Talk:Zelda Fitzgerald/Archive 1

Sources

This article would benefit from more and newer sources. The main texts relied upon (Nancy Milford's `Zelda' and Matthew J. Bruccoli's `A Certain Sense of Grandeur') are both some four decades old and, as the article concedes, Milford's book is somewhat coloured by the time it was written. Later biographers such as Sally Cline (`Zelda: Her Voice in Paradise') have been able to take other angles, examine evidence that was not available when Milford's book was written, including new perspectives on the exact nature of her mental illness. Most importantly, they have been able to discuss with more freedom sensitive issues (such as the part Zelda's sexuality may have had to play in her breakdown), that Milford, given the mores of the time, the fact that many more of the participants in events were still alive than are today, could not touch upon. The article acknowledges that Milford's Zelda is only one interpretation, and an imperfect one at that - more room should be given to the interpretation of others. Ravenclaw (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree This article is heavily, almost entirely based on the "popular biography written in 1970 that turned her into a feminist icon", namely Milford, which presents a strongly skewed version of events. While Mrs Fitzgerald was known as an intelligent and creative person, it is entirely incorrect to say she was held back by an overbearing husband. She herself suffered from serious mental health problems was committed to a mental asylum for schizophrenia. This article suggests her illness was a result of the sexual politics of the time, rather than a genuine illness. Mr Fitzgerald actually quit serious literature to write popular short stories to fund her treatment.

Finally, The Great Gatsby wasn't acclaimed at the time, reviews were lukewarm and sales even worse. It only became famous after his death.

This article should be immediately delisted, and new sources sought. --Ktlynch (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

At the end of This Side of Paradise

The article states:

"At the conclusion of This Side of Paradise, the soliloquy of the protagonist Amory Blaine in the cemetery is taken directly from her journal"

Amory is not in a cemetery at the end of This Side of Paradise, but rather is walking on the road back toward Princeton. --Ddgun (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

An Unfortunate Realization upon Reading

I hate to have to point this out, but upon the reading of this article, it looks remarkably POV. I'm not questioning the factional information; that all checks out and is well sourced. What I mean to say is that this article seems to be a subtle casting of Zelda Fitzgerald's life as a tragic drama, with F. Scott shown as the villain who ruined her life. It's judgemental, or at least it seems such. Could anyone take a few minutes to read through it and tell me if it seems that way to them? 169.231.42.18 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 This article is terrible for an encyclopedia. It's more suitable as a gossip column. Mawkish, maudlin, judgemental, sentimental, he-said she-said, politically-correct revisionism. Truly ghastly. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

early comments

Plagiarism, Scott, Etc.

Why is there no mention of the passages which Scott lifted verbatim from her letters to him and her private diary to use in "his own" short stories as well as Tender Is The Night? The Collected Writings of Zelda Fitzgerald provides numerous examples of his plagiarism of her writings as well as an article she wrote which playfully chastises him for stealing from her. There is, also, no mention of how he forced her to re-edit her novel under the threat of endless confinement to institutions because he feared that since Tender & Save Me The Watlz covered the same territory and he was stealing her writing that he would be found out and lose sales. Also, there ought to be more mention devoted to her painting.

Hi,

Where the hell does someone get the factoid of "Legend of Zelda" is named after Zelda Fitzgerald?

Thanks!!!11111111oneone

I don't have a source at hand, but I do remember that it was actually a direct answer from Miyamoto in an interview. The Japanese have a habit of using English words and names from more or less esoteric sources in their games, manga, and anime.--Lord Shitzu 17:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's now explained in a footnote.Sfahey 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Zelda

read more...try Scott Fitzgerald's stories...she was more than just a wife of a famous novelist. She loved Berneice Bobs Her Hair and A Diamond As Big as the Ritz....

