Talk:Lierre Keith

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)

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)

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)

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.