Talk:Lierre Keith - Knowledge (XXG)

1212:

Keith's very sources, of which the majority are not even themselves scientifically valid (this is a point of many of the critical reviews.) What, exactly, are you looking for? We can't cite big-name reviewers like Publisher's Weekly, because Publisher's Weekly and the like did not consider this book notable enough to even review, at least as far as I or anyone I know can find. Does this mean that the criticism is not valid? If so, then we should just erase the whole article, since the majority of The Vegetarian Myth's research is based on non-peer reviewed sources; it was published on a tiny press by Derrick Jensen, Keith's guru, who put his own high-praise quote on the cover of the book; Keith has no academic background at all, let alone one in agriculture, nutrition, ethics, or palentology; and the majority of its supporters are, arguably, even more fringe-thinking than vegans. Other than the Walker review cited here, her most notable positive reviewers are self-interested parties like Derrick Jensen, and folks associated with the Weston A Price Foundation-- whose texts she used to substantiate her arguments-- and people like Dr. Eades, who, again, she cites so many times in her book that it is absurd to think he is not self-interested. This debate leads me to wonder why Keith, or at least her book, is even worthy of mention on wikipedia, though I am not sure I have the energy to bother with this further.

737:

wouldnt report it unless others did first). if the media were to continue to cover this, we would be fairly obliged to cover it as well. Notability is a two edged sword, and we are by no means here to show bias towards your concerns or the concerns of your political opponents, except when there is evidence that you are at risk due to something written about here that is not otherwise notable. Don't you think going more public about this incident may help? just a thought. Honestly, though, do you think a mention in this article is going to make anyone more likely to target you? I dont think we have that power here. Please, to avoid conflict of interest, focus only on correcting uncontroversial factual information here, and dont remove sourced material.

784:

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.

468: 447: 826:

as "news reports stated that LK had condition x, but LK has stated publicly that this is in error, and really has condition y (or no condition, or she doesnt believe her condition is related to her veganism, etc)". The truth may not be discernable here (i dont know, and noone but yourself and your doctor know, if you have any condition or not), but the ability to confirm that these events and statements occurred is discernable. thats why verifiability (along with NPOV) is the watchword on WP, not "truth" or even "truthiness":)

1521:

usually it comes down to a matter of opinion, as in a court case. In the case of Keith, the weight of evidence is enough to support her notability, and that one bit about the book blurb would weigh on peoples opinion of Keith's notability (maybe not in your opinion, though I disagree with you about it). If the blurb was instead by Keith's husband, you are right, it would not be very notable and might in fact even turn opinion against since it would be seen as biased and astro-turfing - not a great example.

1458:

that is enough for Knowledge (XXG) purposes. You won't win an Article for Deletion on noteworthy grounds. As for NPOV, this article is extremely NPOV, to the point of being dry and boring. The only argument that keeps coming up is that Keith wrote it, which is ridiculous given the history on this page which shows Keith herself trying to get her own article deleted! So it's funny that both Keith, and the Keith haters, both want to see this article deleted! They seem to have a lot in common.

209: 625:"circles" don't really count for notability on Knowledge (XXG). As for concerns about legal actions, what does that have to do with us reporting about it? There is nothing negative being said about anyone involved, there are no defamatory concerns, no restraining orders. We are simply reporting on what happened from public reliable sources. In fact if there are legal issues, we probably could report that part of the story as well, if there are good sources for it. 1627:

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."

1655:. It's possible we could say something along the lines that.. "Keith's philosophical views have lead her to reject transsexualism leading some detractors to label her as transphobic". Flying Brick seems like a neutral non-trans source that has called her transphobic with a detailed rationale why, seems notable enough. Would be good to have additional sources like that from neutral third parties (ie. not pro-trans blogs). 367: 346: 1121:

currently the only source of material available, better something than nothing. I would not be surprised though if in the future other editors again try to remove it - don't take it as "Keith supporters", rather the problem is the material is somewhat weak for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). In the meantime if you can read the WP:RS rules and try and find more solid citations for your criticisms it would help.

1087:

to lots of different people. If we have to "add credibility" to Keith's critics, who are probably more vegetarians than not, why shouldn't we also have to "add credibility" to her supporters who are, most likely, meat eaters? There seems an inherent assumption/bias in that line of thinking... that the supporters don't need to prove themselves as much as the critics, that they are somehow more objective.

