Talk:The Walrus and the Carpenter

message: It is not so long and is in public domain.2601:401:8002:4A57:217C:AA18:F372:4097 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not include the entire poem ? 

message: Well, I can't find the reasoning why the quote of the most well known passage from the poem was inadequate and got deleted. I would prefer keeping it, as it did not do any particular damage. Any suggestions? Blahma 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the quote was not adding anything to the article; it is linked at the bottom of the page if anyone wants to read it.  Perhaps if the passage was illustrating a point in the article, it would fit.  Why is the quote well known?  It is is really a significant passage, it should be explained in the articles.  These are only my ideas.  What do you think?  Jellocube27 16:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the quote because it's a well-known and often-quoted stanza. While adding the entire poem would not have been appropriate, including its best-known section could prove enlightening to those unaware of its origins. - EurekaLott 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me :)  I will put it back on. Jellocube27 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote

message: Do we really need to warn against spoilers here? --Apoc2400 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning? 

message: I'm not sure how to do it myself, because just putting it in plaintext would defeat the purpose, but I think the text of the poem itself needs to be formatted differently, somehow. Anyone got an idea? PaladinWhite 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poem formatting 

message: I got them straight from the movie itself, and I am pretty certain that they are correct.Captain Red Hook 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that this version should be added to the Wikisource and linked like what happened with the original. PaladinWhite 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if it should be added to wikisource, as the Disney version is certainly not in public domain. The information is a good addition to the article-- nevertheless, it clutters the page! Perhaps we should write a summary about the changes made to the poem, and provide that instead of the poem itself? Or, we could link to another website which hosts the poem. Jellocube27 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found  a website carrying the version yet.  A summary would also be good, but the changes are rather extensive (as all but the first stanza was changed). Adding it to the Wikisource and linking it sounds like a good idea, but I have no idea how to do that. Captain Red Hook 21:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that wikisource would accept it, as it is not in public domain. Jellocube27 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Disney Version 

message: The films of the trilogy "The Matrix" were all based on this publication.  The references are made throughout the film and when interviewed the actors and the writers and director all say that is based on through the looking glass with a more modern and action oriented theme.
19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The publication that the Matrix trilogy contained references to is Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.  This article is just about one of the poems in that book.  The relationship between the Matrix and Alice is already mentioned here.  It's also mentioned in the index at the bottom of that page. --JayHenry 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Matrix movie sequels? 

message: Other's above have suggested removing some of the proposed interpretations of the poem.  I agree, most especially with the most absurd interpretations; e.g. those that fit the state of the world as they are now, rather than as they were then (Iraq, etc).  Such comparisons can indeed be useful as rhetorical devices, but I suspect that, in the long run, they are not notable or encyclopedic enough
for inclusion.  I thus propose removing these unsourced statements in the section about interpretations; at the very least we should stick to contemporary comparisions.
:I agree.  Such things have no bearings on the meaning of the poem at the time and seem to have been posted here as a "plug" for writers.  Unless all modern interpretations are lumped into one area I suggest they be removed.(Dbcraft (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing interpretation?

message: Have you ever noticed Darth Vaders outfit looks like a walrus?  What then about
Lukes transformation from episodes 4-6 to that of a priest.  Some belive christ picked 
iup the carpetrey skill from Joseph.  Most of the rebel and empirial forces in episode
4 have helmets that look like half clams,  much more acceptable in a millitary uniform
than the non-symetrical shell of an oyster.  Maybe Lucas had his own interpretation of 
the poem?--207.14.129.123 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars! 

message: I am removing all entries in the "interpretation" section which are not sourced reliably. Some of these were simply too dubious and without credibility. Jellocube27 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the Dogma edits.  The reference was indeed in the movie.  It was memorable because of its religious implications, which should be a part of the entry, even if some may disagree with the interpretation.  (Especially considering the choice of a carpenter wasn't Carroll's, but saying it would cast doubt on the theory might have been considered WP:OR, so I left it out.)  I've revived those edits.  If you want sources, then I guess I could link to a YouTube video, but considering the copyright implications, I'm not sure if the video would be permanent. SineSwiper (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what? It's some obscure movie with characters discussing, not an "interpretation" of the poem. It's not worth mentioning. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dogma is obscure? Yeah... in BIZARRO WORLD!206.24.49.1 (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Interpretations Again 

message: What happens to the Oysters who follow the Walrus and the Carperder? Do you think
they deserved their fate? 2405:201:A804:3139:B070:D797:E13A:8AA4 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English