Talk:Walt Whitman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trisexual

Is not a word. NOT A WORD. There is no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

American Civil War

I was wondering if anyone out there really would be against me removing the American Civil War section. I have been giving this page a make over for the past few days in order to give it the sourced information that this site was lacking. In the early and later sections on the new site there is a good chunck of talk about his presence in the Civil War and what came from it. So if there is anyone out there who is really against me deleting this section speak now, or I will slash it from the site in a few days. How long ago did you write this? The dates in regard to Whitman and the Civil War are hashed up. His brother was captured in 1862, and he did not go to Colorado until 1879. 70.240.244.161 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC) mfdressman@att.net

Why delete the civil war aspect of his life? It was pivotal to his writing, his career and his public life as well.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whitman Infobox

I am currently working on placing a writer infobox in this wiki page. If you look right now you can see a small and insufficient one which will be updated later. If you know of anything that you would like me to add let me know or you can add it yourself, but I felt that someone needed to take the lead on this and present Whitman was an infobox that he deserves, right SG!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mandkeng116 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Should anyone make note of the animation by musical talent My Robot Friend? Aptly entitled 'Walt Whitman'. http://www.myrobotfriend.com/waltwhitman.html

This article needs help in a serious way

To put it briefly, this is the stupidest page on Wikipedia. Whitman a "Romantic" poet? Well, sure, in the sense that he was utterly different from all the other Romantic poets.

There is no serious attempt to deal with Whitman's personal revolution in poetry. There is no attempt at all to deal with his attempted role as a gay revolutionary in 19th-century America.

There is an apparently no concerted attempt to overlook the scholarship of Gary Schmidgall, and his meticulous documentation of the names of Whitman's male lovers -- and of the times and dates when they met.

There is an attempt to salvage him as "The Good Gray Poet of Democracy" -- an image which Whitman crafted in his old age. JaafarAbuTarab 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Romantics are a pretty broad group and while I'd be inclined to differentiate Whitman from, say, Shelley amongst others, his place in time and history has unfortunately linked him with that particular classification of poetic movements. Lumping anyone into a group that includes both Blake and Byron is problematic.... That aside, how specifically do you think your concerns should be addressed? Aside from noting that his work has been described as "the most audacious and debatable contribution yet made to American literature" how should his personal revolution in poetry be described? Gary Smidgall is only mentioned in this article, but what meticulous documentation of Whitman's sex life do you think would improve this article? Geeman 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The meticulous documentation I was thinking of would include Schmidgall's book "Walt Whitman: A Gay Life," which I found absolutely convincing, plus his edition of the "Leaves" which revives all the 1860 Calamus poems (Selected Poems 1855-1892: A New Edition), plus a book called "Whitman's Manuscripts," ed. Fredson Bowers, 1955. If you have these books you can follow the same pattern over and over again: in the manuscripts for the 1860 Calamus poems, the language is much bolder, more passionate, more overtly homoerotic---but as these manuscripts move towards publication they get toned down and made "safer." Then, once the 1860 edition had been printed, the whole work began going through a process of more "toning down."

I also think some real mention should be made of the relations between Oscar Wilde and WW, on the one hand, and J.A. Symonds and WW, on the other.

However, putting all this to one side for the moment, the article really has a tremendously tiny discussion of the poetry itself, and a good discussion of the poetry and its themes is essential.

By the way, one of the many excellent things to be found in the Schmidgall edition of the poems is an extensive collection of the original contemporary reviews. Many of those reviewers found the book hateful, a stinking mess cooked up by a man devoted to that sin not to be named among Christians. So--Whitman's reputation certainly did not begin with the Gay Rights Movement.

Would that be interesting -- a short section on the original critical reaction to the poems? JaafarAbuTarab 10:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think that the linkage is unfortunate, and problematic, let's just delete the word "Romantic" and call him an American poet. He is one-of-a-kind, after all, a true original. So I'll delete that one word and see what happens. :-) JaafarAbuTarab 11:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the deletion survived for 29 minutes! JaafarAbuTarab 13:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think classifying Whitman is problematic, but apparently not so much as you. I would not, for instance, consider deleting the term as a descriptor from his biography. It's such a broadly used term that I don't think it necessarily excludes Whitman, and it does put him in a particular period of poetry, so it has its uses. The problems with using the term to describe Whitman might, honestly, be more appropriate to a general subsection in the article on Romaticism rather than addressed (or not) here. Geeman 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But why must we classify him as a Romantic? Or, to put it another way, do we learn more from calling Whitman a "Romantic" poet than we do from calling him a "19th-century poet?" Or, perhaps better, "an innovative poet of the 19th century?" Calling him a "Transcendental" poet would probably be closer to the mark.

And, by the way, I don't think the major anthologies of English literature classify Whitman as a "Romantic" poet. That's why I added the note "citation needed."JaafarAbuTarab 14:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also tempted to remove the references to Pessoa. So what if Pessoa thought Whitman was gay? If Pessoa was a Whitman scholar, it's news to me! But...just so I'm not misunderstood...I'm pretty convinced Whitman was gay. But better sources than Pessoa and Jean Genet are needed.

I also think that the attempt to demonstrate Whitman's homoeroticism through "Song of Myself" may be slightly misguided. The Calamus poems are the place to look, especially the Calamus poems as revised and printed in 1860.

Any objections to removing the references to Pessoa? I'm in no hurry at all. The important thing is to do things right, not to do them quickly!  :-) JaafarAbuTarab 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the article mentioning Pessoa, but I don't think it needs to do so twice.... Doesn't the reference to Saudação belong in the Literature subsection of the Walt_Whitman_in_popular_culture article? Geeman 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

One further note: the section on Whitman's poetry is much, much shorter than the section on his sexuality!

I've lived through the period which held that the Real Life Of The Artist was absolutely irrelevant. That was pretty silly. In my view, the only job of the critic is to establish the biography of the artist, describe the epoch he wrote in, try to determine what his artistic goals were, and then offer some sort of judgement as to whether his works succeeded in reaching his goals.

But it now seems that we are in a new era, where the Real Sex Life of the Artist is much more interesting than any poems he may have scribbled.

This, too, must be remedied. Who else wants to remove all that Bloom-stuff about masturbation? JaafarAbuTarab 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally, I think Bloom is well-read, articulate and passionate about his subject, but wrong more than he's right, and the more signficance there is to the issue he discusses the more likely he is to be dead wrong about it almost as if through some strange, subconscious calculus. He's the kind of guy you specifically DON'T want to have over to babysit your kids because when you get home you'll find one in the oven and two dismembered in the bathroom. He could probably keep a houseplant alive for a few days though.... That said, I think his opinion is worthy of noting if for no other reason than it provides a nice platform for refutation, so I don't think that material should necessarily be deleted from this article except, perhaps, if it were moved into Bloom's biography. Geeman 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you about Bloom. The two Bloomisms that stick in my memory are one to the effect that Shakespeare was the most obvious bisexual in human history (not proved of course) and his casual shifting of Sigmund Freud from the camp of medicine to the camp of literature. (Didn't you know that Freud was a literary figure? You thought he was a doctor?!) Oh, and leaving Ancient Greece out of the canon entirely -- that was another notable Bloomism. JaafarAbuTarab 09:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Whitman and Sexuality

The section on Whitman's sexuality is really terrible as of 6/18/06, but I don't have time to fix it. Writing a good entry on Whitman and sexuality would take a great deal of time. On this subject, all I can do is refer you to my book LOVE STORIES: SEX BETWEEN MEN BEFORE HOMOSEXUALITY (University of Chicago Press, 2001). Jonathan Ned Katz

Yeah, just looking over the sexuality section i can see that theres only really two citations at the end for a large amount of information. This of course makes a very weak case as far as trying to prove that Whitman was a homosexual. --D-Gen 07:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, thanks, Jonathan. I think we can do it without you. Of course, we're probably busy too. It is seriously a mess, though. The basics shouldn't be that difficult. Whitman - almost or entirely - was oriented toward romantic attachments and sexual excitement with other men, generally working class and rough, though Oscar Wilde claimed to have given WW a blowjob when he visited him in Camden. He liked to cruise the waterfront in Manhattan, and his notebooks contain lists of assignations with young men found there. We would call that homosexual now, but the word really wasn't available (and the idea of what that might refer) until just about the time of Whitman's death. As David Reynolds describes in his biography, the 19th C wasn't quite as hung up on what people might be doing with their genitalia as we are now. Of course, homosexuality, when people were forced to confront it, was much more of a scandal then as it is now. Michael Moon's book describes LOG's successive editions as a series of responses to the gradual shift to the emergence of a more regimented sexuality and a hyper-sensitivity to queerness. In any case, yes, British Writer John Symonds [[1]] wrote a famous letter asking WW if LOG was written in part to tell the tale of these homosexuals, and WW replied with a blatant and humongous fib that he was married and had sired many children on this non-existent wife.

He had a long-time companion and lover in Peter Doyle, a Washington, DC trolley driver, and there were a couple other close male companions who were particularly favored over a course of several years. We don't precisely know whether or not they had sex, or what orifice they used, or if and where they ejaculated, but these were relationships characterized by intense emotional affection and, in the case of Doyle, concern with discovery, and anxiety and confusion over gender roles [the notebooks have pronoun references to Peter in the feminine].

Some contemporaries seemed aware of the implicit references in Leaves of Grass to same-sex attraction, and some, British writers Symonds and Edward Carpenter [[2]] in particular, were positive about it, others, such as the literary critic Rufus Griswold, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_Griswold, a little shaken and angry about it. Check the review of the first edition: Griswold recommends having Whitman whipped like a donkey or some such shit.

But in truth, most people - not being particularly curious in that direction, I guess - didn't take notice. This seems to be the case even in his close friends and staunch defenders, John Burroughs [[3]]and Richard Maurice Bucke [[4]], who were apt to write glowing praise of Whitman's manliness and sexuality purity in their books on him. Oddly enough - or perhaps not, Whitman thought himself blameless enough to condemn Burrough's dalliances with farm girls, co-eds, and secretaries that were likely carried out as a consequence of Burrough's wife's apparent complete distaste for heterosexual intercourse.

What did scandalize Whitman's contemporaries were more apt to be his frank descriptions of the body and his references to female sexuality. C.f. "I Sing the Body Electric" and "A Woman Waits for Me." But Whitman's pose as a pan-sexual was also likely to excite some panic: e.g., "A City of Orgies" (real Whitman title!).

Being gay

Was Whitman gay?

I am not a Whitman scholar per se and might have limited knowledge of his precise curriculum vitae, but I find the homosexuality alleged here unsubstantiated and somewhat superficially made; it smacks a little of political programming. I am not claiming that Whitman could not possibly have been homosexual (supposing the topic is of interest at all), but I claim that the text in the relevant section [as per the April 2006 version] is not making a convincing case. There's no conflict between "admiring male friendships" and "erotic descriptions of the male body" with normal full-scale full-blooded male sexuality (i.e. attraction to the fairer sex). Of course Song of Myself is filled with poetic descriptions of the glorious male body -- the text is brimming with poetic descriptions of the glory of nearly everything under and inside the sun (for God's sake), including the equally glorious beauty of the female body. I sharpen my claim, and my criticism of a certain style of reading and interpretation, by saying that readers who consume Song of Myself and conclude `Aha, so he is gay' have not understood the poem. -- Slavatrudu, April 2006.

I have started to expand the article to include more than just the text of one poem and a discussion of his homosexuality. Though these are both important, it seems an oversight that such an important poet has such a brief entry. -- Jessica S.JKillah 20:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention on the current page of Peter Doyle. This seems an extraordinary omission! -- James P

To James P: That's not the only strange thing about this account of Whitman's life! However, the matter of Peter Doyle seems to have been corrected. oldcitycat oldcitycat 05:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the paragraph on Whitman's homosexuality to reflect the uncertain nature of the sources involved. Both are second or third hand accounts, and Gavin Arthur wrote two moderately inconsistant accounts of his affair with Carpenter. It seemed best to note that in brief. At the same time, it also seems to me that there's a growing critical consensus on Whitman's homosexuality. -- Steve Marsden

Who deleted all the information about Walt Whitman being gay? I want it put back up and added to, it is an important aspect of his life and work. (Anonymous Users) May 22, 2006

The section "Whitman and Homosexuality" was deleted by a vandal (User:70.251.179.71) on May 18. Someone else then reverted the vandalizing remarks without restoring what had been deleted. InvisibleSun 07:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The section has been restored. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

The sectio still seems to be far from being neutral, and speculative in many cases. Sources 5 & 6 do not appear to be the most impartial or reliable sources. The references in Song of Myself as well as well seem to be more of the article editor's own poetry explication rather than verified information. This needs a far more neutral viewpoint. Lines such as "The name of the poems alone would have sufficed to convey..." seem to be the editor's own explication. Also, "Whitman's romantic and sexual attraction towards other men is not disputed." seems to step away from neutrality. There is bound to be dispute among scholars, especially considering Whitman's appreciation for all aspects of life without a specific focus on men. It is also interesting that Whitman's sorrow over the death caused by the civil war is given little attention in this article. This does need some cleaning up and less bias.

This discussion is ridiculous. First, homosexuality was an invention of the medical establishment in the 19th century and is somewhat anachronistic, since the development of Whitman's sexuality probably prefigured the invention of the term. Second, if any of the people here would go to his works, in numerous instances Whitman expresses strong physical, emotional, spiritual, and political affection for males, females, and the human species in its collective neuter, so he was almost certainly neither homosexual nor heterosexual (neither of which is normal or abnormal, despite what other commentators in this discussion section assert). Third, the idea of a well-defined sexual conviction that excluded any variety of love for one's fellow human seems anathema to his character and pluralistic convictions. Jstenar 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty argument which unfortunately doesn't hold water. Why? Firstly because there was already a well developed and self-identified homosexual subculture in America at the time (hell, there was a self-identified homosexual subculture in Elizabethan england), and secondly, because if you compare the successive editions of Leaves Of Grass you can see how he very consciously de-gayed (for want of a better word) the early text and made it more universal. See http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/whitman.htm for some further interesting points. Engleham 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

By "homosexuality was an invention of the medical establishment in the 19th century" I assume you mean the term "homosexuality" rather than its practice.... :D In any case, I think you make a valid point in that describing someone like Whitman's sexuality using contemporary terms often results in a pathological categorization process using an overly-simplistic understanding of the Kinsey Scale to the reality of individual variation. Or, more simply, a labelling process that isn't very accurate. "Homosexuality" is a very clinical term, "gay" is political, "queer" even more so. The perjoratives also have their purposes and implications that all detract from their utility when applied to an individual. As the saying goes, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails" (no innuendo intended... maybe) so we wind up applying terms to a person for whom we have a lot of material that expresses a range from his overt sexuality to a generalized, idealistic love of humanity, and it's difficult for such terms to describe the complexity of the reality very well without ourselves dropping into free verse. That said, what's the solution to the problem? There is a lot of information that supports the use of the common understanding of the term "homosexuality" in describing Whitman and his work. I'm sure some effort could be made to use more prudent language in the article (though, after reviewing it just now with an eye towards this issue, I'm not sure where) but I don't think we can really address all the problems of contemporary nomenclature and social mores in an encyclopedic biography and remain truthful to the man without delving into something outside the scope of a biography. A more inclusive description of Whitman's sexuality in reference to the inadequacy of modern terms is a worthy agenda. (Let's recognize that there's an agenda in place, shall we? No need to be coy.) Whitman is as good a place as any to do so, but what specifically would you change about the present article to address the issue? Geeman 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, silly people, by no means did I attempt to argue that homosexual affection or behavior, to wit, sexual attraction or physical sexual contact with a person of similar gender, to be absent prior to the nineteenth century (heck, we can go through Catullus poety in Rome to pedarastic Greek love, if we so wished, but that's not the point). The point is, well-defined monosexual (to coin another term) relationships was a product of, shall I say, narrow-minded pseudoscience of that century. The first usage of the term homosexual did not occur until four years prior to the death of the poet in question: "1892 C. G. CHADDOCK tr. Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis III. 255 He had been free from homo-sexual inclinations. Ibid. 256 The homo-sexual woman offers the same manifestations, mutatis mutandis." (cited OED, 2nd edition). My primary point is that Whitman loved humanity with an expansive and inclusive infatuation that encompassed the erotic and the friendly and was without regard to gender. To grab this big-hearted man and place him in a small-minded prison is not just antihistorical and countertextual but sorry. As for the alleged "degaying"? Pshaw. He had an authorized version published just after his death that included some randy man-on-man love. The point his arguable, and if you wish to argue, we can have a citation battle.Jstenar 06:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Whitman's efforts to mute and suppress the evidence of his homosexuality have provided an endless field for academic papers for the last two decades. Do a Muse search. Believing the public published persona of anyone is the same as their private persona is the first sin of biography. Engleham 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though it is necessary. First, you contradict yourself. You assert above "if you compare the successive editions of Leaves Of Grass you can see how he very consciously de-gayed" and cite a an article in which the authority you cite says the following “But it also resulted in Whitman's realization of the true meaning of his prophecy, and produced the Calamus cluster of poems in the 1860 edition. It was a severe crisis, and Whitman in effect came out” and proceeds to quote from Calamus. So do you believe yourself and the authority you cited that reading poems by an author provides insight into the author, or do you believe what you just wrote and now reject your words above?

