Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Photo

It's be nice if we had a photograph of Anderson here. Would a screen cap from his tv show be considered legit? What would this be, fair use, public domain or other? --Sketchee 20:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I basically mean in the Public, because a lot of people at my school and in my family do find his show boring and not appealing anymore. So, I was wondering did his popularity drop across the board?

Skull and Bones membership

Anderson was NOT in Skull and Bones, but rather another secret society - Manuscript. I believe the society has a wikipedia entry. Their "tomb" is on Elm st. in New Haven.

Does anyone know if he was in Skull and Bones?

Anderson has said in interviews that he was not in Skull and Bones. That he was a "loser" in college and locked himself in his dorm most of the time.

Aww, that's so sad -- do you know when he said that ? 65.13.3.52 04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dogs

I've found references online to Molly, Ozzie and both. Could it be that he had Ozzie first, got Molly and then Ozzie passed away? If anyone knows more about his dog(s) please post here. -- Limulus 04:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard Ozzie had to be put down a couple of years ago and that's about the time he got Molly.

No, Ozzie was bought with another person, who took her when they split. Ozzie, named after a Boston Red Sox player, died Summer 2006 in Palm Springs from cancer. Molly was purchased during another relationship and she has apparently remained with Anderson after that break-up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.14.89.52 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Religious beliefs

Has anyone seen/heard anything about Cooper's theological beliefs? It just struck me that I haven't run across mention of religion in any of the articles I've read about him. -- Limulus 05:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

His father, Wyatt Cooper, was raised Southern Baptist. His mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, was raised Catholic. I've heard Anderson is Episcopalian - no confirmation though. He does, however, collect crucifixes.

I've seen him say "god bless you" or similar such things to people during the reporting of Katrina/Rita. I've never come across him discussing his religious beliefs in public, though. 65.186.79.160 01:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a large crucifix on the wall of one of the rooms in Anderson's former loft in the InStyle photo shoot and another that was on a nightstand.

Journalist style

Some think anderson is a bit of a sensationalist

Fansites

On 15:38, 2 January 2006, William Graham removed the Fansites subsection from External links for the reason that "Wikipedia is not a directory of fansites":

While I agree in principle, some of those might have interesting content worth linking to; should any of them go back in? -- Limulus 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No. If they have any good content that should be summarized here. -Will Beback 19:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of sexuality

God, this shouldn't matter, but how can anyone not be convinced that Anderson Cooper is gay? Ask virtually any gay man living in New York City in the mid 1990's whether or not they've seen Anderson at a gay bar (Boiler Room, anyone?) or whether or not he's dated their friends (he's dated some of mine). I think the refusal to believe he's gay is mostly due to America's continual refusal to believe anyone more masculine that Paul Lynde is gay.

He's gay. Who cares. Move on.

216.57.33.131 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Jimbo

New to Wiki http://www.gawker.com/news/media/anderson-cooper/anderson-cooper-always-super-always-sweet-always-sixteen-039825.php http://youcantmakeitup.blogspot.com/2005/04/anderson-cooper-gay-or-flaming.html It's about Anderson liking Super Sweet 16 and Walter Mercado. What do you think of that? And about the "we" vs "you" thing http://www.gawker.com/news/media//anderson-cooper-ignores-us-026614.php http://www.gawker.com/news/media/anderson-cooper/the-final-word-on-anderson-cooper-026720.php I think we can put that to rest.

-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.151.239.154 (talk • contribs) .

Why does everyone get so upset at the suggestion that someone might be gay? Is that defamation? I don't think so. It's an interesting aspect of his personal life, and sure to disappoint some ladies out there, but it's not bad. I don't know why people are getting so uppity about whether or not there is "conclusive proof," as if we're calling the man a murder just by discussing his sexual orientation. What kind of a puritanical society do we live in? And we wonder why the politicians in D.C. call the middle of the nation "fly over country."

Is he really gay? One of these edits is the first I have heard of his sexual orientation.

Cooper lives in New York City with his dog, Welsh Springer Spaniel, Molly. There are persistent rumors that he is gay.

-As the above user comments on Mr. Cooper's sexuality, I am not absolutely sure that the line about the "persistent rumors" is necessary for his wiki article. Now I am actually myself positive that he is indeed gay. When Mr. Cooper was actually living in Atlanta he came into a gay club and ordered a drink down the bar from me. He appeared to be waiting for someone. Wouldn’t stand up in court but that was enough given all else that is known about Cooper to convince me. That said, until if and when Mr. Cooper makes a statement on his sexuality could it be best to leave the matter aside?--Francis Burdett 20:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone in New York knows Anderson's gay. It's not a secret. 68.173.44.202 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)

Well it can't be in the article unless you have real proof (i.e. he actually admitted it). Just cause someone acts gay (and he doesn't really act like a stereotypically gay person) doesn't mean they really are gay. Xunflash 03:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Cooper is gay. --ThomasK 06:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

From Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, "This category is a partial listing of notable gay, lesbian and bisexual people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation, or whose sexual orientation is known and not debated by historians." I don't really think that Anderson Cooper fits this definition and I think that the categorization should be removed from this article. Whether or not he is gay, he has not publicly declared his sexual orientation, and it seems to be a matter of some debate. --timc | Talk 17:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, even though it is obvious to those who really care, he hasn't come out and declared his sexual orientation. I really think it should be removed from the article. --waffle iron 23:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This is suppose to be an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how many people in Anderson Cooper's neighbourhood "know" that he's gay. The fact that he's gay should only be added to the article if there is conclusive proof, verifiable by the reader. More importantly his sexual orientation should only be added if it is relevant to this article. There are thousands of biographical entries in Wikipedia where the subject's sexual orientaion is not mentioned. --65.94.43.50

While I do not know if he is gay or not, it is relevant to this entry because of the numerous discussions about his sexual orientation online (e.g. on BlogActive). To maintain a neutal POV, I have quoted from NY Magazine (see the fourth page) which gives quite a bit of background to the issue and quotes Cooper directly... he doesn't want to talk about his "personal life" ^_- But that non-answer in itself is something. I tried to tie it into the "Cooper has frequently been involved with gay and lesbian issues" section; sorry if the connection looks a bit clunky. -- Limulus 11:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, He's also mentioned in Wikipedia's list of Persons of debated lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation which states "The following list includes those who some people legitimately believe there is meaningful evidence the person is or was gay, lesbian or bisexual. This speculation should be supported by documentation or historical record. More information about what is known about each individual's sexuality should be available in the individual's biography." which is another reason that it should be in Cooper's bio. -- Limulus 12:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The stuff about his proported sexuality has creeped back in. Should it stay? --waffle iron 04:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No. We still don't have word from him. It's just speculation. At the most it deserves a short mention and possibly a link to the homosexual speculation page.

Are we to censor those who legitimately believe that Cooper is gay when the Wikipedia page I quoted from explicitly says that we should document their views? Plus I tried to balance it with the NY Magazine article which very much downplays it... Honestly, all that it would take for me to move the gay speculation section into triva while feeling academically honest would be for Cooper to say three words: "I'm not gay." That would trump all the speculation. But given the chance to, he said "I just don’t talk about my personal life." Well, the thing is that others are talking about his personal life (e.g. blogACTIVE). The comments are available for anyone to see if they do a quick google search; I really think this should be kept (though I am obviously a tad biased since I put it back ;). -- Limulus 20:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. If Andy is straight, why does he dodge the question? That's what I don't understand. To say that "we still don't have a word from [Anderson Cooper]" (as stated two entries above mine) implies that Cooper has never been asked about this, which would, in turn, imply that the paragraph Limulus refers to ("I just don’t talk about my personal life.") is a fabrication. Personally I don't care if he's gay or not, I still watch his show. I mean, he pays taxes...

It just reads like tabloid fodder. Maybe if you clean it up a bit, the whole "many in the gay community..." comment in particular. What many? Who? Just random gays polled by the people at Gallup? And the "his handlers at CNN [are] known to call sites..." quote as well. I'd like to know where this was quoted from and have a direct link to the original document or at least reference it's source. And it's none of our business why he "dodges" the question. It's his life; let him live it. Until he says "I'm queer and here" from atop a broken levee, it is still just speculation. And poorly sourced speculation at that.

I accept your point regarding "many"; I'll tweak that in a moment. Please tell me what you think of the results. The "handlers at CNN" quote is directly from the blogACTIVE link. Perhaps I should get those two sentences to flow better. Him 'dodging the question' is now a matter of public record (via NY Metro article) and as such fair game. BTW, the main activity of blogACTIVE is to out gay Quislings, if you will. Given their results, if they say someone is gay, I trust that as fairly reliable ;) -- Limulus 09:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

# Here's another way to look at it: Presumably it doesn't really matter whether or not he's gay, and he's made it plain that he doesn't want the matter to be part of discussion about him. Therefore, we should pull this from the article until such time as it may become relevant. -- 03 November 2005