"DON'T LISTEN TO THIS"

There is a very large "DON'T LISTEN TO THIS:" right before the body of the biography section. I realize there may be some sort of tone discretion, but is there some larger reason for this? It is rather imposing.

adverbially excessively excessive?

I raised the neutrality question on the basis of what appears to be decisions by the bio writer to put down assumptions about the subject's state of mind, which is not necessarily supported by record and reflects on the biographer rather than the subject. It is not "obvious" that Zelda was jealous, or for that matter, it IS curious what she says about Hemingway, but I'm not sure that critical curiosity needs to be explored in an encyclopedia entry. Excerpted phrases that read like bias are below:

"For the most part, Zelda's dislike for Hemingway was obviously due to jealousy

"But it is fascinating in retrospect to reflect on Zelda's estimation of Hemingway's character"

"It is also curious"

"But Scott was totally dismissive of his wife's desire to become a professional dancer, considering it a waste of time."

"Ironically, much of the conflict between them stemmed from the boredom and isolation Zelda experienced when Scott was writing"

"Zelda evidently had a deep desire to develop a talent that was entirely her own, no doubt a reaction to Scott's fame and success as a writer."

The article itself is interesting, but not necessarily useful as an encyclopedia entry.

Interestingly, I just stumbled upon this article (after reading "Beautiful and Damned" and wanting to read about the real "Gloria") and unknowingly I have altered most all the valid stylistic errors you point out. I am going to remove the label from the article now. Sfahey 22:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

using first names?

in the context of the novel, is it proper to use "zelda" and "scott" alone? isn't it normally the last name? -brian

in the context of the novel? Sfahey 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since they have the same last name (being married and everything), I think it makes sense to differentiate within the article between Scott and Zelda using their given names. But what do you mean by the context of the novel?

Cleanup

It's good that this article has some sources, but the two books need to have page numbers for specific passages. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I've been bold and removed the trivia section. I will eventually work to re-add some of these items. I'll leave them here for now. --JayHenry (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nintendo's popular video game series The Legend of Zelda, first released in 1986, and the recurring major character Princess Zelda of Hyrule, was named after Zelda Fitzgerald by creator Shigeru Miyamoto..
• The Japanese all-girl rock band Zelda also named themselves in admiration of Zelda Fitzgerald.
• In Montgomery, Alabama, there is a small museum devoted to Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald. It is inside a home they rented in the 1930s. Holds a few one of a kind items, including paintings by Zelda.
• In the episode Lady Bouvier's Lover of the television cartoon series The Simpsons Mrs Bouvier claims that Zelda Fitzgerald was a friend of hers when she was young. Also, in the episode A Star is Born-Again, Ned Flanders gets a date with a mysterious woman who tells him to go to her hotel and "ask for Zelda Fitzgerald". Flanders recognizes this as a "pseu-diddly-eudonym".
• In Manhattan, a Woody Allen film, Woody Allen's character confronts his life long friend for cheating on his wife Emily only to steal Woody Allen's indecisive and somewhat unstable girlfriend (played by Diane Keaton), "What are you telling me, that you're...you're...you're gonna leave Emily, is this true? And, and run away with the, the, the winner of the Zelda Fitzgerald emotional maturity award?

References

Note to GA reviewer

I know there are still some rough spots here, but I have these biographies handy, and prose issues can be worked out quickly. I intend to be very actively working to address whatever is raised here and look forward to close review. --JayHenry (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This is a decent article that needs a little more work. My chief problem is that some sections, especially "Marriage", and to a slightly lesser extent "Remaining years", are over-detailed and too long. The nature of the Fitzgerald marriage could be absolutely clear if that section were half its present length.

• Having read your rationale below, I think the "core of her notability" argument is possibly debatable (especially among some feminists), but that isn't the issue here. I can accept that if the article is written from that perspective, then the length and detail in the Marriage section are justified. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Other points:

• Some of your language is unencyclopedic, e.g. "kicked out" (of the Biltmore) – which becomes "ejected" in the image caption; "boozing"; and, in a different way, "inseparably, incautiously in love", unless it is a cited quote. Some of the more magaziney bits will perhaps disappear when you edit down the overlong sections.

