See this article: 
 http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/roots/legacy/whitman/index.html 

 Also, our own WP article on Whitman reinforces the view.  He may have not been part of the movement's genesis, but following the majority of its tenets - and certainly was under the wing of the leader of the movement.  I'd agree with his inclusion in this vein, but I'm not sure I'd list him at the top. 

 Cheers, 
 Ryo    

 : No, this should not be inserted in the article, because it is false.  Whitman was not directly affiliated with Transcendentalism in any way.  (Nor was he "under the wing" of Emerson in any sense, as the article you linked makes quite clear.)  The Wikipedia article on Whitman, like many others, is salted with dubious generalizations about literary history that have apparently been pulled out of introductory textbooks by people with little familiarity with the subject.  |  

 ::Emerson took issue with some approaches Whitman took, but the same could surely be said for his views of HDT's misanthropic nature.  A search shows many references of WW reviving the movement, of being within the spirit of the movement etc - and he knew Emerson on a personal basis.  Emerson wrote professional recommendations for him, which is certainly a closer relationship than some folks have "within a movement".  You are saying perhaps that WW was a modernist?  Seriously, what category (with your implied academic erudition within this field) would you put him in?    

 ::: I would categorize Whitman as a 19th-century poet.  He was sui generis in every way that mattered, not a member of any "category."  (Also, you might want to read more about the story of that infamous letter from Emerson about Leaves of Grass before calling it a "professional recommendation," and the two were not terribly close personal friends, though they did meet.) The Transcendentalists (that is, those who called themselves that and were called that by others at the time) were a clearly defined group of people who are enumerated in this article, not a grab-bag label for any contemporary author that we deem close to their "tenets" or "spirit."  |  

 :::: I wasn't speaking of Emerson's letter about Leaves, which Whitman used as a review and angered Emerson - but of Emerson's writing to the Dept of the Interior to argue for his job.  And yes, they met - a number of times.  Emerson visited Whitman and reviewed works in progress, Whitman visited Emerson, etc.  Whitman all of his professional life claimed Emerson as his primary inspiration, though I suspect you would say that was purely for commercial gain?  It seems pretty clear that had Whitman but spent a year at Walden he would be universally accepted as part of the movement, which is a trivial bit of micro-geography.  It isn't you or me that is claiming the allegiance to the "tenets" or "spirit", but the author himself.  At the very least I would support his presence on this page as being on the periphery of the movement should another editor come along who agrees and can create consensus.    

 As far as I can tell, Whitman was not an active part of the transcendentalist movement.  That in mind, he was a speaker of transcendentalists cases and, regardless of what he called himself, is a shaping force of what we now call transcendentalism.  I do not agree that Whitman should be listed as a prominant transcendentalist but would move that he be mentioned in the article at some point for the unquestionably profound impact he had, not just on the movement itself, but on our particular views of it.  Long story short...who cares how he's categorized?  "A rose by any other name..." 
 -David S. Kadaris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by