Talk:Leaves of Grass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sourcing and reflist[edit]

I've added the standard reflist code thingie. In so doing, I've pulled from the article the reference: Gary Schmidgall (1998), Walt Whitman: A Gay Life, Plume. ISBN 0-452-27920-8. Whoever added this reference should re-enter this next to the information that came from the book using the ref code. --Dr.Marsden 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object to merging the references as per [1]? I think it would look much less confusing...Zigzig20s (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... I would certainly object. If this is ever going to get to Good Article status, we need those page numbers. As it is, I've condensed as much as possible whenever a page is repeated. I don't find this set up confusing at all; it's the same method I used in preparing all the other GA / FA articles I've contributed to. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I suggest does show the page numbers of course. As per [2]. If a book is used several times but the page numbers are totally different, then we dont use a refname but just a ref <>. Why is this not better? I'm not sure u understand my proposal. And if u do, then I don't see why u'd think it wouldn't make things clearer.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying now. I was focusing on the wrong aspect of what you showed me. Anyway, here's my argument. The last article I got up to Featured on a work of literature, "The Raven", uses this more condensed style of referencing. Because there aren't that many sources, this seems to be the most logical method (to me). Plus, while I've been editing this article, it's easier for me to just quickly type in the author name and page number rather than have to dig up all that other info. I have difficulty seeing why it's confusing for a reader but I'm open to other opinions. The good news, at least I think, is that there are a bunch of citations now, unlike just a couple weeks ago. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems longer to figure out because the reader has to look at the notes, then at the bibliography...I think my way would be more effective, for "The Raven" too btw. We have changed it for Luhan and I think it has made the article clearer.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I really do, but this seems to be a very accepted method of referencing here on Wikipedia. "The Raven" is a featured article that was even on the front page, seen by hundreds of editors, none of whom made a suggestion to expand the referencing. It might have something to do with the length of the article because elongated referencing sort of bumps up the size superficially. But, if you feel the need to make this change here, go right ahead. Just keep in mind that Walt Whitman will be using this ultra-condensed style of referencing because of its length. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it better when the article is long?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Being new here, I don't know where to put this. However, source references seems applicable as any location. Footnote 3 cites that the patent was registered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Jersey. No such vicinage exists. I think the proper reference is Southern District of New York, but was unable to verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamkhalil (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You very well could be correct; unfortunately, I no longer have the book that was used as a source there. I'll keep an eye out for it at my next library visit. By the way, considering the above discussion is relatively old, there's nothing wrong with adding a new section. Usually new comments are at the bottom of a discussion page. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only collection of poetry?[edit]

Does anyone know, For Certain, that Leaves of Grass is Whitman's only collection of poetry? I'm fairly sure it is - save for posthumous collections - but don't want to add that yet. Ideas? Atorpen 22:05 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

All of Whitman's published poetry is contained within Leaves of Grass. His only other publications are books of prose: Specemin Days and Collect --Jeff.lopezstuit 22:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman published a number of collections of poetry--Drump-Taps most famously--and in some cases not all poems ended up in Leaves of Grass (and if, not always in the same form). So that statement is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.62.57 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

A couple NPOV-related edits I would like to make:

remove "ontinuing a minor tradition of American censorship and prefiguring the case of James Joyce and his great novel, Ulysses." - there isn't anything uniquely American about censorship, and the reference to Joyce isn't really relevant to an article about Leaves of Grass

"prefiguring Queer theory" - Leaves of Grass is a book of poetry, not social theory, and as this same sentence reveals later, Whitman rejected this reading of his work. With this in mind, the the reference to Queer theory really reflects someone's POV.

