This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It's be nice if we had a photograph of Anderson here. Would a screen cap from his tv show be considered legit? What would this be, fair use, public domain or other? -- Sketchee 20:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I basically mean in the Public, because a lot of people at my school and in my family do find his show boring and not appealing anymore. So, I was wondering did his popularity drop across the board?
Anderson was NOT in Skull and Bones, but rather another secret society - Manuscript. I believe the society has a wikipedia entry. Their "tomb" is on Elm st. in New Haven.
Does anyone know if he was in Skull and Bones?
I've found references online to Molly, Ozzie and both. Could it be that he had Ozzie first, got Molly and then Ozzie passed away? If anyone knows more about his dog(s) please post here. -- Limulus 04:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone seen/heard anything about Cooper's theological beliefs? It just struck me that I haven't run across mention of religion in any of the articles I've read about him. -- Limulus 05:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
His father, Wyatt Cooper, was raised Southern Baptist. His mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, was raised Catholic. I've heard Anderson is Episcopalian - no confirmation though. He does, however, collect crucifixes.
I've seen him say "god bless you" or similar such things to people during the reporting of Katrina/Rita. I've never come across him discussing his religious beliefs in public, though. 65.186.79.160 01:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a large crucifix on the wall of one of the rooms in Anderson's former loft in the InStyle photo shoot and another that was on a nightstand.
Some think anderson is a bit of a sensationalist
On 15:38, 2 January 2006, William Graham removed the Fansites subsection from External links for the reason that "Wikipedia is not a directory of fansites":
While I agree in principle, some of those might have interesting content worth linking to; should any of them go back in? -- Limulus 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
God, this shouldn't matter, but how can anyone not be convinced that Anderson Cooper is gay? Ask virtually any gay man living in New York City in the mid 1990's whether or not they've seen Anderson at a gay bar (Boiler Room, anyone?) or whether or not he's dated their friends (he's dated some of mine). I think the refusal to believe he's gay is mostly due to America's continual refusal to believe anyone more masculine that Paul Lynde is gay.
He's gay. Who cares. Move on.
216.57.33.131 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Jimbo
New to Wiki http://www.gawker.com/news/media/anderson-cooper/anderson-cooper-always-super-always-sweet-always-sixteen-039825.php http://youcantmakeitup.blogspot.com/2005/04/anderson-cooper-gay-or-flaming.html It's about Anderson liking Super Sweet 16 and Walter Mercado. What do you think of that? And about the "we" vs "you" thing http://www.gawker.com/news/media//anderson-cooper-ignores-us-026614.php http://www.gawker.com/news/media/anderson-cooper/the-final-word-on-anderson-cooper-026720.php I think we can put that to rest.
-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.151.239.154 ( talk • contribs) .
-As the above user comments on Mr. Cooper's sexuality, I am not absolutely sure that the line about the "persistent rumors" is necessary for his wiki article. Now I am actually myself positive that he is indeed gay. When Mr. Cooper was actually living in Atlanta he came into a gay club and ordered a drink down the bar from me. He appeared to be waiting for someone. Wouldn’t stand up in court but that was enough given all else that is known about Cooper to convince me. That said, until if and when Mr. Cooper makes a statement on his sexuality could it be best to leave the matter aside?-- Francis Burdett 20:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cooper is gay. -- ThomasK 06:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
From Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, "This category is a partial listing of notable gay, lesbian and bisexual people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation, or whose sexual orientation is known and not debated by historians." I don't really think that Anderson Cooper fits this definition and I think that the categorization should be removed from this article. Whether or not he is gay, he has not publicly declared his sexual orientation, and it seems to be a matter of some debate. -- timc | Talk 17:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, even though it is obvious to those who really care, he hasn't come out and declared his sexual orientation. I really think it should be removed from the article. -- waffle iron 23:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
This is suppose to be an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how many people in Anderson Cooper's neighbourhood "know" that he's gay. The fact that he's gay should only be added to the article if there is conclusive proof, verifiable by the reader. More importantly his sexual orientation should only be added if it is relevant to this article. There are thousands of biographical entries in Wikipedia where the subject's sexual orientaion is not mentioned. -- 65.94.43.50
While I do not know if he is gay or not, it is relevant to this entry because of the numerous discussions about his sexual orientation online (e.g. on BlogActive). To maintain a neutal POV, I have quoted from NY Magazine (see the fourth page) which gives quite a bit of background to the issue and quotes Cooper directly... he doesn't want to talk about his "personal life" ^_- But that non-answer in itself is something. I tried to tie it into the "Cooper has frequently been involved with gay and lesbian issues" section; sorry if the connection looks a bit clunky. -- Limulus 11:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The stuff about his proported sexuality has creeped back in. Should it stay? -- waffle iron 04:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
No. We still don't have word from him. It's just speculation. At the most it deserves a short mention and possibly a link to the homosexual speculation page.
It just reads like tabloid fodder. Maybe if you clean it up a bit, the whole "many in the gay community..." comment in particular. What many? Who? Just random gays polled by the people at Gallup? And the "his handlers at CNN [are] known to call sites..." quote as well. I'd like to know where this was quoted from and have a direct link to the original document or at least reference it's source. And it's none of our business why he "dodges" the question. It's his life; let him live it. Until he says "I'm queer and here" from atop a broken levee, it is still just speculation. And poorly sourced speculation at that.
# Here's another way to look at it: Presumably it doesn't really matter whether or not he's gay, and he's made it plain that he doesn't want the matter to be part of discussion about him. Therefore, we should pull this from the article until such time as it may become relevant. -- 03 November 2005
It just doesn't seem right for some reason. Something about the presentation. I'll think about it.
What's the BFD? I'm straight and a Christian. My wife and I watch Anderson Cooper almost every night. Why? Because he's a good reporter and he's not afraid to ask tough questions! If he wants to keep his sexuality private, why not let him? What would his being gay or straight have to do with his journalistic abilities? I'm a heavy metal musician and it doesn't lessen my admiration for their abilities one bit that Rob Halford of Judas Priest is gay or that the late Freddie Mercury was bisexual. What they do/did in their bedrooms is not my business...same with Anderson Cooper.-- MarshallStack 04:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
He must be gay if he cant answer the question. I dont think its a big deal but people make it a big deal in shying away from answering the question. Most straight people have no issues with saying they are straight, its as easy as pie whether they are your next door neighbour or famous news anchors. Its the non straight folks that are challenged with stating their preferences. Hes probably gay... but it shouldn't matter anyway and really non of us should care.