• I took a whack at these: "kicked out" to "ordered to leave"; "boozing" to "high-life". I left "inseparably, incautiously in love" alone, since I think it's okay. A little poetic, but not obtusely so. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is still some colorful language, which is suggestive of a magazine feature rather than an encyclopedia article. The "young, rich, beautiful and wild" description in the lead is inappropriate, and the "inseparably, incautiously in love" may or may not be "poetic", but is definitely non-encyclopedic. Both really ought to go. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I rephrased the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead; hopefully it alleviates the concern. I also changed "inseparably, incautiously in love" to "passionately inseparable". Insofar as I agreed to copyedit the article, I feel an obligation to help correct the wording. I hope these versions will be more agreeable. – Scartol • Tok 15:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some parts of the article are rather light on citations. Two examples: the first sentences of the last paragraph of the "F Scott Fitzgerald" section contain several assertions. And in "Obsession and illness" you have the sentence "...she obsessively insisted on gruelling daily practice (up to eight hours per day) that contributed to her subsequent physical and mental exhaustion." This requires citation, or it reads like opinion. (These are examples of under-referencing - there may be other instances).

• I feel like I'm butting in, but I would say that I was under the assumption in each of the cases above that the citation which eventually appears later in these paragraphs covers all of the information before it. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• We're dealing with sources that are chronological biographies and an article that's a chronological biography. If you have the sources you can easily find my claims from the footnotes as provided. If there are more statements you feel are 'likely to be challenged' within the cited paragraphs, I'm willing to do this to any that you identify. I'm not willing to smack a citation at the end of every sentence willy-nilly as doing so is unrelated to article improvement. --JayHenry (talk)

• I note that you have added some citations. Could you look at the first para of the Save Me the Waltz section, which has no citations at all, despite its vivid descriptions of Scott's reactions. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --JayHenry (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the modern culture section reads like trivia, and I strongly advise its removal.

• I tried to remove this section although another editor re-added. This was an attempt at compromise. I will say this is a major Woody Allen film and one of the best selling video game series of all time. --JayHenry (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to provoke an edit war, so leave it, but you may have further trouble at FAC re wikipedia policy on trivia. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• My personal thought is that being the inspiration for Zelda is fairly significant and encyclopedic. The movie mentions less so. You can see the original list a few sections above. --JayHenry (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Someone born in 1900 cannot really be described as "growing up at the turn of the century".

• It actually reads "growing up around the turn of the century", which I feel is a fair characterization. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's just inaccurate. "Growing up" doesn't normally refer to infancy and early childhood, but to the onset of adolescence. But I see it's been changed.Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• There’s some awkward phrasing at the beginning of the Marriage section, probably to do with having "quickly accepted for publication" and "urging for quick publication" on successive lines. Suggest some rewording.

• Changed the second instance to "urging an accelerated release". Hope this helps. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed a few typos and punctuation errors, which I’ve not fixed since I think some will disappear if you reduce the text. I'll check 'em again later.

• I expect I repaired many of these in the course of my copyedit. If not, please let me know where they're found and I'll strike 'em down like Garion in Gar og Nadrak. – Scartol • Tok 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've had another run-through, and picked up a few strays:-

• The word "absorbed" occurs twice in quick succession, in the first two lines of the Expatriates section

That's deliberate parallel structure. --JayHenry (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and changed it. If it seemed clumsy that's reason enough to rewrite, even if deliberate.

• In the same section, "In April, back in Paris..." really needs a year, to remind us where we are.

Agreed. Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, same para: Typo "tat" (that).

Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, Lost Generation already linked.