This is not the Anderson Cooper fanclub, this is his biographical entry on Wikipedia: the whole point is to give an accurate depiction of the life of the person in question. It is relevant because more than a few people have claimed that he is gay. -- Limulus 00:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that because he's not self identifying as gay, it shouldn't be included. I could get a whole bunch of people to claim Wolf Blitzer is gay and you wouldn't add it there. --waffle iron 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If several sources had made that claim, it would be relevant to Blitzer just as it is with Anderson. A search on the topic on Google News gives a pretty clear indication of that. If you did it, it would be original research. In the case of Anderson, we give who has said what about the topic including Andersons POV, note the verifiability of the claim and that's it. Wikipedia should present both sides and not favor either of course. NPOV doesn't mean "Anderson Cooper's POV about his own life" either. Just as politicians and other visible figures may not want to discuss allegations about their personal life, they still might be high profile claims and would then be included in their article --Sketchee 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think he's probably gay, but what you're describing is gossip. I don't think that gossip and heresay has much place in an encyclopedia. --waffle iron 04:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that its not just random people making comments here and there online, you also have reporters like Michael Musto writing articles for Out magazine and The Village Voice... Sure its not the mainstream press, but its not just gossip either. -- Limulus 13:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean to say that Michael "Best Gossip Columnist in a poll conducted by nycsidewalk.com" Musto isn't a gossip writer? --waffle iron 20:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, he is for the most part (amusingly, he was interviewed by Anderson Cooper for "the buzz" at least twice: 1 2 ...does that mean AC considers him a reliable-enough source? ;), but that's not to say that Musto can't be or hasn't been quite serious when he wants to, e.g. "At the height of the first wave of AIDS, I wrote a column about the fear, anger, and grief gripping the gay community that I feel mirrored that moment pretty articulately." The Cooper article he wrote was (based on the summaries I've read) not so much an outing of AC (Musto considers Cooper's sexuality an "open-secret") as an examination of why the mainstream press had tip-toed around his sexuality in various interviews up to that point (I think the NY Metro article was the first to speak about it in any meaningful way). Now, the curious thing is that I read that the Daily News' gossip collumnist Ben Widdicombe actually spoke with AC about the article: "I asked Cooper if he had been contacted about the story, which comes out next week. "No," he said, digging his hands into his pockets and looking at his shoes. [note: Musto said "I asked CNN for a comment from Anderson and/or themselves. They apparently didn't even forward it to him, they just responded by sending me a blanket no comment."] Any response to it? "No."" Again, a chance for AC to tell the world that its complete fiction... And again, we get a 'no comment'. This is exactly why we need the discussion section in Cooper's bio. -- Limulus 00:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That's really far from diffinative. It all seems too tin foil hat to me. I'd like to hear someone else's opinion on this. I don't think I'm out of bounds. --waffle iron 00:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If we knew for sure it wouldn't be a "discussion", would it? And you know who's opinion I'd really like to hear on this? Anderson Cooper's ;) But since he's not saying, who else would you like to hear from? This isn't "tin foil hat", this is asking if a notable TV personality is gay (not the first time :) How can the contemplation of Cooper being gay be "tin foil hat" when George Takei just came out?!? So unless you happen to know Cooper's sexuality for a fact, please do not discount the possibility. -- Limulus 01:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh I'm fairly certain he is, but I'm not sure if it can be sourced correctly. At this point I don't think it's worth all the energy I spent debating it. I'm fine with it staying I guess. --waffle iron 04:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think basically the section should boil down to two main points: (1) there are people who claim 'Cooper is gay' and (2) when asked directly, Cooper says 'no comment'. We can't say any more (due to lack of facts) but we shouldn't say any less (because those two things are well established). Of course, if you think that my presentation of those facts could use improvement, by all means, PLEASE suggest/make changes) -- Limulus 05:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey wait a sec! Doesn't "Best Gossip Columnist" imply that he was usually right? -- Limulus 01:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but we are discriminating agasint homosexual gossip? I mean, I've heard tell that Colin Farrell is straight. At what point does his sexuality become a stipulated fact. And anyway, Anderson Cooper? Totally gay. Which is just too damn bad for us females. As for self-identifying, he doesn't wear the rainbow flag across his chest, but he's also never declared his heterosexuality or been seen squiring around ANY of NYC's myriad hot chicks in an would-be romantic capacity. In any case, CNN is the only party in this debate trying to genuinely keep him in the closet. jengod 08:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe now I should go edit Tom Brokaw's page and insert a sub-topic concerning his heterosexuality.

Actually, there is already a comment to that effect ^_- "He has been married to Meredith Lynn Auld (a former Miss South Dakota and author) since 1962." That sounds pretty hetero to me, but feel free to flesh it out ;) -- Limulus 13:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of gossip, this and this are the sorts of things that I would consider far too gossipy to use and yet they're quite amusing ;) -- Limulus 13:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, if there was something notable about the heterosexuality of a person I think it would definitely be noted in their article. I don't think it's "gossip" at all. Sections in my old school textbooks on Maurice Ravel (reportedly straight) and Tchaikovsky (reportedly gay) make note of the reports of the sexual preference of these individuals. These are general music history books. We make note that George Gershwin had a affair with Kay Swift. Encyclopedia and short bios often take note of these private affairs. Any good encyclopedia biography tries to give an overview not only of the persons professional life, but other events that shaped their lives, criticisms, media reports (that are sometimes false or disputed). These things aren't trivial (or trivia); it gives us a well rounded and NPOV perspective to include various sides. =) --Sketchee 08:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

References to "Trivia" in the menus of both the article and the talk page have been changed (I called them "trivia" before not to trivialize them, but in that they would be the kind of odd things to know to win in Trivial Pursuit ;) In the main article I changed the name to "Facts & Factoids" and moved the discussion of sexuality section in there... its up to the reader to determine if the talk about Cooper being gay is a Fact or a Factoid (as if that will make everyone happy... also note the clever CNN reference in using "Factoid" ;-) -- Limulus 10:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem right for some reason. Something about the presentation. I'll think about it.

