Talk:Emily Dickinson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protection

I've just semi-protected it for a week. Let's see how we get on after that. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

been way more than a week buck-o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.91.35 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 October 2008

Actually, it wasn't. It's been unprotected and re-protected a few times since he wrote that. —Angr 05:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Why have you demanded that Emily Dickinson's page not have an infobox? Virtually all other authors, political figures, philosophers, etc. have them. - User Jajhill 05:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What does it add? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Roger. I can see the merits of an infobox on a much smaller and less comprehensive article in which important aspects of the individual's life have yet to be mentioned. I'm not against infoboxes all together because I believe they serve a purpose in some instances. In regards to this article in particular, however, everything that an infobox would provide can be found in the lead and throughout the article, making that infobox superfluous. Furthermore, infoboxes are not mandatory; just because most articles include them does not mean that we must. María (habla conmigo) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not everything is covered in the first paragraph of the article that would be found in an infobox. For example, certain poets who influenced her and poets she influenced are not mentioned in the first paragraph. Nor does it name her debut poem that she published, the paragraph just eludes to it rather than being specific. And I'd like an explanation as to what infoboxes remove from articles. - User Jajhill 09:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

They remove a professional look to the page. To show the same information twice at the beginning of the article is redundant. The question of influences is complex, and it is superficial to reduce it to a list. qp10qp (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

THIS is a fabulous article, congrats authors! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.68.219 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

qp10qp is correct about the question of Dickinson's influences; most of what is described in the article about what literature had an impact on her is surmise and therefore subject to debate and speculation. I have difficulty with the "Influenced" and "Influences" fields in an infobox because it is almost always original research by way of synthesis, but in this case in particular only a few things can be said for certain. To include in an ugly infobox that Dickinson was influenced by the Bible and Shakespeare is ridiculous; who wasn't during that time period? As to the issue of her "debut poem", I believe that is somewhat debatable, as well, and not truly noteworthy. What is important to note that very few of her poems were published during her lifetime and all of them were edited and altered -- this information is noted in the lead. María (habla conmigo) 16:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with qp10qp. A properly laid-out infobox adds professionalism to the page. The table of contents is what removes a professional look; it breaks up the flow of the article and creates a lot of unnecessary whitespace. An infobox provides information to our readers in an easy-to-understand manner. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, is it not? The infobox is not intended to replace the article, rather to attract the reader and influence them to read the rest of the article for details not contained in the infobox. An infobox also improves the overall professional look of Wikipedia by providing a consistent look-and-feel to articles. Yes, articles are not required to have an infobox. It does help though. Truthanado (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Professional" is a subjective term and (unfortunately, IMO), I believe some tend to mistake standardization for professionalism. I see your point, but I hold to my opinion that an infobox is unnecessary. As for the TOC, when it is forced to the right side of the page, for example, the article looks jumbled, cramped and sloppy. It may look differently on your monitor, but on mine it's a big 'ol mess. :) I guess in that regard I'm for standardization, who knew? María (habla conmigo) 04:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I like the page better without an infobox. I think they make pages look like the Guinness Book of World Records. I prefer not to have factoid summaries for people like Emily Dickinson. – Scartol • Tok 12:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what Emily Dickinson would say about all the fuss about the format of her Wikipedia article. Infobox or no? Normal ToC or right ToC? Whitespace or no? Just wondering. BTW, would it hurt to have a very simple infobox with her name, picture and birth/death dates? Truthanado (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem here is that infoboxes automatically center-justify captions. When you're lead image has a significant and encyclopedic caption, the way this one does, it does look rather unappealing in the infobox. The center justification only really makes visual sense on short captions. I have to say that the right aligned TOC does look really nice on my monitor, but if you manually shrink the size of your browser you can see the formatting errors it causes. The right aligned TOC would work well in an article without a picture in the first section. --JayHenry (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blackmur quote

It strikes me as disproportionately long. qp10qp (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Already been taken care of. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Information removed from article

This was added to the "Teenage years" section, but I have removed it for several reasons:

Between 1846 and 1852, Emily Dickinson experienced serious problems with her health, specifically a chronic cough, fatigue, and significant weight loss. Extracting clinical clues from her correspondence, some historians have suggested that she was suffering from tuberculosis (Hirschhorn, 1999). That year, Emily sought treatment with a highly respected homeopath, Dr. William Wesselhoeft in Boston (St. John, n.d.; Hirschhorn, 1999). Emily wrote that he prescribed two homeopathic medicines for her. She didn’t think that the medicines were effective, but her older and more practical sister, Lavina, thought otherwise.

Lavina (who originally referred Emily and their brother Austin to Dr. Wesselhoeft because he was her homeopath) asserted just two weeks after homeopathic treatment: “I think Emily may be very much improved. She has really grown fat.” Because Emily was always extremely thin, this statement of her gaining weight suggests some health improvements. Her brother Austin wrote Emily’s closest friend, Susan Gilbert: “He [their father] says Emily is better than for years since she returned from Boston” (Thomas, 1988, 219). And lending further support to the real benefits from the homeopathic treatment, within several months, she no longer complained about the chronic cough that she had experienced for five years.

For one, the sources are either not elaborated on (Thomas, Hirschhorn) or simply not reliable (Geocities); the links to the Emily Dickinson archive are not the more reliable because they require registration. There are also several incorrect assertions, such as the fact that Lavinia was the older sister; she was three years younger than Emily.

Please do not add this information back until it has been discussed. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 13:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Please do not add that information unless it can substantiate the article. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This was a while ago, so I'm sure it's long forgotten now. All of what was added appears to be copy-and-pasted from (factually incorrect, as I pointed out above) Google Books, so whether or not it "substantiates" is immaterial, really. ;) María (habla conmigo) 12:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Identification of Emily Dickinson poems

Maybe someone could take a look at that article. Should it be in a "See also" section? Ty 05:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure; it's a very old article (written in 2004 and little updated since then), the information is unsourced, and most of what is stated there is already said here on the main article. It could use a healthy expansion in order to be significant enough for a "See also", but I'd like to hear other opinions on this. Should it be prodded, perhaps? María (habla conmigo) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's already in the main article, I agree with prod. Ty 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to the primary editors of this article, who got it up to Featured Article status! I dipped in some time back and added material about Dickinson's green thumbs based on a newspaper article that I had read, as well as some photographs. I'm delighted to see how much better the article is now. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Later Life and 'Master'

"Otis Phillips Lord, an elderly judge on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from Salem, in 1872 or 1873, became an acquaintance of Dickinson's, and her last Master. After the death of Lord's wife in 1877, his friendship with Dickinson probably became a late-life romance, though as their letters were destroyed, this is surmise." -- from the 'Later Life' section.

Two things: First, the capitalized use of "Master" isn't all that clearly explained, and seems to imply that the Master poems/letters may have been written in part to Lord. I didn't examine your source, but I'm sure that I can cite credible people who strongly disagree. Second, 'surmise' appears to be used incorrectly here, in a sentence with rather awkward syntax I might add. I surmise that you mean to use 'surmised.'

I have a vague sense of how wikipedia works; One or two people adopt an article, essentially acting as its editors. This authority, conferred by some amalgam of persistence and territoriality is based less on their real-world qualifications than those in wikidom. So permit me to suggest with all due deference that if the draconian overlords of this article could revise this section, it might improve matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.91.35 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 October 2008

I think the noun "surmise" is meant. If you sign up for an account and wait four days, you'll be able to edit the article yourself. —Angr 05:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the noun surmise ("a thought or idea based on scanty evidence") was what was intended. As for your first point, "Master" is clearly defined in the "Teenage years" section: "During the last year of her stay at the Academy, Emily became friendly with Leonard Humphrey, its popular new young principal. Later, she referred to him as "Master", a term that she reserved for the few men in her life whose wisdom, advice, or love she sought." The sources, especially Habegger and Sewall, make it clear that Dickinson considered Lord a "Master". So, speaking as one draconian overlord of this article, I'm not certain this section requires revision. María (habla conmigo) 12:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous user is right, I think, that that italicized explanation (and the article's thin discussion of "Master" in general) is evidence of a general problem -- it often trucks in fairly massive amounts of contentious interpretation, but discusses it as though it were simple fact, rather than marking it as one view and attributing it to a source. (There's a footnote on the sentence there, but no indication what in particular is being attributed, nor any indication that disagreement exists about "Master," which along with same-sex desire is one of the most contentious subjects among Dickinson scholars.) There's no actual consensus among Dickinson's critics and biographers about the way she used "Master" that would justify treating it as an established and uncontroversial thing. Habegger and Sewall's biographies are not the entire world of Dickinson scholarship, and their opinions shouldn't be treated as incontrovertible here. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed "and her last Master" from the introduction to Lord, as it doesn't make much of a difference one way or another, I suppose. (removal of the rest of previous comment) Having reread the pertinent sections in the article, I think there might be some confusion regarding the term "Master" used in random letters, the three famed "Master Letters" supposedly written from 1858-1861, and the "Master Poems". In order to hopefully fix this, and also introduce some of the known contention, I've made this edit. Does this help? Any suggestions? María (habla conmigo) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very good start -- thanks for the quick work and I'm sorry I didn't have time to do a similar edit myself. Part of what seemed off about the earlier wording was exactly that it sounded like it was lumping the Master letters and the use of the word "Master" in the poems together in a weird way. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, thanks for helping me figure it out! If more is needed, feel free to add or clarify. María (habla conmigo) 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Lines

As the article is locked, I cannot fix it, but the poetry sample is incorrect:

In the original, "Not all the Frankfort Berries" should be "Not all the vats upon the rhine." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.19.113 (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dogs

I believe that St. John's dog, Carlo, in Jane Eyre was identified as a Pointer, not a Newfoundland. The character Edward Rochester's dog, Pilot, was a Newfoundland.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.37.109 (talk • contribs)

Emily Dickinson's dog, which she named Carlo after St. John's dog (whatever breed it might have been), was a Newfoundland. If the article isn't clear on this point, let me know! María (habla conmigo) 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Question re: LGBT WikiProject tag on this article

Ran across this article in the FA-class LGBT articles cat.... unless I missed something(?) in reading of the article, I didn't see anything in the article supporting Dickinson as being lesbian or bisexual (aside from being eccentric, reclusive, and having an emotionally-clingy penpal relationship with Susan Gilbert) None of the preceding makes her bisexual, lesbian, or even a bad person (for the emotional/eccentric issues) -- it just makes her human. Presumably, either 1 of the 2 following is true:

• Dickinson was not LGBT, but her emotionally-clingy relationship w/ the woman leads people to speculate she might have been.
• Dickinson was LGBT, but such confirmation is unavailable (or has been scrubbed from the article).

Either way, it seems odd having an LGBT-tagged article of such high caliber (FA), yet article does not support or give any reasoning at all for inclusion as an LGBT-tagged article. thoughts? Outsider80 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a specific reference to the basis of the speculation at the end of the Emily Dickinson#Reception section. That's what the hook the scholars hang their hat on, so we've reported it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that sentence. (not sure I agree w/ 1 sentence about being suspected of lesbianism qualifying for project-tagging, but don't feel like opening up that can of worms lol) thx again, Outsider80 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: "not sure I agree w/ 1 sentence about being suspected of lesbianism qualifying for project-tagging" Well, it's difficult to get more than 1 sentence on the subject into the article. Certainly a section or even a paragraph would get scrubbed (as it has before) if it were included. 69.198.205.2 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

[citation needed] I can't remember the last time someone tried to include encyclopedic material verifiable by reliable sources into the article regarding Dickinson's supposed sexuality -- not counting the usual "she was a dyke" vandalism, which happens often enough. If you have something useful to add, by all means post it here so it can be discussed. María (habla conmigo) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition

{{editsemiprotected}}

the poems name isnt 'a route to evanescence' it is 'a route of evanescence' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.209.32 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Could the following be substituted for the section about the Jones Library Special Collections (currently footnote 159)?

The Amherst Jones Library's Special Collections department has an Emily Dickinson Collection consisting of approximately seven thousand items, including original manuscript poems and letters, family correspondence, scholarly articles and books, newspaper clippings, theses, plays, photographs and contemporary artwork and prints. This collection is unique among other Dickinson collections because it places the poet within the context of her community during the mid-nineteenth century.

Could the following be added as an external link?

