Talk:John Muir

An event mentioned in this article is a May 28 selected anniversary.

---

Connected?

What exactly is meant by the phrase "in nature everything is connected"? In what sense is, say the eye color of a given fruit fly specimen 'connected' to the geographical range of the Himalaya cedar, apart from the trivial fact that they both pertain to living things? Tjunier 07:51, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

The definition of "everything" would naturally include the trivial, would it not? --Colin Angus Mackay 11:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Mackay. It's not hard to see the idea behind the phrase, and yes, it does include everything. Radishes 05:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Bias

This is easily the worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia, many of the sentances and paragraphs read like they were copy/pasted from a cult brochure! Could a better writer than I clean up the slanted and subjective statements? -- 24.128.13.186 20:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please list your specific concerns? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

What are the "slanted and subjective statements", please? --Colin Angus Mackay 23:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If this article is "his" bio, then it should be his bio. That said, some phrases need to be removed: "He thought", "Anticipating", "He also anticipated modern conservation biologists". Put what he DID, WROTE, or SAID, NOT what he thought or anticipated. This needs to be cited: "During this time he started to develop his theories about how the area developed and how its ecosystem functioned." All-in-all it is a good article, you just can't include thoughts unless you have letters, diaries, and the like. If it was his life, then it was "his" life and should be in the article. WikiDon 21:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• These are valid concerns all; however, the verb "anticipate" does not, as used here, align with your argument insofar as it's simply showing his connection with later movements (it's not getting inside his head in the same way the verb "think" is). It is hardly inappropriate in the introduction to a biography—which the first paragraph most certainly is—to show relevance by connecting the biographical subject with later movements so as to show some of his or her relevance today. Saposcat 09:21, 13 June 2005 (GMT +02:00)

• Found another questionable one: "some say from sorrow", who say's? Cite it. He was 76 years old in 1914, he could have died from old age and "drank the water".

[1] (http://www.pbs.org/weekendexplorer/destinations/california/mammoth/muir.htm) [2] (http://myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=j_muir) [3] (http://ventana.sierraclub.org/conservation/regional/hetch_restore.shtml) to cite a few. It may be an urban (Sierran?) legend, but it's in enough places to mention, at least. -- hike395 23:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with these websites is that they are not encyclopedias, like Wikipedia is “supposed” to be, they are more editorials, and can take parts of what they want, and not cite their sources. But, their use of wording is better:

On the PBS site the use words like: "His words", "due to Muir's words", "was coined in the following passage by Muir" (then they quote the direct writing), "Muir also wrote"; they quote him directly throughout. This is preferable to: "He thought", "Anticipating", "He also anticipated". They deviate on the last passage, the "broken heart" one. Look at the titles for this link: "Experience the poetry of John Muir" and "In Muir's Words", this sets it up from the beginning. Problem with this site is that the also do not cite where they found the writings.

They don't use words like "THINK" and "THOUGHT", they put quotes in quotation marks.

What you need is to quote a passage from his book, "The Wild Muir: Twenty-Two of John Muir's Greatest Adventures" by John Muir, and then cite it. If you quote him directly, no one can fault you for that.

On the Sierra Club website, they don't say: "he thought that the dam was a bad idea", they say: "Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man." A direct quote from him. They do, however, also put in the "broken heart" thing, PBS probably got it from them, or the same people wrote both, in either case they don't say who said it. I would leave it out, unless you wanted to put it in quotes and say: "XYZ said that John Muir died of a broken heart", or "many people believe that he died of a broken heart", it is better all around.

The broken heart, or sorrow, comment is an editorial comment, and does not belong in an encyclopedia, unless it can be directly (or even indirectly as I have noted above) quoted.

Don’t say he “thought”, put what “he” thought, then let the reader decide. Don't tell, show. Do you see how the three websites quote him directly first, then try to interpret what he is quoted to have said? Wikipedia needs to quote him directly, or some one else, and less interpretation, the reader can interpret (although most writers interpret, its human nature).

Do you have access to his book? Can you quote it directly? WikiDon 01:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I was only addressing your comment about "broken heart". I was not commenting on "think" or "thoughts". I didn't write that section.

It is factually correct that "some say he died of sorrow [broken heart]", because I've found several people who say that. It doesn't matter whether it is an editorial comment or not: these are valid secondary sources.

The Sierra Club has collected a large array of primary sources about John Muir (all of his books, and many of his letters, I believe). These primary sources are available at http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/writings/index.html . A number of further secondary sources are available at http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/life/index.html . Feel free to double-check against that body of knowledge. -- hike395 01:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This I can get behind: "some say he died of sorrow" or "broken heart". WikiDon 05:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)