Talk:Henry David Thoreau

Copyright Violation

I believe that the photo of Thoreau's cabin and the sculpture outside of it violates the sculptor's copyright. Publicly displayed art is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without the permission of the artist. Please see http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cni-copyright/msg12434.html for more info. Should this image be submitted to wikipedia's copyright agent? Fboland 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information

The Article includes no information about his life between 1841-1844 and 1849-1850.

Again, the Eurocentric or generally anti-Indian/anti-Hindu Wikipedia conveniently forgets to mention that Thoreau AND Emerson were heavily influenced by Vedanta and specifically the Gita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's an agenda here - just a lack of sources. The whole article is in serious need of attention and I wouldn't consider it of any significant quality or respectability yet. Like all of Wikipedia, this is a work in progress. If you have a source and think it's worth mentioning, it's up to folks like you to add this kind of material. Oh, and normally we add new comments to the bottom of talk pages. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Edits

One of the things weakening the article is the mixing of contemporary commentary with the historical information. For instance, while it's important that Ghandi read the Bhagavad Gita, and it is important that he influenced Ghandi, those two shouldn't be linked (really shouldn't be linked anyway, since Ghandi was attracted to Thoreau because of his political philosophy and action, instead of his religious interests). The Ghandi part should be in another section, and briefly.

Perhaps a "Thoreau after Death" section, dealing with his post-humous publications, influences and criticisms in the years after his funeral would work best. It could even be divided into periods.

Dan 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And I was wondering why Thoreau's tuberculosis was mentioned near the end of the article and not in the early years section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.73.55 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories Question

Was Thoreau actually a cat lover? does it actually say that anywhere?

Yes, many times in his Journal. Here are 3 examples: While on a river excursion, he and Sophia rescued "a little dot of a kitten" whose instincts were highly developed (May 22, 1853). The family cat was Min, another rescued orphan (Feb 28, 1856). One autumn Thoreau observed her "studying ornithology between the corn-rows" (Oct 1, 1858). Dates refer to entries in the 1906 edition of the Journal. --WH 23 Aug 2006

Editing Requests

Hi there, I am wondering if the community wants a link to my web site, www.riapress.com. It is a completely non-revenue/non-profit web site in which I produce completely free public domain ebooks that are designed to be printed at home on regular computer printers (as opposed to read online or produced as normal expensive books). I also correct for typographical issues like tables, etc, that books on gutenberg and many other sites ignore. They are pretty handy - I've had up to 5000 downloads of these books per month, more than 50% from outside the USA. I just finished my ebook of Walden and will be adding other Thoreau titles to my site. Would the community be supportive of a link in the links sections of the relevant articles to these books? Thanks.Riapress 04:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Ok folks, since I didn't hear back, I'm going to add the link referenced directly above. I think it's useful for readers. If anyone doesn't think it's appropriate, feel free to remove. Thanks! Riapress 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link. It duplicates already listed resources: Walden is already shown as available online, in the section Henry_David_Thoreau#Online_texts. Further, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to advertise your own website via links in wikipedia. -- Yellowdesk 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Thoreau page is getting kind of big, and needs to be organized/split into subsections. It's getting kind of rambling, and organizing it would make it easier to read, and to edit information. Thanks, Dan 22:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I made several revisions today to tighten up the article and make it more chronological. (I wrote the first major expansion of the original stub, back in '03.) I don't think it needs reorganizing now, although sub-titles and an index might help. Thanks to everyone for their contributions. --WH, 18 Jan 2006

---

I added some information on his family, divided "Life and Works" into "Life and Works" "Later Years and Death" and "Criticisms" subtitles, and re-arranged some paragraphs so that it'll hopefully flow a little better. I think "Life and Works" has room for another subsection or so. Dan 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Made more revisions today to correct facts, tighten prose, and eliminate repetitions and non-sequiturs. I also made the section titles more parallel and moved one section lower. It's now a major biographical article and deserves to be rated highly. Thanks to all contributors. --WH, 23 Aug 2006

---

seriously to me it seems like thoreau has a lot of issue of possible hypocrisy, especially consdering his ideas 'original' to him. like to see something about that somewhere.

---

I would need some particulars to understand what you mean. Thoreau cites hundreds of sources in his books, always giving credit where it is due. You may always attribute a person's ideas to earlier influences; but true originality lies in collecting the wisdom of the past and making it relevant to the present and future. By expressing the importance of low material consumption and the preservation of natural resources, Thoreau was highly original for his day. --WH

---

Can anyone confirm what I have heard, that he was also jailed for non-compliance with compulsory tithes to the state-established church he was deemed to be affiliated to? I know he had strong conscientious objections, and I gather he actually got jailed for that too. I am pretty confident of this but don't have the reference to hand. I have used him as an example under Tithes. PML.

