Talk:Sylvia Plath/Archive 1

Copyright?

Has anyone been to http://www.biblio.com/authors/559/Sylvia_Plath_Biography.html where both the Wikipedia article and Biblio one are very similar word for word?

I had noticed that, yeah...Luceo 18:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Self portrait

Is the self portrait the best picture avaliable? Surely there are some better images in the public domain that can be used? DustinG 13:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, please leave it. The self portrait is intriguing, i thought. -- srk 20:14, 17 January 2006

intriguing is not informative. the article deserves better. Joeyramoney 02:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

agreed, there has to be an actual picture we could use Oreo man 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the picture and I see these comments are about a year old now... Snecklifter 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Movie

I was wondering if this article was true to the fact, or to the movie, because I feel that some contents came exactly frome the scene of the movie 'sylvia'.

^Of course the article is correct! And of course there are going to be similarities between her life and the movie --- what do you think the movie was based on? =| Redundant question. Shaybear♥

Birth place

I don't know for sure, but everywhere else I've looked on the web has said that Sylvia Plath was born in Jamacia Heights, Pennsylvanina, and not Boston. Can someone check this and somehow get the info to the webmaster? I can't figure out how to contact him/her. -K.E.

I think you might've missed the point a little bit here... this is a wiki. This means that anyone can edit any page. There is no webmaster to contact. Just click the "edit this page" link at the top of the page, and there you go. Hbackman 00:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

She was born in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts. - CagedRage

Plath was born in Boston. Jamaica Plain, MA is a section of Boston; this is made clear already in the article.Jhlong12648 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

She was born In Boston not Jamica and that's a hard stone fact.

Manic depression?

The term 'manic depression' gets abused quite a bit. This is the first time I have seen it used in relation to Syl Plath. Can you provide a cite for this please? sjc

• Newspaper cite: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/los.gatos.weekly-times/07.04.01/heintze-0127.html
• Paper cite: "Touched with Fire", Kay Redfield Jamison, pub.The Free Press a division of Macmillan (1994), pp. 26-27
• Googling:

http://www.google.com/search?q=sylvia+plath+bipolar&hl=en&sa=N&tab=dw

Thanks, I think this looks like a sensible attribution. sjc

Well, I guess that I'm more pleased that the recent wash of biographical entries (and by the way, are you entering them in the Biographical Listings pages?) which concentrate on 'mental illness' are stub biographies rather than a list of "Famous Manic Depressives" to go along with "Famous Gay / Lesbian / Bisexuals" or "Famous French People." I prefer biographies to lists. However, it does seem similar - this remote diagnosis - to declaring Aristotle a Famous Gay or Bisexual. --MichaelTinkler

Poor?

Both Hughes and Aurelia, her mother, deny that she was short of money at the time of her death. Is there any evidence that she was? Ought some mention be made of the controversy surrounding the fact that Hughes destroyed a few of her last poems? And that he 'controlled' her output after her death? It is certainly noteworthy, in my opinion. And all that stuff about defacing her gravestone? Monk Bretton 00:16, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Hughes admitted destroying Plath's final journal (because, he said, he didn't want her children to ever have to read it), but NOT any of her poems. What is the evidence for this? Several of her poems that he did eventually publish are quite critical of him.

--Scribbler 15:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair point, about the poems. I was typing that from memory and didn't check. (Only typing it here on the discussion page, as something to think about, not in the article as fact). It would be more accurate to say he 'suppressed' or 'did not publish' some of her later poems, ones that he describes as "Personally agressive". They have, as you say, since come to light. Monk Bretton 18:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Letters Home

• Letters Home (1975)

removing above text as it appears to be repeated; reinstate if there is any significance to the repetition that i am not aware of.