Emily Dickinson Collection, Jones Library, Amherst, MA

Skyelass (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I believe the external link is unnecessary because the website is already used as a reference. I'm also not sure why the additional sentence is needed, could you elaborate? It seems somewhat redundant to me since the artifacts listed are mainly primarily from the poet's time period. Thoughts, anyone? María (habla conmigo) 22:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done: I agree that the addition is unnecessary. Also, there is a clear COI issue here. haz (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles Wadsworth

Re: Why no mention of William H. Shurr OR his books on Dickinson? I hsve been told that the Dickinson family objected to any insinuation of Emily having had an affair with Charles Wadsworth, and did everything possible to bury Shurr's works: that he is not even mentioned in the list of those who have presented scholarly books concerning Dickinson seems an omission that should be corrected.
Much mystery is accounted for in Dickinson's life by Shurr's hypotheses and ideas, despite those who would prefer that Dickinson be thought a lesbian, a saint, or simply weird, by those who do not know or care that a strong link between Rev. Wadsworth, his Calvary church, her father's political ambitions, Emily's final refusal to go to her father's church, and her poems about "Calvary" and "wife" make strong suggestions that Shurr has a right to imply that an affair occurred.
-Her politically powerful father may well have sent Wadsworth packing to San Francisco, if Emily was discovered to be pregnant, and Emily's visit to Boston for medical attention near the same time, "for her eyes" resulted in all medical records destroyed, with Shurr concluding, from a variety of sources, that Susan had an abortion, previously, that Boston was an abortion center at the time, and that scandal was the last thing a member of Congress needed in his household. The fact that Emily did not attend her own father's funeral is indicative perhaps not of her now well-known habit of staying secluded, but because it may have been the last time she could rebel against him. We know that she finally built a close rlationship with another man later, though by then, she was enfeebled.
Whether Emily must stand as a saint forever, or if there might be some truth to Shurr's interpretation, it is a fact that hundreds of her poems make much more sense regarding absent lovers, her speaking of secret meetings, of separated lovers, of betrayal by a lover -- and all of this after Wadsworth's removal to California, with a huge burst of poetry she never matched again, by pure input, in her later life.
Emily's focus on being "empress" and "wife" to some absent person, exchange of vows, and much more, are worth a second look using Shurr's ideas, but unfortunately, outrage by the guardians of the official version of her life buried Shurr under a mountain of invective and scorn. Okay, he's not popular anymore (see below) -- but that doesn't mean he should be 100% ignored, either. Shurr was a respected professor and expert on Dickinson until his death.
I RECOMMEND A MENTION OF SHURR'S THEORY, AND TO ADD HIS LITERARY AND BIOGRAPHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DICKINSON SHELF.
I believe a PARAGRAPH on the theory that Wadsworth may have seduced Dickinson during the recorded visits SHOULD BE ADDED, as a KEY to the interpretation of many otherwise puzzling and troubling poems.
Medically speaking, if Dickinson recovered from an abortion, or had a miscarriage, with consequent kidney damage (no antibiotics), her frailty from then on, her being sequestered, and then her death from Bright's disease would be one way of hiding it all, and would also account for the sudden change in Emily's entire life (she wasn't a recluse until Wadsworth moved to California).
William H. Shurr published The Marriage of Emily Dickinson. Kentucky, 1983, and New Poems of Emily Dickinson (edited in 1993) (which would have been better received had he not published the afore-mentioned tome first, I believe).
I'm an ABD PhD English Literature, 18th-19th century/Romantic Literature, and repeat that Shurr's contributions should be added to the article under the "Books" section. In addition, some mention of Shurr's controversial but intriguing theory, that there may have been an affair with Wadsworth that led to Dickinson's having had an abortion or miscarriage, should be mentioned. Wadsworth stayed away from Amherst until after Emily's father was dead, then moved back from California: Emily follows Thoreau and Whitman rather than Calvinism ( the writer I offer below, with a differig opinion, disputes this, but note that Dickinson stops going to her family's church altogether, and her father asks wadsworth to 'educate' his stubborn daughter--which apparently, Wadsworth did, and perhaps in more ways than merely religious ones.); if you read Shurr's book, and do research on the medical end (as I have done), Shurr's theory can make sense, unless you are emotionally devoted to presenting only one version of this American poet's life story.
Also, a description of the 'fascicles' would be nice to see, as well as a few of her poems quoted in the article--not just fragments showing how they had been mercilessly edited (including being edited by her own family members after her death). Below is part of an abstract showing the other side of the story, dissing Shurr, but I urge anyone really interested in Dickinson not to miss Shurr's books -- both of them-- that display fine research and many discoveries, whether or not you agree with Shurr's conclusions, the sheer amount of labor and scholarship presented make both books worthy of mention in this article. That these two books are missing from the list is surprising; I was also surprised to see only a few sources supplying most of the biographical information here (adhering almost overwhelmingly to the Dickinson family's official version of Dickinson's life). Of course, feel free to differ with me, but fair is fair. I believe in balanced reportage, and so devote space, below, to an opposing viewpoint:

Abortion and Emily Dickinson: Sex, Religion and Romanticism in the Marriage Group Poems Bernadette Waterman Ward ABSTRACT William Shurr claimed that adultery with Rev. Charles Wadsworth, followed by abortion, gave Emily Dickinson poetic depth. His historically and psychologically improbable misinterpretation of the passionate language common in her correspondence, and of her poetry, stems from a hostility to an embodied rather than a “sovereign” self. The attitude was an attitude fashionable among literary critics in the late twentieth century. In many of her religious poems Dickinson did manifest, even cherish, rejection and despair, and she asserted a rebellious self. But her erotic poems celebrate fulfillment rather than abstinence. Her religious poems abandon a spirituality of denial and absence as they center on Christ the Bridegroom and embrace a regal identity as “wife.” She was hampered in this escape from the sovereign self by a sola scriptura Calvinism and aided by the Romantic approach to the intercourse between the imagination and the world. truehistoryjvb```` (BY jvb, not Allan M.,MY CO-EDITOR ASSOCIATE ON WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truehistoryjvba (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not every speculative theory regarding Dickinson can be mentioned in the article, I'm afraid. Shurr's interpretation of her almost completely shrouded romantic life is interesting, but it's only one of hundreds of other theories. The reason why his work is not listed in the "Secondary sources" section is because it is not currently being used as a source; only works that are cited are listed in this section. On a personal note, I have to agree with Ward, whose article abstract you quote; IMO, Shurr's theory seems needlessly defamatory and certainly improbable. Articles should remain neutral. That Dickinson could have possibly had a romantic relationship with Wadsworth is as far as the article goes now, and without a more credible source, I believe it should stay that way. Any additional comments are welcome, however. María (habla conmigo) 15:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

verified information

I take issue with the information presented in the lead image's caption. None of it is sourced or cited to any reliable sources, nor does anywhere else in the article discuss it. Per the Verifiability policy, the claims made therein need to be sourced and cited, or removed. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the policy you cite, information does not need a citation unless it is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Of course, there are numerous sources that back up what the image caption states, and a ref can easily be added, but I suppose I'm a little taken aback by the fact that you "take issue" with the caption; it's fairly common knowledge. Still, I'll add a citation if you question the information. María (habla conmigo) 01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation and new online source added. María (habla conmigo) 02:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Ample Make This Bed"

Ample Make This Bed is redirected to here, although this poem is not mentioned in the article. I started at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_Choice_%28novel%29 and there "Ample make this bed" was linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.209.145 (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ample Make This Bed redirects to Dickinson's main article because the poem's article was essentially deleted and redirected here[2]; I'm guessing this was because the original article lacked encyclopedic value, reliable sources, etc. This is the case with several other Dickinson poems, which couldn't survive as individual articles. María (habla conmigo) 01:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agoraphobic?

Wasn't Emily Dickinson agoraphobia, because that would explain why she was a shut-in due to the fact that agoraphobiics are afraid of large crowds and places like parks, women are more likely to get it as well. I just thought it needed to be anwsered, Thanks --Buffyfan882 (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no reliable source to prove without a reasonable doubt that Dickinson was afraid of the great outdoors; all we know is that she preferred not to leave her family's house in later years. Agoraphobia has sometimes been used as a simple explanation for a complex woman and her eccentric ways, but without a source, it has no place in the article. María (habla conmigo) 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyndall Gordon's revisionist biography

Lyndall Gordon. "A bomb in her bosom: Emily Dickinson's secret life", The Guardian, Saturday 13 February 2010: "Beneath the still surface of the poet's life lay a fiercely passionate nature and a closely guarded secret, argues her lastest biographer". Gordon suggests that the "secret" was epilepsy and unravels the feud that began with Austin's adulterous love affair with Mabel Todd.--Wetman (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

SCANDAL!!!69.198.205.2 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Josephine Foster's new album of Emily Dickinson Poems

Hello,

I wanted to ad this information but the article is semi-protected and I've only just created an account today.

In 2009,Singer-songwriter [Josephine Foster][3] released 'Graphic As A Star' an album of Emily Dickinson poems set to music.

Link to the record label:

http://www.firerecords.com/site/index.php?page=release&releaseid=00000000622

Gavintprior (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable, I'm afraid. This is a Featured Article, so we must be judicious about what popular culture info to include. María (habla conmigo) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 149.61.81.64, 27 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Mabel Loomis Todd was not a personal acquaintance of Emily Dickinson's. Todd was Austin Dickinson's, ahem, close friend, but the poet never actually met her.

I would drop the "s" at the end of "acquaintances."

149.61.81.64 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

149.61.81.64 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spitfire19 (Talk) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Although they technically never met in person, Todd and Dickinson corresponded via letters, which is how Dickinson carried out her friendships in later years. This made them personal acquaintances. María (habla conmigo) 00:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues with epilepsy claim

I have issues with edits such as this for several reasons. Most importantly, it gives undue weight to a relatively recent claim that (although interesting) is not based in fact, but in conjecture. I have not yet read Gordon's book, but from what articles I've seen pertaining to it, its sensationalist nature is no more pertinent than other scholars believing that Dickinson suffered from "severe agoraphobic syndrome"[4] or doctors one hundred years ago believing she had "Neurasthenia".[5] Epilepsy is therefore only one explanation that seeks to explain a truly eccentric woman. There is no reason to point out the most recent of theories, simply because it was published last.

Perhaps we should reword the recent addition in a way that doesn't give weight to this newest theory, while also mentioning the possibility of other afflictions? I propose the following:

Modern scholars and researchers are divided as to the cause for Dickinson's withdrawal and extreme seclusion. While she was diagnosed as having "nervous prostration" by a physician during her lifetime, some today believe she may have suffered from diseases as various as agoraphobia and epilepsy.

There is no need to directly cite Gordon's book (a specific page number isn't listed anyway), but the two Muse essays may suffice as citations, or any other general one someone may wish to include. Thoughts? María (habla conmigo) 12:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever is done, it should be reworded from "It has been argued...". And I, in my not ever reading a full biography of Dickinson, thought rather she got jilted and told everyone where to stick it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the "it has been argued" is very misleading. What do you think of my suggested rewording, if anything? As for the supposed jilting, that's a whole 'nother can of snakes. There's also the almost desperate attachment to her parents, not to mention Sue next door; then there's the fact that she never really liked leaving home in the first place... it's a complex series of issues, which is why the current wording really, really needs to be clarified. María (habla conmigo) 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No other thoughts or comments, eh? If no one objects, I'll soon implement my suggestion above. María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Gordon's book should definitely be cited: it is a serious scholarly work, and has received some very positive reviews.[6] How is the phrase "It has been argued" misleading? The epilepsy claim is not mere conjecture: e.g. the drugs prescribed by Dickinson's doctor were those that were then used in the treatment of epileptic fits. Note also that in those days epileptics were forbidden to marry. If there are scholarly arguments against Gordon's work, then they should probably be cited.
RomanLady (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"It has been argued" is poorly written. It's passive. It should be restated as to who made the claim and what evidence was used. Regardless, there are many theories as to why Dickinson remained secluded. Epilepsy is just one of the speculative reasons. The claim needs to be placed with appropriate weight of what others have written about her. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from my suggested rewording above, epilepsy is still mentioned as a possible explanation for Dickinson's extreme introversion. The emphasis should be that there are multiple theories that have been offered as explanation for a truly eccentric individual. We will never know for certain. By stating "it has been argued", as it currently does now, the article makes it sound as if epilepsy is the only explanation, or the one currently embraced by Dickinson researchers; both scenarios are certainly not the case. Gordon's book is incredibly new (it was only published earlier this year), and has yet to be proclaimed a seminal or authoritative work; that it received positive reviews is immaterial. Historical biographical articles are tricky, and we should proceed with caution to ensure that the full picture is represented, rather than just a small and newly painted corner. (Weird analogy, I know.) Gordon's book itself does not need to be cited, and the entire historical implication of epilepsy is superfluous to the aim of this article. However, a review of the work of course could be to help back up the epilepsy claim in my suggested rewording above, and if readers wish to know more, they can click the link and read for themselves.