Poem inclusion[edit]

Hey Kappa, I still don't think it's appropriate to just dump a poem in here. How about instead, we provide a link through Bartleby or such? · Katefan0(scribble) 14:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not the whole poem, it's just the beginning [3]. Please don't assume wikipedia users have internet access. Kappa 14:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a snippet of a poem is even less useful in my opinion. If someone can access the Walt Whitman article, they can reasonably access a link to Bartleby. Otherwise, what's the point of any external links at all? · Katefan0(scribble) 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should users have to use an external link just to get a basic idea of what his poems actually sound like? External links are great for people with internet access who want to look for more information, but they don't absolve wikipedia of the responsibility of providing an adequate description of the topic, which includes concrete examples when necessary. Kappa 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your arguments ring hollow to me. But, I won't press the issue. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audiobook of Leaves of Grass[edit]

Hi all, I'm brand new at this so please be patient with me! I'm a volunteer for Librivox and we had been adding links to our audio recordings on Wikipedia pages until we recently found out that it is in violation of policy. We have since been instructed to post links to recordings on the talk pages and let someone else add the link if they see fit.

We have recently finished a large project which is a complete audiobook of the Deathbed Edition of Leaves of Grass. The catalog page can be found here: Leaves of Grass Audiobook. I am certainly not a neutral person on this link since I both read parts of it and also cataloged it. However, I would be honored if someone else took a look and listen and added the link if they think it would be helpful to Wikipedia users.

Thanks! --AnnieC 04:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Librivox produces volunteer-created, unabridged audio recordings of public domain texts. The audio recordings are also public domain, and are therefore free to distribute to one and all. --Gmackenzie 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editions[edit]

Though I realize only some of the editions are "significant," thus worth mentioning, I would be interested in the article stating total number of editions of LoG as other sources (Internet) all vary and to have an accurate account would do wonders for someone conducting research on the various editions. Also, to mention how many of those editions went through various printings (some sites mention as new editions rather than new printing of a particular edition) during his life time would be helpful too 71.57.32.202 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify this issue now, including Ed Folsom's count of 6 true editions, along with the 9 editions that Whitman himself often referred to. --Dr.Marsden 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about Bill Clinton[edit]

Someone has added claims about Bill Clinton using Leaves of Grass as love poetry. We need sources before including this. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response[edit]

The article does a good job of cataloguing the response when the book was first published (mostly negative), but it barely mentions how it's viewed today. For most works it's the other way around, and having the historical perspective is certainly preferrable, but there's a reason it's still read today. I guess the modern perspective could end up under "Analysis" (which is tagged as needing expansion anyway) but that doesn't seem quite right. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it should definitely be added under Criticism. If you have any sources you can use to add further information, go for it! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Has anyone ever commented on Whitman's misuse of the adjective "leaves"? The title should have been "Blades of Grass." Grass doesn't have leaves.Lestrade (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Yes, it's already in the article. It's a pun because "leaves" means "pages." --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very arcane pun. If true, then Whitman was calling his book Pages of Little Worth. "Grass" is not usually understood as "works of minor worth." If true, then "grass" could be considered a technical term restricted to the publishing industry and understood as such by only a few people. However, it is as good a reason as any to refer to grass in a book of poems that has nothing to do with grass.Lestrade (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

I think you're delving into original research; I have no personal opinion on the quality of the pun or his choice in title but only note that it has been identified as such. But, yes, "Pages of Little Worth" or the like is Whitman's kind of humor. As for the note about "a book of poems that has nothing to do with grass", I answer, "A child said, 'What is the grass?' fetching it to me with full hands." I don't know if that dates to the first edition, but it's a very famous portion of this book. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title has been explained various ways. Some say that Whitman believed 'blades' was too menacing for his work. There's also the explanation that it is, as you said, a pun. As for the meaning, some scholars think it's just a metaphor for an all-encompassing, universal thing everyone can understand - grass. To others it elucidates pubic hair and all the connotations of that (adolescence, maturity, sexuality, etc). By the way, the pun is perfectly punny. Perhaps you just don't get it :) Amozoness6 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Codebook[edit]