Boston link

The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Cut

I've removed what looks like a school or college essay on the poem "Cut", which was inserted today. It doesn't fit into the article, as it stands. Something more encyclopaedic about images of depression in Plath's poetry might be appropriate, but remember Wikipedia:No original research - this isn't the place for individuals to put forward their own response to the poetry or theories about it. --  ajn (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

How can this article not mention Sylvia Plath's bipolar disorder? It's a bit like writing an article about Malcolm X without mentioning that he was black. Plath's poems document her bipolar disorder in the clearest possible way, and The Bell Jar is a clear roman à clef. -- Karada 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the sources pointing to such a definitive statement. The last I heard, her mental condition was still under speculation. -AMS

I'm with AMS on this one. Her poems definitely suggest a struggle with some form of psychological depression, but there's ongoing debate as to its nature; i.e. its exogenous/endogenous origins, whether she had bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc. Similarly, The Bell Jar doesn't irrefutably point toward the conclusion that Plath had bipolar disorder.Luceo 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be wary of saying Plath had bipolar disorder, given that the condition involves extreme highs as well as lows. Did Plath have these highs? - NMO

confusing sentence

"Her father, Otto, a college professor and noted authority on the subject of bees, died of an embolism following surgery(complications from undiagnosed diabetes) Wagner-Martin around the same time, on October 5, 1940." This sentence makes no sense as written. I don't know what it's actually supposed to say, so I can't edit it in good conscience. Who was Wagner-Martin? Would someone with more knowledge on the subject fix this? --Andrew 02:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Linda Wagner-Martin wrote an excellent 1987 biography of Plath entitled Sylvia Plath: a biography. This doesn't seem to be a quote from her book, since she gives the correct date, Nov. 5, 1940, in her book (pg.28)

Date of father's death?

An anon recently changed the date of Plath's father's death to November 5, 1940 from October 5, 1940. I'm going to assume that the change was incorrect since that was the only edit from that IP and revert it, but if I'm wrong someone please change it back. Thanks. Hbackman 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just checked my copy of The Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath. It is indeed November 5. I'll change it back. Hbdragon88 03:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny Stuff from Ted Hughes' Talk Page

wow, this guy sure did fucking suck compared to sylvia.

Anyone that has taken the time to actually read some of Hughes' poetry will find that it is quite 'superior' to Plath's work; she should have realized and accepted that spouses cheat and marriages routinely break-up instead of prematurely offing herself. That being said, if she had lived to old age like Hughes, she may have had the chance to write some poetry that even remotely stands up to Hughes' -- otherwise it is clear that Hughes' poetry is far better (obviously he had MUCH more time to MATURE as a poet; thus his work is naturally better). Plath has ALWAYS been overrated (especially by angsty teenage girls and angry female academics) and has joined that peculiar band of artists that are (over)loved and VASTLY overrated because they eventually committed suicide and lived so-called 'tragic' lives. "Boo-hoo I will kill myself and that will prove that I am a creative and tortured artist-type with much inner-pain." What bunk. Actually, suicide seems to be a twisted and bizarre prerequisite whereby said artist is then unfairly catapulted into a sort-of 'mythic superstatus' that is sometimes undeserved, i.e. Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Sylvia Plath, TONS of other writers/poets/various artists, etc. etc. The literary community is mighty morbid; sometimes it seems that they'll only take your work seriously if you eventually take your own life. How pathetic is that? Doesn't it "fucking suck" to be an emotionally unstable and immature poet that killed herself at the height of her creativity? --205.188.117.69 03:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. -- she routinely used a thesaurus to write her poems. This was to try and find odd, infrequently used words that would make her appear more cryptic and intelligent. Enough said.

