Talk:Brittney Cooper

Add Catagory for ongoing Controversy

Instead of a pointless edit war, I thought it'd be better to talk it out like adults. We cannot pretend the current controversy isn't happening, but the current partisan edits can't stand either. I'm of the opinion that Ms. Cooper's highly damaging interview with the Root, during which she make a large number of highly racist and inflammatory remarks is of public interest, and the most noteworthy aspect of her career thus far. If this page is to exist, this controversy must be documented also. Kyoraki (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No way. Nothing happened. It's all alt right misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.98.234 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That's the party line whenever a worthless, tax-dependent, racist on the left gets caught on video spewing their hatred. 2601:647:667F:FF63:C9FD:F57F:4199:FE8E (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's sad that I can't tell if this comment is sarcasm, or a legitimate attempt to cover up the controversy Kyoraki (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Pure trolling. Ignore them. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

sourcing to youtube

Hey, IP! It actually is sourcing to YouTube, as we use reliable sources to show that a particular incident didn't simply happen but is worth commenting on. If we can't find anything other than the video, it means no one is commenting on it, which means no one thinks it's worth commenting on, which means Wikipedia doesn't report. —valereee (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

-- your bias is clear from your other edits. The video is referenced in multiple news articles (also linked here), just not ALL of the exact quotes referenced, but definitely the ones about wanting to say to take white people out. Please change it back, unless you feel good about attempting to conceal racist history to ignore blatant, EXPLICIT racism. At the very least change all of it back except potentially the last factual quote about white kids/people being stupid, which is the only one that isn't referenced in the news articles also linked. I don't have the time, energy, or even interest in constantly changing this back, but she is obviously a racist,ot obviously matters and is a huge flag regarding her intentions and credibility behind her professional career and you didn't just remove the part that is just quoted in the YouTube video. You removed the whole controversy section which included links to news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8D7F:E084:C898:8C73:EEF2:19F8 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it. You didn't bother to WP:PING, so I didn't see it. And I can't ping you. It's been a while, so I'll take a look at the sources again, but WP is very strict about what we say about living people, which you can read more about at WP:BLP. valereee (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, none of those sources is okay for anything even slightly controversial about a living person, and certainly not for building an entire "controversy" section. valereee (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

lol sorry I'm not an expert at wikipedia communication. It seems those who are best at it are those who have a problem with accurate historical record. The bias levels here are off the charts. A person claiming to be an advocate for civil rights and a professor of gender and race studies but saying explicitly racist things is clearly an important aspect of that individual. and you're misunderstanding the 'controversy' title; first of all, it should be labeled "Racist Views" rather than "Controversy". It is only controversial in that most people aren't openly, explicitly racist. The question of whether or not it was explicitly racist is not a controversial suggestion... it was... hence "explicit" haha As a Democrat, I'm sad to see that you, someone likely also a Democrat (I'd bet $50,000 that if you're American and you vote, that you voted Democrat in all the presidential elections you've voted in), are trying to rewrite history. I always though wikipedia was reliable growing up, but there is clearly a much more active army of rabidly biased liberals within the moderator base than those who are able to leave politics out of it. This author holds racist views. There is no question. She said it herself. A "Professor Of Gender And Race Studies" being racist is obviously noteworthy. haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8D7F:E084:89D5:D78A:5F0:4D05 (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This woman's racist remarks are the first things that come up in a Google search. But not noteworthy enough for WP? this is a textbook example of how infested this site has become with politics.74.96.244.155 (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The YouTube video was copied from this video at The Root. Since The Root is already cited as a reliable source in the article, this video from the Root can be cited as well.

https://www.theroot.com/the-root-institute-2021-unpacking-the-attacks-on-criti-1847711634

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@SquirrelHill1971, remind me what it is that she said that you want to include? Valereee (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Also please where in the cast they said it, as it's 46 minutes long. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am planning to watch the full interview in the near future, and I will post exact quotes and times in this discussion. I should be done fairly soon. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I want to include anything. I just wanted to point out that the YouTube video is the same video as the one at the Root website. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, just because she says something somewhere doesn't mean we include it. Root seems to have editorial oversight, so unless shown differently we consider them reliable, but they'd have to be saying something about what she said for us to decide it was worth including. It's not enough that she simply said it. Someone has to be commenting on it in a RS. Valereee (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I just finished watching this video:

https://www.theroot.com/the-root-institute-2021-unpacking-the-attacks-on-criti-1847711634

At 14:53, Brittney Cooper says, "No, that's what white humans did. White human beings thought there's a world here and we own it. Prior to them, black and brown people have been sailing across oceans, interacting with each other for centuries, without total subjugation, domination, and colonialism."

