Talk:Alice Walker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article draft

march 9, 1944 - still living) Alice Walker Author, activist Alice Walker, best known perhaps as the author of The Color Purple, was the eighth child of Georgia sharecroppers. After a childhood accident blinded her in one eye, she went on to become valedictorian of her local school, and attend Spelman College and Sarah Lawrence College on scholarships, graduating in 1965. She volunteered in the voter registration drives of the 1960s in Georgia, and went to work after college in the Welfare Department in New York City. She married in 1967 (and divorced in 1976); her first book of poems came out in 1968 and her first novel just after her daughter's birth in 1970. Her early poems, novels and short stories dealt with themes familiar to readers of her later works: rape, violence, isolation, troubled relationships, multi-generational perspectives, sexism and racism. When The Color Purple came out in 1982, Walker became known to an even wider audience. Her Pulitzer Prize and the movie by Steven Spielberg brought both fame and controversy. She was widely criticized for negative portrayals of men in The Color Purple, though many critics admitted that the movie presented more simplistic negative pictures than the book's more nuanced portrayals. Walker also published a biography of the poet, Langston Hughes, and worked to recover and publicize the nearly-lost works of writer Zora Neale Hurston. She's credited with introducing the word "womanist" for African American feminism. In 1989 and 1992, in two books, The Temple of My Familiar and Possessing the Secret of Joy, Walker took on the issue of female circumcision in Africa, which brought further controversy: was Walker a cultural imperialist to criticize a different culture? Her works are known for their portrayals of the African American woman's life. She depicts vividly the sexism, racism and poverty that make that life often a struggle. But she also portrays as part of that life, the strengths of family, community, self-worth, and spirituality. Many of her novels depict women in other periods of history than our own. Just as with non-fiction women's history writing, such portrayals give a sense of the differences and similarities of women's condition today and in that other time. She continues not only to write, but to be active in environmental, feminist/womanist causes, and issues of economic justice. Womanist is to feminist as purple is to lavender." -- Alice Walker

Alice Walker was born on February 9, 1944, in Eatonton, Georgia, the eighth and last child of Willie Lee and Minnie Lou Grant Walker, who were sharecroppers. When Alice Walker was eight years old, she lost sight of one eye when one of her older brothers shot her with a BB gun by accident. In high school, Alice Walker was valedictorian of her class, and that achievement, coupled with a "rehabilitation scholarship" made it possible for her to go to Spelman, a college for black women in Atlanta, Georgia. After spending two years at Spelman, she transferred to Sarah Lawrence College in New York, and during her junior year traveled to Africa as an exchange student. She received her bachelor of arts degree from Sarah Lawrence College in 1965. After finishing college, Walker lived for a short time in New York, then from the mid 1960s to the mid 1970s, she lived in Tougaloo, Mississippi, during which time she had a daughter, Rebecca, in 1969. Alice Walker was active in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, and in the 1990's she is still an involved activist. She has spoken for the women's movement, the anti-apartheid movement, for the anti-nuclear movement, and against female genital mutilation. Alice Walker started her own publishing company, Wild Trees Press, in 1984. She currently resides in Northern California with her dog, Marley. She received the Pulitzer Prize in 1983 for The Color Purple. Among her numerous awards and honors are the Lillian Smith Award from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Rosenthal Award from the National Institute of Arts & Letters, a nomination for the National Book Award, a Radcliffe Institute Fellowship, a Merrill Fellowship, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and the Front Page Award for Best Magazine Criticism from the Newswoman's Club of New York. She also has received the Townsend Prize and a Lyndhurst Prize.

In the main article, it says she won an O. Henry award in the 80's for an article not published until 2004. Is such a thing possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.88.38 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2006‎

Discussion page?

Isn't this the discussion page? The above seems to be synopsis of the article. Should it be deleted?SmokeyTheCat 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think so, this is the discussion page after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.13.97 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Well Tosh is cute, but Alice Walker is an exquist author and really shows her deep african roots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.150.10 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity in the lead sentence

Per wp:mosbio, I have removed African. Do we have any sources that claim/state that Walker is notable due to her ethnicity as pointed out in a reccent edit summary? Reading the article, it looks like Walker is of mixed ethnicity, which, imho, is even more reason to describe her as an American and then go into detailed ethnic backround further into the article. Thnaks! --Tom 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed it as well. I believe that the guideline is that nationality rather than ethnicity belongs in the lead. I've also found a reliable source for her mixed ethnicity. María (críticame) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone put African back in the lead. --Minigilani (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Novels

I have created entries for The Third Life of Grange Copeland and Meridian (novel). I would like the latter to be simply listed as Meridian but then it directs to the Meridian disambiguation page. Could some admin sort this out for me please? Thanks in advance.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The article Meridian (novel) is correctly named. Please see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books); because "Meridian" is a popular word, and many articles include the word in their title, a disambiguation page is needed in order to collect all of the "Meridian" articles together in one place in case an individual is not sure which "Meridian" article they are looking for. María (críticame) 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo

What happened to the photo of the subject?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By subject, do you mean Walker? I don't remember there being a photograph on the article when I began editing it, but it's possible that it was removed/deleted because of copyright issues. There's nothing at the Commons available, I know. María (críticame) 22:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A photo is provided. Miranda 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Short stories

I think her short stories have been largely overlooked, which is understandable due to "The Color Purple" overshadowing any other works she has written. I added in an entry about one short story, Everyday Use, and sourced the info to a textbook. I don't know if I sourced it right on the references section though. And in regards to referencing her as American, rather than African or African American, I don't know...a bit trivial perhaps? If you don't want African on the page, I'll take it off. Mike518raptor 03:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that her short story publications are important, your lengthy addition would better belong at the article for Everyday Use. Undue weight should not be given to any work in particular since this article is a biography of the individual and her accomplishments; not of her works in great detail. I cut your addition down to size, and strongly suggest you move some of the material, which is very interesting, to the "Everyday Use" article. María (críticame) 14:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that her short story collections deserve more of a mention. When I get my hands on them again I will add them as entries.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alice Walker not born in Eatonton GA

In a CSPAN BookTV interview this morning Alice Walker said she was born in "Putnam County GA and moved to Eatonton GA at the age of thirteen" Merlin1935 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Womanist

