![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
?? How is it vandalism to say Anderson Cooper is single and never married? That's a fact! Prove to me he isn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.74.48 ( talk) 13:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been some Speculation that he has been married (at least on this Wikipedia talk page, see archive 1) decussion "No mention of wife".). On his blog he wrote: "I've discussed it with my colleagues. I've discussed it with my wife." (Note: on the blog, "wife" is not in bold.) The URL/link is: [1]. Hope this helps!!! -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, had to hurry through the article as I did not have much time to read it. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | His ancestry is primarily English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Spanish/ Portuguese, Chilean and Dutch. | ” |
I've removed the above as non-sensical and unsourced. Let's re-add with reliable soucing. -- Banjeboi 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a claim that Anderson Cooper is part of the homosexual lifestyle when there is absolutely no concrete proof whatsoever? We don't dare claim that Jonathan Taylor Thomas is an unrepentant homosexual because there is a similar lack of irrefutable evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.75.149 ( talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
But I would like to note that Cooper himself has not verified the clam. So we cannot know for sure. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And where have these "reliable sources" gotten the info??? How do you know that they did not make it up just to get attention??? -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the first source made it up, and the other sources followed (not knowing that the info was made up). Now the first souce could have been some 13 year old kid on a blog that disliked the news, and then an other blog and an other blog took that at face value. Then the first publication publicized the news. Now I am not saying that the term "gay" should be used as an insult, but it is. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What conspiracy??? It’s not like I am saying that there is a secret society out to get AC. That would be a conspiracy. And I have read you user page and the user page of other that have argued about whether or not the gay stuff should be put in. There seems to be a lot of liberal bias to say the least. But don't worry; I'll always be on the look out for that. I conserder that those sources have a bias in LGBT issues and thus cannot be cosederd a reliable source by themselves (the gay mags that have said this). You have to remain objective and question the sources. The only fully reliable source is AC himself. And if there is photographic "proof", see if it looks real, and not doctored. Another thing is that, how is his sexual orientation encyclopedia if it is really only gossip. And another thing to remember is that out general audience is (I hate to say it, but here goes), idiots. They, when they read this (the gay stuff in article) will really believe that AC is gay. And that it is not just speculation, which it is. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What proof do you have that the souses are reliable??? The thing that spots on there reliability is the A: they tend to be very bias (toward LGBT stuff). B: no one has commented on this speculation (like AC or someone who knows him). And also, a lot of the mags that wrote this are tabloids. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Greetings all, maybe this is a new year's resolution, I will try to be as encouraging as possible as we re-hash yet again the same issue that has been discussed so many times in prior years. However, Miagirljmw14, please don't dismiss WP readers as "idiots" (at least until you learn how to spell), and please see WP:RS as to what constitutes a reliable source. Benjiboi, you know I respect your contributions to WP, but we discussed the Naff quote last month, and I thought it was agreed that this article is about AC, not Kevin Naff. The article doesn't name anyone else (except Keith Olbermann, also your addition) in connection with their opinions of AC. If the article doesn't publish other people's opinions of AC's journalism, which is what he is famous for, why on earth would it include other people's opinions about whether he should talk about his sexual orientation? If we include everyone who has an opinion on the subject, from the Pope to Urvashi Vaid (who at least has her own article), then the article will become "Other People's Opinions of Anderson Cooper." Please look at how WP describes other journalists, and apply the same standards to AC. Miagirljmw14 alleged a "liberal bias" (without providing examples), but the goal should be WP:NPOV, i.e. consistently reporting reliably sourced facts. There was no source for your suggestion that AC is "dogged by speculation;" to the contrary, he seems to be doing quite well thank you very much, and whatever tempests may stir WP teapots do not appear to have affected him at all. If you are really determined to make Kevin Naff famous, why not create an article for him, and put his opinions there? I would agree with you that he is notable, in case anyone challenges that. TVC 15 ( talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if we can get back to talking the article!!! How bout a compromise??? We can make a criticisms section for the article. There are a lot of criticisms of AC and I feel that a section on criticisms is the place to include the quotes. Not in the "personal life" section of the article. So what do you think about that. I can see that I am not going to win the "gay debate" so I will back down, but I'm still not convinced and it is going to be a waste of typing to try to convince me. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That sounds less like a compromise than a step further in the wrong direction, even an attack. Previously, you wanted to delete the fact that AC is gay because you called that an "insult." Now that you "can see [you are] not going to win "'the gay debate,'" you propose to create a whole section criticizing AC (either as a journalist or as a person). According to your User contributions, you have never done that to any other journalist. Also, I cannot help noticing that you wrote on your User page, "This user opposes the GLBT lifestyle, same-sex marriage & gay adoption. This user believes that homosexuality is immoral." AC is an Emmy-award winning journalist, and he is gay, and he has stated his desire to have a family and kids. Does that combination create some kind of cognitive dissonance for you? Does it disrupt your worldview, which insists on casting him as immoral, to see that in fact he is a good journalist, leads an exemplary life, donates book proceeds to charity, and is widely admired? If you cannot suppress the fact that he is gay, must you then tear him down? You accused Benjiboi and unspecified others of "liberal bias" (although you did not provide any evidence to support that); in fact, it is you who are treating AC differently from other journalists, and you have stated a specific motive for that. WP:NPOV requires neutrality, but you propose to "compromise" by doing the opposite, i.e. treating him differently from your treatment of any other journalist. TVC 15 ( talk) 23:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
First, TVC15, don't drag my personal belefes into this!!! I'm allowed to beleave anything I want!!! And I did not just mean put 'the gay thing' (and if your offened by the name I have given it, to bad) in there, there are a number of media bias allegations: [4] [5]. If you need to see more then go to Human events (or any conservative news paper). There cannot be nutreality BTW if there are only liberal opinions and not conservative ones. I will be starting a new section on the critisims thing. Oh, and I was not going to mention this TVC15, but I do not like how you renamed the section!!! -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To the extent that your stated beliefs are relevant, it is appropriate for me to point them out. You are allowed to believe whatever you want, even that the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean WP has to describe the earth as flat or arguably flat. The links you provided, and many other "conservative" sites, criticize 'liberal media' generally, not just Cooper. If you want to avoid the implication that your criticism of AC is motivated by something other than objectivity, you might start by building up a track record of creating criticism sections for other journalists, instead of just singling out one who happens to be gay. TVC 15 ( talk) 21:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason I suggested the critisims section is that the Naff and Oberman quotes don't belong in the personal section of the article. It seems like this issue about the quotes always comes up, and I was just trying to help. I am not saying I dislike AC or think he is an abomination. I don't think that, I just don't. He is a good journalist, and does lead a good life. yes, I do think it would be good what you suggested TVC15 (not exacaly what I had in mind at first but it does seem better). I don't think Naff's comments are really relevent. And how are we cenoring Naff by not incuding his comments on WP??? he can still say anything he wants, just on his own blog. PS: sorry about the spelling!!! -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