As a public personality, many people are interested in sexual orientation, not to invade privacy. A professional astrologer did calculate his chart and rectify his rising sign and he definitely has a higher than normal sex drive, and if he was born in the morning between 8 AM and 11:30 AM, he definetly has planetary position of homosexuality that has been common in most gay celebrities' charts. However, it is not a planetary placement for a gay lover, but rather the type of gay man who likes gay sex for a psychological release or lust, etc. to say it discreetly, With Leo rising, Sun in 10th house of Public, and the North Node riding the crest of his medio coili, fame and public career are evident. But all of this is subject to correction of birth information and calculation of his fixed star placements, asteroids and black holes.
Actually, Anderson was born between 3:00pm and 3:30pm.
This entry is solely based on controversial material and it is unsourced or poorly sourced and must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. Only when FACTS or official statement regarding this issue should be included. This entry will be reported to the board.
Checking the bios that we have on his ancestor, I don't see any trace of English heritage. The Vanderbilts came to America in 1650. If a family has been in a country for a few generations, that becomes their nation. When was Cooper's last ancestor born in England? - Willmcw 00:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's usually reported as "Spanish" and "Chilean" as if referring to two separate ethnic groups. But both are obviously referring to the same ancestor of Cooper's.
This is from the article on his maternal grandmother, Gloria Laura Mercedes Morgan-Vanderbilt "Gloria Morgan's maternal grandfather, Hugh Judson Kilpatrick (1836–1881), was a Union Army general during the American Civil War who also served as the U.S. minister to Chile where he met Gloria's grandmother, an aristocrat whose family are said to be descendants of Spain's royal house of Navarre." Obviously this Chilean grandmother of Morgan's was Spanish in ancestry; I didn't feel the need to mention Chilean for Anderson Cooper's ancestry, since Chilean is not really an ethnic background - it can refer to several things i.e. Native American/Spanish, just Spanish, etc. So he can be described as 1/16th Chilean or 1/16th Spanish - I just thought Spanish more accurately conveys it. To answer your question, it's not so much how many generations, but rather the exact ethnic makeup of a person - since no one is really American without some sort of a hyphen. The rules we usually use for these ethnic labels (i.e. English-American) is the person being at least 1/4 of whichever group. This limits the person to 4 groups. People like Val Kilmer or David Carradine, who have such mixed ancestries that they don't even have a "full" quarter of anything, are not listed under any groups. Vulturell 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Because:
1) It's completely irrelevant regarding Anderson Cooper's work.
2) He DOES NOT like to talk about his personal life. Plus, his job is in journalism, not gaynalism or something. 209.124.124.219
Strong Agree: Unless he comes out personally and addresses the issue for his own reasons (either way) I don't see why this is in the article. It is 100% speculation and non encyclopedic. Are there is he or isn't he sections in every journalist's entry in Wiki? JMHO. KsprayDad 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the Trivia section for a few reasons:
I changed the wording of the item about his height for reasons outlined at http://letmespellitoutforyou.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-i-hate-wikis.html Letmespellitoutforyou 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone remember when he was on Channel 1? I remember him crying on camera in Bosnia because he was afraid of getting shot. Wolf Blitzer wouldn't have cried.
i guess many ppl would cry, but most of them are not shown in front of the camera
I added that he was actually born in New York City, because I didn't think it was clearly stated where he was born - just where he is "based" and where he usually broadcasts he show. - Fairy Incognito 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's be nice if we had a photograph of Anderson here. Would a screen cap from his tv show be considered legit? What would this be, fair use, public domain or other? -- Sketchee 20:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I basically mean in the Public, because a lot of people at my school and in my family do find his show boring and not appealing anymore. So, I was wondering did his popularity drop across the board?
I too question the addition of 'former child fashion model' to Cooper's bio, and certainly in the first para. If you could point me to similar notables whose pre-teen careers as dogwalker, baby sitter, lawn mower or paper carrier is also highlighted in the first paragraph, I would be very interested to see it. The only exception should be those whose showbiz careers started as child actors or mouseketeers, for instance, or working models who began as child models.
I suggest its continuous re-inclusion in this page is the work of detractors (possibly even Aaron Brown) who feel Cooper is a journalistic lightweight and this is their way of making their not-so-subtle point.
If would be nice if someone mentioned or wrote about his reporting during the Sago Mine Disaster and that if he dosent know something about a subject hes not afriad to ask questions and learn on air-- 24.23.82.233 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
An irked CNN viewer with a poor command of the English language seems to have added this biased section to the article. Can it be removed?
Who keeps putting this back in? Cooper is Wyatt's younger and Gloria's youngest son. - Arthur, July 28
Anybody know the exact months and years Cooper anchored ABC's overnight World News Now? And, with which co-anchors? Thanks. Thisthema n 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about exact dates, but he co-anchored with Alison Stewart and sometimes JuJu Philips.
Half the information in this article is unsourced POV and Original Research. - 24.92.41.95 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I was shocked to see that this entire section was removed, without further discussion that I've found. It was removed at 21:02, on 7 September 2006 by Worldnewsjunkie, without an edit summary, and it missed my notice and I am sure that of many others. The general consensus, as I read it on this page, is that an encyclopaedic discussion of the man should include a NPOV discussion of this part of his life as much as any other heterosexual, ambisexual or homosexual person. If you disagree, open the discussion here. Doc ♬ talk 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the policy on biographies of living persons (in particular the sections on reliable sources and presumption in favour of privacy), as well as the suggestion that "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages", I'm inclined to say that this doesn't belong here. At most I think there could be mention that there are persistent rumours regarding Cooper's sexuality, and that he has declined to comment. Incidentally, while formatting the block qoutes and references for this section I discovered that the link to the reference material (which is also a source for a number of other quotes in this article) is no longer active. GeekLove 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A CNN video on youtube is circulating, with Robin Williams indirectly poking fun at Cooper's sexual orientation. Notable? Jumping cheese Cont @ ct 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is widely rumored both within and outside of the gay community that Anderson Cooper is gay. Several prominent website bloggers, notably Perez Hilton (Mario Lavandeira) have questioned Anderson Cooper's sexuality. Whether or not these speculations are true is not the issue, the issue is that this article should accurately portray all aspects of the persona, and the fact is that his sexuality is indeed questioned, and it has generated enough interest for it to be notable. His PR people should not be deleting this section. 3 January 2007
assume good faith? isn't that mindframe slightly archaic? is homosexuality a detractor overall? good faith, bullshit. homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of; it is nothing offensive.
How can we shorten the information so as to reduce the weight given to it? How about 'There has been some speculation over Anderson Cooper's sexuality (with cites) and he has declined to comment when questioned directly about it (inc cite)? I personally don't like Trivia sections as a rule, where would it fit best within the prose of the article?- Localzuk (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I thought we had agreed to remove speculation from this section and shorten it into something that wasn't given undue weight? Why then, do we now have a large chunk of information about some comedian using Anderson Cooper as the punchline in a joke? IT IS A JOKE!! It should not be taken seriously as speculation. Why is it here? Who says it is the most widely reported example?