Cooper's statement is false.

Slavery was practiced by people of all races, in almost every country, all over the world, for thousands of years.

It was black Africans who kidnapped their own people and sold them to white Europeans and white Americans.

There were black slave owners in North America.

Native Americans enslaved other Native Americans long before Europeans ever came to North America.

Today, in the 21st century, there are still millions of slaves in the world, and the vast majority of today's slave owners are not white.

Therefore, Cooper's statement is false.

I'm not saying that her statement should be included. I'm not saying that her statement should be not be included. What I am saying is that we have a reliable source which proves that she did say it, and multiple wikipedia articles prove that her statement is false.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We need someone else to be discussing the fact she's saying those things, in a reliable source, to include them. Valereee (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability and source issues

I'm no expert on these matters—but even to a novice editor, it seems like significant parts of this article fail WP:N, given that their only sourcing appears to be self-authored, the raw results of internet/website searches, etc.

It should be obvious that, while quite possibly accurate and not necessarily disqualifying in and of itself, listing a subject's books from an Amazon search strongly suggests WP:OR; if an author has produced notable work, it will be referenced in reliable secondary or tertiary sources.

Here's a list of what I see as the most questionable sources and citations—note that while I'm not taking the position that none of these could conceivably qualify as RS, I think taken as a whole it makes clear that much of our instant article fails the notability test and is ultimately promotional in nature. I am assuming Cooper's bios on magazines, etc. are self-authored, as they're almost universally self-submitted (and if not, are similarly promotional material from the third-party).

• Cooper's CV (Self-authored.)
• Cooper's TED Talk (Self-authored.)
• Cooper's bio on her university website (Self-authored.)
• Cooper's bio on the "Collective" she founded (Self-authored.)
• Cooper's bios on the sites of magazines to which she has contributed (Self-authored.)
• Cooper's bio from "About the Author" on the Barnes & Noble website (Self-authored.)
• Amazon listing of Cooper's books (Search results for website.)
• Salon listing of Cooper's articles (Search results for website.)
• Cosmopolitan listing of Cooper's articles (Search results for website.)
• Literary Hub (The cited source is simply a list of "recent" books "required for Women's History Month". The site appears to be largely a marketing/advertising firm for publishers to promote their titles, described as an example of how "publishers are experimenting with ways to reach consumers directly online." It was underwritten and "Created by Grove Atlantic" and is "partnered" with publishers and booksellers whose products are featured.)
• The Root (There seems to be prior consensus that The Root is not an RS for factual information in WP:BLP articles.)
• Ebony (This "source" is a few words about the published collection of blog posts on a "Must Read" list of several books. It fails to mention Cooper's name. Wikipedia editors have found Ebony to have been unreliable for BLP information in the past. And while I have no reason to think the instant citation is factually inaccurate, I see no reason to cite it at all.)

The rest appears to be pretty well-sourced: the NYT, the Post, NPR, etc.

The issues with this article appear to be part of a much larger one: this page was created by a user] with so few other contributions as to be a de facto WP:SPA, raising the question of whether the impetus for this page may have been promotional. The only other article substantively edited by the creating editor was one of two articles which appear to be patently promotional; the latter was created by an "an employee of Macmillan" whose "contributions are made on behalf of the company" and largely edited by another user, this one apparently another SPA whose sole contributions are to those same two husband-and-wife articles. Maybe I'm naive, but it's a bit depressing to scratch the surface and discover such a scandalous amount of self-interested promotion in the BLP world.

Thanks, and I look forward to any thoughts! ElleTheBelle 18:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• That’s a lot of words. I removed the Amazon link. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)