Second, I feel comfortable with the sin of imputing fact into the poetry of Walt Whitman for the twofold reason that poetry is a more personal form of literary expression than any other and Walt Whitman was a more personal poet than many others. I wonder how you would explain his poem entitled ‘Walt Whitman.’ Eh? And what are we to make of the subject of “Song of Myself”? It could be possible that Whitman was talking about a hypothetical Whitman, but that is a bit obtuse and the first reading seems to most likely.

Third, how can you say Whitman’s poems are not biographical when Whitman said the following of his own poems: “I found myself remaining possess’d, at the age of thiry-one to thirty-three, with a special desire and conviction…This was a feeling or ambition to articulate and faithfully express in literary or poetic form, and uncompromisingly, my own physical[,] emotional, moral, interllectual, and aesthtic Personality…and to exploit that Personality, identified with place and date, in a far more candid and comprehensive sense than any hitherto poem or book.” (from “A Backward Glance O’er Travel’d Roads” LOG, McKay edition, published 1900, pg 546-547) I am pretty sure that is the most explicit statement of intentional autobiography he could make and the exact opposite of what you say.

Third, you have yet to cite an example of degaying. I have several instances of his assertive gayification of his text. Two easy examples (1) In 1856, in the eighth paragraph of ‘I Sing the Body Electric’ Whitman adds “Have you ever loved the Body of a man?” a year after original publication (1855). Why would he add the question if he was trying to hide his sexual appreciation of men? (2) In 1856, at the tenth line of ‘A Woman Waits for Me’ Whitman writes “Without shame the man I like knows and avows the deliciousness of his sex, / Without shame the woman I like knows and avows hers.” . He revised the poem in 1860 by removing the line “O I will fetch bullly breeds of children yet!” – in effect, equalizing his affection for both men and women rather than emphasizing the procreative functions of intercourse. Interestingly, Whitman changed the name of the poem from “Poem of Procreation” to a more pleasure focused title, de-emphasizing the heterosexual exclusivity of procreation. Given these two revisions, if Whitman were trying to hide degay anything, why didn’t he remove the quite candid assertion that the man “I like” is one who “avows his sex”? And he does not mean just nonerotic maleness, as he specifies near the beginning of the poem that “Sex contains all [including] seminal milk”

In sum, I would continue to assert that Whitman had a much more expansive and complex notion of love than simple homo- or heterosexual desire and that either is a reductive account of his love or, more broadly, his poetry and life. As corollary I would say that he did not try to hide it -- it was his project. Even if he changed the gender in some poems, it would be absurd, given the overwhelming evidence of his broad conception of sex and love, that he was either strictly gay or strictly closeted. Jstenar 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll put the question a bit more directly just to see if we can cut to the chase a bit: What do you propose be done with the article to reflect your view? What exactly is it you think should be changed or articulated more fully, and how do you think it should be done? --Geeman 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I have read every poem in "Leaves of Grass" I feel so inferior to your intellectual discussion; Was Whitman Gay? The only thing I can add, is that wandering the hospitals (oh Civil War) that it would allow him time alone with dying soldiers. With that, he could give each, young or older, soldier a last dying hug and possibly a kiss on the cheek, or other places. While each dying male needed to know that love was there for them in the end, he could conveniently be there at the right time. Hey ya know, you could conclude that he even had preditory motives for men. I mean, after all, he did not ever once (that I know of) write about the female nurses. Well, in any type of driving sexual admiration. Oh, let's don't forget he slept with his retarded brother as a grown man. That makes the argument so more convincing and absolutely true.

Walt writes an entire life on Nature, Animals, Health, Politics, Religion, Capitalism, Racism, Women, Blacks (at the time), Indians, Family, and of course Love and Sex. I apologize most sincerely, that I did not ever piok up on "today I am jetting the the stuff of far more arrogant republics" was referring to seminal milk. Seminal Milk? Are you serious?

Do your parents know you are staying up late, and participating in this type of uh, uh, intelectual review? Gee, sure hope the grown-up sites don't pick up on Walt Whitman, as being a search word for those big people sites.

This discussion is the same 1st level analyzing that was happening when Congress wanted to ban his books for being unacceptable. Really, thought I would read some intellectual insight of his wonderful control with his (where does it come from) gift of metaphor.

Walt Whitman's writing is beautiful, and read with deliberate emotion it will "bouey you up with tremendous breath" and strength along with a great feel that sex can not ever do.

My intellectual contribution to this discussion is, well uh, nothing. I can just say, for me, that his writing is damn great. Can, or will there ever be someone with a poetic voice, that can change poetic structure and rythym to touch our emotions with such powerful artistic genius?

My apologies for no contribution, and just my frustration of your "Being Gay" discussion of Walt Whitman.

Whitman has been discovered by queer scholars to be bisexual and one of the first queer writers/poets.

Whitman was bisexual, and some would argue that he was more attracted to men than to women, though he constantly praised the beauty of both and expressed desires to make love to both. This ability to find both sexes erotically stimulating aided him in writing many of his most beautiful poems, such as "I Sing the Body Electric". In the 1950 Random House edition of 'Leaves of Grass', John A. Kouwenhoven's introduction states: "This anomalous sexuality of Whitman's is too central to his personality, too profoundly interwoven in the 'Leaves', to be ignored." I agree, and I sometimes wonder how many self-proclaimed "libertarians" are comfortable with Whitman's vision of sexual freedom.

"The love of the body of man or woman balks account, the body

   itself balks account,

That of the male is perfect, and that of the woman is perfect."

How many people are secure enough in themselves to make such a statement? How wonderful it would be if more people, no matter what their sexuality, could internalize such an attitude.

And in a culture that mindlessly worships youth and degrades it, that elevates young flesh above all else, these lines from his short poem, "Beautiful Women" are also a relief to read, such a relief that they bring tears to my eyes:

"Women sit or move to and fro, some old, some young, The young are beautiful--but the old are more beautiful than the

   young."

And how about this, from "I Sing the Body Electric", in which Whitman praises the beauty and vigor of an eighty-year-old grandfather:

"You would wish long and long to be with him, you would wish to

   sit by him in the boat that you and he might touch each other."

Jesse Jackson reference

It seems perverse to link Jesse Jackson to Walt Whitman in these terms (traces). Jesse is working entirely out of the rhetorical tradition of Black Protestantism. James Weldon Johnson, on the other hand, may well (I might even go so far as 'probably does') represent a merging of Whitman and that tradition. --MichaelTinkler

It was an intuitive leap on my part to carry the link to Jackson. It may be wrong but I do not think it is perverse. The kind of almost hypnotic repetition used by Whitman and so favored by black preachers evolved, I think, into an art form in the 1870's and 80's (JWJ took inspiration from the published sermons of those days), and it may be that Whitman picked up some of his cadence from the preachers and they from him.--Red Bowen

To Red Bowen: Hypnotic repetition is a technique much entrenched in the Bible..and many other religious books. oldcitycat 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have retracted the use of Jackson as too much of a stretch.--Red

Black Protestantism is not a far reaching relative of Whitman's verse, as he alluded to the Bible and Jesus in his works and repeatedly invoked Black Protestant traditions, including the spiritual, and the abolitionist movement.

Whitman, Emerson, and the Trancendentalists

It'd be good to have some discussion of Whitman's relationship to Emerson and the transcendentalists. Atorpen

To Atorpen: Certainly the case. I really find the article itself to be very deficient. I have corrected the 'stroke sentence'..Whitman did not have a stroke while visiting his mother. He had it while working and living in Washington, D.C.. (Anyone can check this against the usual biographies, e.g. Justin Kaplan's "Walt Whitman, A Life". ) And certainly Emerson was singularly important to Whitman in many ways.

I'm new here too. I used to look up Wiki entries for dates or general information using google. Now that I look at Wikipedia closely, I'm really puzzled by some of the procedures and some of the entries. oldcitycat 19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Me Imperturbe

Emerson wrote Whitman a letter praising him and without premission, Whitman published the letter in one of his books. That's Walt for you. He and Emerson were friends and met at least once in Boston, in Boston Common.

What's this.."That's Walt for you." ? Who put this comment in here?oldcitycat 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

":Emerson wrote Whitman a letter praising him and without premission, Whitman published the letter in one of his books. That's Walt for you. He and Emerson were friends and met at least once in Boston, in Boston Common." I reckon Emerson would not have liked Wikipedia. BTW Walt and Waldo (he hated being called Ralph) had an interesting friendship worth a few books that haven't yet been written. oldcitycat 19:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the Viereck/Carpenter claim? --Dph 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Waldo Emerson was not a 'naturalist'. He was a philosopher and essayist.He also wrote poems. (whether you think of him as a poet..would depend a lot on your taste in poetry) Check e.g. Walt Whitman, a Life by Justin Kaplan..and some books on Emerson .(correction made) 24.49.97.95 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity..would someone (who worked on the Walt Whitman wikification) explain what this means: "(Walt)inherited his liberal intellectual and political attitudes largely from his father",... who allegedly introduced Walt to various writers.. How do you inherit intellectual and political attitutes? Walt was mostly self-taught after he escaped the horrors of the Lancaster Monitorial school he attended until he was twelve. oldcitycat 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It was Emerson that actually identified Whitman's greatness. While Whitman was being rebuffed by everyone else, Whitman was discovered by Emerson, and Whitman acknowledged this when he said "I was simmering, simmering, simmering, and Emerson brought me to a boil."Sage 1133 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Captain

Is the entire "O Captain, My Captain" poem really necessary in Whitman's biography? 134.53.166.124 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Harold Bloom

Someone added this paragraph: "Harold Bloom in "The Western Canon" considers that although Whitman was primarily attracted to his own sex, it is possible that Whitman never had physical relations with another person, and considers it certain that his primary expressions of sexuality throughout his life were onanistic."

Of all the critical attempts to anomalize Whitman's sexuality, this would have to be one of the most obtuse. I've deleted the paragraph because unless a separate section is added to the article on the analysis of Whitman by critics, allowing the speculation of just one is an imbalance. In addition, the article already includes the words: "However, whether or not Whitman had sexual relationships with men has been the subject of some critical disagreement." (Admittedly, for some people there can never be enough denial.) The history of Whitman criticism is a minefield of stupidity and evasion, and Bloom has fierce critics himself. The article should stick to verifiable facts. And finally, I think the way the article is constructed at the moment it ends rather brilliantly, with a superb quote that lets individuals draw their own conclusions.Engleham

I'd disagree. The previous paragraph already contains speculation: that is the nature of the subject. What IS needed is to show the range of bona-fide conclusions people have come to so the reader can get a sense of the present state of knowledge (or ignorance). Cute endings I can take them or leave them. RuthieK 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you wish your redundant Bloom reference to survive, you will need to balance it (if not its gobsmacking idiocy) by referencing at least one scholar with an opposing point of view on Whitman's sexuality, such as Schmidgall. Until such time the paragraph will be removed.

Engleham

Sorry luv, the concept of balance seems staggeringly novel for you and difficult to grasp, but we'll press on. Pretend this is being said very slowly: you still haven't provided an opposing argument referencing another scholar. In short: you've listed two for "wanking but celibate" (Celibate? The bloke who wrote "Give me now libidinous joys only"? Oh, whatever.) So now come up with two for sucking or fucking. See how it goes? Messy. The article was far more elegant previously.

Engleham

You say it's not a school debate: neither is it a bullying session. You can stamp your hoof and write ""There is no other side" all you like, but if you wish to push this homophobic crap into the article you're going have to name and provide equal ground to those scholars who argue Whitman was actively sexual. Shively, Schmidgall, whoever. You could even include Katz, given his comment at the top this page. It's your choice. Schmidgall is on the record as finding Bloom's thesis "hilarious". To take a phrase from Song Of Myself: "Dash me with amorous wet. I can repay you!" Ditto.

Engleham

Curious. You seem to be the one who is bullying, saying what can and cannot be said. And in no way was the paragraph homophobic. I have changed it to remove an speculation about how active he was with others. If you wish to provide evidence to contradict the sources cited, please do. That rather than peremptory censorship is the rational and civilized way to proceed. Your prose and your overheated manner are the opposite of 'elegant'. RuthieK 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Your prose and your overheated manner are the opposite of 'elegant'." Guess what: I don't do elegant for your type. "And in no way was the paragraph homophobic." Denying America's most sexual poet a sex life is implicitly homophobic. Not to mention pig dumb. To address your latest attempt: "Whitman is perhaps the first western write to speak in praise of masturbation". WTF is that supposed to mean? Do you mean 'writer'? So: having denied Whitman a sex life, you now deny the existence of auto-erotic hymnists like De Sade or Rochester? Christ! And still more: "it is certain that his primary expressions of sexuality throughout his life were onanistic". It's not CERTAIN at all: it's mere speculation. I can pick out a dozen phrases from Whitman that suggest he was an active sexual cruiser...and that's without touching on his extraordinary relationships with Civil War soldiers. Once again I've deleted your sad little paragraph. No, I'm not rewriting it for you. It's not up to me to fix your sloppy writing or your thinking. But it's a bloody education in the closing of the American mind to read it.

Engleham

you seem determined to show yourself off as the Ernst Rohm of WikipediaRuthieK 10:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, cunMiss Coulter.

Engleham

there should be more on whitman's visions of america. the american literature page has a decent summary.

UC Davis Professor's Comments

The following text has been added twice to the introduction for this article, once by anonymous user 75.30.65.110 and again by 71.137.195.47:

 Professor [[Steven Suttles Stone]] of [[U C Davis]],
 University of California Davis, states that although Whitman's
 poems show good meaning and spirituality, his sexual feelings
 are shown in some of his poems, such as "Leaves of Grass", or
 "Song of Myself". He says that the sexuality is connected to
 Democracy, in which he states in his articles.

This kind of information is more appropriate to the section on Whitman's sexuality not the introduction. It's also not particularly well written or scholarly. Professor Stone of UC Davis makes no particular points by pointing out that Whitman's poems "show good meaning and spirituality" nor that his "sexual feelings" are shown in his work. None of those things are unique enough insights to warrent attributing them to the good professor (especially without actual article titles in a Work Cited list.) --Geeman 10:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Walt Whitman

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 16:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Walt Whitman and Walmart?

