Talk:Rebecca Hazelton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BLP policy[edit]

As the header on this page notes, let’s all please keep in mind that BLP policy on providing reliable sources applies to both mainspace entries and talk pages. Please do see the above links if you are not familiar with these policies. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in my comment was that the allegations were made, not that the allegations about the lying itself were true. You yourself are acknowledging this fact by referring to the allegations. BlueBanana (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the above links on reliable sourcing requirements for writing about living people, which are very strict; being unaware of them sometimes leads to even good-faith editors being blocked, because violating them (particularly if repeatedly) is considered seriously disruptive to the project. Relatedly, keep in mind Wikipedia itself is never considered a reliable source. By reliable source, here you would need a reliable secondary source, including for BLP talk page comments. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what reliable secondary sources are you using when you make the claim that baseless allegations were made? BlueBanana (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations on allegations being made[edit]

Now that it has been confirmed that we can on the talk page make the claim that allegations have been made, I hereby re-open the discussion on mentioning the vandalism in the article. I, for one, am against adding the new section, but want the discussion to be had as I don't want to make the decision on my own. BlueBanana (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would never be acceptable to add original analysis of any primary source material (like Wikipedia edits) to a Wikipedia entry, especially a BLP and especially contentious material. Once again, you must bring reliable secondary sources addressing this topic or there’s nothing to discuss here. Please review the policies linked above as well as WP:CIR: anyone can edit the encyclopedia, but it is each editor’s responsibility to make sure they are adhering to the site’s editing policies in order to maintain their editing privileges. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be unduly harsh; if you have a read of those policies and any remain unclear to you, you’re welcome to ask me about them and I’ll do my best to explain. It’s just that it’s a basic principle that WP is based on secondary sources, i.e. material aready edited and fact-checked by a reliable publication (since, unlike those sources, WP doesn’t have paid experts to evaluate individual users’ new interpretations of primary sources); and we take extra care to enforce that stringently when dealing with a living person. Not a single secondary source has been produced here, so, at the moment there’s no indication at all there’s even a potentially valid encyclopedia topic to discuss. If you brought a secondary source, that would change things. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a secondary source: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/woke-toddler 2601:8C:C303:3D40:3A14:A792:32D:ED93 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s crowd-sourced and not reliable by Wikipedia standards. See WP:KNOWYOURMEME. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018[edit]

Remove the 'liar' from her occupation (I'm guessing it's left over from the recent vandalism attacks) 131.203.71.74 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018[edit]

She is also known for writing fake Twitter posts about her son. Noddychest (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Needs sources, doesn't appear to be particularly relevant. — IVORK Discuss 05:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a screen shot from her now protected twitter account. She has refused to comment on the tweet and blocks anyone who honestly asks her about it.

https://bp.langweiledich.net/DIV/LangweileDich.net_Bilderparade_DIV_71.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedcosta77 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOR. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

I'm going to start blocking editors who continue the present defamation campaign: Wikipedia isn't a platform for abusive comments, and unless the basis of the current vandalism becomes noteworthy in major independent media it will be treated as disruption. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019[edit]

Change short description from "American poet, editor, and critic. She also lies about what her three year old son said throughout online media." to "American poet, editor, and critic.", as current description is not relevant to the article content 146.129.249.210 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Wikidata vandalism reverted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Is this person actually notable? I'm sure there are thousands of "poets" who have pieces in academic magazines and press. What makes this person more notable than the thousands who are not represented in Wikipedia? --184.64.102.148 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This question seem to follow the vandalism made on this page before. The person in question seems to be enough WP:NB to be on Wikipedia. – NirvanaTodayt@lk 15:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not even defending if she is or not noteworthy, I am just arguing in terms of the discussion here being clear and logically sound: why does that question "follow the vandalism made on this page before"? If you Google her name there is more on her silly tweet on her child than on her per se, and when a side issue on a person automatically writes itself more often then their name, that is normally a sign of a person infamous for a minor issue mor than noteworthy. I am not even saying she isn't noteworthy, I am asking you to explain WhY she is note worthy and WHY asking if she is is "like vandalism". "The person in question seems to be enough WP:NB to be on Wikipedia." No, you cannot defend an argument ("she is WP:NB") by using the conclusion of the argument ("she is WP:NB") as a proof/defense for itself. She does have quite a few awards, but mostly "debutant awards", and again many people across the world do (unless USA ones hold more weight), she does have work in major publications, but does everyone with that amount of work in major publications of that level have an article here? Not arguing against her article, just asking for the standards to be made clear and consistently kept. 89.155.19.3 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When none of her works have a page, and the average person interested in poetry and writing haven't heard of the awards she has, is she even notable? The page should be up for deletion as non-notable persons.

It's a little odd that there's a page about her and not about her son who is a lot smarter than her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.20.36 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday[edit]

On Wikidata, the claim on June 20th refers to English Wikipedia. I looked for other sources and found her page in the Library of Congress database: https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2012062662.html ("Vow, 2013:ECIP t.p. (Rebecca Hazelton) data view (b. June 20, 1978)") Now, I don't know whether it is considered here to be a reliable enough source - I have found weird errors in there, but then again, almost every database has some - but if it is, the birthday in the article could be specified. --Ehitaja (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meme[edit]

So basically Wikipedia ignores the fact that the only reason anyone heard of her is her being so called living meme (urbandictionary -> oforhdnst)? 81.96.160.84 (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why mention of the infamous tweet is considered vandalism. Google her name and it is clear that the primary reason she is notable is for that Tweet. 2601:8C:C303:3D40:3A14:A792:32D:ED93 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has yet produced even one reliable source discussing this. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People have produced her actual tweet. You're just being delusional. 2601:140:9681:19A0:0:0:0:F9FD (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOR. Danielryan0 (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let the tweet go in as a fact, no one thinks she's a good poet, she's known for outrageously lying that her 3 year old said some philosophical shit lol. Like other poster said, you're delusional bud 2604:3D09:E784:4900:3DDE:B013:9CF3:6D5B (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her becoming a twitter sensation and a recurring meme should be really mentioned. It's probably the main reason people reach this page. 93.44.200.186 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tweet is the only reason for my knowing of Rebecca and subsequently visiting this page lol. 72.218.240.10 (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca's son[edit]

I suggest to add more information about her son, as she stated is more smarter than her. And probably his own wikipedia page.

Thank you. 113.43.87.10 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebecca_Hazelton&oldid=1224700816"