Talk:John Muir/Archive 1

Archive 1

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] [2] [3] 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)

Sentence Structure - "Pressure then started to mount to dam the Tuolumne River for use as a water reservoir for San Francisco." Fix please, Muir's article is an abomination! These grammer problems are all over the place.

Connected?

What exactly is meant by the phrase "in nature everything is connected"? It means every thing relis on each other 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? --User:Colin Angus MachhhMackay 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)

every living thing is connected via evolution, and they are all linked to environment by natural selection. But I read it as more a moral judgment saying that nature is all sacred. It is a statement about nature, not one about descriptive sentences. Rjensen 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 I beleive he is stating the fact of his Pantheistic beleif system. I have enjoyed his life works over the past 10
years of my life. I started reading his books cause he is Pantheist.

Muir and hunting

"Muir argued with vigor about what he considered the questionable ethics of hunting (calling it the "murder business")." This may be misleading, Muir may not be arguing against hunting when speaking of "murder business" but against the wanton senseless slaughter of wild animals. He seems to admire other members of his hunting party in "Shasta Game". In "The Cruise of the Corwin" he contrast killing for "giggling, jolly pleasure" with killing by the Inuit writing; "The Eskimos hunt and kill them for food, going out to meet them on the ice with spears and dogs" KAM 13:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Does anyone think this should be nominated as a featured article? I just nominated another so I don't think that I should be the one to nominate it right now, if you think it should be that is. Steve Dufour 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Conservationist or preservationist?

Either one is fine with me. You are right that he is more correctly a preservationist but to the average person he is a conservationist since most people don't know about the split between the two. Steve Dufour 12:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely at this time that the preservationist/conservationist split emerged. Many see that split embodied by Muir and Gifford Pinchot and it revolves around each man's conception of what nature was good for. Muir believed nature had an overriding spiritual value; Pinchot believed that nature's most important value was to serve as an enduring resource for the material benefit of human civilization. However, while the verbage existed in his day and distinctions between the ideas of Pinchot and Muir have been emphasized by both environmental activists and environmental historians, it may be better to understand preservationism as a subset of ideas under a more general category called conservation. Conservation being the generally the idea that parts of the natural world should be set aside or excluded from immediate human development or consumption for several reasons. One reason being that nature has moral or spiritual values (Transendentalists, early Preservationists, etc); another being that reserving certain parts of nature (like forested watersheds) protects the productivity of other, developed parts (Pinchot and the forest reserve (later called National Forest) system). Both argue that parts of the natural world should be excluded from certain human uses, they differ though on acceptable uses and primary justifications for setting aside. Dw5 17:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Essay

The below essay was added by an anon. It should be cleaned up and merged back into the article. See WP:NOT for why essays are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --mav 20:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

An essay on the Life and Work of John Muir

When visiting the famed Niagara Falls, one will see hundreds of high-rise buildings, golf courses, strip malls, and, oh yes, maybe some waterfalls. Tourism and development have masked Niagara’s beauty. Across the country in California’s Yosemite National Park, there are no neon lights, parking lots or McDonald’s, just the majestic panoramas nature has been sculpting for thousands of years. The difference in the fate of these two landmarks can be credited to one of the world’s greatest advocates for the preservation of nature: John Muir.

Muir cried out against reckless lumber companies, greedy businesses, and an uninformed government that threatened the environment. He joined forces with politicians and editors to protect the Yosemite Valley. He wrote articles and books that eloquently illustrated a passionate plea for conservation, which not only helped to save Yosemite from the axe, but also many other natural treasures. John Muir took a stand for the wilderness, fighting for its preservation for the benefit of future generations.

On April 21, 1838, Muir was born in Dunbar, Scotland. His father, Daniel, was a devout Christian and a strict, intimidating man. In 1849, Daniel sold his shop in Dunbar and moved his family to Kingston, Wisconsin. With its wide open spaces and abundant forests, America fed Muir’s growing interest in the natural world. “We discovered a blue-jay’s nest and in a minute or so we were up the tree beside it feasting our eyes on the beautiful green eggs and beautiful birds”. However, Muir’s father frowned upon this fascination as he believed it distracted Muir from religion. Muir yearned to break away from these paternal chains and, in 1860, he stood up to his father’s command and left his home in search of a more meaningful life.

