Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 5

Content for re-entry
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: "I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life. It’s a decision I made a long time ago, before I ever even knew anyone would be interested in my personal life. The whole thing about being a reporter is that you're supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t want to do anything that threatens that." 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". 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." 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. 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. 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. 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". Cooper has acknowledged that by not directly answering the question of his sexuality he may be engendering speculation. Cooper has expressed a desire to have a family and children.

Discussion
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:
 * Anderson Cooper's Gay Timeline by Jessica Grose; Radar, 9 April 2007.
 * Out-and-out debate over Jodie, Anderson by George Rush and Joanna Rush Molloy; NY Daily News, 6 April 2007.
 * Out, out damn celebs! by Kevin Naff; Washington Blade, 21 October 2005.
 * Gossip from Across the Pond: Articles Published in the United Kingdom's Gay and Lesbian Humanist, 1996-2005 pg 123 by Warren Allen Smith; ChelcPress, 2005; ISBN 1583969160, 9781583969168

There are many reports on his dating various men but none of those relationships seem to be notable enough for inclusion as of yet. -- Banj e b oi   00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks, generally, very well put together. I could quibble over some of the references, and a little of the language- but that's really not what's at issue: the question is whether the inclusion of this sort of stuff is consistent with WP:BLP's admonition to "write conservatively" and with respect for the subject's privacy.  I'm not sure I have much to add to my previous comments, but it's important to realize this is the open question, rather than neutrality or even sourcing per se.  Again, I applaud Benjiboi's efforts on finding better sources, etc- but it remains my view that this is inappropriate matter for WP.  Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From WP:BLP"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
 * Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.
 * Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source."
 * I think we're way past the point of reliable sources supporting that widespread speculation exists and that multiple RS have also stated Cooper is gay. -- Banj e  b oi   17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there's obviously a tension between the WP:BLP injunction that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" and what you mention above. However, I note that there is a requirement that "an allegation or incident" only be included if it is "notable, relevant and well-documented" - and that a key question is is it "important to the article".  If the privacy injunction means anything, it means that some private matters should not be mentioned even if people are interested.  I do not see how AC's sexual orientation is "important to the article".  Nor do I see how it is "notable" and "relevant".  As an allegation, I agree it is "well-documented".  As a fact, I do not think it is well-documented.  Mere interest does not make something important, notable or relevant.  Benjiboi, do you still feel the same way about an RfC, because I think we are at an impasse, and an RfC is really the next step.  Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:14, 5 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'm okay with most of this, but I think there's a tad too much here. I'd strike:
 * 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]
 * Those seem to be simply snipes by other news people and organizations and don't really add anything to the subject. The wording looks really good to me, though - specifically that Cooper has never come out publicly, but that several organizations and newspapers have reported it, and that Cooper is not only aware of those reports, but has commented on what his non-response indicates.  Nice work, Benji! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with Satyr's cut. — Becksguy (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the interest of not having this overwhelm the rest of the article I would agree to putting some in a footnote instead. That Cooper asks another celebrity as a journalist if he's gay then refuses the same question when he's asked does seem relevant; likewise that his sexuality was an open secret fits into the "glass closet" concept - being openly closeted - which is an area largely unexplored on wikipedia. The essence of the issue with the glass closet is that upper class LGB celebrities now have little to lose by being open yet their decision to do so would greatly benefit ordinary LGB folks and LGBT rights as a result. I'm in the middle of some other drama but will look to modifying this to see what can be footnoted for brevity concerns. -- Banj e  b oi   21:41, 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 |example 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: 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)