I added in the introduction that Walker prefers the word Womanist to feminist. Any objections?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering, since she prefers and uses womanist, why we do not delete feminist altogether?Persnickety (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not been part of the history of this article, but agree with deleting the term "feminist" in favor of "womanist." As it stands, the text seems to be equating feminist and womanist, which is not exactly the case. It makes sense to use her own term, which Walker and others took in contrast to the term "feminist." Readers can follow the link to get a sense of the relationship of these terms. 131.238.31.40 (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the use of the term womanist for all the reasons stated, but I do not agree with deleting feminist, simply because the term does still apply to her, and she would still consider herself a feminist. Womanist is not interchangeable with feminist, nor is womanism mutually exclusive from feminism. Rather, it speaks of the particularities of the experience of being a woman of color, which present a number of differences on top of the experience of being a woman of any ethnicity. So, since the consensus is in favor of womanist, and I think I have made a case for the inclusion of both terms, I will make a slight adjustment to the language of the article to say that Walker is both. Feel free to express any objections. Godheval (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask Alice Walker your questions about The Color Purple

AW will appear on the BBC radio programme World Book Club discussing The Color Purple. The recording of the programme will be on July 23th in San Francisco (broadcast with repeats from 26th August). Here are more details and a link to email questions. [1]. EdQuine (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

The prior wording was ambiguous, gramatically, which could be read to mean EITHER that A.W. was viewing impact on Gza residents OR THAT the Israeli military initiative was specifically directed to Gaza residents. On the Israel side the contention is that the target was Hamas and that the residents, if by that meaning civilians residents, were collateral damage. I am fully aware that contention is debatable, but the text I changed concludes on the negative, taking the side of Israel critics. Obviously there was severe damage to the civilian folks there but the text as it stood was conclusory that it was the intent of the Operation to attack residents.

Any rebutal that Hamas is resident begs several questions. In any case, the text should not be ambiguous. Thank you for your intelligent consideration of this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked the CODE PINK website to wit:

"There are over 250 local CODEPINK groups throughout the US and overseas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Project Plan

Our plan is to enrich Alice Walker’s biography. We are aiming to reach good article status. In order to do so, we must:

1. Revise the current page to create a well organized body of information 2. Include important details we feel the article currently lacks 3. Provide accurate, comprehensive and cited information and, 4. Have a clear and concise writing style.

While this article is current a B – class article, we believe there are many changes that can be made in order to improve this page.

Each individual of our group has undertaken the responsibility of re-writing the following sections:

1. Abstract, 2. Early Life 3. Education 4. Personal Life 5. Writing Career 6. Awards & Recognitions

We hope that after we have worked on this page, readers will see a positive change. It is our intention to make this page informative and accessible to anyone who visits it.

Newer posts are on the bottom 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)~ STJdw April 5th, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by STJdw (talk • contribs)

Rebecca Walker's Black, White and Jewish?

Hello Wiki World,

I am very interested in finding out if Alice Walker had any reaction to Rebecca Walker's memoir, "Black, White, and Jewish" at the time it was released. I want to include her comment (if any) in the article. Rebecca Walker claims that her mother neglected her and I am curious to find out if there is an valid statements that justify that to be true made by Alice Walker made herself.

I find this very interesting because, for Rebecca to be born with her fathers last name, why would you choose to go by the last name of your infamous mother that neglected you?

Any info anyone can provide regarding this would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEdwards22 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bringing Back the Early Life Section

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I find that the removal of Alice Walker’s “early life” does a great disservice to those who might read this to learn about her life. Because her childhood experiences and family have had a tremendous impact on her writing, I think it is important to have this section included in the article.

Therefore, I revised the section with stronger sources, more contextual information about her childhood, and it’s impact on her writing.

Best, EEdwards22 (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)EEdwards22

Add Info About Archives at Emory

Walker's manuscripts and other archival material are available for research at Emory. What counts as a reliable source? I've seen other articles reference the press release of the institution, would that be alright? Something like this: Alice Walker Places Her Archive at Emory The news articles covering the subject are extremely short and all from AP. Would that be preferred?

Thanks! Emoryweb3 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Single works listed as collections

I have researched (briefly) the entries under Walker's works.

These seem to be single short stories (not collections)

• Am I Blue? (1986)
• Beauty: When the Other Dancer Is the Self (1983)
• The Flowers (1973)
• Roselily (1973)
• Everyday use

These are single poems (not collections)

• Expect Nothing
• Women

I have removed them from the listing. If anyone knows otherwise, please edit.

Spanglej (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A vote to protect this article

Given that this page is vandalised nearly every day (by school kids, it seems) I would vote to put a semi protection on. It seems pointless to waste time reverting nonsense daily. What do you say and how do we do it? Spanglej (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one month. If heavy vandalism resumes, let me know. - Darwinek (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Spanglej (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cross Reference Content

Hi

Y'all should probably add something about the following:

• she's bisexual
• she's vegetarian
• she did a lot for the black feminist movement (see the page on black feminism)
• a mention of some of her philosophy (I use the word rather incorrectly). What's all this about Womanism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.37.3 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to translate some content to / from the French article.

24.208.37.3 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Lawrence

How did Walker, a child of poor sharecroppers, end up going to the elite Sarah Lawrence College? Presumably she got some kind of scholarship/bursary? (I'm not sure what such things are called in the USA.) The article should have some mention of this. SmokeyTheCat 20:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Walker's website says that with a scholarship "Walker enrolled at Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1961, where she quickly became involved in the civil rights movement. She also developed important friendships with two teachers, the historians Howard Zinn and Staughton Lynd. With the assistance of Lynd, Walker transferred to Sarah Lawrence College in 1964" . Span (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@"SmokeyTheCat". If you are a foreigner and are confused that a little "pickanany" gal can go to to a prestigeous college, then realize that either you must be spititually purile (lacking in any character,) or you be must living in a socially repressive country, that does not allow for what we Americans used to refer to as UPWARD MOBILITY. Would it surprise you that Ms. Walker's academic acheivement is The norm in North America, particularly the US. How do you think the most powerful American born men ad women of business, science, industry, academia, entertainment, politics. etc. came about? Do you think the founding fathers and their decendants right up until the end of the Civil War were of the born nobility? Really, your statement is most insulting and retarded! However, you might be able to by a clue by knowing that though African Americans were brutalized in America under US federally-sanctioned segregationand Jim Crow, like other oppressed ppls around the world, we had civil socieities and organizations that forstered enrichment, despite having meager resources. How do you think the civil Rights movenment was organized? --96.250.195.93 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Vandalism