Again, if there are no specific objections to my suggested rewording above, I'll implement it. I don't think it requires more than two or three sentences, but the overall summary should be "yes, there may have been something wrong with her, but we don't know what; here are some possible theories". María (habla conmigo) 15:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed rewording is fine with me, except it should mention some of the evidence for epilepsy. Gordon's book should be cited: it is an entire book on Dickinson, it is scholarly, and Wikipedia policies require a reference for such a claim. Also, if your rewording is going to mention theories other then epilepsy, then those theories need references too.

RomanLady (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I disagree that Gordon's book needs to be cited, because a review (as an overview of the work itself, and its general ideas) will suffice. The book is not being used as a reference; rather, the article is referencing her book; there's a distinction. :) Here is what I have in mind:

Modern scholars and researchers are divided as to the cause for Dickinson's withdrawal and extreme seclusion. While she was diagnosed as having "nervous prostration" by a physician during her lifetime, some today believe she may have suffered from diseases as various as agoraphobia and epilepsy.

References as they would appear: María (habla conmigo) 17:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

1. McDermott, John F. "Emily Dickinson's 'Nervous Prostration' and Its Possible Relationship to Her Work". The Emily Dickinson Journal, 9.1 (2000) pp. 71-86.
2. Fuss, Diana. "Interior Chambers: The Emily Dickinson Homestead". A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10.3 (1998) 1-46
3. "Biography Speculates Emily Dickinson Had Epilepsy". NPR. July 6, 2010. Retrieved August 20, 2010.

I like that the rewording includes references. But I don't understand the reason for not directly citing Gordon's book. A problem with the NPR piece is that it does not give any specifics on the evidence, e.g. that the drugs prescribed by Dickinson's doctor were those that were then used in the treatment of epileptic fits and that in those days epileptics were not allowed to marry. This is a crucial difference between the hypotheses of agoraphobia and epilepsy: the former seems to be entirely conjectural whereas the latter has at least some empirical support. How about keeping your proposed rewording, except including an new sentence at the end that mentions some of the evidence and cites Gordon's book?
RomanLady (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, including additional information on epilepsy, while going into detail about Gordon's "evidence", gives undue weight to this brand new theory from a brand new book. I understand you may agree with Gordon's hypothesis, and obviously wish to promote her work, but we cannot give emphasis to one theory while shortchanging the others -- especially since Gordon is in the minority here. The more general we are, the better the article will be off per WP:UNDUE. Plus, it weighs the article down; it's meant to be an overview of Dickinson's life, not her supposed illnesses. The NPR link suffices as an overview, although we can of course use any reliable review that may be available. There's this one from The Guardian perhaps, or does anyone else have another suggestion? María (habla conmigo) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to promote Gordon's book, and you should not make such an accusation against me.

The epilepsy hypothesis should be given more weight because it is evidenced. The article would be better if it noted this difference between epilepsy and the other hypotheses. You have still not given any reason for not citing Gordon's book. And the review in The Guardian seems positive on the epilepsy hypothesis.

I propose changing the NPR reference to The Guardian article and appending this sentence to the proposed wording, with a reference to Gordon's book: “Evidence for the epilepsy hypothesis includes that the drugs prescribed by Dickinson's doctor were those that were then used in the treatment of epileptic fits and that in those days epileptics, especially women, were not allowed to marry”.

RomanLady (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if you wish to promote Gordon's hypothesis over those of others -- some of which have been around for decades -- but I did not intend that as an insult, so I apologize if it came across that way. The Guardian review can certainly be substituted for the NPR link. However, I do not believe adding your suggested addition contributes to the understanding of what is being suggested in my rewrite: again, the paraphrased intention: "there may have been something wrong, we don't know what, here are a couple examples." Simply enough, we cannot give the epilepsy theory undue weight, which is what your suggested addition would do. Regardless of what you believe as irrefutable proof as to Dickinson having epilepsy, other theories exist, and we do not have the space to go into detail about each and every single one. Gordon's book simply doesn't need to be cited. There are literally hundreds of books and articles about Dickinson that also have not been cited in the article. As I've stated before, if someone wishes to learn more about the epilepsy theory, they can click on the reference, which will lead them to more information about Gordon's book.

In summation: Gordon's isn't the only theory. Her theory should not be given undue weight. To detail her theory, while not going into the others, would be doing just that. This is a Featured Article, and we should strive for it remain academic and impartial. BTW, not everyone agrees with Gordon's work; read some of the comments at the book's Amazon page, or the comments here. María (habla conmigo) 18:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ED and "sexuality" section?

Under the heading "Reception" is the observation, "...some scholars question the poet's sexuality..."

Is Dickinson a “famous poet” or a “famous lesbian”? What is the nature of the “speculation” on the influence of her purported lesbianism on her poetry? Nothing is offered but seven unlinked names of writers or authors who presumably believe that Susan Gilbert Dickinson was the “central erotic relationship in Dickinson’s life”.

Is this significant to the discussion of her poetry? What do you think?

Might it be appropriate to create a section on this matter; shall we, say, include, "sexuality", as was done at the Walt Whitman wiki site? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Whitman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it's not what you or I think, but what notable Dickinson scholars/critics think. Some of them believe Dickinson's poetry to be undulated with Sapphic sentiments, and numerous journal articles -- as well as several books -- attest to this fact. Several of them are cited in the Wiki article. However, like much of Dickinson scholarship, it's mainly speculation with a few alluring connections to factual events interspersed throughout. Before the article was re-written, there was a "Sexuality" section that was the constant subject of edit wars and pointy edits; in fact, the section was longer than the poet's actual bio. I feel that, with such a mysterious figure as Dickinson, it's best to stick to what is known, rather than what is surmised. If you have any suggestions on how to present these facts better, feel free to recommend. María (habla conmigo) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to seeing a sexuality section in this page. Likewise I haven't added an alcoholism section to Ernest Hemingway. The problem with biographies such as these is that a lot information has to be crammed in, written in summary style, and made accessible to the general reader. Focusing too much on specific points tends to bloat the page and, I've found, becomes counterproductive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

ED and early education

Maria - I take it you are scholar and critic; excellent. Contributors to this site can rest assured they are in good hands. Have you published? Well, while you've thinking about that, let's move on to the subject of improving this site. Everyone else who's interested should just pitch right in, O.K.?

The "Teenage years": There's little here about the quality of her education, or her performance. Wolff, in her 1986 biography comments on the high quality of her education (p.4, p. 77, p. 342)

Dickinson "obtained a suberb secondary-school education at Amherst Academy..." (p. 4)

"Academically, the Amherst Academy offered a course of study that was as strenuous as many colleges today. Dickinson was an outstanding student, and she was justly proud of the taxing curriculum she was persuing." (p. 77)

"Emily Dickinson's schooling differed markedly from that of the average young woman of her day: she was given more instruction in current mathematics and science than the average American schoolboy of her day is given now" Italics in original (p. 342-343)

And you know what's really neat about this, Maria? Cynthia Griffin Wolff (unlike you and me) is a real scholar and critic!

So, Maria, what do you THINK? Lend a hand and integrate some of this into the site. As always, feel free to comment or supply editing that's appropriate.

And on the issue of ED and (what you call) a mysterious figure.

To quote Allen Tate, a poet and a Dickinson critic: "Poetry is mysterious, but the poet, when all is said and done is not much more mysterious than a banker." (from his New England Culture and Emily Dickinson)

Angels -- twice descending Reimbursed my store -- Burglar! Banker -- Father! I am poor once more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mysweetoldetc., I find it amusing that you suggest I "lend a hand" when, in fact, I was one of several editors to successfully bring this article to FA status, and have since been heavily instrumental in keeping it that way. I'm quite satisfied that I have lent a hand or two over the past few years. :) Wolff is cited numerous times throughout the article, and was one of my main sources. I think the breadth of Dickinson's education is demonstrated by the listing of subjects that had an impact on her: "classes in English and classical literature, Latin, botany, geology, history, 'mental philosophy,' and arithmetic" -- that's from the first sentence in the "Teenage years" subsection. If that's not clear, let me know and I will clarify. As for Dickinson being an exemplary student, etc., I'll have to research it further, but I agree that her academic progress (despite all the absences) merits some attention. Thanks for the suggestion -- however, future suggestions would be better taken were your tone a little more civil. María (habla conmigo) 20:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, I've added a couple sentences here. María (habla conmigo) 21:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that editors tending the page have an obligation to adhere to the featured article criteria. We can't rely solely on Wolff - as good as she is, and she is indeed good. All the relevant literature has to be looked at. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A few loose ends

Maria – My “tone” was a burlesque of the one you’d adopted in our first exchange; visitors to the Discussion page will recognize that. Of course, if you feel my commentary fails to meet the minimum standards of civility, you’re at liberty to contact Wiki on the matter. Quite frankly, I think it was the remark from Mr. Tate that offended you. But by your own standards, his observation on the subject of “mysterious poets” trumps yours: he is, indisputably, “a notable Dickinson scholar and critic”.

But enough! Allow me to detain you, Maria – and other readers - a minute or two on our subject: Dickinson.

Your listing of ED’s coursework at Amherst Academy is informative--Mysweetoldetc. 18:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC); I’ll grant that. What’s missing, however, is an assessment of her academic training vis-à-vis her intellectual development. This matter is closely linked to her profession as a poet; that’s why Wolff emphasizes it throughout her biography. The Fiske “recollection” you inserted is hardly a serious source on its own. The Wolff quotations, on the other hand, provide insights into how her education compares to American schoolchildren – her contemporaries and today. And whether or not Wolff is cited "numerous times throughout the article" is quite irrelevant.

In any event, that’s my “suggestion” on the subject of ED’s early education. By all means, “research it further”.

(One thing I found troubling, Maria, is that you edited the section under discussion without presenting its merits – or its source – in this forum. And then you put a 3-day lock on the entry. You have a perfect right to do so, but isn’t that a little presumptuous?).

Next topic: is “my Verse…alive”?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the look of your list of contributions, you are fairly new to Wikipedia. If that's the case, let me clarify a few things: first, I did not "lock"/protect the article after I (in good faith) edited it to incorporate your suggestions. If you look at the revision history, you can see that the article has been protected numerous times in the past due to persistent vandalism. The last time it was so protected was February 10th by the user Courcelles. I had nothing to do with this protection, nor with similar ones that happened before that. On a more technical note, you do not need to create a new section on the talk page when replying to another user. Simply indent your reply, such as I have done in reply to you, so that a conversation can remain in one place. Also don't forget to sign your posts by using ~~~~ -- you're making SineBot work overtime!

As for my supposed uncivil tone, we will have to disagree. Whereas I commented completely and utterly on the subject at hand, you have made numerous, belittling insinuations and assumptions about me, my qualifications (or lack thereof), and my motives as they pertain to Dickinson's article. While I've had much worse in the past, such comments do not foster a successful collaborative atmosphere, nor do they help your cause to improve this article. As such, I believe I'll leave your future suggestions to other interested editors. When the article is unprotected, you will be free to edit on your own accord -- hopefully in line with Wikipedia policy. María (habla conmigo) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maria, as much as I'd like to nominate her to become one, is not an administrator. I, on the other hand, am, and the locking of the article had absolutely nothing to do with you, the protection was applied because of a series of junk edits such as this that are completely lacking in anything, and only present an obviously vandalised article to the reader. Your account is old enough that once you have made ten total edits, you will be able to edit this article freely. I'm sorry that occasionally, when such measures are necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the encyclopaedia, there is collateral damage, but our protection systen actually gives us only a limited number of options. Courcelles 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles - Thank you for taking the time to explain. (It's true, I don't have much experience using the system.) I look for forward to collaborating with you - and Maria - in developing and improving this site. --Mysweetoldetc. 18:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

15 April, 1862

ED’s first letter to TWH was dated 15 April, 1862; the date is included with the letter in every book I’ve read on Dickinson, but it has not been included on the wiki page: it needs to be.

The historical context is interesting, and significant. Just days before she wrote this letter, the Battle of Shiloh had been fought, the most destructive battle of the American Civil War to date. Reports of the horrific losses stunned the American public, north and south: 13,000 Union casualties and 12,000 Confederate. Dickinson was writing Higginson a few days after the event. (I am not suggesting a post hoc ergo propter hoc relationship, however.)

The date can be formatted as in Wolff (p. 255). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The New Criticism

I've made some significant additions (and only a few changes).

"Reception" is now "Dickinson and her Critics" - if this is offensive, then, by all means, change it back.

I expanded the quote by Blackmur - it's quite remarkable - and he's the only New Critic that Wolff cites in her ED biography.