Muir’s quest began with a trip to Wisconsin’s State Agricultural Fair to exhibit several of his inventions such as his “early rising machine” and iron rod thermometer. The praise they received encouraged him to seek education in 1861 at the University of Wisconsin. He dropped out after two years, however, to enroll in “The University of the Wilderness”.

Beginning in the early summer of 1863, Muir set out on a series of wilderness walks throughout the Midwest and Great Lakes. On one hike around his sister’s property in Portage, Wisconsin, he encountered a pristine pond surrounded by a delicate woodland habitat of marsh grasses and flowers. He asked if his sister’s husband would construct a fence to protect this treasure from the local cattle and farmers. According to biographer Robert Silverberg, “This was perhaps his first attempt at preaching the gospel of conservation, a philosophy that could eventually make him a key figure in the creation of some of the United States’ most important national parks”.

In 1867, Muir’s life was changed when he was blinded by an accident with a saw in Indianapolis. When he regained his eyesight, Muir was prompted to explore God’s work in nature. In 1867 he began a walk across the country, which he wrote about in the book, A Thousand-Mile Walk to the Gulf. When the trip ended in 1868, he landed in San Francisco, California. This state’s mountains, valleys, and lakes would soon earn John Muir as their guardian from the destructiveness of humanity.

“The mighty Sierra, miles in height, and so gloriously colored and so radiant, it seemed not clothed with light, but wholly composed of it, like the wall of some celestial city”. These were Muir’s words of astonishment when he first witnessed the splendor of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. Muir had eagerly left the man-made city for God’s creation – the wilderness. Ancient forests spread across vast, unspoiled terrain, broken only by a valley carved by glaciers and framed with immense granite masses. “A grand Sierra cathedral… that no temple made by hands can compare”, exclaimed Muir as he hiked into a place he had only read about – The Yosemite Valley.

Using trees felled by recent storms, Muir fashioned himself a small cabin within the Valley. From 1869 to 1874 he resided here and occupied himself with hiking throughout the area. While climbing the Valley’s mountain, he began formulating ideas of Yosemite’s origin. Large piles of boulders and rubble along with peculiar scratches and grooves on rocks reminded Muir of Swiss scientist Louis Agassiz’s glacial theories, which he had learned about at the University. Muir’s observations disproved the accepted theory that earthquakes shaped Yosemite. He was convinced that the Valley was the work of ancient glaciers. Critics called him ignorant, but he stood firm behind his theory. As he traveled throughout the West and Alaska he would be the first to hypothesize that much of America’s topography was due to, as he termed it, “a glacier’s eternal grind”.

Muir’s studies of the Yosemite area caused him to realize how valuable, yet how vulnerable an ecosystem it was. One mountain, El Capitan, is the largest granite boulder in the world. Another, Half Dome, has adorned the Valley for 10 million years. This massive spherical rock is cut almost flawlessly down the middle, distinguishing it as one of the earth’s rarest natural features. When Muir saw the destruction of these wonders caused by tourists, loggers, and sheep, his attention switched from studying the area to protecting it. He married Louise Wanda Strentzel in 1880, and he and his wife agreed to spend the rest of their lives campaigning for the wild.

A bill signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864 had placed Yosemite under the protection of the California State Park Commission, but Muir felt that the area was not yet out of harm’s way. He looked at the successful creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 and wished the same federal protection for Yosemite. In an article he wrote on conservation, Muir claimed, “God has cared for the trees but cannot save them from fools, only Uncle Sam can do that”.