This has just proven to me that you have no concept of the number of people on this site who do not think there should be idle speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality in this article. Have a look through the history - you will see various people removing the information, including someone just 2 days after our discussion. You have not stuck to our compromise, you have just gone back to expanding the section with as much juicy rumour and speculation as possible. I am finding it hard to assume good faith because of these actions.- Localzuk (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI: the latest vandal (IP 147.253.112.43) is coming out of Stetson University in Florida. Mowens35 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Anderson Cooper is appearantly no longer a contributing editor for this magazine. His name has been missing from the acknowledgements section since at least the last issue. - Saturn Yoshi THE VOICES 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
That is too bad, I looked forward to his columns--they were the best thing in that magazine.
Not entirely sure if this is the place but the line, "Personal sources have since confirmed that Cooper is in fact a homosexual." keeps popping up. No one seems to be editing the page itself but I will refresh and then it is gone. I managed to get a screen cap before I refreshed this time [1] can anyone find what the problem is? -- Wonderpup57 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's probably in your browser cache. Do a control F5. That should clear it out. -- immunity 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I clear my cache everytime I close my browser so I don't really think that is it. -- Wonderpup57 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Anderson cooper is married, why is there no mention of his wife in here ? 65.13.3.52 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. I have removed the first paragraph of the Personal life section in response to a complaint made to the Administrator's noticeboard, as it did not seem entirely relevant to Anderson Cooper - a passing mention about his sexuality, even if referenced, is not strictly necessary. The second paragraph remains, as it is about Mr Cooper directly. Please do not re-add the first paragraph, however well referenced you can make it, as it is not directly about Anderson Cooper. The complainant also asked that all discussion of the topic be removed, but that's going too far.. Proto:: ► 10:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Would that be acceptable? Proto:: ► 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BRIMBA - this has not been resolved. I would appreciate you not taking it upon yourself to delete that material, and I ask that you reverse your edit until this has been resolved here. NYDCSP
Until a change occurs within Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons my actions stand. If you have problems with it, I would subject that you reread the policy. Its quite clear. “Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately”. I removed much of the same material on November 5th of last year, using the same reason, and almost an identical edit summery at that time. This has been discussed multiple times, to say that it is not yet settled is to say that it will never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction. In cases such as this, following established policy is our only option. If you are unhappy with that policy, or certain aspects of that policy, fell free to have it changed. Brimba 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
17:02, 2 February 2007 Brimba (Talk | contribs) (Rm material per WP:BLP Reports of speculation concerning someone’s sexual orientation, even when sourced to an established magazine, is still speculation and thus “poorly sourced”.)
"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
- Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.
- Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source."
After another message on my talk page, I have looked into this in more detail. Sorry, NYDCSP, the section as you want it to be is about his sex life, and nothing but. Certainly not his "identity". The entire section headed 'Personal life' does not discuss his family, it does not discuss his hobbies, his hopes, his likes, his dislikes, his favourite kind of cake, anything. All it discusses, for five paragraphs, is gossip about Anderson Cooper's sexuality. It shouldn't even be called "Personal life", as it's misleading; in your version, it may as well be called "Anderson Cooper is gay". Brimba has pared this down. He may have been overeager to cut it down, but right now you are very keen on including the entirety of the gossip from the Washington Blade.
You then include two references to justify the Washington Blade as being a relevant and major news source. The first link, from ABC news, is dead. No such destination exists on their website. The second is a passing mention as being 'influential' in a "wicked whisper" gossip column. I would humbly suggest that this is not sufficient to establish the Washington Blade as a major and relevant news source, and I believe this is why Brimba removed the information. Pursuant to WP:BLP, which requires great care when it comes to biographies of living persons, I agree with him. There is no evidence the Washington Blade is a significant, non-trivial, reliable source.
(Incidentally, the article on the paper itself ( Washington Blade) will end up being deleted if it doesn't improve, incidentally, as it doesn't assert why this newspaper is notable, at all.)
Finally, we have an opinion piece from the aforementioned Washington Blade. The chunk quoted in the article is 90% of what related to Cooper in the editorial (it's almost a trivial mention). It assumes Anderson Cooper is gay, and effectively labels him a hypocrite. I would suggest that this is unnecessary to an encyclopaedia, and does not need to be there. Proto:: ► 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2189570&page=1
At no point do we have verification from Cooper or any other reliable source that he is in fact gay, only speculation. Speculation is not encyclopedic, nor does it have any room in WP. Speculation is only encyclopedic when becomes newsworthy in and of itself. For example if someone was sued by a former companion, or related to some public scandal. To let stand allegations that Cooper or Jodi Foster, or Shepard Smith or anyone else is gay, without proof is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. Cooper was asked, and gave a classic non-answer. That is as much as we can report at this point. The Washington Blade was not speculating that Cooper is gay, they said outright that he is, and called him a hypocrite. Without a reliable source to back that up, we can not use it. We know nether their source, nor their agenda
We have an obligation to make certain that WP is not seen as a vehicle that can be used to “Out” people, or in any other way be used to damage or smear people. Some outings are legitimate, and some are simply smears, and it is beyond the ability of the average editor to determine which is which. The advantage of including such allegations, or in other words the usefulness to the average user of WP, is minimal at best. The liability in terms of negative press and loss of credibility is huge. Policy exists for a reason, and until it changes, this material is out. Brimba 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The section is very problematic and I have removed it. A section on the subject's "Personal life" only includes an article where someone speculated about him being a homosexual? What kind of rationale could support that under WP:BLP? None.
Folks, very few if any famous media personalities have not been subject to speculation about their sexual practices. "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." At bottom, including the speculation is simply not relevant to Cooper's notability.
Also, in a section "Personal life", it presents a WP:Undue weight problem.
The info should be excluded until such time as the subject himself specifically "outs", at which point it will become relevant to his notability.
But speculation about it - again, nearly every media personality alive has been subject of such speculation, and even such things as penis size, whether they provide oral sex to partners, spit or swallow, etc. - is simply not relevant to Cooper's notability.
Sure, it may be "interesting" to some in a sort of gawking way, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.
