Talk:Walden

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Walden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Literature Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 9, 2014.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abair26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a novel.

changed intro to page from "...is an American novel." to "...is an American classic."

By definition, a novel is a work of fiction, and Walden is considered non-fiction. Walden is, however, commonly referred to as an American classic.

Poetree:Thoreau

I stumbled on an album by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and titled Poetree:Thoreau. The tracks consist of classic music pieces interspersed with quotes from Walden. I am unable to find a page for this album on the official site of the orchestra but music streaming services (Apple Music, Amazon Music, Spotify, YouTube Music) carry the album. Online databases (AllMusic, MusicBrainz) and scrobbling services (Last.fm) too list the album. Would this album make a good addition to the section Influence? - wneo (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

it would be nice to fix the following sentence, but what does it mean?

The house's cost is US$28.12 (equivalent to $919.52 in 2023) and fewer still, if any, the separate cost of the various materials which compose them: Potholehotline (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC) ach, pardon me, i see now that it's an incomplete quote from the book, i'll fill it out so it makes sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potholehotline (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like AI?

Generally, article reads like it was written by ChatGPT, especially when going through the themes in bold. Even if not done with AI, the article doesn't read with the correct tone for an Encyclopedia like Wiki. DuckDictatorship (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a "relevant" influence of a text in culture and an "irrelevant" one?

My edit as an addition was removed, both seemingly on the basis that an accurate page recounting factual detail from a video game was deemed "unreliable" by a mod, and that by addition was deemed irrelevant. This is in spite of the fact that similar references to other video games, an episode of South Park, and a vague gesture towards the entire genre of nature writing is allowed to include. Do I get a feeling that things are removed by mods on wikipedia based purely on uncritical intuition? 80.44.184.192 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to as I was saying earlier (see previous), why did the mod remove an entire contribution when the issue was their opinion of what a reliable source for information about a video game is? I'm angry because there are plenty of contributions in the same article that isn't sourced at all that is included. It's very disrespectful to contributors to just delete entire blocks of text, with the only explanation being "non-RS". Not inkeeping with the ethos of the site 80.44.184.192 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I agree that there are other contributions that may need improvement or removal. But that should be addressed by improving or removing them, not by adding more. "In popular culture" sections in particular seem to be magnets for additions of trivial or irrelevant references, which is why they are limited to entries that have secondary sourcing indicating the significance of a particular reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more respectful response, thank you.

"Trivial" is not an objective basis for editorial. Red Dead Redemption 2 is one of the highest selling and most well received video games in history, regarded by many critics to be a landmark of the medium. To say it is any more or less relevant is to show bias towards one medium of art over another.

For me, it is entirely clear that the significance is in its inclusion in the game, but unfortunately these discussions are confined to "unreliable sources" because they are just discussions until granted the esteem of inclusion in a journal or a newspaper. This is historically the case with non-academically respected artforms. 80.44.184.192 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong that different media are treated differently by sources. Unfortunately though Wikipedia is a reflection of secondary sources rather than a correction of their biases. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]