147: 123: 262: 241: 803:), we simply echo that report here. I did a considerable amount of Google searching when writing this article and pulled up everything I could find - I couldn't find anything else that would be considered "reliable" according to the rules. Sometimes it's just random like that, how the world sees a person based on what does and doesn't get reported in the news. We don't do original research (see 272: 673:

incident supports that statement very well indeed and the article would be lesser without that example. More than just a standalone incident to be forgotten in 3 months, it's iconic of her radicalism, which is at the core of her notability. If you don't mind, I think we should include it. I agree about removing the "responses" to the incident and only including the SFGate article.

377: 92: 21: 927:'stalkers' "thrive on attention". If that was the case Keith should contact the news organizations who reported the incidents initially. Sometimes the press reports things people don't want reported. Our job at Knowledge (XXG) is to report what the press says. Does anyone have objection to a single-sentence addition about the pieing incident? 157: 1845:

If it was framed in a way to make it seem like the opinion of expert on nutrition I would agree there is a problem. Rather it's the personal opinion of a famous person who read the book. We often include such things in Knowledge (XXG), for example when a President comments about a book (even a novel)

1805:

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

1373:

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

948:

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

848:

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

1887:

an independent reliable source. This is a dependent promotional source, quoting someone speaking way outside of their area of expertise. We would not quote Walker to support other questionable ideas (e.g., reptilian aliens controlling the world). That very few sources have anything to say about this

1472:

I'm not arguing for the deletion here. I don't know enough either way to have a strong opinion. But I do want to say that the fact that someone managed to dig up a quote expression admiration or appreciation by a different, and not particularly closely related, notable person, does not make a person

1120:

for the rules on including this kind of material on Knowledge (XXG). So it would make sense to say something about the critics, who they are, why they are being critical. One editor already tried to remove the blogs entirely, I re-added it based on good faith, since this is such a small debate, it's

1069:

That was me who added it, I'm OK with its removal. I wanted some sense of who her critics are exactly, though I think it is obvious. While your right it is impossible to quantify, the statement appears to be true, the only people who appear to go so far out of their way to set up anti-Keith websites

825:

Specifically, on the health issue, if you have any statement you have made correcting this information, say on a website or in a press release, that can be used. as i said on keiths talk page, noncontroversial information about a subject may be corrected by the subject. In this case, it may come out

1615:

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

1211:

With all due respect, it is intellectually dishonest to remove a complete paragraph about criticism. There is a wide array of critical reviews of Keith's books, many of those reviews are done by nutritionists and doctors (see Ginny Messina, Dr. Michael Gregor, etc) and many of those reviews analyze

1086:

It seems like a slippery slope to try and quantify who is in what group and I'm not sure completely why it matters to an encyclopedia entry. The objective, concise content should speak for itself and I think it does. The book is quite complicated and appeals/doesn't appeal in lots of different ways

1046:

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

736:

i agree with green cardamom. you yourself have stated here, to WP admins, that the incident is disturbing enough to ask for intervention. I utterly respect your request, but that does mean this is significant to you, and if your complaint is found valid, then its probably a notable event (though we

717:

is not notable on Knowledge (XXG). Also, you removed your health condition, another important biographical point which apparently you have spoken publicly about before. Look I'm not going to fight you about it because I really don't care, I'm just interested in the truth, and everything you deleted

708:

Respectfully, you are a radical, and this pieing was a result of choosing to be in the radical political teapot. It is significant and speaks directly to what makes you notable. You can't have it both ways, allowing your views to be in the article, but disallowing opposing views to be spoken about.

1607:

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

1603:

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.

1457:

I also contributed to the article substantially. I also have no personal connection with her and only edit this article because it needs saving from apparently biased Keith haters. As for being noteworthy, she wrote a book that was praised by a Pulitzer Prize winner, end of story. There's more but

956:

article on Knowledge (XXG) 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

672:

This particular incident though is significant for the life of Lierre Keith - it's a prime example of her, uh, radicalism (or what radicalism gets her into). As the article says "Her views have attracted negative attention from some vegetarians, what one journalist has called a "Vegan War"." This

1626:

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

1587:

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

926:

I agree this incident was widely reported in reliable sources and it does contribute to the article's narrative of a radical who has equally radical detractors. It's hard to imagine that a single sentence mentioning the pieing incident -- already widely reported in reliable sources -- is helping

783:

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

763:

the article is put up for AfD (a second time). In which case I would argue that every reliable source be included, to establish as much notability as possible, in order to preserve the article from being deleted. Otherwise I respect Lierre's wishes, we seem to agree on the current compromise of

624:

Well, the problem is, it's notable. Since this person is almost solely involved in those circles, of course your right it is notable in those circles. The logic for removal doesn't make sense, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds biased against vegan/anarchists, as if vegan/anarchists