It appears that someone is editing without thinking. This of course is a completely unfounded statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.229.89.160 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Neutrality

Even after reading some of the above discussion, I don't quite grasp why there is a neutrality warning in the sexuality section. Even the article states that "Whitman's romantic and sexual attraction towards other men is not disputed.", and as a scholar of American literature I can assure you that this point is beyond debate. Put me in the picture, please. --Janneman 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think the problem really is with the controversial nature of the subject rather than its neutrality. I think the warning first came about as a result of unanswered comments by Harold Bloom, but now that those comments are at least "balanced" by some response the tag should probably go away. In general, though, I'm thinking that that whole section should be rewritten as it is kind of a jumble.... Geeman 12:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious where the assertion that "amative" and "adhesive" love is equated with "heterosexual" and "homosexual" love comes from, along with the assertion that Whitman had ideas about "the convergence of homosexuality and democracy." In all my reading of and about Whitman, I understood that "amative" love was meant as amorous, and "adhesive" love was love among friends and community. I don't disagree with anything else in this section, but associating amativeness and adhesiveness strictly with sexuality doesn't seem to have any basis, and calls the neutrality of the second paragraph into question, in my opinion.jeff.lopez-stuit 03:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Onanism subheading

Could we give the rationale for removing the Onanism subheading at a little more length here? The sentence in the subject/heading line of the edit strikes me as being insufficient. What I'm specifically looking for is some substantial reasoning behind removing that subheading. As the original version stands (and stood for some time) onanism is given its own little section under Whitman's sexuality. Which, it seems to me, is appropriate as masturbation is a subsection of sexuality [if I recall correctly--it's been a while since I read Kinsey. :)] Whitman's views and poetry on this subject are, really, not in question are they? We have plenty of material to refer to on the subject. Perhaps the solution is to break that section up into at least two or three subsections with an introduction? "Homosexuality", "Onanism" and "Art and Political Interpretation" or something like that? Would that satisfy the subheading issue? Geeman 12:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Whitman really both denounce and praise masturbation, as the current text claims?--Per Abrahamsen 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is the only place I've heard of those comments.... Geeman 13:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's plain ridiculous and a fantastic example of why no one in academia will ever take Wikipedia seriously. Have fun though. Yours truly, --Janneman 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sei mutig!" und änder' es.. <eg> --80.136.188.44 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole onanism nonsense was demanded by the querelous Harold Bloom fangurl, RuthieK. She has since departed Wikipedia (the pressing demands of tending mangy cats?), but not before deleting many of her more hysteric contributions. Pity she didn't delete this wankery as well. Engleham 13:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Amative" and "Adhesive" Love

There is ample evidence that the terms "amative" and "adhesive" when describing types of love and attraction, trace their origins to the Nineteenth Century pseudo-science of Phrenology. It has been suggested that these terms loosely describe heterosexual and homosexual attraction in the years before Karoly Maia Kertbeny coined the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual." The controversy about Whitman's sexuality persists because of the supposed absense of a "smoking gun." That Whitman was gay can be extrapolated by the exhaustive research into his life. The poems themselves provide clues and even clear evidence of homosexual attractions, desires and tendencies. More importantly, we know that Walt's life was full of the pursuit of male affection. Read not only Charles Shively, Jonathan Ned Katz, et al but even the earlier biographers like Gay Wilson Allen. Whitman's tender embraces and kisses with Civil War soldiers, cruising the streets of Washington and describing how handsome one was or effeminate another fellow cruiser was, receiving a letter from one soldier asking how he can pursue a career as a gay hustler or find a male house of prostitution, etc, etc ad infinitum -- all point to a conclusion that Walt Whitman was not a heterosexual guy. I am wondering aloud if this tiresome debate which should have been put to rest decades ago has at it's core a homophobic attempt to deny the gay community a right to claim Whitman as one of their own? Buddmar 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Buddmar

Onanism extrapolation

I've removed the following text from the article as it is pretty speculative and "out there." If anyone has some sort of substantial support for this kind of thing, though, I'd be happy to hear it....

Some actually postulate that Whitman's oninism refers to the occult art of Sigil magic, in which a powerful chaos magician utilizes the gnosis induced by his orgasm to send forth his will into the universe.

Geeman 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so Whitman was gay. Nothing wrong with that. But what was wrong was that somebody deleted all the info about that!

walt Whitman ms 246

their is a middle school named after Whitman in Flatbush Brooklyn i would like if an article was written about it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pctopgs (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

New category for Whitman poems

Please consider adding Whitman's works to Category:Poetry by Walt Whitman. Thanks! Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Influence on Later Poets"

"Walt Whitman's influence on contemporary American poetry is so fundamental that it has been said that American poetry divides into two camps: that which naturally flows from Whitman and that which consciously strives to accept it."

"...it has been said..." Said by whom? It seems an unsourced statement to me. -134.241.189.2 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Marquis Lafayette named incorrectly

The article mentions Marquis Lafayette but he renounced his aristocratic title in 1790:

"One advantage of living in Brooklyn was that Whitman saw many of the famous people of the day when they visited nearby New York City. Thus he saw President Andrew Jackson and Marquis de Lafayette.[4]"

From the Lafayette artical: "His full name is seldom used in the United States, where he is usually known as "General Lafayette" or simply "Lafayette" (his preferences and as written on his birth certificate), but sometimes is called "the Marquis de Lafayette" (mistakenly or maliciously, in references after 1790 since he permanently renounced the nobility title in 1790"

Shouldn't this be changed as it's an incorrect usage of the title as he is mentioned in a period past 1790 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.192.102 (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Walt Whitman a pseudonym?

If somebody has been christened 'Walter Whitman' you can't say 'Walt Whitman' is a pseudonym. Soczyczi 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer Clean-Up

This entry needs to be an A-Class entry. I am willing to spend a month or so creating a comprehensive entry for his biography, career, politics, and literary output -- inclusive of prose and verse -- if that sounds good. I can also address the discussions from this page, of course, and preserve the argument that obtains about Whitman in popular and academic fora. 67.161.17.53 (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see someone wants to put some real, honest effort into this page - poor Walt is plagued by vandals, which is a bit discouraging to more legitimate editors. I recently bought a biography of Whitman so I may help out. The trick here will to cite sources like crazy. We should start by finding sources that support what's already here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been making some substantial progress (I believe) in the improvement of this article. In the past three weeks or so, I've added lots of references to the biographical section, particularly trying to cut back on using the dictionary that was previously the main source (and did not provide specific page numbers for each citation). The information in those citations was generally correct, by the way, but I just don't see a dictionary as the best source. From here, I would love some help in further improving the section on Whitman's influence as well as the information under the new "Lifestyle and beliefs" heading - particularly the sexuality section, which is a jumbled competition of information (Is Harold Bloom so notable that he deserves to be discussed so much?). I'm also hoping to find more information about Whitman's theories on hygiene - I seem to remember that he was one of the few people in the 19th century that advocated taking a bath every day. Anyone have sources for that? Anyway, I'm sorta flying solo right now, so any help is appreciated as I'd love to see this get to Good Article status soon. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So I'm almost done with fully referencing the entire biography section (whew! what a workout!)... the next step will be the Lifestyle and beliefs section and the Legacy section. Collaboration welcome and encouraged! Please! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Biography is fully sourced! Sexuality subsection needs serious attention - I ripped out all the unsourced stuff or stuff that came from blatantly biased sources. I did similar work on the Legacy section. Part of me thinks that the sexuality question could even be a separate forked article... I could use some help if anyone is offering! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Midnightdreary. The organization here is much more rational and succinct. I think, however, the entry may deserve a greater length and detail, though not much, considering his import in the American canon (I can't think of a more influential poet besides Dickenson), and, yes, a reduction of the sexuality section. Great work. glad to see that no one has decided to auto-bot it to death back to the old version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.223.49 (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, there are certain sections that still need some work, especially Legacy. But (I think) it's still substantially better than it was! I'm backing off on the article for a while, but I'll be back to add here and there. Thanks for checking in! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Pretty darn good article here! A quick review just makes me think that this article could use a copy-edit by someone who hasn't looked over it yet, several places have either grammatical problems or wording problems. Nothing too big, just small stuff. Also I'm wondering if there is any more that could be added about his works. A bibliographical list of his writings or maybe an outline of more recent critical acclaim of his works? Anyway, I'm putting the article on hold to give time for these things to be fixed up. Good luck. Wrad (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for getting to it so quickly. I'm gonna see if I can find someone to look it over. As for a bibliography, not sure it's useful - just about everything he wrote is incorporated into Leaves of Grass, so it'd be a short bibliography. Hopefully I'll be able to expand the Legacy section, and that will hit on what I think you're looking for as far as "critical acclaim". --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also been thinking that the last paragraph of the lead is a bit skimpy. There's a lot more to mention than just his sexuality, isn't there? Wrad (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a line in there about his legacy but the section it refers to is weak. As such, a collaborator on this page took out that line. Let me see if I can come up with something that would make a good 3rd sentence there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, a request has been made to the League of Copy Editors to take a look at this, though I've done some copy editing myself. Hopefully they'll drop by soon and clean up what I missed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The LoCE has done a fair amount of copy editing so it looks like it's good to go! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Any update on this review? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's GA now. I do think that mentioning references at his funeral in the lead is a bit too specific, though. Sorry for the delay. Wrad (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you make a good point. I included it because the article gives the funeral a decent amount of weight, enough that I figured it worth mentioning. Hopefully we can improve this lede. Thanks for everything! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. By references I meant refreshments! Wrad (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I've already eaten! :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

References?

Hey all, I've been looking over the article a bit today with an eye for copyedit and I noticed in the refs that some area full cites whilst others are just author/page. I propose moving the remaining full refs into the bibliography section and making them author/page refs in the notes section....what do you guys think? I don't want to be too pushy  :) Lazulilasher (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, the article looks pretty good. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. I only left the few remaining full cites because they are only referenced once, as opposed to the five main sources which are repeated multiple times. I don't feel particularly strongly about one way over the other, but this is the referencing method that I used on the two articles I brought to FA. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha...well, they're fairly easy to read now, so let's just keep them as-is unless a reviewer requests otherwise. They're very concise and easy to read. I'll try and compare to the MOS later today and see if there's any room for improvement. Looks good. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Tuberculosis???

I think the correct term is miliary tuberculosis. There is no such thing as "military" TB except in the minds of people who don't know the word "miliary" exists. Is this a typo in Wikipedia or in the original? (Because a typo it must be!) --NellieBly (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the source in front of me, but my guess is that you are correct... "military" TB exists only in the minds of people who don't know the word "miliary" exists... and those who are prone to the occasional typo. I'll make the change. Great catch! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whitman and sexuality

2008-03-27 I have lept into the fray! This section seemed to me to be trying to downplay Whitman's vast experience with men and overplay the speculation that he had sex with women. I don't see the need to do that. He loved men, and loved women, but preferred to spend most of his time with men. When Emerson came to visit, he took Emerson to have a beer with his fireman buddies at the Lafayette Hook And Ladder Company, not to a lady's at-home.

Homosexual and Heterosexual personalities were invented in 1868 - true to his time, Whitman thought of himself as manly, not as heterosexual or homosexual. I've added a reference to "Intimate Matters - a history of sexuality in America" a scholarly examination of the evolution of sexual identities in America.

Whitman seemed to respond to the intensified demonization of homosexual activity in the late 1800s by emphasizing his past heterosexual experience. His later claims don't always match up with what is known of his earlier life. This article should label facts as facts, speculation as speculation and unsupported claims as unsupported claims. EdgarCarpenter (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Edgar Carpenter

Thanks for diving in! I agree the section was in need of help. Not sure about your final sentence there; the section was referenced like crazy, as is the entirety of the article, much more than even some Featured articles. Claims from Whitman were clearly marked as claims, and speculation is left in the words of the speculator (i.e. David S. Reynolds, Oscar Wilde)... none of it is meant to be conclusive. I think the discussion of sexuality should be careful to show that this question in regards to Whitman was complicated, not cut and dry as some like to believe. I'm going to clean up what you did and remove some non-neutral language ("it is interesting to note..."). Thanks for taking a look. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent changes, Midnightdreary - much better. I'm still working on staying neutral, and appreciate any correction when I go astray. My comment about speculation was a response to the slant of different paragraphs in the version that inspired men to jump in. It seemed that the language used assumed that Whitman was probably not engaged in homosexual activities because there was no firm evidence, but that he probably WAS engaged in heterosexual activities although there was no firm evidence. Since heterosexuality can't be assumed as a default position, I changed those comments, and you've left my changes in, so I'm assuming those efforts towards neutrality were ok. You're absolutely right that the question is complex here. People had very different ideas about sex and sexual expression than we do, with big differences between social groups; the city had many more men than women due to unbalance immigration, so working men lived in a very "guys night out" environment, and wherever there are lots of men together the dynamics shift towards homoeroticism, and on and on - so I just now added a link to a writer who cites lots of evidence for homosexual experience, to balance the particular assertion by the biographer "Loving" who was referenced.

Anyway, thanks again for your help! EdgarCarpenter (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Edgar Carpenter

You make a good point about balancing speculation - one should not be pushed above the other. Though, we shouldn't discredit Whitman himself either: he never gave word-of-mouth evidence that he was gay, but he did give word-of-mouth evidence that he wasn't. He's the one who is suggesting a shift in balance. I worked on this article for a good month and a half starting last December and knew that I was leaving plenty of work to be done in the discussion of Whitman's sexuality and his legacy (which should be our next collaboration!). I just want to suggest care in choosing which resources you use for citations. As this is currently approved at "Good" status and may even be on the cusp of Featured, I personally like to rely on ink-and-paper sources as much more verifiable and reliable than web-based sources (after all, anyone can put up a web site, but not just anyone can print a 600-page tome, as did Jerome Loving, one of the best Whitman biographies I've come across, probably second only to David Reynolds). Anyway, onward! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

the web page I linked to quotes from two ink-on-paper books I read long ago, based on Whitman's original manuscripts and journals - both by Charles Shively, "Calamus Lovers: Walt Whitman's Working Class Camerados" and "Drum Beats: Walt Whitman's Civil War Boy Lovers". The evidence is clear that Whitman self-censored throughout his career, and changed genders from male to female in some poems prior to publication, and even in some entries in his journals. He didn't, however, change genders from female to male before publication - all the changes brought his poems more in line with the morality of the day.

And his response that he had fathered 6 children was given when he was very old, to a stranger who had asked him if homosexual sex was part of his concept of "comrades". Has anyone ever found any basis for his one-time claim of 6 children? No, and lots of people have looked. Is it reasonable to think that he would only say such a thing once if it were true? No, given his unconventional view of the world, he would much more likely have embraced any children he fathered, and would have brought them into his life, or at least into his poems.

So no, I don't think you can take Whitman at face value on some of these things. The context of his responses is important. The long list of men, strangers to him, that he'd met on the street, gone home with, and slept with - they're right there in his journals, spread over several years - seem more compelling to me than what could have been an old and tired man's response to a topic he had no energy to fight for any more. You just can't say Whitman never gave any evidence of being homosexually active without ignoring his published and unpublished poems, his journals, his letters, the evidence of separate people at separate times who said they had sex with him, and on and on.

He was not gay in the sense of having a modern gay identity. But you can see through the evolution of his poems in different editions, and through his journals and letters and all, that his own identity was evolving and his concept of comrades was in some ways a precursor to what we would recognize as a gay identity today.

What puzzles me is why this should be controversial to anyone any more. Why would anyone want to suppress or ignore all that evidence? Scoutmasters quote him, policemen quote him, soccer moms quote him, Lesbians quote him, transgendered people quote him - no one can lay exclusive claim to Whitman, he doesn't lend himself to factionalism.