CyberAnth 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a fairly short article. Too much coverage of the gay rumors would unbalance it. A few lines about the existence of the rumors and his response to them are sufficient. I don't think we need to quote anyone, we can just summarize the material briefly. I'd like to compare this to the Clay Aiken article. That subject likewise is the subject of widespread rumors, jokes, and even one guy trying to publicize a supposed lurid encounter. The issue is very important to the "fandom" and editing mayhem ensued. Several admins got involved (including me) and we eventually developed material that stuck mostly to the on-screen incidents and to his statements, and that's been enforceable. In Cooper's case there are fewer incidents and statements, but it should still stick to what's neutral. The sitcom joke, only heard by a few hundred people, seems very ephemeral. The Washington Blade may be notable, but its opinion is not notable enough to quote at length. Let's just use those as one of the sources for saying that his sexuality is a matter of debate, but that he maintains his privacy. Wikipedia is a long term project - sooner or later we'll be able to say more. - Will Beback · † · 07:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The editor of the Washington Blade, Kevin Naff, has publicly responded to some of the comments above on the Blade Blog. http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=2/2/07&end=2/5/07#11190. Jake1018 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, The New York Blade [4] may enjoy peddling rumour and speculation, but I need to remind all editors that we have a very specific, set-in-stone policy about this sort of thing. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material for more information. We are building an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. Unless you have hard evidence of a particular sexual position of an individual, it's best to either mention it very briefly, or not at all if it can't be done tastefully. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to take a look at the state of this article again and oh my goodness people! The fact that the removal of the sexual orientation section was basically described as homophobic censorship by a Managing Editor at the Washington Blade, "America's gay newspaper of record" (as per its Wikipedia entry), has elevated its status from trivia+1 to public controversy. So you go ahead and try to delete it now and watch the *mainstream media* pick up this story. Does anyone (other than trouble makers) want it mentioned on the Colbert Report? Please do not delete the sexual orientation section or I will be forced to rv it as vandalism. Corrections and improvements though, as always, are welcomed and appreciated :) -- Limulus 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The central point has now shifted from his sexual orientation (first two) to the censorship of information about it (third). -- Limulus 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the violation of WP:AGF I will say this. I am the author of most of the comments quoted with the editorial. In my lifetime I can never remember a time before when I have been described as Homophobic. I have had a gay roommate in the past, one who was openly and publicly gay, he was a good guy, and I could not see any reason for it being an issue. I have also had another roommate sometime before this whom I assumed to be gay. He never said. It was his life and none of my business unless he decided to make it my business. I also know from past experience what it is like to have been “outed” when you where never “in”. I know what it is like to have the same roommate for so long that people begin to assume that there is more to the story. I know what it is like to have a friend who is gay show up at work and then become the source of gossip at the office. You can not disprove it, the best thing you can do is to keep your mouth shut. And lastly I know what it is like to be interested in someone who is female, who already “knows” that you are gay, because everyone knows it. And that last part is the problem. If it where not for that, I suppose it would not be an issue.
Attempting to force someone into a nice neat box for your own benefit, or the benefit of your argument is morally indefensible. People have a right to be themselves, if they choose to place themselves into a box, then that is their choice. We have zero proof, all we have is speculation. And beyond that it is not for us to second guess an individual and his choice. Does it sometimes happen, yes, it does. The fact that it happens at other times mean that we are obligated to allow it to happen here? No we are under no such obligation.
Now getting back to WP. We have policy, policy that is spelled out in detail, which anyone can read. We do not change those policies because someone calls us names. We do not bend because it is expedient at that particular moment to do so. They where created based upon past experience so that we would have something to guide us in just this type of case.
WP:BLP states clearly: We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. … The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
We do not source to blogs, nor to op-ed piece that are highly POV. We do not reference speculation, unless that speculation itself has become highly newsworthy. A simple search of Google News shows this has not occurred, contrary to the argument made above. No major news service has picked it up, nor has any minor news source, infact no one has except for WB. Whatever the perceive notability of the “conflict” between WP and the WB, no one has made reference to it. In the end we hold to policy, because we have policy, and we have it for a reason.
Somehow this talk page is itself deemed notable within AC’s Bio. I am sorry, it escapes me entirely as to how that could be. Nor is the dubious “but it has been further claimed that discussion of Cooper's sexuality is increasingly seen as a liability to his career, and so is no longer publicly acknowledged: "[H]is handlers at CNN... [are] known to call sites and ask editors to delete references to Anderson Cooper being gay".” Strange, I guess Ted lost my number somehow. Brimba 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well as I see it we are almost there with this issue. However, as it stands it just doesn't make sense as there is no context. It states that he has denied to answer questions about his sexuality but doesn't mention anything about why this is important. We need to have a brief mention of the fact that it has been talked about. What we want is a brief - 2 sentences - analysis of the entire situation, avoiding being overly verbose.- Localzuk (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sexual orientation is very well known to be a highly charged subject as of today (10-Feb-2007), and there is no reason why a website purporting itself to be an encyclopedia should take it upon itself to use copy from a very few recently published sources to speculate upon the sexual orientation of a subject of a Wikipedia biography. While Wikipedia defines itself as being superior to a periodically printed encyclopedia because it can be more current, and in fact online and 'instant', it also defines rules of editorship which encourage it to be circumspect and cautious with facts because of that reason. Time always yields more information. Where does the rush to define or infer the sexual orientation of a biographical subject come from? Is Wikipedia more concerned with being 'current', as in the sense of a periodical or tabloid, or is it more concerned with being 'right', as described in its own guidelines? As with other subjects such as David Bowie and Mick Jagger, time will tell as to what the reportage of sexual orientation should be in a given biography. But in the meantime, intense efforts toward one view or another need to be closely examined for their political motives, which must not hold sway in regards to constructing biographies, and in particular, current biographies. Again, in reading Wikipedia's own self-definition, it holds itself to be superior to printed encyclopedias because it does not have to wait years until the next edition is published. However, if Wikipedia chooses to call itself an encyclopedia, then it must avoid 'tabloidization.' The personal lives of public figures are long and varied. Despite the ability of Wikipedia to paste in and out the current activities of public figures, is that really the mission of a website claiming to be an encyclopedia?
Hallo! ;) wow... what unbalanced news! what do U consider about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.13.99.14 ( talk) 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
As you might check in my profile, I was the person requesting the initial edit of his biography and the compliance of the regulations. It is very disappointing to see, how this topic has been managed without good faith, and capitalized by other gossip sites and magazines for their own profit and promotion.
My initial request was based in the WP:BLP policy that stated:
WP:BLP states clearly: We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. … The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
The editor considered it to be too much, and the talk page remain the same, becoming a widespread source of speculation, and ultimately a joke, mining the credibility of the Wiki project. There is proof of lack of good faith of some of the people editing the entry, they plan their edits in gay gossip forums, Datalounge:10 Years of Gay Gossip, Politics and Pointless Bitchery, [7], where they have a thread for this issue, they contact people in the media ( as the Blade blogger ) in order to take the issue mainstream and pressure the editors of this site to bend the policies and give in to their request in sheer violation of Mr. Cooper's rights. For many it has become a hobbie to stir things up over this discussion page in order to crawl back to their forums and blogs and keep their entertainment and gossip alive.
Now you, Wikipedia, are facing an open call from another gossip site - gawker.com - to flood the entry. [8].
