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 rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google 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.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle 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 Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
A fact from Sarah Cooper appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 April 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
There is, frankly, some sort of active disinformation campaign going on regarding the article subject's year of birth. I have no idea why, but diff after diff after diff after diff from different IPs changes the article subject's year of birth from 1977 to 1984. Though I have no direct evidence to claim this, I would guess that it is politically motivated vandalism, because I see absolutely no potential source for confusion in any of the references (which all unambiguously support a birth date of either 1977 or 1978), and because of the significance of Nineteen Eighty-Four. I'm posting here to initiate WP:CONSENSUS-building and, if this does indeed turn out to just be vandalism, will soon pursue page protection. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite certain the vandalism is the result of Cooper mocking Pres. Agent Orange in Tik Tok videos by lip syncing his speeches. By the way, the first line of the "Early Life" section of this article says Cooper was still born. Is this vandalism or some kind of idiotic mistake? Lechonero (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread the diff as adding something that it was actually removing which had been there for a disgustingly long time. My bad. This is the sort of thing that happens when there's a persistent vandalism campaign. I've requested page protection. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, so there actually is some discrepancy! Well spotted, I thought I had double-checked every source but somehow I missed that. Very weird for there to be that much disagreement among reliable sources, that is a very big difference. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, so we have some sort of consensus position for people to agree/disagree with: I still think the preponderance of evidence is that she was born in 1977, since that source is so at odds with the other sources we have. But that could certainly change if people find other sources to back up the 1984 claim (or think it is somehow more reliable than all the others). - Astrophobe (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move to Sarah Cooper per Station1. The other Sarah Coopers average single digit pageviews; somebody with 1.8 million twitter followers is bound to step over them for a long while. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Regarding the series of edits around here: I encourage discussion on the wording of this sentence here so that we can reach a WP:CONSENSUS if people are still dissatisfied with it, but there's really no need to revert each other over an extremely simple factual claim that was the topic of ridiculously large volumes of press coverage. If the sentence I wrote isn't a good summary of the sources that's one thing, and something I'm happy to discuss of course, but introducing weasel words that pretend that the event is somehow vague or ambiguous is not a reasonable solution for such an easily verifiable claim. This isn't an event from the early 1600s with sketchy historical coverage -- we can all just google the video and read thousands of secondary writeups in all manner of WP:RS. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is not "said to have" suggested UV light and household cleaners. He suggested it. Sarah Cooper is lip synching Trump's words. The Guardian piece makes that clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cleaning up inconsistencies in the regional variety of English that's used and thought we should have some kind of discussion on the topic. When I wrote some of the early content for this page I suppressed my own Canadian English predilections on the theory that, by MOS:TIES, it makes sense to use American English. So there are instances of American English (or at least Oxford spelling) throughout the article. I can think of two main reasons why we might not need to continue down that path. First, the subject of the page is Jamaican as well as American, so the national ties argument is weak. Second, I was admittedly just running with that so that I had something to discipline my highly erratic Canadian spelling inclinations, so it's hard to argue that it was an implicit consensus, and now MOS:ARTCON might favour going with another English variety. So for now I'm going to keep assuming that we're using standard American English, but needless to say I don't exactly feel strongly and would be happy to use another variety. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the article improvements after I nominated this for GA, Astrophobe; let me know if you would like me to add you as co-nominator. Standard American English seems fine to me. I'm in the UK so happy for copyedits to anything I've written that departs from standard American English. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer BennyOnTheLoose! To be honest I don't have a great sense for the pros/cons, but it sounds at first glance like it could only make things smoother since I am interested in helping to try to bring the article to GA anyways, so I should pay attention to the conversation about the GA nomination no matter what. So sure, I'd be happy to be added on! Thanks :) - Astrophobe (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the first reference, the Wayback Machine template isn't necessary or ideal to use since other references don't have it. May I suggest using "<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|date=|first=|last=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|url-status=live|access-date=}}</ref>" this instead?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Station1 especially given the extra level of caution regarding WP:BLPDOB, can you please also include the source you found while google searching to substantiate that date of birth? I think we have several sufficient ones on the page but the birth date itself should still be cited to a strong source. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that, this requires a source and can not be done based on a request/claim by an anomymous IP. Assuming the IP does indeed belong to Sarah Copper, she has an easy option to remedy that. She can post her exact date of birth on her official blog, website ot twitter account and post the link here. That would be sufficient and then the article could be changed accordingly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an IP can claim to be anybody. But it makes no difference, if we verify the request. A Google search reveals numerous sources all showing the same birth date, and WP:VERIFY does not require inline citations for non-controversial facts, which is how it appears to me. But if anyone has reason to believe that the date might be incorrect, then it should be left out. Station1 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sufficient as a source in this context since it is her official twitter account and doesn't contradict reliable sources on her.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]