1723:

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. -

1520:

her notability along with other things in the article taken together as a whole picture. That is why we have votes on notability because it is impossible to fully qualify it with general rules, since every person/thing is different. We make cases for/against notability based on guidelines, but

981:

Just to point out, the pie is believed to have contained cayenne pepper, which was delivered to Keith's eyes. Does anyone know where this is positioned legally in terms of assault v battery? I would have thought the application of pepper to someone's eyes would constitute assault if not a more

892:

So what is the result of this process of waiting for the "noticeboard people" to make a decison, now 10 months on? Are they still trying to figure this out, seriously? It seems like removal of this pie incident is political. It was already widely reported; how is the creation of an accurate

1143:

I question the inclusion of a mere book blurb by Alice Walker. The fact that Walker is a notable writer does not make every opinion she expresses notable. What expertise does Walker have regarding the ideas in The Vegetarian Myth? (If she were assessing Keith's book as an exercise in creative

1622:

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.

1611:

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.

1608:

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.

1566:

is. I'd never come across anything about it while researching for the article. You'll have to provide some evidence I guess from sources. We can't say she is transphobic, someone else has to say that in print in a notable source, we just report what others say.

1415:

No, it doesn't seem Keith wrote this. The authors of the article (whether signed or hiding behind IPs...) are visible by looking at the history of the article. If you have criticism of Keith from independent reliable sources, feel free to add it. -

1846:

it wouldn't be out of place to mention it in the article. She doesn't sound like a shill for the publisher rather sincerely moved by the book. I agree though that the lack of a source other than the publisher is a problem with independence. --

1070:

are going to be vegetarians, but maybe that's not true. Is it otherwise? ie. are any of the critics mentioned in the article meat eaters? That might be notable since it would add credibility, a meat eater critical of a pro-meat eater book.

1809:

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

1256:

the publisher; he is another author on the same press. My point: Including criticisms from individual blogs and anonymous sources is not a recommended practice on WP. Find proper sourcing for the criticisms and they can be included.

1158:

Critical reception about a book by notable writers is acceptable for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). If you personally disagree with Walker, or have some beef against the book for being an anti-vegetarian, is beside the point. --

1438:

I started this article and I can assure you that I'm not Lierre. Also, this article has survived an Articles for Deletion vote already. If you would like to nominate it again, you can read through the procedure for doing so

1806:...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. 1600:"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. 606:

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.

1116:. The critics mentioned are not notable (I think), they don't even appear to be experts (ie. academic degrees in nutrition with peer reviewed papers). They are self-posting on Internet blogs, self-published. See 2069: 223: 1193:

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.

1144:

fiction, that would be different.) I don't think "better something than nothing" makes much sense. There's an old adage in writing: "When in doubt, take it out." I think the Walker quotation should come out.

643:

No, sorry, I certainly wasn't trying to say that vegan/anarchist circles are not notable. But, more to the point, most of the sources for the sections except for the SFGate one aren't really all that clearly

1473:

notable according to Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. You can find pulizer prizes winners saying that their husbands have been influential and and important in their lives but that doesn't make their husbands

692:

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 Knowledge (XXG) entries.

429: 1776:

Please do not restore the copyright violation without substantially rewriting the material or establishing a consensus that there is not a copyright violation. Otherwise, I will remove it as necessary.

878:

Thank you for that, erring with caution is one of my favorites, lets give a bit of time for mails and discussions and see what arises, excuse me for not posting a link here to inform editors, regards.

648:. It hardly seems like a significant event in her career, particularly in the long view. It seems important now because it's a relatively current event. In three months, I don't think so. My opinion. 1616:

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.

2064: 1189:. 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 " 1589: 218: 133: 845: 71: 1755:

Keith includes “slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease” as historical outcomes of civilization and its over-dependence on mass cultivation.

807:) so interviewing you in person would not help. We just echo what's already been written. And that particular assault has a lot of news reported about it from reliable sources. 1720:, 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. 544:"Keith began her public involvement in the feminist movement in high school, where she was the founding Editor of Vanessa and Iris: A Journal for Young Feminists (1983–85)..." 2074: 1393:

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.

1352:. 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. 1992: 1988: 1974: 518: 1769:

she adds “slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease” to the list of historical outcomes of our overdependence on mass cultivation.

76: 31: 2119: 508: 1047:

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

2054: 1745:

First, I'll be taking this on at this article, rather than the page for the book, for now, because that page is still essentially the section from this page.