So much for compliance. Worldnewsjunkie 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It's be nice if we had a photograph of Anderson here. Would a screen cap from his tv show be considered legit? What would this be, fair use, public domain or other? -- Sketchee 20:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I basically mean in the Public, because a lot of people at my school and in my family do find his show boring and not appealing anymore. So, I was wondering did his popularity drop across the board?
Anderson was NOT in Skull and Bones, but rather another secret society - Manuscript. I believe the society has a wikipedia entry. Their "tomb" is on Elm st. in New Haven.
Does anyone know if he was in Skull and Bones?
I've found references online to Molly, Ozzie and both. Could it be that he had Ozzie first, got Molly and then Ozzie passed away? If anyone knows more about his dog(s) please post here. -- Limulus 04:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone seen/heard anything about Cooper's theological beliefs? It just struck me that I haven't run across mention of religion in any of the articles I've read about him. -- Limulus 05:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
His father, Wyatt Cooper, was raised Southern Baptist. His mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, was raised Catholic. I've heard Anderson is Episcopalian - no confirmation though. He does, however, collect crucifixes.
I've seen him say "god bless you" or similar such things to people during the reporting of Katrina/Rita. I've never come across him discussing his religious beliefs in public, though. 65.186.79.160 01:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a large crucifix on the wall of one of the rooms in Anderson's former loft in the InStyle photo shoot and another that was on a nightstand.
Some think anderson is a bit of a sensationalist
On 15:38, 2 January 2006, William Graham removed the Fansites subsection from External links for the reason that "Wikipedia is not a directory of fansites":
While I agree in principle, some of those might have interesting content worth linking to; should any of them go back in? -- Limulus 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
God, this shouldn't matter, but how can anyone not be convinced that Anderson Cooper is gay? Ask virtually any gay man living in New York City in the mid 1990's whether or not they've seen Anderson at a gay bar (Boiler Room, anyone?) or whether or not he's dated their friends (he's dated some of mine). I think the refusal to believe he's gay is mostly due to America's continual refusal to believe anyone more masculine that Paul Lynde is gay.
He's gay. Who cares. Move on.
216.57.33.131 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Jimbo
New to Wiki http://www.gawker.com/news/media/anderson-cooper/anderson-cooper-always-super-always-sweet-always-sixteen-039825.php http://youcantmakeitup.blogspot.com/2005/04/anderson-cooper-gay-or-flaming.html It's about Anderson liking Super Sweet 16 and Walter Mercado. What do you think of that? And about the "we" vs "you" thing http://www.gawker.com/news/media//anderson-cooper-ignores-us-026614.php http://www.gawker.com/news/media/anderson-cooper/the-final-word-on-anderson-cooper-026720.php I think we can put that to rest.
-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.151.239.154 ( talk • contribs) .
-As the above user comments on Mr. Cooper's sexuality, I am not absolutely sure that the line about the "persistent rumors" is necessary for his wiki article. Now I am actually myself positive that he is indeed gay. When Mr. Cooper was actually living in Atlanta he came into a gay club and ordered a drink down the bar from me. He appeared to be waiting for someone. Wouldn’t stand up in court but that was enough given all else that is known about Cooper to convince me. That said, until if and when Mr. Cooper makes a statement on his sexuality could it be best to leave the matter aside?-- Francis Burdett 20:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cooper is gay. -- ThomasK 06:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
From Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, "This category is a partial listing of notable gay, lesbian and bisexual people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation, or whose sexual orientation is known and not debated by historians." I don't really think that Anderson Cooper fits this definition and I think that the categorization should be removed from this article. Whether or not he is gay, he has not publicly declared his sexual orientation, and it seems to be a matter of some debate. -- timc | Talk 17:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, even though it is obvious to those who really care, he hasn't come out and declared his sexual orientation. I really think it should be removed from the article. -- waffle iron 23:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
This is suppose to be an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how many people in Anderson Cooper's neighbourhood "know" that he's gay. The fact that he's gay should only be added to the article if there is conclusive proof, verifiable by the reader. More importantly his sexual orientation should only be added if it is relevant to this article. There are thousands of biographical entries in Wikipedia where the subject's sexual orientaion is not mentioned. -- 65.94.43.50
While I do not know if he is gay or not, it is relevant to this entry because of the numerous discussions about his sexual orientation online (e.g. on BlogActive). To maintain a neutal POV, I have quoted from NY Magazine (see the fourth page) which gives quite a bit of background to the issue and quotes Cooper directly... he doesn't want to talk about his "personal life" ^_- But that non-answer in itself is something. I tried to tie it into the "Cooper has frequently been involved with gay and lesbian issues" section; sorry if the connection looks a bit clunky. -- Limulus 11:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The stuff about his proported sexuality has creeped back in. Should it stay? -- waffle iron 04:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
No. We still don't have word from him. It's just speculation. At the most it deserves a short mention and possibly a link to the homosexual speculation page.
It just reads like tabloid fodder. Maybe if you clean it up a bit, the whole "many in the gay community..." comment in particular. What many? Who? Just random gays polled by the people at Gallup? And the "his handlers at CNN [are] known to call sites..." quote as well. I'd like to know where this was quoted from and have a direct link to the original document or at least reference it's source. And it's none of our business why he "dodges" the question. It's his life; let him live it. Until he says "I'm queer and here" from atop a broken levee, it is still just speculation. And poorly sourced speculation at that.
# Here's another way to look at it: Presumably it doesn't really matter whether or not he's gay, and he's made it plain that he doesn't want the matter to be part of discussion about him. Therefore, we should pull this from the article until such time as it may become relevant. -- 03 November 2005
It just doesn't seem right for some reason. Something about the presentation. I'll think about it.
What's the BFD? I'm straight and a Christian. My wife and I watch Anderson Cooper almost every night. Why? Because he's a good reporter and he's not afraid to ask tough questions! If he wants to keep his sexuality private, why not let him? What would his being gay or straight have to do with his journalistic abilities? I'm a heavy metal musician and it doesn't lessen my admiration for their abilities one bit that Rob Halford of Judas Priest is gay or that the late Freddie Mercury was bisexual. What they do/did in their bedrooms is not my business...same with Anderson Cooper.-- MarshallStack 04:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
He must be gay if he cant answer the question. I dont think its a big deal but people make it a big deal in shying away from answering the question. Most straight people have no issues with saying they are straight, its as easy as pie whether they are your next door neighbour or famous news anchors. Its the non straight folks that are challenged with stating their preferences. Hes probably gay... but it shouldn't matter anyway and really non of us should care.
