![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
{{
editprotected}}
edit protected request remove - page is not protected.
Rjd0060 (
talk)
03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Old text: Some of the book's proceeds are donated to charity. (under the writings section)
New text: Some of the books proceeds is donated to charity.
Reason: Because some, which is singular, is the subject, not proceeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabelAsheB ( talk • contribs)
“ | 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, [note 1] 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] Cooper has expressed a desire to have a family and children but acknowledged that by not directly answering the question of his sexuality he may be engendering speculation. [7] Both fellow news journalist Keith Olbermann and Washington Blade's editor, Kevin Naff, have characterized Cooper's refusals as hypocritical. [8] [9] In New York, Olbermann criticized Cooper for again refusing to talk about his personal life in a Men’s Journal interview although he published a book of "personal stuff for public display" - including the deaths of his father and brother - thus other personal life questions are also relevant. [8] Naff noted that Cooper had asked another celebrity dogged by speculation, Kenny Chesney, if he was gay while conducting an interview on the television newsmagazine 60 Minutes; Chesney stated he was not gay. [9] [10] |
” |
{{
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)
Taking the round of discussion from above here is a new version which hopefully addresses the stated concerns.
Just a follow-up on what I had considered the agreed (consensus) language. According to the article's revision history, it survived basically unchanged through more than 500 article revisions, by countless editors, over more than 15 months. I think that meets or exceeds any definition of consensus seriously propounded. The consensus language remained there until being censored last month. I suggest starting with what we had, and updating if necessary to reflect additional sources.
TVC 15 (
talk)
20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion so far, and in light of WP:SILENCE, I have cautiously restored one sentence to the article. It is just the one sentence that we had before, and that is included in the longer statement proposed above. I don't intend personally to build further on it. Some may want to add more, and I don't have any strong opinion about that, although a long digression might risk creating undue emphasis. TVC 15 ( talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
New to wikipedia, I really hope I'm doing this right. On the newly added piece about AC's supposed sexuality; I frankly don't see how most of this is relevant for an encyclopedia. Yes, there has been speculation on his sexuality, and it has been reported as a fact (without any proof offered/based on third hand accounts) by different sources that he is gay. Still, I'd think what Keith Olbermann or Kevin Naffs have to say on Anderson's silence on the matter is, while they're amongst the more prominent figures to have commented this, not relevant for an encyclopedia page. Given that his sexuality to begin with has nothing to do with AC's job, which is what he would be known for, saying that there has been speculation on his sexuality but that he himself has refused to comment would suffice, is what I would think. Also, just in my opinion, the amount of space and links in this edit dedicated to describing the speculation and criticism makes it, to me, seem like the writer of the edit has a personal problem with Anderson Cooper's refusal to comment, and wants to drive up speculation this way. That's how it comes over to me at least, I could be wrong on that, but I thought I'd say so since if more people feel that way, some bits may possibly need to be rewritten if it does fit within relevant content of the article. (e.g. "- thus other personal life questions are also relevant" is not attributed as a quote to Olbermann, the way it is written now.)
If I may ask? (a) the sources are reliable - Which reliable sources have stated it outright, and what reliable proof did they offer? (b) his statement about having a family and kids makes it relevant (indeed essential for NPOV) to understanding what he means when he says that. - I personally don't think saying you want a family has anything to do with ones sexuality. Would you explain this to me, please? TIA. ( Elphie13 ( talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC))
Hi and thanks for discussing here rather than simply deleting. The "newly added piece" contains a basic sentence that has been in for more than a year (except a brief deletion recently), plus some new sentences about speculation. As to the new sentences on speculation, I personally would not have added them, but I wasn't about to delete them especially after the recent edit war. Regarding question (a), the article links to the most widely recognized reliable sources, for example those listed in Note 1. As for "proof," or to find additional sources, please see the archived discussion. As for relevance, the same could be asked about the fact that he has two older half-brothers, the fact that he had "mild dyslexia" as a child, the fact that he graduated Dalton at 17, and his birthday; yet nobody ever questions whether any of those facts is relevant. The article _still_ provides no sources for any of his supposed national origins ("primarily English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Spanish, and Dutch"), and the article is even tagged accordingly, yet no one objects to the absence of sourcing or the relevance of that information. The article doesn't even provide a source for the birthday, but just goes right ahead and "outs" him as a Gemini, and nobody questions it (or requests "proof" - maybe a certified copy of his birth certificate?). As for the statement about family and kids, maybe "essential" (for NPOV) was too strong a word, but relevant still seems apt, at least in the context of all the other biographical details. Please, if the concern is for sourcing (or now relevance), let's look at the facts that remain unsourced, and probably less relevant. TVC 15 ( talk) 06:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur, mostly, with TVC 15 here. This has been the hotly targeted content so it's better that it's sourced and checked above and beyond. There is plenty of anecdotal information we could - but won't include as it really isn't encyclopedic. Also, just to note, the Olbermann content is accurate to what the source states. I don't believe we've misrepresented anything and we've tried to mitigate the sections prominence by pushing much of it into footnotes so those who are interested can verify the sourcing and expanded details. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Benjiboi. As stated previously, I don't have any strong objection to what's there, and it is well sourced. (For example, the linked Olbermann source includes this quote from him: "You can’t move this big mass of personal stuff out for public display, then people ask questions and you say, ‘Oh, no, I didn’t say there was going to be any questions.’" [4]) However, I do note a sad irony: the edit warriors may have lost the war but won the peace. Previously, the fact that AC is gay was reported as just an ordinary fact like any other biographical detail; now, the article says it causes AC to be "dogged by speculation" and criticism ("hypocritical"). Also, the article now uses the word "speculation" three times, and solely in connection with this well-sourced fact. These changes seem to re-frame what had been a neutral detail into a controversial affliction. As between the two sides in the edit war, which side does that reflect? Kenny Chesney's article doesn't mention the speculation about him, and Kevin Naff doesn't even have his own article, so the language added from the edit war seems mainly to inject the problem that the other side had with the underlying fact itself. TVC 15 ( talk) 06:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As two weeks have passed without further suggestion, I've made the edit discussed above. I corrected the Olbermann quote to match the source, and switched the sentence sequence to reflect Benjiboi's comment above. Everyone thinks their own writing is the clearest (because it's always clear to them) but I think the original quote is clearer than the adaptation that had been written into the article. The previous version read like a war zone, reflecting the war over speculation that produced it. The streamlined paragraph addresses the speculation/criticism without giving it undue weight. Although I still wonder if other journalists' opinions and criticism belong in AC's bio, and I still disagree with their criticism anyway, I respect the need for collaboration and compromise. TVC 15 ( talk) 07:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Two of today's most popular TV stars, both gay and strikingly handsome, are CNN's Anderson Cooper (son of Gloria Vanderbilt and the late Wyatt Cooper) and WABC-TV's weatherman Sam Champion. Neither has professed being a member of any organized religion, and both avoid labels. When the ball drops in Times Square on New Year's Eve, it will be CNN's platinum-haired Cooper who will host the program.
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
{{
editprotected}}
edit protected request remove - page is not protected.
Rjd0060 (
talk)
03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Old text: Some of the book's proceeds are donated to charity. (under the writings section)
New text: Some of the books proceeds is donated to charity.
Reason: Because some, which is singular, is the subject, not proceeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabelAsheB ( talk • contribs)
“ | 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, [note 1] 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] Cooper has expressed a desire to have a family and children but acknowledged that by not directly answering the question of his sexuality he may be engendering speculation. [7] Both fellow news journalist Keith Olbermann and Washington Blade's editor, Kevin Naff, have characterized Cooper's refusals as hypocritical. [8] [9] In New York, Olbermann criticized Cooper for again refusing to talk about his personal life in a Men’s Journal interview although he published a book of "personal stuff for public display" - including the deaths of his father and brother - thus other personal life questions are also relevant. [8] Naff noted that Cooper had asked another celebrity dogged by speculation, Kenny Chesney, if he was gay while conducting an interview on the television newsmagazine 60 Minutes; Chesney stated he was not gay. [9] [10] |
” |
{{
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)
Taking the round of discussion from above here is a new version which hopefully addresses the stated concerns.
Just a follow-up on what I had considered the agreed (consensus) language. According to the article's revision history, it survived basically unchanged through more than 500 article revisions, by countless editors, over more than 15 months. I think that meets or exceeds any definition of consensus seriously propounded. The consensus language remained there until being censored last month. I suggest starting with what we had, and updating if necessary to reflect additional sources.
TVC 15 (
talk)
20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion so far, and in light of WP:SILENCE, I have cautiously restored one sentence to the article. It is just the one sentence that we had before, and that is included in the longer statement proposed above. I don't intend personally to build further on it. Some may want to add more, and I don't have any strong opinion about that, although a long digression might risk creating undue emphasis. TVC 15 ( talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
New to wikipedia, I really hope I'm doing this right. On the newly added piece about AC's supposed sexuality; I frankly don't see how most of this is relevant for an encyclopedia. Yes, there has been speculation on his sexuality, and it has been reported as a fact (without any proof offered/based on third hand accounts) by different sources that he is gay. Still, I'd think what Keith Olbermann or Kevin Naffs have to say on Anderson's silence on the matter is, while they're amongst the more prominent figures to have commented this, not relevant for an encyclopedia page. Given that his sexuality to begin with has nothing to do with AC's job, which is what he would be known for, saying that there has been speculation on his sexuality but that he himself has refused to comment would suffice, is what I would think. Also, just in my opinion, the amount of space and links in this edit dedicated to describing the speculation and criticism makes it, to me, seem like the writer of the edit has a personal problem with Anderson Cooper's refusal to comment, and wants to drive up speculation this way. That's how it comes over to me at least, I could be wrong on that, but I thought I'd say so since if more people feel that way, some bits may possibly need to be rewritten if it does fit within relevant content of the article. (e.g. "- thus other personal life questions are also relevant" is not attributed as a quote to Olbermann, the way it is written now.)
