Talk:Emily Dickinson/Archive 3

Emily Dickinson/Archive 3
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; December 10, 1830; Amherst, Massachusetts
Died	May 15, 1886 (aged 55); Amherst, Massachusetts
Occupation	Poet
Notable works	List of Emily Dickinson poems

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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. —An gr 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^[1] 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.^[2] ^[3]

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. —An gr 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)

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,^[4] some today believe she may have suffered from diseases as various as agoraphobia^[5] and epilepsy.^[6]

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

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.
Fuss, Diana. "Interior Chambers: The Emily Dickinson Homestead". A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10.3 (1998) 1-46
"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" –