She has referred to the United States as a "terrorist nation". [2] BUT WHEN I PUT IN A LINK TO THIS REFERENCE, IT GETS REMOVED. THE WIKIPEDIA IS SO BIASED IT IS USELESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.160.235 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires text with a neutral point of view. Declaring your view that she an anti-American terrorist does not meet these guidelines. I have added in the link her June interview with Foreign Policy Magazine that you cited. It may help for you to review the basic guidelines of the Wikipedia editing. Span (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the edits you reverted here did not label her a terrorist. It said that she was an activist who had called the United States and Israel terrorist states. I don't know that it belongs in the introductory paragraph, but I would think it's at least fairly NPOV, unlike this person's edits this morning that I reverted that did call her a terrorist. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice where you'd moved the information. I think where you places it under activism is fair.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 98.210.160.235 wanted the intro to read "Alice Malsenior Walker" (born February 9, 1944) is an African American author, poet, and terrorist." No editor has so far questioned whether Walker's comments from the June interview should be quotes or the article included. IP editor, you will notice that the Cluebot bot reverted several of your edits. I would also flag up the three revert rule: no editor must not make 3 reverts to an article in 24 hrs. Span (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know that the IP editor did that initially. I was the one who reverted and warned for it. I just wanted to point out that the later edits, those that you reverted, while still overemphasizing the point, were more reasonable.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 98.210.160.235, you mention in your edit summary "Added "POV" tag because reliable references to interviews where she calls the United States a "terrorist nation" are edited out." The article you linked to at the Huffington Post did not link to the interview itself. I added a reference to the whole interview. I mentioned this in the edit summary. Far from removing your cite, I expanded it. I don't think "critic of the US" is a job title. It seems balanced to state, as it does under Alice Walker#Activism, that she "described the United States and Israel as a terrorist nations". No doubt there should be more detail in the article about her civil rights, feminist advocacy etc but articles develop over time. Span (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this edit war is about. Alice Walker definitely did refer to the United States as a "terrorist state" in a public speech several years ago. Is the editor disputing this or simply asking for a footnote?

That's what it is about! Accurate, trusted, verified sources of Alice Walker fanning the flames of violence against Jews get reverted. Instantly98.210.160.235 (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've heard her speak in person twice. The first time I thought she was brilliant and was totally with her. The second time I was actually was kind of amazed that anyone could possibly stretch the phrase "THE JEWS" into four syllables and then wait for applause. (I honestly wish I was kidding about this, but I'm not.) Mardiste (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It was about one angry new editor who got the wrong end of the Wikipedia stick. Red mist. Span (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the POV tag because Walker apologists are refusing to allow references to reputable sources where she says that the United States is a "terrorist state." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.160.235 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See Alice_Walker#Activism. Just because it's not mentioned in the first paragraph doesn't mean it's not NPOV. --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Added it back. Not to define her as a critic of the United States, when that is how she currently gets most of her income and publicity, is a bias 98.210.160.235 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"a critic of the United States… that is how she currently gets most of her income and publicity" do you have any reliable citations to back up this claim? Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the last sentence in the intro section, which reads "She is a critic of her own country, the United States, calling it a "terrorist country" and is involved in controversial flotilla missions to aid and abet entities recognized as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union". This seems rather inappropriate. Surly this doesn’t belong in the lead but in the "activism" section. Also a more balanced and considered explanation of her views is warranted. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong section for "protesting" sentence?

Surly the line in the "writing Career" section, about her "protesting the Toronto Film Festival's City to City spotlight", belongs rather in the "Activism" section? Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it up. Span (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Span Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert War

User: 98.210.160.235 has received a 24-hour ban for edit warring. Because the discsussion yesterday seemed to reflect 3 people who believe that the information the IP editor thought needed to be in the first paragraph, I am removing it from that section, except including that she is an activist. If the IP user wants to expand on the information in the activism section (without calling her a terrorist), I think that's fine. But if he tries to add material back to the first paragraph without obtaining consensus, I think the page should be put put up for protection. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 12:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's good. I was keeping an eye on the IP as some of the edits have been appalling (e.g. [3]) expecting to have to take it to ANI. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mahewa. Span (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.210.160.235, 4 July 2011

The fact that they have scrubbed out any mention of her political activism, or her sharp criticism of the United States is REPREHENSIBLE. Open your eyes! CAN'T YOU SEE THE BIAS AND HYPOCRISY in not allowing any well-sourced references to her criticism of the United States and not listing her as a "political activist." I'm asking my congressman to investigate. Wikipedia should be blocked from all public schools.

98.210.160.235 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The article starts with

• Alice Malsenior Walker (born February 9, 1944) is an African American author, poet, and activist.

The Activism section includes the following information.

In a June 2011 interview, Walker described the United States and Israel as "terrorist organizations" stating "When you terrorize people, when you make them so afraid of you that they are just mentally and psychologically wounded for life -- that's terrorism."[15]

That is enough weight for this issue.

Wikipedia is not your soapbox. See WP:SOAP. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You are a dishonest liar. This comment was made BEFORE someone decided to add back something about Alice Walker's activism and her remarks about the United States being a "terrorist country." This is a very significant point of view for a person as influential and highly-regarded as Ms. Walker to make, and deserves mention. She directly called the United States a "terrorist country" yet the article soft-pedals and that significant quote was edited out repeatedly24.7.26.52 (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, your comment was made while the information was in the article and it is still in the article. Your comment's time stamp is 17:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC) and here is the version of the article at 04:58, 4 July 2011. It includes the information. The next edit to the article was at 00:19, 6 July 2011 and no edits have removed the information since. It's wrong to describe people as dishonest liars when it can easily be shown that they are not dishonest liars, don't you know that? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.26.52 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the real question is why have you come here, an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and used the talk page, a page that is for discussing amendments and additions to the contents of the article based on reliable sources and the policies of Wikiepdia, as your personal soapbox when you have been explicitly told that you can't do that. You were provided with a link to the policy that tells you that you can't do that. Read it. Comply with it, you have no choice. One more baseless idiotic comment from you about Alice Walker, me or any other editors and I will ask an admin to block your IP. If you have a reliable source that says that a someone supports firing missles at puppies as a hobby or whatever, cite the source or just don't say anything anywhere on Wikipedia. Living people are protected by the WP:BLP policy. Read it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I Can't believe What I'm Reading Here

This copy entry is just in case "SmokeytheCat", or the "editor" throws a "hissy-fit" and deletes my comments.

