Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 7

Single? Never Married?
?? 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)


 * Actually you've got it backwards. You need to prove he is single, and has never been married.  You do that with a reliable source and citation. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:51, 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: . Hope this helps!!! --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was posted by Rick Sanchez, not Cooper. Still, Tool2Die4 is right - the burden of proof is on those who want to add information, not those who want to remove it. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:16, 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)


 * Comment. Cooper has never married and has actively avoided discussing his private life, citing a desire to protect his neutrality as a journalist is already in the article. We have no reliable source that he is dating or single that I'm aware and we do have sources that he actively avoids the topic. -- Banj e  b oi   01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry
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. -- Banj e b oi   10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I could just be horribly bad at searching for this stuff, but I can't find English. It's mentioned in Cornelius Vanderbilt's WP page, but without names or sources. I believe he has a connection to Princess Diana, but I’m unable to find a family tree, so I don’t know about a direct ancestor being English. 'Dutch' at least is accounted for by the linked piece on the Vanderbilt family. His great grandmother was Chilean American and his great-great-grandmother was Spanish; [] So it goes quite a long while back, do you feel they should still be in here or not? Elphie13 (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hum, right. So, the Trivia bit above explains his English ancestry and discarded it for being too vague. Nevermind! (Assuming that's why it was added originally, at least). Elphie13 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gay
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)
 * This has been discussed previously but the short version is that multiple reliable sources have stated he is gay and we are reporting that. Wikipedia doesn't out someone but we do report of reliable sources have. -- Banj e  b oi   23:02, 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 we never state that he does, we quote him as to why he doesn't talk about his personal life and state what reliable sources have stated. -- Banj e  b oi   23:13, 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)
 * Well, I guess you could assume that, although that tends to get news outlets sued for defamation. Are you suggesting that all the sources have made up that similar information over the course of a decade? Or is there a particular source you think is making something up? -- Banj e  b oi   01:25, 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)


 * Well that's quite a conspiracy you have going there. It also discounts that many of these sources are seasoned journalists who would easily have discounted a falsified blog posting. I'll consider the matter closed for now. -- Banj e  b oi   02:55, 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)


 * So what proof do you have that the sources are not reliable? Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:38, 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)
 * With due respect you may have agreed that Naff's writing/ opinion isn't that notable but this is the editor of a major LGBT publication spelling out why he feels Cooper's reticence to address the subject directly is hypocritical and spells out clearly that it's because Cooper, as a journalist, asks the "gay " question. No one ever suggested this article was about Naff or anyone else but Cooper. If the Pope addresses Cooper's sexuality I'm quite sure it would be quickly included. If Urvashi Vaid devoted an article about Cooper's sexuality in the context of her also being the editor of a notable LGBT publication i would generally think that too would be worth considering. And no, the editor of a reliable source doesn't need to also have an article for us to take seriously their opinion. And yes, Cooper has been dogged by rumors but we can add that if it's really needed later. I've removed the "dogged by rumors" phrase for now; it's the same phrase we used for Clay Aiken before he finally outed himself.  -- Banj e  b oi   02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume "you" above is meant in the plural, but can you find any WP article about a journalist that names other people in connection with their criticisms of the journalist? It isn't a matter of whether to take Naff or his criticisms seriously, it's a matter of whether they're noteworthy in AC's life, and treating AC like any other journalist, and treating the fact that he's gay like any other fact.TVC 15 (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that journalist BLPs get treated as a special class, it's that per NPOV, we - the plural Wikipedia "we" - don't say "____ is a hypocrite", we qualify who has characterized him as such and let the reader decide. Our sum total information about Naff here is "Washington Blade editor, Kevin Naff". I'm open to several changes if you think they might help. We could further add that Washington Blade is a LGBT newspaper, we could add for which city. Another step, which may or may not help, is to add a statement from the National LGBT Journalist's Association (NLGJA) about how "outing someone without permission remains a dicey proposition" or similar. Or even that outing anyone is considered controversial. -- Banj e  b oi   02:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or we could put it back as it was before, since this page is not a forum for Kevin Naff or the NLGJA or anyone to discuss their own opinions on Anderson's sexuality, or hypocrisy, or outing in general, but it's a work of reference meant for citing facts about a person, and this quote (or article, or person) is as good as irrelevant to Anderson Cooper as a whole and does not treat his sexuality as any other fact on his WP page, as TVC 15 said. (Cooper is primarily known to the larger public as 'Anderson Cooper, Journalist', on which no one is quoted here to help 'let the reader decide' the way it's helping us decide if we agree with Kevin Naff that he's a hypocrite, which again is not the (direct) point of an encyclopedia. Cooper doesn't even discuss his sexuality himself and yet there are two people with no important place in Cooper's life cited and linked on their opinions on 'Anderson Cooper, Teh Gay', on here. (Both negative.)) I'd also like to see the other WP pages quoting other people's opinions on a journalists personal life.