What's the BFD? I'm straight and a Christian. My wife and I watch Anderson Cooper almost every night. Why? Because he's a good reporter and he's not afraid to ask tough questions! If he wants to keep his sexuality private, why not let him? What would his being gay or straight have to do with his journalistic abilities? I'm a heavy metal musician and it doesn't lessen my admiration for their abilities one bit that Rob Halford of Judas Priest is gay or that the late Freddie Mercury was bisexual. What they do/did in their bedrooms is not my business...same with Anderson Cooper.--MarshallStack 04:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He must be gay if he cant answer the question. I dont think its a big deal but people make it a big deal in shying away from answering the question. Most straight people have no issues with saying they are straight, its as easy as pie whether they are your next door neighbour or famous news anchors. Its the non straight folks that are challenged with stating their preferences. Hes probably gay... but it shouldn't matter anyway and really non of us should care.

As a public personality, many people are interested in sexual orientation, not to invade privacy. A professional astrologer did calculate his chart and rectify his rising sign and he definitely has a higher than normal sex drive, and if he was born in the morning between 8 AM and 11:30 AM, he definetly has planetary position of homosexuality that has been common in most gay celebrities' charts. However, it is not a planetary placement for a gay lover, but rather the type of gay man who likes gay sex for a psychological release or lust, etc. to say it discreetly, With Leo rising, Sun in 10th house of Public, and the North Node riding the crest of his medio coili, fame and public career are evident. But all of this is subject to correction of birth information and calculation of his fixed star placements, asteroids and black holes.

Actually, Anderson was born between 3:00pm and 3:30pm.

This entry is solely based on controversial material and it is unsourced or poorly sourced and must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. Only when FACTS or official statement regarding this issue should be included. This entry will be reported to the board.

(I didnt write the two unsigned items above) I agree that a person's sexual orientation is not, in and of itself, relevant. However, in the context of how Cooper has answered this question, and the criticism he has goten for it in print from his colleagues, who have pointed to a lack of integrity, it is highly relevant. Perhaps more relevant than the widely-discussed issue of his injection of personal emotions into his reporting. How does he maintain his integrity by being emotional on camera in an interview with a public official on the one hand, and then (as one editor wrote in an editorial) "coyly" refuse to answer the question about his sexual orientation as a matter of keeping his private life out of the discussion to protect his journalistic abilities? So then why did he go on TV and talk about his mother? Why does he comment so much about his personal life to the absence of this one part of it, when a heterosexual commonly discusses their wives/husbands/children? It is indeed a question about his professional integrity, and in that context it is absolutely fair. If Cooper were to say his sexual orientation is different, and it is a special part of his personal life that he should be able to keep private apart from his mother, his father, and other parts of his memoirs devoid of any connection to his romantic life or his home life, then maybe you have something. He hasn't said it yet, and the question remains relevant. Just as the question was relevant for Cooper's colleague Wolf Blitzer to ask the Vice President about his daughter's pregnancy with her lesbian partner in the context of the Administration's vehement opposition to gay marriage. Cheney's reaction is fair game for public discussion, as was Blitzer asking it. The tendency to want to surpress or erase this under all circumstances, frankly, is the kind of thing editors must *resist*, not encourage.NYDCSP 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

• Cooper is the youngest son of writer Wyatt Emory Cooper and artist, designer and writer Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt. Although Cooper is of mostly English descent, he has fairly distant Dutch and Spanish ancestry.

Checking the bios that we have on his ancestor, I don't see any trace of English heritage. The Vanderbilts came to America in 1650. If a family has been in a country for a few generations, that becomes their nation. When was Cooper's last ancestor born in England? -Willmcw 00:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's mostly a process of narrowing down. His most distant (listed) ancestor is Cornelius Vanderbilt. The entry for him says he had some distant Dutch ancestry. None of the Vanderbilt's wives since Cornelius have even vaguely Dutch names (most are English) and one was even the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. Gloria Vanderbilt's entry says that she is of Spanish, Irish, English and Dutch descent. We know her Dutch is very distant, the Spanish part refers to her mother's maternal grandmother (thus Gloria would be 1/8th Spanish). I'm certain that Wyatt Cooper was of English descent as well. I'll add Irish to the article.Vulturell 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So Cooper is 1/16th Spanish? Are you sure that's Spanish, not Chilean? According to this article, Gloria Laura Mercedes Morgan-Vanderbilt, the Spanish connection is very distant. How many generations are necessary before a person is no longer a hyphenated American? -Willmcw 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's usually reported as "Spanish" and "Chilean" as if referring to two separate ethnic groups. But both are obviously referring to the same ancestor of Cooper's.