The Winters and Tate quotes are classics of this ear of criticism.--Mysweetoldetc. 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs)

First if you sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ found on the top left of your keyboard your signature will format automatically. Re the New Criticim - I actually think what you've added needs to be trimmed significantly, moved to the New Criticism page and then perhaps linked into here from there, instead of using this article as the focus for the NC. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely, Truthkeeper. These changes seriously degrade the article's status. In addition to what you've said, I believe "Reception" is the proper term for such a section (per conventions I've seen in other writer-bios), so re-naming is unnecessary. Really, a majority of the additions unfortunately put too much of an emphasis on New Criticism, therefore violating WP:UNDUE. Blackmur's quote was already extensive, and now crowd out the entire section. I don't know what else to say, really. María (habla conmigo) 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge on the specifics of criticism about Dickinson is small, so my comment should be taken in this context, but for a Wikipedia Featured article, the Reception section (and I agree this is what it should be called) should take into account all the information written about Dickinson's work. If the majority by far is New Criticism, it should dominate the section. If not, New Criticism should be represented with emphasis appropriate to how much information exists. If that's clear... --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There's been quite a lot written on Dickinson, so perhaps the other sections should be further expanded. One of these quotes could be added to a quote box to make the section shorter. An entire article devoted to Dickinson's poetry could be written if someone were to get the sources. The section should have more prose and less quotes, but I'm not opposed to leaving in the current info(and of course, linking to the New Criticism article).AerobicFox (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to New Criticism makes perfect sense. However, I don't believe that expansion is as easy as you make it to be, AerobicFox. Dickinson's article is meant to focus on the main points, and the Reception section should of course touch upon the main areas of criticism regarding her poetry. That is what the previous version aimed to do; certainly additional artistic movements, important to Dickinson scholarship past and present, could also be briefly mentioned. I use terms such as "touch upon" and "briefly" because this article is meant to be an overview. Focusing so very concretely on any one movement, whether it be New Criticism or something else entirely, introduces undue weight, as I've said. Everything in moderation. This is already a lengthy article, after all, and Featured. To expand requires delicacy, so as not to push any one agenda/interpretation. I'm entirely opposed to leaving in the entirety of the recent additions, however, and agree with Truthkeeper's original point in that it should be very much trimmed, or else relocated. María (habla conmigo) 22:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To build upon my first comment in this section, let me just say that the basic idea of the newest additions are sound -- certainly there should be explicit mention of how Dickinson was viewed by adherents of New Criticism. However, as I've pointed out already, the "Reception" (re-named already, I see) section is now bloated with overly-long quotations and an unnecessary definition of the movement. Simply stating and linking to New Criticism is enough; there is no need to point out the history and/or meaning of the term. Blackmur's quote should be trimmed to the main points, as the quote was already long before its recent expansion. Yyor Winters' quote is an interesting addition, but it too is extremely long. Same with Alan Tate. Three blockquotes from three very similarly-minded critics does not add to the understanding of Dickinson's poetry overall. Unless someone wishes to bluelink Critical reception of Emily Dickinson, then this is what we have to work with. Until then, if the "Reception" section requires expansion to allow for a broader understanding of the poet's work, then we need to consider exploring different areas of criticism. One subsection dedicated solely to New Criticism is unecessary. Could someone please take care of this? María (habla conmigo) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll have a look at it, but really think it should simply be reverted, mostly for the reasons Moni3 mentions. It adds WP:UNDUE weight to the page which should be written in summary style and not focus too much on a single school of thought. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved a piece to New Criticism (which is in dire shape) [7], another piece to Because I could not stop for Death (an improvement there), [8], paraphrased a long quotation to avoid having a quote farm here and combined some information [9]. I have left in a smallish para re New Criticism, but anything more would be WP:UNDUE. Then I restored the WP:TOC to comply with WP:WIAFA. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

All great changes, IMO; I'm sure everyone can appreciate how the information -- while not entirely necessary here -- is still present on Wikipedia, especially in articles that seem to be in dire need of similar additions. I've cleaned it up only slightly. I do see an issue, however: new citations to "Hagenbuchle (1998), 358–359" and "Winters (1963), 283" need to be substantiated, as they are not currently present in the secondary sources. Information needs to be added to the article's bibliography, or alternative sources given. María (habla conmigo) 03:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Change of quote box color

Example colors

They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Current color They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Wheat They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Beige They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Peach They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Papaya whip They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Lemon Chiffon They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Blonde They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Vanilla They shut me up in Prose – As when a little Girl They put me in the Closet – Because they liked me "still" – Still! Could themself have peeped – And seen my Brain – go round – They might as wise have lodged a Bird For Treason – in the Pound – Sunset

How do people here feel about potentially changing the current quote boxes here from their bluish color, to a more parchment color? Something like those up above.AerobicFox (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There's really no reason to change. I've noticed that the beige-y colors show up differently on different browsers. Blue is always blue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer the default blue then we can keep it, but there aren't any real technical issues that would affect the display of beige colors but not blue colors.AerobicFox (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Other than personal opinions, there's no reason to change what is currently visible. Let's not fix what isn't broken. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

New Criticism Redux

Dear Moni3 – I think you’re on to something when you wrote, “…New Criticism should be represented with emphasis appropriate to how much information exists.” The impact of the New Critics is still felt today; even Wolff’s analysis is influenced by it. H. Bruce Franklin wrote:

“The hallmark of New Critical methodology--intricately detailed and nuanced readings of texts--was actually a corollary of these texts deemed worthy of study, texts filled with elaborate ambiguities and ironies, texts therefore not easily accessible to common readers.” Go read Wolff; you’ll see.

Providing a section on Second Wave feminist “critique” and the New Critics is a balanced - and informative – approach. Both should be expanded prudently; I’ve initiated that project.

Undue Weight (WP:UNDUE )? If you take the trouble to read the section, you’ll see it’s related to arguments about, say, “global warming”, where 99.9% of scientists recognize the human causes, and 0.1% do not. Providing equal space for the latter is an example of “undue weight.” Applying it to a section on the New Criticism is a red herring.

As the Untruthkeeper/Maria opined, “everything in moderation”; except a proprietary approach to editing and a “Dog in the Manger” attitude towards new contributors.

Oh, by the way, the material that was dumped in the New Criticism was done so without including the reference; rather slipshod, I’d say. Scamper over there and take care of that “edit”, won’t you, Maria? Mysweetoldetc. 18:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs)

Ok, any dialogue that serves to improve any article is welcome, but rhetoric like "If you take the trouble to read the section" needs to stay out. I've no doubt Maria, as the primary author of this article, read the section thoroughly, weighing it with the body of literature written about Dickinson's works. If you meant that harmlessly, that's ok. Innocuous phrases people use in general communicate (i.e., "you need to understand" and other statements that literally mean the person has not read the information or is incapable of understanding a point or has not taken a perspective into consideration), are easily able to be taken out of context on the Internet and not conducive to a discussion.

My point, to clarify, is that in the entire canon of literature of criticism about Dickinson's works, the New Criticism should be included in the article represented by appropriate weight by how much of it exists in the entirety of everything written about Dickinson. An entire paragraph was added to explain New Criticism, most of which did not relate back to Dickinson. As someone mostly ignorant of New Criticism and such, I didn't see why it was necessary to describe New Criticism or why this specific branch of criticism has to be explained in Dickinson's article. This is why it was suggested that some of the information be transferred to another article. If it doesn't have any direct bearing on Dickinson, it shouldn't be included. A Featured article should be comprehensive, but use as few words as possible to explain only the most integral components to the topic. Related topics get their own articles and links to them.

Scamper? Seriously, what the hell?? Can you think of a good reason at this moment why your suggestions may not be being treated with the respectful reception you think you deserve? --Moni3 (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm at the end of my assuming-good-faith rope here. Mysweetoldetc, your childish insinuations and suggestions to "scamper" here or there, or read certain sources (as if I haven't), are highly rude. Comment on the content, not the editor. I do not doubt that you have good intentions as far as the article are concerned. However, editing/maintaining high quality articles such as this one is a difficult job, and perhaps not easy for a newly minted editor to undertake. I can only "opine" as much, however, because your additions are messy, unfinished, and at times unnecessary. You introduced the newest sources, so it is your responsibility to cite them accordingly and provide full bibliographic information, which you did not do previously. If the information cannot be properly sourced in full, it should and will be removed. In introducing new material, you should also make an effort to match the writing and citation styles already present in the article. Because you have failed to do so, your edits require rewriting and fixing. As you have seen, this creates work for other editors. This is meant to be a collaboration, not Wikipedia's version of Stanley Steamer. María (habla conmigo) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the biblio info for one of the new citations introduced by Mysweetoldetc ("Hagenbüchle/Grabher (1998), 358–359."), but I cannot pinpoint from what volume "Winters (1963), 283." came. This is after fifteen minutes of searching Worldcat, btw. Can this be substantiated, please? María (habla conmigo) 22:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If it can't be substantiated, the material should be deleted until a source is provided. Also, the issue of having two editions of Wolff cited in the bibliography needs to be sorted out. If Mysweetoldetc is using a newer edition, that's a problem, I think. They, or someone, will have to comb through and figure out which Wolff refs are cited to which edition and add dates in the refs which is not a small matter. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on both points, Truthkeeper. Since sticking with the 1986 edition of Wolff's book seems to be the easier route, I've went ahead and changed the citations so they're uniform. The two volumes seemed to be fairly identical; I've checked most page numbers against my library's ratty 1986 edition, and didn't see any issues. I still do not know from what volume the Winters citation came from, so that remains unresolved. María (habla conmigo) 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"I have no tribunal"

Revision on "Is my verse alive"

This helps to counter the "woman-child" image (Wolff) that clings to this section and add a dimension of what Adrienne Rich called "a figure of powerful will, not at all frail or breathless. She's talking about ED, you see.Mysweetoldetc. 20:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs)

Fortress Dickinson declared "under siege"

The Devil (mortified). Señore Don Juan: you are uncivil to my friends!

Don Juan. “…why should I be civil to them or you? In this Palace of Lies, a truth or two will not hurt you.”

— George Bernard Shaw, from Don Juan in Hell (Act III, Scene 2 of Man and Superman, 1903.

A siege mentality has gripped the headquarters at Fortress Dickinson; security forces have been mobilized and some officers are calling for implementation of the dreaded “block” maneuver. (A bemused Miss Dickinson has been placed under house arrest by the authorities – “for her own protection”.)

A small edit: In the “Reception” section (formerly “Dickinson and Her Critics”), Susanne Juhasz is paraphrased as offering essays from a “female" perspective (from her book Feminist Critics Read Emily Dickinson). Historically speaking, I wasn’t aware there was a “female” outlook on any matter. I’ve never doubted there was a “feminist perspective”, however.

If a “female” point-of-view has been established as biologically - or socially - predetermined, kindly provide the scientific evidence for this phenomenon. Until then, I’ve changed the entry to “a feminist perspective.” --Mysweetoldetc. 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs)

So I wrote the article for the surrealist David Lynch film Mulholland Dr.. Every once in a while, someone comes to the talk page to communicate in surrealist tones. I reply that while the film is itself surrealist, communicating about a concrete encyclopedia article about the film is not. It takes forthright communication to improve the article. Mr. Bowles, if you insist on replying enigmatically, as Dickinson's poetry reads, and insulting other editors, you can rest assured you will be blocked again. You can call it a siege, but what it is actually is that you are expected to express yourself clearly, in plain English, to improve the article.

Furthermore, please take note:

1. Indent your replies with colons preceding them, like this: :Maria, I'm sorry for insulting you. Let's work together to improve this article.
2. Starting a new section for a each comment is not necessary, but it is more confusing and it keeps the conversation less cohesive. When paired with vague references to Dickinson's poetry in lieu of pragmatic suggestions on how to improve the article, it just makes it seem as if you are trying to be obtuse.

No one is asserting you are not allowed to point out that some parts of the article can be improved, but please engage the talk page with a modicum of respect. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Moni, Samuel Bowles was a newspaper editor and personal correspondent of Dickinson's. Mysweetoldetc was being "clever" and paraphrasing one of Bowles' frustrated sentiments to Dickinson when they referred to me as a wretch, etc. in their previous comment. Hence the unnecessary cquote they added to the article. I have no objection to changing "female" perspective to "feminist", mainly because I have not read Juhasz and therefore don't know the context of the citation used. The terms seem vaguely synonymous, so either way works, I suppose. María (habla conmigo) 22:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good for Mr. Bowles. I think the name fits, particularly for someone who prefers being obscure to clear. Hey, baby. Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like? That's how I roll. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer to derail conversations by unnecessary repetition ala Xzibit: Yo dawg, I herd you like feminist perspectives, so I put a feminist perspective in your article so you can establish and defend equal opportunities for women while you establish and defend equal opportunities for women. Hmm, perhaps too wordy for Xzibit... María (habla conmigo) 17:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles: I sense some hostility; do you?

