Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 3

Awards
Just a heads up,the last three items: Cooper only won the Emmy for his Niger story, although aired through AC360, The Charity Hospital story is by Dr. Sanjay Gupta and the Black Market Infertility, which also aired in AC360 was by Randi Kaye. If the distinction is not made, it could mislead the reader into believing that Cooper won the three awards. Worldnewsjunkie 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! AC360 is not the same as AC, so I will reduce it to just the one. Again though, if you see errors please feel free to fix them yourself; only the inclusion/phrasing of the SO reference was ever in dispute :) -- Limulus 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fan Art?
Is there any need to promote fan art as official information? Is this site relevant to anything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldnewsjunkie (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC). Worldnewsjunkie 21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaiety redux
Out magazine just announced Cooper to be the 2nd most influential gay man in America. You might want to use that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convined this is an adequate source for including the info. The intro of the list is very POV/speculative. Just as other famous folks are intensly protective of their personal life, so is Cooper trying to be. I respect his decision not to be "out" and don't think we should be trying to force the issue. Until he himself steps up to the plate and publicly comes out, I don't think we should include anything more than the fact that he doesn't like to talk about it. This kind of info could force his hand, we don't need to perpetuate a "forced outing." Zue Jay (talk)  23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honesty, I would agree with that as well if it weren't for the fact that he talks about virtually everything in his private life and is apparently regularly seen in gay bars across new york. He's been outed by Out of all people, so there's not much else we can do. The link i provided was merely where I first saw it, here's the main link http://www.out.com/detail.asp?id=22392. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We already cover the fact that there are rumors. The Out magazine just mentions in passing that Cooper has been seen in gay bars. Presence in a gay bar doesn't make one gay. I wouldn't say that that's enough info to call it an "outing". -Will Beback · † · 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous. The man is gay, he hasn't denied it, no-one had made any kind of defence that he isn't gay, it's been an open secret in the gay community for years! Check out all the news reports: http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=anderson%20cooper%20gay Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of "all the news reports", which one is the most reliable and specific that we could use as a source? -Will Beback · † · 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably the Independant: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2432454.ece Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That article doesn't include a single piece of evidence that Cooper is gay. If it were a normal assertion, like "Cooper wears brown shoes", then that might be suficient. But for them to simply make a statement with no basis is just gossip. -Will Beback · † · 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You think Out magazine, the second most widely circulated LGBT magazine in America, publishing a piece stating that Anderson Cooper is gay when everyone knows that he is, is gossip? There's no point having this discussion if you're going to come out with nonsense like that.
 * Thank you for the increased context - the full article is much clearer. Perhaps we can reach an agreement on how to state what has been reported. Most of the information comes from Michael Musto and indicates that Anderson is in the "Glass Closet" (think we'll need a new article for that one). Reporting what Out says might be acceptable if adequate context is added. As for how...? Zue Jay (talk)  01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You think ...publishing a piece stating that Anderson Cooper is gay when everyone knows that he is, is gossip?
 * Yes, if the basis for printing something is "everybody knows he is", then "gossip" is one word for it. The fact that he is on the list of Top 50 Gays might be worth reporting, but his inclusionon that list shouldn't be taken as proof of his orientation. -Will Beback · † · 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed - that's why the context is critical. Zue Jay (talk)  02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anderson Hays Cooper is an Emmy Award winning journalist, author, and gay television personality." Anderson Cooper's sexual orientation has always been disputed. Still, I think classifying him as gay is speculative since he never acknowledged it publicly. 66.68.33.37 11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Zuejay and Will Beback, it seems that you assume there is only one source for the fact that he is gay. As indicated in the lengthy Talk sections (article semi-protected / gay parts 1-4 above), there are plenty of sources. You write that the fact someone is merely seen in a gay bar, or even several, does not prove that (s)he is gay. Do you think Michael Musto doesn't know that? Musto is a good reporter and you give him too little credit. The Village Voice, Out, the Washington Blade, and the Independent are all serious publications with fact-checking, and their published statements over the years writing that he is gay have never been retracted nor even contradicted. Dismissing them all is ridiculous, especially since they probably have a larger audience than he does. As noted repeatedly in the discussion of this issue, WP:BLP says sourced