 * Either way, in between sweetly implying Anderson's an attention-seeking wuss making ridiculous claims about his job, Kevin Naff uses faulty logic in accusing Anderson Cooper of being a hypocrite.
 * He says Cooper can't ask other people if they're gay even if it's relevant to the profile of that person, because Cooper doesn't answer the question himself when asked. However Cooper, to my knowledge, has not blamed others for asking him about his sexuality, which would be the actual equivalent; ('You asking me about mine is wrong but I'll ask you about yours.') He answers the question with "I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life.". ('You can ask me, but I choose not to answer.') His interview subject had the exact same options as Cooper does, so unless Cooper faults the interviewee for not answering questions on his sexuality, (which he did choose to answer in the interview with Cooper so that's not even possible here, and what makes you think they didn't agree to discuss it beforehand? You simply don't know.), or faults his own interviewers for asking him in the first place, that is not hypocrisy.


 * I also doubt the use of quoting Keith Olbermann here, which you added previously, linking to an interview in which he compares Cooper to the Bush Administration, for laughing out loud. A person decides for himself what he finds personal or not, and if Cooper thinks the things in his book are less private to him than talking about his sex life or sexuality, then that's his judgment to make, not Olbermann's, even if he (or anyone else) disagrees with it or thinks it's 'illogical' to feel so. He did answer questions on his book. I understand Olbermann's position as an anchor on MSNBC makes him more recognizable than Kevin Naff, who I'm not sure is all that well known (outside the gay community), but they're not even on the same network, could you please explain to me why you feel it's relevant to put his quote here, on Cooper's page? Regards, Elphie13 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stinky socks. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what Tool2Die4's comment means. However, I agree with Elphie13, again, which is why I thought this issue had been decided last month when we had the same discussion with Benjiboi, who seemed at that time to  accept the compromise deleting Naff but leaving Olbermann.  The criticisms made by Olbermann and Naff are simply inapposite, both in the sense that they are demonstrably incorrect and that they do not belong in AC's biography.  Benjiboi, you seem to view this as a debate on the accomplishments of Kevin Naff, or the rights of others who have opinions of AC, but the article is _not about them_.  The Pope has made his opinion clear, but that belongs in the Pope's article, not AC's.  (Others have called the Pope's own sex life a disorder, and criticized his pronouncements on the subject, but their names and opinions don't become part of the Pope's WP biography.)  AC has taken questions regarding his book, he has a right to decide for himself which questions to answer, and his biography is not a forum for others' incorrect and/or obscure opinions.  That's why I linked previously to WP:NPOV including WP:UNDUE on false controversies, e.g. the flat earthers.  AC is a living person, and although his status as a  well known public figure creates some latitude in reporting on his personal life, it is inappropriate to use his prominence as a vehicle for others to bring attention to themselves.  Coat-tailing (profiting from someone else's starlight) may have been Naff's goal in calling AC a hypocrite, which was his own blog comment and not even an article by his newspaper.  Benjiboi, when I point out that naming others in connection with their opinions of AC enables them to coat-tail on his prominence, you respond by saying Naff is great and we should name others with opinions too; the point is, the article is _not about them_.TVC 15 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you agree with Elphie13. You're the same person.  If you're going to operate a sock puppet, at least have them contribute in other places than the talk page of Anderson Cooper. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't make false accusations, especially without evidence. I have never created or operated a sock puppet, and to my knowledge I have never even met Elphie13.  Please read WP:CIVIL and assume good faith.  I would request an apology, but frankly your false and baseless accusation reflects on you, not me.TVC 15 (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you should probably read up on sock-puppetry. It's not taken lightly. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm Dutch, actually, so that should be easy to prove false though IP Address or whatever they trace people with. Elphie13 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm having an administrator look into it. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You do that. :) Elphie13 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And, when the admin confirms that Elphie13 and I are different people in different countries, please apologize for your repeated false and baseless accusations.TVC 15 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The administrator's investigation confirmed that Elphie13 and I are unrelated. Tool2Die4 thanked the administrator for investigating  but has not apologized or retracted the false and baseless accusation above, so I am writing here to clarify the record.TVC 15 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I would just like to go back to talking about the article without feeling like people distrust me, so in case anyone's still skeptical and there's something I could do to help with that, please, let me know! No hard feelings, I just hope we can go back to discussing. :) Sincerely, Elphie13 (talk) 11:09, 11 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)