somebody has issues :) I actually kept reading until he/she got to the part where Cobain and Morrison were overrated. Until then he/she was an amusing idiot. Then it wasn't amusing anymore. Oreo man 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussing Plath and Hughes together seems to bring out the worst in readers. I'm not sure why even after 40 years (and both of them dead), people still end up taking "sides" with either Plath or Hughes. I find both of their poetry to be very good, though for the most part also very different. The poetry of Plath is largely introspective and Hughes's poetry is largely external description or (as in Crow) mythological, so who you like more probably depends on which kind of poetry you like. Both poets are terribly violent and bleak, which might have something to do with what kind of readers they attract (myself included). I was surprised about the "maturity" comments above, however, since I find Hughes's later poetry to be a bit flatfooted and flabby compared to his earlier work in the '60s and '70s. I always prefer reading something from Hawk in the Rain or Crow to anything he did in the last decade of his life. Bavius 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Plath or Hughes, I won't venture into whether they are overrated, as I'm not an authority on poetry, but when someone starts to mention Jim Morrison, or Kurt Cobain as artists, I start to look for the exit. I can understand a debate on whether Philip Roth or Saul Bellow is a fine writer, but if someone starts to discuss Sidney Sheldon, it's time to leave. 66.108.105.21 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Accent

Not sure if it should be of note to this particlar article, but could someone please answer a question of mine about her accent. I've heard some interviews/readings of her and I know that she spent her later years in England, but I cannot understand why her accent is as Southern English as it is. Was the American accent so English back in the 1950s? Or was just because Plath was so self-admittedly conservative (she claimed in a BBC interview that she always identified with America 50 years out of date) and may have adopted a more archaic dialect? I know this sounds kind of petty, but it's strange to read about an American poet who really doesn't sound it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.253.157 (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well she did hail from Massachussets - where accents would be considerably closer to the British than if she, say, was from Atlanta. Also, with the ear for dialogue any good writer needs, she may have been more likely to pick up accents. --Bruiseviolet (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've listened to the tapes of her reading, and it's an authentic old-fashioned Massachusetts accent. She may perhaps have cultivated the vowels a bit so that her accent sounded more British. One should keep in mind that we're not talking about a woman who was averse to pretentiousness. (To say the least.) Mardiste (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Gravestone defacement

I have just uploaded the image of Plath's grave after a recent visit. I will be the first to admit the quality is not brilliant. I noticed no defacement or evidence of attempts to deface the gravestone. I notice another Wikipedian has queried this below. I think this statement should be removed. Snecklifter 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic. I removed the sentence re vandalism to the gravestone. It was explained that they had replaced the original with some sort of tamper-proof material (hmmf), but I don't think the tid bit really added anything or was necessary. Thanks again for the image. --Evb-wiki 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The new paragraph reads much better - thank you for also resizing the pic. Snecklifter 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the vandalism part again with a reference, albeit without reference to tamper-proof material. I agree that this is unnecessary. However I think that the fact that the stone has been vandalised shows the depth of feeling that some folks have about the Plath-Hughes relationship. I have also added info about the gravestone inscription. Snecklifter 10:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite. This article is in dire need of references. Maybe now that we have a Ref. Sec., we can start collecting some. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 16:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not that I'm obsessed with her death but have started to dig around for references and have added them to this section first. Snecklifter 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cookies and milk

• "Plath laid out cookies and milk for her children, sealed the door of the kitchen who slept above on the second floor."

This sentence in the last paragraph of the biographical section is not correct, but not sure how and what actually happened so would not be able to correct it. That last pararaph is in general a bit unclear and would need some more editing. -- srk 20:14, 17 January 2006

I have added this information back as there are plenty of sources to substantiate this. I have added one of them as a reference. Snecklifter 13:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Witchcraft?

While researching Sylvia Plath, I came across an interesting article about Plath and Hughes being involved in black magic. Is this fiction by chance, because I've never seen it anywhere else!

Her Journals make reference to having enjoyed reading tarot cards, however they do not indicate a "religious" or serious attitude to this. High Heels on Wet Pavement 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This article-- re wiki standards

There are textual references for much of this information which really ought to be cited, as with much that is in this article... although there are a lot of correct details, these are not adequately referenced, and much of the article is not objective in tone, relying as it seems on online sources (some of them clearly contradictory), and people's memories of what they have read. The issue of her place of birth is a case in point. In addition, easily obtainable important info, such as the reordering v original order of the Ariel poems (printed in the back of the Faber edition of the collected poems) really should be included, and there are unattributed critical views for example in the Colossus section. It's great that so many people contributed, but the article is very inconsistent in quality. As a realtive newbie, I don't know how to flag up the issue of the need for a collaborative effort to improve this article-- rather than just tinkering--- but it is sorely needed. :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I removed the trivia section because there was too much of it and it was too trivial (IMO). If someone restores it please keep only the significant trivia (you know what I mean). RJFJR 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Who?