If I may ask? (a) the sources are reliable - Which reliable sources have stated it outright, and what reliable proof did they offer? (b) his statement about having a family and kids makes it relevant (indeed essential for NPOV) to understanding what he means when he says that. - I personally don't think saying you want a family has anything to do with ones sexuality. Would you explain this to me, please? TIA. ( Elphie13 ( talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC))
Hi and thanks for discussing here rather than simply deleting. The "newly added piece" contains a basic sentence that has been in for more than a year (except a brief deletion recently), plus some new sentences about speculation. As to the new sentences on speculation, I personally would not have added them, but I wasn't about to delete them especially after the recent edit war. Regarding question (a), the article links to the most widely recognized reliable sources, for example those listed in Note 1. As for "proof," or to find additional sources, please see the archived discussion. As for relevance, the same could be asked about the fact that he has two older half-brothers, the fact that he had "mild dyslexia" as a child, the fact that he graduated Dalton at 17, and his birthday; yet nobody ever questions whether any of those facts is relevant. The article _still_ provides no sources for any of his supposed national origins ("primarily English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Spanish, and Dutch"), and the article is even tagged accordingly, yet no one objects to the absence of sourcing or the relevance of that information. The article doesn't even provide a source for the birthday, but just goes right ahead and "outs" him as a Gemini, and nobody questions it (or requests "proof" - maybe a certified copy of his birth certificate?). As for the statement about family and kids, maybe "essential" (for NPOV) was too strong a word, but relevant still seems apt, at least in the context of all the other biographical details. Please, if the concern is for sourcing (or now relevance), let's look at the facts that remain unsourced, and probably less relevant. TVC 15 ( talk) 06:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur, mostly, with TVC 15 here. This has been the hotly targeted content so it's better that it's sourced and checked above and beyond. There is plenty of anecdotal information we could - but won't include as it really isn't encyclopedic. Also, just to note, the Olbermann content is accurate to what the source states. I don't believe we've misrepresented anything and we've tried to mitigate the sections prominence by pushing much of it into footnotes so those who are interested can verify the sourcing and expanded details. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Benjiboi. As stated previously, I don't have any strong objection to what's there, and it is well sourced. (For example, the linked Olbermann source includes this quote from him: "You can’t move this big mass of personal stuff out for public display, then people ask questions and you say, ‘Oh, no, I didn’t say there was going to be any questions.’" [4]) However, I do note a sad irony: the edit warriors may have lost the war but won the peace. Previously, the fact that AC is gay was reported as just an ordinary fact like any other biographical detail; now, the article says it causes AC to be "dogged by speculation" and criticism ("hypocritical"). Also, the article now uses the word "speculation" three times, and solely in connection with this well-sourced fact. These changes seem to re-frame what had been a neutral detail into a controversial affliction. As between the two sides in the edit war, which side does that reflect? Kenny Chesney's article doesn't mention the speculation about him, and Kevin Naff doesn't even have his own article, so the language added from the edit war seems mainly to inject the problem that the other side had with the underlying fact itself. TVC 15 ( talk) 06:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As two weeks have passed without further suggestion, I've made the edit discussed above. I corrected the Olbermann quote to match the source, and switched the sentence sequence to reflect Benjiboi's comment above. Everyone thinks their own writing is the clearest (because it's always clear to them) but I think the original quote is clearer than the adaptation that had been written into the article. The previous version read like a war zone, reflecting the war over speculation that produced it. The streamlined paragraph addresses the speculation/criticism without giving it undue weight. Although I still wonder if other journalists' opinions and criticism belong in AC's bio, and I still disagree with their criticism anyway, I respect the need for collaboration and compromise. TVC 15 ( talk) 07:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Two of today's most popular TV stars, both gay and strikingly handsome, are CNN's Anderson Cooper (son of Gloria Vanderbilt and the late Wyatt Cooper) and WABC-TV's weatherman Sam Champion. Neither has professed being a member of any organized religion, and both avoid labels. When the ball drops in Times Square on New Year's Eve, it will be CNN's platinum-haired Cooper who will host the program.