 * Very well said, TVC, and a highly thoughtful group of comments. His sexuality is well documented, if uncommented on by him, but it is being treated by some as if it were something to be hidden, and as if it were sufficiently negative that it needs to be cut out as a WP:BLP violation. One's orientation, in my words, should be "... as unremarkable as one's handiness or eye color."  Cooper's sexuality, or that of anyone else, is not a BLP issue and, from my view, it's a form of POV to claim it is, since the subtext is that people will think that being labeled gay is a smear. This is the 21st century, and a remarkable number of people no longer care who is, or isn't gay, or LGBT. We don't serve the readers by excluding appropriate content, and we don't serve them by including inappropriate content. Balance, neutrality, verifiability, and the avoidance of WP:UNDUE is key. The Village Voice is a reliable source and so I mostly agree about Musto. As to consensus, I agree that the previous version seems to have been the result of consensus over time. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of professional disclosure, I agree with everything you say. This is exactly the kind of discussion that needs to take place. Thank you very much. I like Benji's footnote solution also. Good idea. — Becksguy (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, being gay totally *IS* a BLP issue. It is an issue related to a "biography of a living person", as much as a biography denoting someone's gender identity, their name, or their social security number.  We don't publish the latter because it could actually hurt the person.  But if a person has done everything in their power to "present" as male, we follow their desires.  Similarly, if Cooper wishes to not disclose his sexual orientation, we should honor that request.  The wording above steps over that line, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but it's something I can agree to.  -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:41, 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)


 * Hard cases make bad law, and I can't imagine a harder case than Anderson Cooper. He travels frequently to countries that have a death penalty for homosexuality, and is very high-profile and vulnerable when he does it; therefore, my feeling is that the many "do no harm" sentences in BLP mean that we shouldn't report information on his sexuality.  But on the other hand, if it's true that he asked Kenny Chesney if he was gay on the air, it's really annoying that we're being considerate towards this guy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had considered the 'death penalty for homosexuality' issue, but I am not aware of any country where the mere status of being gay results in execution. (The closest may be the U.S., where merely saying that you're gay can get you fired from the military.)  Usually, criminal statutes focus on conduct.  Moreover, since some of those same countries have the death penalty for adultery, one could make the same argument against disclosing that a reporter is married.  There are places where a reporter can get killed for asking the wrong questions, being a journalist, being Jewish/Christian, being American/foreign, white/black, etc.  Who knows where his ethnic background might incite some post-colonial hostility, yet the article includes that information without even a source.  Where a fact is already published in an ever-growing list of newspapers around the world and available continuously online, including it in a Wikipedia article does not add significantly to the risk.