But one of the many things that he did do was write about love and lust between men in a new way, and that enriched the whole culture. Our world today is different because of his influence on generations of men who loved men, which is why this section of his entry is important to lots of men now - even, or especially, the ones who don't think of themselves as gay or bi, but who feel a strong affinity for Whitman's view of men's sexuality with other men. I know several men like that.

You were so right when you said this sub topic is complex!

EdgarCarpenter (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear... I really don't care for debating this issue. These discussion pages are really only for discussing the improvement of the article, not for discussing the article's subject matter. You have to be careful about giving your opinion vs. presenting the opinions of published, reliable sources. So, let's not do the "I think" stuff, as it's irrelevant here (I started responding with my own "I think..." but, I stopped myself!). --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was discussing the issue of sourcing - I'm sorry if I was unclear, and you read it as giving my personal opinions about Whitman. My intent was to give you more information about the sources I cited, because you were concerned that a website was not as good as ink and paper. If the website is based on Whitman's original manuscripts and journals, and it references ink and paper sources which have stood the test of professional critics for twenty years, it should be acceptable here. I will, however, get the Shively books and add chapter and verse quotes and references where appropriate.

I absolutely agree with you that one has to be careful about one's sources, which was also why I discussed Whitman's journal entries about sleeping with strangers vs Whitman's claim to fatherhood in old age. It's quite possible that both are true, but the journal entries which were consistent over time have more weight to historians than one uncharacteristic claim that scholars have found no corroborating evidence for. I was not debating Whitman's sexuality - we can't ask him to clarify our questions, all we have is what he left behind. I was discussing what he left behind, and how to evaluate it's likely truth as a reflection of his activities, which is completely relevant to an encyclopedia entry.

I'm making one further change today to Loving citation 121 - in the cited passage Loving says that the "I've had 6 children" claim was uncorroborated, which is significant, non-opinion-based information. Have a great weekend - it's supposed to be fine weather here in NYC, so I probably won't check in again till next week. EdgarCarpenter (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[following rant was based on a wrong reading of page history - Midnightdreary had not removed the text. Appology below - EC] Midnightdreary - I checked your Loving citation because that's what people do when they want to see the original of something that's quoted. That's the whole purpose of citations.

And starting on page 122, and continuing on page 123, where you picked up the "6 children" quote, Loving very clearly says:

"Binns speculated in 1905 that while in New Orleans Whitman fell in love with "some woman of higher social rank than his own - a lady of the South where social rank is of the first consideration - that she became the mother of his child, ...and that he was prevented by some obstacle, presumably of family prejudice, from marriage or the acknowledgment of his paternity"19 Binns had absolutely no evidence to support his theory except the uncorroborated statement of the poet in a letter written to John Addington Symonds on August 21, 1890, to wit: "Tho' always unmarried I have had six children - two are dead ...""

Yes, Mr. Loving said "no evidence to support his theory except the uncorroborated statement of the poet" on page 123. Which clearly supports my phrase "he made the uncorroborated claim".

You didn't like MY citation for the fact that Whitman's assertion of fatherhood has never been corroborated, from Shively's work, and you removed it. I felt that was unfair, but I checked your own sources, to see if Loving DID have some corroboration that Whitman's statement was true. I found that Loving and Shively said exactly the same thing, and Loving said it in the same sentence that you yourself partially quoted - but you deleted the fact again.

Please leave it in this time, or remove the whole fatherhood quote. What I wrote is a more accurate representation of your own citation, and reflects the consensus of historians about that particular claim. EdgarCarpenter (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it; It was someone else (check edit history before lecturing me :). I agree, it was kind of awkward so I went in and made it look better. This should please people. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do appologize!! I looked at the wrong page history. I will refrain from checking back when I am sleepy in the future. Yes, I hope your new wording satisfies everyone, and thank you. EdgarCarpenter (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Just because he called Spiritualism "humbug", doesn't mean the exact feeling could be generalized toward all religions. After all, many practicing Spiritualists of Whitman's day were actual fraudsters, who deliberately fooled people for monetary gain. It does not follow that his particular feeling about Spiritualism should "show Whitman's [general] religious skepticism".--Pharos (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's from the cited source but I've worded it more sensibly so there's less of a "conclusion" statement feel to it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thing is that deism is not the belief that "all religions are equally true"; deism is closer to "God exists in an abstract way, but otherwise all religions are equally false". No that Whitman couldn't hold both beliefs at once. But the specific belief that "all religions are equally true" is some sort of pantheism, not deism.--Pharos (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On a lark, there seem to be a number of books that discuss Whitman and pantheism (actually more than discuss Whitman and deism). I'm not sure if or how this should be mentioned, though.--Pharos (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it

Now that there has been a sudden surge of interest in this article, might I recommend we all collaborate to bring this up to Featured quality? Who else watches this page that would like to give it a go? Frankly, I have no interest in going it alone after two very, very difficult previous FAs (Edgar Allan Poe and "The Raven"). Those reviews can be brutal. I had recently asked for a review from the LGBT project, hoping they'd review it for A-class but I don't think much came of it. Anyway, who's in?? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I can help a bit around the corners, but I really don't consider myself any kind of expert on his life and work.--Pharos (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the concerns we get will be in regards to the language / wording. So between the three of us who have an active interest in this article, we should be able to (first) run through a quick copy-edit ourselves and (second) respond to any suggestions / criticisms / comments during the FAC review. A review would probably be about three weeks, often longer. Should we give it a go? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in a similar situation as User:Pharos above. I will contribute as much as I can to the language and phrasing of the article, though I'm not familiar with the many aspects of his life. But I would certainly enjoy fixing up the article as I can, and as others suggest. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You folks have already made some great edits which my eyes weren't able to see! After this weekend, I will put it up for FA - your help in responding to the reviewers would be much appreciated. Hopefully, it will pass and we will all have a big accomplishment we can share the credit for. My guess is the responses will relate to poor writing here and there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

Anyone who is willing to watch the review for featured article, please add Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Whitman to your watchlist. Looking forward to it! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm being asked to withdraw this nomination or a previous one because I'm not supposed to have multiple active noms. I don't really intend to withdraw anything but if someone could tack their name onto the Whitman nom it looks like I'll be okay. Maybe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidacy closed. But at least we have some helpful suggestions. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

full name?

I noticed "Walter" was changed back to "Walt", and it got me thinking. What, precisely, was Walt Whitman's full birth name? His birth certificate must be available someplace. I understand he used Walt later in his life, "writing stories and sketches for periodicals under his full name, Walter Whitman, after which he discarded "Walter" for Walt"[5], but he surely must have had a middle name. This is important information, as though Wikipedia doesn't use official names in page titles (Bill Gates), it prefers them in the page introduction (William Henry Gates III). CaseyPenk (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

His full name is "Walter Whitman" - he got the nickname "Walt" to distinguish from his father, also named Walter. As far as I know, he had no middle name. Why must he surely have had one? (I don't, for example) I can further confirm that with my friend who works at the Whitman House in Camden, if you give me a few days. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I suppose it was just an assumption, perhaps influenced by the fact that I have 2 middle names. Understandable. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FA

I believa that this article can easy become featured one.--Vojvodaeist 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Our last attempt was withdrawn within a day or two because the sections on his writing and his legacy were weak. I agree; we can probably continue to bulk up a bit then give it another shot. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

McDonald Clarke

I'd appreciate it if people interested in this article would consider whether it should link to McDonald Clarke, apparently an influence on WW. (And or, if interested in these sorts of people, consider checking/subbing the MC article. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We would certainly need a source that makes the connection, especially if it gives more specific information on the influence (i.e. poetic structure? themes? lifestyle?). --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference 1 (the reference in the "influences section", to Higgins, Andrew C., McDonald Clarke's Adjustment to Market Forces: A Lesson for Walt Whitman) is probably what you are seeking ... is there something more than this that I'm missing - that source was in place when you wrote, Midnightdreary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Any source will do. I'm not sure how the source was in place as the article makes no reference to McDonald Clarke right now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The source was in place on the McDonald Clarke article. Shall we take it from the top: The MC article states that MC was an influence on WW. Would the WW authors wish to link to the said MC article? I'd normally just stick a link into WW to promote "my" article, but that seems a but rude in this instance, which is why I'd rather those interested in WW make the decision.

I see what you're saying; I didn't realize you were talking about Clarke's article. Since you know more about Clarke's influence on Whitman than I do, feel free to add it in with your source. I think it would make the most sense under the section discussing his "Writing". Like several other editors on Wikipedia, I strongly urge against using the "influences/influenced" sections on the writer infobox; a deeper discussion in the prose is more sensible. I leave it to you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll add a link much later today. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protected?

I've only done minor editing on Wikipedia articles is the past, so this is the first time I've encountered a page that doesn't allow edits. I assume others of you have a better understanding of how the various "blocking" and "unblocking" provisions work, and I'd be grateful for a quick explanation—I'm finding Wikipedia's internal documentation impenetrable, at least in this regard. ~ Bbarney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarney (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's likely the article that is locked, rather than your account being blocked, but I could be wrong. Some pages which are subject to excessive vandalism (like Whitman's) are occasionally temporarily locked out and can be edited only by long-established editors (i.e. either by length of time as a contributor or by number of edits). If there's anything you can see that should be corrected or added in the meantime, feel free to leave a note here or on my own talk page. Hope that helps! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to collaboration

Apparently, an editor feels very strongly that Whitman's opinion on the Shakespeare authorship question does not belong on this article. As Wikipedia is based on collaboration and the standard method is be bold, revert, and discuss (rather than this editor's method of be bold, revert, then revert the reversion because you're obviously right and the other editors are wrong), I've brought it to this discussion page. The section in question is retained below. Discuss away. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whitman was a proponent of the Shakespeare authorship question, refusing to believe in the historic attribution of the works to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. Whitman comments in his November Boughs (1888) regarding Shakespeare's historical plays:

Conceiv'd out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism -personifying ill unparalleled ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic caste, with its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) -only one of the "wolfish earls" so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works -works in some respects greater than anything else in recorded literature."

Contrary to your snarky little note luv, I discussed the reasons for the original edit and revert:

First note: Removed paragraphs on Whitman's Shakespeare authorship belief as inconsequential in context.

Second note: Whitman's opinion on Shakespeare authorship as irrelevant to entry as his opinions on Lord Byron.

I don't think I can be more explicit. It's bumpf. Self evident bumpf I would have thought, but if you wish to waste a moment opening up a thread to discuss the relevance of two paragraphs on Whitman's Baconite opinion to a general entry on his life and achievement, go right ahead. However, I have the more pressing engagement of navel fluff to remove. Engleham (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for my snarkiness above; I can only excuse myself due to a slight morning grogginess. Even so, discussion is not done through edit summaries but on discussion pages. Remember, we discuss to engage as many editors as possible and reach concensus, especially for something as big as removing an entire subsection (the Shakespeare author question) and for something as subjective as your personal belief that it is "bumpf" (a great term, by the way). If you're not interested in engaging this discussion or feel the point too trivial, feel free to move on to another article or issue. So, while we're here, any others want to discuss the Shakespeare question? --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove this section. It's an interesting side note about an interesting man. Further, one great writer's comments on the greatest writer of all time, espousing a controversial view at that, contributes further to the appearance that WW was his own man, and orthodoxy be damned!Smatprt (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll point out that I would not be too bothered by having the section go. There is already a full discussion of who has taken sides in the article on the Shakespeare authorship question. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted Agnosticism about Whitman's Sex Life?

I'm glad to see the lively debates in the discussion section, but this one phrase in the article is grating:

Though he is usually labeled as either homosexual or bisexual, it is unclear if Whitman ever had a sexual relationship with another man

Among skeptics, there is a well-known saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but claims of the commonplace have a much lower standard of proof. So if I tell you that the Egyptian pyramids were built by extraterrestrials, and you believe me without asking for proof, people will rightly call you a grade-A moron and/or an easy mark for con artists. But if I tell you that my dog can catch a frisbee in his mouth, you may take my word for it -- because although most dogs don't know how to catch frisbees, a significant minority of dogs have learned to do it with great skill.

And the phrase quoted above gives the impression that Walt Whitman enjoyed tongue-kissing other men and stimulating their penises to mutual orgasm is an "extraordinary claim" similar to Martians built the pyramids at Giza. And thus, in the absence of photographic evidence or written confirmation from Whitman himself, we are compelled to remain agnostic on the matter.

When the perfectly simple reality is that regardless of how individuals may choose to self-label, men who from time to time enjoy having actual sex with other men are at least as commonplace as frisbee-catching dogs, if not more so. And therefore, this sentence:

Though he is usually labeled as either homosexual or bisexual, it is unclear if Whitman ever had a sexual relationship with another man.

Sounds very nearly as stupid as:

Though some associates of Bill and Hillary Clinton have claimed that their dog "Buddy" knew how to catch a frisbee, there is no conclusive proof of Buddy's alleged frisbee-catching performances.

I understand the arguments that Whitman ought not be termed "gay" in the modern sense even if he was actively homosexual or bisexual; and I object to self-styled scholars with political agendas who want to claim historical figures as "queer" based on very scanty evidence. But applying excessive skepticism to something as thoroughly mundane as male/male or female/female sexual contact is also inappropriate.

Throbert McGee (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what would you recommend? The truth is, after having read three biographies of Whitman, I have not seen anyone say: "Walt Whitman was gay." Instead, they have all said, "Walt Whitman might have been gay." --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Try 'Walt Whitman: A Gay Life' by Gary Schmidgall, and Charley Shively's two landmark books Calamus Lovers and Drum Beats, which forensically detail Whitman's compulsive cruising as a young man through his surviving notebooks. Meanwhile, Footnote 4 is a laughably crap reference that should be changed, and its "Whitman was bisexual" assertion challenged. Engleham (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The trick here is to find what the academic consensus is (and note that Gary Schmidgall's book is not necessarily the final authority when books by Reynolds, Loving, Callow, and Kaplan all seem to disagree with him). Plus, there seems to be evidence documented by Walt Whitman himself that he was involved with women; should his own words be ignored? This is worth continued discussion, of course, but the truth is we'll never know for sure - which is what is making our role here so difficult. Can we just say, "Walt Whitman's sexuality is unclear"? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of published scholarship of the last 30 years proceeds from the assumption that Whitman was attracted to males as an active or repressed or latent homosexual or bisexual, and that this was the major inspiration of his work. Given that the entire proceeding history of Whitman scholarship is one of dissembling over this simple fact, "his sexually is unclear" is far too vague. You would be hard pressed to find any scholar these days who would be prepared to argue that he was robustly heterosexual. Engleham (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of this article and our purposes as editors, what do you recommend we do with this nagging question? At this point, our discussion should be focused on what is actionable. We cannot say, for example, "the vast majority of published scholarship" as that would be original research. We should not waste time discussing our own opinions as to whether we think he was gay, in the closet, etc. My recommendation is to say something along the lines of: "He is often labeled as homosexual of bisexual, though his sexuality is unclear." That is information that I believe I can fully source and does not give any indication at all of my own personal point of view. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what is meant by "We cannot say, for example, 'the vast majority of published scholarship' as that would be original research. (What is that referring to?) That point aside, though, I agree with Midnightdreary that attempting to indicate the academic consensus here is desirable. And it's certainly an overstatement to say that "the vast majority of scholarship" on Whitman in the past 30 years "proceeds from the assumption that Whitman was attracted to males" or (even more problematically) "that this was the major inspiration of his work." This is not to say, of course, that Whitman's sexuality wasn't important to the creation of his work or that it isn't important in current scholarship. To my mind, "He is often labeled as homosexual of bisexual, though his sexuality is unclear" isn't all that useful, since it doesn't begin to suggest any of the complexities that it papers over; it could be argued that one might be wiser to say nothing at all. My own preference would be for something not all that terse, but accurate and informative: "Discussions of Whitman's poetry often also include speculation about the poet's sexuality. Though he is often labeled 'gay,' 'homosexual,' or 'bisexual,' these terms themselves were unknown in his time, and Whitman himself discouraged attempts to draw a connection between his poems of "the manly love of comrades" and sexual expressions of intimacy between men." --Bbarney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarney (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

About 30 years ago a TV show about Whitman included a few moments with the African-American woman who took care of Whitman's house. She categorically denied that he was homosexual. A National Geographic article on Whitman's life in Camden included a bartender saying to the author "I love Whitman's poetry. Please don't tell me he was queer." People so admire "The Good Gray Poet" (an appellation given by a member of Whitman's circle trying to draw attention away from the controversy over his life and works) that they refuse to acknowledge what is patent -- Whitman was sexually attracted to men, not women, and this attraction informs much of his work. The fact that the word "homosexual" was not in common use at the time, doesn't mean Whitman couldn't have been homosexual. (Indeed, I have long argued that his affirmation of same-sex relationships marks Whitman as the first "gay" American.) Anyone claiming that because the word "heterosexual" had not been coined, men could not have been sexually attracted to women, would be laughed to scorn. (Essentislism makes a lot more sense to me than constructivism. Whitman's homosexuality is excellent evidence in support of essentialsm.)