Ted Hall and Saville Sax used this book as a codebook. Whitman was supposed to have numbered his verses in such a way that they could be used to communicate dates. Can anyone see this system? I can't.Lestrade (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Are you just trying to chat about this? See WP:TALK. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The cover of Whitman's own personal 1st ed copy of Leaves of Grass


In case this can be used in the article at some point.--INeverCry 21:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Bad Spoiler[edit]

While I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's policy of allowing spoilers for the sake of maintaining an encyclopedic writing style/pov, is it really productive for an article to contain a spoiler for an entirely different piece of work? This piece of information is only tangentially related to the article anyway, and while it's fair to assume there will be spoilers in the plot section of one work's article, I don't think it's reasonable to expect readers to know that spoilers for one work will be found in the article on another. Covarr (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needed to go for a couple of reasons. I've removed that section entirely. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting discussion of "Leaves of Grass" in popular culture / Breaking Bad[edit]

Hello, Midnightdreary:

Would you please respond at Talk:Leaves of Grass?

On 3 September, you "Removed as trivial, tangential, and unimportant to the legacy of Whitman or his book" my addition to the Leaves of Grass article of an "In popular culture" category and an entry for Breaking Bad, in particular the "Gliding Over All" episode. I beg to differ with your decision, my friend, and am restoring my post. However, out of sincere respect for you [you Whitman fan, you! :) ] and to avoid an edit war, I ask that you: (1) please consider my rationale, offered below, as well as (2) if you don't agree with me, please initiate a request for commentary at Talk:Leaves of Grass or request some other sort of resolution involving third parties.

By way of rationale, I offer:

I went back and watched season 3 ep 6 where walt first meets gale. Man Vince and the writers must have knew all along how Hank would find out because it is sorta foreshadowed in that episode. When Hank calls Walt and asks about Jesse and the RV he suspects Walt is shown sitting reading the Leaves of Grass book. It has a tight shot on the book, walt is smiling reading and then Hank calls. Then Jesse leads Hank to the RV with walt in there and it is soooo close to Hank discovering Walt way back then. That book has been significant now for 3 years now almost. Genius, Best show ever on television, cant name a better.
Justified is next best right now.

I look forward to your response (and those of other Wikipedians) to this same post at Talk:Leaves of Grass.

Warm wishes - Froid 08:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like an important addition to the article on that particular episode of Breaking Bad. However, this is Leaves of Grass. Leaves of Grass!! This is one of the most significant books in literary history. If we need to justify its importance, its impact, or its relevance in popular culture, Breaking Bad is infinitesimal. That's my personal opinion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Midnightdreary. Our interpretations of the purpose of the "In popular culture" section differ. Mine was shaped, initially, by reading the "In popular culture" sections of articles about significant works (e.g., "The Second Coming" (poem) and "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening"). I also read Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, which states: "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not."
Thus, my adding the "In popular culture"/Breaking Bad content to Leaves of Grass is not an attempt to justify the book's importance, its impact, or its relevance in popular culture; rather, it's an effort to document the book's broad cultural impact, and in that way - as encouraged by Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content - make "a worthwhile contribution to [the] article" in a manner that "positively distinguish[es] Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias". - Froid 12:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You asked for my opinion... If Leaves of Grass is important to that episode of Breaking Bad, that's great, but Breaking Bad is not important to Leaves of Grass. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask and you answered. I'll add here, for consideration by any who choose to weigh in, a request to consider the Principles and Goals of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture article. - Froid 12:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE: ...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overview not Encyclopedic[edit]

The tone of the whole section seems overblown and professorial, and not encyclopedic. It feels to me like one would need the context of how other poets/authors are described and compared, in order to fully understand it's intended meaning. Like one might read from a college textbook. Thought I'd note this on the chance that anyone/everyone else agrees.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read the whole article and am quite confused by this comment. Certainly, I'd hate to think this Wikipedia article on such an important work is inaccessible to general readers. However, there is virtually no textual analysis here that might imply "overblown" or "professorial". This article would certainly fail to merit inclusion in a college textbook (assuming it to be an English class) as most of this is history of the book as a book. Could you be more specific, please? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just revisited some of my old comments and found this. In response, I think the entire Overview section is what set me off.