And the only place that those comments would even be relevant is criticisms section. I really did not want one (and still don't), but at the time just suggested it as a way to at least put the comments in an appropriate place. It looks like on this issue "Benjiboy" is out numbered. And my personal opinion on whether or not AC is a hypocrite is this: He was doing his job when he supposedly asked this question. I don't thing the quotes have and redeeming value in this article and not in the personal life section. I do not (as I have stated) dislike him supposedly b/c he is gay. I do not think he is gay (personally) but I do give that the benefit of the doubt. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Elphie13, you are right again, and my earlier statement describing Naff's blog comment as an opinion was incorrect. Calling someone a hypocrite is a conclusion of fact, with a specific definition, as you noted. It is like calling him a drunk or a burglar: if the underlying facts do not support the conclusion, then it is wrong and should be removed per WP:BLP. His non-answers might seem ironic, but they are not hypocritical. Likewise Olbermann's comment is irrelevant because AC never said there weren't going to be any questions. Also, Benjiboi, as this discussion has covered previously, AC is not closeted; reportedly, he has even introduced a boyfriend in public. So, your characterization of how "a closeted life is generally seen" therefore does not really apply. Likewise, your generalizations about related issues (e.g. economic class) seem both un-sourced and possibly misplaced; it looks like you might be reaching to justify a position and possibly hoping no one will question you, but the justification doesn't work. There is no special obligation on him to hold a press conference announcing he is gay; the fact itself isn't a secret, and he doesn't deny it, but he has a right to decide for himself what he wants to talk about. So, as Miagirljmw14 observed, you are outnumbered on this issue - in fact alone, as not even the Blade endorsed Naff's comment. Everyone gets it wrong from time to time; I was mistaken to characterize "hypocritical" as an opinion when in it was a (demonstrably false) assertion of fact, and, respectfully, you are mistaken to insist on Naff and Olbermann's quotes being included. TVC 15 ( talk) 04:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How is this mob rule??? Might I also suggest a vote??? I'm am not convinced that the quotes are relevent nor are the other two wikipedians (oh, and this is to Benjiboi). Wikipedia does not have to put Naff or oberman's opinion on it's articles. In my own mind there are two options (or, three if you count leaving the artcle the way it is): 1.Take the quotes out of the article. 2.Put the quotes in a crticsmas section alons with other allegations of media bias. I personally favour option 1. The quotes have no pleace in the article. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I think Cooper has a right to privacy. He does not have to tell us if he is gay or hetero. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone cares about my view, "Tool2die4" is not helping. If anyone wants I could get a admin to say if we could or could not take a vote??? If I am not mistaken, "Tool2die4" is not a admin. And after we get this done, can we get back to talking about the article??? That is what talk pages are for. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Tool2Die4 is not helping and is definitely not an admin. A possible reason for the unhelpfulness can be found by looking at an edit summary Tool2Die4 wrote using an alternative account name: [6]. That account was banned indefinitely. [7] Meanwhile, on the BLP noticeboard to which Tool2Die4 brought this matter, no one supported Tool2Die4's reverts. [8] So, I think WP:CONSENSUS has been reached, and Tool2Die4's disruptions do not change that. TVC 15 ( talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
A thank you to User:Hersfold!!! Now can we continue??? -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
no, Olberman and Naff's statements aren't false or irrelevant, even if you keep stating that. –Benjiboy,
BLP Noticeboard
1) Naff states Cooper asking that question is the 'height of hypocrisy'. That´s a stated fact. Being a hypocrite or not is not actually a question of opinion or relativity, I can think you're a hypocrite, but that doesn't make you one, so it´s false unless I have an actual scenario in which you acted hypocritical for accusing you of that, and there is none in Naff’s article. Unless Naff has the power to change the meaning of the words in the dictionary, Naff’s explanation why Cooper is factually a hypocrite in this situation is incorrect, even though he charges him with being one. Cooper, to my knowledge, has not blamed others for asking him about his sexuality, which would be the actual equivalent, and thus hypocrisy. But that´s not what´s actually true or stated in Naff´s article. How he describes it, it’s not hypocrisy, making it a false description.
2) This whole accusation itself is based on Cooper interviewing Chesney, and asking him if he's gay. Naff states it as a fact this happened, he claims he saw Cooper asking Chesney about his sexuality. However, I checked the interview this all is based on and the only question we hear Cooper ask is why they checked fraud for their annulment. Before that, Chesney does deny the gay rumors, but the clip starts with him saying “Maybe I should have just said, no I’m not”. We do not see how this came up in the conversation, whether Chesney or Cooper brought it up. We do not see Cooper asking Chesney if he's gay, it's not in the interview. Naff is just assuming this happened while claiming otherwise. That´s two incorrect statements in one blog post, how is this not false?