• I don't think he was actually jailed in this case. Scott Burley 00:47, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

• • Yes, here's the text from Civil Disobedience:

Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the Church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. "Pay," it said, "or be locked up in the jail." I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster: for I was not the State's schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax-bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the Church. However, at the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing:—"Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined." This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find a complete list. Scott Burley 00:49, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

i think someone should disambiguate the link to M. L. King -- i assume this is meant to link to MLK Jr. but i am not certain enough to edit it myself. (v)

done. --Goethean 03:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

As for Thoreau and Lincoln being the only noted Americans that opposed the Mexican War: according to John A. Crow's "The Epic of Latin America", the Mexican War was quite unpopular, and the least popular American war until Vietnam. I am sure there were others.

Jorge Luis Borges considered Thoreau as an anarchist thinker - would anyone care to elaborate on this? I haven't read enough of Thoreau's work to decide if this is the case.

see quotes at end of essay; Thoreau writes that he is opposed to government; this is pretty much the abiding principle of anarchism.

From the man himself, in Civil Disobedience: "But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."24.99.149.217 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilderness as public land

He was an early advocate of recreational hiking and canoeing, of conserving natural resources on private land, and of preserving wilderness as public land. This may be somewhat true but I am not sure.. Where does Thoreau write this?KAM 13:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't give a citation, but Thoreau definitely stood for having wilderness be public land. One of his disagreements with Emerson was over trespassing -- Emerson was against it. --Goethean 14:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not familar with the trespassing. He does say a township where a primitive forest waves...is fitted not only for corn and potatoes but also to rasie poets and philosophers. He speaks of the wilderness as a source of raw materials, He used logging roads to travel about in the what he called wilderness on his trips to Maine.KAM 15:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should not we, who have renounced the king’s authority, have our national preserves, where no villages need be destroyed, in which the bear and panther, and some even of the hunter race, may still exist, and not be "civilized off the face of the earth," — our forests, not to hold the king’s game merely, but to hold and preserve the king himself also, the lord of creation, — not for idle sport or food, but for inspiration and our own true re-creation? [The Maine Woods "Chesuncook"]KAM 11:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst." According to W. Barksdale Maynard in Walden Pond, A History.(p 140), this is one of Thoreau's most memorable quotes. I am not sure from which Journal this quote is derived. Certainly, this speaks to Thoreau's advocacy of public land preserves. RMY 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly Thoreau was one of the first American writers to appreciate the value of wilderness and of public land. But the article says he was an early advocate. Does the above meet the standard of "advocacy" ? A case can be made that he was an "advocate" for preserving wilderness but recreational hiking and canoeing? Even in the case of wilderness advocate may be the wrong word. KAM 15:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The source of the quotation listed above,"All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst." ,is Thoreau's Journal: 15-Oct-1859. I hope this helps. Rmackenzie 10:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, the house he built, the land he tilled for crops, and the trees he cleared for same, all in the relative wilds of Walden Wood, each puts the lie to such a consideration. As in many things, he thought in idealisms that were greater than those to which he held himself.209.214.230.142 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Journal entry for January 3, 1861 calls for preserving "the natural features which make a township handsome," founding committees "to see that the beauty of the town received no detriment," and declaring that "the top of Mt. Washington should not be private property." These are all quite early declarations of what later came to be called natural preservation--WH 23 Aug 2006

Thoreau...lazy???

There are accounts of Thoreau being a lazy person. He seemed to have relied on friends and family during his stay at Walden Pond. Anyone know if this is true?

Laziness would probably be the typical accusation by a member of society to someone who rejects the materialism and complacency of that society. But Thoreau's extensive and detailed studies of plants and animals, in addition to his literary and other work show this to be inaccurate. --goethean 18:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Lazy he was not. Friends often commented on his athletic talent, his energy, and his dogged tendency to drive himself farther on outings than was prudent. A typical day after 1855 was writing all morning, the afternoon given to surveying or hiking and boating, and the evening to reading or time with his family. He made an adequate living from many sources and shared his income with his family. Yes, he built his house at Walden on Emerson's land. Some friends helped him raise the roof beam. He visited his family now and then. All true, but hardly indications of laziness. He caught his fatal cold by staying out too long in a wet snow to count rings in felled trees. --WH 29 Sep 2005

vegetarian

I've researched some later works on Thoreau, though not in detail, but enough to say that he did adopt the vegetarian lifestyle for a certain period of his life though not consistently & for ever.

One good source that claims him a vegetarian is Henry Salt's biography of Thoreau (2000 edition). He was no doubt a very influential and known advocator, but the book in chapter 9 (Doctrines) does mention that he was a 'vegetarian in practice' for a greater part of his life.

Also, mentioned in the 'Introduction' is '...This English Thoreauvian was at once a rationalist, socialist, pacifist, 'vegetarian', animals' rights activist, ..'

(Also to be noted is that this edition makes use of some unpublished papers extensively in the introduction section)

The same claim about his vegetarianism is also made in the 2005 edition of this book by Salt and many other authors during the 2000's, like Thoreau's Living Ethics: Walden and the Pursuit of Virtue, by Philip Cafaro.

Also, the 1995 edition of Walden claims "Although T was not an absolute vegetarian, as were some of his transcendentalist friends, he did follow a modified vegetarian diet for many years" (the later editions do not make the same claim)

A good description of Henry David Thoreau with regards to his vegetarianism can be found in the book 'Awe for the Tiger, Love for the Lamb: A Chronicle of Sensibility to Animals, edited by Rod Preece' on page 259... though Preece does not emphasize on the fact that he is a vegetarian, just mentions of vegetarianism in his nature.

