Talk:Leaves of Grass
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
 |
Leaves of Grass is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Sourcing and reflist
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Only collection of poetry?
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)
[edit] NPOV
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.
[edit] Poem inclusion
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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Audiobook of Leaves of Grass
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)
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)
[edit] editions
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)
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)
[edit] Claims about Bill Clinton
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)