In 1889, Robert Underwood Johnson, the editor of Century Magazine, presented a solution for Yosemite. He had read many of Muir’s articles about the perils the Sierras faced and was equally saddened by their destruction. Being the outdoorsman he was, Muir suggested that he and Johnson discuss the problems on a sojourn to Yosemite. Seeing the area grazed and farmed to become “as bare as the streets of San Francisco,” (Muir wrote to Johnson), the editor suggested that the two men work together to save the valley from further harm. If Muir would write two articles on the importance of a “Yosemite National Park,” Johnson would publish them in Century in hopes of persuading the public to conserve the land.

All that is accessible and destructible is being rapidly destroyed – more rapidly than in any other Yosemite in the Sierra, though this is the only one that is under the special protection of the Government”. In September, 1890, Johnson published Muir’s articles “Treasures of the Yosemite” and “Features of the Proposed Yosemite National Park” in Century magazine. Muir’s moving pleas and vivid descriptions stirred up a boiling controversy. Those in the East brandished their pens and paper and furiously wrote letters to Congress urging the founding of Muir’s parks. In the West however, there were cries of a robbery of resources. The lumber companies and farmers knew the national parks would remove large tracts of land from the reach of their axes’ blades and livestock’s teeth. Public opinion of park creation was divided.

But then Muir received an unexpected ally, The Southern Pacific Railroad. Although a culprit for clearing old growth forests, Southern Pacific saw a potential monopoly of increased tourism and sent lobbyists to assist Muir and Johnson. In 1890, Muir’s scientific knowledge and persuasive writing, Johnson’s influential magazine, and the Railroad’s economic power, swayed Congress to pass a bill creating Yosemite National Park.

Muir’s work was not yet finished. Unlike most conservationists of the time, Muir realized the importance of preserving entire watersheds instead of solitary rivers. As he observed, if the tributaries that fed into a river were left unprotected they would soon become polluted. This pollution would eventually drift into the river, leading to its ruin. A design for the park by U.S. Representative William Vandever originally excluded much of Yosemite’s drainage system. Understanding that although the valley was protected, it would be killed by the unprotected watershed, Muir protested. In a letter to Johnson he writes, “As I have urged over and over [Yosemite] is not valuable for any other use than the use of beauty!” The House Committee on Public Lands complied with Muir’s request, accepting his 1,512-square-mile design that encompassed the Merced River and Tuolumne River basins and Hetch Hetchy Valley. Muir had won the battle for Yosemite.

The ancient Sequoia trees of California were Muir’s second love. He affectionately called them “big trees,” but they were much more than just big. These pines are considered the largest living things on earth and can grow to monstrous sizes of 300 feet tall, 35 feet in diameter (large enough for cars to drive through), and weigh more than 5 million pounds. But these trees did not reach their size in a few years. According to the video Yosemite: Sierras and Sequoias, “The Grizzly Giant, approaching 3,000 yeas old, sprouted when humans barely knew the meaning of civilization.” For this reason, Muir immediately saw the historical value of the Sequoias. He cried out in protest when the red-barked towers that took generations to grow were felled. In hopes of raising awareness for the trees, Muir designed a tentative Sequoia National Park south of Yosemite. These park boundaries would guard several more groves of the precious trees. His articles for Century spoke about the Sequoias and, as with Yosemite, there was public outcry for their protection. Congress passed another bill creating Sequoia National Park, and within a week, General Grant National Park also was founded to preserve more of the colossal creatures. The Sierras were finally receiving the national attention and protection Muir knew they deserved.

With their morale boosted and chins raised high with pride, Muir and Johnson looked for other ways to achieve preservation in the Sierras. Muir wrote a third article for Century, “A revival of the Yosemite” that was so powerful it convinced President Benjamin Harrison to set aside 17 million more acres of forest that housed giant Sequoias. In a letter to Johnson, Muir wrote “Let us do something to make the mountains glad.” So on May 28, 1892, Muir and some friends traveled to San Francisco to found the Sierra Club. Muir was elected president and the club’s long history of preservation was off to a start. The club would fight – and overcome – several attempts to decrease Yosemite’s size, and it would introduce thousands of Americans to the glory of nature.