As a public personality, many people are interested in sexual orientation, not to invade privacy. A professional astrologer did calculate his chart and rectify his rising sign and he definitely has a higher than normal sex drive, and if he was born in the morning between 8 AM and 11:30 AM, he definetly has planetary position of homosexuality that has been common in most gay celebrities' charts. However, it is not a planetary placement for a gay lover, but rather the type of gay man who likes gay sex for a psychological release or lust, etc. to say it discreetly, With Leo rising, Sun in 10th house of Public, and the North Node riding the crest of his medio coili, fame and public career are evident. But all of this is subject to correction of birth information and calculation of his fixed star placements, asteroids and black holes.
Actually, Anderson was born between 3:00pm and 3:30pm.
This entry is solely based on controversial material and it is unsourced or poorly sourced and must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. Only when FACTS or official statement regarding this issue should be included. This entry will be reported to the board.
Checking the bios that we have on his ancestor, I don't see any trace of English heritage. The Vanderbilts came to America in 1650. If a family has been in a country for a few generations, that becomes their nation. When was Cooper's last ancestor born in England? - Willmcw 00:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's usually reported as "Spanish" and "Chilean" as if referring to two separate ethnic groups. But both are obviously referring to the same ancestor of Cooper's.
This is from the article on his maternal grandmother, Gloria Laura Mercedes Morgan-Vanderbilt "Gloria Morgan's maternal grandfather, Hugh Judson Kilpatrick (1836–1881), was a Union Army general during the American Civil War who also served as the U.S. minister to Chile where he met Gloria's grandmother, an aristocrat whose family are said to be descendants of Spain's royal house of Navarre." Obviously this Chilean grandmother of Morgan's was Spanish in ancestry; I didn't feel the need to mention Chilean for Anderson Cooper's ancestry, since Chilean is not really an ethnic background - it can refer to several things i.e. Native American/Spanish, just Spanish, etc. So he can be described as 1/16th Chilean or 1/16th Spanish - I just thought Spanish more accurately conveys it. To answer your question, it's not so much how many generations, but rather the exact ethnic makeup of a person - since no one is really American without some sort of a hyphen. The rules we usually use for these ethnic labels (i.e. English-American) is the person being at least 1/4 of whichever group. This limits the person to 4 groups. People like Val Kilmer or David Carradine, who have such mixed ancestries that they don't even have a "full" quarter of anything, are not listed under any groups. Vulturell 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Because:
1) It's completely irrelevant regarding Anderson Cooper's work.
2) He DOES NOT like to talk about his personal life. Plus, his job is in journalism, not gaynalism or something. 209.124.124.219
Strong Agree: Unless he comes out personally and addresses the issue for his own reasons (either way) I don't see why this is in the article. It is 100% speculation and non encyclopedic. Are there is he or isn't he sections in every journalist's entry in Wiki? JMHO. KsprayDad 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the Trivia section for a few reasons:
I changed the wording of the item about his height for reasons outlined at http://letmespellitoutforyou.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-i-hate-wikis.html Letmespellitoutforyou 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone remember when he was on Channel 1? I remember him crying on camera in Bosnia because he was afraid of getting shot. Wolf Blitzer wouldn't have cried.
i guess many ppl would cry, but most of them are not shown in front of the camera
I added that he was actually born in New York City, because I didn't think it was clearly stated where he was born - just where he is "based" and where he usually broadcasts he show. - Fairy Incognito 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's be nice if we had a photograph of Anderson here. Would a screen cap from his tv show be considered legit? What would this be, fair use, public domain or other? -- Sketchee 20:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
I basically mean in the Public, because a lot of people at my school and in my family do find his show boring and not appealing anymore. So, I was wondering did his popularity drop across the board?
I too question the addition of 'former child fashion model' to Cooper's bio, and certainly in the first para. If you could point me to similar notables whose pre-teen careers as dogwalker, baby sitter, lawn mower or paper carrier is also highlighted in the first paragraph, I would be very interested to see it. The only exception should be those whose showbiz careers started as child actors or mouseketeers, for instance, or working models who began as child models.
I suggest its continuous re-inclusion in this page is the work of detractors (possibly even Aaron Brown) who feel Cooper is a journalistic lightweight and this is their way of making their not-so-subtle point.
If would be nice if someone mentioned or wrote about his reporting during the Sago Mine Disaster and that if he dosent know something about a subject hes not afriad to ask questions and learn on air-- 24.23.82.233 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
An irked CNN viewer with a poor command of the English language seems to have added this biased section to the article. Can it be removed?
Who keeps putting this back in? Cooper is Wyatt's younger and Gloria's youngest son. - Arthur, July 28
Anybody know the exact months and years Cooper anchored ABC's overnight World News Now? And, with which co-anchors? Thanks. Thisthema n 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about exact dates, but he co-anchored with Alison Stewart and sometimes JuJu Philips.
Half the information in this article is unsourced POV and Original Research. - 24.92.41.95 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I was shocked to see that this entire section was removed, without further discussion that I've found. It was removed at 21:02, on 7 September 2006 by Worldnewsjunkie, without an edit summary, and it missed my notice and I am sure that of many others. The general consensus, as I read it on this page, is that an encyclopaedic discussion of the man should include a NPOV discussion of this part of his life as much as any other heterosexual, ambisexual or homosexual person. If you disagree, open the discussion here. Doc ♬ talk 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the policy on biographies of living persons (in particular the sections on reliable sources and presumption in favour of privacy), as well as the suggestion that "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages", I'm inclined to say that this doesn't belong here. At most I think there could be mention that there are persistent rumours regarding Cooper's sexuality, and that he has declined to comment. Incidentally, while formatting the block qoutes and references for this section I discovered that the link to the reference material (which is also a source for a number of other quotes in this article) is no longer active. GeekLove 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A CNN video on youtube is circulating, with Robin Williams indirectly poking fun at Cooper's sexual orientation. Notable? Jumping cheese Cont @ ct 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is widely rumored both within and outside of the gay community that Anderson Cooper is gay. Several prominent website bloggers, notably Perez Hilton (Mario Lavandeira) have questioned Anderson Cooper's sexuality. Whether or not these speculations are true is not the issue, the issue is that this article should accurately portray all aspects of the persona, and the fact is that his sexuality is indeed questioned, and it has generated enough interest for it to be notable. His PR people should not be deleting this section. 3 January 2007
assume good faith? isn't that mindframe slightly archaic? is homosexuality a detractor overall? good faith, bullshit. homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of; it is nothing offensive.
How can we shorten the information so as to reduce the weight given to it? How about 'There has been some speculation over Anderson Cooper's sexuality (with cites) and he has declined to comment when questioned directly about it (inc cite)? I personally don't like Trivia sections as a rule, where would it fit best within the prose of the article?- Localzuk (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I thought we had agreed to remove speculation from this section and shorten it into something that wasn't given undue weight? Why then, do we now have a large chunk of information about some comedian using Anderson Cooper as the punchline in a joke? IT IS A JOKE!! It should not be taken seriously as speculation. Why is it here? Who says it is the most widely reported example?
