The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
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]
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]
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]
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]
.svg){kind=small}
