Talk:Sylvia Plath/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Death at University College Hospital

"HUGHES Sylvia Platch [sic] of 23 Fitzroy Road London N.W.1 (wife of Edward James Hughes) died 11 February 1963 at University College Hospital" in Wills and Administrations 1963 (England and Wales) (1964), p. 933"

Anna Roy, you reverted my edit with the summary “rvv”, which I take to mean “revert vandalism”. I added this official source, reporting evidence accepted by the High Court of Justice as the probate court, that Plath died at University College Hospital. I do not quite see how that could be vandalism. A less credible source says she was found dead at home. Perhaps the way to play this is to include both accounts and say that it is disputed. But vandalism, no. Moonraker (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources. Apologies for the RVV edit summary. Anna (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Clark 2020:898 writes According to the London police report, Horder arrived at eleven thirty and a London City Council ambulance came five minutes later—the nurse was still trying to revive Plath—and brought her to University College Hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival at 11:45 am. [...] Constable Jones then interviewed Dr. Hill, the pathologist who attended to Plath at University College Hospital. Hill told Jones, "She has been dead for about four hours. The body was cold when it arrived." [...] The pathologist thought she had died around seven thirty.

Kirk 2004:14 writes When Horder arrived, he agreed with Myra Norris, who had stopped her efforts to revive Sylvia, that it was too late. He pronounced her dead at 10:30 A.M. An ambulance arrived and took her body to Universal College Hospital on Gower Street in Pancras. She was listed as dead on arrival.

Butscher 2003:363 writes Miss Norris desperately applied artificial respiration until the ambulance arrived, but the St. Pancras University College Hospital would list Sylvia Plath Hughes as "Dead On Arrival."

Hayman 1991:11–12 writes The body was already cold and his examination of it led him to believe she'd died between four and six in the morning. The ambulance, which arrived five minutes later, took the body to University College Hospital in Gower Street, where the doctor who examined it, Dr Hill, said Sylvia had been dead for about four hours. The ambulance had arrived at the flat, according to the policeman, at eleven thirty-five, which means Dr Hill couldn't have seen the body before midday and that if he was right, she hadn't died till about eight o'clock.

So yeah it definitely seems inaccurate to use the primary source to say she died at the hospital or even that it's dispute. I can't find any source saying she died at the hospital -- just that she was pronounced dead there. Umimmak (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking through the sources. As the end of life scenarios are speculative, I think it's best to keep the article as is. Anna (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Killed herself - unnecessary trigger

Why not update to reflect sensitivity for people with depression - "lost the battle to depression in 1963" gets the information across just as well without using blame for the depressed individual. 2601:282:1681:5400:ECE4:4B2A:93E2:58D3 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"lost the battle to depression" is the sort of language that I found profoundly unhelpful when I had depression, not least because it is, at best, euphemistic. "Killed herself" is factual, non-euphemistic, and apportions no blame. DuncanHill (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of phrasing is here. Please see MOS:EUPHEMISM. WP is a factual encyclopedia. It does not exist to reflect "sensitivity" to any group. Anna (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

+1. This suggestion is profoundly unencyclopedic. Characterizing illness as a "battle" is extremely offensive to many, too. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What about saying she “ended her (own?) life”? It’s not unnecessarily euphemistic in my opinion, but is a less blunt expression. Wikiuseeename (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It is euphemistic. Encyclopedias aren't concerned with whether something might be "blunt." - Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Anna (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Can I just ask, why exactly is the formulation "died by suicide" "wrong" by your standards? It is a lot more humane than "killed herself". 78.136.141.37 (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No reasonable person can say "ended her own life" or "committed suicide" is euphemistic. "killed herself" just sounds caviler. Tildin (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Nelliebellie (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Died by suicide is used in the article about The Bell Jar. Nelliebellie (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing wrong with saying "died by suicide." Does anyone know how many other articles use "killed [them]self" in place of saying "died by suicide"? I feel I overwhelmingly see the latter or some derivative of it. Messyraspberries (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with saying "killed herself". It is accurate, non-euphemistic, and non-judgemental. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, long time reader first time caller! Full disclosure, I do not suffer from depression and have never thought about "ending it". The language being used, however, is kinda important. Saying that she "killed herself" feels cold, and I'm not really disputing the accuracy. I do not think anyone disagreeing with you is. The phrase "kill yourself" is commonly used among the youth as a put-down, and is frequently said after casting judgement on someone. "Killed herself" by association can make people feel like you are casting judgement on Sylvia Plath. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean we're wrong. I know how easy it is to get destigmatized to the phrase, I was born in 2001. This probably isn't the hill to die on and if you changed it to a less salty alternative, no one would really complain. You are probably a principled guy and I'd hate to see you waste your time on an issue that doesn't deserve your attention, these are real concerns made by real people. 2603:80A0:1200:D0C6:89CB:8FB3:44E:CE53 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably isn't the hill to kill yourself on either. 86.187.165.253 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The use of the term in an encyclopedia has nothing to do with sidestepping the "salty". We are asked to write an encyclopedia and that means to use the best of language we have. Committed suicide is the term used in adult language for taking one's owns life. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The idea that we can use a term because it's "accurate" as if other words are not, when that word lacks the sophistication- the best word we can find as educated adults- needed for for an encyclopedia is a red herring. Ownership by attempting to limit a word as here, in the article itself when there is no clear agreement/ consensus is a problem. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hear hear! Messyraspberries (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a good reason for not using the more encyclopedic term; if there is I will back off. I won't edit war this further. It's been a long time since I edit warred anything and it's not something I like to do. But it is not acceptable to add restrictions within an article while discussion has not reached agreement and is not complete. That is ownership! I'm out, and I suspect my change will be reverted. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the earlier discussion linked early in this thread? I'll be blunt, the drive-by change to "committed suicide" before you could be bothered to comment here looks like a deliberate attempt to stir things up. DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to add that the earlier discussions were about phrases like "lost the battle to depression" or "ended her own life," which other contributors agreed sounded un-encyclopedic and/or euphemistic. The current discussion is about phrases like "she committed suicide" or "she died by suicide," which are accepted ways to describe suicide and a clear answer about why we can't use that wording in this specific article hasn't be reached. Messyraspberries (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey I wouldn't take that edit personally, I doubt it was a slight towards you. Don't use it as an excuse to ignore concerns. "Committed suicide" is not inaccurate or euphemistic. There is only a stir because of the use of "killed herself". 2603:80A0:1200:D0C6:89CB:8FB3:44E:CE53 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not what I was communicating. At that point, if we are so married to the idea of blunt accuracy, then why stop at just saying she just killed herself? We could also say, "She killed herself by sticking her head into a gas oven." It's blunt and accurate too. But we shouldn't because an encyclopedia likely would/should not use that language. 2603:80A0:1200:D0C6:89CB:8FB3:44E:CE53 (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree Messyraspberries.

