Talk:Lierre Keith

High school

This doesn't make sense:

"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)..."

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)

Yes the source doesn't say she was in high school. I've changed it to remove that chronology. -- GreenC 23:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the "pie incident"

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)

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 "circles" don't really count for notability on Wikipedia. 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. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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 reliable sources. 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. Pigman☿/talk 03:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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 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. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:46, 11 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)

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. You may be interested in List of people who have been pied if you think pieing is not notable on Wikipedia. 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 (a WP:COI 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 :)Green Cardamom (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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 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.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercurywoodrose, thank you for the intervention. I don't plan on pursuing this matter further unless 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 including the source but without mention of the pieing in the main body (no pun intended). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:26, 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)

Well the thing is, once something gets reported in the in the news (ie. reliable sources, see WP:RS), 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 WP:OR) 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. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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 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":)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:33, 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)

sounds good to me, as a precaution until the noticeboard people make a decision.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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 historical record in any way harmful to Keith's well being (aside from a slightly bruised ego)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.46.159 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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 '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 Wikipedia is to report what the press says. Does anyone have objection to a single-sentence addition about the pieing incident? Green Cardamom (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (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)

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 serious offence? Shelly Pixie (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Self edit

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)

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. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Myths" criticism

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)

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 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. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.105.229 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is only one cited supporter in the article, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, which makes her opinion notable enough to include on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTABLE. 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 WP:RS for the rules on including this kind of material on Wikipedia. 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 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 Wikipedia. In the meantime if you can read the WP:RS rules and try and find more solid citations for your criticisms it would help. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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 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. Scales (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception about a book by notable writers is acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you personally disagree with Walker, or have some beef against the book for being an anti-vegetarian, is beside the point. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Criticism paragraph

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)

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 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.105.229 (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is a central pillar of Wikipedia. If the criticisms can't be sourced to reliable and verifiable sources, it is undue weight to include them. I also don't think I would characterize PM Press as "tiny" given the number of books they've published since their founding in 2007. Nor, to my understanding, is Derrick Jensen 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. Pigman☿/talk 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whats about this one: http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/review-of-the-vegetarian-myth.html and this one: https://www.amazon.com/review/R3M4LC3USB5H3S?ie=UTF8&ref_=cm_cr_rdp_perm ShalokShalom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The first is a blog. The second is a customer review on amazon. Neither one is in anyway a reliable source. Please see WP:SPS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing blogs from external links

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)

Advert tag

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)

Was this written by Keith?

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)

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. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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 here. Owen (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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 that is enough for Wikipedia 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. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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 notable according to Wikipedia'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 notable as per WP:BIO (although they might be notable for other reasons). —mako๛ 15:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My above comment might be construed to mean that the only singular thing that makes Lierre Keith notable is a single book blurb. That is a mistake and I'm sorry if it was interpreted it that way. Rather, that blurb most certainly does contribute to 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 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. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:21, 2 April 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)

I had to look up what transphobia 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. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Transphobia Inquiries

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)

I see what you are saying. Also found this source from Flying Brick. 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). Green Cardamom (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Credentials?

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 Vegetarian Myth

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)

OK, so I was reverted. Let's take this piecemeal.

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.

The copyright violation cannot be included.

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

...is a very close paraphrase of ...

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

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.

Other issues I will address in individual sections, one at a time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Alice Walker

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)

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 Wikipedia, for example when a President comments about a book (even a novel) 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. -- GreenC 18:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Using a pull-out quote from the publisher is a very bad idea and all too common in articles being written by those who strongly wish to bolster questionable ideas.

This is not 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 book doesn't make it an exception.

That promotional material from the publisher is being used as nearly half the article on the book is a clear sign of a problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100403043218/http://www.lierrekeith.com/CV.htm to http://www.lierrekeith.com/CV.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118034237/http://www.lierrekeith.com/Appearances.htm to http://www.lierrekeith.com/appearances.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401005118/http://butik.pagina.se/fb_produkt.asp?art=9789172411876 to http://butik.pagina.se/fb_produkt.asp?art=9789172411876

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)