This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This doesn't make sense:
If she was born in 1964, as the page states, then she was still in high school at age 19-22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Although it was fairly well sourced, I've removed mention of the pieing because of biography of living persons concerns about legal actions being taken as a result of the incident. Arguably, the incident, while making somewhat big waves in the vegan/anarchist circles, probably has little significance outside of those circles. Pigman ☿/talk 01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not significant in my life. Sorry to disappoint. It's a tempest in a very small teapot. Public figures are assaulted and harassed all the time--these are news items, not Wikipedia entries. Smallword ( talk) 03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the quote about my health because the writer of that article didn't get it right. So anyone who writes an article anywhere -no matter how factually wrong--has more credibility than the person whose health/life is being discussed? I don't understand your rules. And if I'm notable, it's because I've written three books, done hundreds of public presentations, started three journals, gotten arrested six times, testified before the MA State Senate Judiciary Committee, etc. Where's the discernment about what's considered important? Who gets to decide what part of which sourced material gets into an article? I would urge you to learn more about stalking--public attention always makes it worse. I'm not "disallowing opposing views"--I didn't take out the bit about "Vegan War" article or its footnote. Nor did I take out the footnote to the article about the assault. I guess I disagree about the overall importance of the assault across the span of my life and political work. Smallword ( talk) 14:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed Keith has posted on the BLP noticeboard here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lierre_Keith in which she says "One thing about stalkers that is known for sure is that they thrive on attention. Every public bit of notice they get is only encouraging their obsession with hurting me." I think it's a bit paranoid but I'll remove the source about the pieing incident, better to err on the side of safety. Green Cardamom ( talk) 15:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an ideological battle behind insertion of biased language regarding the pie incident. I reverted to an earlier more NPOV version because it was stated that Keith was "assaulted" by protesters, and the reference that was cited linked to a low carb diet blog that calls the protesters "barbaric" and "vegan idiots."
According to this excerpt from the first paragraph of the Pieing article on Wikipedia itself, "Perpetrators generally regard the act as a form of ridicule to embarrass and humiliate the victim. In some U.S. states pieing may conform to definitions of battery, but not assault." So I don't think it's technically correct in a legal sense to state that Keith was assaulted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.251.197 ( talk) 04:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is Keith editing her own wiki article? Isn't that a serious no-no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.254.89 ( talk) 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I took out the phase "nearly all of whom are vegetarians and vegans" under the paragraph about Keith's critics, because that is impossible to quantify, and it adds unnecessary bias to the facts of the article-- it would be clear, for instance, if we wrote that "keith has many supporters, nearly all of whom eat meat" that we would be creating a tone of unnecessary bias and making an impossible claim which does not meet the standards for encyclopedia writing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.105.229 ( talk) 00:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, this will probably be controversial but I've completely removed the criticism paragraph because none of the sourcing was reliable. There is most definitely a place to include criticisms of the book but sourcing to blogs and a "crowd sourced" website is really not acceptable. I considered leaving just the first sentence "The Vegetarian Myth has a number of critics." but even that one sentence lacked reliable sourcing despite having 3 footnotes. I don't have the time at the moment to research for critical reliable sources so I'm just removing it. Pigman ☿/talk 02:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the blogs from the external links because they aren't WP:V or WP:RS. Most blogs are a crapshoot as to whether they are relevant and quality sources. Neither of these are quality sources. Merely being critical isn't enough for inclusion. Pigman ☿/talk 21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I researched and wrote this article. It was a controversial article that underwent a AfD so I had to pull in any and all sourced info I could find to establish notability. If it "sounds" like an advert, I welcome recommendations how to change it, but a top tag won't change anything as I don't see the problem how to fix it. Green Cardamom ( talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
She really isn't that noteworthy and I can't believe she warrants an article at all. But if you are going to have one this just sounds like someone stroking their own ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 ( talk) 07:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm can someone please talk about her rampant transphobia? She doesn't really make much of a secret of it so you can hardly call it libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.79.114 ( talk) 14:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Joelle Ruby Ryan, a trans woman academic, recently attended a conference in New Hampshire called Pornography as Sexual Violence. In trying to present on the often untold story of how trans pornography impacts both our community and gender in general, she found herself attacked by two transphobic feminists: Robert Jensen and Lierre Keith. Her story can be found here: http://transmeditations.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/blog-27-bob-jensen-lierre-keith-et-al-the-rabid-transphobic-hate-mongering-of-the-anti-pornography-movement/
Here are excerpts of Keith's response to being asked about her ideologically driven hatred of trans people, as posted on Ryan's Transmeditations’s Blog:
"Well, I’ve personally been fighting about this since 1982. I think ‘transphobic’ is a ridiculous word. I have no strange fear of people who claim to be ‘trans.’ I deeply disagree with them, as do most radical feminists.
