Talk:Harriet Klausner

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Nice article[edit]

Thanks for you who worked on this page. It should be a model for articles on minor persons. It gives the facts people are looking for without wasting their time with a lot of controversy and trivia. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

According to WP's standards a person, or other topic, becomes notable when it is covered in depth by secondary sources. To me, Ms Klausner seems to pass this test. Notability is not decided by how worthwhile a person's activities, or "claim to fame" is. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with you. I think she is especially notable because of her extraordinary claims (which have not, to my knowledge, ever been verified) and the controversy which surrounds them. --SandChigger (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is she continuously notable? She did have a few articles about her, but there haven't been that many recently. I did a search & only found one article in the past few years. She's interesting to me, but not really all that notable, to be honest. If she's worthy of an article, then why not many of the other people who have acquired their 15 minutes of fame & gotten noticed? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

NOT a native speaker of American English[edit]

Has there been anything in the news recently about Harriet having suffered a major cerebrovascular event and currently experiencing linguistic deficits as a result? Her "reviews" certainly don't seem to be written by a native speaker of American English. --SandChigger (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and some corrections[edit]

I removed a mention of her being "an acquisitions librarian in Pennsylvania and wrote a monthy [sic] review column of recommended reads" because the only source was her own Amazon profile, which is unverified. I found a reference in Wired that said she wrote columns back in 2002 for two online magazines, but there are no articles written by her on either of those sites now. (The Wired article is here: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/07/53488) I will continue to check into more sources. Please note I have started a discussion about notability on this article at WP:N/N. Clockster (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did more clean up on this article tonight:

(1) In the paragraph listing several other websites she does reviews on, I removed three of those examples. There are still several examples left in this article, so I don't believe removal of the three examples in question is a problem. Removed were: I Love a Mystery Newsletter, The Best Reviews, and Midwest Book Review. This was because reviews on those sites are exact matches to reviews on Amazon. I could not confirm that these were separate reviews of their own. Also, The Midwest Book Review did not have enough identifying info to confirm it was Harriet Klausner's account being referenced.

(2) Removed reference to "two sites she operates," as it was unsourced and I could find no information to confirm this claim.

(3) Tried to make the wording clear to differentiate between solid sources of information and Harriet Klausner's self-reported information in online profiles. Those profiles are not good primary sources of information because they are not verified. Some information was substantiated in Time and The Wall Street Journal, though, and I used those sources whenever possible.

(4) Previously, I had a source from The Dayton Daily News, but discovered that it was not a news article but rather an informal blog entry, so I have changed the use of this source accordingly.

I am still concerned that this biographical subject does not meet notability standards, as most of the information is several years old or comes from the subject's online profiles on commercial websites. Clockster (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your corrections, Clockster. Harriet maintains in her self-reported information on Amazon that she was a speed reader from birth. However, reading is taught or learned, depending on perspective and individual. Since it is unlikely that Harriet was born knowing how to read, it is unlikely that she was born knowing how to speed read. Her ability to speed read is a critical aspect of her ability to write reviews because she is averaging more than 10 book reviews per day. If she was unable to speed read from birth, as per her claims, then it is possible and likely that other aspects of her self-reported background are similarly erroneous or exaggerated. (Lonholder (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Harriet Klausner Appreciation Society investigation[edit]

Why no mention of The Harriet Klausner Appreciation Society and its investigation of HK? That is why she is really notable. Read http://harriet-rules.blogspot.com/2012/10/she-works-hard-for-money.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.128.187 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harriet Klausner. 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/20100613191652/http://www.sff.net/people/harriet/ to http://www.sff.net/people/harriet/

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) 13:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]