This is from the article on his maternal grandmother, Gloria Laura Mercedes Morgan-Vanderbilt "Gloria Morgan's maternal grandfather, Hugh Judson Kilpatrick (1836–1881), was a Union Army general during the American Civil War who also served as the U.S. minister to Chile where he met Gloria's grandmother, an aristocrat whose family are said to be descendants of Spain's royal house of Navarre." Obviously this Chilean grandmother of Morgan's was Spanish in ancestry; I didn't feel the need to mention Chilean for Anderson Cooper's ancestry, since Chilean is not really an ethnic background - it can refer to several things i.e. Native American/Spanish, just Spanish, etc. So he can be described as 1/16th Chilean or 1/16th Spanish - I just thought Spanish more accurately conveys it. To answer your question, it's not so much how many generations, but rather the exact ethnic makeup of a person - since no one is really American without some sort of a hyphen. The rules we usually use for these ethnic labels (i.e. English-American) is the person being at least 1/4 of whichever group. This limits the person to 4 groups. People like Val Kilmer or David Carradine, who have such mixed ancestries that they don't even have a "full" quarter of anything, are not listed under any groups.Vulturell 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we have enough information to know that Cooper is even 1/4 English extraction? It sounds like a real mix. The Kingdom of Navarre ended in the 16th century, and was inhabited by Basques, so even calling that line "Spanish" is tenuous. Unless one of Cooper's four grandparents was born abroad, it seems safe to call him an un-hyphenated American. -Willmcw 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Well, I took out English-Americans and tweaked the note on his ancestry a bit. I might investigate further on Cooper later - it doesn't matter that much for now.Vulturell 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a new category- "American", or perhaps, "American-American". -Willmcw 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ancestry Mixed to the point of Being Unlabelable, even by VultureLL-American"Vulturell 01:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"LOL" is a cliche, but that really did make me laugh out loud. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

So does that mean you're creating that category, or should I? :)Vulturell 07:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. For less thoroughbred lineages, categories like "Americans with ____ ancestry", though wordy, might help distinguish those who were born in the U.S. to an ethnic family versus those who themselves immigrated. So, Bob Hope would be one of the "English-Americans", Sean Hannity would be a one of "Americans with Irish ancestry", and Anderson Cooper would still be "Plain-old Americans" (comprising those whose most recent immigrant ancestor was a great-grandparent). Just a thought. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I was not aware "LOL" had become a cliche - that is disturbing information. Your idea may certainly work for the specific and much-hated "English Americans", but I think it might create a lot of confusion among most categories. "Irish-American", for example, is commonly known to define specifically Americans of Irish descent, not Irish-born. I guess English-Americans is just one category I should refrain from using that often if I don't want to annoy people.Vulturell 08:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll remove the sexual orientation thing

Because:

1) It's completely irrelevant regarding Anderson Cooper's work.

2) He DOES NOT like to talk about his personal life. Plus, his job is in journalism, not gaynalism or something. 209.124.124.219

Strong disagree. If we have to leave out biographical information because the subject "doesn't like to talk about it", half of George W. Bush's life would be shrouded in darkness. You could change "Sexual Orientation" to "Personal Life" a la Kevin Spacey, but removing the section entirely is uncalled for and unnecessary. --Aemilia 03:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree -- It's irrelevant to his professionalism, but an important factor in his life. And, he comes from a vast pedigree, but is unlikely to leave any descendants. So leave something in, link to appropriate sites, and move on. Next topic. (And if anyone asks, I'm a straight guy from a gay neighborhood, and have a cat, not a dog. Big deal.) ScottAdler 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This isnt an article about his work, it is about him. also, whether or not he 'likes' facts or speculation is not relavant. also, sexuality isnt something must be declared before it is attributed. this is especially not the case with 'presumed' heterosexual persons, alive or dead.

Strong Agree: Unless he comes out personally and addresses the issue for his own reasons (either way) I don't see why this is in the article. It is 100% speculation and non encyclopedic. Are there is he or isn't he sections in every journalist's entry in Wiki? JMHO. KsprayDad 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For an interesting perspective (and an uncommon one, coming from the media) on the relationship between NPOV reporting and respect for personal privacy, check out this op-ed. Might help out this discussion a bit. --207.38.190.34 02:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He has commented on it publicly, if only to deflect any sexual identification. Ergo, it should be part of the article. It is part of his persona for an article, which includes not only his work but also his public image, detailed biography, etc. It should stay in the article, as written, which is non POV and merely stating the facts, with Cooper's comments also. We have included this in Prince Albert of Monaco's article, since he, too, has commented on the rumors publicly; why not here? Mowens35 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm concerned about the Trivia section for a few reasons:

1. Some of it (pets, doesn't drink hot beverages) seem very unencylopedic and worthy of a Fan Site, which Wikipedia is not.
2. Other information: modeling background, disease contracted in Africa could better be incorporated into the article itself if it can be verifed, rather than grouped together as "Trivia."
3. Much of it: Iron Chef America, Maxim, Esquire, Celebrity Jeopardy, could be grouped into a category called "Media appearances" and appropriately cited. Crunch 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

All trivia is considered unencylopaedic and ultimately all of these sections must go and if important be incorporated into the article per MOS. Doc 00:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the item about his height for reasons outlined at http://letmespellitoutforyou.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-i-hate-wikis.html Letmespellitoutforyou 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Channel 1

Anyone remember when he was on Channel 1? I remember him crying on camera in Bosnia because he was afraid of getting shot. Wolf Blitzer wouldn't have cried.

Have you ever been in combat with bullets whizzing around you? Some of the most hardcase "grunts" break down and cry in those circumstances. Wolf Blitzer might have too. I'm thankful that when I was in the military it was during peacetime and I didn't have to take a bullet, because I know many who did.--MarshallStack 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

i guess many ppl would cry, but most of them are not shown in front of the camera

Born in...