Any comments? ---- Vanita. 27th Jan 06

He was vegetarian?? Is there a source for this? In Walden he catches fish. In Allegash and East Branch he eats moose meat and elswhere shows spending money for pork.KAM 14:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also doubted the claim that he was a vegetarian. I checked Walden for Thoreau's thoughts about eating meat and fish. This quote seems relevant: I have found (...) that I cannot fish without falling a little in self-respect (...) with every year I am less a fisherman, (...) at present I am no fisherman at all. But I see that if I were to live in a wilderness I should again be tempted to become a fisher and hunter in earnest. (...) I had rarely for many years used animal food (...) (Higher Laws, p.192-193 in the Oxford World's Classics edition). So it seems that he was a (not very strict) vegetarian for at least a few years. Sietse 18:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I saw that also, that is why I left this in "he ate relatively little meat and advocated vegetarianism as a means of self-improvement." While he was in Maine (in a wilderness) it seems he ate fish, pork or moose frequently. Perhaps it could be worded more clearly.KAM 19:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also from "Higher Laws" in Walden - "Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized." However, later in the same chapter he says - "I was never unusually squeamish; I could sometimes eat a fried rat with a good relish, if it were necessary." Vegetarianism was coming in the future. ryokan13@yahoo.com July 17 2005

Several of the Transcendentalists, notably Bronson Alcott and Charles Lane, experimented with vegetarian diets. (Alcott thought he should eat only "asipring" vegetables, the ones that grow upward toward heaven (celery), instead of downward into earth (carrots, potatoes). Thoreau preferred a vegetable diet, but he did eat meat, eggs, and dairy at times, though not eagerly for they gave him indigestion. In "Higher Laws" he says that food is less important than the spirit or imagination with which we eat it. He did have a sweet tooth and was especially fond of spice cake and fruit pies. Every philosopher needs a weakness! --WH 29 Sep 2005

Among the many points highlighted above, Thoreau's "Walden" gives good reason to believe he indulged in and enjoyed the omnivorous life: "As I came home through the woods with my string of fish, trailing my pole, it being now quite dark, I caught a glimpse of a woodchuck stealing across my path, and felt a strange thrill of savage delight, and was strongly tempted to sieze and devour him raw; not that I was hungry then, except for that wildness which he represented. ... I found in myself, and still find, an instinct toward a higher, or, as it is named, spiritual life, as do most men, and another toward a primitive rank and savage one, and I reverence them both." This quote, in my opinion, also highlights excellently the difference between Thoreau's Transcendentalism and that of Emerson and others.24.99.149.217 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He also claimed to eat fried rats and board nails (facetiously). He certainly wasn't a strict vegetarian by today's standards, but he clearly advocated a vegetarian point of view. bikeable (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Life and Work - Surveyor

In the main page of Thoreau, we are provided with the land area of Concord as being 26 mile² or 67 km². However, during Thoreau's time, maps and surveys, including those drafted by Thoreau, were scaled to the "rod." We also find the measure of "acre" being used commonly. Would it not be more appropriate to use a measure of Concord as being 16,640 acres or, a bit cumbersome for sure, the equivalent measure of 2,2624,000 rod²?

For reference, perhaps we just add these for comparative analysis? RMY 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Life and Work - Pencil Maker and Lecturer

It is important to be careful about claiming that HDT worked in the pencil factory for most of his life. He only worked there for a couple years, after which he moved on to survey work, as well a number of other occupations.

Also, while his lectures weren't as "successful" as Emerson's, this is a moot point. Very few lecturers of the time rivaled Emerson, and the comparison seems strained by the RWE/HDT connection. Simply because we connect them geographically, philosophically, etc. does not mean the success of their lectures bears comparison. We must remember Thoreau lectured out of compulsion to speak out on important issues, and Emerson lectured more to fulfill the role of the "public intellectual." We find him saying as much in "The American Scholar." To claim that HDT met with less success in his lectures ignores that we remember him yet for far fewer of them.

In sum, revisions need to be made concerning his life's work; his vocations and occupations ranged much farther afield than simply pencil maker, writer, and lecturer.Cyclo1964 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a reference for the addition made on 1/9/06? However he disdained both occupations. The pencil factory he disliked for keeping him indoors, and lecturing he felt required him to "dumb down" his ideas for the audience. Also, he apparently wasn't a very good lecturer.--RMY 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's in the "Cambridge Campanion to Henry David Thoreau" in the works cited. Also, he wrote in his journal of his disdain of lecturing, and his numerous critics compared his discourses unfavorably with Emerson's. Dan 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

self-sufficiency at Walden?