Most of the early reviewers of Leaves of Grass did not catch the homoerotic elements; those that did were positively livid. In my unpublished novel, the main characters, Jakob and Jesse, visit the elderly Whitman in Camden, partly because Jakob loves his poetry, and partly because he wants to get into his pants. The following exchange occurs:

"I wanted to tell you how much I admire the way you celebrate the love of men. Of the love of friends, and of one man for another. Including physical love."

There was nothing ambiguous about my words, but to be certain Whitman got the point, I put my arm around Jesse and hugged him. Jesse grinned and hugged back. Neither of us worried about what Whitman’s nurse [Warren Fritzinger] might think. If Whitman were angered, we could simply high-tail it out the door.

Whitman leaned forward, his body stiffening, his voice hardening. “What makes you think I celebrate that sort of love?"

Jesse was not hesitant in telling Whitman. "She-it. Ya’d ha’ ta be blind not ta see it. I know whut it’s like ta be in love wi’ another feller — an’ ta wanta **** ’im — an’ thet’s ’zackly whut yore writin’ ’bout."

Indeed. It's right there, on the surface, and anyone who denies it is willfully blind. One does not need "academic certification" to justify this interpretation of Whitman's work, because none is needed, any more than to see that the subject of the world's most-famous painting is a woman.

As to whether Whitman ever had sex with men... He lived in cities with a gay subculture (the adjective means debased or wanton, which is the origin of its application to male homosexuals) where he would have had little trouble in finding willing partners, and we have his diary. (Note his great pleasure in hugging and kissing the wounded soldiers he tended.) We also know that he changed the gender of some of the "lovers" in his poems from male to female, in an attempt to confuse the issue. His claims to have fathered multiple illegitimate children seem far-fetched. Has anyone come forward claiming Whitman as an ancestor?

Part of the issue is that, at least as applied to men suspected of being homosexual, the traditional (plainly absurd) belief is that it isn't what you think that matters, but what you do. That is, a man who fantasizes about having sex only with other men isn't really homosexual until he actually engages in sexual acts with men. (I suppose that the millions of young men who lust after young women but haven't had sex with them aren't really heterosexual.)

This is why the article's statement that we don't know really know whether Whitman was homosexual because we don't know whether he ever had sex with men is so politically and socially obnoxious -- arguably anti-gay. It doesn't matter whether Whitman had sex with men, or whether there was a word to name his orientation -- Walt Whitman was homosexual. It's not a debatable point, any more than the color of the sky (blue) or whether pigs have wings (they don't). It needs to be acknowledged. To argue that "we don't really know" because we don't have a photo of Whitman in a bathroom stall, being fellated by a conservative Senator, is absurd. Whitman walked like a duck and quacked like a duck. He was a duck.

Whitman also looked like a duck. A signifcant percentage of homosexual men (women) have a subtly feminine (masculine) appearance. (Think of Richard Simmons or Ellen Degeneres.) If I had never heard of Walt Whitman, and someone showed me the engraving that appears in the first edition of Leaves of Grass, I would have said "That man is homosexual." Whitman largely lost this "look" as he aged.

I realize that the Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral POV, and I have no argument with that. But as a previous contributor pointed out, the "dissembling" over Whitman's sexuality is equivalent to denying the homoerotic influence in his work. To blindly accept "academic agnosticism" on this matter is worse than naive.

How about this... "The debate over Whitman's sexuality must be judged in the light that writers rarely write about things that don't interest them, and Whitman's repeated references to affection between men (and metaphorical references (Calamus & elsewhere) to sex between them), as well as the relatively rare references to male/female relationships (some of which were changed in later edits from male/male). It is difficult to argue that Whitman's principal (and likely only) sexual attraction was not toward men."

This statement is hardly "original research" any more than opening a book and reading what's in it is original research.

I would not like to see the Wikipedia become an apologist for any point of view, even those I agree with. But the Whitman article really needs to throw a monkey wrench into the academic "works" that deny the truth about Whitman's sexuality. You'd think that, more than a century after Whitman's death, this argument would have ended.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, the truth is, the debate has not ended. So, frankly, your statement: "Walt Whitman was homosexual. It's not a debatable point." is completely incorrect, as you yourself admit ("You'd think that, more than a century after Whitman's death, this argument would have ended."). So, we should just all agree here and now: this is not an easy topic. I will argue adamantly (as has every Whitman biographer I've read) that we must consider the possibility that Whitman was attracted to women (his claims of having several female lovers is a good piece of evidence). Not to say that he was definitely heterosexual - but we have to admit that he might not have been entirely homosexual... And this is regardless of how people read his poetry, as it's not necessarily evidence (despite the quote reference by WilliamSommerwerck) - the "I" that sings a song of "myself", for example, is not necessarily Whitman and is one of the most-discussed aspects of his poetry - is it homosexual? Is it bisexual? Is it a more Eastern-inspired platonic love of all things? Anyway, my point is that we can't make this an open-and-shut case. And, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, we can not make these arguments ourselves, nor can we editorialize about why we believe one point-of-view or another has been either pushed forward or suppressed! That is the definition of original research! ' We must look to published third-party sources (those are the basic rules here at Wikipedia). And I hardly think one person's opinion that Whitman looked homosexual in an 1855 engraving qualifies as a reliable source. Frankly, I think the article does a good job sitting on the fence, enforcing neither the homo- or hetero- or even bi- sexual labels. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see why a Wikipedia article should “sit on the fence” when there is plainly no fence to sit on. The question of the age of the Earth is not open to debate — that it’s about four billion years old is objective fact — yet religious fundamentalists insist on debating it.

It’s not uncommon for homosexual men to have experimental sex with women; ditto for heterosexual men with men. Does that make these men “bisexual”? Hugh Hefner supposedly experimented with male/male sex in the ’70s, apparently out of curiosity. Does that make him bisexual?

It might — in the statistical sense. But sexual orientation is determined by the gender you’re attracted to — oriented toward — not whom you have sex with. (Charles Rodriguez did a classic cartoon about this.)

Unfortunately for those uncomfortable with homosexuality and/or homosexual behavior, not only does modern American poetry begin with Walt Whitman — the “poet of democracy” — but Whitman sees “the dear love of comrades” as both an essential element of democracy and a tempering influence on the materialism of American society.

Those who feel Whitman’s promotion of “comrade love” (male/male affection) necessarily includes a sexual component (it might or might not — there is no obvious erotic component to his writing on this subject) are upset at the thought that Whitman might have been homosexual. And we certainly don’t want the dear little children who recite “Oh Captain, My Captain” to be told its author was a homo. So Whitman is “whitewashed” as bisexual — perhaps even asexual — and we get this lame-but-relentless debate — based on an attempt to confuse the issue, rather than objectivity — over what should be a non-issue.

Whitman is the only major historical figure (including Alexander) over which this debate continues. Is it not clear why this is so?

Whitman was not bisexual. He was homosexual. Period

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to you, he was homosexual. Period. You've made that clear. Again, however, it is not up to us. Wikipedia must reflect scholarly concensus. The scholarly concensus is that there is no final decision. Period. Not sure why you're having a hard time understanding basic wiki-policy. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Date of photograph must be wrong

The photo of Whitman by Matthew Brady labeled "Circa 1860" must be quite a bit later. He was 41 in 1860. Look at the drawing for the first publication of Leaves of Grass, just 5 years earlier (even granting that artists are known to improve on people's looks). My guess is the photo is more like 1875-1880. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.87.245 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Whitman looks rather old in this photo, but people aged much more rapidly, even 50 years ago, than they do today. The dated photos in The Better Angel, a book on Whitman's activities during the Civil War, are consistent with this photo -- which is reproduced on the book's cover. By modern standards, Whitman looked at least 20 years older than his chronological age. It's amazing that he allowed some of these pictures to be taken, as they are far from complimentary, especially the one from 1863.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A Public Spectacle?

As a technical writer (and unpublished novelist), I'm fussy about words. The term "public spectacle" is usually derogatory: "The drunken First Lady made a public spectacle of herself." Whoever wrote that Whitman's funeral "became a public spectacle" likely did not mean it in that sense. "Was a significant public event" or "drew large crowds" would seem more appropriate and accurate. I hope the writer will rethink this and perform the appropriate edit.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that the term "public spectacle" has an inherent negative meaning - however, if you feel strongly about it, feel free to fix it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will, if I can find an accurate description of the event. It appears that, in addition to the large turnout of common folk, a number of famous people delivered speeches or addresses. Perhaps this section also needs a sentence or two about that.

I should also add that, overall, this is an excellent article, though (not surprisingly) it does not plumb the depths of the subject. (How could it, in such a short space?) It might be interesting to discuss the influence of having children read Whitman's war poems on their view of Whitmans as "The Good Gray Poet".

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Parents' Religion

The article says that Walt Whitman was born to 'Quaker' parents. This doesn't seem to be true according to sources:

1. http://www.whitmanarchive.org/biography/walt_whitman/index.html#childhood << 2nd paragraph: "While Whitman's parents were not members of any religious denomination, Quaker thought always played a major role in Whitman's life, in part because of the early influence of Hicks, and in part because his mother Louisa's family had a Quaker background, especially Whitman's grandmother Amy Williams Van Velsor , whose death—the same year Whitman first heard Hicks—hit young Walt hard..."

2. http://books.google.com/books?id=4JuyD59nnYcC&pg=RA1-PA177&lpg=RA1-PA177&dq=quaker+parents+walt+whitman&source=web&ots=E93zHatjwH&sig=fSxHdah56Lh1fm_qf2pCghrwuWg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result << "Neither Whitman nor his parents were Quakers."

I'm convinced. I've made a change to the wording in the article that I think helps make this clearer and more accurate. Thanks!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest adding the following under the category "Early Career" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonstacy (talk • contribs) 21:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jason! Not sure what you were trying to do here, but this is the talk page, not the article itself. The article already does talk about Whitman's role in journalism; do you feel that discussion is inadequate? It looks like you are the author of the book you have referenced here (note WP:COI just as an FYI); I have added it to my wish list and look forward reading it. In the meantime, adding info to the talk page is sort of a time waste for you. Let me know if you need any introductory help. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Midnightdreary. Thanks for your note. I've decided to delete my suggestion. I understand the concern over a conflict of interest and will think about some other sources I can use to beef up the journalism section. Thanks for your help! --Jason Stacy (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

walt whitman was gay as a kid

there is proven history in his poems that explains how walt whitman was gay as a kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.70.121 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the very vague comment about "proven history". --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Format for references

This is an issue which needs to be discussed and commented on to see whether a fairly extensive set of edits I have made should be kept or reverted.

I've changed multiple references to one work to a revised format with a single reference being listed only once as a footnote, with the individual reference being shown with page number in the text. No information is lost. There's an example in this section, below. If you want to compare the syles, here is the full article with the old reference format [6], and here with the new format[7]. See the References section and the form of the superscripted references in the text.

This was criticised by Midnightdreary; here is the dialogue from my Talk page: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
May I ask why you chose to change the reference style in the Walt Whitman article? The article is at good article status so I'm always worried about compromising quality. It was approved using the prior reference style, which I've used on many of the articles I've worked on. Your edits removed most of the page numbers, sacrificing the verifiability of the article. Is there a reason why you don't want specificity in the footnotes? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking it over again, I see what you did. It's a very clunky format, in my opinion, and I'm not sure I think it's a good idea. Would you be offended if I restored the prior version? I've used that style on most of the featured and good articles I've written and it seems to be a well worn-in style. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest and request that we leave it for a while and ask for other opinions; we need to leave it at least for a while so others can form an opinion. The advantages of this format:
- compactness, with one entry per work, [added later:] instead of sometimes scores of references. This is clearly desirable; in the old style when there were several references to the same page they were always consolidated into a single one;
- when reading text you can see immediately which references are to different pages of the same work, rather than different works; and after following up a reference you know whose work is referenced;
- in addition to these advantages, no information is lost compared to the previous format.
I'll leave it to you to consider the disadvantages.
"I've used that style... it seems to be a well worn-in style." I've often felt frustrated at having to use the style you mention, with lots of references to the same work, as there was nothing better. The Rp template seemed a great innovation to me. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The old style of references included a separate reference in the footnotes each time a work is referenced. The new style of references includes a single reference in the footnotes, with a page number appended in the body to the reference number, each time a work is referenced. If we use an entry in the list of References when using the new style, the entry in Notes can be simply author and year without full details.

Notes (generated automatically from in-text references in the order found)

References (alphabetical, entered manually)

• Anothersmith, J, On New Styles of Referencing, PubCo, 2009 (if we have this in references, the entry in notes can simply be to "Anothersmith (2009)" without details)
• Smith, J, On Styles of Referencing, PubCo, 2009
  

The new style does not generate an alphabetical list of references in addition to the footnote. We can either provide full details when the work is first referenced, so that the Notes will include full details, but not in alphabetical order as in the Newsmith example; or we can have an alphabetical list of references with full details, and simply provide name and year when first referenced in text, as in the Anothersmith example. (revised) Pol098 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

(comments here)

• I have to say I don't like the system, and prefer the previous one - it's very clunky and unfamiliar, and is it even allowable in the MOS? Skinny87 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine under the MOS, so long as the reference style is consistent throughout the document. I know I've seen this style on a few very well-written articles. Like you, however, it's not my preference (in case it's not clear!). --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, it just looks messy and clunky, mainly because I had no idea what the numbers next to the reference meant until I scrolled up and down a few times and realized they were page numbers. And that's my fear - that your average reader will stumble onto this page and Light Tank Mk VIII and have no idea what the numbers are for a fair while. Skinny87 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather to my surprise the Rp format for references I introduced seems to be unpopular, so I've reverted to the old style. If anyone wants to see this article with new-style references it's at[8], as mentioned above. Pol098 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Pol - thanks for making the attempt and introducing a new style for this article (and to me). I also greatly respect your willingness to discuss this openly. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitman's meditation practice

I would like to add a sentence or two to the Religion section. While I more or less agree with the tenor of the paragraph, I have found evidence that Whitman practiced meditation, which is distinct from his bias against organized religion. The following is from Whitman's notebook (NVPM, VI: 2049-2050)

Abstract yourself from this book; realize where you are at present located, the point you stand that is now the centre of all. Look up overhead, think of space stretching out, think of the unnumbered orbs wheeling safely there, invisible to us by day, some visible by night...spend some minutes faithfully in this exercise. Then again realize yourself upon the earth, at the particular point you now occupy...(think of the four directions). Seize these firmly in your mind, pass freely over immense distances. Turn your face a moment thither. Fix definitely the direction and the idea of the distances of separate sections of your own country, also of England, the Mediterranean sea, Cape Horn, the North Pole, and such like distance places.

