to delete them as they are no longer part of the text. Any help welcome.Span (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a second there. The references are being used inside the infobox, you just have to click on the "show" button under influenced to get them, and then they work. Nothing is wrong.--AerobicFox (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. My Wikipedia lesson of the day. Cheers Span (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Otto Plath's birth place

The Town of Grabow, where Otto Plath was born, is in the region of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. It became part of Poland in 1945, following the Potsdam Agreement. It went back to become part of Germany in 1949. In 1885, Otto Plath was born, it was part of Germany and it is again today. The Kirk biography gives Germany as his birth place. That's good enough for me. Span (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronological inaccuracy in 'College years'

Plath's first suicide attempt took place immediately AFTER a series of injudiciously applied electroshocks in a state clinic, not before. Rides (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed. Span (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

There is the famous quote (and I am unsure of who said it) "Go Plath yourself." Shall we bring this onto here? Also Sylvia has some famous quotes as well. It could make for an interesting secion. Alliereborn (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a link box at the base of the article to the Wikiquote page for Plath. I don't think adding the phrase "go Plath yourself" is adding substantive content to the article. If there are strong secondary articles discussing the cultural perception/impact of Plath's death, then they may be valid to add. Span (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then can we post a link to her quotes? Alliereborn (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As Span said above, already linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"GO Plath yourself" was written by poet Cristin O'keefe Aptowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCB5:A820:744D:1FEE:6C4D:16CE (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Double Exposure: the lost novel

From what I've read, it is not accurate to say that Hughes "lost [...] an unfinished novel." No one knows for sure what happened to it. So I'm removing that and adding a little paragraph about the lost novel (what I quoted, somehow, seems to be the only existing reference in this article!).

75.73.156.135 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Incoherency of the Death section

The last paragraph of the section on her death makes very little sense. Had the note to call Dr Horder been left for Mr Thomas? Where had it been left? Why does the note allow one to argue that she turned on the gas when Mr Thomas would be waking. (I have a feeling the note sentence is inserted between two sentence that logically belong adjacent.) What does any of that have to do with the gas reaching the neighbors below? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.140.22 (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"It has been suggested that Plath had not intended to succeed in killing herself. That morning, she asked her downstairs neighbor, a Mr. Thomas, what time he would be leaving. A note had also been left reading "Call Dr. Horder," listing his phone number. Therefore, it is argued Plath turned the gas on at a time when Mr. Thomas should have been waking and beginning his day."

To me this text clearly suggests that Plath checked what time the neighbour would be leaving so that she could plan to leave a note and know that he would see it and call help. I agree that knowing where the note was placed would help the sense of the para. The gas seepage seems a separate point. Please add referenced text to help clarify. Span (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The text should also clearly state that the note had been left for her neighbor. (Not to mention the poor use of the passive voice.) I believe you wikipedia-ites also call "it is argued" a weasel phrase, no? --88.64.31.166 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that nobody knows exactly what happens. Many different parties suggest different scenarios. We don't know that she did leave a note for her neighbour. Passive voice is tricky, but refs are given. Span (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to clarity things with this edit; wordiness tends to muddle meaning. Agreed that "it has been suggested/it is argued" could be substantiated by name-checking who actually suggests/argues this idea. Perhaps it's mentioned in the source? María (yllosubmarine) 14:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Beekeeper

'In the autumn of 1962, only four months before her death in February 1963, Sylvia Plath wrote a cluster of extraordinary poems about Bees. She had taken up beekeeping that June and wrote excitedly to her mother in America to describe the events of attending a local beekeepers’ meeting in the Devon village of North Tawton' http://dublinbees.org/members-area/sylvia-plath-and-the-bees/

Can we add this hobby to Plaths wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamreddave (talk • contribs) 11:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems notable to me, go for it.Eruditess (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent appraisal

Just wondering if this (largely negative) assessment of her [1] could be used somewhere in the legacy section. Jprw (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but 1. I don't believe Stephen Akey (the author of the article you've linked to) is notable or an authority on the subject, 2. the article itself seems like an opinion piece, with no references that I can see, and 3. it's not certain that Open Letters Monthly fulfills WP:RS. Three strikes. :) María (yllosubmarine) 12:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You may have a point with 1 and 2 but the publication seems to fulfill RS. As a general comment, there is a growing body of critcism against Plath that seems to be not reflected adequately in the article; the piece may have helped to rectify this. Jprw (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, literary criticism would certainly be useful in the article -- were it from a reputable source. For example, points of view from her contemporaries (whether negative or positive) would be great, as would opinions from notable critics and/or writers of today. There are absolutely more reliable and academic sources available to add to the article without involving an essay written by a non-expert and posted to a questionable, user-generated website. María (yllosubmarine) 13:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize for Poetry

I think the claim that Plath was the "first poet to win a Pulitzer Prize posthumously" is incorrect. See article: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/plath-pulitzer.html

71.239.125.116 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)e. s. tieri71.239.125.116 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is most definitely incorrect, as William Carlos Williams won the Pulitzer in 1963 for Pictures From Brueghel. The Pulitzer was awarded several months after his death. This entry needs to be amended or deleted as it is false. Pictures from Brueghel ReubenCopley (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't appear to currently make that claim. Anastrophe (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't. Thanks, ReubenCopley, for removing it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Smoker?