@"SmokeyTheCat". If you are a foreigner and are confused that a little "pickanany gal" can go to to a prestigeous college, then realize that either you must be spititually purile (lacking in any character,) or you be must living in a socially repressive country, that does not allow for what we Americans used to refer to as UPWARD MOBILITY. Would it surprise you that Ms. Walker's academic acheivement is THE norm in North America, particularly the US. How do you think the most powerful American born men ad women of business, science, industry, academia, entertainment, politics. etc. came about? Do you think the founding fathers and their decendants right up until the end of the Civil War were of the born nobility? Really, your statement is most insulting and retarded! However, you might be able to by a clue by knowing that though African Americans were brutalized in America under US federally-sanctioned segregationand Jim Crow, like other oppressed ppls around the world, we had civil socieities and organizations that forstered enrichment, despite having meager resources. How do you think the civil Rights movenment was organized? --96.250.195.93 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Smokey asked if Walker had a scholarship to go to Lawrence. Smokey's question was fair enough - the college was very expensive. Walker did have help to go there. It's not an insulting question, it reflects the reality of American economics. Span (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

National Book Award (first black woman)

first black woman: Is that notable? Does it mean first to win the National Book Award for Fiction or any U.S. National Book Award? I have provided a reference for the Award and an explanation of its hardcover fiction category, with superscripts located before the parenthetical comment because the given reference (and linked wiki-articles) do not support that she was the first black woman ... anything. Moments ago I found "Women who've Won the National Book Award" at the official website. It may be useful or interesting to some of you. --P64 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Where do see in the article that she was the first black woman to win the award? Thanks Span (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(section) Selected awards and honors

• National Book Award[1][a] (first black woman)

--P64 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, women won 9 of the 25 pre-war awards (List of winners of the National Book Award#1935 to 1941) including the inaugural fiction award (Most Distinguished Novel of 1935). Those awards were not limited to U.S. resident or citizen authors and "foreigners" won several of them. --P64 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Alice Walker's official website seems to say she was not the first African American Woman to win any NBA. Emory University doesn't say she was the first. ("African American Woman" is not the same as the "first black woman" for all sorts of reasons, including the possibility that non US nationals were eligible before WWII.) Alice Walker's official website does state that she was the "the first African American woman to win the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction".The entry on the Alice Walker Wikipedia entry maybe mistaken. If it is true, is it notable? Within the writing section, yes. It would be a pioneering achievement, a gate-opening to inspire other writers to follow. Alice Walker's website, Emory University and newspaper articles, among others, like to note such groundbreaking novelties. I'd say to remove questionable text on Walker's WP page till we have a solid ref (one that hasn't been copied from WP). Span (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Alice Walker a Buddhist

No mention of the fact that Alice Walker identifies as a Buddhist. Might be worth adding to the page if a source can be found to reference.

Ras Laam (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)]]

The article states that Walker sees America and Israel as "terrorist organizations", which seems quite un-Buddhist. Is it possible that Walker is a Muslim, or had Muslim ancestors? Is there any evidence one way or the other? Santamoly (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume this is sarcasm. Span (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would you presume that my query is sarcasm? Is it logical that a successful American woman author would see her country (or Israel) as a "terrorist organization" (her words)? This is a normal Muslim political position, so it appears logical to ask if Walker has Muslim heritage. It's not unusual for African Americans to be Muslim. I can't think of any other reason why she would express such thoughts. Santamoly (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there you are then. Enjoy your weekend. Span (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not vegan.

From Alice's blog:

"And it isn’t as if I’m vegan, as Wikipedia claims. I’m just an ordinary run of the mill mostly vegetarian person who still eats chicken soup when I’m sick and roast chicken when I can’t resist."

Owen (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Alice's blog" referred to herein appears to be a Mexican casino site, so this useful tidbit has just evaporated into a puff of nothingness. Santamoly (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012 re: place of birth of Alice Walker

Please replace the place of birth location for Alice Walker from "Eatonton" to "Putnam County"

Alice Walker was not born in the city of Eatonton, Georgia. She was born in the rural area of Putnam County, Georgia, near Eatonton, but not in the city proper. This can be verified by contacting her directly through her Executive Aide, Andrés Thomas Conteris at (address removed). He can provide the needed data to validate this change. Once this change is made, Alice Walker has a number of other suggested changes in the information that describes her in the Wikipedia article. Thank you for attending to this. Dresito7 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done:We can not contact people to confirm information. You need reliable sources from third-parties to confirm the information. Also, you should not post email addresses on Wikipedia, especially other peoples, as it is a public website. Mdann52 (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source that supports Putnam County as the birth place. Span (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Educational value of "My Mother's Blue Bowl"

Hello. I know this may fit into "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." but I just want to highlight that we got "My Mother's Blue Bowl" as a text in our English class as part of our book Progress Gold B. Maybe this work could be referenced in the article? Hmm, I found the text on wikispaces claimed to be under CC-BY-3.0 at http://creativewritingquest.wikispaces.com/My+Mother%E2%80%99s+Blue+Bowl. Gnetter (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Category: LGBT?

Just wondering why Alice Walker is not listed under any LGBT categories? I'd suggest authors and possibly activists, but am not sure how to do that myself. Are there categories such as LGBT Americans, African-Americans etc.? I don't know how to go about this. Thoughts? 109.77.173.199 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Alice Walker death?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anybody verify that Alice Walker died today (5th Feb 2010)? I can find no supporting evidence of any kind. --217.171.129.70 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can find absolutely no evidence of the death of Alice Walker (aside from an obituary for a similarly named woman who died in January) so I have removed the death date and changed the tense to present to reflect this. This is my first edit, so I apologise if I have broken any conventions.--217.171.129.70 (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably just vandalism. If she really has died (and what a loss to literature that would be), then legitimate news sources will start reporting at very soon. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That was my assumption - cheers for confirming my thoughts. =]--217.171.129.70 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Walker makes complaint about WP article

Alice Walker has recently written on her blog about inaccuracies in the Wikipedia article. The points have been removed. I would point out that the info was referenced by reliable sources, and that is the way that Wikipedia works, according to what can be publicly verified. Wikipedia does not posit that it's articles are 'truth' or 'fact'. It gives citations so that information can be checked and changed. All the information given was already in the public domain, much of it given as quotes, some from an article in The Times, some from Walker's daughter. Reggie Watts himself said stated that he is Walker's second cousin. It is notable that there is not one mention on this talk page from any editor about any of the inaccuracies Walker mentions. Editors removing large chunks of information without explaining why, may have had their edits reverted but WP:BLP is clear that we err on the side of caution and respect for privacy, prioritising accuracy on biographies of living people. Asking for a change is not a particularly "complicated route". Span (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed some of this material. The Reggie Watts claim is trivial, even if true, and we don't even know if it is true. We all have a *lot* of second cousins, and I think it's just a bit too far of a relationship to be seen as notable - especially when we don't have independent verification, and Alice Walker on her blog denies knowing the guy, so it's not like they hung out at family picnics. I also removed the reference about 'estranged' - this is a subtle and nuanced point, and rather a personal one too - so adding that in based on one interview with the daughter, now 6 years ago, doesn't seem worth it - we need some better verification than that.