 * Regarding Kenny Chesney, I happened to see the interview and my link above is to the transcript on the CBS website. It's also linked to in the archive (from the last time we debated this issue for weeks), but I'll add it here for convenience: .  I think highly of AC and don't mind being considerate towards him, but I thought the previous balance (what he says + what others say) _was_ considerate.  The effort to censor information widely available elsewhere seems self-defeating, and if the motive was to be considerate I think it was misguided.  In a world where information flows freely anyway, NPOV emerges from adding balance, not subtracting facts.TVC 15 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "I am not aware of any country where the mere status of being gay results in execution." This is dangerous misinformation, and since Wikipedia and snippets from Wikipedia get read all over the world, we need to be careful not to cause actual harm.  If Cooper were arrested in one of the many Asian and African countries listed at List of LGBT rights by region that are dangerous for homosexuals, or even if he were simply denied police protection on the grounds that he's already a criminal under their law, arguments like yours would not necessarily do him any good.  It all depends on the country.  I have a lot of wonderful Farsi acquaintances, and I don't want to come off as singling out Iran, but as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said when he visited the U.S. (in Farsi): "We have no homosexuals in Iran."  They have ways of making that happen; their preferred tools are execution and forced surgery.  The police there are not known to be fussy about the presumption of innocence. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To follow up on your example of Iran, WP covers it more fully here . The death penalty applies equally to homosexual activity and adultery.  Political dissidents have been accused (probably falsely) of homosexual activity, and Iran allows forced confessions, but again the emphasis is conduct not status.  Your reference to "forced surgery" is somewhat misleading; some Iranians feel compelled to opt for a sex change to avoid continued persecution, but I have seen no reports of a visiting journalist being forced to have surgery of any kind.  The greatest danger to AC would result from the fact that he is American, although Mike Wallace (American and Jewish) survived interviewing both Ruhollah Khomeini and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in Iran; WP doesn't censor Wallace's nationality or religious background, despite the many fatwas that could get him killed.  I doubt WP is more widely read there than the many newspapers that report the fact already, and if we start importing the censorship standards of every country in the world there will be no information left.TVC 15 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Since you called my earlier statement "misinformation," could you please provide an example to support that? I've addressed Iran, but maybe you were thinking of some other country?  I'm not asking for an apology (although what I said was true), I'm just asking for an example so I can either address it or remedy a gap in my knowledge.  Certainly there are countries where it can be dangerous to be openly gay, but that is different from saying a visiting journalist would get executed because of a Wikipedia article linking to published reports already available elsewhere.  (BTW, if there is an example, maybe we should censor the whole Talk page too, and the archives, just in case a criminal court might click the "Discussion" tab.  Of course, those pesky reliable sources would have to be censored too.)TVC 15 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that a visiting journalist would get executed, I said that the statement "I am not aware of any country where the mere status of being gay results in execution" is dangerous misinformation, and it is. To suggest to people that they'll be fine as long as it can't be proved that they committed an actual sexual act could get them into trouble.  In general, the danger is greater for citizens.  For instance, from the Iran link at List of LGBT rights by region: "As the Islamic law covers all aspects of Iranian society and culture, no public discussion of homosexuality is permitted, no gay rights organizations are allowed to exist, and no political party that supports gay rights will have their candidates on the election ballot.  The charges of homosexuality and Lavat (sodomy) are difficult to discern in Iran. The judiciary allows forced confessions. Other charges are often paired with the Lavat crime, such as rape or acts against the state, and convictions are obtained in grossly flawed trials."  To suggest that someone will be safe as long as they don't actually have sex is misinformation, in a country whose judiciary allows no discussion of the subject and allows forced confessions in grossly flawed trials. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Your point and quotes could apply to anyone regardless of whether they are actually gay or not, and regardless of whether Wikipedia says so.  Also exposing the fact that Christiane Amanpour is married could open her to charges of adultery, if someone were to force her to confess (regardless of the facts).  What you seem to be saying is, 'Iran is a place where the judiciary can punish people for crimes they didn't commit,' which is a true statement but doesn't depend on what is in a Wikipedia article.  Rather than get into a digression about the quality of justice in Iran, as to which I agree with you, let's return to the article and treat AC and this reliably sourced fact the same way we treat other well known public figures  and other reliably sourced facts.TVC 15 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's written above "Cooper wishes to not disclose his sexual orientation, we should honor that request." Actually he has stated he doesn't wish to discuss the issue in a formal interview; meanwhile he dates men, goes to gay bars, LGBT events, etc. He is simply not proclaiming his sexuality but avoiding discussing it. We can't infer too much from his actions except report dispassionately what is covered in reliable sources. I agree with TVC 15 overall assessment that Wikipedia treats the issue - very much like the religious right does - that being a sexuality minority is something to be ashamed of therefore the information should be concealed (if not prayed away). We should avoid scandalizing this - or any - issue but neither should we violate our intelligence or that of our readers. We present what we feel is NPOV and well sourced material and let them decide for themselves what to think. -- Banj e  b oi   19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I take issue with the statement that WP treats sexuality like the Religious Right. In no way does WP say that homosexuality is wrong or evil.  Cooper may be treating his sexuality in that way by not "discussing" it, but that's not WP.  WP should simply report what Cooper (and others) say about his sexual identity and orientation. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll obviously have to agree to disagree here. I've never seen anyone being compelled to prove someone is heterosexual on Wikipedia. We take it for granted and all policies assume that being labeled LGB is problematic even if the subject has given no indication they feel being LGB is in any way a problem or in some way a defect or embarrassing. The default is heteronormative which favors closetedness. -- Banj e  b oi   21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)