Talk:Derrick Jensen

Derrick Jensen and the queer theorist paedophilia advocates

“Queer Theory Jeopardy!!! with Professor Derrick Jensen Yo”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJsf5QY12rg

https://borazansesli.com/2020/12/16/queer-theory-pedophilia-jeopardy-with-derrick-jensen/

Jensen: “Hum Foucault, another way to ask this is: Who argued?… No I guess the answer would be: ‘Argued for the eradication of age of consent laws as in down to infants’.”

Gayle Rubin: ‘Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, Boy Lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders of their civil liberties let alone for their erotic orientation.’

Pat Califia: ‘any child old enough to decide whether or not he or she wants to eat spinach, play with trucks or wear shoes is old enough to decide whether or not she wants to run around naked in the sun, masturbate, sit in someone’s lap or engage in sexual activity.’

Judith Butler: “Well, I do think that there are probably forms of incest that are not necessarily traumatic or which gain their traumatic character by virtue of the consciousness of social shame that they produce.’” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.179.211 (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Derrick Jensen and transphobia

Both Derrick Jensen and Deep Green Resistance have openly expressed transphobic beliefs and policies, and these have constituted a notable controversy for Jensen, having caused Deep Green Resistance co-founder Aric McBay to leave the organization and Jensen to be disinvited from speaking events and publicly protested. Removing any mention of transphobia from the page is not appropriate. Editors who believe that misgendering transgender women is not transphobic or that transphobia does not objectively exist should take such discussions to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Transphobia or https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Trans_woman instead of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.56.47.90 (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires these claims to be cited in reliable, secondary sources. We'll need better sources than personal blogs if this is noteworthy for this article. Please also mind our policies around protecting biographies of living people. czar 05:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Both of the reliable sources currently cited for this sentence state that Jensen and DGR have been accused of transphobia using exactly that word. I see no reason for circumlocutions around something supported by reliable sources. I propose changing this to "his and the organization's belief that women-only spaces should exclude trans women has led to accusations of transphobia." If nobody gives a reason today, I'll make that edit.~~~~ Mwphil (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Article stability

This article needs some stability as it's been built up, then torn down by massive edits in a seemingly ongoing process. I think (as Czar has reminded us in the above section), reliable secondary sources (RS) are key here. I think the trans controversy is certainly causing for a lot of back and forth editingwise. The issue is certainly covered by some RS, but this seems a bit odd when even Jensen's own main philosophical views were removed from the page. I've now given a short paragraph restating those views, backed by RS. Are there other debates that need to be hashed out by editors here? Wolfdog (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin, is Wolfdog's addition here sufficient counterweight here? Considering the meager coverage of his beliefs (see my section on Scope above), this seems sufficient to remove the undue weight maintenance tag. czar 03:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The article has since improved with Wolfdog's edits but not to the point that it can be considered a balanced BLP. The material on the transphobia controversy is more balanced now and better written than the version originally added by the WP:SPA. I don't object to that so much now. The Unabomber material is trivial and excessive by my estimation. In a longer article with his views flushed out perhaps it might fit, but in an article as short as this one it reads as if some editors here really don't like Derrick Jensen.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: Any other improvements you'd like to see before I remove the undue weight tag? Wolfdog (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well the big sticking point for me is the sentence on his correspondence with the Unabomber. It seems wildly out of place in a tiny biographical stub made up of only five small paragraphs.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we simply delete it? Wolfdog (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Poet-philosopher"

[1] @Wolfdog, the Democracy Now transcript embodies unsupported attribution: "AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Derrick Jensen. He’s been described as the poet-philosopher of the ecology movement." By whom? Scholars, environmentalists, enemies, Amy Goodman, by one person in an alt magazine, by self-description on a book jacket, by a wide range of people? We don't know—it's an unexplained sound bite. At least in the Eugene Weekly we are getting a journalist to weigh in on that title. Open to other ways of expressing it but this Democracy Now transcript does not read as the program giving him that epithet. czar 03:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm kinda missing your point. Amy Goodman is a journalist (and an award-winning one at that). If we have two sources of basically equal reliability that say the same information, don't we want to provide the oldest (i.e. most original) source that provides that information? That would be Amy Goodman and Democracy Now. True, we don't know if they just made up that title or not, or where they're getting that, but I don't see how your Eugene Weekly source is a step up. If anything, it's even more distanced from the original label. Wolfdog (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we'd want the source that makes the claim in their own voice. In Democracy Now, Amy Goodman isn't saying he "is known as" but that other unspecific people have made that claim. It could even be marketing or self-biography. I don't think the Eugene source is much stronger but I think the attribution is truer than saying that the Democracy Now program has "referred to him as" since it's more like Democracy Now has "said others refer to him as". This is the same point another editor was making with this edit, i.e., I agree with them. czar 09:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You make valid criticisms, and the sources are from something like 13 years ago at this point. You can feel free to remove that characterization. Wolfdog (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)