This is a good link. Following the guidance of the final bullet of the relevant section of the manual of style. --JayHenry (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remaining years section: could do with with a few more dates, or at least years, e.g. for Scottie's acceptance to Vassar, Scott's break-up with Graham, the Cuba visit.

I've added. Let me know if there's other points where the timeline needs to be clearer. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, superfluous comma after "merely as" (line 3)

Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Same section, "unbeknownst" is quaint and mannered, even in British English. Is it used commonly in American English?

I reworded. It's not used commonly in AE. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• You have listed your citations under "Footnotes". Just "Notes" (per wikipedia guidelines) might be better as footnotes generally suggests text as well as page numbers.

Oof, I didn't realize that. I've probably done this on a lot of articles. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Double citation 88 & 89 - is this really necessary? 89 refers to the hospital's website, which I don't imagine adds much, relative to Zelda's death, that isn't in your main source. The hospital link could go in External links.

Moved the National Register of Historic Places to the external links. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty certain that is all.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As it stands the article meets most GA criteria, and a bit of polishing on the above lines should secure its GA status. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comment from GA reviewer

The above responses are not from the article's main editor. Do they represent the settled editorial policy for the article? I'd like to know before I comment further. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no "settled editorial policy" for this article. Scartol is extremely experienced with literature FA and GAs, however, so I do think his perspective matters. I encourage you to discuss his points, as I certainly don't own the article.

Nobody owns a wikipedia article, but your comment posted 19 April made me want to hear from you. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will say I'm reluctant to cut either of the sections. Zelda Fitzgerald is primarily known for her marriage and so cutting this section, which is the core of her notability, doesn't seem to me to be related to the GA criteria. As an empirical matter, her book sold 2000 copies. This article is here because of her marriage. The remaining years section condenses 18 years of her life into 9 paragraphs and I've already worked pretty hard to keep this concise. The whole article is a brisk 35K for arguably the most important and interesting literary spouse of the 20th century. I can't tell, do you object to specific content in these sections, or do you just want the sections to all be the same length? If so, I could subdivide marriage with mother hood and remaining years into the decade before and decade after Scott's death? --JayHenry (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, don't do that. See my additional comments in main GA review, above. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian, thanks again for your review. I hope my earlier comments didn't seem combative--I always worry I come across that way at first in these reviews. As an aside, I remember that I enjoyed reading the Ross Sea party article earlier this year, and I'm delighted to have met the person behind such fine work. I find it reassuring that there are always good editors to meet around every corner on Wiki. I'm hoping to get to the rest of yours and Scartol's points tomorrow (Saturday on the US coast) -- I didn't expect to be away from my computer all day today. Thanks for your patience. --JayHenry (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review comments

This review is complete and I'm entirely satisfied with the responses to my suggestions (I don't expect to win 'em all, and a few robust exchanges are harmless and stimulating). The article is certainly worthy of GA status, and I will do the honours on WP:GAN now. I will also post a summary review here, but that will be done tomorrow as it's past midnight UK time and I want to go to bed.

I was drawn to review this article because I had recently read Tender is the Night for the first time (OK, what have I been doing with my life?) and was keen to learn more about the Fitzgeralds. Incidentally, the wikipedia article Tender is the Night is substandard and ought to be improved.

Congratulations, and good luck to the editors if they take this article further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

Wow, I couldn't disagree more about trim-ability in the GA review above. I found the article engaging, detailed, and highly readable. I made many copyedits as I went (hopefully those alleviated some of the concerns in said review), and my additional questions and thoughts are below. I was actually thinking I'd like to have some more details in "Marriage" and "Remaining years", especially since those sections subsume the topics of motherhood and her second novel, respectively.

Of course it's not my GA review, so I'll just say that I enjoyed the article very much and while I generally feel that every paragraph is best ended with a citation, I think 84 for an article of this length is quite sufficient. Also, I like the second paragraph of the "modern culture" section; they're pretty significant references. (Especially the video game.)