This is obviously a description of a meditation practice and would help explain some of the more...um, unique perspectives he had. At the end of the religion section my proposed edit would be:

Despite his skepticism regarding organized religion, recent research has shown that Whitman practiced meditation. Whitman’s meditation practice likely gave him access to a deeper sense of self-consciousness (or perhaps Cosmic Consciousness) represented in the mystical aspects of his poetry. Italic text

NeilRichardson001 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC) --NeilRichardson001 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Italic text

Interesting. But we don't typically use primary sources (like personal journals) here. For our purposes, reliable sources should be third-party to avoid falling into original research. So, the better thing to do is find a scholar who has published an interpretation of this entry in Whitman's journal, describing it as meditation and, with any luck, find another source who agrees with it for verifiability. The problem is that we can't be the ones who determine that Whitman practiced meditation and that we can't be the ones who decide it's important enough to mention. Does that make sense? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I submitted a paper to the Walt Whitman journal and Ed Folsom declined it after sending it to an unqualified scholar to look at my research about five years ago who didn't agree with my premise. My research is cited in Michael Robertson's "Worshipping Walt; The Whitman Disciples" published by Princeton University Press last year and I've shown it to several Buddhist, Sufi, Hindu, Catholic and Christian devotees and they've confirmed my reading of the diary entry. I've also been giving this meditation publicly for a few years including at a Quaker retreat and at an Ethical Society retreat the year before that. One of the issues in the Whitman scholarly community is that they're reading primarily in one context...an academic one, thus it's a very partial interpretation of a poet who all agree "contained multitudes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilRichardson001 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, you're admitting two things. One, a conflict of interest by trying to add your own theory and secondly, that your idea qualifies as a fringe theory because it is a non-standard reading. If there were two or more sources that confirmed this, it would be worth adding, by Wiki policies. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a theory. I am merely attempting to correct an oversight in the study and understanding of Whitman. I am only interested in the updating of the record to record Whitman's own diary/note entry. His work speaks for itself and this recognition of a creative/spiritual practice will help explain how/why his thinking/poetry evolved from conventional newspaper man/reporter to inspired poet. My difference with some of the academics (including Folsom) is that that they are ill equipped/biased in interpreting this perspective...sorta like asking a chef to fix a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilRichardson001 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. You see, I'm not arguing about whether or not what you say is true. I am saying that it does not qualify as verifiable by Wikipedia standards. I hope you understand. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a need to discuss his sexuality and politics in the intro?

The third paragraph in the intro briefly discussed Whitman's politics and sexual orientation, which seems unnecessary considering the fact that both of these topics are more thoroughly discussed in the body of the article. I would like to delete the third paragraph from the intro unless anyone objects.Tom Magee (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I object. According to WP:LEAD, the intro should properly summarize all the info that is forthcoming in the rest of the article. In practice, weight should be balanced based on the emphasis in the article. Because the article focuses so much on his views and sexuality, it would be remiss to ignore those topics in the lead. So, yes, "these topics are more thoroughly discussed in the body of the article" because, the way leads work, everything in the lead is more thoroughly discussed in the body of the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

His politics and his sexuality were integral parts of the reason he wrote Leaves of Grass the way he did, and why Leaves of Grass was such a groundbreaking work. Considering that Leaves of Grass defined most of his life, I think it's fair to mention these things up top. It doesn't have to linger on it, since it's explained in some detail later, but it deserves mentioning. It was a defining part of who he was, why he wrote the things he did, and why we remember him today. — e. ripley\^talk 14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I have to say that the paragraph stills feel a bit awkward to me. If the goal is truly to summarize the "Lifestyles and Beliefs" section, then it is too short. Two of the five topics from that section are summarized, the rest ignored. But if e. ripley's argument is accurate, and the purpose of the paragraph really is to highlight two important elements that shaped his poetry and its reception, then perhaps the paragraph should be rewritten to make that connection more explicit (the connections between these topics and his poetry). One objection to the importance of politics to his poetry, however: According to the biography by Jerome Loving (and the wikipedia article itself), Whitman was a free soiler who was mostly ambivalent about the abolitionist cause. He once even worked for the New Orleans Current as an editor when the paper was actively endorsing the Fugitive Slave Law. In short, I don't see how his position on slavery can be seen as a driving force behind his poetry.Tom Magee (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily oppose a rewrite, depending on what you wanted to do with it. Why don't you take a stab at reworking some of the information, post it here on the talk page and we can hash it out? Collaboration is a good thing. — e. ripley\^talk 13:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest the same. I think I understand what the paragraph is trying to do after midnightdreary comment, so I will give it a rewrite this weekend and post my work on this discussion board for... discussion:)Tom Magee (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Abolition

I would appreciate some evidence supporting the claim in the introductory paragraph that Walt Whitman was opposed to the abolitionist movement. There is a lot of evidence to dispute that, plus no reference is provided. In stanza 10 of "Song of Myself" Whitman describes himself aiding a runaway slave:

... The runaway slave came to my house and stopt outside, I heard his motions crackling the twigs of the woodpile, Through the swung half-door of the kitchen I saw him limpsy and weak, And went where he sat on a log and led him in and assured him, And brought water and fill'd a tub for his sweated body and bruis'd feet, And gave him a room that enter'd from my own, and gave him some coarse clean clothes, And remember perfectly well his revolving eyes and his awkwardness, And remember putting plasters on the galls of his neck and ankles; He staid with me a week before he was recuperated and pass'd north, I had him sit next me at table, my fire-lock lean'd in the corner.

Caramelkid0686 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)caramelkid0686

You're using his poetry as autobiography? Ugh. Anyway, if you take the time to read the article, you'll see a full discussion of Whitman's views on slavery in the section on his beliefs. The introductory paragraphs are, after all, merely introductory; the rest of the story is detailed below. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Walt Whitman Influences

Walt Whitman influenced the English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams who set a number of Whitman's works in a number of Williams' composition. Williams' 1st Symphony (A Sea Symphony) is wholly based on texts by Whitman. Additional works are noted in the Wikipedia entry for Vaughan Williams. Someone who has permission to edit the Walt Whitman entry should update the entry to reflect this influence upon Vaughan Williams. Pmdm (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting tidbit! It sounds like it belongs in the article on the composer Ralph Vaughan Williams. It wouldn't add much to this one; lots of individual works are inspired by Whitman. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

sexual orientation

I object to the deletion of the extended discussion of Whitman's sexual orientation from this page. Not only have my comments been removed, but those of people who disagreed with me. This is unacceptable.

We don't know whether Whitman ever had sexual contact with women, though it's not implausible it might have occurred at least once when he was young. But to argue that his basic and obvious sexual attraction to men is debatable is to willfully and perversely ignore his writings (especially Calamus -- have you ever seen a picture of the flower?). The fact that he changed the gender of some of his lovers in his poems (from male to female) as he became better-known is near-proof that he was trying to hide something, not simply avoiding controversy. As I said before, if he fathered so many bastard children -- why didn't any of them come forward?

You don't have to have sex with a woman (man) to know that you're heterosexual (homosexual). To say that Walt Whitman's sexuality is not certain is like saying that we're not certain the Pope is Catholic. This is a perennial claim from people who won't accept the fact that "the good gray poet", the "poet of democracy" was queer.WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please try to understand the purpose of talk pages. See WP:TALK. You'll note that these talk pages are solely meant for discussion of ways to improve the article in question. According to your contribution history, you have never contributed to the progress of this article. In other words, we are not here to debate you or your opinions; they are not relevant here (nor are mine). Nevertheless, your comments were not deleted, merely archived. Please see Talk:Walt Whitman/Archive 1 - and next time, perhaps you should consider looking before you leap, or of being so accusatory. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification, but I'm trying to get someone better-qualified than myself to make the changes. I guess I'll just have to pull out the Schmidgall biography and start editing. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could understand that you are pushing the biased opinion of a single source. The current article is much more balanced as it represents the views of multiple scholars. The idea that Whitman was gay is understood and discussed in the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitman's sexuality was never known, but it would not be a stretch of the imagination to see such an intelligent man not viewing things such as sexual preferance with the same stereotypes that plague us today. He might not have been a homosexual but that isn't to say that he did not enjoy men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.141.78.129 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the following sentence altogether: It is not clear if Whitman had sexual relationships with men.

And here's why I think it ought to be deleted: We're not debating whether Walt Whitman was really a shapeshifting leprechaun, or perhaps a 4,000-year-old extra-terrestrial who'd been stranded on Earth since his people built the Egyptian pyramids. The "True or False?" proposition before us is something more or less like: Walt Whitman enjoyed putting his hands and mouth on other men's cocks, and that is MUCH TOO MUNDANE a possibility to be treated as an Extraordinary Claim Requiring Extraordinary Evidence™.

To put it another way: We have no diaries from George Washington in which he explicitly confirms that his marriage to Martha was ever physically consummated, and we also know that the couple had no children together. AND YET, despite this embarrassing paucity of evidence, nowhere in the wiki biography of George Washington do we find a disclaimer stating It is not clear if George ever had sexual relationships with his wife Martha, as though the lack of "clear evidence" compels us to be agnostic on this point.

So what exactly is the justification for this hyper-skepticism about the possibility that Walt Whitman may have put his obvious homoerotic yearnings into physical practice from time to time? This "we can't be certain whether Whitman ever engaged in genuine real-life homosexual acts" stuff is just bloody ridiculous, because men having ACTUAL sex with each other is neither vanishingly rare nor paranormal. Throbert McGee (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The justification is that it's how Whitman is written about. This article should reflect that sort of scholarship. In the case of Whitman, where sexuality is hotly debated, it's all important. ---Midnightdreary (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I've revised the restored sentence to read, However, there is disagreement among his biographers as to whether Whitman had actual sexual experiences with men., which seems to me even more neutral than pronouncing absolutely It is not clear... I also added "in his feelings and attractions" to the end of the sentence before that, to better clarify that it's the physical expression (if any) of his homoerotic sentiments that is in dispute. Throbert McGee (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I know that the article is starting to get a bit weasel-y, but the scholarship is so divided... --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture Revisions

I've revised the pictures on this page. Ordinarily I'd call for discussion before making such a change, but I thought the only way to show the effect would be just to do it. I hope that people will consider this explanation before re-editing. The rationale is:

1) to include the remarkable 1854 portrait, which has been called "Christlike", as the lead picture, 2) put the "canonical" photo of Whitman in age, which used to be the lead, at the end, 3) resulting in the individual photos of Whitman appearing in chronological order, thus showing the progress of his life.

This also results in leaving out the painting, which I think doesn't come across very well as a thumbnail on the screen.

Incidentally, a Google search for the 1854 portrait finds some images of it that appear to have better resolution, but I don't know enough about permissions to know if there are any licensing problems with putting them on Commons and using one of them instead. If we decide to keep the picture, maybe someone more knowledegable than I could address this. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning here, but just because someone called an image "Christlike" doesn't make it a good choice. In fact, I strongly dislike the new "lead" picture, partly because it is less recognizable. I recommend putting the canonical portrait back to the top. As far as licensing, if the portrait taker died at least 70 years ago, you probably won't run into any copyright problems. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as well, and have reverted.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

July 4, 1825

Visit of the Marquis de Lafayette to the United States (1824-25) says the General was in Buffalo that day, not greeting 6-year-old boys in Brooklyn. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

article says JUNE 4 --JimWae (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I read it three times and still got it wrong. Yes, even though the Erie Canal was still months from completion, the elderly hero had plenty of time to get to Brookyn. Thank you. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Influences

Dracula comment

I'm not sure who decided that Whitman is the only person that the character Dracula could be based upon, but I believe that needs to be changed. It is a pretty bold statement. There have been many articles written about Dracula's origins as a character. For one, Stoker wrote his first "draft" entitled "Dracula's Guest" after being influenced by an earlier novella: "Carmilla" by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu. The Influences section needs to be changed accordingly.

I don't think the line is so absolute. It says nothing about what inspired the book or its plot, only what the character of Dracula (i.e. personality, I presume) was based on and it doesn't say there aren't any other possible sources. In other words, I think there is wiggle room here. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind adding something that says "so and so said..." or something along those lines. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitman had 6 illegitimate children as stated by he himself. Those who argue that he never had any confirmed female contact as disregarding this. Please debate changing his "Children:" status. Cloudfabric (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Whitman about his children is in the article already. It also notes the claim has not been confirmed. What "Children:" status are you talking about? And what does this have to do with Dracula? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The article shows Whitman as a religious person. I think there are countless passages on his work that show that he wasn't. The one that is depicted on the article has been carefully selected to show a sort of religious Whitman. The author of that section is ignoring this passage from The Song of Myself that clearly shows that Whitman appreciates that religions helped build the character of the primitive human, but are now obsolete. He clearly believes in Nature more than anything, and in the human character as origin of all inspiration. The passage in question:

" ... In my portfolio placing Manito loose, Allah on a leaf, the crucifix engraved, With Odin and the hideous-faced Mexitli and every idol and image, Taking them all for what they are worth and not a cent more, Admitting they were alive and did the work of their days, (They bore mites as for unfledg'd birds who have now to rise and fly and sing for themselves,) ... "

Allow me to put that last phrase in parentheses in a more modern and straightforward English to prove my point:

They created myths for unfeathered birds, who now have to rise, fly and sing for themselves.

He considers religions "Myths" (that's clear prove that he wasn't a religious person). And he also thinks that the human being should get ride of religions (We are not unfeathered birds anymore, and we have to "fly" without religions now).

I think we should reconsider that part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnualmafuerte (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, personal religion can be broadly interpreted and defined. All that you've said here, however, is considered original research and, ultimately, useless here. It is not up to us to interpret anything at all. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not original research. He is EXPLICITLY stating in his literature that god is nothing but a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnualmafuerte (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you yourself read this passage and come to this conclusion? If so, it is the definition of original research. How do we know he's stating personal opinion rather than just being poetic? Can the passage be interpreted in other ways or is this just your perspective / point of view? It's more helpful to find published sources that have studied more broadly and made their conclusions for us; we can never make our own conclusions here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Midnightdreary is right. If you can find some sort of scholarly text that critiques Whitman's work in this fashion or a biography that mentions his spiritual beliefs, then we can use it source an assertion such as that. — e. ripley\^talk 12:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Where's the talk archive?

What happened to the talk page archive with discussion going back to 2003? Spanglej (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing while trying to find it recently. It's gotta be somewhere, just not linked, I presume...? --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is now linked in the Talk header at the top of this page. Jim Michael (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Whew... thank you!! That was on my "to-do list" but kept falling on my "forgot-to-do list." --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism April '10

We've had a few days of a lot of vandalism. May be worth putting on a protection if it continues as a target. Spanglej (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You can request semiprotection at WP:RFP. — e. ripley\^talk

Thanks AlexiusHoratius for putting on the protection. Spanglej (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitman's sexuality

It's been some time since I've looked at this article, and the material on Whitman's sexuality has been dramatically improved. Congratulations to whomever updated it. However...

Whitman kept a diary in which he recorded picking up men and "sleeping" with them. If a presumed-heterosexual man kept such a diary about women, one would assume that he'd engaged in intercourse with at least some of them. And heterosexual men do not brag about kissing wounded soldiers for a minute or more. Despite the evidence of the poems -- including gender changes in some poems in later editions -- and Whitman's seemingly increasing cowardice as he became famous -- few writers want to come out and say "Walt Whitman was unquestionably homosexual in his orientation, and there is virtually no doubt that he occasionally engaged in sex with other men." The principal reason seems to be that "The Good Gray Poet", the "poet of democracy", whose worst poem used to be memorized by lisping schoolchildren -- cannot be portrayed as queer. (I assume this is the reason this article gets vandalized.)