1590:

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/

1112:

There is only one cited supporter in the article, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, which makes her opinion notable enough to include on Knowledge (XXG), per

328: 2129: 59:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 484: 1597:

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:

1026:

It's not an absolute "no-no", it's allowed within certain guidelines. But she has not edited the article, only the talk page, as user Smallworld, AFAIK.

175: 51: 2089: 1652: 318: 2104: 419: 2114: 2079: 179: 1540:

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.

2094: 475: 452: 294: 2109: 722:

violation BTW) is true, notable and sourced. Perhaps someone else can step in so this doesn't turn into a fight, I don't want to get pied :)

1400: 1219: 1094: 1054: 964: 1677:

What are Lierre Keith's credentials for being a "radical environmentalist" and "food activist"? Why is there no mention of her education?

174:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2124: 2059: 1679: 1634: 1547: 900: 2084: 1011: 183: 1960: 1707:

Alice Walker is a hell of an author. Her notability, however, does not make her a reliable source on anything being discussed here.

1440: 170: 128: 2099: 1970:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

710: 285: 246: 1897:

That promotional material from the publisher is being used as nearly half the article on the book is a clear sign of a problem. -

1802:

Walker is notable and rightly praised (IMO) for her writing. That said, her opinions on the subject here are publisher's bluster.

1710:

This section essentially needs to go away. If we can find independent reliable sources discussing the book -- you know, the whole

390: 351: 564: 103: 1185:

OK, this will probably be controversial but I've completely removed the criticism paragraph because none of the sourcing was

2035: 1950: 1497: 27: 1714:

thing -- we might have something to say. Until then, this section is worthless. (Additionally, the spin-off article,

467: 446: 60: 1252:

as "tiny" given the number of books they've published since their founding in 2007. Nor, to my understanding, is

869: 831: 742: 1991:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1940: 1874:

bad idea and all too common in articles being written by those who strongly wish to bolster questionable ideas.

1854: 1660: 1572: 1526: 1463: 1404: 1379: 1286: 1223: 1164: 1126: 1098: 1075: 1058: 1031: 968: 932: 854: 812: 769: 727: 678: 630: 584: 1700:

The DNA source (which we included a copy-paste copyright violation from) seems to be little more than a blog.

109: 2026: 1932: 1683: 1638: 1551: 1516:. That is a mistake and I'm sorry if it was interpreted it that way. Rather, that blurb most certainly does 1483: 1015: 904: 1630: 1543: 1396: 1299: 1215: 1090: 1050: 1007: 960: 896: 552: 1293: 987: 2010:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1998: 483:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

480: 293:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1931:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1289: 1282: 883: 865: 827: 738: 70:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 1113: 91: 20: 1847: 1716: 1656: 1568: 1522: 1459: 1429: 1375: 1160: 1122: 1071: 1027: 928: 850: 808: 789: 765: 723: 698: 674: 626: 577: 560: 1961:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100401005118/http://butik.pagina.se/fb_produkt.asp?art=9789172411876

1353: 1258: 1195: 893:

historical record in any way harmful to Keith's well being (aside from a slightly bruised ego)?

649: 608: 576:

Yes the source doesn't say she was in high school. I've changed it to remove that chronology. --

74:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 1995:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1245: 67: 2011: 548:

If she was born in 1964, as the page states, then she was still in high school at age 19-22.

208: 983: 799:

Well the thing is, once something gets reported in the in the news (ie. reliable sources, see

759:

Mercurywoodrose, thank you for the intervention. I don't plan on pursuing this matter further

1358: 1263: 1200: 1149: 654: 613: 162: 2018: 1701: 1478: 1314: 1309:

The first is a blog. The second is a customer review on amazon. Neither one is in anyway a

1240:

is a central pillar of Knowledge (XXG). If the criticisms can't be sourced to reliable and

764:

including the source but without mention of the pieing in the main body (no pun intended).

719: 603: 1964: 879: 277: 1349: 1310: 1237: 1186: 1117: 804: 800: 645: 1977:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1448: 1417: 1253: 785: 694: 556: 382: 2017:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1984: 1711: 1474: 1345: 1241: 2048: 1951:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121118034237/http://www.lierrekeith.com/Appearances.htm

1924: 602:

Although it was fairly well sourced, I've removed mention of the pieing because of

366: 345: 1563: 1145: 864:

sounds good to me, as a precaution until the noticeboard people make a decision.