I know this probably isn't anything article worthy, but I just watched the biopic about her and Ted Hughes, and towards the end she starts smoking to "try new things". Is there any proof that she really did this, or is it just something the filmmakers added for melodrama? And hey, if it is true, maybe it could serve a purpose in the article, perhaps somewhere around her death. --Matt723star (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no mention of her nor Ted Hughes smoking in "The Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath ISBN 978-0385720250" --37.46.182.125 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source then definitely go for it.Eruditess (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of Dreamers poem

So I was rereading the article, and the part where it mentions when Ted fell in love with Assia, and it mentions the poem he wrote about her stuck me off sort of. I don't think using the poem in an article about Sylvia Plath is appropriate because it wasn't written for Sylvia, it was written for Assia. Sure it has to do with when the cheating with Assia began, but that has nothing to do with Sylvia other than she left him shortly after the affair began. It's shown on Ted's page and on the page for Assia, but I don't think it should be included in this article, I think the poem should be deleted. --Matt723star (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Mad Girl’s Love Song

Is the 2013 book by Andrew Wilson notable: [2]? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Leg cutting/gashing

The "Thomas, David N. (2008). Fatal Neglect: Who Killed Dylan Thomas?. p. 35. ISBN 978-1854114808. " source currently states she cut her legs before her second suicide attempt in 1953. There's no first or even second hand sources saying she actually cut her legs, she does not mention the incident or the scars in her journals or poetry, Ted Hughes only mentions the scar she got on her face after her first suicide attempt in his poetry. The only reference she ever makes to cutting herself is in the poem "Cut", could someone more in the know please provide a source.

37.46.182.125 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The original source of this information seems to be "Bitter Fame: A Life of Sylvia Plath" by Anne Stevenson written in 1989, no source seems to be given. Is this simply not true? 37.46.182.125 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sylvia Plath. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.elainefeinstein.com/TedHughes-Devon.shtml.
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1669_286/ai_n13247735
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719182313/http://www.robinmorgan.us/robin_morgan_bookDetails.asp?ProductID=21 to http://www.robinmorgan.us/robin_morgan_bookDetails.asp?ProductID=21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426085423/http://lostmanuscripts.com/2010/08/29/the-ghost-of-plaths-double-exposure/ to http://lostmanuscripts.com/2010/08/29/the-ghost-of-plaths-double-exposure/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227162034/http://www.jeanettewinterson.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=475 to http://www.jeanettewinterson.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=475
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528162310/http://www.bloodaxebooks.com/articles.asp?id=62 to http://www.bloodaxebooks.com/articles.asp?id=62

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sylvia Plath/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I will read this one over and post up a review soon. Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A good article about an admirable poet and literary figure with a tragic ending. The writing quality is good. I did read over the talk page and saw some confusion mentioned about the death section, but I read the death section a couple of times and it reads quite clearly as to the chronology of events and the aftermath. The intro is good, for now, for good article, but I would recommend significantly expanding it more to be its own standalone summary of the article. For now, it's functioning well as an intro to the rest of the article, but the reader should be able to read the intro and come away with a summary of the article, without having to read the rest of the article.

2. Verifiable?: I went ahead as the good article reviewer and made an executive decision to remove one small bit that was tagged as unsourced, just the one sentence. Otherwise, now the article at present is good. Well cited, good reference structure. And I like the use of the multiple sections for the notes, the references, and the sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, the article is very very thorough indeed. Other than my one suggestion, above, about expanding the intro, the entire rest of the article goes into good depth and covers a good broad swath of topics and history within the individual's life.

4. Neutral point of view?: For future improvement with regards to NPOV I would recommend cutting down on the use of quotations with regards to the large style, try to work some of those into shorter quotes in the article text without having to jar the reader by going to the blockquotes. But for good article for now it is good.

5. Stable? I saw some recent vandalism but I didn't see much of ongoing edit wars. The talk page I read over, and looks like good back and forth collaboration.

6. Images?: I looked over all the image pages and they all have good licensing. No fair use images used. All free use licensed.