I've heard that, while living at Walden, Thoreau often dined elsewhere, or had meals/laundry done by his mother and sister for him. Is this documented somewhere, and if so, where should it go in this article? It does put a bit of the "rugged individualist" myth to rest... -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thoreau's cabin on Walden Pond was not in the wilderness. It was only a mile and a half to the center of Concord, Massachusetts, and Thoreau went into town regularly. -- Walloon 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth a paragraph to clear up this common misunderstanding. Thoreau's time at Walden was manifestly not a rugged experiment in self-sufficiency, but nowadays when people hear "lived in the woods" that's what they think of. I might try to take a crack at it later... bikeable (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You can see Walden Pond in the lower right corner of this map of Concord, and in the north central part of this surveyor's map (see the distance scale at bottom). — Walloon 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Botkin's No Man's Garden, Thoreau was testing the precepts of transcendentalism, unlike Emerson who accepted without test the Romantic version of nature, common in Throeau's day, Thoreau wanted to test the idea that man was corrupted by civilization for himself. For the same reason he traveled to The Maine woods. Contrary to the Throeau myth, his experence on Katadin left him with a deeper appreciation of civilization. According to Roderick Nash over his life time Thoreau's view of nature evolved. KAM 11:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I had been taught that one of the reasons Thoreau spent time at Walden was to duck out on bill collectors. While this has shaped my opinion of him i havent found anything I could cite. Suiciderun 137.229.182.33 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The cabin on Walden Pond was only one a half miles from the center of Concord, and Thoreau went into town periodically. He wasn't in the wilderness and he wasn't in hiding. — Walloon 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misinterpreted Transcendentalism

Perhaps this will help your understanding of Transcendentalism a bit: First, Transcendentalism was most assuredly NOT Unitarian, as is suggested below. Emerson's theological and philosophical thinking has roots in his life as a Unitarian minister, but Transcendentalism grew out of his rejection of that. And in Emerson's "Nature," he writes of becoming the "transparent eyeball," one of the most famous images in Transcendental thought. He would enter the woods and "see all and be all." Transcendentalism has less to do with any Christian theology and more with "communing with the Over-Soul." A theological lineage exists from Calvinism to Unitarianism to Transcendentalism, surely, but Emerson's thought held Transcendentalism as the infinite telos of the divine. That said, both Emerson's and Thoreau's writings reveal many instances where actually realizing and experiencing the Transcendental existence becomes problematic.Cyclo1964 (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

"Transcendentalism was naturalistic and mystical, rejecting deterministic Calvinism. It was inspired by Swedenborg, Kant, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other non-Christian sources. It was not atheistic, but Unitarian and thus did not see Jesus as divine."

This statement represents a wide misinterpretation of Transendentalist philosophy. Transcendentalism, as expressed in Emerson's essays (and of particular interest, his speech to the Harvard School of Divinity), does not hold that Jesus was not divine. Rather, it holds that nature itself is divine, and that man has a divine spirit within him that represents perfect virtue. Emerson expounded on this by stating that Jesus embodies this divinity by being the man who most closely approximated man's highest virtue.

In defense of the author(s) of this text, Emerson did also assert in this same speech was that conventional Christianity is overly concerned with the person of Jesus Christ, rather than the principles he embodied.

Keenspotter 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Keenspotter

Calvinism, Swedenborg, Kant, Buddhism, Hinduism and other? Can this be dumbed down a notch? Save in depth explaination for Transcendentalism. In fact from that page; "Transcendental movement may be partially described as a slightly later, American outgrowth of Romanticism" I am over my head here but is that a good start? KAM 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would see the entirety of the quoted sentences removed, though perhaps another passage from the Transcendentalism entry would be a more appropriate replacement: "Among their core beliefs was an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the physical and empirical and is only realized through the individual's intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions." Keenspotter 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, and Be Bold! Also it seems to me the article does not explain the link between Transcendentalism and Emerson and Thoreau's views of nature? KAM 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoreau not a pasifist

What evidence is there Thoreau is a pacifist? Some scholars say he was not, mostly based on his defense of John Brown. KAM 00:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Human animal hybrids

Did Thoreau actually breed fascination human animal hybrids? I recall he had an island of the,

Anarchism

I am an editor on the wikipedia anarchism article. There is an editor(s?) who wishes to include a paragraph detailing Thoreau's (along with Jesus and Thomas Jefferson) influence on modern anarchist thought. There is also a vocal group who do not agree that such information is pertinent to an article on anarchism. I thought that there might be people here who could contribute something to the debate. Thanks, Blockader.