I added that he was actually born in New York City, because I didn't think it was clearly stated where he was born - just where he is "based" and where he usually broadcasts he show. -Fairy Incognito 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Popularity

It's be nice if we had a photograph of Anderson here. Would a screen cap from his tv show be considered legit? What would this be, fair use, public domain or other? --Sketchee 20:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I basically mean in the Public, because a lot of people at my school and in my family do find his show boring and not appealing anymore. So, I was wondering did his popularity drop across the board?

Former Child Fashion Model

I too question the addition of 'former child fashion model' to Cooper's bio, and certainly in the first para. If you could point me to similar notables whose pre-teen careers as dogwalker, baby sitter, lawn mower or paper carrier is also highlighted in the first paragraph, I would be very interested to see it. The only exception should be those whose showbiz careers started as child actors or mouseketeers, for instance, or working models who began as child models.

I suggest its continuous re-inclusion in this page is the work of detractors (possibly even Aaron Brown) who feel Cooper is a journalistic lightweight and this is their way of making their not-so-subtle point.

Moved this to a more appropriate section. Doc 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sago

If would be nice if someone mentioned or wrote about his reporting during the Sago Mine Disaster and that if he dosent know something about a subject hes not afriad to ask questions and learn on air--24.23.82.233 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

An irked CNN viewer with a poor command of the English language seems to have added this biased section to the article. Can it be removed?

Older son?

Who keeps putting this back in? Cooper is Wyatt's younger and Gloria's youngest son. - Arthur, July 28

World News Now

Anybody know the exact months and years Cooper anchored ABC's overnight World News Now? And, with which co-anchors? Thanks. Thistheman 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about exact dates, but he co-anchored with Alison Stewart and sometimes JuJu Philips.

Unsourced

Half the information in this article is unsourced POV and Original Research. -24.92.41.95 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

I was shocked to see that this entire section was removed, without further discussion that I've found. It was removed at 21:02, on 7 September 2006 by Worldnewsjunkie, without an edit summary, and it missed my notice and I am sure that of many others. The general consensus, as I read it on this page, is that an encyclopaedic discussion of the man should include a NPOV discussion of this part of his life as much as any other heterosexual, ambisexual or homosexual person. If you disagree, open the discussion here. Doc ♬ talk 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The text has been removed routinely before, though I am surprised that we all missed this removal. I agree that biographies should cover biographical information, but this particualr material seems a bit speculative, even salacious. Since so little is known for sure, and since the article isn't very long, it'd be better if it were shorter and more matter-of-fact. Could we summarize the long quote? -Will Beback 09:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, although that is the part that is solid. The first paragraph could, in my opinion be deleted if the needed citations are not forthcoming. We missed it because it was done without edit summary and as I went back to look for the deletion I even found a later edit summary referencing the section believing it was still there. Doc ♬ talk 09:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any verifiable information regarding his sexuality? everything I've seen is gossip. GeekLove 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the policy on biographies of living persons (in particular the sections on reliable sources and presumption in favour of privacy), as well as the suggestion that "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages", I'm inclined to say that this doesn't belong here. At most I think there could be mention that there are persistent rumours regarding Cooper's sexuality, and that he has declined to comment. Incidentally, while formatting the block qoutes and references for this section I discovered that the link to the reference material (which is also a source for a number of other quotes in this article) is no longer active.GeekLove 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the first reference, it is properly cited with both date of the magazine and the date it was retrieved online so it still stands as a proper reference. Perhaps the link should be disabled, but it is still an appropriate source. With regard to the section the ongoing topic of public interest and discussion is well sourced and should meet all requirements as long as no claim is made as to his unverified actual orientation. Doc ♬ talk 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A CNN video on youtube is circulating, with Robin Williams indirectly poking fun at Cooper's sexual orientation. Notable? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that video is Robin Williams making fun of Ryan Seacrest being gay, not Anderson Cooper. Either way, I don't think it's notable. Robb0995 08:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is widely rumored both within and outside of the gay community that Anderson Cooper is gay. Several prominent website bloggers, notably Perez Hilton (Mario Lavandeira) have questioned Anderson Cooper's sexuality. Whether or not these speculations are true is not the issue, the issue is that this article should accurately portray all aspects of the persona, and the fact is that his sexuality is indeed questioned, and it has generated enough interest for it to be notable. His PR people should not be deleting this section. 3 January 2007

First, please assume good faith - I am in no way linked to Anderson Cooper (I have no idea who he is really, other than what is in this article and its sources). I removed the section as it is skating on very thin ice with regards to WP:BLP. We shouldn't be including gossip - whoever is passing it around. Unless there is a definitive response from someone notable then I do not think it should be included. I think the pertinent bit of WP:BLP is in the 'public figures' section: well-documented by reliable published sources - the source that is used there is not well documented - it is the opinion of the person and not backed up with anything.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

assume good faith? isn't that mindframe slightly archaic? is homosexuality a detractor overall? good faith, bullshit. homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of; it is nothing offensive.