I do agree with you that WP is not about what is TRUE, but rather what is verifiable. I have reached out to one editor who seems like they might be her assistant, to see if they can bring more thoughts on other inaccuracies here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't quote the interview that her daughter gave. It provides readers a greater understsanding of who is Alice Walker. We shouldn't try to sugar coat things. Rebecca Walker is a respected writer in her own right. In addition to be an intellectual and nominated as Time Magazine's Top 50 future leaders, I think what she has to say is valid. In addition, the interview was given in a respectable and reliable source.SimplesC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Because Alice Walker disputes accounts of estrangement. She has publicly announced that Wikipedia's details were wrong on this score. We are not here to peddle rumour and the Daily Mail is hardly reliable source. This WP article is also a BLP, where accuracy and respect for privacy is paramount. BLP asks us to avoid victimising the subject and I suspect that, given your contribution profile, yours might be a somewhat political edit. Span (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please be aware that this BLP is now being targeted by blocked user AndresHerutJaim via sockpuppetry. User:Silmeter has been blocked but AndresHerutJaim is likely to return with more socks at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Walker and David Icke

Has anyone else noticed that Walker has come out on her blog in support of conspiracy theorist David Icke? She appears to recommend Icke's theory about shape-shifting space lizards and the Illuminati with all her heart. Is this perhaps worth adding to the article? Psuliin (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misreading that blog. It seems a bit tongue-in-cheek. Read it again. She may like it as allegory, but I don't see her pushing that lizard-idea any further than that. This is a good example of taking analysis of primary sources too far IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read it as tongue-in-cheek at all. Did you hear her on Desert Island Discs? This book by Icke is the one book she wants to take to her hypothetical desert island! Also, listening to her, I don't have the impression that she does "tongue-in-cheek". She came across as completely earnest and serious. Surely the fact that someone believes in widely derided conspiracy theories -- to the extent that, of all the books in the world, this is the one they would like to be stranded on a desert island with -- is an important piece of information about them, which we should include. -- Alarics (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no point discussing what primary sources mean and their significance. It doesn't matter what we think. If there is lack of clarity and consensus I suggest taking it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The article is quite often exploited to attack Walker, it's been protected numerous times, so the more eyes on it the better. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now found a reliable secondary source. The affair was reported in The Independent On Sunday. I have added a brief paragraph to the article. -- Alarics (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Walker has written about Icke's book on her blog, which has been linked for a while in the WP article. I, too, think it's very straight support; no irony content or tongues in cheeks. Span (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Read this, for example: "Well, we see them here in David Icke’s book as the descendants of the reptilian race that landed on our sweet planet the moment they could get a glimpse of it through the mist that used to cover it (before there was a moon). No kidding. Deep breath! Yes, before there was a moon! (Oh, I love the moon; can I keep it? Please?). " (note the comic asides?) - and then she says "The Reptilian space beings whose hybrid (part human, part reptile) descendants make our lives hell in Paradise were blue eyed devils to Malcolm X, the devil himself to my Christian parents, who never talked about eye color, which I think was not only prudent but wise, although they seemed clear enough about his sex, and as demons in many other religions, including the non-religion, Buddhism, where the advice is often to invite them in until they go away. But maybe these were other kinds of demons. Not the ones controlling not just you, but everything." So she's comparing reptiles to demons to Christian descriptions of the devil - showing how each one of these philosophies has had a devil that they oppose. To me it is obvious she's discussing this as allegory. I don't doubt that she likes that book, but I like Lord of the Rings and Animal Farm, but I don't think Gandalf exists nor that pigs can talk. Until Walker comes forward and says "I believe in the hypothesis that reptilian-beings from the moon are actually controlling earth" we should be careful about what we say about her "support" - I listened to the radio programme (it's in the last minute) she just named the book, said nothing further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

All we are saying in the article now is that she "indicated her support for" Icke, which is clearly true. We are not committing ourselves on whether she interprets his stuff literally or allegorically. I think her attitude on this, which is clearly not just a flash in the pan, is a significant fact about her. -- Alarics (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The content based on The Independent looks okay to me. I would leave the blog/any primary sources out of it altogether and just limit it to secondary source coverage. I can understand OWB's concerns but I have no view that matters on their validity. I guess one way to address it would be to look for further secondary source coverage to see what they have to say. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree - I actually think the independent article goes too far. She never indicated her support for Icke as a person, at least not in my reading - she indicated that she liked the book, so if we add something, that's as far as we should go - e.g. "Alice Walker posted a complimentary review of Icke's book on her blog, and chose his book as the one book she'd take with her to a desert island." This is still quite different than saying she supports Icke and takes everything he is saying at face value, which an earlier version claimed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand but the secondary source, and it is a high quality source, decided to say "Alice Walker has voiced her support for the work of controversial British conspiracy theorist David Icke". I don't these kind of issues can be resolved by debating the validity of one source's interpretation. It's probably better to look at more secondary sources to see what they say and take it to the BLP noticeboard if a consensus can't be found here. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I also found other secondary sources, which I didn't include because they are more opinionated whereas the Independent article is more of an objective news piece. Damien Thompson at the Telegraph thinks it is embarrassing for the left if Walker is now supporting what he says is Icke's anti-semitism; while Jay Nordlinger of the National Review raises a similar question in somewhat stronger terms. Lurking in the background here, I presume, is the fact that Walker is very anti-Israel. -- Alarics (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but you'll note that while those other sources engage in all sorts of speculation, none of them come forward and say that she "supports" David Icke (and "supports the work of X" is different than "supports X") There is IMHO a big difference between liking a book someone wrote, and "supporting them", and I don't think her blog post nor the Independent article is sufficient to cover that. Obviously, other people are writing about this, so it's of note, but the wording as is isn't right - we should just state the clearest facts - she named it as the book she'd bring to the island, and she wrote a complementary review on her blog. Anything else is taking the speculation a bit too far. re; anti-israel, she has certainly been critical in the past, and participated in the flotilla I think, etc. - i don't know anything about Icke nor how his anti-semitic views might align with Walker's - seems like a lot of speculation...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant "complimentary", not "complementary". Anyway I don't really agree: it seems to me all the sources cited are taking the view that she does broadly sympathise with Icke's worldview, and indeed why else would she like his book so much? It's an important issue because having anything at all to do with Icke (universally regarded as a demented wingnut) must call into question, to put it mildly, her claim to be a serious writer. -- Alarics (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Has Walker claimed to be a serious writer ? Where did she say that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would add, that some of the context for these decisions, is Walker's comments about her Wikipedia article. ( See discussion above). As a BLP, and one that the subject states is inaccurate (rightly or wrongly), extra caution is needed.Span (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And, while I don't agree that subjects of bios should determine what goes into their bio, if the subject takes the time to write a post about inaccuracies (many of which have since been removed/corrected), it means we should be more careful. Alarics, I feel like you are purposefully wanting to keep this stuff in in order to discredit her as a writer. For example, you say "Universally regarded as a demented wingnut) - now that is obviously your view, but it is not Alice Walker's. Is your intent in keeping this to discredit her?