Duncan Hill. Since I am an editor who did copy edit [1] this article and who has the article watch-listed, I'm unclear as to why you are calling me a drive-by. That's not accurate. Second the past discussion is not about whether to use the word "suicide" over the words "killed herself' so that's not really an accuracy either. Third, I did comment here within minutes of my edit so that's another mischaracterization. Your edit summaries reference accuracy, and consensus. There is no consensus for killed herself, and killed herself is no more accurate than suicide in the the couple of phrasings suggested. Your edit summaries imply that there is agreement and consensus for killed herself. There is no agreement or consensus for killed herself, and probably less than for using the word suicide. We are supposed to be writers here attempting to give the reader clear unvarnished content with out shock or emotion. I'm surprised an editor with your long experience made the assumptions about me you did; drive by rankles. One of the reasons I don't edit much anymore is because too much time is wasted on arguments that have no basis is accuracy. I'll leave this for now. I don't like to be accused of what I didn't do as you have here, nor do I think this edit is worth the time spent. I think you're wrong here on many counts, but this is the best I can do with out further edit warring-a huge waste of energy. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW my own preference is for "committed suicide", but too many people falsely claim that it implies a crime. The "killed herself" wording was to avoid that idiotic argument while maintaining a factual and non-judgemental tone, and without fucking up the English language with "died by suicide" or the like. I note that the last time you edited the article in June 2021 you did not seem to object to "killed herself" or to the hidden comment saying not to change it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether I object to something and whether I decide to get into a mess changing it are two different things. Please don't make that mistake. There was nothing nefarious about my edit, nothing nefarious about the fact that my edits in the last years have decreased to almost nothing, at times, but that I saw this discussion and so thought to jump in. I didn't remember the language until I read the discussion. Your control of the content with the in- article comment when discussion is not definitively supporting that comment doesn't sit well, and I think you overstepped in implying consensus and accuracy; I'm not sure the way to deal with that is to attack me. I just don't see agreement or a good argument for not using "committed suicide" especially in the edit summaries. At any rate, I have no desire to stir up anything on Wikipedia. Heaven forbid! I was uncomfortable with the language in this article after seeing the discussion in my watch and wanted to try and change it since there was no consensus. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus to change the wording. It's long-standing wording which you implicitly accepted when you made multiple edits to the article without either changing it or raising it on this page. You want to change it? Propose something here and seek consensus. DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

People tend to pick their own battles, it does not invalidate their views because they failed to bring it up at a previous juncture. They didn't change your wording because they already said they did not want to get into an editing war, and it looks like they were probably correct. You are being insistently entitled over the wording, an encyclopedia does not owe you the phrase "killed herself" because you like it more than the others. We wouldn't make a big stink about this if something didn't smell off. 2603:80A0:1200:D0C6:89CB:8FB3:44E:CE53 (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What about "died of suicide"? Messyraspberries (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Horrible English. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Messyraspberries (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What is your definition of suicide? Suicide can mean "killed themselves" by your metric, but that would just mean "died of suicide" would become "died of killing themselves", which still would not be a bastardization of the English language. 2603:80A0:1200:D0C6:89CB:8FB3:44E:CE53 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

"Committing suicide" is not an implication of criminality. "Committing" is not used exclusively for criminal acts. 2603:80A0:1200:D0C6:89CB:8FB3:44E:CE53 (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Who are the people "falsely claim[ing] that it implies a crime"? They are certainly not in this talk page. 2603:80A0:1200:D0C6:89CB:8FB3:44E:CE53 (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right!!! Messyraspberries (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)