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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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....
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.
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.
in the context of the novel, is it proper to use "zelda" and "scott" alone? isn't it normally the last name? -brian
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)
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)
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)
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.
Other points:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Family and early life
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Marriage
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)
Save Me the Waltz
Remaining years
Good luck with this, JH! – Scartol • Tok 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The main issues raised and resolved during the review were:-
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:-
Brianboulton ( talk) 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
In the following section ("Marriage"), the last sentence of the first paragraph reads,
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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....
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.
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.
in the context of the novel, is it proper to use "zelda" and "scott" alone? isn't it normally the last name? -brian
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)
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)
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)
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.
Other points:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Family and early life
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Marriage
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)
Save Me the Waltz
Remaining years
Good luck with this, JH! – Scartol • Tok 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The main issues raised and resolved during the review were:-
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:-
Brianboulton ( talk) 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
In the following section ("Marriage"), the last sentence of the first paragraph reads,
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)