 * Sorry, I had to take a break. WP:Silence is not the best way to note someone has accepted a change and, as is evidence by my reversal of that change, would invalid that perceived acceptance. Moving forward, I am opposed to a criticism section in general on BLPs. It would suggest more a poorly written article than a NPOV one. If there is notable criticism it should be placed appropriately in relevance to whatever issues they address. Also, I accept what you write about what is or is not hypocrisy but that is why we clarify who stated Cooper was hyprocritical and why, per NPOV. I would be opposed to us stating he was hypocritical but still support it's use here. I've tried to clean up that paragraph for other minor issues to improve the flow, I hope those are fine. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But why would we even want to have it in there as ‘notable’ criticism when it's not even a logical conclusion, is one-sided, is not in proportion to the other subjects on this page, is not equal compared to other pages, and, for what you say is it's notability, was taken from a blog post from a person who has no notable connection to Cooper otherwise and isn't even all that well known in general to my knowledge?
 * I know silence isn't necessarily agreement, but you haven't addressed my concerns about the quote of Keith Olbermann at all, does that mean you agree it shouldn't be in here?
 * You say you still want the Kevin Naff quote to be in here, you obviously have a high opinion of him as you feel it's notable to this page, but you haven't responded to any of the counter arguments I made in response to your post, nor those TCV 15 made or the policies he or she linked to. You've only said that you accept Naff is being illogical in calling Anderson Cooper a hypocrite and you want it in despite that, why is that? Why put it in when it's based on faulty logic? Hypocrite is not an subjective term, (“a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings” -Webster) so in concluding Cooper is a hypocrite for the reasons he gives in his blog post, Naff is simply wrong, as explained above. If it doesn't make sense, doesn't that make it practically useless, at least to put it on this page? The only requirement or reason you mentioned for putting it in there is that it's not ours. By those qualifications, anyone well-known enough to have a WP page and an opinion on anything related to Anderson Cooper should be quoted in here, truth value aside, which I hope you agree would not be appropriate. Elphie13 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elphie13, again. Although I respect Kevin Naff, he is simply wrong here, which may be why his opinion ran only on his blog, not even an editorial at the newspaper where he is managing editor.  Since when do blog comments count as  reliable sources anyway?  I accept that Naff wrote the comment on his blog, but it's expressly opinion, not fact, and WP reports reliably sourced facts.  If there were conflicting assertions of fact, then we might have something, but there has never been any controversy about the underlying fact that AC is gay, there has only been a difference of opinion as to whether he has some obligation to make a news story out of it.TVC 15 (talk) 19:49, 12 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:. 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)


