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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
“ | Cooper has never married and has actively avoided discussing his romantic relationships - which have been the subject of intense speculation - citing a desire to protect his neutrality as a journalist:
[1]
[2]
This contrasts with his mother's life spent in the spotlight of tabloids and her publication of memoirs explicitly detailing her affairs with celebrities; Cooper vowed "not to repeat that strategy". [3] [4] [5] Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay, and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second behind David Geffen in their list of the fifty "Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America." [6] [7] [8] [9] In New York, fellow news journalist Keith Olbermann criticized Cooper for again refusing to talk about his private life, this time for a Men’s Journal article. [10] Olbermann pointed out what he saw as hypocrisy in Cooper's writing "personal stuff for public display" (in Dispatches from the Edge) - including the deaths of his father and brother - so other personal life questions are also relevant. [10] Washington Blade's editor, Kevin Naff, also called the apparent contradiction hypocritical noting that Cooper had asked another celebrity, Kenny Chesney, if he was gay in a 60 Minutes interview. [11] Out columnist Josh Kilmer-Purcell noted that as early as the 1990s at ABC "it was common knowledge in the newsroom even then that Anderson was gay". [12] [13] Cooper has acknowledged that by not directly answering the question of his sexuality he may be engendering speculation. [14] Cooper has expressed a desire to have a family and children. [14] |
” |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I think the above content is written neutrally and sourced well. There is another source available linking Cooper romantically with Queer Eye's Carson Kressley but all indications are that they are no longer dating.
Some other sources include:
There are many reports on his dating various men but none of those relationships seem to be notable enough for inclusion as of yet. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Benji is correct, there is no doubt that the reliable sources are there. The arguments to exclude appear to me to be based on an overly cautious and overly conservative reading of BLP. Policy can't cover every and any conceivable situation. Cooper's sexuality is an open secret in the gay community and apparently also in the newsrooms. Much like Ellen DeGeneres, Lance Bass and others that were known to be gay before they officially came out. Why is this kind of information relevant to the article? Reporters are required to disclose any COI, or even the perception of COI, when reporting. A reporter's orientation is clearly relevant when involved in sexuality issues. Some day, the world may be a place where one's sexual identity and orientation is as unremarkable as one's handiness or eye color. Until then, because of the "assumption of heterosexuality", non mainstream sexuality can be a relevant issue. Not for everyone obviously, but certainly for some. Also, as a separate issue, I'm clarifying and adding to some comments made before. The word homosexual outside a clinical context is pejorative (although personally I find it objectionable even there), since it is used by some anti-gay groups to imply a sickness or mental disorder, and it's a term of oppression based on membership in a group, much like the N word is to African-Americans. I'll assume that not every one is aware of that. — Becksguy ( talk) 10:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I would go along with Satyr's cut. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
First my respectful appreciation to all those who are contributing to the debate, including the one contributor with whose position I sincerely disagree. WP is a collaborative effort and I do see now that I should have expressed more appreciation sooner for those who have made such substantial efforts.
My initial reaction to the deletion was to view it as part of a pattern like this [1] of simply deleting information while refusing to discuss. There has also been a lot of obviously homophobic vandalism of this page including anonymous slurs, and my own page was vandalized (for the first time ever) during this debate. Nevertheless, it is important to assume good faith and continue civil discussion. Gabrielthursday did offer discussion, and I do assume good faith (even if misguided, which I will address below). Having stepped back for others to participate more, I would like to accept the gracious invitation to continue to discuss.
The reason why I believed the previous language was agreed was because it resulted from weeks of debate, including multiple drafts, and survived many editors changing the article over a course of months. Even seresin had left the facts in the article, while removing the category tag pursuant to a special policy.
Regarding tags, I would like to point out a somewhat different policy: Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which states, "Inclusion should be justifiable by external references. (For example, even if you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a gay-related category if factual, reliable sources can be provided to support the assertion.) ...A sexuality-specific category could be implemented where sexuality has a specific relation to the topic." That policy does not appear to require a public announcement from the subject.
A compromise is an agreement in which nobody gets exactly what they want, but everyone gets enough that the matter is settled and life can move on. It seemed to me that seresin allowing the facts but removing the tag represented such a compromise. Naturally more sources have emerged since the initial language was drafted, and so it makes sense to update, but I note that all such sources are in the direction of corroborating the underlying fact - there is no controversy as to the fact itself.
Also I do think some comments here underestimate Michael Musto as a reporter. He has been covering NYC social life (including both gossip and fact) for decades. He lives and works in the same city as AC, and works in the same business. WP:RS requires the linked source to be reliable, such as the newspapers that publish Musto's work, but nobody requires a journalist to give up his sources. My guess is Musto's sources may include an ex-boyfriend or even AC himself. In any event, Musto differentiates clearly between gossip and fact, and he would not publish the statement as a fact that he knows unless he has enough justification to satisfy his editors including the publication's fact-checking department.