3) Olbermann meanwhile claims; "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.’" Well, Cooper didn’t. He didn’t say that, and he did in fact answer questions on the ‘big mass of personal stuff out for public display’, namely his book. So that’s incorrect. Elphie13 ( talk) 13:35, 17 January 2009 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
?? How is it vandalism to say Anderson Cooper is single and never married? That's a fact! Prove to me he isn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.74.48 ( talk) 13:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been some Speculation that he has been married (at least on this Wikipedia talk page, see archive 1) decussion "No mention of wife".). On his blog he wrote: "I've discussed it with my colleagues. I've discussed it with my wife." (Note: on the blog, "wife" is not in bold.) The URL/link is: [1]. Hope this helps!!! -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, had to hurry through the article as I did not have much time to read it. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | His ancestry is primarily English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Spanish/ Portuguese, Chilean and Dutch. | ” |
I've removed the above as non-sensical and unsourced. Let's re-add with reliable soucing. -- Banjeboi 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a claim that Anderson Cooper is part of the homosexual lifestyle when there is absolutely no concrete proof whatsoever? We don't dare claim that Jonathan Taylor Thomas is an unrepentant homosexual because there is a similar lack of irrefutable evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.75.149 ( talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
But I would like to note that Cooper himself has not verified the clam. So we cannot know for sure. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And where have these "reliable sources" gotten the info??? How do you know that they did not make it up just to get attention??? -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the first source made it up, and the other sources followed (not knowing that the info was made up). Now the first souce could have been some 13 year old kid on a blog that disliked the news, and then an other blog and an other blog took that at face value. Then the first publication publicized the news. Now I am not saying that the term "gay" should be used as an insult, but it is. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What conspiracy??? It’s not like I am saying that there is a secret society out to get AC. That would be a conspiracy. And I have read you user page and the user page of other that have argued about whether or not the gay stuff should be put in. There seems to be a lot of liberal bias to say the least. But don't worry; I'll always be on the look out for that. I conserder that those sources have a bias in LGBT issues and thus cannot be cosederd a reliable source by themselves (the gay mags that have said this). You have to remain objective and question the sources. The only fully reliable source is AC himself. And if there is photographic "proof", see if it looks real, and not doctored. Another thing is that, how is his sexual orientation encyclopedia if it is really only gossip. And another thing to remember is that out general audience is (I hate to say it, but here goes), idiots. They, when they read this (the gay stuff in article) will really believe that AC is gay. And that it is not just speculation, which it is. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What proof do you have that the souses are reliable??? The thing that spots on there reliability is the A: they tend to be very bias (toward LGBT stuff). B: no one has commented on this speculation (like AC or someone who knows him). And also, a lot of the mags that wrote this are tabloids. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Greetings all, maybe this is a new year's resolution, I will try to be as encouraging as possible as we re-hash yet again the same issue that has been discussed so many times in prior years. However, Miagirljmw14, please don't dismiss WP readers as "idiots" (at least until you learn how to spell), and please see WP:RS as to what constitutes a reliable source. Benjiboi, you know I respect your contributions to WP, but we discussed the Naff quote last month, and I thought it was agreed that this article is about AC, not Kevin Naff. The article doesn't name anyone else (except Keith Olbermann, also your addition) in connection with their opinions of AC. If the article doesn't publish other people's opinions of AC's journalism, which is what he is famous for, why on earth would it include other people's opinions about whether he should talk about his sexual orientation? If we include everyone who has an opinion on the subject, from the Pope to Urvashi Vaid (who at least has her own article), then the article will become "Other People's Opinions of Anderson Cooper." Please look at how WP describes other journalists, and apply the same standards to AC. Miagirljmw14 alleged a "liberal bias" (without providing examples), but the goal should be WP:NPOV, i.e. consistently reporting reliably sourced facts. There was no source for your suggestion that AC is "dogged by speculation;" to the contrary, he seems to be doing quite well thank you