It's clear on the pages of talk:anarchism that even some of the opposers of US anarchist inclusion in the article agree that Thoreau was an anarchist. They state famous names of people that call Thoreau an anarchist. I'm one. (Just kidding.) LibertyFirst 01:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because some of us anarchists on the anarchism talk page think so doesn't make it so. That's original research. Before adding that label, you might want to find a reliable source (such as a biography by a notable author or an encyclopedia) that says he is an anarchist. The Ungovernable Force 04:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This Thoreau article ends with several anarchism entries in the "See also" section, but doesn't make it clear whether he was or was not an anarchist. This sends a confusing message. I suggest something in the intro paragraph to clarify his "status", fuzzy and debatable as it might be. Perhaps after the other labels of "development critic, naturalist, transcendentalist, pacifist, tax resister and philosopher". --Ds13 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I first started the Thoreau page, and I come back to it every year to see how it's growing. Today I edited the bit about him and anarchism before reading this discussion. I apologize and I also respect the strong opinions that folks are expressing here. Thoreau is problematic because his ideas were early, dismissed at the time, and now have grown to seem almost clairvoyant. Putting labels on him like vegetarian, environmentalist, or anarchist is therefore nearly always apocryphal. Those are later ideas which we may trace back to his influence, but it's an exaggeration to draw him into a particular camp--he hated being more than a party of one! So I altered the statement about anarchism to indicate that he advocated limited government, not its abolition. Although these subjects have not yet entered the article, there are debates about his religion and sexual orientation. He was eclectic, flexible, and inconsistent about his ideas. I hope we can respect that (to me) delightful variety and eccentricity and not try to box him in too tightly. I base this judgement on four decades of work as a Thoreau scholar, and as the former editor of the PUP edition of his Writings. Thanks, WH --28 Dec 2006

Thoreau was an anarchist

Emma Goldman was quite well noted anarchist. This is one thing she said about him. Also, Thoreau was mentioned three times in that article. Here is the quote by Goldman concerning him and whether he was an anachist:

Referring to the American government, the greatest American Anarchist, David Thoreau, said: "Government, what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instance losing its integrity; it has not the vitality and force of a single living man. Law never made man a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well disposed are daily made agents of injustice." Emma Goldman

(from Emma Goldman: Anarchism: What it Really Stands For

From the 1917 edition of Emma Goldman's Anarchism and Other Essays)

Are you stalking me, Ungovernable? Because it's starting to look like it. Whiskey Rebellion 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had this article on a watchlist for a while (a day before you started editing with this account). Look in the history, I edited it on august 9th. Oh, and see the thread up above, that was started before you came to this page. We happen to have interesecting areas of interest, I can't help it if we edit the same pages. As to what you said, I did a search of the document for Thoreau yesterday, and nothing turned up. Now it does. I don't know why (I spelled it right, since I copy and pasted from the title of this article. Anyways, just because goldman says he's an anarchist, doesn't make it so. I think we should leave that up to others to decide. Goldman can't be seen as the be all end all of anarchist labelling. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't just turn up on articles and article talk pages that I edit on but on user talk pages, too. It's called wikistalking. Thoreaus was an anarchist get over it. You said "Goldman can't be seen as the be all end all of anarchist labelling." You could say that (or that sort of thing) about any source. Whiskey Rebellion 03:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Emma Goldman called Thoreau an anarchist" is a whole different kettle of fish from "Thoreau is an anarchist." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you want to stick "anarchist" in the intro to an article, you're going to have to do better than googling for one isolated quote. We can find thousands of notable references describing him as a "writer," but the anarchist spin is quite singular. Nandesuka 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not at all singular to call Thoreau an anarchist. Please see these:

See: List_of_anarchists#Notes

These individuals have not applied the label "anarchist" to themselves, perhaps because they predated its popular usage (as with Thoreau),

Also see: Anarchism#Max_Stirner.27s_egoism (where Stirner is included in the anarchism article and for what reasons):

Stirner never called himself an anarchist - he accepted only the label 'egoist'. Nevertheless, he is considered by most to be an anarchist because of his rejection of the state, law and government, and his ideas influenced many anarchists, although interpretations of his thought are diverse. Anarchists including Benjamin Tucker, Federica Montseny and the Bonnot Gang claimed him as an influence, and Emma Goldman gave lectures on his thought.

Thoreau said he wanted no government at all. He backed his disdain of oppressive law with action and went to jail to protest it. He openly defied wrong law and wrote about it real loudly and clearly in Civil Disobedience. He was an anarchist. Period. Whiskey Rebellion 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. That means that you can't cite Wikipedia to support things in Wikipedia articles. Nandesuka 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not remotely an anarchist (at least, in practice), and I am reluctant to use a word that has such strong and complex connotations in a modern setting. However, Thoreau said explicitly,

Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, - "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

(First paragraph of Civil Disobedience, here.) That sure sounds like "anarchist" to me. I think we should put it back in. bikeable (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bikeable: Please read Wikipedia's no original research policy. We can say that Emma Goldman called Thoreau an anarchist, but we can't label him "an anarchist" unless that is more than an extreme minority view. Nandesuka 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:NOR, thank you. Repeating what HDT writes about himself is not OR. If Henry had written, "I am an anarchist", we would not have any question with adding that adjective here. In this case, he uses words that are close to the definition of anarchism itself.