Here are my comments made as I was copyediting:

Lead

• young, rich, beautiful and wild – this feels like POV or OR to me. I know it's describing the age, but it seems like we ought to say it more neutrally somehow.

• ...Scott embarked for Hollywood... I always think of people embarking on or upon things. How about "set out for Hollywood" or just "went to Hollywood"?

• Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Family and early life

• I'm used to seeing the date of birth in the first part of the biography. I know it's in the lead, but shouldn't we have it at the start of the body too? The same goes for the city of her birth.

• Agreed. Just a sloppy oversight :) --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Southern women were expected to be delicate, docile and accommodating; Zelda was anything but. I like this, but I expect someone at FAC may give you grief about the "non-encyclopedic" tone.

F. Scott Fitzgerald

• Should we attribute the sketch of Scott to its artist in the caption? (Seems to be standard practice.)

• Sure. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• At the conclusion of This Side of Paradise, when the protagonist Amory Blaine I assume something got cut off here?

• I remember being stumped on the wording, and I must have moved to a different section without realizing I hadn't finished this one! --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

• I love the quote about favorite recipes.

• I assume it's believed that she aborted the second child, but that's not explicitly stated in the article. I think it should be. (Or did she miscarry?)

• Actually, all that's known is what I printed. It's known she became pregnant. It's known Scott wrote Zelda and the abortionist in his ledger. It's known she did not have a baby. Neither of them ever spoke of it otherwise. Perhaps I should make this clearer somehow? --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd like to see that made explicit. – Scartol • Tok 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Zelda probably did have an abortion. Fitzgerald kept track of his expenditures in obsessive detail in a series of notebooks. In one such notebook, he wrote, "Put Paid to Baby," and recorded a large sum of money. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• In some spots, "Fitzgerald" becomes short for "F. Scott Fitzgerald", as in the sentence: Hemingway and Fitzgerald became firm friends, but Zelda and Hemingway disliked each other from their very first meeting... This confuses me, since I usually associate last-name-only references with the subject of the article. Am I crazy, or should we use "Scott" whenever he's the referent?

• A mistake, yeah. I tried to avoid this. All the F. Scott Fitzgerald biographies call them Fitzgerald and Zelda. All the Zelda Fitzgerald biographies call them Scott and Zelda. I tried to always follow the latter convention, but got mixed up in a few spots. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Save Me the Waltz

• Can we get a citation for his charges of "plagiarist" and "third-rate writer"?

• Oops, I wrote Save Me the Waltz first and got sloppy transitioning a condensed version over here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Remaining years

• (it was not reciprocal as it often is in Smarriages) Am I correct in assuming "Smarriages" is a typo? Or should we have a [sic] after it?

• Just a typo. (I misspelled paraphernalia as well in the same quote.) --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• After a drunken and violent fight with Graham, Scott returned to Asheville. A group from Zelda's hospital had planned to go down, but Zelda had missed the trip. The Fitzgeralds decided to go on their own. I'm confused. Where did they go? Is something missing here?

• Oh yeah, the "to Cuba" part is relevant there :) --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• So that's where Zelda got her name from! Man, I loved that game.

Good luck with this, JH! – Scartol • Tok 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Summary review

The main issues raised and resolved during the review were:-

• Possible over-detail in Marriage section (editors' defence accepted)
• Use of non-encyclopedic language (resolved by various wordings changes)
• Under-referencing in some parts (resolved)

The remaining points were of a relatively minor nature and were all dealt with.

In relation to the six GA criteria the article can be summarised as follows:-

• Well written: Clear prose, grammar etc. first class, good lead and article structure. Pass
• Accurate and verifiable: Good sources, comprehensive citations. Pass
• Breadth: Full coverage of subject, cradle to grave. Pass
• Neutral: No POV violations spotted. Pass
• Stable: Pass
• Images: The article is imaginatively illustrated, and all images are PD. Pass

Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Added tags, question status as featured article

I have added the copy-edit and intro-toolong tags. The latter should be indisputable, the former is motivated by what I consider an unencyclopedic style of writing that goes to far in the direction of "biography for the masses" or a magazine article (at least in large parts, it need not apply to the entire article).