Many readers turn to WP for a balanced NPOV answer regarding a rumor they have heard. Certainly I have done that many times. It has been said that "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Censoring reliably sourced facts does not really suppress them, it merely damages WP by routing readers elsewhere to get the information.
Lastly, there are two different perceptions at work concerning the fact itself. Some people believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with being gay, and they perceive AC as trying to keep it private. Other people believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being gay, and note the reports that AC is openly gay including introducing a boyfriend in public. In the article quote, AC refers to his "personal life" but does not use the word "private." We are not talking about his Social Security Number, or even his date of birth (which is already in the article). I agree with the deletions of named boyfriends, because they are not public figures in their own right and it is an invasion of their privacy to name them here. However, many other prominent journalists' relationships are included in WP, for example Christiane Amanpour and Walter Cronkite. I disagree vehemently with the notion that AC's sexual orientation raises a conflict of interest or interferes with his work in any way. In fact, his refusal to comment in interviews is part of his dedication to doing his job objectively and not allowing anything of himself to distract from his work. He risks his life for his job, and works very long hours, so I can understand his reluctance to give an interviewer a quote that might overshadow the story. Nevertheless, his statement that he plans to have a family and kids makes it relevant what that family will look like; stating that independent sources have reported he is gay, provides the necessary context. I don't think it does him any favors to suggest there is something wrong with him that he needs to hide, when in fact his work and his life are both exemplary, and reliable sources report the fact (and do not report any denial or concealment other than simply not commenting on it in interviews). TVC 15 ( talk) 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In the case of someone like Larry Craig or Jay Brannan, then yes, I totally agree that it's a BLP issue and should not be included. Same goes for any information that could place a person in jeopardy. I even argued to keep "openly gay" out of the Brannan piece once we knew he didn't want to be so labeled. If some one wants to keep that aspect of themselves personal, private and/or unknown, so be it. But I don't see that in this particular situation given the sources, discussion and statements by Cooper. The laws and courts have upheld the concept that public figures, especially if they sought that position, have a diminished expectation of privacy. Certainly politicians, news anchors, actors, and others that live and/or work in virtual glass houses do. I struck the sentence in my previous comment about sexuality not being a BLP issue. — Becksguy ( talk) 10:35, 8 October 2008 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
“ | Cooper has never married and has actively avoided discussing his romantic relationships - which have been the subject of intense speculation - citing a desire to protect his neutrality as a journalist:
[1]
[2]
This contrasts with his mother's life spent in the spotlight of tabloids and her publication of memoirs explicitly detailing her affairs with celebrities; Cooper vowed "not to repeat that strategy". [3] [4] [5] Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay, and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second behind David Geffen in their list of the fifty "Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America." [6] [7] [8] [9] In New York, fellow news journalist Keith Olbermann criticized Cooper for again refusing to talk about his private life, this time for a Men’s Journal article. [10] Olbermann pointed out what he saw as hypocrisy in Cooper's writing "personal stuff for public display" (in Dispatches from the Edge) - including the deaths of his father and brother - so other personal life questions are also relevant. [10] Washington Blade's editor, Kevin Naff, also called the apparent contradiction hypocritical noting that Cooper had asked another celebrity, Kenny Chesney, if he was gay in a 60 Minutes interview. [11] Out columnist Josh Kilmer-Purcell noted that as early as the 1990s at ABC "it was common knowledge in the newsroom even then that Anderson was gay". [12] [13] Cooper has acknowledged that by not directly answering the question of his sexuality he may be engendering speculation. [14] Cooper has expressed a desire to have a family and children. [14] |
” |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I think the above content is written neutrally and sourced well. There is another source available linking Cooper romantically with Queer Eye's Carson Kressley but all indications are that they are no longer dating.
Some other sources include:
There are many reports on his dating various men but none of those relationships seem to be notable enough for inclusion as of yet. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Benji is correct, there is no doubt that the reliable sources are there. The arguments to exclude appear to me to be based on an overly cautious and overly conservative reading of BLP. Policy can't cover every and any conceivable situation. Cooper's sexuality is an open secret in the gay community and apparently also in the newsrooms. Much like Ellen DeGeneres, Lance Bass and others that were known to be gay before they officially came out. Why is this kind of information relevant to the article? Reporters are required to disclose any COI, or even the perception of COI, when reporting. A reporter's orientation is clearly relevant when involved in sexuality issues. Some day, the world may be a place where one's sexual identity and orientation is as unremarkable as one's handiness or eye color. Until then, because of the "assumption of heterosexuality", non mainstream sexuality can be a relevant issue. Not for everyone obviously, but certainly for some. Also, as a separate issue, I'm clarifying and adding to some comments made before. The word homosexual outside a clinical context is pejorative (although personally I find it objectionable even there), since it is used by some anti-gay groups to imply a sickness or mental disorder, and it's a term of oppression based on membership in a group, much like the N word is to African-Americans. I'll assume that not every one is aware of that. — Becksguy ( talk) 10:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I would go along with Satyr's cut. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
First my respectful appreciation to all those who are contributing to the debate, including the one contributor with whose position I sincerely disagree. WP is a collaborative effort and I do see now that I should have expressed more appreciation sooner for those who have made such substantial efforts.