There's a National Geographic article of about 15 years ago, "Walt Whitman's New Jersey" (I think), in which the author talks with a bartender about Whitman. "I love Whitman's poetry. Don't tell me he was queer," the bartender says. Whitman's poetry cannot be separated from his sexuality, and this needs to addressed in any non-superficial study of his life and work. To deny -- or merely "ambiguize" -- Whitman's sexuality is to deny large chunks of his poetry. The "Calamus" poems are not so-called because Whitman liked the plant's aroma.

Given Whitman's importance in American history -- not just literature -- this is a disappointingly short article. (The Gilbert & Sullivan article is much better -- indeed, it's one of the best pieces on G&S I've seen, of any length.) There's little analysis of his poetry, which ought to be a central feature. Perhaps the best way to fatten it would be to include a selected bibliography of biographical and analytical material, with a short summary of what each document has to offer the interested reader. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The ambiguity in this article discerning Whitman's sexuality is reflective of the ambiguity in Whitman scholarship in discerning his sexuality. That's the way Wikipedia works. Your interpretation, above, is irrelevant, as is mine. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MD's assessment. It really is irrelevant what we may think. Wikipedia only cites already published information from reliable sources. If you think the current scholarship doesn't adequately address the matter, there is little we can do about it inside the bounds of Wikipedia, as Wikipedia does not publish original thought. One further note: Analysis of his poetry, in specific, should properly be located in an article about the work. (In other words, literary criticism of Leaves of Grass should be in Leaves of Grass.) — e. ripley\^talk 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Though, with that said, I think some further discussion of his poetry (and his influence) would certainly help this article. Specificity is fine in, say, Leaves of Grass, but a broad understanding of his writing is needed on this page too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A broad assessment of his style in general would of course be fine. I only meant to steer away from analyses of specific works in the body of this article. — e. ripley\^talk 20:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jtjv324, 10 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Whitman's poetry has been set to music by a large number of composers; indeed it has been suggested his poetry has been set to music more than any other American poet except for Emily Dickinson and Longfellow.[148] Those who have set his poems to music have included Kurt Weill, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Paul Hindemith, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, Benjamin Britten, Leonard Bernstein, Ned Rorem, George Crumb, Roger Sessions, John Adams, and his "Leaves Of Grass" set to 21st Century jazz music in 2005 by Fred Hersch . Jtjv324 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)jtjv324

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this user is just requesting the addition of Fred Hersch. However, this does not need to be (nor should it be) and absolutely complete list. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edward Wightman

On the Wiki article for Edward Wightman is the following information, which, if true, should be incorporated into this article since it has a bearing upon Whitman's belief system:

Very little is known about the subsequent fate of his wife and children, though it is known that his son, John, and grandson, George (1632–1722), emigrated to Quidnesset, Rhode Island about 1655. George Wightman, and hence Edward Wightman, is the ancestor of people living in the United States under the names "Wightman" or "Whitman."[35] including the poet Walt Whitman.

A further item on this same page states that:

Bruce Wightman's history of Edward the heretic: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wightman/Edward1566.htm

80.192.68.143 (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I gotta be honest: this ancestry information seems really irrelevant. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

...and not a solid enough source. Spanglej (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What about his books?

I'm just gleaning the article for some titles of books which Whitman wrote, and I can find no trace of a bibliography, and only one very short section about his writings. Why is that? __meco (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically everything is in Leaves of Grass. End list. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He did write a few books before L.o.G as well as extensive numbers of articles. His bibliography is quite larger than his most famous book of poems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.74.59 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think a list of his journalistic articles would be helpful here? What other books, besides Franklin Evans? How would you recommend formatting a bibliography here rather than, say, Wikisource? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request of Title

I'd love it if a registered editor could change the title of the Article to "Walter (Walt) Whitman Jr."

Walt wasn't his first name, so even if his Poems had Walt Whitman on them, we should stick to his real name, before everyone remembers him as only Walt.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.250.164 (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you'd make that recommendation so thanks for dropping by. However, Wikipedia conventions name articles based on the most commonly used name, not the "legal" name. After all, most people are more likely to search for "Walt Whitman" than "Walter (Walt) Whitman Jr."... don't you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Southold Sodom School

I just added a story here attributed to Dan's Papers in Bridgehampton about an incident in which he was carried out on a rail in Southold after being accused of sodomy in 1840. The story smacks more than a little to me as being apocryphal as an explanation for the Sodom School name. I'm putting the link here just for the record.Americasroof (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

a big improvement, but...

I’m grateful to see the drastic improvement in the discussion of Whitman’s sexuality. Nevertheless, it doesn’t correct Wikipedia’s blatant anti-gay bias.

What would you think if someone said there was no “proof” of Hugh Hefner’s heterosexuality? That Playboy, the bunny clubs, his multiple marriages, and the young women surrounding him, were simply an elaborate ruse to hide his queerness?

The rational response would be Yes, anything is possible. But Hef looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck — a very heterosexual duck. Without other evidence, it’s reasonable to assume that a person is what they appear to be.

Yet Wikipedia’s policy — in support of “fairness” — is that a person is assumed heterosexual until proven queer. That Walt Whitman looked like a duck, talked like a duck, walked like a duck — a very queer duck — has to be ignored without proof. And Wikipedia’s standard for proof is unreasonably high.

Whitman was an opera queen. He wrote bluntly homoerotic poetry. He had extended relationships with men — usually younger than he — but no known relationships with women. (Where are the children he claimed to have sired?) His diaries have page after page of notes about his picking up men and “sleeping” with them. What more “proof” do you want — a Matthew Brady photo of Whitman sodomizing Lincoln?

Yes, Whitman had a photo of a famous actress on his desk — but he also had a photo of John Addington Symonds. Charles Goodnight kept a photo of his dearly loved friend Oliver Loving on his desk. Was Goodnight sexually attracted to Loving? Almost certainly not. Though it’s not impossible, there’s nothing in their lives that suggests this is plausible. But everything in Whitman’s life points to his being queer — queer, queer, queer.

Anyone who thinks Whitman’s homosexuality is questionable or debatable is (at best) self-deluded. I can only assume they hide their heads in the sand because they can’t tolerate the idea of America’s “good gray poet” being a homo. (See the National Geographic article on “Whitman’s Camden”.)

Wikipedia needs to have a clear policy on such matters, probably based on the legal standard of “a preponderance of evidence”. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, help me find the Wikipedia policy "in support of 'fairness'... that a person is assumed heterosexual until proven queer". Proof is irrelevant here, even if a photo like you describe did appear. Wikipedia is not interested in the "truth". Further, there's no need to offer your evidence, your research, your opinion or your opinion of others' opinions; all this is equally irrelevant. Instead, look into policies on WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What about that Brady photo?

The photo is captioned "Walt Whitman, circa 1860, by Mathew Brady," but it clearly shows an elderly Whitman; in this year, he would have been 40-41 years old. If the transformation from the image of him at 28 to the bearded, grey individual shown in the Brady photograph happened in 12 years, I would be surprised.

The time and style are accurate for a Brady photo, but I don't believe the date. It was probably taken closer to 1880, but since I can't find a proper date for the image, I'm going to just remove the date for now. torq (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is: Where did that date originally come from? It's a fairly well-known image so I'm sure a little digging will unearth a reliable source that provides the date (let's not use our own personal assumptions). I agree that, for now, it's worth leaving it without a date. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Someone has vandalized the link for Leaves of Grass. 221.115.72.197 (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

fixed it. It probably wasn't vandalism - the old link had a capital "O" in "of", which took it to a record album title.Smatprt (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Addition to Whitman's Legacy Section

Now opening for the Fall semester 2011 at Montclair State University in Montclair, NJ, a new building is named after Whitman in their new complex entitled The Heights. SnorlaxShamen (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems a little trivial for Whitman. How do you think this aids in understanding Whitman's legacy? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

dead reference link

Reference link 122 no longer functions. Does anyone know where another copy of this essay could be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.40.174 (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Breaking Bad

Maybe add something about the numerous references to Walt Whitman in the tv show Breaking Bad? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.7.203 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by! Personally, I don't think it's worthwhile - the info doesn't truly build on our understanding of Walt Whitman. In fact, it might fall into the category of trivia. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That page says don't make lists of trivia, not to avoid including factual information.

Voomoo (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

reference to accusation of sodomy is suspect

" At one of the schools, the Locust Grove School in Southold, New York in 1840 he was reported to have been tarred and carried out on a rail by a mob after Presbyterian Church, pastor Ralph Smith accused him of committing sodomy with some students. The school is subsequently referred to on maps as the “Sodom School.”[31] This link is for a blog entitled "Dan's Hamptons" and not a credible source. I am unsure this information is correct, and would like to see it verified properly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.7.252 (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I will look into this further when I have better access to Whitman resources. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've altered the information but retained what I could verify. Even the sources I found, however, indicate that the story is untrue; I tried to reflect that here in the article. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Founder of Long Islander Newspaper

I'm not sure where to put this - hopefully someone else will. Whitman founded the Long Islander newspaper in his native Huntington, New York in 1838. Source: http://www.longislandernews.com/webtools/readers/aboutus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.219.39 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2006‎ (UTC)

How about focusing on his work? How many words are dedicated to the verbal tennis match over his sex-life on this page? Too many.

Posted by Reverend Gisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.184.184 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2006‎ (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} "Whitman's poetry has been set to music by a large number of composers...including Howard Hanson." Please add Howard Hanson to the list of composers who have set Whitman's poetry to music. "Song of Democracy" is a long work composed by Howard Hanson in which many of Whitman's poems have been set to music, including Ship of Democracy, and others from Leaves of Grass. This is a famous choral work and I was surprised that Hanson, one of the more famous modern composers, was not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.182.224.252 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2011‎ (UTC)

Sexual

Why on Earth do we need information on whether Walt Witman had or had not sex with men??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.188.221.28 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? One of the major aspects of Whitman study is on his sexuality. This article reflects that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"there is disagreement among biographers as to whether Whitman had actual sexual experiences with men," the article states, as of now. Why, indeed must this statement be appended to the fact that Whitman was gay? Would the article on Tim Tebow, if it stated that he is straight, have to append the fact that "But as of now, he has not had sex with women?" (Tebow recently stated that he is saving it for marriage). My point is, straight should be treated the same as gay. Ironically, the same people who frequently say, "Why does he have to flaunt it?" and other such great questions, ought to condemn this additional clarification to Whitman's sexuality as well, viz., "OK, let us know that he's gay; it's relevant to his poetry and persona, but we don't have to know what and with whom he does in bed." For example, biographies of various contemporary writers, e.g. Norman Mailer, are not going to tell us whether he had sex, with whom, and how many different partners, etc. You (should) get my drift. Such statements really don't belong in a scholarly or academic appreciation of Whitman. He was gay. Period. 207.237.79.219 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Allen Roth

'straight should be treated the same as gay'? That may be your point of view, but don't expect to have it put into the article. I think this sort of thing may be why the article was locked - a nuisance for those of us who want to put in edits about the development of poetry. Also, regardless of what he was, or what to think of it, what he did with it would surely be relevant to an appreciation of his life and work. And character. BTW, why *was* the article locked? 41.77.1.147 (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and, in principle, I agree with you. However, in the case of Whitman, the question is not yet settled ("He was gay. Period." is not an accurate statement for our purposes) and the article reflects the ongoing dialogue/debate over the issue. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Midnightdreary. Whitman lived in a different time and his sexuality needs to be placed in its historical context. Dlabtot (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding links to The Whitman Archive

I recently added links to The Whitman Archive on many pages dealing with Walt Whitman and his work. These links were promptly removed by another editor, and I was warned not to spam the pages. While I will admit that I did get overzealous by adding links the the Archive on the pages for the Walt Whitman Bridge, and a monument, I can't see why these links couldn't be considered useful to those doing research on Walt Whitman. I was honestly surprised to see that many of the pages on Whitman didn't already include the link!

I would really like to add the link back to the different pages, sans bridge and monument (that was wrong, I'm new, I admit it),as I believe The Whitman Archive is pretty much the foremost authority on Whitman and his work. It just makes sense to have the link there!

I was advised to come here and try to get a general consensus about adding the link back to the pages. 129.93.54.134 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the specific link is directly relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't link to such a respected institution. By "directly relevant," I mean not linking to the Whitman Archive home page, but to specific sections. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it was me who dealt with this query at WP:EAR and I agree they are helpful links. EAR can advise how to proceed but I did not think it was a suitable venue to obtain consensus. The archive contains free-access full-text online copies of the works being discussed. This is exactly the kind of thing that external links were supposed to be used for. It is just unfortunate that 129.93 set off spam alarms by being a new editor who had done nothing but insert links, a few of which were in inappropriate places. SpinningSpark 18:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So how about linking to the specific pages related to Whitman's work from the archive? I'd love to use the home page as it links to so much information about him and his work, but it is also reasonable to assume that anyone doing research would be inquisitive enough to explore away from the original link if they wanted too. I'd be more than happy with going back and adding specific links if it would be considered useful enough to not be considered spam. 129.93.54.134 (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is that you got the "spam" message mostly because of how often you were inserting the same link over a short period of time, not due to any content concerns. But, yes, an article on, say, "Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking" would benefit more from a specific link about "Out of the Cradle..." rather than a general link on Walt Whitman. Linking to the main page is nice and all, but if someone on that article on "The Cradle" is looking specifically for info on those lines, he/she would have to do a lot of digging to find something relevant. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. The purpose of a link is to assist the reader in the context of the article they are reading. It is not for the purpose of promoting the Whitman Archive in general. SpinningSpark 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you all for your help. I'll sift through and add specific links, as well as refrain from my initial "Whitmania." 129.93.54.119 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You might want to wait a few days before doing anything as you have already been reverted. Give other editors a chance to comment. SpinningSpark 17:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spinning, though I don't foresee any objection. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Our consensus here was apparently overruled. Please see User_talk:Whitman_Archive. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Two people does not make for consensus, specifically when multiple Wikipedia policies forbid such behavior. Consensus has already been established in Wikipedia policies by the larger community, they are;

• Confilct of interest
• External link spamming
• Advertising and conflicts of interest
• Accounts used for promotion
• What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia is not a repository for links
• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only (accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization.)

Spamming is never appropriate, particularly when it there is a conflict of interest as it violates Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates).

Abuse COI and spamming by the The Walt Whitman Archive

Whitman Archive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
129.93.54.134 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.54.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.54.108 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.54.119 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.16.34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.57.138 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.57.63 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.148.152 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.57.11 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
129.93.54.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

While some external links may be permitted by the External link guidelines, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to be included. Additionally, Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links". Further spamming will result in having their websites blacklisted.--Hu12 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's reopen this for discussion then. I see no reason why relevant sections of the Whitman Archive not be included in appropriate sections of relevant Whitman-related articles. Not including it at all on any Whitman pages on Wikipedia is inexcusable (I'd compare the project to what eapoe.org has done for Edgar Allan Poe); It is the source for Whitman online. Does anyone disagree with its inclusion? Please, please, join this discussion so more than two (actually three if you include the original IP editor) will make a broader consensus. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew carnegie?

Does anyone really care what carnegie's opinion of Whitman's work was???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.226.49.64 (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is rhetorical but, though I agree Carnegie isn't necessarily the best judge of poetry, his point of view is representative. I hope it doesn't bother you too much. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2013

Under the 'slavery' section, the current content seems to suggest Walt Whitman was in favour of democracy. He was a strict Republican and even wrote

'I say that democracy can never prove itself beyond cavil, until it founds and luxuriantly grows its own forms of art, poems, schools, theology, displacing all that exists, or that has been produced in the past, under opposite influences." — Walt Whitman, Democratic Vistas.