Dear "Courcelles" -

What do you make of this comment from "Maria":

Yo dawg, I herd you like feminist perspectives, so I put a feminist perspective in your article so you can establish and defend equal opportunities for women while you establish and defend equal opportunities for women. Hmm, perhaps too wordy for Xzibit.

Tsk, tsk. Mysweetoldetc. 19:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No hostility intended in the least; merely a joke to Moni, who I'm sure understood the reference. As I said previously, I have no issue with your previous edit. Thank you for finally adding the citation for Winters, it's much appreciated. María (habla conmigo) 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

None here, tambien. I've removed the reference because the edit does not support the content in the section; my edit has been - in a rather cowardly fashion - "blocked". My edit was linked to the reference; I've actually read the source: you have not.

Fortress Dickinson is still under seige, alas.Mysweetoldetc. 20:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs)

Blocked? Cowardly fashion? I've no idea what you're referring to. "Winters (1963), 283" is still being used as a citation. If you have the full bibliographic source, it should be listed. If not, the citation should and will be removed, as has already been stated. María (habla conmigo) 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I quoted the source for "damned wretch", would you know "what I was referring to"? I repeat, the edit on Winters does not match the citation; see for yourself; don't piggy-back on sources you don't understand.Mysweetoldetc. 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysweetoldetc. (talk • contribs)

I guess I'll have to look at the history to figure out what happened, but it would be helpful if Mysweetdoc can verify if the text doesn't match the source because of the edits I made. If so, I'll try to fix it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) When Truthkeeper re-factored your additions to the "Reception" section, she did not alter the first citation to Winters. She removed the second quote, which was attributed to "Winters (1963), 284", but the paraphrasing from page 283 seems spot on: Dickinson's poems are "nearly perfect", and so on. I think it to be a good paraphrase, so again, I don't know what you're referring to. In addition, the source you added today -- before removing it -- was printed in 1947, not 1963. (That would explain why I couldn't find it in Worldcat.) If you no longer feel the paraphrased quote matches what is stated in the book, then we could simply remove it. Or, if no correct source is provided, it should be removed anyway. María (habla conmigo) 21:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Winters was published in 1938 and possibly the essay collected in 1947? Here's the 1938 edition and the quote I paraphrased seems to exist but won't show up in snippet view: [10]. Looking at my edits, I was careful to keep refs together with the text. I do think we have some problems here. First, 1938 is a bit dated for a scholarly commentary in my view. When writing about authors I try to use the most recent scholarship available, so in fact maybe Winters can be deleted. Next, Mysweetdoc must try to understand that maintaining a page such as this takes a bit of effort and requires a thorough knowledge of featured article criteria which in turn requires a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia's manual of style, citiation guidelines, and basic competency. Honestly it took me months, even as long as year, to learn how to edit here. It's a steep learning curve and editors are willing to help. What editors aren't willing to do is to spend hours of volunteer time creating a page and then having someone shove in something that doesn't follow style and policy guidelines. Furthermore, editors aren't willing to be insulted for upholding good work. Editors are willing to have fruitful discussions and answer reasonable questions. Btw - in a show of good faith, learning to sign your name is a good place to start. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue mentioned above has stood too long. As such, I've bitten the bullet and removed Winters' quote, which has for almost a month remained unsubstantiated. It's a great quote, but I don't have the time nor the burden of evidence to hunt down the correct volume or decipher the context. Besides, these tasks should be done by the original editor who adds such info. Thanks for your help, Truthkeeper! María (habla conmigo) 13:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 38.116.145.60, 24 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the line "They had three children:THEY ALL DIED OF STD'S" Please remove the "THEY ALL DIED OF STD'S" This is not true and detracts from the article. Thank you.

38.116.145.60 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Golgofrinchian. — Bility (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors of Dickinson's work

Gusgus621 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the descriptions of both the Todd/Higginson and Johnson editions be revised. Specifically, I suggest that the phrase "both of whom heavily edited the content." be removed from the description of the Todd/Higginson edition at the top of the page. I also suggest that it is inaccurate to describe Johnson's edition as "A complete and mostly unaltered collection." Even Franklin's edition is deeply flawed in its presentation of Dickinson's work.

ALL of the editors of Dickinson's poetry have "heavily edited the content" and ALL of them have altered Dickinson's work. Just as Todd and Higginson edited Dickinson to suit the tastes of the popular market of the 1890s, so too did Johnson and Franklin edit her work to suit the tastes of 20th-century academia. One need only compare the image of Amherst College MS 450 (Franklin 1512) to Franklin's transcription to see the degree to which he altered Dickinson's work: he changed line breaks, omitted the three long dashes between stanzas, and failed to note the basic fact that this poem about a house is written on a piece of paper shaped like a house. (https://www.amherst.edu/library/archives/holdings/edickinson) Other editorial practices, such as extracting poems from letters, alter Dickinson's original works substantially.

Although the Franklin edition is flawed, it is curious that the article focuses more attention on Johnson's work and doesn't even mention Franklin's variorum edition of 1998.

It is also striking that this article makes absolutely no mention of Millicent Todd Bingham, who published five books and numerous articles on Dickinson between 1931 and 1955. By omitting Bingham, this article ignores her substantial contributions to our knowledge of Dickinson. Her articles about Dickinson's prose fragments (The New England Quarterly, September 1955) and dating manuscripts based on changes in Dickinson's handwriting (The New England Quarterly, June 1949) are important works of Dickinson scholarship that predate both Johnson and Franklin.

An understanding of the full publication history of Dickinson's work is essential to understanding the poetry itself. This article misrepresents the work of Dickinson's editors and should be revised.

Thanks for your input, you make some great suggestions. Keep in mind, however, that the lead section merely serves as a summary of the article; so if the (perhaps poorly worded) descriptions of both Todd/Higginson and Johnson's editions were to be removed from the introduction, these sentiments would still be mentioned, fleshed out and supported by sources further in the article. I can understand there being a kind of prolonged smear campaign against Todd and Higginson's work, seeing as how sensitive the Dickinson/Todd issue continues to be -- I wouldn't be surprised if some of the sources we used here are strictly anti-Todd, and therefore favor later editions over hers. If you could provide reliable, third-party sources that say other than what is already noted in the article, that would be very helpful. Otherwise, I'll see what I can do.

As for Millicent Todd Bingham, I agree entirely. I'll see if I can find a source or to and write up a blurb -- unless you had one in mind? Perhaps she can be mentioned soon after Martha Dickinson Bianchi, who has a small paragraph in the posthumous publication section. Lastly, Franklin's 1998 variorum edition is mentioned (in the "Structure and syntax" section), but it's easy to miss; maybe we should move it so it's more prominent? María (yllosubmarine) 03:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made some alterations/additions with this edit. Let me know what you think. María (yllosubmarine) 16:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the revisions are appropriate and much more accurate. Thank you. The one thing I might suggest adding is something after the sentence "The first scholarly publication came in 1955 with a complete new three-volume set edited by Thomas H. Johnson. It formed the basis of all later Dickinson scholarship." I think it's important to note specifically that Johnson was the first editor to have access to manuscripts held by both Bianchi and Bingham.Gusgus621 (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, that wasn't made clear before. I've clarified as follows: "The first scholarly publication came in 1955 with a complete new three-volume set edited by Thomas H. Johnson. Forming the basis of later Dickinson scholarship, Johnson's variorum brought all of Dickinson's known poems together for the first time. Johnson's goal was to present the poems very nearly as Dickinson had left them in her manuscripts." If anything else needs to be added/clarified, don't hesitate to say. If you can also think of some noteworthy sources to add, that would also be great. Thanks again! María (yllosubmarine) 14:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is there only one known photo of her?

The article doesn't answer the one big question: how could it be possible that there is only one known photograph of Emily Dickinson is she was/is such famous person? --Lecen (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lecen. Dickinson only became famous after her death. As such, there was no publicity or critical attention while she was living; by the time she was recognized as a famous American poet, it was obviously too late to photograph her. Also keep in mind that photographs were a rare occasion for folk during this time period, unlike today -- we're lucky to have the one authenticated portrait, really. María (yllosubmarine) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, María. Thank you for answering. Still, she lived until 1886, and by then photographs were far more common and cheap when compared to daguerreotypes in the 1840s. Is there an explanation by scholars for the lack of photos or paintings of her? Perhaps they were simply lost or forgotten in the basement of a distant relative? --Lecen (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any scholarly explanation for why there is only one photograph, but I don't think one is truly needed -- I think the article adequately puts the sparse facts of Dickinson's life into context. While she did in fact live until 1886, she was largely a recluse for much of that time. From the late-1850s until her death, she never left her childhood home, which would have made visits to a photography studio very difficult. The Dickinsons obviously didn't own a camera of their own (again, indicative of the time), and Emily herself received very few visitors. The photograph we have of her was taken while she was still at school, when she was 17 or so. However, when Thomas Wentworth Higginson asked her to send him a photograph of herself in the mid-1860s, she said she didn't have one and instead described her looks in the delicate, poetic manner quoted in the article. Maybe she didn't like the photo taken of her when she was a teen (Wolff believes as much), or maybe she truly didn't remember having taken it. Either way, that's as much as we've got: there's only one authenticated photograph of Dickinson. María (yllosubmarine) 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you very much. I know we aren't supposed to turn this into a forum but I really wanted to know more about this subject. Thank you very much, María. --Lecen (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

New photo discovered?

Should we include it in the article? https://www.amherst.edu/library/archives/holdings/edickinson/new_daguerreotype Vividonset2 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for linking it here. It seems that the image hasn't been thoroughly authenticated, so I don't think we should add it just yet. It may turn out to be a false alarm, like others before it. María (yllosubmarine) 12:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not link to it? The article has no problem speculating about mere possibilities like a late-life affair; why not speculate about a photograph? The Shakespeare article leads off with the Chandos portrait, which it specifies as unauthenticated. --Tbanderson (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this is not a reliable source since I created this image myself, but check this out. It's the two faces transposed against each other. Perfect match. I anticipate there will be an authentication. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Related to the new photo: what about her friend who appears with her ( Kate Scott Turner)? Why is there no mention of her in the main article? More info here: http://www.emilydickinson.org/1859daguerreotype.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.37.219 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In September 2012, the Amherst College Archives and Special Collections unveiled this daguerreotype, proposing it to be Dickinson and her friend Kate Scott Turner (ca. 1859). It has not been authenticated yet.

Proposed image and caption (with source) to the right. Thoughts? María (yllosubmarine) 02:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that is fine. I suspect it will be authenticated unless it's a fraud, so we'll have to keep an eye on it, or who ever brought it here can keep us updated. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted picture

Yllosubmarine has reverted to a version of the photo which I believe isn't good enough. It's heavily retouched, black and white and small. I added the one that looks exactly as how the daguerreotype actually is, as if someone had it right in front of him or her. Not only that, the picture is large and of high quality. --Lecen (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. You know, there's so many versions of this one image, it seems that not everyone is going to be pleased. I prefer Dickinson daguerreotype.jpg this image, which has been in the lead for several years, but the current image is a retouched version created by another user. It's slightly blurry for my taste, but I thought it a better retouched version than this one added earlier today. My change was to compromise, but apparently it wasn't taken that way.

Lecen, IMHO, while the image you added is indeed large, it's also extremely dark, which obscures Dickinson's features. I think that whatever image represents this FA should at the very least ensure the subject of the image is visible. Perhaps a better compromise would be to retouch the .png file you uploaded so that it doesn't appear so very dark? María (yllosubmarine) 01:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that the restored image added today is a retouched version of the .png. Sorry I didn't pick up on that sooner. I'm kind of at a loss; I don't think either version is an adequate representation, but what do I know? María (yllosubmarine) 01:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ihe picture isn't dark: it's exactly how the daguerreotype looks like. Here is the photography with frame. That's how it looks like. That's the correct photo. Those other retouched pictures at Commons made her look like a ghost. We should have the picture as it is, not retouched. Here is a link to the actual daguerreotype so that anyone can see how it actually looks like. --Lecen (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but I see you've already changed the image back to the one you prefer. You've also added the newly discovered image, without a source. I guess I'll work on that, then. On a side note, your image is still dark and the newly discovered one is still unauthenticated. María (yllosubmarine) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The link given above was taken from directly from the Amherst College Archives & Special Collections, where the daguerreotype is presently located. Thus, it was not taken from a blog, from any website or similar. That is the daguerreotype as it looks. Not retouched. About the 1859 dagurreotype, I mentioned in my edit: "This one might be actually controversial, so I will understand if there is opposition to it". Thus, if other editors are believe this second daguerreotype needs to be removed, I will agree. However, it does not make sense to have a retouched picture of the first daguerreotype when we have a perfect digital copy of it. --Lecen (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay keeping the newly discovered image since more than one person thinks it merits inclusion. It just needed a source and a better worded caption, which I've just added.