 * I've restructured that sentence to qupte Naff so it's more clear why he characterized Cooper as hypocritical. Even if you or I may not don't agree that Cooper was hypocritical, that's what was stated. He's the editor of a leading LGBT publication that has been reporting on exactly these issues for years, if not decades. I'm not sure if it was printed only online but even blogs from experts in their fields are fine as reliable sources. Elphie13, I apologize if I missed your efforts to remove the Olbermann sentence, I'll oppose that too. Olbermann is well experienced to offer perspective on this and and did so also in a reliable source. I also strongly disagree with the repeated idea that we treat all journalists the same, instead we treat all articles the same. Journalists shouldn't be saddled with criticism section nor should most any other articles. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some discussion on the discussion page for WP:RS of citing blogs from experts in their fields of expertise, but it is not part of the actual WP:RS policy page. In any event, Naff's comment is about hypocrisy, so your justification for citing his blog implies you think he is an expert in the field of hypocrisy.  I think even he would disagree with you there.TVC 15 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, in fairness to Miagirljmw14, by inserting critical opinion from one direction, you have opened the door for critical opinion from another direction. The article is supposed to be facts about AC; the debatable (or clearly wrong) opinions of others belong on their pages, not his.TVC 15 (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Naff is easily considered an expert in closeted celebrities and the issues regarding outing them as journalists - both Naff and Cooper are journalists and Naff is talking about Cooper's asking someone else to confirm or deny their gayness while he avoids the same question repeatedly. I never suggested Naff was an expert on hypocrisy - not sure how one would show that in any case. Is your concern that we aren't more fully spelling out that this is Naff's opinion? Perhaps we could find a way to address it. And no, opinions about each subject belong firstly on the articles concerning those subjects, if stating those opinions in itself gains notability then they might also be a good addition to the originator's article as well. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote is ABOUT hypocrisy. I know and understand why Naff characterized Cooper as hypocritical, but it's just flat out wrong to do so because of the facts he stated in the article. It's not a question of agreement. Facts are; a hypocrite is “a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings” -Webster Dictionary. Cooper doesn't do so in the interview, as I pointed out above. Editor of a leading LGBT publication or not, his logic is incorrect here. The argumentation and conclusion behind this particular quote are wrong, there is no way to come from the facts Naff cited to the conclusion he made that makes reasonable sense. His statement is wrong. Elphie13 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still agree with Elphie13, but I have a suggestion that might even satisfy Miagirljmw14. I looked again at the current Pope's biography, and under References it does include a subsection for notable criticisms.  They are not quoted in the article, but they do appear as links with author, title, and publication.  The lead example is a Time magazine article written by Andrew Sullivan.  AC's WP article has an External Links section, so maybe that is the place to list (as links) other people's criticisms.  Miagirljmw14, if that is what you meant by compromise, then I am sorry for misunderstanding your suggestion.  I thought you were suggesting what Benjiboi has suggested, and done, i.e. name and quote others' opinions in the article text.  (An advantage of building up a track record is you can provide examples showing what you mean, thus reducing ambiguity.)  I still doubt whether Naff's blog counts as notable in AC's bio.  Think if it were the other way around, i.e. praise instead of criticism.  The article lists AC's Emmy award, but it doesn't list everyone who has ever blogged a kind thing about him.  Likewise, if he were convicted of a notable crime, the article would describe it and link to the record, but that doesn't mean it has to quote every critic's blog.  I am not trying to shield AC from criticism, I am simply trying to make this article more neutral by bringing it into line with other WP articles.TVC 15 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Elphie13, illogical or not it's what he said. We don't censor because someone's statement doesn't make sense. To me it works fine and I think our readers can see what he was talking about. Here is Cooper, a seasoned journalist who has deflected the "gay question" repeatedly yet, as a journalist, on national TV, asks it to another celebrity. Cooper giving non-answers doesn't really change that he has dodged the question asked of him. Personally I would think it more hypocritical if he asked someone else about their sexuality and then badgered them if they gave the same type of non-answers he has. TVC 15, the Pope article section is actually an external link and that likely wouldn't hold up under WP:EL. As for the praise, and other, examples, if they added to our readers understanding of the subject we sure can add them. It needs to still conform to NPOV, but yes, can be included. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   23:43, 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)


 * I agree, Miagirljmw14. I don't think there should be a criticism section, I think TVC15's suggestion is better than the current solution, but I still agree with you two that the Naff quote doesn't belong here.


 * @ Benjiboy:


 * This is roughly how I myself would say the topics of article go:
 * Anderson Cooper (on WP for being a noted journalist)


 * Anderson Cooper’s personal life
 * Anderson Cooper’s refusal to discuss his sexuality
 * Anderson Cooper’s sexuality as reported by others, included because of it's connection to Anderson Cooper’s own refusal to discuss his sexuality.
 * Opinions of people unrelated to Cooper on his decision to not discuss his sexuality, based on his sexuality as reported by others.


 * I would say that’s not really relevant already in a one page document, but you say you think it is. It then from there continues to quote two individuals on their opinions of Cooper. There is no indication mentioned or available of whether this is a majority or minority view, so it's just their own opinions. One quote is based on a single incident. The quotes cited are one-sided, both in agreement with each other, both negative, which I would think is not actually representative of the general public opinion. Quoting two individuals like this makes it seem like this is a general concensus.