This has just proven to me that you have no concept of the number of people on this site who do not think there should be idle speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality in this article. Have a look through the history - you will see various people removing the information, including someone just 2 days after our discussion. You have not stuck to our compromise, you have just gone back to expanding the section with as much juicy rumour and speculation as possible. I am finding it hard to assume good faith because of these actions.- Localzuk (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI: the latest vandal (IP 147.253.112.43) is coming out of Stetson University in Florida. Mowens35 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Anderson Cooper is appearantly no longer a contributing editor for this magazine. His name has been missing from the acknowledgements section since at least the last issue. - Saturn Yoshi THE VOICES 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
That is too bad, I looked forward to his columns--they were the best thing in that magazine.
Not entirely sure if this is the place but the line, "Personal sources have since confirmed that Cooper is in fact a homosexual." keeps popping up. No one seems to be editing the page itself but I will refresh and then it is gone. I managed to get a screen cap before I refreshed this time [1] can anyone find what the problem is? -- Wonderpup57 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's probably in your browser cache. Do a control F5. That should clear it out. -- immunity 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I clear my cache everytime I close my browser so I don't really think that is it. -- Wonderpup57 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Anderson cooper is married, why is there no mention of his wife in here ? 65.13.3.52 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. I have removed the first paragraph of the Personal life section in response to a complaint made to the Administrator's noticeboard, as it did not seem entirely relevant to Anderson Cooper - a passing mention about his sexuality, even if referenced, is not strictly necessary. The second paragraph remains, as it is about Mr Cooper directly. Please do not re-add the first paragraph, however well referenced you can make it, as it is not directly about Anderson Cooper. The complainant also asked that all discussion of the topic be removed, but that's going too far.. Proto:: ► 10:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Would that be acceptable? Proto:: ► 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BRIMBA - this has not been resolved. I would appreciate you not taking it upon yourself to delete that material, and I ask that you reverse your edit until this has been resolved here. NYDCSP
Until a change occurs within Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons my actions stand. If you have problems with it, I would subject that you reread the policy. Its quite clear. “Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately”. I removed much of the same material on November 5th of last year, using the same reason, and almost an identical edit summery at that time. This has been discussed multiple times, to say that it is not yet settled is to say that it will never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction. In cases such as this, following established policy is our only option. If you are unhappy with that policy, or certain aspects of that policy, fell free to have it changed. Brimba 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
17:02, 2 February 2007 Brimba (Talk | contribs) (Rm material per WP:BLP Reports of speculation concerning someone’s sexual orientation, even when sourced to an established magazine, is still speculation and thus “poorly sourced”.)
"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
- Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.
- Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source."
After another message on my talk page, I have looked into this in more detail. Sorry, NYDCSP, the section as you want it to be is about his sex life, and nothing but. Certainly not his "identity". The entire section headed 'Personal life' does not discuss his family, it does not discuss his hobbies, his hopes, his likes, his dislikes, his favourite kind of cake, anything. All it discusses, for five paragraphs, is gossip about Anderson Cooper's sexuality. It shouldn't even be called "Personal life", as it's misleading; in your version, it may as well be called "Anderson Cooper is gay". Brimba has pared this down. He may have been overeager to cut it down, but right now you are very keen on including the entirety of the gossip from the Washington Blade.
You then include two references to justify the Washington Blade as being a relevant and major news source. The first link, from ABC news, is dead. No such destination exists on their website. The second is a passing mention as being 'influential' in a "wicked whisper" gossip column. I would humbly suggest that this is not sufficient to establish the Washington Blade as a major and relevant news source, and I believe this is why Brimba removed the information. Pursuant to WP:BLP, which requires great care when it comes to biographies of living persons, I agree with him. There is no evidence the Washington Blade is a significant, non-trivial, reliable source.
(Incidentally, the article on the paper itself ( Washington Blade) will end up being deleted if it doesn't improve, incidentally, as it doesn't assert why this newspaper is notable, at all.)
Finally, we have an opinion piece from the aforementioned Washington Blade. The chunk quoted in the article is 90% of what related to Cooper in the editorial (it's almost a trivial mention). It assumes Anderson Cooper is gay, and effectively labels him a hypocrite. I would suggest that this is unnecessary to an encyclopaedia, and does not need to be there. Proto:: ► 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2189570&page=1
At no point do we have verification from Cooper or any other reliable source that he is in fact gay, only speculation. Speculation is not encyclopedic, nor does it have any room in WP. Speculation is only encyclopedic when becomes newsworthy in and of itself. For example if someone was sued by a former companion, or related to some public scandal. To let stand allegations that Cooper or Jodi Foster, or Shepard Smith or anyone else is gay, without proof is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. Cooper was asked, and gave a classic non-answer. That is as much as we can report at this point. The Washington Blade was not speculating that Cooper is gay, they said outright that he is, and called him a hypocrite. Without a reliable source to back that up, we can not use it. We know nether their source, nor their agenda
We have an obligation to make certain that WP is not seen as a vehicle that can be used to “Out” people, or in any other way be used to damage or smear people. Some outings are legitimate, and some are simply smears, and it is beyond the ability of the average editor to determine which is which. The advantage of including such allegations, or in other words the usefulness to the average user of WP, is minimal at best. The liability in terms of negative press and loss of credibility is huge. Policy exists for a reason, and until it changes, this material is out. Brimba 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The section is very problematic and I have removed it. A section on the subject's "Personal life" only includes an article where someone speculated about him being a homosexual? What kind of rationale could support that under WP:BLP? None.
Folks, very few if any famous media personalities have not been subject to speculation about their sexual practices. "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." At bottom, including the speculation is simply not relevant to Cooper's notability.
Also, in a section "Personal life", it presents a WP:Undue weight problem.
The info should be excluded until such time as the subject himself specifically "outs", at which point it will become relevant to his notability.
But speculation about it - again, nearly every media personality alive has been subject of such speculation, and even such things as penis size, whether they provide oral sex to partners, spit or swallow, etc. - is simply not relevant to Cooper's notability.
Sure, it may be "interesting" to some in a sort of gawking way, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.