However, I still have issues with the image you've placed in the lead. You say it was taken directly from the Amherst College website, but the source is 404 - Not Found. Typo? Also, you asked someone to edit it from its original version -- so I guess this image isn't exactly a "perfect digital copy" of the original daguerreotype, is it? ;) If removing a couple dark spots and the gold matting is kosher, then why isn't simply lightening the image itself so as to make the subject's features more clear? I would love to hear other people's opinions on this choice, if that's okay. Admittedly, my opinion is based on years of having tended this article, so I'm not exactly impartial. María (yllosubmarine) 01:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See here. Scroll down. Here is the direct link. "Admittedly, my opinion is based on years of having tended this article..." Spare me of FA nominator ownership. Do you want to keep the crappy picture? Fine. I rather prefer not to waste time. --Lecen (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was that the source in the image description is incorrect. 404 error. I also said I was okay with the addition of the newly discovered image, I offered to open the floor to others, and I admitted I'm not impartial. No need for hostility. María (yllosubmarine) 01:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've been watching all of this with some sort of bemusement. First, the newly discovered image is interesting and I have to say, it sure looks like Emily Dickinson. I'd suggest adding it with a source and longish caption - or a note can be added in the caption to explain its origin, that it's not yet been authenticated yet, etc.
• Re the lead image: I like the one that's there. I think when the other one, the one in the gold frame, went to the graphics lab it came out a bit too dark. It's certainly much darker than the current image and on my computer her face wasn't visible against the background. But as they're the same image but both slightly doctored, it's really not a big deal since it's only image to use in the lead. If Lecen thinks the current one makes her look like a ghost and Maria thinks his looks too dark, then the thing is to have the graphics lab rework it. The image Lecen added had more of a yellow tinge characteristic of a daguerreotype, but that can be lightened. On this talk page we can put up lots of different versions until we find one that everyone likes.

• 
  currently on the page, face lightened?
• 
  just one of several restored versions available; scratches entirely removed, lightened
• 
  after graphics lab removed frame and changed background per request
• 
  before graphics lab removed frame and changed background per request

Anyway, some else weighing in. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor Yllosubmarine's arguments for retaining the much clearer version of the original daguerreotype are very convincing, especially since the obscured substitute had itself undergone editing. Editor Lecen is working his way through all other Wikipedia articles (about six so far) where this image appears, substituting "his" image. This is not too important since anyone wishing to see what Emily Dickinson actually looked like will come to the present article first.121.73.91.201 (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

121.73, I agree that most people looking for a pictorial representation of Dickinson will come here first. Wherever they go, however, I'd much rather they see a high quality image, which is why I'm glad this discussion is taking place! María (yllosubmarine) 02:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for adding the gallery, TK. Great idea. I added one restored version of the image by another user, who lightened and removed the scratches completely. When it was added to the article a few months ago by the image's creator, I balked because I thought it was too restored. Lecen's version is much higher quality in that it is a far better scan than most of what is on Commons. However, as TK points out, its darkness obscures Dickinson's face while in thumbnail size in the lead. It looks great large, but terrible small. (Also, is it just me, or does the thumbnail of the gold-matted version look sharper than the retouched version?) My proposal at the start of this thread -- that this new version simply be lightened -- would be my ideal solution to this issue, but again, I'm interested in what others think. María (yllosubmarine) 02:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The pre-graphic labs version looks sharper to me, but I do like to see the sepia. That said, it is very dark - but I think it can be fixed. I have a program on my computer that allows me to adjust sepia levels and lightness levels so I'll download it and play around with it a bit and see where I get. It would be better to start with the original, so I'll have to find that at Amherst. Give me a few days to do that, and no promises. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding, I've just realized that image is from Yale, and it looks like the one that was on the page - no sepia. The link is here. I wouldn't argue with Yale; and I'd stay with this Yale image. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

While these commendable efforts at achieving a quality outcome continue, someone is systematically working through all the other Wikipedia articles where the Emily Dickinson picture appears (whether in English or other languages) deleting the previous clear image and substituting the very dark one. Any French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, Russian or Polish reader who is interested in an internationally renowned poet will now have to settle for an opaque version of what she looked like. 121.73.91.201 (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

First, the Yale image is a photographic print of the original daguerreotype, which is held by Amherst. I'm also in favor of sticking with the Yale version, although the switch to the "better" original version is what spurred this entire discussion.

Second, I'm not a fan of campaigns on Wikipedia, whether they be for their own sake or against someone else and their own campaign. This talk page is to discuss this article, not the large collection of Dickinson articles across all of Wiki. The Spanish version of this article, for example, has many falsehoods throughout, including several unauthenticated portraits, but I don't participate there; I participate here. This article is what I'm concerned about, and it's actually what we're discussing. The other Wikis can make their own choices about what image to display. María (yllosubmarine) 14:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Critics write that ED found her father overbearing

I read it in several reliable sources. Critics seemed to think this was a pretty important thing, eg if they pick a handful of significant things from her biography to discuss, like religion, possible lovers, experiences of seeeing aquantances die, they usually include this. It should be easy to find references among the secondary literature on ED. I no longer have access to resources (ie library, online databases), so if someone else could find references, it would be possible for more information on how ED saw her father to be added to the article.

The main things they mention in their discussions are (a) ED learning to read a clock and (b)the father's restriction of reading material. I don't remember which primary sources they quote, I would assume letters. If anyone needs help in finding references, I can suggest where to look.

many thanks 33gsd (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC) edit to be more clear33gsd (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)and slightly more logical33gsd (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible Reason for Emily's Reclusiveness

Much has been made of Emily Dickinson's increasing reluctance, from about her middle years onward, to leave her family home. For the last several years of her life, she never left it. Reasons such as extreme shyness, agorophobia, or even heavy household duties have been suggested. Although all three of these may have played a part, some lines in her poems and in her letters suggest that an exacerbating factor was Emily's conviction that she was very plain. Her famous line, in a letter, that her eyes resembled "the sherry left in the glass" is sadly telling. The one authenticated daguerreotype of her shows a woman who was not conventionally pretty, according to the notions of the time. Her extreme sensitivity to others' reactions, and her love of beauty, may have combined to cause her to avoid human contact with all except close family members. It's difficult to know any other reason which would cause her to speak to visitors from behind a cracked door. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but this isn't the place for it -- talk pages are meant to discuss/improve the article at hand, not to post personal opinions. If you have ideas as to how to improve how the article approaches the subject of Dickinson's eccentricities, please provide some reliable sources to back up your assertions. María (habla conmigo) 02:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, judging by numerous other Wikipedia articles, this is exactly the place for it. I have read long speculations on whether melted cheese on toast should be called Welsh Rarebit or Welsh Rabbit, based entirely on the writer's childhood recollections; on whether James Dean was gay, bi- or straight, depending on some past lover's wishful thinking; on the genetic descent of the Sami tribes in Scandinavia; on whether Thomas Jefferson did or did not father Sally Hemings' children, based again on the writer's wishes; and on vast numbers of other opinions, sometimes amounting to the demented and fantastic. My suggestion that Dickinson became reclusive because she perceived herself as being unsightly, is well within the standards of Wikipedia Younggoldchip (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is not valid unless you have reliable sources; otherwise, it's original research and therefore has no place in the article. To clarify my previous statement, your initial comment did not mention the current state of the article, or the fact that you wished to add/clarify facts. As such, it seemed off topic, which is why I pointed you to WP:TALK. Again, if you wish to insert something into the article, please provide reliable sources. Thanks, María (habla conmigo) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, here's a second opinion (sorry its so long, ignore everything in brackets to find a concise version)

(1) quote <<Much has been made of increasing reluctance(...) to leave her family home (...)It's difficult to know any other reason which would cause her to speak to visitors from behind a cracked door (...)>>

The article, IMO, should mention that people have tried to solve the 'mystery' of her seclusion, as some sources think there must be a theory that explains her later seclusion (isn't epliepsy mentioned?). Others sources think it is more or less understandable that she would choose to live that way. (no-one likes to be disturbed when they are thinking hard, and perhaps she was always thinking hard; or maybe, with a sensibility like ED's, she found a little goes a long way - why visit a volcano when you can imagine one? why see a person, when you can remember one?)

(2) quote <<some lines in her poems and in her letters suggest (...)>>

(My thoughts would be that there are enough academics who have studied her letters and works that no theory is likely to be both 'original' and 'good', just one of the two. You had 'primary evidence', by the sound of it, but I can't comment as <<Her famous line (...)"the sherry left in the glass">> isn't one I know. But anyhow, proof she thought she was plain isn't proof that this played the role you describe. I think the theory is flimsy - she apparently had no difficulty being sociable in her youth.)

But far more important for this Talk Page is the question of reliable sources for this theory. Someone more experienced can tell you if this is correct, but my impression is that on Wikipedia neither you, I, Maria, or a leading scholar are considered competent in reading poetry, so even if there was consensus from all contributors on a talk page that the primary sources corroborate your theory, (ie consensus that <<some lines in her poems and in her letters suggest>> the 'lack of physical beauty' and this is an explanation for reclusiveness,) it would not make up for a lack or 'reliable source' as defined by wikipedia policy. (Perhaps you had thought that quoting letters of ED would constitute a source, and Maria didn't specifically discuss that.)

(3) from Maria <<talk pages are meant to discuss/improve the article at hand>> Form ygc <<Actually, judging by numerous other Wikipedia [Talk Pages]>> <<(...) well within the standards of Wikipedia [talk pages] >>

And the discussion on 'why only one photo?' below on this talk page shows, people like to help when they think it will be appreciated. But Wikipedia has policies and it has people with authority. And surely, the gist of what Maria said above - if the talk pages were a forum, it would soon get out of hand - is right. But in cases like the 'why one photo discussion' and the person who posted the below and the person who replied with what he(/she?) was looking for, people may choose to follow policy, they may choose not to, and it doesn't always receive a criticism when they don't. I expect it is sometimes about personality, goodwill, common sense, and understanding or misunderstanding someone's intentions: - Found on a talk page: <<Could some one please help me?.Im looking for a short preface to a poetry book that i read to my wife 18yr. ago when i ask her to merry me.>> )

sorry that was so long, but the original discussion was clearly thoughtful so I gave it a second opinion. I don't think it deserves further discussion. 33gsd (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC) edit because i wrote poor information/out-of place opinions01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)33gsd (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)33gsd (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC) there. 33gsd (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dont know if THIS helps at all, but.... Emily was a Sagittarius. They're philosophers, observers. Critics etc, speak of her darkness, depression and morbidity... "Dickinson was troubled from a young age by the "deepening menace" of death..." Ha! I say...think Woody Allen (Dec 1st, 1935), and his obsession w/ Death and the Meaning/Purpose of Life.

Johnson source?

At the top of #Poetry, there are notes pointing to a "Johnson" source, and yet that source is not listed on the secondary sources. Perhaps it should be added? Thanks! chiefboz • talk 16:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's listed under "Poetry Editions" I believe. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I totally didn't see that. chiefboz • talk 19:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Was Emily Dickinson a Christian? Katey68.112.71.234 (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dickinson Photo - Amherst College Archive

Now that Gura’s “cute” Emily Dickinson [11] has been “thoroughly discredited” (prematurely posted on this site) - we are offered what Mike Kelly, Head of Archives & Special Collections at Amherst College, anticipates will be an authentic second photo of the adult Dickinson “beyond reasonable doubt”.

This, then, may provide an opportunity to inspect Thomas Wentworth Higginson’s appraisal of Dickinson’s face, based a visit to her home on August 16, 1870. He reported that she possessed “no good feature” in letter written to his wife that same day.

Emily Dickinson first submitted her poetry to Higginson in April of 1862, while he was the literary critic for the Atlantic Monthly and widely recognized as a radical abolitionist. Dickinson no doubt was aware that this intrepid former Unitarian minister had stormed a federal courthouse to free the slave Anthony Burns in 1854, procured supplies and money – as a member of the Secret Six - to support John Brown’s assault on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and defied threats by the slave power to prosecute him for his deeds. During the American Civil War, he would lead the 1st South Carolina Volunteers (Union), a combat regiment comprised of former bondsmen. President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis proclaimed that captured black enlisted men would be auctioned off as slaves; their white officers summarily hanged.

Dickinson offered her poems to this man of affairs – encouraged by his request thereof in the Atlantic Monthly, leading to their encounter at Dickinson’s home eight years later. Higginson offered a more expanded description of the poet in his 1891 article in the Atlantic Monthly shortly after Dickinson’s first collection of poems were published. He described Dickinson’s appearance this way:

"...After a delay, I heard an extremely faint pattering footstep like that of a child, in the hall, and in glided, almost noiselessly, a plain, shy little person, the face without a single good feature, but with eyes, as she herself said, 'like the sherry the guest leaves in the glass', and with smooth bands of reddish chestnut hair.”