In 1897, the National Forestry Commission asked Muir to write a report that would be placed under President Cleveland. His work addressed the problems that faced northwestern United States’ forests and called for the creation of Grand Canyon and Mount Rainier National Parks. To the dismay of mining and lumber companies, the president dedicated 13 new forest reserves. However, after Cleveland left office, this work was suspended and the forests were left to be logged. Muir wrote to Johnson “The fight must go on!” and composed his most passionate and moving article “American Forests.” He cried, “Any fool can destroy trees. They cannot run away; and if they could they would still be destroyed – chased and hunted down as long as fun or a dollar could be got out of their magnificent bole backbones”. The House of Representatives obeyed Muir’s compelling words and saved the reserves with a vote of 100 to 39.

During his lifetime, Muir published seven of his 16 books that educated Americans on the environment. Impressed with the writing of Our National Parks and concerned for the wilderness, President Theodore Roosevelt planned a trip to California in 1901 to witness the beauty the book described. Upon arrival, he rejected hotels and other hospitalities to camp out under the stars with Muir. For four days, Muir guided Roosevelt to the park’s treasures and voiced the issues the American wilderness confronted. Roosevelt listened to Muir’s determined words. His presidency yielded 235 million acres of protected land, which increased the National Forest System by 400 percent. As advised by Muir, he created 23 national monuments and five new national parks, including Grand Canyon. This was “a precedent followed by all subsequent presidents except Nixon, Reagan and Bush”.

In the early 1900’s, serious plans to dam Yosemite’s sister valley, Hetch Hetchy, developed. Muir believed that the area rivaled Yosemite’s beauty and was infuriated at the prospect of losing it to a reservoir. He proclaimed, “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”. Muir attacked the issue ferociously. He set up The Society for the Preservation of National Parks and convinced President William Howard Taft to oppose the dam. His work kept a detrimental decision at bay for several years. However, with the election of Woodrow Wilson, the Valley’s future was back in jeopardy. On December 19, 1913, Wilson signed the bill that would convert Hetch Hetchy into a water-source for San Francisco. Muir died the next year in 1914.

Muir’s life would be an inspiration to future preservationists. They would go on to found more than 50 national parks that today compose a unique collection of protected treasures. With the United States as a model, nations as far away as Kenya and Australia would set up their own national park systems. Muir’s determination motivated his Sierra Club to continue his fight after his death. The club has developed into a national organization that even speaks of restoring Hetch Hetchy, Muir’s one lost battle. In January 2006, the Sierra Club’s Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania chairperson, Alisa Bauman, wrote a column in The Morning Call newspaper that urged the protection of 49 acres of the area’s South Mountain. Throughout the world and the country, and on a local level, Muir’s influence has lived on to spark conservation movements.

John Muir was the voice for the wilderness. He feared an earth where man would replace mighty trees with blackened stumps and scenic vistas with smokestacks. This vision compelled him to speak out against those who might destroy what could never be restored. His journey began with a small project to protect his sister’s pond but turned into a quest to preserve some of America’s most valuable natural landmarks. His fight for Yosemite National Park laid the foundation of a park system that millions of people enjoy each year. Without his Sierra Club, the modern world would lack multitudes of acres of wilderness that preserve a rich natural heritage. The movement all began with a curious boy fascinated by a blade of grass, developed into a crusade against environmental ignorance, and continues today with those who are inspired to carry on John Muir’s legacy of conservation.

Works Cited

Also Badè, William Frederic. The Life and Letters of John Muir. Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1924.

Bio Redundant

If you read through the biography, half-way though, it starts over again. The two parts should be merged into one. I was reading through, and I went from his glacial theories back to his child-hood, and his factory accident.

Good catch. Someone copied in a long biography from this site [4]. I've removed it now. -Will Beback · † · 07:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What's all that about grammer? Is the word spelt wrong or is it knot? Yes, the word is spelled, but remains incorrect. I would prefer if the biters wood knot bight themselfs quiet so much. ≈81.171.159.172 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Indians from the Sierras?

