Talk:Walt Whitman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Walt Whitman has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Article milestones

Date Process Result

February 13, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

April 9, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Current Status: Good article

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

 

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated GA-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography portal

GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Core This article is listed on this project's core biographies page.

More information about this article...

The following comments have been left for this page:

(edit)

WikiProject Poetry (Rated GA-Class)

Walt Whitman is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.

GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject LGBT studies     (Rated GA-Class)

LGBT portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.

GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

This article has an assessment summary page.

This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Archives

Archive 1

About archives

[edit] 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)

[edit] Oral Tradition

A distinguished cartoonist, Creig Flessel, who was born about 1910 (give or take a few years), grew up in Whitman's old neighborhood (south of Huntington, LI), and his grandmother had grown up there before him. What Creig told me he had heard about Walt (through three or four generations of the local grapevine) was that any kids of either sex who still had their virginity were the few that could outrun Walt. I believe this was a reference to WW's high school days - as a student, not when he was a teacher, but I could be wrong. I have no reason to believe this tidbit is anything less than authentic - although of course it could have evolved a bit before it reached me. - Chelydra

[edit] 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

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

whos stolen Walt ???

[edit] 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:

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:

Sounds very nearly as stupid as:

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)

[edit] 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:

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)