Talk:John Muir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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”[1]. 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”[1].

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”[2].

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”[3]. 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”[3], 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[4]. 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”[5].

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”[6]. 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[2]. 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”[7]. 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[8]. 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”[8].

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”[3]. 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[9]. 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
  1. ^ a b Muir, John. The Story of My Boyhood and Youth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1913.
  2. ^ a b Silverberg, Robert. John Muir, Prophet Among the Glaciers. Toronto: Logmans Canada Limited, 1972
  3. ^ a b c Muir, John. The Yosemite. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. 1962
  4. ^ Yosemite: Sierras and Sequoias. Video recording. Chicago: Panorama International Productions Inc. Questar Video Inc., 1997
  5. ^ Muir, John. “Save the Redwoods.” Sierra Club Bulletin. January 1920: 1-4
  6. ^ Muir, John. Features of the Proposed Yosemite National Park. The Century Magazine September 1890. No. 5: 1-11
  7. ^ Muir, John. “American Forests.” Atlantic Monthly no. 80. August 1897: 145-157
  8. ^ a b Weiss, Don. John Muir. Ecology Hall of Fame. 12 July 1997. 4 Jan. 2006 http://www.ecotopia.org/ehof/muir/
  9. ^ Bauman, Alisa. (January 17, 2006). School District was wrong to sell land for development. The Morning Call, A7

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)