...and passed the project onto Freida and Nicholas...

onto whom? These names occur nowhere else in the article. (Could be Sylvia's children but their names aren't given) RJFJR 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

These are Sylvia's children. --Evb-wiki 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Spanish translation link

Sylvia Spanish Translation.Raul Racedo [1]

This link has two Plath poems in English w/a spanish trans of each. But first there are a couple of Anne Sexton poems (engl & span). Because of that, and since this is a English-language wiki, I don't think it belongs here. --Evb-wiki 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hughes' second wife, Assia Wevill

The cited source for the statement says Assia Wevill was Hughes' second wife . See books.guardian.co.uk. Do not change the text without providing a verifiable source to support your edit. --Evb-wiki 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

not sure how to do this...

[The following was copied from my talk page. --Evb-wiki 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)]

Sorry, I just copied all of this from my talk page, since I didn't know if you'd ever see it there. I don't know how all this works.

edit Sorry, I've never done this before. This is my first Wikipedia edit. There are many, many sources to cite for that change. One is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3857472,00.html

I can find more, if needed. Just about any biography of the life of Sylvia Plath will corroborate that Assia Wevill never married Ted Hughes. Indeed, the fact that he wouldn't marry her contributed to her despair. Marniestarr 18:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another source article http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/biography/story/0,,1925625,00.html

[edit] how does this work So how does this work? How many people have to agree with the change before it is made? When will the change show up in the entry? How is the "consensus" thing supposed to work if my edit isn't allowed to stay up? How will people see it in order to agree or disagree with it? Marniestarr 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marniestarr"

It certainly does appear that The Gaurdian contradicts itself. We've been through this edit at least once before. How about just repalcing "second wife" with "mistress"? That appears accurate. --Evb-wiki 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Otto's death

Can we rectify the following seemingly contradictory claims?

Otto Plath died on November 5, 1940, a week and a half after Plath's eighth birthday. He died of an embolism, following the amputation of a leg due to diabetes complications. Otto Plath ultimately died of diabetes mellitus; which at that time was a very treatable disease. Otto Plath however, did not receive proper treatment due to a wrongful personal diagnosis. Otto fell ill shortly after the death of a close friend due to lung cancer. Comparing the similarities between his friends symptoms and his own, Otto was convinced that he too was ill with lung cancer, and did not seek treatment until the illness had progressed too far.

What was the cause of death, an embolism or diabetes mellitus? --Evb-wiki 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Claims by Hughes against Plath"

"This practice intensified following the suicide in 1969 of Assia Wevill, the woman he left Plath for, which led to claims of domestic violence by Hughes against Plath."

So are these claims made by Hughes, against Plath, or claims made by someone else, claims of domestic violence performed by Hughes, performed upon Plath? Only the latter really makes sense to me but I don't know the story and it seems like the sentence is ambiguous due to poor wording... If it is the latter, shouldn't we say who made the claims? Zaku kai 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is shoddy, but I take it to mean that claims were made by a third party (obviously, since Plath was dead at the time) regarding domestic violence performed by Hughes against Plath's person (meaning herself). Perhaps a source can be found to support this? And how would you suggest rewording it? María (habla conmigo) 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to edit as I am not signed in, nor a regular contributor, but would suggest that re-wording it to read which led to claims that Hughes and Plath had an abusive relationship might help? Hippolyta

Pronunciation

Is it pronounced "Plath" or "Plat"? Willnz0 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources and factual references

Please provide sources when adding factual content. Remember, information added to an article must be verifiable, and facts included must be attributed to a reliable source. Thanks. Happy editing. --Evb-wiki 13:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I removed the following unsourced material:

Sylvia Plath was raised as a Unitarian, but changed her views on religion throughout her life. While at Smith College, Plath considering herself an 'agnostic humanist'. While in England with Ted Hughes, she developed an interest in Paganism, under Hughes' influence. She also attended an Anglican Church whilst in England, and although enjoying the music and the ceremony, was driven away from the Church by a sermon praising the hydrogen bomb as the "happy prospect of the Second Coming". In her last days, Plath wrote to her mother, telling her, "the Unitarian Church is my church. How I miss it! There is just no choice here." Whilst identifying herself as a Unitarian, Plath always demonstrated a skepticism towards the promises of religion in her poetry, and utilised Judeo-Christian imagery frequently.

Specific references should be provided to support this. --Evb-wiki 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

College Years

This section reads very disjointedly. It is in need of a cleanup, preferably starting with actually naming the college she attended at the top of the section. I would do it myself, but I literally dont have enough time. Jason McConnell-Leech 14:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Death

The second paragraph of this section doesn't read too well. It's somewhat difficult to understand how the evidence that's presented shows that she didn't want to succeed in committing suicide. The source seems to be slightly better, but the whole paragraph is already quite similar, except for a rearrangement of sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.175.143 (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar Disorder

I've never edited a wiki page before, but I would strongly urge that the first graf of the Sylvia Plath page be edited. The Bell Jar is not about Sylvia Plath's struggle with bipolar disorder - Plath was never formally diagnosed with bipolar disorder or any specific illness. As opposed to writing that The Bell Jar is about her struggle with depression, it would be best to describe the novel as a female rite-of-passage novel, a twin to Catcher in the Rye, starring Esther Greenwood, a bright, ambitious Smith College student who begins to experience a breakdown while interning for a fashion magazine in New York, based on Plath's experience interning at Mademoiselle and her subsequent breakdown and suicide attempt afterwards.

You can cite the foreword to the current paperback version of the novel by Frances McCullough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryagale (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there. I agree with you. So, I took the liberty of using some of what you wrote here, and some from the The Bell Jar article. (FYI, to edit an article is not much different than writing here. Just click on the edit tab at the top of the article and edit away.) You should try it sometime. :-) BBhounder (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering just why Plath is in the Bipolar people category since she was never diagnosed as being such and people don't really know if she was or was not bipolar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.56.248 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lois Ames Interview

I have interviewed Lois Ames Plath's social worker and the author of the intro to "The Bell Jar" The link is as follows: http://dougholder.blogspot.com/2005/07/lois-ames-confidante-to-sylvia-plath.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.134.101 (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sylvia Plath/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rated this article as "start class." It provides more useful information than a mere stub should, including ref. material. Though it needs more citations and should probably be expanded, the information provided is a good start.--Evb-wiki 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:54, 1 May 2016 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Recent appraisal

Just wondering if this (largely negative) assessment of her [2] 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)

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)

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: [3]? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2016 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 had 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 opening discussion on the talk page. We should discuss this here. I would like to say that I believe the section should be included in the lead section, 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)