We are now in possession of an artifact which may – or may not - provide proof of Higginson’s “discerning” eye, pending verification of Mr. Kelly’s claims for the newly discovered photo – an eye perhaps for physical appearances, but, alas, not for poetic genius. (Source: Linscott, Robert N. (Editor).1959. Selected Poems and Letters of Emily Dickinson. Anchor Books, New York. ISBN 0-385-09423-X )

Doubts have been raised about this photo:

http://consecratedeminence.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/body-parts/#comments

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/Dickinsoncompariso.jpg

36hourblock (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2013

I think there is a typo/spelling mistake. Please change "complied" to "compiled" in the following sentence about Dickenson's herbarium: "The original work was complied by Dickinson during her years at Amherst Academy". Babyaardvark (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. BryanG (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

quote problem

There's a quote problem in the section about Susan:

Sue was supportive of the poet, playing the role of "most beloved friend, influence, muse, and adviser" whose editorial suggestions Dickinson sometimes followed, Susan played a primary role in Emily's creative processes."[46]

I can't quite figure it out, and am loath to fiddle with something that may include two quotes. Someone else who's been working on this perhaps can disentangle it? --Lquilter (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Gura photo

The "Gura photo" alleged to be of Emily Dickinson has been thoroughly discredited and should be removed from this page.Gusgus621 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a credible source saying as much? I personally don't see how it does much harm, since the caption does say it's "supposedly one of only two known photographs of Emily Dickinson", but a source would help. María (yllosubmarine) 03:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

George Gleason published an article in the Fall 2009 issue of The Emily Dickinson Journal in which he concludes: "Based on this significant input, and as set out in detail in the report, the results of the inquiry are clear. First, the provenance constructed for Gura’s photograph rests on multiple and conflicting hypotheses that are unsupported by any direct or circumstantial facts. Second, significant facial characteristics of the woman in the Gura photograph that are used to establish identity do not match those observable in the authentic Dickinson daguerreotype. Many of these Dickinson features appear to be hereditary since they also are evident in the photos of other Dickinson family members. Finally, the experts agree that Gura’s mere belief, unsupported by any evidence, that the sitter in his photograph looks like the young Emily Dickinson is not sufficient to establish identity."

Gleason, George. "Is It Really Emily Dickinson?" The Emily Dickinson Journal. Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009, pp. 1-20.

Gusgus621 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I read the article with great interest via Project Muse, and I think it's more than enough reason to pull it from this article. Regrettably, the image is still present at Wikipedia Commons, and is used on other language versions of Dickinson's article. This is also the case with the infamous photoshopped portrait, complete with curly hair and frilled collar, which is still available for use and is also listed in the commons Emily Dickinson category. I'm not too familiar with practices at Commons, so I'm afraid I'm not much help there. I've replaced Gura's image with a photo of the Evergreens, and also updated the image description at the commons to include a citation to Gleason's essay from The Emily Dickinson Journal. Thanks again! María (yllosubmarine) 15:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that removal of the Gura photo was unnecessary because although it has not been authenticated anyone can see that it looks a lot more like Emily Dickinson's earlier photo than the one on Wikipedia at this time -- the photo of ED sitting next to her friend. I am glad to know from Mr. Gura himself, via email on November 14, 2013, that the photo is being kept secured at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Mass. Both photos should be available for viewing on Wikipedia, especially since a reader might notice something that would assist in this discussion.Nasusan (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Emily Dickinson/Archive 3
This daguerreotype taken at Mount Holyoke, December 1846 or early 1847 is the only authenticated portrait of Emily Dickinson later than childhood.
Born	Emily Elizabeth Dickinson (1830-12-10)December 10, 1830 Amherst, Massachusetts
Died	May 15, 1886(1886-05-15) (aged 55) Amherst, Massachusetts
Occupation	Poet
Notable works	List of Emily Dickinson poems

I do not understand the request to keep an infobox from this article. I also maintain that there is no such thing as a "primary editor" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Many of us have added more substantially to a particular article than anyone else, but that does not give us any kind of overarching right to systematically keep others from adding or editing in the future, unless it is to prevent vandalism. That being said, here are my reasons for including an infobox for Dickinson's page: Infoboxes serve as immediate sources of basic information for those who simply want a bird's-eye view of the person and his or her contributions. And despite what was written about infoboxes being "not necessary," they are standard to add for all biographies on Wikipedia. Dickinson's not having one makes her page seem incomplete. Another specific reason to add: Infoboxes show age at death for deceased persons without the reader needing to scroll and find that information buried elsewhere in the article. Personally, I see no reason why we shouldn't convert the existing image + caption into a basic infobox with the same information plus birth and death dates and locations. Would love to hear opinions from a variety of editors on this...Thanks. Girona7 (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

For another point of view on the subject, I definitely agree with the above post. Almost all author pages have an infobox, so I do not see why this article should be any different. BenLinus1214 (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this page should certainly have an infobox. Previous discussion is located here. Template:Infobox writer would be appropriate. I hope someone will go ahead and add one. --Albany NY (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue needs to be handled tactfully. Infobox wars flare regularly across Wikipedia with strong (though sincerely held) emotions being displayed on all sides. All too often the participants seem to be influenced by established alliances or "wiki-friendships", rather than more rational considerations. Care should be taken to establish that there is consensus for an added infobox amongst editors familiar with a particular topic - easy with (say) battleships; difficult with (say) fine art. With poets I really don't know. Buistr (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I note that the following American poets of similar stature to Dickinson all have infoboxes on their pages: Walt Whitman, Robert Frost, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Carl Sandburg, and Langston Hughes. Infoboxes are useful for readers in that they provide quick access to basic facts about a topic. --Albany NY (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's important to recognise that any decision to include an infobox on this article would need to demonstrate that any such addition would be an improvement to the article. An infobox must concisely summarise key points in such a way that they can be stated as uncontroversial facts; any elements considered for inclusion should be sourceable - but there's no need to supply citations unless challenged - and they should be important in the context of the life and works of the subject. I don't think it's possible to make a decision on whether an infobox improves a given article unless there is a firm proposal outlining the likely content of the infobox. The fact that other, similar articles have infoboxes is an indication that one may be appropriate here, but until someone outlines what the content would be here, it is difficult to forma a concrete opinion. The other articles mentioned above have varying sizes of infobox, from the minimal one on Walt Whitman, to the huge one on Carl Sandburg. If there's very little to be placed in an infobox, then it weakens the argument that it provides very much of use. Conversely, a bloated infobox may overwhelm the rest of a small article and be aesthetically undesirable. In the case of Emily Dickinson, we can be certain that date and place of birth and death are significant and uncontroversial items, but what else of value would belong in her infobox? A link to List of Emily Dickinson poems (notable works), perhaps? Her nationality can be inferred from he place of birth, so is probably unnecessary. She received no awards in her lifetime that I'm aware of, and had no descendants, so we don't have all that much that usually goes into infoboxes. Anyway, may I suggest that Girona7, BenLinus1214, Albany NY, or Buistr might be able to suggest the possible content of an infobox for Emily Dickinson. I've placed a draft version at the top of this section if anyone wants to experiment with suggested content. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this together. I think that the infobox improves the article by making basic information more accessible. I've decided to be bold and add it to the article. I hope others will add more information to it. --Albany NY (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Shadow of the Wing

In case I forget (my account has yet to be confirmed), can someone make an edit to the effect that the second poem The Shadow of the Wing in the "Springfield Republican" clipping in the Contemporary section was by Emily's sister-in-law Susan Dickinson. See this interesting source and I should imagine there are more complete sources if anyone has the ambition to make a more substantial edit. I corrected an error at the Commons description of these poems. but can't edit here yet and may well forget. Cheers. KIC 8462852 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Remind me not. I see that there is only that one source for Susan as the author of "Shadow", so I'll refrain from making an edit about it. Apologies for the noobie gush. Will try to do better. KIC 8462852 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

3rd opinion

Since no decent explanation has been given so far (except for "I just don't like it") to why a couple of editors refuse to accept having Emily Dickinson's daguerreotype as it is (instead of a heavily retouched black and white version) I see no exit other than request 3rd opinion. From there, I'm willing to go all the way to ArbCom is necessary. It is unfortunate that a couple of editors are unwilling to present reasonable answers. --Lecen (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson's main picture

• 
  Presently used as the main picture. Small, heavily retouched and dark/white tone.
• 
  The original photo, with no modifications.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is only one photograph (actually, a daguerreotype) of Emily Dickinson which is known to exist. I'm arguing that the photograph should be used on her article with little to none modifications. I thought it would be wiser to ask others in the community to expose their ideas regarding the subject. My reasoning is quite simple: the version presently in use is small, heavily retouched, with grey tones, and of lesser quality. For me, it makes far more sense to use the original, unedited and with greater quality, version. Please, share your thoughts. --Lecen (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors interested in this issue may wish to read earlier detailed discussion and gallery under "Reverted picture" above Buistr (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Original - I support using the original photo in the article, with no modifications or alterations. I think the black and white version looks too re-touched, fake, and grainy. The real photo is obviously more authentic. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Original.  I believe the photo used should be as authentic as possible without artificial touching up. (I'd be OK with a little brightening, but nothing else).
  Richard27182 (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Original should really use the original image as we dont know what has been changed subsequently in atttempts to clean up. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Boldly go for it. Beautiful original. Mootros (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Original. As per above arguments. Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Original. And I'd say there's consensus here. It's been in RfC for a reasonable length of time. Go for it, Lecen. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Original much nicer and cleaner picture. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Notes

The text "The experience did not last:" in the 3rd paragraph in the section "Teenage Years" should be removed. There was no contrast offered from the previous sentence where it was exclaimed that Emily took great pleasure in communing alone. Therefore it makes no sense to then say "The experience did not last." The remainder of the same paragraph holds this point" where it indicates that she kept the sabbath staying at home rather than attending services, which in fact is consistent with the statement indicating her joy in communing alone. So there is no contrast merriting the statement "The experience did not last:." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbrett19 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Improper assertion in section 'Teenage Years'

The text "The experience did not last:" in the 3rd paragraph in the section "Teenage Years" should be removed. There was no contrast offered from the previous sentence where it was exclaimed that Emily took great pleasure in communing alone. Therefore it makes no sense to then say "The experience did not last." The remainder of the same paragraph holds this point, where it indicates that she kept the sabbath staying at home rather than attending services, which in fact is consistent with the statement indicating her joy in communing alone. So there is no contrast meriting the statement "The experience did not last:." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbrett19 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Her Marriage

I noticed that in this biography it doesn't specifically state that she never married. I had to search high and low to figure out that she never married. If it just says she never married then no one has to search elsewhere to figure that out. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by USMC4LIFE (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Dickinson. 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.lieder.net/lieder/d/dickinson/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220094624/http://schools.lwsd.org:80/dickinson/webpages/realemily.htm to http://schools.lwsd.org/dickinson/webpages/realemily.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Her family

The article mentions that her family came during the Puritan Great Migration, but never once does it mention that they came from England. Seems like a glaring omission, I would recommend adding that the Puritan Great Migration brought immigrants from England, given that many, especially students who are new to Dickinson, might not otherwise know that.174.70.83.194 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The film "A Quiet Passion"

It seems surprising - to me at least but what do I know? - that this article does not mention the film A Quiet Passion, even in passing. Is there some consensus or, even more excitingly, some conspiracy to ignore it? Not being a Dickinson aficionado I wouldn't know ... but ... do enlighten me. I'd quite like to give it a little mention but not if it will spark World War III. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

What is there to stop you adding it? WP:Bold. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC).

As you well know, absolutely nothing. I have edited Wikipedia before, once or twice. If you read what I wrote above you will see what I am asking, and perhaps why. DBaK (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Added it. Slightly awkwardly - it looks like it could be added to the list of bulleted points, but I didn't make it another bullet as it doesn't (afaik) conform with the "feminist orientated artists" bit in the bullets' intro. I'm sure Terence Davies is a jolly good egg but I haven't yet seen him placed in the "feminist orientated artists" category. But YMMV will vary and in any case, forgive my cynicism, someone will probably be along soon to move it into the bullets without reading what they are doing. DBaK (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emily Dickinson. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://schools.lwsd.org/dickinson/webpages/realemily.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225194737/http://www.joneslibrary.org/specialcollections/collections/dickinson/dickinson_print.html to http://www.joneslibrary.org/specialcollections/collections/dickinson/dickinson_print.html

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) 02:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

In the "Adulthood and seclusion" 1.4 part, after the sentence "From the mid-1850s, Emily's mother became effectively bedridden with various chronic illnesses until her death in 1882", one could add this:

According to a psychiatric medical approach, the poetess had to have been affected by social anxiety disorders and probably bipolar disorders .