information should go in a biography even if the subject refuses to discuss it publicly. That's what makes an encyclopedia different from a PR press release. To censor WP along the lines you propose would change it into something more like PR NewsWire, which exists elsewhere. Rather than reinventing the wheel and going around and around on this one issue, can't we please move on? If you think the existing sources for this fact (which already exceed the sources for any other fact in his bio) are not enough, then instead of criticising one and ignoring the rest, please make an effort and add more.TVC 15 09:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The anonymous author from 66.68.33.37 claims, "Anderson Cooper's sexual orientation has always been disputed." Disputed by whom? The anonymous author provides no source information and appears to have done no research; the only dispute I have found involves whether to publish the fact, although one woman did joke on a blog that he can't be gay because she has a crush on him. Cute, but how many times does it have to be reported and how long does it have to go undisputed before people simply accept the fact? Does he need to say it in his news broadcast? How long does it continue to be news? "This just in, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead, and CNN Anchor Anderson Cooper is still gay. Stay tuned for updates on the former preacher Ted Haggard..." As noted in the previous discussion, there are plenty of good reasons why he might decide not to issue a press release or even comment on the record, but that doesn't make the fact itself "disputed" or imply that it should be censored contrary to WP:BLP.TVC 15 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll accept "the fact" if 1) He announces it publicly or 2) Mutliple, reliable, well sourced, verifiable, did I say reliable? sources report it or 3) You send me 5 by 8 undoctored color glossies of Cooper in action. Other than that, this should be a non issue. This is not a blog or the national inquirer, its an encyclopedia for already established, peer reviewed, reliable material. Rumors, gossip, and speculation need not apply. Thanks, --Tom 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for posting here rather than simply censoring the article. Even though some of your comment sounds sarcastic, I will assume good faith and respond to each numbered item.  Regarding #1, please see the Washington Blade article that the WP article links to, specifically this quote: "The program was moderated by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who has in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay."    Regarding #2, the Washington Blade is a reliable source, the story was initially published years ago and has remained on the newspaper's website ever since (without correction or retraction), and the link is still active so you can verify that it's still there.  The WP article contains links to multiple reliable sources already, even though WP:BLP does not require multiple sources, and it is not appropriate for you to impose a double standard for facts that you might not like.  Regarding #3, your comment is totally inappropriate: you are inviting titillating tabloid material, and/or original research, both in violation of WP:BLP.  Moreover, your comment suggests an unfortunate emphasis on sex acts specifically, and visual images thereof, when the issue is more subtle and more profound; even a virgin has a sexual orientation.  Ordinarily I would dismiss #3 as sarcasm but in assuming good faith I have to wonder why you would not understand the broader issues of love, attachment, identity, and commitment, that are discussed more fully in the same-sex marriage debate, where unfortunately some opponents imagine (or pretend to believe) that it's all about sex and can't think beyond that.  Anyway, the heart of the matter is there are plenty of reliable sources, WP:BLP does not have a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" censorship policy to treat this fact differently from all others, and so the information belongs in the biography.  P.S. It is particularly ironic that you would consider his sexual orientation a secret fit only for tabloids given the fact that he himself asked an interview subject's sexual orientation during a televised 60 minutes interview.  Are you saying he thinks of himself as a tabloid journalist, and 60 minutes editors consider their TV news magazine a tabloid?  In the guise of protecting his privacy, you insult him both personally and professionally, and you insult his employers too.TVC 15 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi TVC, I was sort of being sarcastic but no harm or insult intended. Cooper's article should be treated NO differently than any other biography in here. Sexual orientation like ethnicity can be a touchy area for folks and should be handled with respect and care it seems. Anyways, my point was that we need reliable, verifiable sources for ALL material being added to this project, especially when it is dealing with living individuals. Also, is a person's sexual orientation relevant to the article? For some folks, its probably more relevant than others. Anyways, again, no insult intended and have a nice weekend! Cheers! --Tom 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom, thanks for the gracious reply. You're right it can be a touchy area for folks; the discussion on this topic has been long and people have used words like "vicious" as if saying someone is gay were horrible (suggesting they consider the fact likewise horrible), and after a while the effect becomes like water torture, things start to sound louder.  As for relevance, one could question that about practically anything in the personal biography of someone known primarily for his work; topics such as ancestry and family background that would be irrelevant in a job interview might also seem irrelevant in a mostly professional biography.  