I would expect the lead sections of both articles to be largely comparable and reciprocal. I don't see your proposed sentence as unreasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that it's better to keep focus on their lives and work. I would keep the discussions of what happened when, to the body of the article. They both had full writing lives and the bulk of the article should be dedicated to those and keep a balance. The history of both articles show that the death of Plath has tended to over-dominate the whole. One sentence I think in each article lead would be ok. Going into details of allegations in the lead can't give a sense of the NPOV nuances. Both pieces were subjected to pointy edit warring for years. Of late, they have been stable, which does count for something. Anna (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand the want to keep away from edit warring, but I do think that (unfortunately) their tumultuous relationship was a huge part of both of their lives. Particularly with Plath, whose most famous works (Daddy, for example) focus on the nature of that relationship. I don't think noting that it was a tumultuous relationship & noting Sylvia's own words about him is a bad thing; it clearly was a huge part of her life. The death of Plath will dominate their lives, because it was a huge thing that happened to their legacies. I understand they were writers first, but we can't always choose what we're remembered for. Unfortunately for Hughes, that's Sylvia, and unfortunately for Sylvia, her death does dominate discussion around her. For example, you say you want to keep focus on their lives; well, a huge part of Sylvia's life was this abusive relationship, abusive in her own words, and I don't think it's an NPOV issue if we're citing her own words about it. I certainly have no interest in edit warring so if the majority decides we should keep it out, obviously I will, but so far I'm just not sure this position makes sense to me. AvatarQX (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As I mention above, I personally think stating that a brief overview noting that the relationship was tumultuous is fine. I think details of a miscarriage attributed to Hughes, in the Hughes article, are not for the lede. Anna (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding "Their relationship was tumultuous, as Plath wrote in letters about the abuse she suffered at his hands", with the source provided, immediately after the sentence "She married fellow poet Ted Hughes in 1956, and they lived together in the United States and then in England", looks reasonable to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't mentioned the miscarriage in Plath's article; that can be added to a smaller section. I believe that was only in Hughes' article, and I have no qualms about removing it from there. For the lede, I agree that "Their relationship was tumultuous, as Plath wrote in letters about the abuse she suffered at his hands" suffices. If that works for everyone, I'll put it back in. AvatarQX (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

"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)

Agree. I think it's also a neutral expression. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I do think including the word ‘suicide’ is more accurate, as people cause their own death without it being suicide all the time (accidental or unintentional). ‘Suicide’ connotes both intending to cause one’s death and successfully following through with that intent. As for “died by...” “died of...” or “Committed...” suicide prevention, any seem correct, though advocates probably prefer the first two, and they are becoming wider used in english. ‘Committed’ is also clear and concise, though a bit less neutral. Lizbrad98 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am going to impose consensus of "killed herself" and I am going to insert hidden text advising that "killed herself" has consensus. Suicide is a Latinate word and means killing-of-self. "Died by suicide" thus means "died by killing-of-self" which is a quasi-academic manner of using words while ignoring what they actually mean, leading only to clumsy and annoying inanities. Such is bad and linked with the sheeplike tendencies of most people. This leads to "committed suicide". Suicide was formerly a crime. One "commits" crimes. When Sylvia Plath killed herself and where, suicide was not a crime. Sylvia Plath accordingly did not commit suicide. Such is impossible. People say that she committed suicide, but this is the general superficial and sheeplike tendency of most people. They say what others say and heed (if heed at all) only the surface. Finally, Sylvia Plath actively and intentionally killed herself, thus the pithy and grammatically correct "killed herself". 86.23.205.181 (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the consensus as someone with clinical depression and as a disability rights activist and journalist. Died by suicide is the preferred term. Poetedges (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fully respect your view and informed position. But we can't really choose on the basis of personal preference. I wonder could you provide any official statement(s), from the relevant healthcare body/bodies, in English-speaking countries, that support your view? This is of course a wider question that affects not only this article but very many others. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought there was a WP ruling on this some time ago... ? Anna (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been discussed a few times at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. Perhaps someone from that project could advise. But I've got a feeling that the latest "ruling" may have been at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say it needs a ruling because these edits ping pong back and forth over the decades. I'm not here enough to have stayed up to date with the rowing. Anna (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Anna (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_216#"Committed_suicide"_or_"died_by_suicide"?: "There's no consensus to proscribe "commit suicide" – rather, there's at least as much sentiment that it tends to be the clearest, plainest option in many cases." Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_164#RFC:_"Committed_suicide"_language "In each article a multitude of word choices are allowed and editors can make editorial decisions through the normal process as to what sounds most natural, most informative and reads the best in each specific situation." --GRuban (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks GRuban. I suspect that this may not be the "ruling" that Anna was hoping for. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