very much, and whatever tempests may stir WP teapots do not appear to have affected him at all. If you are really determined to make Kevin Naff famous, why not create an article for him, and put his opinions there? I would agree with you that he is notable, in case anyone challenges that. TVC 15 ( talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if we can get back to talking the article!!! How bout a compromise??? We can make a criticisms section for the article. There are a lot of criticisms of AC and I feel that a section on criticisms is the place to include the quotes. Not in the "personal life" section of the article. So what do you think about that. I can see that I am not going to win the "gay debate" so I will back down, but I'm still not convinced and it is going to be a waste of typing to try to convince me. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That sounds less like a compromise than a step further in the wrong direction, even an attack. Previously, you wanted to delete the fact that AC is gay because you called that an "insult." Now that you "can see [you are] not going to win "'the gay debate,'" you propose to create a whole section criticizing AC (either as a journalist or as a person). According to your User contributions, you have never done that to any other journalist. Also, I cannot help noticing that you wrote on your User page, "This user opposes the GLBT lifestyle, same-sex marriage & gay adoption. This user believes that homosexuality is immoral." AC is an Emmy-award winning journalist, and he is gay, and he has stated his desire to have a family and kids. Does that combination create some kind of cognitive dissonance for you? Does it disrupt your worldview, which insists on casting him as immoral, to see that in fact he is a good journalist, leads an exemplary life, donates book proceeds to charity, and is widely admired? If you cannot suppress the fact that he is gay, must you then tear him down? You accused Benjiboi and unspecified others of "liberal bias" (although you did not provide any evidence to support that); in fact, it is you who are treating AC differently from other journalists, and you have stated a specific motive for that. WP:NPOV requires neutrality, but you propose to "compromise" by doing the opposite, i.e. treating him differently from your treatment of any other journalist. TVC 15 ( talk) 23:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
First, TVC15, don't drag my personal belefes into this!!! I'm allowed to beleave anything I want!!! And I did not just mean put 'the gay thing' (and if your offened by the name I have given it, to bad) in there, there are a number of media bias allegations: [4] [5]. If you need to see more then go to Human events (or any conservative news paper). There cannot be nutreality BTW if there are only liberal opinions and not conservative ones. I will be starting a new section on the critisims thing. Oh, and I was not going to mention this TVC15, but I do not like how you renamed the section!!! -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To the extent that your stated beliefs are relevant, it is appropriate for me to point them out. You are allowed to believe whatever you want, even that the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean WP has to describe the earth as flat or arguably flat. The links you provided, and many other "conservative" sites, criticize 'liberal media' generally, not just Cooper. If you want to avoid the implication that your criticism of AC is motivated by something other than objectivity, you might start by building up a track record of creating criticism sections for other journalists, instead of just singling out one who happens to be gay. TVC 15 ( talk) 21:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason I suggested the critisims section is that the Naff and Oberman quotes don't belong in the personal section of the article. It seems like this issue about the quotes always comes up, and I was just trying to help. I am not saying I dislike AC or think he is an abomination. I don't think that, I just don't. He is a good journalist, and does lead a good life. yes, I do think it would be good what you suggested TVC15 (not exacaly what I had in mind at first but it does seem better). I don't think Naff's comments are really relevent. And how are we cenoring Naff by not incuding his comments on WP??? he can still say anything he wants, just on his own blog. PS: sorry about the spelling!!! -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
And the only place that those comments would even be relevant is criticisms section. I really did not want one (and still don't), but at the time just suggested it as a way to at least put the comments in an appropriate place. It looks like on this issue "Benjiboy" is out numbered. And my personal opinion on whether or not AC is a hypocrite is this: He was doing his job when he supposedly asked this question. I don't thing the quotes have and redeeming value in this article and not in the personal life section. I do not (as I have stated) dislike him supposedly b/c he is gay. I do not think he is gay (personally) but I do give that the benefit of the doubt. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Elphie13, you are right again, and my earlier statement describing Naff's blog comment as an opinion was incorrect. Calling someone a hypocrite is a conclusion of fact, with a specific definition, as you noted. It is like calling him a drunk or a burglar: if the underlying facts do not support the conclusion, then it is wrong and should be removed per WP:BLP. His non-answers might seem ironic, but they are not hypocritical. Likewise Olbermann's comment is irrelevant because AC never said there weren't going to be any questions. Also, Benjiboi, as this discussion has covered previously, AC is not closeted; reportedly, he has even introduced a boyfriend in public. So, your characterization of how "a closeted life is generally seen" therefore does not really apply. Likewise, your generalizations about related issues (e.g. economic class) seem both un-sourced and possibly misplaced; it looks like you might be reaching to justify a position and possibly hoping no one will question you, but the justification doesn't work. There is no special obligation on him to hold a press conference announcing he is gay; the fact itself isn't a secret, and he doesn't deny it, but he has a right to decide for himself what he wants to talk about. So, as Miagirljmw14 observed, you are outnumbered on this issue - in fact alone, as not even the Blade endorsed Naff's comment. Everyone gets it wrong from time to time; I was mistaken to characterize "hypocritical" as an opinion when in it was a (demonstrably false) assertion of fact, and, respectfully, you are mistaken to insist on Naff and Olbermann's quotes being included. TVC 15 ( talk) 04:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How is this mob rule??? Might I also suggest a vote??? I'm am not convinced that the quotes are relevent nor are the other two wikipedians (oh, and this is to Benjiboi). Wikipedia does not have to put Naff or oberman's opinion on it's articles. In my own mind there are two options (or, three if you count leaving the artcle the way it is): 1.Take the quotes out of the article. 2.Put the quotes in a crticsmas section alons with other allegations of media bias. I personally favour option 1. The quotes have no pleace in the article. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I think Cooper has a right to privacy. He does not have to tell us if he is gay or hetero. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone cares about my view, "Tool2die4" is not helping. If anyone wants I could get a admin to say if we could or could not take a vote??? If I am not mistaken, "Tool2die4" is not a admin. And after we get this done, can we get back to talking about the article??? That is what talk pages are for. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Tool2Die4 is not helping and is definitely not an admin. A possible reason for the unhelpfulness can be found by looking at an edit summary Tool2Die4 wrote using an alternative account name: [6]. That account was banned indefinitely. [7] Meanwhile, on the BLP noticeboard to which Tool2Die4 brought this matter, no one supported Tool2Die4's reverts. [8] So, I think WP:CONSENSUS has been reached, and Tool2Die4's disruptions do not change that. TVC 15 ( talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
A thank you to User:Hersfold!!! Now can we continue??? -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
no, Olberman and Naff's statements aren't false or irrelevant, even if you keep stating that. –Benjiboy,
BLP Noticeboard
1) Naff states Cooper asking that question is the 'height of hypocrisy'. That´s a stated fact. Being a hypocrite or not is not actually a question of opinion or relativity, I can think you're a hypocrite, but that doesn't make you one, so it´s false unless I have an actual scenario in which you acted hypocritical for accusing you of that, and there is none in Naff’s article. Unless Naff has the power to change the meaning of the words in the dictionary, Naff’s explanation why Cooper is factually a hypocrite in this situation is incorrect, even though he charges him with being one. Cooper, to my knowledge, has not blamed others for asking him about his sexuality, which would be the actual equivalent, and thus hypocrisy. But that´s not what´s actually true or stated in Naff´s article. How he describes it, it’s not hypocrisy, making it a false description.
2) This whole accusation itself is based on Cooper interviewing Chesney, and asking him if he's gay. Naff states it as a fact this happened, he claims he saw Cooper asking Chesney about his sexuality. However, I checked the interview this all is based on and the only question we hear Cooper ask is why they checked fraud for their annulment. Before that, Chesney does deny the gay rumors, but the clip starts with him saying “Maybe I should have just said, no I’m not”. We do not see how this came up in the conversation, whether Chesney or Cooper brought it up. We do not see Cooper asking Chesney if he's gay, it's not in the interview. Naff is just assuming this happened while claiming otherwise. That´s two incorrect statements in one blog post, how is this not false?
3) Olbermann meanwhile claims; "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.’" Well, Cooper didn’t. He didn’t say that, and he did in fact answer questions on the ‘big mass of personal stuff out for public display’, namely his book. So that’s incorrect. Elphie13 ( talk) 13:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)