1825:

reliable source, Walker said that a given book is the Great American Novel, we

146: 122: 1983:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1811: 372: 267: 152: 1954: 1941:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100403043218/http://www.lierrekeith.com/CV.htm

1444: 1287:

https://www.amazon.com/review/R3M4LC3USB5H3S?ie=UTF8&ref_=cm_cr_rdp_perm

261: 240: 1829:

mention it. This book is not a novel and the source is not independent. -

1249: 290: 1818:

version: Most world leaders are actually reptilian aliens in disguise.)

1588:

feminists: Robert Jensen and Lierre Keith. Her story can be found here:

1004:

Why is Keith editing her own wiki article? Isn't that a serious no-no?

395: 846:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lierre_Keith

1781:

Other issues I will address in individual sections, one at a time. -

953: 714: 2040: 1944: 1907: 1861: 1839: 1791: 1734: 1687: 1664: 1642: 1576: 1555: 1530: 1503: 1467: 1452: 1433: 1408: 1383: 1363: 1327: 1303: 1283:

http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/review-of-the-vegetarian-myth.html

1268: 1227: 1205: 1168: 1153: 1130: 1102: 1079: 1062: 1035: 1019: 991: 972: 936: 908: 887: 873: 858: 835: 816: 793: 773: 746: 731: 702: 682: 659: 634: 618: 591: 568: 1344:

I've removed the blogs from the external links because they aren't

182:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 85: 66:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

43: 15: 844:

I just noticed Keith has posted on the BLP noticeboard here

207: 2070:

Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles

1935:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

952:

According to this excerpt from the first paragraph of the

1248:

to include them. I also don't think I would characterize

1965:

http://butik.pagina.se/fb_produkt.asp?art=9789172411876

1928: 1508:

My above comment might be construed to mean that the

1481:(although they might be notable for other reasons). — 394:, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve 479:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 289:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2065:

C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles

1987:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1740:OK, so I was reverted. Let's take this piecemeal. 1870:Using a pull-out quote from the publisher is a 1973:This message was posted before February 2018. 8: 1750:The copyright violation cannot be included. 2075:Arts and entertainment work group articles 1955:http://www.lierrekeith.com/appearances.htm 1297: 441: 340: 235: 117: 1923:I have just modified 3 external links on 493:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women writers 388:This article is within the scope of the 443: 342: 237: 119: 89: 1651:I see what you are saying. Also found 30:on 18 March 2010 (UTC). The result of 2120:Low-importance Women writers articles 1512:that makes Lierre Keith notable is a 219:the arts and entertainment work group 192:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 473:This article is within the scope of 303:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Feminism 283:This article is within the scope of 168:This article is within the scope of 2055:Biography articles of living people 404:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ecology 108:It is of interest to the following 2130:WikiProject Women writers articles 1888:book doesn't make it an exception. 1340:Removing blogs from external links 496:Template:WikiProject Women writers 14: 1945:http://www.lierrekeith.com/CV.htm 1927:. Please take a moment to review 711:List of people who have been pied 2090:Low-importance Feminism articles 466: 445: 375: 365: 344: 270: 260: 239: 155: 145: 121: 90: 49:This article must adhere to the 19: 2105:Mid-importance Ecology articles 949:"barbaric" and "vegan idiots." 513:This article has been rated as 424:This article has been rated as 323:This article has been rated as 26:This article was nominated for 2115:C-Class Women writers articles 2080:WikiProject Biography articles 1688:07:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 1181:Removal of Criticism paragraph 195:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2095:WikiProject Feminism articles 1653:this source from Flying Brick 1364:21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 1269:23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 1228:21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 1206:02:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 1131:01:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 1103:22:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 1080:03:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 1063:00:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 1036:00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC) 1020:23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC) 992:17:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 937:15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 909:07:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 598:Removal of the "pie incident" 487:and see a list of open tasks. 306:Template:WikiProject Feminism 297:and see a list of open tasks. 216:This article is supported by 52:biographies of living persons 2110:WikiProject Ecology articles 1453:00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC) 1434:23:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 1409:07:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 407:Template:WikiProject Ecology 180:contribute to the discussion 1665:23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1643:22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 604:biography of living persons 64:must be removed immediately 2146: 2125:WikiProject Women articles 2060:C-Class biography articles 2004:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1920:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1908:20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 1862:18:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 1840:15:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 1792:15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 1735:13:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 1577:16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 1556:14:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 1468:17:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 1389:Was this written by Keith? 1328:13:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 1304:20:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC) 1169:14:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 1154:07:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 973:04:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 888:18:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 874:17:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 859:15:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 836:17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 817:15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 794:14:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 774:15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 747:06:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 732:04:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 703:03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 683:16:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 660:03:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC) 635:02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC) 619:01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC) 540:This doesn't make sense: 519:project's importance scale 329:project's importance scale 2085:C-Class Feminism articles 1531:16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 1504:15:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 709:You may be interested in 512: 476:WikiProject Women writers 461: 423: 360: 322: 255: 215: 140: 116: 2100:C-Class Ecology articles 2041:12:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC) 592:23:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 569:22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 1916:External links modified 1764:close paraphrase of ... 