My initial reaction to the deletion was to view it as part of a pattern like this [1] of simply deleting information while refusing to discuss. There has also been a lot of obviously homophobic vandalism of this page including anonymous slurs, and my own page was vandalized (for the first time ever) during this debate. Nevertheless, it is important to assume good faith and continue civil discussion. Gabrielthursday did offer discussion, and I do assume good faith (even if misguided, which I will address below). Having stepped back for others to participate more, I would like to accept the gracious invitation to continue to discuss.
The reason why I believed the previous language was agreed was because it resulted from weeks of debate, including multiple drafts, and survived many editors changing the article over a course of months. Even seresin had left the facts in the article, while removing the category tag pursuant to a special policy.
Regarding tags, I would like to point out a somewhat different policy: Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which states, "Inclusion should be justifiable by external references. (For example, even if you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a gay-related category if factual, reliable sources can be provided to support the assertion.) ...A sexuality-specific category could be implemented where sexuality has a specific relation to the topic." That policy does not appear to require a public announcement from the subject.
A compromise is an agreement in which nobody gets exactly what they want, but everyone gets enough that the matter is settled and life can move on. It seemed to me that seresin allowing the facts but removing the tag represented such a compromise. Naturally more sources have emerged since the initial language was drafted, and so it makes sense to update, but I note that all such sources are in the direction of corroborating the underlying fact - there is no controversy as to the fact itself.
Also I do think some comments here underestimate Michael Musto as a reporter. He has been covering NYC social life (including both gossip and fact) for decades. He lives and works in the same city as AC, and works in the same business. WP:RS requires the linked source to be reliable, such as the newspapers that publish Musto's work, but nobody requires a journalist to give up his sources. My guess is Musto's sources may include an ex-boyfriend or even AC himself. In any event, Musto differentiates clearly between gossip and fact, and he would not publish the statement as a fact that he knows unless he has enough justification to satisfy his editors including the publication's fact-checking department.
Many readers turn to WP for a balanced NPOV answer regarding a rumor they have heard. Certainly I have done that many times. It has been said that "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Censoring reliably sourced facts does not really suppress them, it merely damages WP by routing readers elsewhere to get the information.
Lastly, there are two different perceptions at work concerning the fact itself. Some people believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with being gay, and they perceive AC as trying to keep it private. Other people believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being gay, and note the reports that AC is openly gay including introducing a boyfriend in public. In the article quote, AC refers to his "personal life" but does not use the word "private." We are not talking about his Social Security Number, or even his date of birth (which is already in the article). I agree with the deletions of named boyfriends, because they are not public figures in their own right and it is an invasion of their privacy to name them here. However, many other prominent journalists' relationships are included in WP, for example Christiane Amanpour and Walter Cronkite. I disagree vehemently with the notion that AC's sexual orientation raises a conflict of interest or interferes with his work in any way. In fact, his refusal to comment in interviews is part of his dedication to doing his job objectively and not allowing anything of himself to distract from his work. He risks his life for his job, and works very long hours, so I can understand his reluctance to give an interviewer a quote that might overshadow the story. Nevertheless, his statement that he plans to have a family and kids makes it relevant what that family will look like; stating that independent sources have reported he is gay, provides the necessary context. I don't think it does him any favors to suggest there is something wrong with him that he needs to hide, when in fact his work and his life are both exemplary, and reliable sources report the fact (and do not report any denial or concealment other than simply not commenting on it in interviews). TVC 15 ( talk) 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In the case of someone like Larry Craig or Jay Brannan, then yes, I totally agree that it's a BLP issue and should not be included. Same goes for any information that could place a person in jeopardy. I even argued to keep "openly gay" out of the Brannan piece once we knew he didn't want to be so labeled. If some one wants to keep that aspect of themselves personal, private and/or unknown, so be it. But I don't see that in this particular situation given the sources, discussion and statements by Cooper. The laws and courts have upheld the concept that public figures, especially if they sought that position, have a diminished expectation of privacy. Certainly politicians, news anchors, actors, and others that live and/or work in virtual glass houses do. I struck the sentence in my previous comment about sexuality not being a BLP issue. — Becksguy ( talk) 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)