I took this out of the article. If true it requires much more evidence. The one observation about a group of Indians is not enough. He also made many criticisms of white people, of course. Steve Dufour 04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vision restored, that was removed with Indians. Finavon 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference for Criticism

Not sure if removal of the reference (currently 5) was accidental.Restored and incorrect templates corrected. Finavon 09:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Superb Article

One of the best on Wikipedia. FA class in all but name. The prose is beautiful and the appreciation for the human side of Muir made reading the article as much of a joy as can be found in good literature.

Damn if it's not encyclopediac. The encyclopedia that does not embrace the emotional side of man's nature when it is demanded is lacking. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hyperion reference

I know there is a campaign against the "in popular culture" sections going on, as they are considered by some to be trivial trivia that doesn"t belong in a dignified encyclopedia, but I'll just post here that in the Hugo-winning novel Hyperion by Dan Simmons, the Muir is the sacred place of the Templars, a very powerful galactic order dedicated to protecting all life forms and their natural habitats. Maybe that can be briefly mentioned in a "legacy" section somewhere. SidiLemine--82.151.88.108 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose there must be lots of references out there that should be included in the article. --Ellohir (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Article improvements

During the coming weeks (and maybe months) I'll be continuing with improvements to the article with the goal of getting it at or near Good Article quality. Anyone with suggestions or feedback, please don't hesitate to post here. And of course, anyone with the time to improve the article, better yet! A busy real life means I'll be here off and on, so sometimes I may not respond quickly. Things that need doing:

• Expansion of the following parts of Muir's life: Travels to Alaska, Hetch Hetchy dam, Sierra Club, Thousand Mile Walk, Glacier theory controversy, Yosemite preservation campaign, Writings, Mountain adventures (Stickeen, climbs of Shasta and Rainer, etc.).
• New sections on: Legacy, ?
• Inline citations are needed here, there, and everywhere.
• And?

Thanks, First Light (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty well written and covers most key subjects. I'll try to rearrange the sections and add a few sub-sections to keep things organized. A few sections that could be useful, IMO, would be ones like, "Writings," "Personal life," "Religious beliefs," and "Legacy." Feedback for any changes, pro or con, is helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I redid Loren Eiseley, another naturalist, to give you some idea of how I organized it. But since a lot of this article is already written with plenty of cites, it won't be as dramatic a revision. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's looking better, although I've noticed that many citations and listed secondary sources are missing information; ISBNs where applicable, publisher cities, editors, etc. I've made a couple corrections so far, but more will have to be done. There is also a lot more research needed, seeing as how there are numerous {{fact}} tags throughout. There are tons of sources available, so let's try to stick to the most reliable ones we can find; Miller's book (Magnificent Tramp) worries me, for example, since World Cat categorizes it as targeting the "juvenile audience". Perhaps it should be replaced with a more reliable biography. María (habla conmigo) 20:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the Miller book cite was only used once on a minor phrase. While I don't think the book can add much substance to the article since it lacks many sources, it's helpful to keep as an "easy-reading" bio for a lot of readers. At the other end of the spectrum are books like Holmes, much of which reads like Sigmund Freud, and is equally unsuitable for the article, IMO. Thanks for the clean-up, BTW. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While readability is always a plus, academic integrity -- in terms of the material itself, but also the author -- matters more in terms of WP:RS, I think. Miller is actually cited four times throughout the article, and his ideas constitute a majority of the "Nature writer" section. What I'm saying is that more reliable sourcing is necessary for this article to progress, and that authoritative biographies and critical analysis works from trusted Muir scholars should be the first to be consulted. I can weed through the "Secondary sources" section, if that would help. María (habla conmigo) 21:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the cites are a bit tricky since the ones that just have the last name and page number, in some articles I've seen, refer to the full cites below. I thought they were for Charles Miller. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way things are usually done, but obviously this article is still a work in progress. All the more reason to weed through the "Secondary sources" section! Perhaps it can be separated into "Secondary sources" -- i.e., works actually used as sources for the article -- and "Further reading". Charles Miller will fall into the latter, and Rod Miller into the former. María (habla conmigo) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Further Reading would keep it unambiguous. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions

Wikiwatchder1 should be commended for trying to improve this article, but the addition of quote after quote after quote is starting to sound a bit tedious, especially since most of them simply restate the same information in different words. The most recent batch makes the article sound more like a eulogy than an encyclopedia article. It would be nice to get a selection of opinions on this, particularly from objective editors who haven't had a hand in the article. --Sift&Winnow 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Top importance???

