Talk:Brett Cooper (commentator)

Zero RS coverage that I can find

I can find zero independent third-party biographical coverage in reliable sources about Cooper. AnonymousEditor95, is there any third-party coverage of Cooper? We can't have a biography of a living person in Wikipedia without that. What's the evidence of notability? - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's valid, I added another source I found that was 3rd party coverage but there aren't many other 3rd party articles. There was also another I added, although it wasn't very in-depth. AnonymousEditor95 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is very strange that you are considering deleting the whole page? Could you please just label the uncertain parts instead? Brett Cooper has a lot of followers and a lot of views so I guess there should still be a wikipedia page for her. Also stating that the page sounds like an ad is ridiculous - there is very little content and none of its advertising? I have found following imdb-link - maybe it is of help?

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4553198/ 212.56.161.2 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is no real RS coverage then we cannot have an article. And IMDb is not an RS. The lack of RS may explain why no one found an RS which mentions they are right wing, I don't know but we can't ignore RS requirements just because some editors are desperate to mention certain things. In other words, article deletion may very well be an option but using non RS is a non starter. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Brett Cooper is a right-wing media personality

This is a right-wing and alt-right media personality and not just a “conservative” personality as some of the editors on this page try to put forward and block or ban anyone who states otherwise. This media personality works alongside personalities such Matt Walsh who are both published by the DailyWire. By listening to her content this is absolutely clear. It should be stated this is a right-wing and far-right media personality. 2605:B100:515:E46:F9CF:42D5:5963:ACAD (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This is also referenced in this third party reference (IMDb)

[1]https://m.imdb.com/name/nm4553198/# 2605:B100:515:E46:F9CF:42D5:5963:ACAD (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the policy that applies to article content about living people, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

We also can't make a secondary evaluation in Wikipedia's voice based on listening to her content - according to our policy on original research, "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." So we need reliable, independent, secondary sources to support the descriptions. But WP:IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IMBd is a perfectly reliable source. You just don’t like what’s written because you’re trying to construct the article as an advertisement for the media personality. You’re biased and you should be barred from editing this article. 2605:B100:515:E46:F9CF:42D5:5963:ACAD (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

ps. Stating facts is not a personal attack. You refuse to accept a perfectly reliable source and try to mild the page to the benefit of the media personality. You clearly have a bias and should not be allowed to edit this page. 2605:B100:515:E46:F9CF:42D5:5963:ACAD (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, this edit summary [2] is the personal attack I was referring to on your user talk page. And at the WP:IMDB link, there is an explanation about how Wikipedia does not consider it a reliable source, so it cannot be used to support the content. If you would like more information about my perspective on this article, you can review the discussion that happened when this article was nominated for deletion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No IMDb isn't reliable for jack shit on Wikipedia. This is very well established. Please refrain from editing BLPs as long as you are so confused about core Wikipedia policies. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

As accessed on 8/10/2023, IMDb no longer refers to Brett Cooper as "right wing" at the link provided. She is listed as simply "an American Conservative Political Commentator" 96.38.144.10 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hate speech

Who gets to decide what is hate speech? 166.181.83.12 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The neutral point of view policy begins by stating "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In our collection of repeatedly-discussed sources, the entry for Media Matters states: "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." The Media Matters source in the article states:

Walsh insulted and degraded trans TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney in a hateful rant, saying, “You are weird and artificial, you are manufactured and lifeless, you are unearthly and eerie.” In a demonstration of Walsh’s influence on the other content produced by the Daily Wire, Brett Cooper replayed and praised his insults on her own show, The Comments Section with Brett Cooper.

Based on NPOV policy, as well as the current consensus about the reliability of the available source, and the content of the source, I edited the content [3]. I also moved it to a new section in the main article, with MOS:LEAD in mind. We also need to be particularly careful with the addition of contentious content to biographies of living people according to WP:BLP policy, so per WP:BLPRESTORE, I do not think the "participated in hate speech" content should be restored without consensus, compliance with our core content polices, and multiple reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

And to be more specific, part of NPOV policy that seems relevant here is WP:WIKIVOICE, and what we can state in Wikipedia's voice at this time with this limited information from this particular source. As discussed in the AFD for this article that closed on May 6, there does not appear to be much independent and reliable coverage of Cooper to help develop a neutral and balanced biography. Beccaynr (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

In this case, it is specified Matt Walsh was demonetized according to YouTube’s terms of service, hence YouTube considered his content to be hateful and YouTube ultimately took the decision whether his video was hateful or not. 2605:B100:511:E677:E4F9:D36A:E336:14D1 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Media Matters, "YouTube confirmed the demonetization, with a spokesperson writing, “We suspended monetization on Matt Walsh’s channel due to repeated violations of our YouTube Partner Program policies, which include our Advertiser-Friendly Guidelines. These policies apply equally to all creators, regardless of political viewpoint, and channels that repeatedly violate these policies are demonetized."" This seems to say YouTube demonetized according to its policies, without providing detail to support an attribution to YouTube.