This book is notable for its discussion of delight in sensual pleasures during a time when such candid displays were considered immoral. Where much previous poetry, especially English, relied on symbolism, allegory, and meditation on the religious and spiritual, Leaves of Grass (particularly the first edition) exalted the body and the material world. Influenced by Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalist movement, itself an offshoot of Romanticism, Whitman's poetry praises nature and the individual human's role in it. However, much like Emerson, Whitman does not diminish the role of the mind or the spirit; rather, he elevates the human form and the human mind, deeming both worthy of poetic praise.

While it may not meet the standard for inclusion in a text-book, a Reader that is not familiar with "previous poetry, especially English", "Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalist movement", "Romanticism", "Whitman's poetry", etc... Almost none of this text makes a definitive statement of what "Leaves of Grass" is about as a standalone entity, rather it places the work in relative context to "everything else". Unless one is a serious student of poetry, they are not going to know about any of these relative, contextual works and concepts, "schools of thought", etc... and so the whole section is written for a minority of more-informed readers and is over the heads of under-informed readers, and note it is the 2nd section in the Article. I can't quote wikipedia policy to assert my opinion, but I strongly believe that wikipedia articles in general need to start with an intent to be meaningful to as wide a readership as possible, getting more "in depth" as the reader reads downward. This is the 2nd section, and it has almost immediately left behind 90% of the Readers. This material can be included further down in the article. The "upper" areas should be used for more basic, general information that is intended for a broader audience.Jonny Quick (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your more detailed comment. So far as I know, there is no policy that suggests Wikipedia articles dumb down subject matter in the beginning before becoming more encyclopedic. If anything, the first paragraph, the lede, serves as introductory matter. With that said, the good news is that each of the names and concepts which seem troublesome to general readers all have articles of their own which are directly linked to from those words. One of the great things about Wikipedia is the web like structure that connects to articles. Still, if you have a suggestion for a sentence right at the beginning of that section that allows a general reader to understand better, feel free to add it. Otherwise, I am about to add one of my own to address your concern. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Midnightdreary: I'm in agreement, I have always thought that the "Overview" was supposed to be the lede, and tend to find that second separate introductory section was just a sign of an insufficient lede and an article that needs reworking. Any comments on Whitman's place or LoG's impact in the Western canon should be discussed where appropriate--here it would be more appropriate in an expanded Analysis section where it could be explored at length--which would notes comparing it to other works, his era, the work's style and themes. Having an "overview" is superfluous and its material is better served in the lede and reworked within the body. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I combined the overview material with the lede.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning here, ColonelHenry, but I somewhat disagree. The lede is supposed to summarize the article to come. I usually don't recommend writing a complete lede until the article is more "finished". Still, I think this might serve well enough for now. Thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does provide a framework to grow from, and I agree with finalizing a lede after the rest of the article is framed or "more finished". There are a few things I'd like to see with this article--the pop culture list needs to be eliminated and a more scholarly discussion of the work's legacy provided and a bigger discussion on analysis and interpretation (I've started sketching something for this, but I'm still at least a month off from having the time to dedicate to it).--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entire life?[edit]

>Whitman spent his entire life writing and re-writing Leaves of Grass

Surely not his *entire* life.... Rissa, copy editor (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good point and a great example of using a common phrase without really considering its meaning. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman's voice?[edit]

The audio recording that is "thought" to be Whitman's voice is of extraordinarily good quality to be from 1892 or earlier. Unbelievably good. Almost impossible, I'd say. What is the basis for the claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The recording is pretty well known in Whitman scholarship; I believe it was rediscovered in the 1990s. Visit Walt Whitman Archive for more. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leaves_of_Grass&oldid=1193949802"