Is this guy really worthy of a 'top importance' rating for California iarticles? 1812ahill (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain your thoughts a bit more? You're obviously against it, but why? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to respond to such a vague question from 1812ahill, but I consider "this guy" to be exceptionally important. He was a key figure in the origins of the modern environmental movement and the early development of our U. S. National Parks. There is a national monument named after him that attracts millions of visitors. His home is a national historic site. He's been on two U.S. postage stamps, the California quarter, and a major medical center and many schools are named after him. He founded one of the largest grassroots environmental groups in the world. It would be foolish to classify this article any other way, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As the only person in America referred to as "Father of the National Parks," he should probably also be added to the "top importance" rating for American history articles, or similar category. He was a key inspiration for photographer Ansel Adams, who is also included in the "top importance" rating for California articles. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my terminology sounded disrespectful. Muir was obviously a very important person wrt. US National Parks and early environmental issues. The reason I query his top-importance rating is that if one looks at the California top-imp. articles list one sees quite a heavy geographical/environmental/topological bias. A quick scan of it revealed only Pat Sajak(? who he ?), John Muir, Ronald Reagan and the founder of a chain of Spanish missionary stations (can't remember his name) as being notable enough for top-importance wrt. California related articles.

I admit to living in the UK, and so may obviously be ill-informed about Californian issues, but nonetheless am perplexed about the inclusion of John Muir in top, but the omission of for instance Arold Schwarzenegger from the list (I also notice the omission of Hollywood, which is probably the 1st thing most people think of when California is mentioned). I guess what I am saying is that the top-importance list is either very biased toward certain topics/people/issues or, in its infancy and needing a great deal of expansion (which would have obvious implications for the high, mid and low importance lists) - Cheers

PS - Ansel Adams is only listed as high importance - btw, can anybody and everybody change these settings?

1812ahill (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um.....He's important enough to be featured on the state quarter. His importance to the history of the state is very important. --Jojhutton (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You've now raised some valid points, 1812ahill. Pat Sakak is a TV game show host and most certainly should be downgraded on this particular list, in my opinion. Certainly other biographies should be added to the list. Hollywood, the sense of California's film and entertainment industry as opposed to the specific city - of course. But downgrading John Muir? I object to that. Cullen328 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case my point becomes one of omission rather than inclusion :). As these ratings are voted on, there is - I presume - the danger that specific interest groups or task forces can inadvertently skew the ratings allocated to different articles within a particular category. I may be completely wrong about this, and I have no particular interest in the California category per se, but this bias seems to have arisen somehow - IMHO.

I think I'll go check out if this is general trend in WP. (Note I also placed the same initial message for the Sajak article ;) Cheers 1812ahill (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Had another thought. I would expect that as time passes by and WP evolves, an increasingly strong correlation should appear between the class and the importance of an article. I.e. after ten years of WP, you might expect most of the top importance articles to have reached GA-class. Although obviously that depends on the choice of categories attached to the article. The California category is a sufficiently important category for this to have happened (again IMHO). Cheers again 1812ahill (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I support John Muir having top-importance status. I'll also contribute my two cents on general matters of importance on the project page Purplebackpack89 00:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John Muir's death and "broken heart"

The following is from p. 168 "Hetch Hetchy: The End," John Muir and The Sierra Club: The Battle for Yosemite (Sierra Club, 1965)

[After the passage of the Raker Act] "Muir was greatly cast down," Johnson reported . . . . To his friend, Vernon Kellogg, at Stanford University, Muir wrote: "As to the loss of the Sierra Park Valley [Hetch Hetchy] it's hard to bear. The destruction of the charming groves and gardens, the finest in all California, goes to my heart. But in spite of Satan & Co. some sort of compensation must surely come out of this dark damn-dam-damnation." . . . . On Christmas Eve, 1914, Muir died . . . If the loss of Hetch Hetchy did not kill Muir (as he had once suggested toHelen it would), it may well have hastened the end for the "Grand Old Tramp" of the Sierra.