 * You still deem them noteworthy here despite these things, and these being individual opinions from people, I'd say the content must be particularly insightful to Anderson Cooper to even be mentioned here, otherwise I find there to be more negative than positive in including them. But I don’t feel that they are.
 * -About the people quoted; You say Olbermann's "well experienced to offer perspective on this", but don't give your reasons for finding him to be so. This is not a general assessment of Kevin Naff's and Keith Olbermann's credentials, it’s about whether these particular quotes are noteworthy here, when discussing Cooper’s decisions on his own private life. I just don't see what makes these people qualified to have their opinions on Anderson's personal decisions on his private life cited here like they´re a bastion of meaning or insight. Neither Naff nor Olbermann has an important place of insight in Coopers life. Olbermann doesn't even work on the same network as Cooper does, we know nothing about their acquaintance other than that they both know of the others existence, which is more than you can say about Kevin Naff. This quote isn't about Cooper as a journalist anyway but about Cooper´s private life as a gay person, and what makes Olbermann so "well experienced" on that that his personal opinions on a (to him) fairly random person's personal life are so meaningful they should be quoted here?
 * -	About Olbermann's quote itself: I find his logic here is dubious at best, apparently he feels Cooper has no right to a personal life at all after writing a memoir, and actually feels this makes it required of him to answer each and any question about subjects not even in his book. Tell some, tell all, seems to be the essence of the quote. This is not factually wrong since it’s a question about rational behaviour, of which people have their own standards and so does Olbermann, but I'd say that's not a very reasonable expectation by most people's standards. (I’m not sure what privacy laws state, but I’d imagine you have the legal right to not answer it as well.)
 * -	On Naff’s quote itself; This entire characterization/quote is based on one interview question Cooper supposedly asked once in all the years of his being a journalist. Relevant? Naff states Cooper asking that question is the 'height of hypocrisy'. 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, I'd have to have an actual scenario in which you acted hypocritical for accusing you of that, and Naff cannot explain why Cooper is factually a hypocrite in this situation even though he charges him with being one. Naff’s quote states Cooper’s act is the ‘height of hypocrisy’ as a fact, while by being faulty in his deductive reasoning, the ‘fact’ Naff states is, in this case, wrong, but it might be difficult for the common reader to detect that.


 * He also states it as a fact Cooper asked Chesney about the rumors, but I checked and the only question we hear him 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 don’t know how this came up in the conversation, whether he or Cooper brought it up. So that’s just assuming.


 * You can say we shouldn't 'censor' it just because it's inaccurate, but with that and all the reasons for not including it, why should we include it? How does it 'add to our readers understanding of the subject' if it's actually wrong? It's a Naff's personal opinion stated as fact (by Naff) that's not really insightful at all and a derogatory designation of the subject, I don’t see for what reason it should be in here.Elphie13 (talk) 20:27, 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)


 * Whether or not Olberman and Naff were technically correct in their line of questioning or assessment of the situation seems a bit of a red herring. They each were commenting on Cooper's avoidance of directly answering the question of Cooper's sexuality - without the use of non-answers - that has been the subject of rumors for years. All three are seasoned journalists with Olberman and Cooper being quite aware of how celebrities are marketed by themselves and others. Naff is undoubtably quite familiar with all manner of celebrities dealing with concealing private issues and well as sussing out the reliability of statements that celebrity X is gay. Creating a criticism section solely for the purpose of somehow mitigating these statements is counterproductive and I would oppose employing its use here, and likely elsewhere. To answer specifically some of the concerns Elphie13 raises. Living a closeted life is generally seen as deceptive, especially as being open about one's sexuality is less and less of an issue. In LGBT communities its seen as a classism issue as well. People in upper classes can afford to take any stance they want whereas those in lower classes have less opportunities and often feel they have to conceal their minority sexuality status. If they don't they can lose their job, their home, their children whereas a person of economic means can address these concerns and has more options available to them. There are other issues around celebrities coming out but I believe that is the salient part. Should we loo to rewording these sentences so it more clear why they are included? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:01, 14 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)
 * I disagree with your assessment but mob rule is mob rule, congrats on that. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the edit. I'm surprised by your "mob rule" comment though; if you look at the lengthy discussion above, there are no threats and everyone went to great lengths to explain their views.  There were no attacks - with the possible exception of Tool2Die4's, for which (s)he has still not apologized.  As noted above, everyone gets it wrong once in a while.  If I may make a comparison to recent history, when the US was trying (unsuccesssfully) to persuade NATO allies that alleged Iraqi WMDs required immediate invasion: if you can't convince even the people who respect you and want to agree with you, you might simply be mistaken.TVC 15 (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm reverting your edit. It's obvious that third-party resolution is needed here.  I suggest you go that route. Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started a thread on the BLP noticeboard regarding the situation. It's obvious the 4 (*cough* three? *cough*) people involved here aren't going to find common ground.  Since this has very serious BLP implications, input from other users are needed. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh. That's four people, and you could try to be somewhat polite. We've all managed to be so while discussing the actual subject here, your accusation was discarded, let it go. If you read the actual conversation we had about this together, the quotes state facts that are wrong (Assumption of Cooper asking Chesney a question, Calling him hypocrite on false grounds in contradiction with the dictionary definition of hypocrite, attributed quote that was never said by Cooper), and there are several other reasons mentioned for questioning their notability. Maybe instead of being passive-agressive against us, you could actually talk about the topic and explain why you want them in the text? Elphie13 (talk) 16:40, 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)