Try this on. I am a rich person stuck in a poor person’s body. I’ve always enjoyed champagne rather than beer, and always knew I belonged in first class not economy, and it just feels right when people wait on me. My insurance company should give me a million dollars to cure my Economic Dysphoria.
Or how about this. I am really Native American. How do I know? I’ve always felt a special connection to animals, and started building tee pees in the backyard as soon as I was old enough. I insisted on wearing moccasins to school even though the other kids made fun of me and my parents punished me for it. I read everything I could on native people, started going to pow wows and sweat lodges as soon as I was old enough, and I knew that was the real me. And if you bio-Indians don’t accept us trans-Indians, then you are just as genocidal and oppressive as the Europeans.
Gender is no different. It is a class condition created by a brutal arrangement of power. I can’t fathom how mutilating people’s bodies to fit an oppressive power arrangement is frankly anything but a human rights violation. And men insisting that they are women is insulting and absurd.
There is no such thing as ‘woman’ or ‘man’ outside of patriarchal social relations. These are not biological conditions–they are socially created, by violence in the end. If I can’t be a rich person born in a poor person’s body, then I can’t be a woman born in a man’s body. Not unless you are going to argue that man and woman are biological or essential conditions. The whole point of feminism is that they are neither; gender is social to the roots, and those roots are soaked in women’s blood.
So there it is.
I would highly recommend reading the work that radical feminists have produced critiquing the entire culture of queer, including s/m and porn, that gave rise to the phenomenon of ‘trans.’ Sheila Jeffreys’s books _Unpacking Queer Politics_ and _The Lesbian Heresy_ would be a great start.
[The Trans Community is] in fact deeply misogynist and reactionary when it comes to any understanding of male power. Indeed, they often claim it ‘oppresses’ them to even use the words ‘men’ and ‘women.’ Meanwhile, men are raping and brutalizing women on a mass scale. I hate to say this, but it’s porn culture that really created the whole concept of trans. I watched it happen… for your own edification, you might want to read up on Pat Califia, whom I talk about at length, and whose life and writing proves every point radical feminists make about queer politics, pornography, violence against women, sado-masochism, the eroticization of power and breaking boundaries (including the boundaries of children), and trans. All of it is right there." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.194.248 ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
What are Lierre Keith's credentials for being a "radical environmentalist" and "food activist"? Why is there no mention of her education? 12.180.133.18 ( talk) 07:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The DNA source (which we included a copy-paste copyright violation from) seems to be little more than a blog. Self-published sources are rarely useful.
Alice Walker is a hell of an author. Her notability, however, does not make her a reliable source on anything being discussed here.
This section essentially needs to go away. If we can find independent reliable sources discussing the book -- you know, the whole WP:V thing -- we might have something to say. Until then, this section is worthless. (Additionally, the spin-off article, The Vegetarian Myth, is no better (as it is really just a copy of the section). Actually, it's worse: if a topic cannot support a section, it certainly cannot survive as an independent article.
I'm stripping the section and turning the article into a redirect. I welcome alternative points of view. If anyone disagrees with any of my removals, we can certainly work through it and see what we end up with. The only exception is the copyright violation: plagiarism will not be tolerated. - SummerPhD v2.0 13:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Keith includes “slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease” as historical outcomes of civilization and its over-dependence on mass cultivation.
she adds “slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease” to the list of historical outcomes of our overdependence on mass cultivation.
Walker is notable and rightly praised (IMO) for her writing. That said, her opinions on the subject here are publisher's bluster.
For openers, the fact that we have gathered this material from the publisher should give us considerable pause. The source is no longer Walker, it is the publisher. Had walker said some unkind or flat-out crazy things about Keith and/or the book, the publisher would have either edited the comment for ...um... "length" or not used it at all. Did anyone respond to their requests for jacket quotes by saying anything the publisher wouldn't want to publicize? Damned if we will ever know, it is an inherently biased source.
Next, we have the question of Walker. She is a novelist. That she believes Keith's environmental claims is no more relevant than her opinion of Alicia Keys opinions, her belief that "Israelis are Nazis" or her support for the theories of David Icke (Reader's Digest version: Most world leaders are actually reptilian aliens in disguise.)