However, further down in CD, HDT says, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, and footnote [3] at [1] says specifically that he is referring to "The Anarchists", with whose work he is familiar. Since in that sentence he sets himself apart from the anarchists -- despite his statement in the first paragraph which is a near-perfect restatement of anarchism -- evidently he does not claim the anarchist label. I change my mind; it should stay out. bikeable (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I have no problem personally with saying Thoreau was an anarchist or quasi-anarchist, but unlike Stirner, he is rarely labeled as such by relatively neutral sources. It's OR to say he is an anarchist based on a quote by my beloved Emma. Also, see anti-statism. Mere anti-statism is not equivalent to anarchism. Marxists want to see the state devolve into nothingness (sounds a lot like Thoreau's quote actually), but they are not anarchists. As for wiki-stalking Whiskey, try to prove it. Besides, even if I were, it's a less serious offense than, oh, thewolfstar using a sockpuppet for the zillionth time to evade an indefinite block and push bias and original research into an article. Not sure why that specific example is the one I'm coming up with right now. Do you? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't just base Thoreau's anarchism on the quote. Like ususal you don't read what I say. Read what I wrote. You are wikistalking me. And why don't you just get an RFCU? It'd be fascinating as it would be nearly impossible for us to have the same ip. Did you see the admin noticeboard incidents page? Now there's a Wolfstar2 and a Wolfstar3 that are bots. Let's have a checkuser against me and all these wolfstars and Lingeron. I was accused of being Lingeron, thewolfstar, Hogeye and RJII. That'sHot was accused of being thewolfstar and RJII. Why don't you just get it over with? Your nasty insults, personal attacks, and false accusations are getting to really be a drag. What kind of life can you have that has so much spare time to go witch hunting for sockpuppets of anarchists -- specifically anarchists that have dared to introduce libertarianism into the anarchism article? You said you have been watching me since I joined Wikipedia. God, girl, get a life. There's more to life than this. Whiskey Rebellion 03:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing. I can't believe you called Thoreau a quasi-anarchist. And you call yourself an anarchist? Are you seriously saying that you are a real anarchist and that Thoreau wasn't? I'm not even going to say any more. Whiskey Rebellion 03:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't done RFCU because I've been too busy in real life (if you haven't noticed, I don't edit as much as I used to). Anyways, the user contributions page is there for a reason. It's meant to be looked at, especially when a user is under severe suspicion of being a banned user evading a block. Anyways, a few people, including admins who are unrelated to the anarchism issues suspect you to be a sock. Also, I have no problem with mentioning libertarianism (American-style) on the anarchism page, as the relationship should be explored. But I do have a problem with trying to say that they are the same, or that some forms of american libertarianism should be considered a form of anarchism.

As for Thoreau, you have yet to provide any source other than Emma and another wikipedia page, which as mentioned above, does not count as a reliable source (and which should probably be changed itself). You need to provide a neutral and reliable source as well. I just started reading The Politics of Individualism by L. Susan Brown. The first chapter deals with a lot of the issues being discussed here and on the anarchism pages. Some quotes of interest in the first chapter: "Anarchism shares with liberalism a radical commitment to individual freedom while rejecting liberalism's competitive property relations." "Historically, anarchism has often been conceptualized as being most closely related to Marxism. This is due, in part, to the fact that many prominent anarchists share with the Marxists a rejection of private property and an espousal of communist economic relations." "Anarchism has more in common with other individualist philosophies like liberalism than is generally recognized [...] many statements made by the liberal John Stewart Mill, for instance, contain a spirit of existential individualism ("existential individualism" is the term Brown uses to describe the form of individualism anarchism advocates--individual freedom unrestrained by authority and seen as an end in and of itself, which she contrasts to "instrumental individualism", or the form of individualism where individuals use others to further their own self-interest, which would use individualism as a means to an end)." "However, liberals are not anarchists; while they assert the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, liberals also maintain that the human individual is a competitive owner of private property." Brown says that liberalism contains elements of existential and instrumental anarchism, which makes it contradict itself, since according to Brown, existential individualism and instrumental individualism cannot coexist. She later says "the fact that liberalism and anarchism share common existential individualistic views explains why certain passages in liberal thought sound decidedly anarchistic. However, liberals also subscribe to an individiualism that is instrumental while anarchist political philosophy stands opposed to instrumental competitive values; for the anarchist, 'freedom can exist only in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind," including the compulsion that accompanies property relations." All of these quotes are in the first chapter in case you want to look them up. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Brown, Thoreau was no liberal, and 125,000 sources

You just went on and on about The Politics of Individualism by L. Susan Brown. and liberalism. What has any of this got to do with Thoreau? Thoreau was not a liberal. You can't be serious. And I doubt that Susan Brown will ever affect the number of people, both great leader and not, anarchist and not, that Thoreau did by 100,000 of a percent. Instead of telling me to read this tedious and predictable sounding Brown, you might do better to read Thoreau. I am finding 100s of thousands of references to Thoreau as an anarchist. But I doubt you will accept any of them because you don't want to. Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopedia that bases what it says on what the world accepts as real. Well the world, apparantly, says that Thoreau was an anarchist. And while we're at it, Jesus was talking about sharing property, in Book of Matthew, 2000 years ago. I think that beats Karl Marx by just a few years.

google search Thoreau anarchist Here are just a few results where Thoreau is called an anarchist, out of 125,000 results for the search: Thoreau anarchist
http://www.google.com/search?q=Thoreau+anarchist&hl=en&hs=pD&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&start=10&sa=N

--- http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/thoreau/critonrcg.html In the 1920s, an age of relative affluence, Thoreau was popularly seen as an anarchist, a rebel. In the critics' minds, but there were mixed opinions. Most of these reflect a reaction to the materialism of the time. Eliseo Vivas noted that Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government," in The New Student, was ". . . one of the first native attacks upon American Imperialism. . ." (34) Vivas was writing when the US was involved in many countries in South America and Central America. Vivas saw Thoreau's politics, especially his stance on resistance to government, as troubling, "Thoreau's ideals are inoperative in the real, everyday world, and because he will not compromise his ideals, at all, they have no effect upon the world: they are politically useless." (35) In the 1960s, we will see how useful Thoreau becomes.