The quote from Cooper makes it very clear that (a) he was asked about the rumors, by a journalist from a major city magazine and (b) he answered it. Therefore, it belongs in the article, given the openness of the discussion. This is all properly cited. I'm pretty sure his PR people aren't deleting anything. Have you checked the IP address?Mowens35 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

How can we shorten the information so as to reduce the weight given to it? How about 'There has been some speculation over Anderson Cooper's sexuality (with cites) and he has declined to comment when questioned directly about it (inc cite)? I personally don't like Trivia sections as a rule, where would it fit best within the prose of the article?-Localzuk^(talk) 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the information where it once was, to its own section, just above Trivia. I do not believe that Cooper's non-denial can be mentioned without the context, ie who questioned him about it and why. Also, Cooper's response to New York magazine journalist Jonathan Van Meter makes it clear that declaring himself either gay or straight or otherwise would in some way jeopardize (the word he used is "threaten") his position as a journalist.Mowens35 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But as it stands it is given far too much space in comparison to much more important and interesting information about him. We need to shorten it. Can you suggest a shortened version?-Localzuk^(talk) 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the end of the article, just above Trivia. How can that positioning be "far too much space" in comparison to "more important and interesting information"? Methinks you exaggerate. The section is 9 lines, half of which is his quote, therefore miniscule in comparison to nearly every other section. Intro is 5 lines; Background is 28 lines; Education is 4 lines; TV is 59 lines; Other Work is 7 lines; Awards is 9 lines; Sexuality speculation is 9 lines; and Trivia is 9 lines. I think its length is fine.Mowens35 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now 6 lines; it is as short as it can be. Are you satisfied now? Please say, yes, so we can move on to more important issues. (Also, we didn't "need" to shorten it; it was your desire solely -- not adversarial, just frank.) Mowens35 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see it is a compromise. I personally don't think it should be included at all but you do. So as a compromise I have accepted a shortened and less prominent version. However, I do think that we don't really need the quote. Simply stating that he declined to confirm or deny the speculation would be better as far as I can see (it reduces the weight given to the section. If you want to discuss his ideas regarding his role as a journalist I think these should be separated and not part of this factoid.

I have compromised; I have moved the section and shortened it. Anything else is going beyond compromise and into arm-twisting, which you must surely see. I think it is fine now as is. I am a journalist myself and understand that when an article is written, a blanket statement cannot be used without affirmation, hence the quote. It is fine now. Mowens35 21:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming back

Wow, I thought we had agreed to remove speculation from this section and shorten it into something that wasn't given undue weight? Why then, do we now have a large chunk of information about some comedian using Anderson Cooper as the punchline in a joke? IT IS A JOKE!! It should not be taken seriously as speculation. Why is it here? Who says it is the most widely reported example?

This has just proven to me that you have no concept of the number of people on this site who do not think there should be idle speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality in this article. Have a look through the history - you will see various people removing the information, including someone just 2 days after our discussion. You have not stuck to our compromise, you have just gone back to expanding the section with as much juicy rumour and speculation as possible. I am finding it hard to assume good faith because of these actions.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I understand this is a joke, I think as it stands now, there is just enough background and context to maybe satisfy the casual reader to any curiosity on the matter. It's just going to be one of those life long mysteries until he either gets married or comes out. Personally, I would love it if he was single and straight and into girls that color their hair weird colors. immunity 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you understand that it is a joke then it shouldn't be here. Simple really. It is someone using speculation as a gag. This adds nothing to the article and should definitely not be here.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not one of the main editors of this article, but I do have it on my watch list. And I do not wish to get in a revert war. It comes down and goes back up. My point in responding to you earlier as that there is a joke yes, but its in a context in which I think it actually satisfies someone who was reading the article as there has been continual rumors to his sexuality, which at this point is a part of who he is and thus background information. Now if I had written this article, would I have included it, probably not. Because I never knew one way or the other before I read this. Thus my ambiguity to action one way or the other. immunity 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize I may have upset some people just now, but I have added back material on the issue of Cooper's sexuality that is derived entirely from verifiable, credible sources that are properly cited, and even in one case the source's notability is defended by third-party sources (ABCNews and USN&WP to be precise), and it puts the question in, I think, the proper context given the discussion that has taken place here. Nothing about jokes or gossip websites or rumors. Simply content derived entirely from legitimate sources, placed NPOV. The NY Magazine interview was indeed significant, since it was in a credible publication that utilizes I think proper editorial processes for its content, and it was also an occasion where Cooper himself addressed this issue. And the fact that it prompted a critical editorial from one of the most important gay news publications in the United States is, I feel, of unquestionable relevance, particularly given the context that the editorial raised which was excerpted. This isn't just about his personal life, it is about how questions about his personal life feed into publicly raised questions about his integrity. Is there any more relevant issue for a journalist, particularly one so prominent?NYDCSP 20:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user has deleted the entire personal life section now, which was NPOV and thoroughly sourced, without even raising it on this discussion page. That is vandalism. I'm going to post a complaint with an administrator before I revert it because I assume it will be a revert war, and I'd rather just settle this the right way.NYDCSP 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder of official Wikipedia policy on 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." (emphasis added)NYDCSP 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But at the same time we should also take a look at WP:NPOV and its undue weight section. We have to gauge whether or not events are as significant as they seem when put in the context of the person's entire life.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This content is from the subject's own comments on the record, in a verifiable source that is also used in other parts of the article about the subject's family, experiences, et al. The sourced content (not the editor's wording, but the original wording of the sourced content excerpted and cited) refers to other published material on the subject and/or an incident which occured on-air involving the subject, and subsequent public dispute over what he said. The sourced content (not the editor's wording -- the original content that is sourced and linked to a verifiable location where the published content originated, and it is FURTHER defended as a notable, relevant source from two ADDITIONAL sources, namely ABC News and US News and World Report) also is an editorial (not a gossip column) calling the subject's integrity into question on the topic of the content from the first source. And all of it refers to how the subject's refusal to discuss his personal life (see the section title??) is related to his integrity and reliability as a journalist, and then includes BALANCE (hello, NPOV?) including criticism which uses the subject's words to call his integrity into question. This is about one of the most prominent journalists in the world. Do I have to continue? Frankly, I find the objections at this point to be the POV problem, not the content. Just my opinion as an editor. NYDCSP 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there is just too much of it. 5 paragraphs for a section based on speculation is far too much. His life doesn't revolve around this speculation, so why should the article?-Localzuk^(talk) 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