I was highly surprised to see that this was a featured article (which imply not just good, but extremely good, in my eyes), and even considered starting a review of this status. I refrained from doing so only because I do not have the time to do all the legwork involved. 88.77.145.179 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's insulting. The surest sign of extremely good writing is indeed that none of the great unwashed would ever want to read it. By all means figure out how to take it to somewhere other than to far. --JayHenry (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ps I agree about the lead, but believe it or not Wikipedia guidelines (WP:LEDE) actually require these too-long summaries. --JayHenry (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is nearly unchanged since it was reviewed by a half dozen editors in peer review and FAC I've gone ahead and removed the tags. --JayHenry (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I will go ahead and add an infobox (Every bio needs one I think?) and hopefully others can fill out. I will use the one from F. Scott. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required. It was a deliberate decision not to use one here because Zelda Fitzgerald's life fits exceptionally poorly into the fields of these boxes. It's one thing for an NBA player, where you can easily say their team, their number, etc. Is Zelda Fitzgerald first and foremost a writer? Of course, in fact, she's not. The infobox is instantly problematic. Almost every category poses problems. Since they are not required, I strongly suggest we leave it off. --JayHenry (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are usefull but I think that in this case it is not good solution. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! I didn't see this discussion previously so why I assumed it was just not brought up. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Zelda the writer/ Zelda the Turkey

Moved from User talk:Maralia § Zelda the writer/ Zelda the Turkey

Dear Maralia, I do not know how you can write off the bird as trivia when it has its own wikipage. Both the page and the sources (if you follow them) mention Zelda whom you call only "Fizgerald" (in the notes to your edit).

Perhaps I agree that the bird does not belong in legacy and should be placed in a new category of pop culture.

Think of how many tourists who come to NYC and pass Battery Park and are told the story of Zelda Fitzgerald in tandem with the mention of this bird. This is part of how knowledge grows through instances where correlations are made--- a wild turkey winds up lost in this park like Zelda once did or like wikipedians wind up at wikipedia and sometimes we go and sometimes we never leave. Masterknighted (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, people may learn about the turkey and consequently read about ZF—this sort of learning by association is delightful. However, the same magnitude connection doesn't exist in both directions: in the context of ZF's life and works, the fact that someone might have named a bird after her some 60 years after she died, due to a coincidence in location, is IMO trivial.

Other issues contributed to my decision to revert: the source you cited (which I read in its entirety at the time) does not support your assertion because it does not mention ZF at all; a similar edit by you had been reverted by someone else as 'unsourced and dubious trivia'; the article on the turkey has been tagged for unclear notability for 6 months; this article is a [{WP:FA|featured article]] and has been carefully vetted for content; and your edit overwrote this article's featured article star (which is how it came to my attention in the first place).

I will copy this (your post and my response) to the article talk page, for further discussion with other interested editors. Maralia (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Married in 1920 or 1921?

Hi there, I noticed the following discrepancy when reading Zelda's biography: In section 1.2 ("F. Scott Fitzgerald") the first sentence of the last paragraph reads,

"They wrote frequently and by March 1921 Scott sent Zelda his mother's ring and the two became engaged."

In the following section ("Marriage"), the last sentence of the first paragraph reads,

"This Side of Paradise was published on March 26, Zelda arrived in New York on March 30, and on April 3, 1920, before a small wedding party in St. Patrick's Cathedral, they married."

If they became engaged in March 1921 then it stands to reason that they were not already married in April 1920.