--- http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/knapp/knapp1.html (anarchism - about Thoreau)

---

http://www.weisbord.org/conquest10.htm * read this Thoreau's love of nature and his advocacy of Anarchist doctrine was far more than an accidental combination. Just as, in America, Nature took the place of society and "freedom" meant nature, as "restraint" meant State and Society, so have many Anarchists proved that their hatred of the State was really the hatred of artificial society and but another side of their love of nature. Between certain types of American Anarchists and "Friends of Nature" there is very little difference.

---

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000282.txt Throughout American history, there has been a tradition of both violent and pacifist Anarchism. Henry David Thoreau, a nonviolent Anarchist writer, and Emma Goldman an Anarchist activist, are a couple of examples. Activist Anarchism, however, was mainly sustained by immigrants from Europe. In the late 1800's, Anarchism was a part of life for many. In 1886, four Anarchists were wrongfully executed for alleged involvement in the Haymarket bombing, in which seven policemen were killed. President McKinley was assassinated in 1901 by Leon Czolgosz, a Polish Anarchist.

---

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/onsite.html The articles below are available on this server. The selection does not imply an endorsement above and beyond other anarchist articles referenced in the Anarchist Sampler pages. Some have typo corrections or additional HTML markup from the original e-text; in other cases, the articles were stored at sites relatively isolated from the anarchist Web

---

http://www.infoshop.org/wiki/index.php/Anarchism_in_the_United_States#Transcendentalism Thoreau's beliefs very much echoed the ideals of anarchism. His most famous quote in this regard is "That government is best which governs least." His ideas on individual sovereignty as well as his opposition to illegitimate authority certainly rings of anarchist belief. In fact, some have gone as far as to say Thoreau was an anarchist, the term just had not been around yet. He certainly inspired many radicals and anarchists including Edward Abbey and Emma Goldman, who called him "the greatest American anarchist."

---

Those are just a few. Take all of them and they represent an awful lot of people that say Thoreau was an anarchist. Whiskey Rebellion 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You will always find a few sources that back up just about any claim. I'm ok with saying that some have described him as an anarchist, but he isn't usually given that label. I've seen people call Gandhi an anarchist too. And Jesus. But these people aren't usually labelled as anarchists, especially not in the first sentence of an encyclopedia entry on them. Perhaps I was off with the liberalism thing (I was thinking classic liberalism). Many of the individualist anarchists you people talk about are radical liberals, or at least have strong leanings in that direction. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 03:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll also be the first to say that I am not well-versed in Thoreau's writings, so I really can't say whether or not I consider him to be an anarchist. But the fact still remains that most people don't label him as such. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling Ghandi an anarchist is a little strange. Ghandi was a great man but he was also a king. Jesus actually was an anarchist by his teaching and there is an entire group, Christian anarchists, that say he was an anarchist.

Apparantly lots of people do label Thoreau as an anarchist. 125,000 sources is an awful lot. Thoreau was not any kind of liberal, not classical or otherwise. He was also not an individualist anarchist. He was an anarchist. This is from anarchism and you seem to approve it:

Stirner never called himself an anarchist - he accepted only the label 'egoist'. Nevertheless, he is considered by most to be an anarchist because of his rejection of the state, law and government and his ideas influenced many anarchists, although interpretations of his thought are diverse. Anarchists including Benjamin Tucker, Federica Montseny and the Bonnot Gang claimed him as an influence, while Emma Goldman gave lectures on his thought.[2]