1384:00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 1374:problem how to fix it. 1771: 1757: 1702:Self-published sources 1562:I had to look up what 1281:Whats about this one: 499:Women writers articles 212: 134:Arts and Entertainment 98:This article is rated 1767: 1753: 1583:Transphobia Inquiries 211: 171:WikiProject Biography 102:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 1985:regular verification 286:WikiProject Feminism 1975:After February 2018 1717:The Vegetarian Myth 1704:are rarely useful. 1695:The Vegetarian Myth 1510:only singular thing 1191:The Vegetarian Myth 391:WikiProject Ecology 2029:InternetArchiveBot 1980:InternetArchiveBot 398:-related articles. 213: 198:biography articles 104:content assessment 2005: 1690: 1633:comment added by 1546:comment added by 1514:single book blurb 1399:comment added by 1306: 1238:Reliable sourcing 1218:comment added by 1093:comment added by 1053:comment added by 1042:"Myths" criticism 1010:comment added by 982:serious offence? 963:comment added by 899:comment added by 572: 555:comment added by 533: 532: 529: 528: 525: 524: 440: 439: 436: 435: 339: 338: 335: 334: 309:Feminism articles 234: 233: 230: 229: 84: 83: 42: 41: 2137: 2039: 2030: 2003: 2002: 1981: 1906: 1903: 1900: 1859: 1852: 1838: 1835: 1832: 1790: 1787: 1784: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1678: 1645: 1619:So there it is. 1558: 1500: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1411: 1361: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1266: 1230: 1203: 1105: 1065: 1022: 975: 957:was assaulted. 911: 657: 646:reliable sources 616: 589: 582: 571: 549: 501: 500: 497: 494: 491: 470: 463: 462: 457: 449: 442: 430:importance scale 412: 411: 410:Ecology articles 408: 405: 402: 385: 380: 379: 378: 369: 362: 361: 356: 348: 341: 311: 310: 307: 304: 301: 280: 275: 274: 273: 264: 257: 256: 251: 243: 236: 200: 199: 196: 193: 190: 176:join the project 165: 163:Biography portal 160: 159: 158: 149: 142: 141: 136: 125: 118: 101: 95: 94: 86: 72:this noticeboard 44: 23: 16: 2145: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2045: 2044: 2033: 2028: 1996: 1989:have permission 1979: 1933:this simple FaQ 1918: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1855: 1848: 1836: 1833: 1830: 1816:Reader's Digest 1800: 1788: 1785: 1782: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1698: 1675: 1628: 1585: 1541: 1498: 1493: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1394: 1391: 1371: 1359: 1342: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1311:reliable source 1264: 1244:sources, it is 1213: 1201: 1183: 1088: 1048: 1044: 1005: 1002: 958: 894: 866:Mercurywoodrose 828:Mercurywoodrose 739:Mercurywoodrose 655: 614: 600: 585: 578: 550: 538: 498: 495: 492: 489: 488: 455: 409: 406: 403: 400: 399: 381: 376: 374: 354: 308: 305: 302: 299: 298: 278:Feminism portal 276: 271: 269: 249: 197: 194: 191: 188: 187: 161: 156: 154: 131: 99: 12: 11: 5: 2143: 2141: 2133: 2132: 2127: 2122: 2117: 2112: 2107: 2102: 2097: 2092: 2087: 2082: 2077: 2072: 2067: 2062: 2057: 2047: 2046: 2023: 2022: 2015: 1968: 1967: 1959:Added archive 1957: 1949:Added archive 1947: 1939:Added archive 1917: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1865: 1864: 1799: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1778: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1765: 1758: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1741: 1697: 1692: 1674: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1657:Green Cardamom 1594: 1584: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1569:Green Cardamom 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1523:Green Cardamom 1460:Green Cardamom 1455: 1436: 1401:67.171.165.123 1390: 1387: 1376:Green Cardamom 1370: 1367: 1341: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1302:comment added 1285:and this one: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1254:Derrick Jensen 1232: 1231: 1220:24.128.105.229 1182: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1161:Green Cardamom 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1123:Green Cardamom 1107: 1106: 1095:24.128.105.229 1083: 1082: 1072:Green Cardamom 1055:24.128.105.229 1043: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1028:Green Cardamom 1001: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 965:75.164.251.197 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 929:Green Cardamom 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 851:Green Cardamom 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 820: 819: 809:Green Cardamom 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 766:Green Cardamom 752: 751: 750: 749: 724:Green Cardamom 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 675:Green Cardamom 665: 664: 663: 662: 638: 637: 627:Green Cardamom 599: 596: 595: 594: 546: 545: 537: 534: 531: 530: 527: 526: 523: 522: 515:Low-importance 511: 505: 504: 502: 485:the discussion 471: 459: 458: 456:Low‑importance 450: 438: 437: 434: 433: 426:Mid-importance 422: 416: 415: 413: 387: 386: 383:Ecology portal 370: 358: 357: 355:Mid‑importance 349: 337: 336: 333: 332: 325:Low-importance 321: 315: 314: 312: 295:the discussion 282: 281: 265: 253: 252: 250:Low‑importance 244: 232: 231: 228: 227: 224:Low-importance 214: 204: 203: 201: 167: 166: 150: 138: 137: 126: 114: 113: 107: 96: 82: 81: 77:this help page 61:poorly sourced 47: 40: 39: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2142: 2131: 2128: 2126: 2123: 2121: 2118: 2116: 2113: 2111: 2108: 2106: 2103: 2101: 2098: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2088: 2086: 2083: 2081: 2078: 2076: 2073: 2071: 2068: 2066: 2063: 2061: 2058: 2056: 2053: 2052: 2050: 2043: 2042: 2037: 2032: 2031: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2000: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1976: 1971: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1915: 1909: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1858: 1853: 