I don't have any Fitzgerald bios on hand so I will leave it to you good people who do with the hope that you will correct the typo. Thanks! -- Strangerette (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Courtship

The Wik article on This Side of Paradise gives more stuff on Z & FS's courtship htat puts it in a little different light. If it is correct, it should be put in here, where it is at least as relevant.211.225.34.185 (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zelda Fitzgerald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121102202340/http://www.scribd.com/doc/27570758/F-Scott-Fitzgerald to http://www.scribd.com/doc/27570758/F-Scott-Fitzgerald

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zelda Fitzgerald. 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/20141010195547/http://gothamist.com/2014/10/08/rip_zelda_fitzgerald_the_turkey.php to http://gothamist.com/2014/10/08/rip_zelda_fitzgerald_the_turkey.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011003455/http://gothamist.com/2012/10/30/zelda_the_wild_turkey_in_battery_pa.php to http://gothamist.com/2012/10/30/zelda_the_wild_turkey_in_battery_pa.php

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) 03:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Zelda Fitzgerald's Mental Instability

In the biography ZELDA, writer Nancy Milford confidently expressed her belief that F. Scott Fitzgerald drove his wife to insanity. She claimed that his controlling ways robbed Zelda of opportunities to express her talents, and that she responded by divorcing herself from painful realities. However, mental instability ran in the Sayre family. Zelda's maternal grandmother, and her brother Anthony, both committed suicide. Her father, Judge Sayre, had what was then called a "nervous breakdown." Zelda's instability was almost certainly not brought on by a bullying husband. It was bred in her bones.

And perhaps it would not even be fair to describe her husband as bullying or controlling. Certainly the two had intense collisions of personality at times (as every biographer has noted), but Fitzgerald's tenderness for his "child" seems to have endured until the end of his life. Inspite of his alcoholism and relative poverty, he seems to have dealt with her illness responsibly. He tried to secure the best psychiatric treatment for her (as it was then understood), and paid her heavy medical bills even though it impoverished him. According to biographer Bruccoli, even when his friends urged him to divorce her, and even when he knew that she was irremediably insane, he replied, "I would never desert her, or ever let her feel that she was abandoned." Younggoldchip (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

^ This is not politically correct, you must remember that F Scott was an evil, overbearing, ruthless dominating *male* ! (according to one woman, writing about it thirty years later who was probably not even born at the time, who obviously has a very large axe to grind but hey ! that's what we call truth now !) so you can forget about anything like this ever being written in Wikipedia.

Tell a lie often enough and loud enough and it becomes truth. Sigh 210.22.142.82 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Article structure

This article appears to have two lead-sections, the first summarising the second. The first part of the section headed ‘Biography’ (but not its sub-sections) is clearly summarising the rest of the article, except for ‘Legacy’. And the current lede seems to be summarising that summary.

Logically, the main story starts with the (current) sub-section titled ‘Early life & family background’. We should then either treat the ‘Biography’ section as a longer-than-usual lede, or the current lede as a shorter-than-usual one. (Or draft a new one at medium length.)

We simply don’t need both. Valetude (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

PS. I realize this is a featured article, and that major changes are not encouraged. Is there an official editor who can give permission in the light of the above? Valetude (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As no-one has commented, I’ve done this one myself. Some people may want to re-insert ‘dancer’ and ‘novelist’ in the opening sentence. But the article shows plainly that she was not notable in either capacity. She was keen to become a ballerina, but did not succeed. Her only novel failed to sell. (When it was re-issued later, it was due to curiosity-value, rather than intrinsic merit.) Valetude (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Valetude: Good work -- thanks. I do believe 'novelist' is warranted, but agree that 'dancer' is not. Also, I have made a few minor copy-edits to the new lede section, which are intended only to improve slightly on your already good work. Cheers! --- Professor JR (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Still can’t agree that she was notable as a novelist. It might just be possible to classify her as a writer, because her diaries formed many of his fictional plots. But I don’t know whether this indicated literary merit; it may have been just a useful record of the events and the people. Valetude (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)