Talk:Walden

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)

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)

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

The house's cost is US$28.12 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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)