So, basically, it hasn't been decided in the general case. If people want, they can hold a formal RfC to try to decide it for this article specifically - what do reliable sources use specifically referring to Plath? (Or not; after all "committed" vs "died by" is just one or two words, they can also decide either way works and it's not that important an argument. That's my take.) --GRuban (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Poetedges, you say "died by suicide is the preferred term". Well yes, that might be preferred in modern healthcare settings. But are you saying that every instance in this article should be exactly those three words and nothing ese? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This thread was reactivated by User:Poetedges because they changed "She killed herself in 1963." to "She died by suicide in 1963." which I reverted. The discussion above since 15 March 2022 discusses something else, "commit", which is not used in the article. As for my revert: "killed herself" is literally (yes, literally) the same as "died by suicide", so Poetedges' change was pointless. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ferretter re Double Exposure

Via the WP:LIBRARY, the book Sylvia Plath's Fiction: A Critical Study by Luke Ferretter is available here. The book's index says Double Exposure, 13–15, 87–9 putting discussion in the "Introduction" and in "Plath's Poetry and Fiction"... and as far as I can tell there's nothing about the manuscript disappeared around 1970 or Theories about what happened to the unfinished manuscript are repeatedly brought up in the book Sylvia Plath's Fiction: A Critical Study by Luke Ferretter, including the claim that the rare books department at Smith College in Massachusetts has a secret copy of the work under seal or that the draft of Double Exposure may have been destroyed, stolen, or even lost. He also postulates in his book that the draft may lie unfound in a university archive.

These sorts of ideas are in the reference to the Lost Manuscripts blog post, which doesn't have any editorial oversight so I'm not sure why it's a source in the first place? Ironically the one place it is being used in the article is to quote Hughes; this is something Ferretter could actually be used to reference: In 1979, Hughes wrote that Plath had left a typescript of ‘some 130 pages’ ([Johnny Panic and the Bible of Dreams, and Other Prose Writings, 2nd edn. (London: Faber and Faber, 1979)] vii), but in 1995 he spoke of just ‘sixty, seventy pages’ [Ted Hughes, ‘The Art of Poetry LXXI’, Paris Review 134 (1995), 98.]. (p. 15).

This is a Good Article so I didn't want to make too many drastic changes myself but I figured I'd flag this for editors more familiar with this article / the literature on Plath. Umimmak (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It was added in this edit in 2015, the second of two edits Courtneyj755 made in the article space and their last edit on Wikipedia overall. Umimmak (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently we have a paragraph that has five sources all of which are marked , i.e. unsourced. I'm not sure this should appear in a Good Article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If that material was added in 2015, it was part of the article that was reviewed as Good Article in 2017. // I reviewed Ferretter's "Introduction" and chapter "Plath's Poetry and Fiction", and I couldn't find any mention of "1970", "lost", "stolen" or "Smith College" in connection with Double Exposure. The only thing I could verify from the article's section "Double Exposure" in Ferretter's book was that it was an unfinished novel, and some remarks about its content. I agree with Umimmak's assessment of lostmanuscripts.com as an unreliable source. So there's not much left for that paragraph, which is a pity because it needs to be mentioned. Umimmak suggest that writings by Ted and Olwyn Hughes in relation to the number of written pages of Double Exposure reported in Ferretter's "Introduction" could be used. I suggest to trim the section "Double Exposure" of everything about the manuscript's disappearance/secret copy/etc. The unreliable source lostmanuscripts.com should be replaced with Ferretter's "Introduction", as suggested above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No objections. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As I remember it, the GA nomination was a "drive by". The editor hadn't had anything to do with writing the article and didn't stick about after it got the badge. Martin, could you link the para with the five failed refs? Thanks Anna (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

They’ve already been removed but they were the sentences I {{tq}}’ed above. Umimmak (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Too much detail

Is it really necessary that a wiki article includes details like Hughes and Plath honeymooned in Benidorm?

It’s hardly pertinent; it’s available in any biography, and is a detail that very rarely appears in similar wiki sites. 131.111.5.1 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)