Talk:Sam Cooper (journalist)

Proposed revisions and In addition

I noticed my recent edit was reverted with the edit summary “tell me how you really feel.” Could you clarify the specific Wikipedia policy or sourcing issue with the material?

The material I added was intended to document independently verifiable developments, rather than characterize Cooper personally. In particular, it relied on the Ontario Superior Court’s decision in Dong v. Global News, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference final report, and the retraction published by The Bureau concerning the William Majcher article.

I’m happy to revise the wording or structure to address any BLP, neutrality, undue-weight, or sourcing concerns. I would appreciate identifying the specific issues before restoring the material. Zaytovenati (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You're clearly here with an agenda, and it's not going to get you far. Find somewhere else to trash journalists you don't like. Thanks. MediaKyle (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m not here to “trash” anyone, and I don’t have an agenda against Cooper. I believe journalists should be held accountable to the same standard of accuracy and truth that they expect from others, and that a biography should present a balanced account of both someone’s accomplishments and significant, well-documented controversies when those controversies are relevant to their career.

If there are documented developments several years later that materially change the context of what was previously reported, I don’t think they should simply disappear from the biography. My intention is to document those developments using reliable sources, not to make a personal judgment about Cooper.

You reverted the edit very quickly and have now characterized my motivation rather than addressing the sources. I’m genuinely happy to have a conversation about it. Are there specific sources you disagree with? Are there particular statements you believe are inaccurate, inadequately sourced, or given undue weight? If so, let’s go through them one by one.

If there’s a version of the material that you think would be more neutral or appropriate for the article, I’m completely open to discussing that. I just think the actual court decisions, inquiry findings, retractions and other documented developments should be evaluated on their merits rather than dismissed because of an assumption about my motives. ~2026-43960-97 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m not here to “trash” anyone, and I don’t have an agenda against Cooper. I believe journalists should be held accountable to the same standard of accuracy and truth that they expect from others, and that a biography should present a balanced account of both someone’s accomplishments and significant, well-documented controversies when those controversies are relevant to their career.

If there are documented developments several years later that materially change the context of what was previously reported, I don’t think they should simply disappear from the biography. My intention is to document those developments using reliable sources, not to make a personal judgment about Cooper.

You reverted the edit very quickly and have now characterized my motivation rather than addressing the sources. I’m genuinely happy to have a conversation about it. Are there specific sources you disagree with? Are there particular statements you believe are inaccurate, inadequately sourced, or given undue weight? If so, let’s go through them one by one.

If there’s a version of the material that you think would be more neutral or appropriate for the article, I’m completely open to discussing that. I just think the actual court decisions, inquiry findings, retractions and other documented developments should be evaluated on their merits rather than dismissed because of an assumption about my motives. Zaytovenati (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope, we're not doing any of that. Wikipedia is not the place to hold [journalists] accountable. Might I suggest Reddit? -- MediaKyle (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I’m not asking Wikipedia to “hold journalists accountable”; I’m asking whether reliably sourced court findings, inquiry findings and published retractions are appropriate for inclusion in a biography under WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Since we clearly disagree, I’ll seek a WP:3O rather than continue the discussion between us. Zaytovenati (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve listed the dispute at WP:3O so an uninvolved editor can provide an outside opinion. I’ll leave the article unchanged while the dispute is reviewed so we can resolve this through the appropriate process. Zaytovenati (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You've received plenty of other opinions at the Teahouse and WT:CANADA. Read the room. MediaKyle (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I’m genuinely trying to understand your position here. I’m proposing inclusion of relevant, reliably sourced information about Cooper’s reporting history, including court proceedings, inquiry findings and a published retraction. Given that these are matters that have received significant media coverage, what specifically makes you believe they don’t belong in the biography?

I’m not asking you to agree with my characterization—I’m asking whether there’s a specific WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:UNDUE concern with the underlying information. Zaytovenati (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Uninvolved opinion here:

• None of the secondary sources you linked in the Han Dong section mention Sam Cooper. It might be appropriate on the page of the parent corporation that was sued, but not here, unless there's secondary coverage that's specifically about Cooper.
• Vincent Ke section: "As of June 2026, the litigation remained unresolved.". We don't generally include information on unresolved litigation in Wikipedia articles of non-public figures per WP:BLPCRIME.
• William Majcher and retraction section: sourced entirely to Cooper's statement. Should be sourced to secondary coverage of the incident and if there's not any, the inclusion is probably undue.
• Michael Chan: Motion was dismissed. Not sure why it's here, especially because it's only sourced to a primary source.
• Xiao Jianhua investigation: He updated an article that he posted. Cited only to the article. Again, not seeing anything noteworthy here.

In summary: you're lacking the kind of sourcing that would show that any of this should be included. Court findings themselves are primary sources and shouldn't be used by themselves.

Also, to everyone involved, please note that even if you're right, you shouldn't repeatedly restore or revert the same edits within a short period of time. I'm also not really sure why people jumped to speculating on motivations rather than addressing the very clear sourcing concerns. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps WP:3RR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Because the users' first edit was to use WP:SYNTH'd up sources to call a BLP "discredited" in the lead sentence based, by their own admission, on their opinion, and has been WP:FORUMSHOPPING on WT:CANADA, WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:3O trying to find anyone who shares their opinion, while edit warring the content back into the article. I don't blame anyone for losing good faith quickly here. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 12:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

significant media coverage-So cite it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)