So these sources do not appear to support stating that YouTube considered his content to be hateful. Even if the sources did, it would seem appropriate to attribute the statement to YouTube instead of stating it in WP:WIKIVOICE - all we currently have is their statement as reported by Media Matters. Beccaynr (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Beccaynr’s final edit at 3:55 on May 20. It is balanced and well referenced in the way it presents how Cooper “replayed and praised” Matt Walsh’s comments on Mulvaney according to MediaMatters. It doesn’t take sides and is a proper way to present the situation allowing the reader to make their own judgement on whether Cooper was hateful or not. 2605:B100:52E:E87B:3976:686A:73FD:FA16 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Twitter

Can we use the info on her own Twitter account as verified info? 2600:100C:A202:5967:FDCC:91EA:9E17:F40 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, verifiability is not the only consideration for whether or not to include content, and with regard to these edits [4]:

• According to WP:DOB, Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. and Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If [...] the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. The recent discussion about whether this article should be deleted was closed with no consensus and without prejudice for a speedy renomination, so it appears reasonable to describe Cooper as 'borderline notable' at this time. It was also her employer that posted the birthday greeting, so this seems different than a subject voluntarily publishing their own announcement of their personal information on their own social media, even though she later responded to her employer.

• Overall, because she is not a public figure, has borderline notability, and did not post her own birthday announcement, WP:BLP policy appears to discourage posting the 'full' part of her birthday (i.e. the month and day) based on this source. However, an approximate birth year could be added from a reliable source that states her age, with the {{birth based on age as of date | age | year | month | day }} template - but please note in the list of frequently discussed sources, There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting.

• As to the other content sourced from what appears to be Cooper's Twitter account, Cooper makes claims about third parties, and WP:BLPSELFPUB states this source cannot be used for these claims (and because those third parties did not write it, it appears it should be immediately removed per WP:BLPREMOVE). The source also does not claim 'at the time of her birth', so that part is also not supported by the source. In addition, in the context of the available sources and the content of the article, this content appears to be a WP:MINORASPECT, and therefore WP:UNDUE to include in this article at this time.

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

What makes her not a public figure? 2600:100C:A202:5967:75E9:53AC:166E:3664 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the link to that section of WP:BLP policy to try to emphasize the caution we should take for "people who are not well known." This is related to the limited independent and reliable sources that appear to be available to support her notability and the outcome of the discussion about whether the article should be deleted, which also support caution and a need for better sources before adding her full date of birth to the article (according to the WP:DOB section of BLP policy). Beccaynr (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Brett-Cooper.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Brett's date of Birth

Brett states her date of birth is October 12, 2001 here yet it was removed from the page. Can this be added back? TomVenam2021 (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro needs to be linked

I don't have any proof but if he were transgender this would be the outcome. Gerdolfo (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Everyone does call her the female Ben Shapiro. That’s what a lot of people know her for. ThatGuyInWiki (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

File:Brianna Parker.webp

Ohiojamajoo (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

Date of Birth: October 12 2001 Nomanslandddd (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor 07:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023

Terribly terribly biased summary of the comments section. Might as well write “I hate Brett Cooper and her show sucks” instead of imitating an ‘unbiased’ summary of factual information. 72.135.248.185 (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2023

"She moved to LA when she was 10 so she could pursue acting" should really be changed to "her parents moved to LA so she could pursue acting." 10 year olds can't move across the country to pursue acting all on their own. 2601:48:C500:7AA7:6B8A:5ED5:710C:6999 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Brendan ❯❯❯ Talk 05:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

change the picture of Brett Cooper to a picture in which she is smiling. Axelle1995 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The old picture of her scowling has been removed by another editor per WP:BLPIMAGE. At the time of writing, the article is unillustrated. If you have found a suitable image, please upload it to Commons and reactivate this request, linking the photo. Liu1126 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

Would like to add date of birth for subject Brett Cooper. Her date of birth is October 12, 2001. Shotbytim (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Comments Section With Brett Cooper

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)

The section in this article about the show includes a description of the show from The Week that is not criticism. If there is further independent, third-party coverage in reliable sources about the show, then these sources could be used to develop encyclopedic content.