For a man as influential as Walt, maybe inclusion of this quote and some reference to his disdain for democracy could be included. His belief in the pitfalls of democracy showing themselves now throughout the world was shared by a great number of people of the the mid-late nineteenth century.

Thank you.

2.124.134.62 (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but disagree with your conclusions. As "The Poet of Democracy," Whitman may have been critical of the state of democracy (highlighting "pitfalls"), but was not anti-democratic. In the quote you provide, the only argument I see Whitman making is that democracy is improved by a richness in arts, poetry, religion etc. Could you clarify your definitions of "democracy" vs. "Republican"? --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Discussion can continue in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Racial issues

I don't agree with this revert: [9]. In what way is it synthesis? Dlabtot (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There actually were two problems with your changes, as I saw it: possible synthesis and undue weight. They're interrelated and hard to separate. I thought it might be synthesis because you stated what Whitman "believed", and the source doesn't say that; rightly or wrongly, you inferred it. We shouldn't be in the business of making blanket statements about what Whitman believed based on passages from his writings taken out of context. More to the point, it looked like cherry-picking from what is actually a rather nuanced essay with a fair amount of exculpatory comments that balance out the disturbing bits. Whitman said and wrote a great many things, and it's no surprise that some of them did him no credit; blatantly racist views were commonplace in the nineteenth century, even among principled figures of Whitman's intellectual and artistic standing. Removing the phrase "subscribed to the widespread opinion" removed the historical context, and selecting that one racially offensive quote out of a vast body of writings made Whitman look like a hateful dolt. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make the edit. I am a neutral third party. (Please pay attention.) I don't agree with anything you've said here. It's not out of context, and it doesn't make Whitman look like a hateful dolt. Rather than reverting outright, perhaps you should consider editing it to address your concerns. For instance you could add more about the historical context if you think it's necessary. Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, wasn't I paying attention? Quite right; I didn't check the article history. My apologies. Please pretend I was addressing the user who made the edit, as I obviously thought I was doing. Here's an alternative suggestion: since I don't see any deficits in the article requiring a fix along the lines of the edit in question but you—since you don't agree with anything I said—evidently do, perhaps you would like to just restore it? I'm essentially a neutral party as well; I arrived here to answer an edit request a few days ago and neglected to unwatch. It's only a slight overstatement to say I'd rather be boiled in a vat of oil than spend time working on the Walt Whitman article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

When one person makes an edit and a second person reverts that edit, the second person is not a neutral party. Also, the hostile attitude you've shown here is not conducive to colloborative editing. Dlabtot (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Article talk space is not the appropriate venue for discussing user conduct. If you would like to offer constructive criticism about my attitude (or, for that matter, if you'd like to wikilawyer me about my use of the phrase "essentially a neutral party" [emphasis added]), you are most welcome at my user talk page. In any event, my apology for getting my contributors confused—a common enough gaffe among Wikipedians of the human persuasion—was sincerely offered and still stands. Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

I don't really see a problem with the current photo, but the Reddit folk over on http://www.reddit.com/r/ColorizedHistory/wiki/index#toc_1 have begun to colorize old photos. They are put up, generally, for public use. So, assuming the copyright of the colorization is okay to use, does anyone have objections to using a colorization of the same photo of walt that is currently up? I think it breathes life into the old guy, personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdforbes500 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea to replace a historical photo with a colorized version which adds information that is not in the original nor possible to be known by the colorizer (at least in an encyclopedic reference). If you post a question in the talk page about a proposed edit (a good idea), please leave the question up for more than a few hours before editing the article (days or weeks is better). Neonorange (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but agree that this is not a good addition. The colorized images are ahistorical and it seems disingenuous to use them. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Notes

Note no. 124 -- The webpage with URL http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/whitman.htm has moved to the new address http://rictornorton.co.uk/whitman.htm Rictornorton (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2014

Hans Werner Henze is another composer who set Whitman's poetry. "Darest Thou Now O Soul" and "Whispers of Heavenly Death"213.106.40.253 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC) 213.106.40.253 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

In the section "Life and work", subsection "Early life", first paragraph: Walt Whitman's mother's name has been spelled incorrectly. "Velzor" should be spelled "Velzer"; hence, "Louisa Van Velzer Whitman". I am a descendant of the Van Velzer family, through my mother's side of the family. Kurt hueston (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I just checked and all the sources I found indicate that she went by "Louisa Van Velsor Whitman" (as the article already notes). To the original poster, it's very possible the spelling of the name was changed over the generations. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Influence on composers

The list of composers who set Whitman is already quite lengthy for a single sentence, and it's perhaps difficult to decide quite where to stop. I feel this is a relevant aspect of Whitman's legacy that perhaps deserves expanding, thereby avoiding an interminable list. For instance, there's Whitman's influence on Holst, who isn't currently mentioned, and the numerous settings of When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd. One obvious reliable source here might be the brief Grove entry (subscription needed), by Jack Sullivan, the author of New World Symphonies: How American Culture Changed European Music notes that Whitman's aesthetic "inspired more than 1200 vocal and instrumental settings, from the modernist asperity of Ruggles' Portals to the romantic expansiveness of Vaughan Williams's Sea Symphony." The article concludes:

Beginning with Parry and Stanford, some of the earliest settings were by English composers, who saw in Whitman a liberation from jingoism, prudery and prejudice. Despite the popular association of Whitman with undisciplined looseness, his concise, lesser-known later poems yielded more settings that [sic - typo fix requested] the more rhetorical early ones. The searing humanity and compassion of his Civil War poems made them popular during both World Wars, inspiring settings by Holst, Weill, Hanson, Hindemith and others.

With its first-person intimacy and openness to experience, Whitman's poetry has a peculiar universality, connecting with scenarios as varied as Holst's transcendental mysticism (Ode to Death, 1919), Weill's 1947 New York Street Scene and John Adams's evocation of the AIDS crisis (The Wound Dresser, 1987). The most daring and original settings, Delius's Sea Drift (1903–4) and Songs of Farewell (1930), eschew the cheery communalism attractive to so many composers to reveal a rarified aloofness and tranquility in the face of death. Although his popularity began mainly in Europe, in music as well as literature, numerous American composers including Luening, Sessions, Thomson, Carter, Starer, Bernstein, Hoiby, Rorem, Crumb and Persichetti contributed settings in the later 20th century.

And there's much more. 86.181.64.67 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's perfectly justifiable to create a new article on "Cultural influence of Walt Whitman" or something similar. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014

I would like to request that the following paragraph:

Whitman's sexuality is often discussed alongside his poetry. Though biographers continue to debate his sexuality, he is usually described as either homosexual or bisexual in his feelings and attractions. However, there is disagreement among biographers as to whether Whitman had actual sexual experiences with men.[4]

Is changed to:

Whitman's sexuality is often discussed alongside his poetry. He is usually described as either homosexual or bisexual.

JUSTIFICATION:

The credibility of information is not assured by virtue of it being provided in a published source. Hence, in addition to being published, a piece of information must also pass the test of being reasonably probable. In the book "The Song of Himself", Jerome Loving notes that the extent to which Walt Whitman had homosexual encounters is subject to debate. This is misleading. Based on the preponderance of information (much of which is supplied in the existing edition of the Wikipedia entry for Whitman) there is virtually no doubt that he was a practicing homosexual.

Loving, Jerome. Walt Whitman: The Song of Himself. University of California Press, 1999. ISBN 0-520-22687-9

MOTIVATION OF MY SUGGESTION:

Entries such as the one that cites Loving, are the result of homophobic tendencies which motivate biographers to "protect" the reputation of a great man or woman of literature by refuting that they actually had homosexual encounters. It is disrespectful to the memory of Walt Whitman to deny him the honest characterisation of a practising homosexual that is almost certainly true. Noting the so called "debate" puts on equal standing the likelihood that he did experience homosexual encounters to the possibility that he did not. This gives equal gravitas to what is almost certainly true to what is almost certainly false.

Please note, that questioning the sexuality of great minds is often observed in characterisations of known homosexuals. Another example is Konstantinos Kavafis.

Christistom (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful request and its carefully explained justification. Thank you for taking the time. But I feel that the "maybe, maybe not" as expressed in the article best fully represents the the lack of consensus among published sources. You may consider reading our analysis of this very topic as it related to this article in a paper "Containing Multitudes", found online in the interdisciplinary journal Polymath. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Aucoin

@Neonorange: regarding this revert, why is Matthew Aucoin being kept out of the alphabetical listing, and why is his redlinked opera mentioned specifically while the works of other, much more famous composers are not? The subject of this article is, of course, Whitman. VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I made mistakes. I hope my edit summaries will establish that I wasn't completely aware of what I was doing, and was conflating summaries and edits over the past few exchanges. I apologize for the disruptive effect. Here is my preference and argument: the Aucoin opera, with its great early recption will be a notable opera, based on Whitman's life, as expressed through his diaries. The composers listed seem to have created different, more abstract, transmutations. The solution should be a single sentence with wiki-link for each artist and work, listing work, artist, Italic textwith category, and... Listing could be by first performance.

I am not an opera buff, but seeing notice in this article of the Aucoin, I am persuaded to go to a performance, or at least catch a broadcast. That impulse, if acted on, is a great way to flesh out Whitman. And next—Walt at War—starring? — Neonorange (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the text of this paragraph is ok as it is. The reason for listing Aucoin is that his opera got a major review in the New York Times, which means it is notable. The reason for listing the opera separately is that (I presume this is correct) this is the only opera written about Whitman. Thus it's sensible to say, "Whitman's poems have been set to music by a, b, c ... and there is also a recent opera by x..." Littlewindow (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the separate sentence on the opera by Aucoin is warranted—its source is Whitman's diaries, and the NYT review is an indication of its quality. I've begun to check the other works, beginning with Bernstein's—a short portion of a longer work, inspired by Whitman and using the words of a lost poem never published by the poet, though, of course, the musical composition is by Bernstein.

And let me apologize for not properly proofing when using an iPad—its spellchecking and word auto completion are a mystery to me. — Neonorange (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep such listings simple and concise. The article, after all, is about Walt Whitman -- I mean, it's Walt Whitman. An indiscriminate list of inspired media or tributes is trivial and insignificant by comparison and, ultimately, adds very little to such a monumental figure in American poetry. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Indiscriminate, no; trivial, no; insignificant, no. All the prose about Walt Whitman hardly matches the artistic conversation with Whitman in these works. Save your scissors for 'Whitman as a character in a Star Trek movie'. — Neonorange (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am just not seeing it. Crossing may or may not eventually be a bluelink, but the works by all the other people mentioned have been reviewed as well - nothing special there. Whitman has inspired a lot of derivative works (someone want to write an article at Works inspired by Walt Whitman or Adaptions of Walt Whitman's poetry)? Putting extra focus on this particular opera seems much more like recentism than anything else. VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Should the article include the unauthenticated Whitman voice recording?

I use the word "unauthenticated" for neutrality, but honestly "very probably fake" is my own estimate. The views of Whitman experts vary, but among experts in historical sound recordings of this period there seems to be agreement. This Library of Congress blog post gives a good summary of the matter. Should we remove the audio from this article? ReverendWayne (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the recording itself garnered attention from the LOC makes me think it merits a (brief) mention, fake or no. A reader could plausibly come here after hearing about it looking for more information. As for how to characterize the recording, I suggest directly quoting the source you linked rather than making an assessment in Wikipedia's voice: "it has long been the opinion of the reference staff at the Library of Congress that the recording... is a fake." VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The situation regarding the recording is more complicated than can be resolved by just quoting one source, even as respectable a one as the LOC. An internet search on "Walt Whitman Recording" will turn up a lot of discussion by respectable scholars and journalists (see especially the NYT article at http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/16/books/poem-is-whitman-s-is-the-voice.html and the paper at http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1340&context=wwqr) which indicates that there is not yet any firm consensus on the recordings authenticity. Given all this, I think it's appropriate to include a link to the recording, with a text indicating that the question of its authenticity is still undecided. Littlewindow (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As a bit of a Whitman scholar, I would agree with the above comment: scholarly consensus does not exist. For now, perhaps, we can add an external link, as we prepare for a meatier discussion of the recording within the text. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2015

Copypaste of entire article removed

Epicmickey342 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Images and Perception

'1. Main Photo: The main photo of Whitman in his dotage looks like he's on his last breath. Yes he had a long dotage, but surely an image of him in his prime would be more visually pleasing and just as appropriate? My choice would be the rarely seen 2nd Photo on the page at the link below. It's from the Gay Wilson Allen at Duke Uni and the site's FAQs say those can be used. http://www.whitmanarchive.org/multimedia/gallery.html

'2. Leaves of Grass Frontpiece photo: The book's frontpiece engraving from a photo, showing him in a cocked hat, unbuttoned shirt, no jacket, and insouciance in the stance is both daring for the period and marketing genius, and Whitman - so conscious of his public image throughout his life - surely knew it. I tried to find a source that addresses this matter, and haven't found anything very suitable. It would be great if someone knows of one.

3. Whitman as a liar: While checking out the photos came across this obit for the Whitman biographer Gay Wilson Allen. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/08/obituaries/gay-wilson-allen-biographer-dies-at-92.html It states: "the biography also showed the poet's less attractive aspects, including his fondness for telling lies about himself. Professor Allen wrote that Whitman's claims to have had a love affair in Louisiana and to have sired six children out of wedlock were entirely false." The Wiki article puts it as "Some contemporary scholars are skeptical of the veracity of Whitman's denial or the existence of the children he claimed." If Allen's biography conclusively proved the claims to be false it should be stated as such - although preferably by inserting Allen's name as a citation and not in the body of the text. The fact that Whitman told such a whopper to presumably shape his public image, is also surely worthy of mention with appropriate citation. Engleham (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Saying any source conclusively proves anything is not what Wikipedia is here to do. We can cite Allen's claims as Allen's opinion, but the salient fact is that Whitman made the claims, and proving them utterly and absolutely false is something not even Allen can do. Note the NYT cited the claim as Allen's opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I also disagree with this proposed edit, at least with such conviction, though I see the point. It's worth noting, all the same, that for all the work one person mentioned did to disprove Whitman's claims, another has done even more to find the grave of Whitman's alleged progeny. I do agree that some further discussion of Whitman's very conscious choice for the frontispiece is a good addition -- but I would recommend it for the Leaves of Grass article, not the general biography of Whitman. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Midnightdreary. Lovely word 'progeny'. Who's the grave scholar? Linky? Engleham (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I co-authored a paper on perceptions of Whitman's sexuality which included the story. Unfortunately I can't seem to find my notes for it at this moment. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Walt Whitman - George Collins Cox.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Walt Whitman - George Collins Cox.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 26, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-03-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Walt Whitman (1819–1892) was an American poet, essayist and journalist. A humanist, he was a part of the transition between transcendentalism and realism, incorporating both views in his works. Whitman is among the most influential poets in the American canon, often called the father of free verse. His work was very controversial in its time, particularly his poetry collection Leaves of Grass (first published in 1855, but continuously revised until Whitman's death), which was described as obscene for its overt sexuality.Photograph: George C. Cox; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Whitman - Cosmically Conscious?

I note that in the extremely well-done description of Mr. Whitman, that there is no mention of Dr. RM Bucke's work 'Cosmic Consciousness' wherein, and as a friend of Mr. Whitman's, Bucke gives an extremely compelling and detailed account of Whitman's exalted state of consciousness.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Maurice_Bucke>

-Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.136.125 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Find where various other third party sources from more recent scholars that indicate that it's important enough for such a brief overview of Whitman and that it is not WP:FRINGE. It would have to be no more than a brief mention or it violates WP:UNDUE. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)