Here is a proposal for changed wording of this section. Note that I added the bit about bible + Shakespeare - that is how it is framed in the series, and removing that context leads to a different implication:

In May 2013 on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, Walker said that David Icke's Human race get off your knees would be her choice if she could bring only one book (in addition to the Bible and the complete works of Shakespeare).[25] Walker has also praised Icke's book on her own website.[26]

No, I have absolutely no view about Alice Walker as a writer. I've never read any of her books (I don't read fiction) and I'd never even heard of her until she was on Desert Island Discs a couple of weeks ago. So I am certainly not pushing a POV here. But the fact that Icke is a weapons-grade moonbat is surely beyond dispute. As for the Bible and Shakespeare, they are "given" to every interviewee on Desert Island Discs. It's a standard part of the formula. They get them whether they want them or not, so it is a bit misleading to mention them. That aside, I won't quibble with your proposed wording. -- Alarics (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree - they all get those - but people who haven't listened to the program may not know that. I know I would answer differently, if I had bible + shakespeare + 1 book, or ONLY 1 book - so we should mention it, just need to find a clean way to do so. Again, you claim he is weapons grade moonbat - I haven't read his stuff, but I think Alice Walker is certainly not crazy and she's a decorated writer and activist - so if she likes the book, there must be something to it...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok trying again:

Walker praised David Icke's book "Human race get off your knees" on her own website, and on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, selected Icke's book as her choice for one book to bring to a desert island (in addition to the Bible and the complete works of Shakespeare which are "provided" to all contestants).[25]

'Weapons-grade moonbat' is now my phrase of the week. 'She's a decorated writer and activist - so if she likes the book, there must be something to it'. Wow. Now, there's a value judgement. In December 2012, Walker blogged "What I admire most about David Icke is the freedom of his mind... And so I wish to begin the New Year, 2013, honoring his courage, humility (it may look like arrogance but that is only because he is free of caring what others think), persistence, and freedom of thought. He reminds me very much of Malcolm X, and, had Malcolm survived, I would have adored watching a conversation between them...I remember how, in the earliest days especially, those of us who could not name or even quite imagine the evil we were swimming in, looked to Malcolm to bring his great liberated intelligence to bear. What a joy it was to have that. As it is to witness the comfortable freedom of thought in which David Icke lives and thrives. Such people are a rare gift to the planet". Obi, this is an unfettered statement of support for Icke, not just his work. You asked Alarics 'Is your intent in keeping this to discredit her?' Be careful not to 'support' her on the grounds that she is 'she's a decorated writer and activist'. Span (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to neutrally represent what is going on here. In that same blog post, she also says "Do I believe everything? I don’t think it matters." - so she's acknowledging that there may be parts that she doesn't believe. Anyway, I think the revised section I proposed above is better than what is there now, and reflects the sources more accurately - and we should downplay or discard sources that draw wild conclusions from her wanting to bring this book along.

Also, I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just saying, I haven't read anything he wrote, nor listened to anything he's said, but I have read a few critiques and I know he has a theory about reptiles controlling the planet. Wacky, right? However, allow me to point out that there are around ~900M Roman Catholics, the largest religion in the world, and if they are good Catholics, they believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected, walked on water, is the son of an omnipotent being, and every Sunday they go to church and drink his blood and eat his flesh - not symbolically, but literally (see Transubstantiation). I know this as I happen to be Catholic. The world is full of people teaching that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. And so on. There are lots of strange views and beliefs, but I'm just pointing out we should not be so quick to tar Walker with the crazy-brush just because she appreciates a book by this somewhat fringe fellow. Many famous intellectuals other than Walker have believed many more crazier things.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I was more responding to your above comment re sourcing and the 'tongue in cheek' question. Span (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Obi, I think if you spent just 90 seconds at Icke's website you'd see that he is way further off the wall than even the most fundamentalist Roman Catholic. "Somewhat fringe" hardly meets the case. No serious intellectual would go anywhere near it. -- Alarics (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, I don't think it matters how off the wall or otherwise Icke may be. She is publicly celebrating his work. Span (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I think the wording I placed above captures the essence better. I looked at his website and finally watched one of his videos - I didn't get to the reptile part yet, but the rest is pretty standard conspiracy theory stuff, new world order, global fascist state, etc. He's not an idiot, and he does actually make some good points - but sometimes there just isn't a conspiracy, its just the way things evolve. Anyway, Alice Walker is a serious intellectual, and she likes his book, so Alarics is wrong on that one... I mean, he's not just some fringe guy, he now sells out stadiums full of people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My point all along has been that if she approves of his stuff, she can no longer be regarded as "a serious intellectual". That is why it is important to include some mention of this affair in the article. The present wording does that better than what Obi proposes, in my view. -- Alarics (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether she is a 'serious intellectual' or not is nothing to do with us. We don't editorialise. Span (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not about editorialising. It's about putting the facts before the readers and enabling them to draw their own conclusions. -- Alarics (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no desire at all to wade into most of this, but insofar as the use of the word "support" in The Independent article is concerned, I think a British-English-versus-American-English confusion may be a small part of the problem. In British English, to "support" someone or something may equate in American to "to be a fan of." In other words, U.S. "I'm a New York Giants fan" equates to U.K. "I support Manchester United." Just a passing thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Biography film is now viewable free on PBS.org

Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth, the authorized biography film of Alice Walker, is viewable for free online (for U.S. residents) at the PBS site, at this link: [4]. Viewable through November 29, 2015, after which time it will no longer be on the PBS website. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New source: Walker's 2003 lecture on Hurston

In 2003, Alice Walker gave the Virginia Gildersleeve lecture at Barnard College and discussed her work on Zora Neale Hurston's legacy and on reclaiming her as a literary foremother. The recordings had been online and then seemed to be down; I asked Barnard if they could find them again, and they put the videos back up. Walker's talk is about an hour long and is probably a good source for people who want to add detail to the section on Walker's writing and scholarship in the 1970s. Sumana Harihareswara 20:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alice Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3866798.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms of Alice Walker

I added a few references to criticisms made of Alice Walker. I attempted to cite the statements well so that they comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies and so that they are not libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeigenbaumButterfly (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we must be very careful to avoid truncating quotes so severely as to remove necessary context or to distort meanings. I have increased the length of the Walker quote from The Guardian to better reflect her actual statement. I accepted your edit to make an additional section, a criticism section, but I now see that just a split will not be sufficient. Redundant material now exists, so some rewriting is in order—in addition, the three cites for the Ickes material are essentially just one source, word-for-word. The sentences in the Walker article do not accurately represent the content of the source-there is no mention of 'Jewish-Illuminati conspiracy' and Walker does not offer support for any specific claims in that source so I agree that you final pending edit of four should not have been accepted. I'd be glad to work on a consensus rewrite of the Activism & Criticism section with you and others. — Neonorange (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up problems with my edits. I am very new to Wikipedia contributing, so I would welcome any advice or guidance. On reviewing Wikipedia's policies on Criticism, it seems that a Criticism section is not ideal. Perhaps a Reception section mixing positive and negative responses to Walker's activism would be more appropriate? I apologize if I seem to be pushing Walker's support of David Icke. I originally missed reading it in the article. I thought that reorganizing the page to separate reception of Walker's activism from her action might improve the clarity of the article.