According to WP:NOTPROMO policy, 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 [5] are marketing materials produced by Cooper on the subscriber-onlyThe Daily Wire website [6], and a link to her show's YouTube channel [7]. 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)

No matter if you want to call it criticism or not, i left it in place. I just feel there should most definitely be a description of the show itself first. I used those sources because the article explains when she started the show & the link to the show’s youtube channel describes what the show is about in the description box. I felt as that’s the best possible source since it’s coming directly from the official account. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I added a description from coverage by The Mary Sue (discussed in September 2022 at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard), because independent secondary coverage from reliable sources can help develop balanced encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There’s definitely balanced encyclopedic content by way of the paragraph that was there from the get go. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed your removal of the coverage of the show [8], and your edit summary

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.

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)

Given the initial removal of my description with an inaccurate classification as “Promotional Content” I couldn’t see your contribution as a good faith edit. If you strongly feel as if that interpretation of the show from the independent author of said article is needed, i can see adding it as a standalone paragraph at the end of the section as it stands now. But certainly not tacked on to the tail end of the description of what the show itself is. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A little good faith can go a long way around here, and I appreciate your interest in developing a compromise solution. I have found this article to be a challenge to develop because of what appears to be a limited amount of independent, reliable, and secondary coverage, which is what we primarily need to develop the article.

I think the content based on the YouTube About section would also benefit from some editing. The About section describes the show as "an irreverent viral content and news review show offering an against-the-grain, laid-back perspective on today’s culture." In WP:WIKIVOICE, the article currently states, "Cooper reviews viral content as well as discusses current affairs", cited to the YouTube About section.

I think it would be more appropriate to clearly attribute the description, e.g.

According to the "About" section of the show's YouTube channel, it is a "viral content and news review show."

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 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."

Does that sound reasonable? Beccaynr (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur with your evaluation & that sounds reasonable to me. I am aware of The Mary Sue & every article I have read from that source has spoken negatively upon anything pertaining to The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro & Brett Cooper. That is why I took it the way i did when it was sourced. I however do realize and agree that we need secondary coverage from reliable sources to form a balance as you earlier stated. So let’s go with what you very articulately constructed. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, I will go ahead and make the changes per this discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That "compromise" doesn't quite work though, does it? The Mary Sue is noted as "biased" on the wikipedia reliable sources list. Also, Rachel Leishman's assessment of The Comments Section is so strange that it likely just confuses the reader. She implies that Brett's show is deceptive, drawing viewers in to get a conservative female perspective on leftist topics but then switches to topical ostensibly a-political commentary. This appears to be an attempt to paint Brett and the producer(s) as deceitful but the attempt fails. Brett is a conservative female and a good bit of her show is political. Rachel's non-descript synopsis of The Comments Section is lazy and too vague to warrant inclusion. Does it not make more sense to simply use the description on the actual channel? That description being: "an irreverent viral content and news review show offering an against-the-grain, laid-back perspective on today’s culture." 107.10.129.126 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:BIASEDSOURCES, 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)

1. The source is *not* attributed, why lie so blatantly?

2. Media Matters being a biased, non-neutral source on a conservative personality's wikipedia page would be an instance where hyperpartisanship isn't "the best possible source" for information that is accurate

...you are attempting to bastardize and obfuscate policy because you don't like Brett Cooper and conservatism more generally. Undignified and against actual long-held policy. 107.10.129.126 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Correction: I thought you were talking about Media Matters instead of The Mary Sue. Both points actually still remain intact because both sources are hyperpartisan in the same direction. As for your lie/incorrect statement: at least the Media Matters mention is *poorly attributed*, the Mary Sue mention is not attributed at all. 107.10.129.126 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Mary Sue source is and has been attributed in the article since before your comment. Beccaynr (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope! 107.10.129.126 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source as per Wiki

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)

That's not exactly true. This says usage should be evaluated on a case by case basis and that it should be attributed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Direct quote: "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable". Marginally reliable does not equal reliable. Point is that it isn't attributed here. "Left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters..." is how it should read if Media Matters is to be included at all. 107.10.129.126 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)