If, in an independent reliable source, Walker said that a given book is the Great American Novel, we might mention it. This book is not a novel and the source is not independent. - SummerPhD v2.0 15:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lierre Keith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This doesn't make sense:
If she was born in 1964, as the page states, then she was still in high school at age 19-22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Although it was fairly well sourced, I've removed mention of the pieing because of biography of living persons concerns about legal actions being taken as a result of the incident. Arguably, the incident, while making somewhat big waves in the vegan/anarchist circles, probably has little significance outside of those circles. Pigman ☿/talk 01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not significant in my life. Sorry to disappoint. It's a tempest in a very small teapot. Public figures are assaulted and harassed all the time--these are news items, not Wikipedia entries. Smallword ( talk) 03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the quote about my health because the writer of that article didn't get it right. So anyone who writes an article anywhere -no matter how factually wrong--has more credibility than the person whose health/life is being discussed? I don't understand your rules. And if I'm notable, it's because I've written three books, done hundreds of public presentations, started three journals, gotten arrested six times, testified before the MA State Senate Judiciary Committee, etc. Where's the discernment about what's considered important? Who gets to decide what part of which sourced material gets into an article? I would urge you to learn more about stalking--public attention always makes it worse. I'm not "disallowing opposing views"--I didn't take out the bit about "Vegan War" article or its footnote. Nor did I take out the footnote to the article about the assault. I guess I disagree about the overall importance of the assault across the span of my life and political work. Smallword ( talk) 14:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed Keith has posted on the BLP noticeboard here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lierre_Keith in which she says "One thing about stalkers that is known for sure is that they thrive on attention. Every public bit of notice they get is only encouraging their obsession with hurting me." I think it's a bit paranoid but I'll remove the source about the pieing incident, better to err on the side of safety. Green Cardamom ( talk) 15:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an ideological battle behind insertion of biased language regarding the pie incident. I reverted to an earlier more NPOV version because it was stated that Keith was "assaulted" by protesters, and the reference that was cited linked to a low carb diet blog that calls the protesters "barbaric" and "vegan idiots."
According to this excerpt from the first paragraph of the Pieing article on Wikipedia itself, "Perpetrators generally regard the act as a form of ridicule to embarrass and humiliate the victim. In some U.S. states pieing may conform to definitions of battery, but not assault." So I don't think it's technically correct in a legal sense to state that Keith was assaulted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.251.197 ( talk) 04:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is Keith editing her own wiki article? Isn't that a serious no-no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.254.89 ( talk) 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I took out the phase "nearly all of whom are vegetarians and vegans" under the paragraph about Keith's critics, because that is impossible to quantify, and it adds unnecessary bias to the facts of the article-- it would be clear, for instance, if we wrote that "keith has many supporters, nearly all of whom eat meat" that we would be creating a tone of unnecessary bias and making an impossible claim which does not meet the standards for encyclopedia writing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.105.229 ( talk) 00:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, this will probably be controversial but I've completely removed the criticism paragraph because none of the sourcing was reliable. There is most definitely a place to include criticisms of the book but sourcing to blogs and a "crowd sourced" website is really not acceptable. I considered leaving just the first sentence "The Vegetarian Myth has a number of critics." but even that one sentence lacked reliable sourcing despite having 3 footnotes. I don't have the time at the moment to research for critical reliable sources so I'm just removing it. Pigman ☿/talk 02:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the blogs from the external links because they aren't WP:V or WP:RS. Most blogs are a crapshoot as to whether they are relevant and quality sources. Neither of these are quality sources. Merely being critical isn't enough for inclusion. Pigman ☿/talk 21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I researched and wrote this article. It was a controversial article that underwent a AfD so I had to pull in any and all sourced info I could find to establish notability. If it "sounds" like an advert, I welcome recommendations how to change it, but a top tag won't change anything as I don't see the problem how to fix it. Green Cardamom ( talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
She really isn't that noteworthy and I can't believe she warrants an article at all. But if you are going to have one this just sounds like someone stroking their own ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 ( talk) 07:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Erm can someone please talk about her rampant transphobia? She doesn't really make much of a secret of it so you can hardly call it libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.79.114 ( talk) 14:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Joelle Ruby Ryan, a trans woman academic, recently attended a conference in New Hampshire called Pornography as Sexual Violence. In trying to present on the often untold story of how trans pornography impacts both our community and gender in general, she found herself attacked by two transphobic feminists: Robert Jensen and Lierre Keith. Her story can be found here: http://transmeditations.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/blog-27-bob-jensen-lierre-keith-et-al-the-rabid-transphobic-hate-mongering-of-the-anti-pornography-movement/
Here are excerpts of Keith's response to being asked about her ideologically driven hatred of trans people, as posted on Ryan's Transmeditations’s Blog:
"Well, I’ve personally been fighting about this since 1982. I think ‘transphobic’ is a ridiculous word. I have no strange fear of people who claim to be ‘trans.’ I deeply disagree with them, as do most radical feminists.