Lake Tenaya picture reversed

The picture of Lake Tenaya linked to in the article is reversed.

See: http://www.anseladams.com/Lake_Tenaya_p/5010115-u.htm

or: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sf-mike-57/5040253237/in/set-72157624945607911 71.135.50.86 (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded a fixed version. It won't show up correctly on Wikipedia for an unknown number of hours, but clicking to enlarge image to maximum size should show the new version in the meantime. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The thumbnail on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir is now correct - Thanks.

But when you click on it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Tenaka.jpg opens. On that page it is still reversed (flopped).

The full resolution (3,371 × 2,116 pixels, file size: 3.85 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg) at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Lake_Tenaka.jpg is correct, however.

(Curious as to why the file is "Tenaka" rather than "Tenaya.")

71.135.57.81 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Early spelling error from handwritten notes - probably thought the "y" was a "k". --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Anglican saints

It strikes me as unlikely that this JM is regarded as a 'saint' in the Anglican Communion. Can anyone come up with details?86.130.181.3 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It struck me as unlikely but it is true. Just Google "john muir anglican saint" and you will find many websites that confirm it. Martin Luther King Jr. is also an Anglican saint. Cullen328 (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first result i got is this talk page. See the third result - "St. John's Anglican Church, Port Dalhousie. 80 Main Street ... Mr. John Muir, who ministered.." It clearly shows it's just a page with the combination of the searched words. I couldn't find a page which says he is a saint. It should be removed. Anuandraj (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed. Removed the saints portal template from the page. Anuandraj (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Unexpected effect of the John Muir's planning skills.

Missing a mention of the influence, indirectly, of John Muir in the defense of the starving American squirrels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.189 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Another "Conservationist"?

Once I have watched a movie, a moztion picture, not a documentary about a man who suffered from a mining accident, and the doctors gave him a short period to live, and they adveiced him to move away from the mining areas to improve his health. So he settled somewhere in a forrest area (Yosemite?). Some day he learned that plans were developed to cut down most of the trees, and he asked local authorities what could do to prevent the trees being cut downed. They told him, a good start would be "to map" the area, so h did, and he he started campaigning for the preservation in Washington.

The time frame was around 1860-1880. At the end of the movie a narrator speaks that the doctores were wrong and the man died with 83. The movive iss from the 1950 - mid 1970s.

--88.153.184.211 (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay got him! Galen Clark. --88.153.184.211 (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

John Muir, first recorded storm chaser in the U.S.?

I was watching a rerun of "Storm Chasers" on the Discovery Channel and found out that John Muir was one of the first recorded storm chasers in the U.S., riding out the storm from atop a 100-foot tall Douglas spruce in 100 mph winds (the wind speed on an F1 or EF1 tornado). Can anyone verify this? If so, would it be of any historical or biographical importance to this article? 65.87.40.100 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was 100 mph:

Toward midday, after a long, tingling scramble through copses of hazel and ceanothus, I gained the summit of the highest ridge in the neighborhood; and then it occurred to me that it would be a fine thing to climb one of the trees to obtain a wider outlook and get my ear close to the Æolian music of its topmost needles. But under the circumstances the choice of a tree was a serious matter. One whose instep was not very strong seemed in danger of being blown down, or of being struck by others in case they should fall; another was branchless to a considerable height above the ground, and at the same time too large to be grasped with arms and legs in climbing; while others were not favorably situated for clear views. After cautiously casting about, I made choice of the tallest of a group of Douglas Spruces that were growing close together like a tuft of grass, no one of which seemed likely to fall unless all the rest fell with it. Though comparatively young, they were about 100 feet high, and their lithe, brushy tops were rocking and swirling in wild ecstasy. Being accustomed to climb trees in making botanical studies, I experienced no difficulty in reaching the top of this one, and never before did I enjoy so noble an exhilaration of motion. The slender tops fairly flapped and swished in the passionate torrent, bending and swirling backward and forward, round and round, tracing indescribable combinations of vertical and horizontal curves, while I clung with muscles firm braced, like a bobo-link on a reed. In its widest sweeps my tree-top described an arc of from twenty to thirty degrees, but I felt sure of its elastic temper, having seen others of the same species still more severely tried--bent almost to the ground indeed, in heavy snows--without breaking a fiber. I was therefore safe, and free to take the wind into my pulses and enjoy the excited forest from my superb outlook. The view from here must be extremely beautiful in any weather. Now my eye roved over the piny hills and dales as over fields of waving grain, and felt the light running in ripples and broad swelling undulations across the valleys from ridge to ridge, as the shining foliage was stirred by corresponding waves of air. Oftentimes these waves of reflected light would break up suddenly into a kind of beaten foam, and again, after chasing one another in regular order, they would seem to bend forward in concentric curves, and disappear on some hillside, like sea-waves on a shelving shore. The quantity of light reflected from the bent needles was so great as to make whole groves appear as if covered with snow, while the black shadows beneath the trees greatly enhanced the effect of the silvery splendor.

— John Muir, Chapter 10: A Wind-Storm in the Forest, The Mountains of California, (1894)

—hike395 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

John Muir > California > Yosemite Creek

The photo might be captioned "a Yosemite creek", but I believe it is of Bridalveil Creek, or a very mild piece of the Merced River. The main focal point of the photo is Leaning Tower and to the left the hanging valley lip of Bridalveil Falls.These are on the south rim of the Valley. There are similar structures near Yosemite Falls- the sharper Lost Arrow and the tighter defile that Yosemite Creek takes over the north rim of Yosemite Valley to become Yosemite Falls.74.127.113.34 (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

John Muir image and placement

Why do you keep removing a very high quality image of Muir by a noted photographer who was also an influence on Muir? The opening paragraphs only show him as an old man. At least have the decency to move the photo if you don't like the placement. I think it looks great there and it it contrasts well with the other photo of Muir as an old man not looking at the camera in a more contemplative state. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you scroll down and look at the article beyond the top screen, you'll notice that nearly the exact same photo by the same photographer is already there. Plus, you don't add two lead images which messes up the table of contents. --Light show (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The other photo is form three years earlier, it's not nearly of the same quality, and it's by a different photographer who (as far as I can tell) did not have an influence on Muir as Carleton Watkins did. Please have the courtesy to restore the superior photo I added in an appropriate place. If you need to remove the 1872 photograph so be it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Redundant- Muir family joined Disciples of Christ

I removed the sentence

The family were members of the Presbyterian Church while in Scotland, but joined the Disciples of Christ in the United States.

from the end of the first paragraph in Early Life because it says the same thing as

Stephen Fox recounts that Muir's father found the Church of Scotland insufficiently strict in faith and practice, leading to their emigration and joining a congregation of the Campbellite Restoration Movement, called the Disciples of Christ .

while providing less information. The two sentences even cite the same source. Heffalettuce (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.

When you deleted the first sentence, you also deleted the body of the reference, which caused a broken citation. I had originally restores both the sentence and the reference. Now, I deleted the redundant sentence but moved the body of the reference. —hike395 (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Muir may have had asthma

Careful reading of the Worster biography indicates that Muir may well have had asthma. He repeatedly suffered from wheezing when he had a cold (wheeze is asthma's cardinal symptom - normal people do not wheeze when they have a cold) and spent much time in Arizona's dry climate to avoid cold, wet weather in California. I say this because it appears that nobody quite realized how ill he was when he died of pneumonia. If he had asthma as well, it is perfectly feasible that he went rapidly into respiratory arrest followed by cardiac arrest after appearing to be relatively normal only a few minutes earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:34F0:C300:21C:B3FF:FEC6:12F7 (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. If you have a reliable source, this could be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, it's original research. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)