Good job on a good article. I feel a little bit sadder after having read it. But also better. It's kind of like a good sad. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Formatting problem

A quote box at the end of the "Themes" section is overlapping the section which follows, obscuring its name. Does anyone know how to fix this?--Quisqualis (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: How about now? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Much better!--Quisqualis (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sylvia Plath. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901081412/http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kfc1f to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kfc1f
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j7pkl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Died by suicide"

My edit on this was reverted, so I'm going to raise it here as I can't find a specific guideline/discussion. My rationale in changing "died by suicide" to "committed suicide" is that it's a more accurate and encyclopedic term. Completely understand that in many places sensitivity towards those affected by suicide make the former more appropriate - but I don't believe Wikipedia is one such place. In cold technical terms, it is a form of WP:EUPHEMISM so should be avoided here. I added the link to suicide when making the change, as that article addresses the schools of thought around the terminology - as well as stating that commit is the usual verb in scholarship and journalism: The normal verb in scholarly research and journalism for the act of suicide is commit. Some advocacy groups recommend saying completed suicide, took his/her own life, died by suicide, or killed him/herself instead of committed suicide. Are there any objections to changing this back on these terms? U-Mos (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's euphemistic, unencyclopedic or inaccurate about the phase "died by suicide"? There's a discussion here which resulted in consensus that "died by suicide" isn't a euphemism and shouldn't be advised against. The discussion didn't result in a preference either way. Personally I'd prefer to keep "died by suicide" here. Ralbegen (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the linked discussion that "died by suicide" is not a euphemism, but it seems a clumsier phrasing than "committed suicide", which I would prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"Died by suicide" certainly sounds odd to me. To my knowledge the question hasn't come up on this page before. But no doubt the phrase will be altered continuously if we leave it as is. To my mind, this a reason to change it back to the established collocation and keep the page stable. Ping pong seems pointless and PC. Anna (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree. There was a similar discussion over at Ernest Hemingway last year. Some editors had very strong views. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion linked above is extremely interesting; I considered "died by" to be euphemistically eliding the individual's action in causing their death, but recognise the consensus there. I coincidentally came across the same matter at Phil Hartman shortly after (diff), where I felt the use of "died by" made the actions of the individual concerned needlessly obscure. Obviously the situation here in the article lead is not identical, though. A brief scan of the edit history over the last couple of years does suggest the phrase has gone back and forth a bit - which I was unaware when first changing it - so it's a good thing to discuss. U-Mos (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing "commit suicide" is still used in the College years and depression subsection. The subsection Final depressive episode and death uses "take her own life". The phrase "killed herself" is used of Wevill in Following Plath's death which makes a pretty much whole collection of the alternatives, with "died by suicide" still in the lead section. I'd also point out that "died by suicide" often feels less strange than "committed suicide" once the strangeness of the association with crime or sin has been pointed out, or a while after the deprecation of usage of "committed suicide" by other publishers in their style guides. As the MOS doesn't take a view either way it's a matter of local consensus, which seems to be in favour of the older and more established term. Ralbegen (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We now have:

Lead section: "She took her own life in 1963."

College years and depression: "... to see if she had enough "courage" to kill herself."

Final depressive episode and death: "... Plath tried several times to take her own life" and "... an attempt to take her own life" and "... had not intended to kill herself".

Following Plath's death: (of Nicolas) "... hanged himself at his home".

Hughes controversies: (of Wevill) "When Hughes' mistress Assia Wevill killed herself..."

So the phrase "committed suicide" no longer appears. Any objections? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Have just changed the first instance to "killed herself" to avoid the euphemism. But may be an acceptable euphemism: MOS:EUPHEMISM does not explicitly prohibit, or even mention, use of this phrase. Can we try and reach some consensus here BEFORE getting into another slow edit war? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Killed herself" is accurate, succinct, and avoids torturing the English language. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding first name

Aloof naming sponge whose coarse texture helps with article polishing

It’s aloof to continually refer to someone by their surname. Peterms64 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Aloof or not, it's just Wikipedia policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not just Wikipedia policy, it is standard formal language. Referring to someone by their first name shows a degree of familiarity that is not appropriate in a formal text and may even be seen as rude. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter, welcome to Wikipedia. There are lots of protocols and they take quite a bit of getting used to. Using surnames is a standard academic style, as Khajida says. More info on WP Manual of Style approaches here. Best wishes Anna (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding sentence about her and Ted Hughes relationship in the main part of the article

Wikipedia manual of style says about the lead section: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies," see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

I had included: "Their relationship was tumultuous, as Plath wrote in letters about the abuse she suffered at his hands. "

Ted Hughes article said, in its lead section, "Some admirers of Plath and critics blamed him for her death after the revelation of letters written by Plath, which mention that Hughes had beaten her two days before she had a miscarriage in 1961, and that he also told Plath he wished that she were dead."

However, the same user that removed the sentence I had put in Plath's article removed that section too from Hughes' page without consulting anyone or the talk page. We should discuss this here. I would like to say that I believe the section should be included in the article, as it is a prominent controversy in Plath's life and one she wrote about many times, including in her most acclaimed work. Her article has an entire section titled "Hughes controversies." I think it is essential to note the tumultuous nature of their relationship in the lead section as it was a very notable part of her life. I am open to other perspectives but this should be discussed. AvatarQX (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)