CyberAnth 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a fairly short article. Too much coverage of the gay rumors would unbalance it. A few lines about the existence of the rumors and his response to them are sufficient. I don't think we need to quote anyone, we can just summarize the material briefly. I'd like to compare this to the Clay Aiken article. That subject likewise is the subject of widespread rumors, jokes, and even one guy trying to publicize a supposed lurid encounter. The issue is very important to the "fandom" and editing mayhem ensued. Several admins got involved (including me) and we eventually developed material that stuck mostly to the on-screen incidents and to his statements, and that's been enforceable. In Cooper's case there are fewer incidents and statements, but it should still stick to what's neutral. The sitcom joke, only heard by a few hundred people, seems very ephemeral. The Washington Blade may be notable, but its opinion is not notable enough to quote at length. Let's just use those as one of the sources for saying that his sexuality is a matter of debate, but that he maintains his privacy. Wikipedia is a long term project - sooner or later we'll be able to say more. - Will Beback · † · 07:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The editor of the Washington Blade, Kevin Naff, has publicly responded to some of the comments above on the Blade Blog. http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=2/2/07&end=2/5/07#11190. Jake1018 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, The New York Blade [4] may enjoy peddling rumour and speculation, but I need to remind all editors that we have a very specific, set-in-stone policy about this sort of thing. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material for more information. We are building an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. Unless you have hard evidence of a particular sexual position of an individual, it's best to either mention it very briefly, or not at all if it can't be done tastefully. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to take a look at the state of this article again and oh my goodness people! The fact that the removal of the sexual orientation section was basically described as homophobic censorship by a Managing Editor at the Washington Blade, "America's gay newspaper of record" (as per its Wikipedia entry), has elevated its status from trivia+1 to public controversy. So you go ahead and try to delete it now and watch the *mainstream media* pick up this story. Does anyone (other than trouble makers) want it mentioned on the Colbert Report? Please do not delete the sexual orientation section or I will be forced to rv it as vandalism. Corrections and improvements though, as always, are welcomed and appreciated :) -- Limulus 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The central point has now shifted from his sexual orientation (first two) to the censorship of information about it (third). -- Limulus 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the violation of WP:AGF I will say this. I am the author of most of the comments quoted with the editorial. In my lifetime I can never remember a time before when I have been described as Homophobic. I have had a gay roommate in the past, one who was openly and publicly gay, he was a good guy, and I could not see any reason for it being an issue. I have also had another roommate sometime before this whom I assumed to be gay. He never said. It was his life and none of my business unless he decided to make it my business. I also know from past experience what it is like to have been “outed” when you where never “in”. I know what it is like to have the same roommate for so long that people begin to assume that there is more to the story. I know what it is like to have a friend who is gay show up at work and then become the source of gossip at the office. You can not disprove it, the best thing you can do is to keep your mouth shut. And lastly I know what it is like to be interested in someone who is female, who already “knows” that you are gay, because everyone knows it. And that last part is the problem. If it where not for that, I suppose it would not be an issue.
Attempting to force someone into a nice neat box for your own benefit, or the benefit of your argument is morally indefensible. People have a right to be themselves, if they choose to place themselves into a box, then that is their choice. We have zero proof, all we have is speculation. And beyond that it is not for us to second guess an individual and his choice. Does it sometimes happen, yes, it does. The fact that it happens at other times mean that we are obligated to allow it to happen here? No we are under no such obligation.
Now getting back to WP. We have policy, policy that is spelled out in detail, which anyone can read. We do not change those policies because someone calls us names. We do not bend because it is expedient at that particular moment to do so. They where created based upon past experience so that we would have something to guide us in just this type of case.
WP:BLP states clearly: We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. … The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
We do not source to blogs, nor to op-ed piece that are highly POV. We do not reference speculation, unless that speculation itself has become highly newsworthy. A simple search of Google News shows this has not occurred, contrary to the argument made above. No major news service has picked it up, nor has any minor news source, infact no one has except for WB. Whatever the perceive notability of the “conflict” between WP and the WB, no one has made reference to it. In the end we hold to policy, because we have policy, and we have it for a reason.
Somehow this talk page is itself deemed notable within AC’s Bio. I am sorry, it escapes me entirely as to how that could be. Nor is the dubious “but it has been further claimed that discussion of Cooper's sexuality is increasingly seen as a liability to his career, and so is no longer publicly acknowledged: "[H]is handlers at CNN... [are] known to call sites and ask editors to delete references to Anderson Cooper being gay".” Strange, I guess Ted lost my number somehow. Brimba 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well as I see it we are almost there with this issue. However, as it stands it just doesn't make sense as there is no context. It states that he has denied to answer questions about his sexuality but doesn't mention anything about why this is important. We need to have a brief mention of the fact that it has been talked about. What we want is a brief - 2 sentences - analysis of the entire situation, avoiding being overly verbose.- Localzuk (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sexual orientation is very well known to be a highly charged subject as of today (10-Feb-2007), and there is no reason why a website purporting itself to be an encyclopedia should take it upon itself to use copy from a very few recently published sources to speculate upon the sexual orientation of a subject of a Wikipedia biography. While Wikipedia defines itself as being superior to a periodically printed encyclopedia because it can be more current, and in fact online and 'instant', it also defines rules of editorship which encourage it to be circumspect and cautious with facts because of that reason. Time always yields more information. Where does the rush to define or infer the sexual orientation of a biographical subject come from? Is Wikipedia more concerned with being 'current', as in the sense of a periodical or tabloid, or is it more concerned with being 'right', as described in its own guidelines? As with other subjects such as David Bowie and Mick Jagger, time will tell as to what the reportage of sexual orientation should be in a given biography. But in the meantime, intense efforts toward one view or another need to be closely examined for their political motives, which must not hold sway in regards to constructing biographies, and in particular, current biographies. Again, in reading Wikipedia's own self-definition, it holds itself to be superior to printed encyclopedias because it does not have to wait years until the next edition is published. However, if Wikipedia chooses to call itself an encyclopedia, then it must avoid 'tabloidization.' The personal lives of public figures are long and varied. Despite the ability of Wikipedia to paste in and out the current activities of public figures, is that really the mission of a website claiming to be an encyclopedia?
Hallo! ;) wow... what unbalanced news! what do U consider about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.13.99.14 ( talk) 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
As you might check in my profile, I was the person requesting the initial edit of his biography and the compliance of the regulations. It is very disappointing to see, how this topic has been managed without good faith, and capitalized by other gossip sites and magazines for their own profit and promotion.
My initial request was based in the WP:BLP policy that stated:
WP:BLP states clearly: We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. … The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
The editor considered it to be too much, and the talk page remain the same, becoming a widespread source of speculation, and ultimately a joke, mining the credibility of the Wiki project. There is proof of lack of good faith of some of the people editing the entry, they plan their edits in gay gossip forums, Datalounge:10 Years of Gay Gossip, Politics and Pointless Bitchery, [7], where they have a thread for this issue, they contact people in the media ( as the Blade blogger ) in order to take the issue mainstream and pressure the editors of this site to bend the policies and give in to their request in sheer violation of Mr. Cooper's rights. For many it has become a hobbie to stir things up over this discussion page in order to crawl back to their forums and blogs and keep their entertainment and gossip alive.
Now you, Wikipedia, are facing an open call from another gossip site - gawker.com - to flood the entry. [8].
So much for compliance. Worldnewsjunkie 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)