However, he has given numerous press interviews in his capacity as a public figure, including talking about his desire to have a family and kids, which inevitably raises the question what that family might look like and whether it would be eligible for the equal protection of the marriage laws.  Also, his profile of country singer Kenny Chesney did include sexual orientation, instead of discussing only topics like musical influences and concert techniques.  Some people might ask whether a country singer's sexual orientation is relevant, especially since so many croon their greatest love is for their horses.  And yes, some folks probably consider it more relevant than others: we live in a time when politicians and charlatans try to divide people against each other, in particular by depicting gay people as some kind of alien threat to families, against which marriage must be "defended," etc.  As noted earlier in the discussion, that kind of nonsense persuades mostly people who think they don't even know anyone who is gay, and the effect is terrible because it saddles everyone with leaders who gain power by misleading people.  It's bizarre that a politician who has been divorced twice or more (e.g. Congressman Bob Bahr, who introduced the federal Defense of Marriage Act), and/or who is in the process of cheating on his wife (a certain President who signed it between sessions with a certain White House intern), would get away with "defending" marriage against people who just want to get married once and have the same legal rights and responsibilities that everyone else takes for granted.  The propaganda relies partly on demonizing an imaginary threat, and the only way to counter the false image is to show that in fact gay people look like Anderson Cooper (ok he is cuter than most but that's not the point) and aspire to ordinary things like having a family and kids.  I don't know what Anderson's marriage plans might be, but if Governor Spitzer succeeds in his goal of including gay couples in New York's marriage laws, the answer might become an ordinary public record instead of such a touchy area.  Meanwhile, have a nice weekend, and cheers to you as  well.TVC 15 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent left) Hi TVC, I agree with alot of what you are saying and I hear you. My problem, now, is that you seem close to this issue and that you want to "use" this article to make a point or counter other injustices in the world. Unfortuneately, alot of folks edit with an agenda (be it good OR bad) in here and that hurts the neutality and quality of the work in my opinion. Anyways, I just want to see sources for material and also want it to be relevant to the article and well written. Easier said than done when 6 billion people can edit this article :) Cheers! --Tom 13:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom, Agreed standards like WP:BLP require that what goes in the article itself should be reliable, factual, and NPOV; a compelling agenda can help if it motivates people to search for reliable sources and watch out for vandalism, and can animate discussion.  Personally, I have never met Anderson Cooper and have never asked him to marry me, so I am not "close to this issue" in a way that could prevent me from seeing it objectively.  The broader issues of marriage and equal rights are the subject of other articles, but it seems reasonable to mention them in discussion where they are relevant.  Near the top of this discussion page, a box says, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia."  I didn't put the box there and haven't yet got involved in that project, but I do agree with that goal (call it an "agenda" if you will).


 * BTW, I reluctantly reverted an edit by Southleft, who had made 'Personal life and Homosexuality' into a separate section, converted source links into publication titles, and deleted several facts that other authors here had considered important. The edit deleted all reference to the tabloid coverage of the subject's mother, and her publication of "romance memoirs," which the subject has cited as an important influence in his own decisions regarding his relationship with the media.  Since he has devoted his career to media, while deliberately concentrating on serious news stories like war zones, disaster areas, etc., the contrast adds perspective.  Also, perhaps contrary to the agenda that Tom may have ascribed to me, I'm not sure the subject's homosexuality needs to be a headline; NPOV exists somewhere between the boundaries of censorship and undue emphasis.  Fox News might try to use the subject's homosexuality as an example of 'liberal bias,' but I think it's just one ingredient among many that make him who he is.  I don't have an opinion about whether the sources should be plain links or named titles with links; it seems mostly a style issue to me, as a long string cite could be distracting and besides the article is about the subject not his competitors, but if people think it would help to convert the source links into titles that's fine with me.TVC 15 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem
There seems to be some vandalism on this page, but I can't get rid of it... Can anyone help?

Here's the text: Anderson has been a compulsive liar, since, like, prep school. He tells me he is going to give up fucking men, and yet he does it anyway. He tells me he loves me before an audience in Charleston, South Carolina, and all eight people vying for the democratic presidential nomination, and then abuses me night after night. The story he gives YOU, citing a desire to protect his neutrality as a journalist:

Hair
...okay, how the crap does he have hair that white at age 40? Bleach? Genetics? Yes, because exactly what this discussion needs is an irrelevant question! But, hey, it's interesting. Jachra 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

His hair isn't full white, so not bleach. It's genetics. Obviously.