1851: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1828: 1824: 1819: 1817: 1813: 1807: 1803: 1797: 1793: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1756: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1721: 1719: 1718: 1713: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1696: 1693: 1691: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680:12.180.133.18 1672: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635:99.92.194.248 1632: 1624: 1620: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1598: 1595: 1592: 1591: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548:203.97.79.114 1545: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1519: 1518:contribute to 1515: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1496: 1480: 1476: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1456: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1388: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1368: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1357: 1356: 1351: 1347: 1339: 1329: 1316: 1313:. Please see 1312: 1308: 1307: 1305: 1301: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1270: 1267: 1262: 1261: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1199: 1198: 1192: 1188: 1180: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 999: 993: 989: 985: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 974: 970: 966: 962: 955: 950: 938: 934: 930: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 910: 906: 902: 901:67.164.46.159 898: 891: 890: 889: 885: 881: 877: 876: 875: 871: 867: 863: 862: 861: 860: 856: 852: 847: 837: 833: 829: 824: 823: 822: 821: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 797: 796: 795: 791: 787: 775: 771: 767: 762: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 748: 744: 740: 735: 734: 733: 729: 725: 721: 716: 713:if you think 712: 707: 706: 705: 704: 700: 696: 684: 680: 676: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 661: 658: 653: 652: 647: 642: 641: 640: 639: 636: 632: 628: 623: 622: 621: 620: 617: 612: 611: 605: 597: 593: 590: 588: 583: 581: 575: 574: 573: 570: 566: 562: 558: 554: 543: 542: 541: 535: 520: 516: 510: 507: 506: 503: 490:Women writers 486: 482: 481:women writers 478: 477: 472: 469: 465: 464: 460: 454: 453:Women writers 451: 448: 444: 431: 427: 421: 418: 417: 414: 397: 393: 392: 384: 373: 371: 368: 364: 363: 359: 353: 350: 347: 343: 330: 326: 320: 317: 316: 313: 296: 292: 288: 287: 279: 268: 266: 263: 259: 258: 254: 248: 245: 242: 238: 225: 222:(assessed as 221: 220: 210: 206: 205: 202: 185: 184:documentation 181: 177: 173: 172: 164: 153: 151: 148: 144: 143: 139: 135: 130: 127: 124: 120: 115: 111: 105: 97: 93: 88: 87: 79: 78: 73: 69: 65: 62: 58: 54: 53: 48: 46: 45: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2027: 2024: 1999:source check 1978: 1972: 1969: 1925:Lierre Keith 1922: 1919: 1884: 1871: 1856: 1849: 1826: 1822: 1820: 1815: 1808: 1804: 1801: 1798:Alice Walker 1768: 1761: 1754: 1722: 1715: 1709: 1706: 1699: 1694: 1676: 1673:Credentials? 1629:— Preceding 1625: 1621: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1599: 1596: 1593: 1586: 1542:— Preceding 1539: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1482: 1395:— Preceding 1392: 1372: 1354: 1343: 1290:ShalokShalom 1259: 1246:undue weight 1196: 1190: 1184: 1045: 1012:72.70.254.89 1003: 984:Shelly Pixie 951: 947: 843: 782: 760: 691: 650: 609: 601: 586: 579: 551:— Preceding 547: 539: 514: 474: 425: 389: 324: 284: 217: 169: 110:WikiProjects 75: 63: 56: 50: 36:no consensus 35: 1823:independent 1564:transphobia 1298:—Preceding 1214:—Preceding 1089:—Preceding 1049:—Preceding 1006:—Preceding 959:—Preceding 895:—Preceding 536:High school 2049:Categories 2036:Report bug 1821:If, in an 1812:David Icke 1369:Advert tag 1242:verifiable 1114:WP:NOTABLE 880:Off2riorob 2019:this tool 2012:this tool 1000:Self edit 849:safety. 786:Smallword 695:Smallword 557:Punstress 189:Biography 129:Biography 68:libellous 2025:Cheers.— 1883:This is 1760:...is a 1631:unsigned 1544:unsigned 1397:unsigned 1250:PM Press 1216:unsigned 1187:reliable 1091:unsigned 1051:unsigned 1008:unsigned 961:unsigned 897:unsigned 565:contribs 553:unsigned 300:Feminism 291:Feminism 247:Feminism 28:deletion 1929:my edit 1477:as per 1475:notable 1300:undated 517:on the 428:on the 401:Ecology 396:ecology 352:Ecology 327:on the 100:C-class 1479:WP:BIO 1360:☿/talk 1355:Pigman 1315:WP:SPS 1265:☿/talk 1260:Pigman 1202:☿/talk 1197:Pigman 1146:Scales 954:Pieing 761:unless 720:WP:COI 715:pieing 656:☿/talk 651:Pigman 615:☿/talk 610:Pigman 106:scale. 1850:Green 1827:might 1350:WP:RS 1118:WP:RS 805:WP:OR 801:WP:RS 580:Green 1872:very 1762:very 1712:WP:V 1684:talk 1661:talk 1639:talk 1573:talk 1552:talk 1527:talk 1464:talk 1449:talk 1445:Owen 1441:here 1430:talk 1405:talk 1380:talk 1346:WP:V 1317:. - 1294:talk 1224:talk 1165:talk 1150:talk 1127:talk 1099:talk 1076:talk 1059:talk 1032:talk 1016:talk 988:talk 969:talk 933:talk 905:talk 884:talk 870:talk 855:talk 832:talk 813:talk 790:talk 770:talk 743:talk 728:talk 699:talk 679:talk 631:talk 561:talk 178:and 34:was 1993:RfC 1963:to 1953:to 1943:to 1905:PhD 1902:mer 1899:Sum 1885:not 1837:PhD 1834:mer 1831:Sum 1789:PhD 1786:mer 1783:Sum 1732:PhD 1729:mer 1726:Sum 1425:PhD 1422:mer 1419:Sum 1348:or 1325:PhD 1322:mer 1319:Sum 1296:) 718:(a 509:Low 420:Mid 319:Low 57:BLP 2051:: 2006:. 2001:}} 1997:{{ 1686:) 1663:) 1641:) 1575:) 1554:) 1529:) 1466:) 1451:) 1443:. 1432:) 1407:) 1382:) 1226:) 1167:) 1152:) 1129:) 1101:) 1078:) 1061:) 1034:) 1018:) 990:) 971:) 935:) 907:) 886:) 872:) 857:) 834:) 815:) 792:) 772:) 745:) 730:) 701:) 681:) 633:) 567:) 563:• 226:). 132:: 2038:) 2034:( 2021:. 2014:. 1857:C 1814:( 1682:( 1659:( 1637:( 1571:( 1550:( 1525:( 1499:๛ 1494:o 1491:k 1488:a 1485:m 1462:( 1447:( 1428:( 1403:( 1378:( 1292:( 1222:( 1163:( 1148:( 1125:( 1097:( 1074:( 1057:( 1030:( 1014:( 986:( 967:( 931:( 903:( 882:( 868:( 853:( 830:( 811:( 788:( 768:( 741:( 726:( 697:( 677:( 629:( 587:C 559:( 521:. 432:. 331:. 186:. 112:: 80:. 55:( 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index