Talk:Brett Cooper (commentator)

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 are marketing materials produced by Cooper on the subscriber-onlyThe Daily Wire website, and a link to her show's YouTube channel . 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, and your edit summary 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. 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:
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * Media matters is a fake news organization 2600:100F:A110:EA4B:1959:3D5:E522:EE13 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit
I cannot edit but she was married on March 30, 2024 to Alex Tombul Onechild FL (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)