This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brett Cooper (commentator) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 200 days
![]() |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by David Gerard ( talk · contribs) on 25 March 2023. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Brett Cooper (commentator) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
There needs to be a description of the show itself not just have the only contents of the Section be criticism. My recent addition was removed by @ Beccaynr for “Promotional Material” which is not the case as it’s simply describing what the show itself is. Elvisisalive95 ( talk) 03:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts.The sources used to support the new content [1] are marketing materials produced by Cooper on the subscriber-only The Daily Wire website [2], and a link to her show's YouTube channel [3]. With the article already substantially based on materials connected to Cooper, continuing to add more seems excessive, particularly for an article of this size. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
but reviews are typical to include for articles; this type of coverage can help support the encyclopedic notability of an article subject, unlike promotional content they produce about themselves. I linked to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion in my comment above, which discusses several factors related to the general reliability of the source, including its ownership change and site policies - while that discussion was focused on inclusion of contentious content in a BLP, there was also a mention of entertainment news.I looked for further sources after your initial edit to the article, to see if I could find better sources; after you restored the disputed edit, I looked again with different search terms and found coverage of the show, so I added that, because having more independent, reliable, secondary coverage is one way to help keep articles from becoming primarily based on materials the article subject publishes about themselves. My goal is to work with you to develop encylopedic content, within policies and guidelines. Beccaynr ( talk) 05:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Not a credible source, a person’s opinion on how he/she interprets the show does not merit being included here, tacked on to the end of the description of the show. This seems to be included by the editor to make a personal point (wp:POINT) after defending the following paragraph pertaining to criticizing Brett Cooper as well as deleting my initial description of the show. Wikipedia Editor’s should never let their personal opinion or belief's influence their edits. We simply want just the facts.
Adding an attribution to opinion sources is standard practice, and I think this reasonably includes sources produced by the subject (or closely related to the subject) that offer their own opinion about their work.So I think if the YouTube attribution is made more clear, and the October 2023 source date added to the Mary Sue source, the Mary Sue-based content could be moved below the second paragraph as reasonable compromise. The Mary Sue line could look like this:According to the "About" section of the show's YouTube channel, it is a "viral content and news review show."
According to Rachel Leishman at The Mary Sue in October 2023, "The trailer for the show sets it up as if she is reading comments and making a statement on what "leftists" are saying or pushing back against liberal ideals, but in reality, she just picks a topic of conversation and shares her opinions."
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject, and attribution of the source is suggested, which is included in this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
What a shock, yet another call for neutrality shot down to push bias because the moderators with the power at Wikipedia strictly enforce the censorship of any view they don't agree with. The OP was asking for it to at least open with a description of the show before turning it into a hit piece... and you can't do that? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be NEUTRAL? Why is it this long of a discussion to present the article from a neutral standpoint? 2601:246:5A83:D090:C84C:851C:120C:E06C ( talk) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
it is not listed as a reliable source. MM has been known to take statements out of context, misrepresent information, and be heavily biased. The Media Matters portion of Brett's page should be removed or at least be attributed as per wikipedia policy. 107.10.129.126 ( talk) 03:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I cannot edit but she was married on March 30, 2024 to Alex Tombul Onechild FL ( talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brett Cooper (commentator) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 200 days
![]() |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by David Gerard ( talk · contribs) on 25 March 2023. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Brett Cooper (commentator) be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
There needs to be a description of the show itself not just have the only contents of the Section be criticism. My recent addition was removed by @ Beccaynr for “Promotional Material” which is not the case as it’s simply describing what the show itself is. Elvisisalive95 ( talk) 03:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts.The sources used to support the new content [1] are marketing materials produced by Cooper on the subscriber-only The Daily Wire website [2], and a link to her show's YouTube channel [3]. With the article already substantially based on materials connected to Cooper, continuing to add more seems excessive, particularly for an article of this size. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
but reviews are typical to include for articles; this type of coverage can help support the encyclopedic notability of an article subject, unlike promotional content they produce about themselves. I linked to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion in my comment above, which discusses several factors related to the general reliability of the source, including its ownership change and site policies - while that discussion was focused on inclusion of contentious content in a BLP, there was also a mention of entertainment news.I looked for further sources after your initial edit to the article, to see if I could find better sources; after you restored the disputed edit, I looked again with different search terms and found coverage of the show, so I added that, because having more independent, reliable, secondary coverage is one way to help keep articles from becoming primarily based on materials the article subject publishes about themselves. My goal is to work with you to develop encylopedic content, within policies and guidelines. Beccaynr ( talk) 05:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Not a credible source, a person’s opinion on how he/she interprets the show does not merit being included here, tacked on to the end of the description of the show. This seems to be included by the editor to make a personal point (wp:POINT) after defending the following paragraph pertaining to criticizing Brett Cooper as well as deleting my initial description of the show. Wikipedia Editor’s should never let their personal opinion or belief's influence their edits. We simply want just the facts.
Adding an attribution to opinion sources is standard practice, and I think this reasonably includes sources produced by the subject (or closely related to the subject) that offer their own opinion about their work.So I think if the YouTube attribution is made more clear, and the October 2023 source date added to the Mary Sue source, the Mary Sue-based content could be moved below the second paragraph as reasonable compromise. The Mary Sue line could look like this:According to the "About" section of the show's YouTube channel, it is a "viral content and news review show."
According to Rachel Leishman at The Mary Sue in October 2023, "The trailer for the show sets it up as if she is reading comments and making a statement on what "leftists" are saying or pushing back against liberal ideals, but in reality, she just picks a topic of conversation and shares her opinions."
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject, and attribution of the source is suggested, which is included in this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
What a shock, yet another call for neutrality shot down to push bias because the moderators with the power at Wikipedia strictly enforce the censorship of any view they don't agree with. The OP was asking for it to at least open with a description of the show before turning it into a hit piece... and you can't do that? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be NEUTRAL? Why is it this long of a discussion to present the article from a neutral standpoint? 2601:246:5A83:D090:C84C:851C:120C:E06C ( talk) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
it is not listed as a reliable source. MM has been known to take statements out of context, misrepresent information, and be heavily biased. The Media Matters portion of Brett's page should be removed or at least be attributed as per wikipedia policy. 107.10.129.126 ( talk) 03:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I cannot edit but she was married on March 30, 2024 to Alex Tombul Onechild FL ( talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)