Jump to content

Talk:Eugenia Cooney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

[edit]

This article reads like a Facebook post, the controversy section in particular. It presents 'viewer speculation' as fact and doesn't even try to offer alternative views. Note the choice of words in the section title. Not 'Controversy' as is typical, but 'Eating disorder controversy' as if that is beyond dispute. Compare this article to that of controversial figure Alex Jones - his article doesn't even HAVE a controversy section. The language used is inherently critical of Cooney. Frankly it borders on voyeuristic. This article is a appalling diatribe intended to shame a young woman for her mental and physical health. Garbage like this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 86.138.165.102 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed. I removed and reworded quite a lot of it, as the detail was largely excessive, speculative and redundant. Truly overwhelming. The controversy section still feels disproportionately long, but since it’s a significant part of her public image and notoriety, I’ve left it there. Ampersandbrown (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section UNDUE

[edit]

The eating disorder section needs to be pruned and summarized. Additionally, these sources used in that section — MEAWW and Metro (UK) and YouTube are all generally unreliable per WP:RSP + Insider and The Daily Dot are questionable per WP:RSP. Per our WP:BLP policy – Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

feel like this article should be given protection

[edit]

this article was vandalized multiple times by the same person in a row multiple times the other night, therefore i feel like its fair that it is given protection for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.138.109 (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What’s her height and weight? 66.74.128.229 (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really needed? JACOB ELORDI (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove content due to article probably causing problems

[edit]

With controversy surrounding an individual, its probably a good idea to remove most of the stuff related to a controversy. I feel this is a good idea because this site could be fueling the very problems it seeks to expose. Its difficult for people to give up addictions and eating disorders when it becomes part of their identity. 2604:2D80:6305:600:21FF:8A5D:758:ED86 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Job title'

[edit]

Someone added one of Cooney's 'jobs' as 'pro-putin transphobe'. I must emphasise that although I whole-heartedly agree with calling out problematic people, I believe this addition goes against Wikipedia guidelines for being biased, grammatically incorrect, and using no sources to back up their words. Gingerbreadalex (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've realised someone is generally vandalising the whole page. Gingerbreadalex (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]