I think that seems particularly convincing, introduced that way. Several sources talk about it, but this reference appears to me to be the most serious. Fivera (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Comment. Your link, labeled Washington Post but with a Los Angeles Times url, returns a 404 error. And "poetess" is a rather archaic word, don't you think? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We'd need a verifiable source that clearly supports the desired addition, but the one specified gives a 404 (and it's labeled Washington Post while having an LA Times url, as noted by User:Rivertorch). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Translations

Nothing was mentioned about the translations of Emily Dickinson. I think they are important, and I am sure there are tonnes of them. So, I added a few lines. Plus, I believe adding a link to Emily Dickinson's poems in translation as a sister project would be really helpful too. Please add this to sister projects box. Thanks, Pirehelo (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Whitman

"With the possible exception of Walt Whitman, Dickinson is now recognized as the most important American poet of the 19th century." - Is this line appropriate and encyclopedic in tone?--AlohaKavebear (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No. That's a clear violation of WP:PEACOCK. It's not even attributed to a WP:RS. Wikipedia doesn't decide who the most important poets are. I'm going to change it. --Nbauman (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Kate Scott Turner

Kate Scott Turner seems only notable for her relationship with Emily Dickinson, however notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I propose her article be merged into Emily Dickinson. GretLomborg (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. She seems notable enough on her own. Also the July 2017 bombardment of banners seems superfluous. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC).
• Comment. From what is in the article currently, it looks like a merge opportunity. The only way that I can see it being a stand-alone article is if there is more information about her success as a poet and/or how she influenced Dickinson. I see that there is a lot written about Dickinson and Turner, but I don't know how influential she was.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have worked on the article and I am not finding anything more about her other relationship with Dickinson, so I am not seeing that notability is established. I wonder, though, if this could be used to further explore Dickinson's sexuality, for which there is much material... and there are sources that mention Turner.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• @GretLomborg, Xxanthippe, and Elisa.rolle:, This is some conversation at User talk:Elisa.rolle#Kate Scott Turner about how she might be more notable than appears, but information about would have helped establish that was destroyed by her family when they realized a book was being written that explored her having a potential lesbian emotional and/or physical relationship. I pinged the 2 WikiProjects, but no one has chimed in with an opinion (although it seems to triggered some editing at both articles, which is nice). How do we resolve this if there is no consensus?

Xxanthippe, you say that Kate Scott Turner is notable on her own. What in particular do you find makes her notable? Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

At least for the reasons you give above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, I'm actually saying it's a merge opportunity (i.e., not enough notability can be established to meet guidelines for a stand-alone article), perhaps creating a section that goes into Dickinson's sexuality in greater detail and how that affected her works. Are you saying you're voting for merging the info?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

To repeat myself: I do not think a merge is appropriate. Kate Scott Turner can stand on her own. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, Yep, I know that you said that already. I don't know why you think she stands on her own. Here's why I don't think she's notable for a stand-alone article:

• WP:GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. — There is not significant coverage about her.
• WP:PAGEDECIDE says, There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. — I question whether she is notable, and absolutely think that this is better discussed within the broader topic of the Emily Dickinson's article. The only thing that is notable in her article.
• WP:PEOPLE says Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, — in terms of notability, the only thing with sources is that she was in a relationship with Dickinson... which just spanned a few years.

If you have not weighed in on conversations like these in the past, votes should address the extent to which articles do or don't meet guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

While it would still be helpful to have input about this... I was hasty. I just read WP:MERGE and proposals can remain active for 30 days.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the missing documents needed more to confirm a particular characterization of Turner's relationship to Dickinson? It still seems to me that the attention is still in the context of Dickinson, not Turner herself. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, the missing documents detailed the whole life of Anthon after the brief meetings with Dickinson. Patterson, after reading them, arrived to say that Anthon was more interesting to her than Dickinson. But Anthon's heirs deleted all of them after Patterson's book was published.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a moot point, because if there are not sources, then there's no verifiable way to establish these points, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to the merge with Emily Dickinson for the reason above.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Dickinson. 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/20161004165005/http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/edidwell.htm to http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/edidwell.htm

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) 10:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting edit

Section: Modern influence and inspiration

Alt-rock band Emily Tries has a song based on one of Emily Dickinson's poem, "I'm Nobody! Who Are You?". With link: https://soundcloud.com/emily-tries/im-nobody-who-are-you?in=emily-tries/sets/emily-tries-songs-of

NuncDimittis (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Emily Tries does not currently have an article and so they, and their song, are not yet likely to be notable enough for inclusion. If they gain coverage in reliable, independent sources then this can be added in the future. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Dickinson. 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/20160303221225/http://www.hagenbuechle.ch/pdf/precision.pdf to http://www.hagenbuechle.ch/pdf/precision.pdf

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) 09:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emily Dickinson. 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/20070611045446/http://www.amherst.edu/magazine/issues/06winter/emily/ to http://www3.amherst.edu/magazine/issues/06winter/emily/

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) 09:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Her mother's ancestors

The article references her "patrilineal ancestors" as coming to New England from England as part of the Puritan migration, however her mother's ancestry was of the same description and isn't mentioned. Shouldn't it be? If not, why not?174.70.83.194 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if it can be sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC).

Error - request edit

In the section "Publication/Posthumous", Martha Dickinson Bianchi is described as "the daughter of Susan and Edward Dickinson". Surely she was the daughter of Susan and Austin, who were married to each other. Edward was Susan's father-in-law and unlikely to have fathered a child by her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.130.249.254 (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for pointing that out. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Structure and syntax section - edit request

The original wording of A Narrow Fellow in the Grass is incorrect. It should read: "A narrow Fellow in the Grass Occasionally rides - You may have met Him? - did you not His notice instant is -" As is in the manuscript pictured here: http://www.edickinson.org/editions/1/image_sets/236796

This also makes more sense with the comment under the two versions of the poem discussing the use of "instant" rather than "sudden."

Molly S9009 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Longfellow's Kavanagh

"Her brother smuggled a copy of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's Kavanagh into the house for her (because her father might disapprove)" It would be pertinent to state why he would have objected to it. Presumably the cited source (Sewall) has some info on this, but I don't have access to it. Dynzmoar (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

Emily Dickinson was a well educated girl 69.2.154.109 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideau^talk 18:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson

change: 83.^ Habegger (2001), 498. to: 83.^ Habegger (2001), 498; Murray (1996), 286–287; Murray (1999), 724-725.

change: 84.^ Habegger (2001), 501; Murray (1996), 286–287. to: 84.^ Habegger (2001), 501; Murray (1996), 286–287; Murray (2010) 81-83.

change: Margaret O Brien to: Margaret Ó Brien

change: to replace the old one.[85] Emily once again was responsible for chores, including the baking, at which she excelled.

to: their former maid-of-all-work. [85] Emily once again was responsible for the kitchen including cooking and cleaning up as well as the baking, at which she excelled.[86]

change: 85^: Habegger (2001), 502; Murray (1996), 287. to: 85^: Habegger (2001), 502; Murray (1996), 287; Murray (1999), 724-725.

ADD: 86^: 86. Murray (1999), 723.

change: Murray, Aífe. 2010. Maid as Muse: How Domestic Servants Changed Emily Dickinson's Life and Language. University Press of New England. ISBN 978-1-58465-674-6.

to: Murray, Aífe. Maid as Muse: How Servants Changed Emily Dickinson’s Life and Language, Lebanon: University of New Hampshire, Feb. 9, 2010 IBSN: 978-1-58465-674-6.

ADD: Murray, Aífe. “Miss Margaret's Emily Dickinson,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 24:3, Spring 1999: 697-732.

Eefah16 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

In direct opposition to the immense productivity that she displayed in the early 1860s, Dickinson wrote fewer poems in 1866.[83] Beset with personal loss as well as loss of domestic help, Dickinson may have been too overcome to keep up her previous level of writing.[84] Carlo died during this time after providing sixteen years of companionship; Dickinson never owned another dog. Although the household servant of nine years, Margaret O Brien, had married and left the Homestead that same year, it was not until 1869 that her family brought in a permanent household servant, Margaret Maher, to replace the old one.[85] Emily once again was responsible for chores, including the baking, at which she excelled.

proposed text changes:

In direct opposition to the immense productivity that she displayed in the early 1860s, Dickinson wrote fewer poems in 1866.[83] Beset with personal loss as well as loss of domestic help, Dickinson may have been too overcome to keep up her previous level of writing.[84] Carlo died during this time after providing sixteen years of companionship; Dickinson never owned another dog. Although the household servant of nine years, Margaret Ó Brien, had married and left the Homestead that same year, it was not until 1869 that her family brought in a permanent household servant, Margaret Maher, to replace their former maid-of-all-work. [85] Emily once again was responsible for the kitchen including cooking and cleaning up as well as the baking, at which she excelled.[86]

citations for text as it appears now in wikipedia entry:

83. Habegger (2001), 498. 84. Habegger (2001), 501; Murray (1996), 286–287. 85. Habegger (2001), 502; Murray (1996), 287.

proposed changes to citations:

83. Habegger (2001), 498; Murray (1996), 286–287; Murray (1999), 724-725. 84. Habegger (2001), 501; Murray (1996), 286–287; Murray (2010) 81-83. 85. Habegger (2001), 502; Murray (1996), 287; Murray (1999), 724-725. 86. Murray (1999), 723.

secondary sources as they appear currently in wikipedia:

Murray, Aífe. 2010. Maid as Muse: How Domestic Servants Changed Emily Dickinson's Life and Language. University Press of New England. ISBN 978-1-58465-674-6. Murray, Aífe. 1996. "Kitchen Table Poetics: Maid Margaret Maher and Her Poet Emily Dickinson," The Emily Dickinson Journal. 5(2). pp. 285–296.

proposed changes & additions to secondary sources:

Murray, Aífe. "Kitchen Table Poetics: Maid Margaret Maher and Her Poet Emily Dickinson," The Emily Dickinson Journal, 5:2 (fall 1996): 285-296. Murray, Aífe. “Miss Margaret's Emily Dickinson,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 24:3, Spring 1999: 697-732. Murray, Aífe. Maid as Muse: How Servants Changed Emily Dickinson’s Life and Language, Lebanon: University of New Hampshire, Feb. 9, 2010 IBSN: 978-1-58465-674-6.

Eefah16 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

additional note

Dear Wikipedia, I am a scholar-advisor to the Emily Dickinson Museum and author of the Wikipedia entry on Margaret Maher, long-term maid-of-all-work to Emily Dickinson.

For some years I have put up with listing Habegger for my original contribution about servant impact on the poet’s literary output. Habegger is citing MY research in his book so I have provided a corrective that will lead interested readers to key articles. This includes the addition of the 1999 Signs piece which is listed because it is an article readers can access online and is therefore available worldwide.

thank you, Aífe Murray

Eefah16 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

List of poems

There is now a list of poems at Wikidata: d:Wikidata:Lists/poems_by_Emily_Dickinson. Jura1 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comma splice/parallel construction explanation

Before reverting this edit again, please read the following explanation.

A sentence such as "He was a member of the House, the Senate, and helped elect the president" is wrong because we cannot say

He was a member of

the House,

the Senate, and

helped elect the president.

The reason is that "He was a member of helped elect the president" doesn't mean anything.

We can fix it in a couple of ways:

He was a member of

the House,

the Senate, and

the committee that elected the president.

Or, the way I chose because it doesn't invent a committee:

He

was a member of the House and the Senate, and

helped elect the president.

Please be aware that this construction is correct, in contrast to the original sentence. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

According to these sources [12][13] there's a poem by Dickinson called "Belshazzar had a letter—," with dash and comma as written. Any reason I shouldn't believe that this is the correct title? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a simple answer. Dickinson titled few of her poems. (Arguably, she didn't title any of them.) As a matter of convention, publishers have often used the first lines as titles. Some have included punctuation at the end of the lines, some haven't. Doing so looks odd and may confuse readers, so my opinion is that it's better to omit it, especially when there are two consecutive punctuation marks—a practice that was far more common in the nineteenth century than today. (Incidentally, I believe the first line of the poem in question ends with a comma and then a dash, not a dash and then a comma.) There's a discussion of Dickinson's titles, or lack thereof, here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Most helpful, thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Did Emily have a personal life? I am doing research on her for art class and need personal imformation.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.205.136 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Major Themes in Poetry

I added additional information in the morbidity theme section about her poetry. I added the connection to winter theming support from critic Edwin Folsom and its citation. Tkiss1 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)