LGBT project tag
(moved from my talk page to explain to other editors)
 * Um. I've removed the WikiProject's banner.  He's not gay / out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither is Fred Phelps, Jodie Foster or Jerry Falwell. I'm re-adding as the LGBT tag denotes it's of interest to our project mot that the subject is gay. Topping the Out list certainly makes him of interest, especially if he's not gay. Benji boi 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which multiple sources indicate he is. Benji boi 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fred Phelps LMFAO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.255.174 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tagging a person with the LGBT Project because they are an "interest" to the project makes no sense. When I first notice the banner, I was not thinking "Gee, they are only an interest to the group". Seriously, the project only solidifies some people's opinions of the person tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.4.134 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why some people keep resurrecting this non-issue, but the fact that he is gay is more reliably sourced than almost any other fact in the article. Most facts in the article have only one source, this fact has four cited in the article plus more in the archives. Please see the voluminous discussion in the archives. It is old news, and there is no point trying to censor it now. I always try to assume good faith but that would be easier if those who claim to be concerned about reliable sources would please devote some attention to the completely unsourced statement, "His ancestry is primarily of English, Irish, Welsh, Spanish and Dutch descent." Surely if your motive is to improve sourcing and accuracy, it would make more sense to start with a statement that has no sources rather than endlessly re-visiting a statement that has so many reliable sources already.TVC 15 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of such categorization, it does not matter if someone else says he is homosexual. If he does, the categories should be added. But until he does, they do not belong whatsoever. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently you have not read the archived discussion. Long story short, WP:BLP requires all facts in an article to be reliably sourced, but does not require the subject to become a spokesperson or even comment publicly.  Perhaps you could add something new, for example a distinction between facts and categories?  Otherwise what is the difference between reporting the fact, which is reliably sourced, and adding the category, which applies to the fact?  As noted above, the article reports on his ancestry including English, Irish, and so on, and the corresponding category tags appear at the end of the article.  Since the article contains no sources for ancestry, it would make more sense for you to strip out those categories - if sourcing is your concern.TVC 15 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * TVC 15, unfortunately they do have policy on their side. I don't agree with it as it seems homophobic to me but there you go. I don't feel being a porn star, gay or Jewish or any religion or sexuality is an item that has to be publicly declared before we add the related category. I guess I could be dick-ish and create a category for people reported to be LGBT but have not publicly confirmed such reports. Until policy changes or Cooper takes out the ad declaring he's now gay we have to drop the issue of the categories. As always we go by verifiability, not truth. Banj e  b oi   20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please quote or at least cite what policy you think supports your latest revert? WP:categorization links to the same WP:reliable sources definition as WP:BLP.  (WP:categorization does say that the category should not apply where reliable sources show it to be controversial, but in this case reliable sources show no controversy about whether he is gay, and there is no obligation on him to pay for an ad declaring the fact.)  The article already links to reliable (and verifiable) sources, which you noted just yesterday in restoring the categories.  Also your Talk page says you have been banned and "will be generally unavailable," so I am especially confused to see you reverting people in contradictory ways.  Yesterday you reverted someone else who had deleted the categories, now today you revert me in the opposite direction.  Since you restored the categories just yesterday, it is very odd to see you delete them now, referring to unspecified "policy" without citation.  I assume good faith, but I wonder if someone hacked your account to use it as a sock poppet?TVC 15 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, let's stick to content please. The policy is Biographies of living persons, which, as stated, i don't agree with but until it changes we generally need to abide by it. Banj e  b oi   22:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow - sorry - somehow I hadn't seen there was a special policy for category tags relating to religion and sexual orientation. Evidently you hadn't seen it either when you reverted someone who had deleted the tag, but you're right this time and I appreciate your providing the link.  The special policy seems possibly misguided, but that is a debate for another day and a different discussion page.TVC 15 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know he has never publicly said he was gay. I you beleave everything you read then the would would be ending tomorrow. I don't beleave he is gay until he publicly himself says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miagirljmw14 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Miagirljmw14! I've taken out the statement you added for two reasons.  First, "he's never admitted it" is a negative statement, which implies that he must really be gay, but hasn't said anything. Second, the blurtit.com website isn't a reliable source, and doesn't add much to the discussion.  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection?
The page is currently full-protected, but the only reference to protection is a lengthy discussion about semi-protection on Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 2. The full protection was done by Seresin on October 2, 2008 (yesterday-ish), with the following comment accompanying the edit: "Protected Anderson Cooper: Multi-party edit war. Please gather consensus on talk. ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))". While I see that the policy at Protection policy does not appear to require a justification for full protection on the talk page, I thought it would be useful to at least mention it here, for other people like me who came upon this after the edit war. --RealGrouchy (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did mention it here. seresin ( ¡? )  03:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted sources
The following sources were removed, they may be useful. -- Banj e b oi   14:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)