Try this on. I am a rich person stuck in a poor person’s body. I’ve always enjoyed champagne rather than beer, and always knew I belonged in first class not economy, and it just feels right when people wait on me. My insurance company should give me a million dollars to cure my Economic Dysphoria.
Or how about this. I am really Native American. How do I know? I’ve always felt a special connection to animals, and started building tee pees in the backyard as soon as I was old enough. I insisted on wearing moccasins to school even though the other kids made fun of me and my parents punished me for it. I read everything I could on native people, started going to pow wows and sweat lodges as soon as I was old enough, and I knew that was the real me. And if you bio-Indians don’t accept us trans-Indians, then you are just as genocidal and oppressive as the Europeans.
Gender is no different. It is a class condition created by a brutal arrangement of power. I can’t fathom how mutilating people’s bodies to fit an oppressive power arrangement is frankly anything but a human rights violation. And men insisting that they are women is insulting and absurd.
There is no such thing as ‘woman’ or ‘man’ outside of patriarchal social relations. These are not biological conditions–they are socially created, by violence in the end. If I can’t be a rich person born in a poor person’s body, then I can’t be a woman born in a man’s body. Not unless you are going to argue that man and woman are biological or essential conditions. The whole point of feminism is that they are neither; gender is social to the roots, and those roots are soaked in women’s blood.
So there it is.
I would highly recommend reading the work that radical feminists have produced critiquing the entire culture of queer, including s/m and porn, that gave rise to the phenomenon of ‘trans.’ Sheila Jeffreys’s books _Unpacking Queer Politics_ and _The Lesbian Heresy_ would be a great start.
[The Trans Community is] in fact deeply misogynist and reactionary when it comes to any understanding of male power. Indeed, they often claim it ‘oppresses’ them to even use the words ‘men’ and ‘women.’ Meanwhile, men are raping and brutalizing women on a mass scale. I hate to say this, but it’s porn culture that really created the whole concept of trans. I watched it happen… for your own edification, you might want to read up on Pat Califia, whom I talk about at length, and whose life and writing proves every point radical feminists make about queer politics, pornography, violence against women, sado-masochism, the eroticization of power and breaking boundaries (including the boundaries of children), and trans. All of it is right there." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.194.248 ( talk) 22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
What are Lierre Keith's credentials for being a "radical environmentalist" and "food activist"? Why is there no mention of her education? 12.180.133.18 ( talk) 07:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The DNA source (which we included a copy-paste copyright violation from) seems to be little more than a blog. Self-published sources are rarely useful.
Alice Walker is a hell of an author. Her notability, however, does not make her a reliable source on anything being discussed here.
This section essentially needs to go away. If we can find independent reliable sources discussing the book -- you know, the whole WP:V thing -- we might have something to say. Until then, this section is worthless. (Additionally, the spin-off article, The Vegetarian Myth, is no better (as it is really just a copy of the section). Actually, it's worse: if a topic cannot support a section, it certainly cannot survive as an independent article.
I'm stripping the section and turning the article into a redirect. I welcome alternative points of view. If anyone disagrees with any of my removals, we can certainly work through it and see what we end up with. The only exception is the copyright violation: plagiarism will not be tolerated. - SummerPhD v2.0 13:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Keith includes “slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease” as historical outcomes of civilization and its over-dependence on mass cultivation.
she adds “slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease” to the list of historical outcomes of our overdependence on mass cultivation.
Walker is notable and rightly praised (IMO) for her writing. That said, her opinions on the subject here are publisher's bluster.
For openers, the fact that we have gathered this material from the publisher should give us considerable pause. The source is no longer Walker, it is the publisher. Had walker said some unkind or flat-out crazy things about Keith and/or the book, the publisher would have either edited the comment for ...um... "length" or not used it at all. Did anyone respond to their requests for jacket quotes by saying anything the publisher wouldn't want to publicize? Damned if we will ever know, it is an inherently biased source.
Next, we have the question of Walker. She is a novelist. That she believes Keith's environmental claims is no more relevant than her opinion of Alicia Keys opinions, her belief that "Israelis are Nazis" or her support for the theories of David Icke (Reader's Digest version: Most world leaders are actually reptilian aliens in disguise.)
If, in an independent reliable source, Walker said that a given book is the Great American Novel, we might mention it. This book is not a novel and the source is not independent. - SummerPhD v2.0 15:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lierre Keith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)