The one reference goes to a lecture that Goldman gave on Stirner. That is the only reference that points to Stirner being an anarchist. The only difference here, to stating that Thoreau was an anarchist, as opposed to stating that Stirner is an anarchist is that I have provided more sources for Thoreau being an anarchist. So there is no good reason to remove it. Until you have a rational reason for removing this, please don't. Whiskey Rebellion 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That search doesn't prove anything. If you really think all those sources say thoreau was an anarchist than you really need to brush up on your googling skills. The first hit isn't even about H.D. Thoreau! The second doesn't seem to say anything about him being an anarchist. Get this, the third source is titled "American-Liberal Anarchism" (emphasis added) and says "It is to this same type of Anarchism that Thoreau adhered." The fourth is one of the sources in the article, so we all know about it already. The fifth calls him an anarchist in passing, but it isn't given much attention as it isn't about Thoreau. The sixth merely links to an essay which describe the essay "Civil Disobedience" as anarchist among other things, but only in passing again. The seventh source doesn't say anything about Thoreau being an anarchist. The eighth is a bunch of links to various anarchist related articles including "Civil Disobedience", but doesn't say Thoreau was an anarchist. The ninth appears to be a personal website, and is devoted largely to individualist anarchism, but I'll be nice and give it to you anyways. The tenth is a bunch of quick point-counter point things on various topics related to the title of "GANDHI, KING, AND THOREAU: ANARCHISM, CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, AND NON-VIOLENCE". Gee, Gandhi, just like I mentioned above. They have a section that says "Is Thoreau an Anarchist" with arguments for it, and a section that says "Thoreau Not an Anarchist" with arguments for that. This search is not looking to good for you--it surely isn't 125,000 sources that back up your claim. And my guess is that the further I go into the search results, the more incoherent and unrelated they'll be (that's how google usually works). As for Jesus being an anarchist or not, would you be willing to go to the article on Jesus and say in the first sentence that he was an anarachist? Good luck! Although the case can be made (relatively well I think), there are virtually no reliable and neutral sources that would say that I think. Most of them would all be partisan. There are also people who try to say he was a communist, socialist or capitalist (hell, Reagan Youth even have a song called "Jesus Was a Communist"). And Jesus was a king as well according to the bible--just not on Earth. Also, I'm not seeing anything in a quick scan of the Gandhi article about him being a king, and I've never heard that. Also, Kropotkin was a prince, yet I've never seen a reliable and neutral source say he wasn't an anarchist, and I've seen many that have. As for Stirner, neutral and reliable sources usually do label him as an anarchist, which can't be said for Thoreau. I'm not arguing whether or not Thoreau was an anarchist--as I said I don't feel qualified to do so. I am arguing that you seem to be pushing a minority position that is not backed up by neutral or reliable sources. All of them are biased and have something to gain by appropriating Thoreau, a great American hero, as an anarchist. Same can be said of Jesus, Gandhi or (no god forbid) Jefferson. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see the changes you made

Okay, well I'll agree to that change, except he didn't just influence American anarchism. He influenced, at least Tolstoy and Goldman, who was Russian originally. Whiskey Rebellion 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

True about Tolstoy. Still, I think his main influence was on american anarchism. I'll revise it a bit more. Goldman, although originally Russian, is still discussed extensively on the Anarchism in the US article. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Henry David Thoreau

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor quality in-line links, and lack of notes generally.

The ten in-line links presently in the article at the very least could be converted to footnotes. Given their less than stellar quality, and the fact that the article has no footnotes, no great harm would come from having these links removed, as several are writings that do not either cite their own sources, or generally reference a number of works, for biographical information. The geneology web site seems to be a private effort. The kenkifer.com analysis has several mistakes. All of these references could be improved by finding better sources, instead of using these as footnotes...which leads to the bigger problem for this article--that the events described are poorly sourced, in that it's not clear which of the fine references listed at the bottom of the article are relied upon for the numerous statements in the text. -- Yellowdesk 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the list of current in-line links:

1. http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=rtcg#p03
2. http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=rtcg#p01
3. http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=maold&id=I18020
4. http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/thoreau/
5. http://thoreau.eserver.org/hawthornes.html
6. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/thoreau.htm
7. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/thoreau.htm
8. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/thoreau.htm
9. http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/thoreau/
10. http://www.kenkifer.com/Thoreau/

Thoreau's Poetry

The article seems to make no mention of Thoreau's poetry. As much of Thoreau's early work was poetry (until people close to him, such as Emerson, advised him to focus on prose) I think mentioning these works would have some merit. 71.162.92.26 03:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead Poets Society

I am moving this here for discussion because I find it, at the very least, flawed and possibly irrelevant:

Thoreau has also been quoted in many films, including Dead Poets Society. Meetings of the club founded by teacher John Keating (played by Robin Williams), the Dead Poets Society, always started with a quote from Thoreau:

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discovered that I had no lived.

Keating also quoted him in saying, "Thoreau once said 'men lead lives of quiet desperation.' Don't be resigned to that; break out!"

Now, first of all, I seem to recollect that Thoreau is actually misquoted (or, at least, paraphrased) in that part of the movie, and certainly not quoted exactly as in this excerpt. The second quote, or quote-within-a-quote, is fairly trivial. Truth be told, by comparison with the rest of the content in that section on Thoreau's influence, this part about him being quoted in a movie seems really trivial and unimportant. I love the movie, but this is just not that vital to an understanding of Thoreau. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good call. There's enough pop culture on Wikipedia without it bleeding into all of the articles. -Moorlock 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. I have been, very slowly, trying to remove this sort of stuff from the articles on my watch list. This example seems pretty obviously trivial and unimportant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well...while mentioning references to Thoreau in modern popular culture may seem a bit irrelevant to Thoreau himself...I dunno, maybe it might give an insight into how modern society interprets Thoreau? Besides, mentioning those things only takes a couple of sentences...maybe they could all be put together in a short section like those that I've seen in some wikipedia articles-where they put like a list of admittedly irrelevant information that remotely concerns the article's topic-such as mentions or references in books, tv, etc. 66.32.200.185 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)