In Walker's blog post "Commentary: Human Race Get Off Your Knees: I couldn’t have put it better myself," she refers to "Chitauri offspring, Illuminati bloodline families and their puppets." David Icke's book, named in the title of the post, states the Chitauri (space reptiles secretly controlling the world) are genetic progenitors of the "Rothschild Zionists," meaning the Jewish people. Given that a number the criticisms in the article already relate to accusations of antisemitism, would it perhaps be relevant to include this information?

In any case, I would welcome a consensus rewrite to more accurately represent content of the source and remove redundant material.

FeigenbaumButterfly (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think that section is entirely too long. Plus, it's criticism of her activism, so that is the section it should be brought in to. But it needs to be done much more concisely--I've already pruned the Activism section a bit (not every detail needs to be explained in detail, quotes and all), and the same should be done with the criticism, and more so. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alice Walker. 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/20130514143531/http://marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/F68E8866-61CB-4AF5-8AE6-F9275A9CEE9C/35632/Everday_Use_04042013_.pdf to http://marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/F68E8866-61CB-4AF5-8AE6-F9275A9CEE9C/35632/Everday_Use_04042013_.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409122421/http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=707 to http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=707
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903212614/http://www.gazafreedommarch.org/article.php?id=5063 to http://www.gazafreedommarch.org/article.php?id=5063
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F11%2F17%2F1454228
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719191330/http://www.jamesweldonjohnson.emory.edu/alicewalker.htm to http://www.jamesweldonjohnson.emory.edu/alicewalker.htm

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) 19:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Melvyn R. Leventhal‎ initiated

I have created Draft:Melvyn R. Leventhal‎, an article on Walker's ex-husband, who appears to be independently notable as a civil rights attorney. Any help expanding this and bringing it up to article quality would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I have expanded the article somewhat and moved it to Melvyn R. Leventhal‎. bd2412 T 02:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Characterizing The Color Purple as critically aclaimed

Reliable sources indicate The Color Purple is critically acclaimed. It is a concise phrase that summarizes the critical reception of the novel. When this phrase was deleted in the last few hours, with an edit summary suggestion that the phrase fails the policy WP:NPOV, I restored critically acclaimed. A short time later the phrase was again deleted by the same editor. Since the article is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, and the point in question is simple, concensus should be easy to reach. Neonorange (Phil) 06:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:PEA. Not only is it a POV phrase, it's essentially redundant since you have the awards it won after that. That tells the reader the book has been well received. Best to keep it simple and stick to the facts. Fronticla (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a cooperative endeavor. Differences among editors are worked out by consensus.

Ledes should summarize article content (though in the case of this article the lede is too short for a proper lede.) Prior to your deletion, the sentence read

She wrote the critically acclaimed novel The Color Purple (1982) for which she won the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.

This is an acceptable summary of critical judgement of The Color Purple as the novel is critically acclaimed: an assertion backed up by its having been awarded the two highest honors for U.S. novels and having been adapted both as a movie and as a Broadway play. It's not point of view pushing. Neither is it a peacock phrase. It's not promotional language. I can list multiple WP:RS uses of "critically acclaimed" to describe The Color Purple. Wikipedia has policies, and guidelines, and essays. We as editors need to apply judgement in using these aids to build an encyclopedia. We shouldn't zip through articles when making changes, but rather consider the merits in each case.

When editors differ in how an idea should be expressed, discussion is the way forward. How do we know when editors differ? Editor A makes a change. Editor B reverts that change. Editor A now knows that their edit has been rejected, and that a discussion on the talk page should be the next step. This allows other editors to become involved—and third opinion and further dispute resolution steps to be taken. I'm going to reset to article lede to the reade as it did before your edit and ask you to discuss the meaning of POV as it applies to Wikipedia articles like this one. I agree that POV pushing and promotionalism should have no place in Wikipedia. However, in my opinion, Wikipedia policies do not support the change in question. If we don't feel we are reaching a satisfactory consensus either of use can ask for a third opinion.

User:Neonorange (Phil) 10:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alice Walker. 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/20131203010208/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=JBP&chapterID=JBP-3181&path=encyclopedias%2Fgreenwood to http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=JBP&chapterID=JBP-3181&path=encyclopedias%2Fgreenwood
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131130034713/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/07/jonathan-kay-where-israel-hatred-meets-space-lizards/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/07/jonathan-kay-where-israel-hatred-meets-space-lizards/

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) 04:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Article Revision

Hello! I am a student at High Point University, and I will be editing Alice Walker’s page over the next month or so. I will be adding content to the lead section to give a better preview of what her page is about, and I hope to provide additional information about her literature and how it was received. My primary focus will be editing paragraphs to remove close paraphrasing; I will do this by restating the information in my own words. Here are just a few sources I will be using to ensure my edits are accurate and free from plagiarism. Any and all recommendations are welcome!

  Hopson, Cheryl R. “Alice Walker’s Womanist Maternal.” Women's Studies, vol. 46, no. 3, 2017, pp. 221–233.

“Walker, Alice.” Biography Reference Bank (Bio Ref Bank), 01 Mar. 2010, https://libproxy.highpoint.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=brb&AN=203038897&site=ehost-live. Accessed 12 Mar. 2018.

Bates, Gerri. Alice Walker : A Critical Companion. Greenwood Press, 2005. ProQuest ebrary, https://hpulibraries.on.worldcat.org/oclc/62321382.

Bloom, Harold. Alice Walker. Facts on File, Inc, 2000. Bloom's Major Novelists. ProQuest ebrary, libproxy.highpoint.edu/loginurl=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=38601&site=ehost-live.

Jessicasener (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Jessicasener

Lead editing

Hi! I wanted to open up a discussion over a sentence that has been added and removed from the article lead. The sentence in question is this one:

Walker is also an activist, fighting for civil rights, social justice, gender equality, and political change.

It's sourced with this website, Robert Shetterly's Women Who Tell The Truth. The sentence was recently removed by יניב_הורון with the concern that it was written in a promotional manner and that the source wasn't strong enough for Wikipedia. The sentence has been recently re-added by Jlbrandt, who has stated that the sentence has relevance to content (through specifying what she advocates for) later in the article and that the source was written by a a grant-funded not-for-profit educational organization.