 * No. You actually can't suggest a vote. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tool2Die4, by what authority do you claim that Miagirljmw14 "can't suggest a vote?" Your comment seems part of a pattern of acting as if you owned WP.  I have restored the version of the article that you reverted, and your repeated reversions suggest that you are engaging in an  edit war for passive-aggressive reasons.  I saw on your page that you have a pattern of bullying elsewhere, e.g. pretending to have the authority to block users.  I have left a comment on your talk page, asking you to cease edit warring and commence WP:CIVIL discussion.  You actually reverted that, but if another editor restores it and joins my comment on your talk page, it will be enough to support an WP:RfC.TVC 15 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked (but not at all surprised) by your lack of knowledge of Wiki-policy. Do you know what Twinkle is?  Do you understand how AIV works?  That would explain my "pretending to have the authority to block users".  Please look into that.  Your childish antics grow tiresome.  As regarding my talk page, it's long been established that a user has complete control over the content of his/her talk page, including reverting/deleting any and all contributions the user sees fit.  I am begging you to start an RfC about my reverting my talk page.  That would be comedy gold.  Again, not surprised you don't grasp this.  And edit-warring would hardly be considered "passive-aggressive".  Stop throwing around phrases and Wikipedia policies like you actually understand them.


 * With regards to your original question, see here. If you had actually read this at some point, you'd know Wikipedia is about consensus building, not "voting".  Any further questions? Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion is becoming less about AC, and more about Tool2Die4. In reply to your comments above, using  Twinkle does not absolve you of any responsibility.  Also, you are not an admin, so  AIV does not give you the authority to block users.  The WP:RfC, if filed, will concern your pattern of bullying and disruption, not your decision to hide a WP:3RR warning by reverting your Talk page.  WP is about consensus building, but does allow polls to measure progress towards consensus; that is what I understood Miagirljmw14's suggestion to mean.TVC 15 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet you continue to respond. Shocking.  If you grasped how Wikipedia works, you'd understand the concept of warning a user, then reporting to AIV, at which point an Administrator takes over.  Somehow, you still don't grasp this though.
 * You're no longer worth my time to respond to, so keep me posted about when you go forward with that RfC. I could always use a good laugh. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have a question. The content of the quotes includes multiple facts stated about Cooper that are false, and are used for negative characterizations that don't make any sense logically and/or factually either, why are they in here? I really want to consider your concerns about not adding the quotes but you're not giving me any chance to do so by not joining in the consensus building, you're not commenting on the subject, not rebutting a single one of the concerns we've mentioned in this conversation and not giving any reasons why we should include these quotes in this article, would you please do so? Thanks in advance. Elphie13 (talk) 19:41, 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)
 * I'll take that as prima facie evidence that you still haven't read this. I can copy and paste it here for you, if that'd make things easier? Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:39, 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:. That account was banned indefinitely. Meanwhile, on the BLP noticeboard to which Tool2Die4 brought this matter, no one supported Tool2Die4's reverts.  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)


 * Before this continues, I would like to note to all parties involved that further unconstructive comments will not be tolerated here. Several times this discussion has been led off-track for baseless accusations and attempts to derail the conversation. Such is disruptive, and not helping form a consensus on the matter at hand. Tool2Die4, there is no policy that says a quick straw poll cannot be formed to get a quick judge of where people stand on matters. I am aware of WP:NOT and Polls are evil, but I am also aware, as you should be, that neither is binding. There are times when polls are appropriate; in general, yes, they are not. Accusing others of not understanding policy and harassing them about it is not acceptable, and it's not the first time this discussion you've done so. Knock it off, and get back to working on the article. *steps down from the soapbox and motions for the conversation to continue* <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 22:07, 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)