I feel that discussion will be important here, especially as this can help us find a good compromise for this material. I'm going to start this off by suggesting a re-wording of the sentence:

Walker is known for advocating for civil rights, social justice, gender equality, and political change.

Her website's about page gives a general overview of her activism, which is specified as being focused on "not only of human rights, but of the rights of all living beings". Another way to rephrase this could be:

Walker has stated that she advocates for human rights and for "the rights of all living beings".

This is very general, but for the most part all of the specific issues can be lumped under this and can be elaborated on in the more specific sections. What does everyone think? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am happy with either of these modified sentences. Other thoughts? Jlbrandt (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Second sentence seems more neutral.--יניב הורון (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also add to this discussion that Alice Walker is well-known for her activism (she wrote the book Anything We Love Can be Saved: A Writer's Activism) and it is remiss not to discuss in the context of her work and notability in the lead. I am not sure how acknowledging this is seen as "puffery." Jlbrandt (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove all together. This is not an appropriate source for a BLP (or, it would seem, a RS in general). A better source (either for Walker describing herself, or better still someone describing her) should be used.Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources I do see - seem to just use activist - e.g. [5].Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz - with the third sentence I used Walker's official website, which mentions her advocating for human rights in specific. Her activism as a whole does fall under the banner of human rights, so I think it's a good general description for the lead. The activism section can then go over the specific causes she advocates for. We could probably use her book as a source for this as well.

There's also this interview with The Guardian where she specifically mentions civil rights activism, so there's sourcing for that at least.

Jlbrandt, Jessicasener, I've removed the sentence from the article for the time being since there is some dispute over whether to include it and what it should say. It's best to wait for now and decide on a specific format and the sourcing first. I'll reach out to you about this, as it's harder to explain this via text. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've found this source that specifies that she advocates for international women's rights, so that's something that could be added to the third sentence. The source is the New Georgia Encyclopedia, so it's definitely reliable. So maybe we could have the sentence read something like "She has been described as a "vocal advocate for international women's rights" and Walker has stated that she advocates for human rights and for "the rights of all living beings"."? That covers a fairly wide spectrum that could be narrowed down in the specific section. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

David Icke Section Not Relevant

She says herself that she doesn't actually take the man seriously. I can't help but wonder if bringing up something so trivial is an attempt at a smear, especially since the criticism does not reflect what Walker, herself, has claimed.

http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2013/07/david-icke-we-are-change/

--Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to where in that article she is claiming to not actually take him seriously? I didn't read it that way. Also it does seem relevant to me to mention that a prominent author spoke in support of a controversial figure like Icke, given that it received media coverage in reliable sources at the time. CataracticPlanets (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? She's comparing the man to fiction and mythology. If you actually maintain that she's unironically agreeing with David Icke's body of work after reading that, I question your good faith. She literally calls it "madness." I seriously suspect that this is yet another smear campaign.Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not trivial. It is substantive and belongs in her biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It is obviously trivial. The wikipedia entry misrepresents her actual views. Read the link I posted please.Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

In the linked article, Walker says: 'Anyway, last night it occurred to me what it is I like and I wanted to put it in one sentence: David Icke’s work is a feast for the imagination. That’s it. Take it or leave it, he is offering something extremely timely and useful. A completely new and different way to understand the world. And if you love mythology, as I do, you will have a fine time seeing how a new myth, with us in it (!) might be made. Though Icke isn’t talking about myth, but reality.' So she's a self-confessed disciple of David Icke and the Wiki article doesn't misrepresent her, though it does perhaps give insufficient weight to her endorsement of Icke's conspiracism and anti-Semitism. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think she's a "disciple of David Icke" you either have issues with reading comprehension, you read it too quickly (which I'm assuming is the case), or you want to believe she thinks lizard people are real for some reason. She's clearly pointing out how Icke is a lunatic describing reality as a lunatic would, and that she appreciates the modern alien mythos because it involves us. She doesn't literally believe lizard people are real. Moreover, you'd have to totally misunderstand Icke to assume he's talking about Jews. Some fascists do refer to Jews as lizard people, but Icke is literally delusional. He actually believes lizard people are real. This section was either written by someone who truly struggles or it was written by an Israeli ethnonationalist who wants to smear Walker. Those are the only two options. Try reading it again. Slowly this time. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Goldengirlsdeathsquad: Well, now I've now read this several times for your benefit, slowly. I'm not sure you're seeing what the page you linked is saying. Walker doesn't reject what Icke teaches when she calls Icke's "myth". She's using "myth" in a literary/scholarly sense to mean that it is an explanation of history that she feels is interesting to read and learn about, the way she likes to read Greek mythology, but she says that she considers it "not myth, but reality". (paragraph 1, sentence 10) Para 2 is Walker saying that she kind of believes in reptilians as a reason why suffering came about. Paragraph 3 is about her thinking that people supporting Icke will change the predicament of black people. Saying she approves of Icke is not a misrepresentation of her views.

We shouldn't remove the section because it's sourced to RS for now. If better RS appears or old RS changes, there will be room for discussion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Walker's endorsement/appreciation of Icke's writings are widely covered by WP:RSes, and she's been widely criticized for said endorsement/appreciation. As Goldengirlsdeathsquad's WP:OR above asserting a BLP is "delusional" - that's not backed up by sources. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessicasener. Peer reviewers: Devon Cosgrove, Angelicastabile.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gemyni.turner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Forclassaccount. Peer reviewers: Melyle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Refusing to have one's book translated to Hebrew, while it may (but also may not!) be due to antisemitism, is not in itself a form of antisemitism

The section Antisemitism currently ends with the sentence "According to multiple sources, Walker will not allow The Color Purple to be published in Hebrew." This is already mentioned earlier in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict subsection, where I think is the appropriate place for it. As it is not related (at the very least not directly) to antisemitism, I suggest this sentence be removed from the Antisemitism section (with the appropriate references copied to the mention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict subsection, if needed). 2A02:8070:898C:D800:F5C3:3D3E:644F:4985 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the context of her history of anti-semitic remarks and advocacy of such texts, her refusal to publish in Hebrew seems at least as (if not more?) germane to the "Anti-Semitism" Section than to the "Israel-Palestine" Section. But I agree it's redundant and shouldn't it only appear once? 184.153.88.187 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If she doesn’t want to book published in Israel, that it would belong in the Israel m-Palestinian section, but if she doesn’t want it published in Hebrew, then that is an issue re antisemitism David Couch (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

She ties it specifically to Israel, so moved there. nableezy - 06:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)