FYI: the latest vandal (IP 147.253.112.43) is coming out of Stetson University in Florida. Mowens35 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Details magazine

Anderson Cooper is appearantly no longer a contributing editor for this magazine. His name has been missing from the acknowledgements section since at least the last issue. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That is too bad, I looked forward to his columns--they were the best thing in that magazine.

Page Problem

Not entirely sure if this is the place but the line, "Personal sources have since confirmed that Cooper is in fact a homosexual." keeps popping up. No one seems to be editing the page itself but I will refresh and then it is gone. I managed to get a screen cap before I refreshed this time [1] can anyone find what the problem is? --Wonderpup57 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably in your browser cache. Do a control F5. That should clear it out. -- immunity 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I clear my cache everytime I close my browser so I don't really think that is it. --Wonderpup57 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No mention of wife

Anderson cooper is married, why is there no mention of his wife in here ? 65.13.3.52 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He's not married and never has been.Mowens35 02:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I went back to his blog to find: ".. I've discussed it with my wife ..." Source: [2] -- And I just noticed that it was written by someone else. Wtf the anderson cooper 360 blog is not written by anderson cooper ? 65.13.3.52 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess the bright side is that he's still single ... and hot :P 65.13.3.52 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI to 65.13.3.52: not married does not necessarily mean single... I'll point you to a little gossip that doesn't belong in the main article ;) [3]

WP:BLP complaint

Hi all. I have removed the first paragraph of the Personal life section in response to a complaint made to the Administrator's noticeboard, as it did not seem entirely relevant to Anderson Cooper - a passing mention about his sexuality, even if referenced, is not strictly necessary. The second paragraph remains, as it is about Mr Cooper directly. Please do not re-add the first paragraph, however well referenced you can make it, as it is not directly about Anderson Cooper. The complainant also asked that all discussion of the topic be removed, but that's going too far.. Proto::► 10:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Proto. I hope the content that is now in this section gives the proper context to this issue of Cooper's personal life, and its relationship to his role as a journalist, as he himself has stated in the content which you left in place. I agree it is going too far to remove the topic altogether, as fellow journalists (both Van Meter, and the editor of one of the leading and influential gay newspapers, for example) feel it is indeed a fair topic. I agree with your decision, and with others, that including references from jokes or sitcoms or the "cultural zeitgeist" or gossip websites are questionable. There is a very big difference between fighting over whether one "wants" Cooper to be gay or straight - that's not for WP -- and the relevance of Cooper's own public comments on the matter, in response to specific material previously written in credible publications, and the response from Cooper's journalistic colleagues to his comments.NYDCSP 20:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(copied my comment from NTDCSP's talk page) Upon review of the 'Personal Life' section, I note it is just speculation, and so five paragraphs (even if referenced) seems like serious overkill, and probably skewing the article out of a neutral treatment of the subject. There was no anonymous removals of the section when it was just a simple referenced paragraph stating (paraphrasing) 'there has been speculation but Cooper has denied it'. This is all the article still states, although takes five long paragraphs to do so. Proto::► 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page in response)But it prompted serious criticism from a notable source, raising doubts about the subject's integrity as a journalist in a manner directly related to the subject's own comments on the matter. The editor has blanked out the entire section without comment. You are supposing something here, when in fact it would be the editor's responsibility to explain themselves, or to otherwise engage other editors on the talk page to discuss this matter if it is controversial to him or her before blanking it all out. I would raise the unspoken complaint here -- I would counter your supposition with another. What if this is someone connected to CNN who is worried that this NPOV content from notable sources will interfere with their multi-million dollar marketing campaign of Mr Cooper? What if, in addition, other editors wish to supress notable content from a notable source such as The Washington Blade because of an anti-gay bias? I think you also must weigh those suppositions with the same weight as the one you have put forth here. And in the end, they are all suppositions because this blanking is going on anonymously, and cannot rule the day here. I recognize this may upset some of Mr Cooper's fans, as well as him personally, but WP official policy says that cannot be considered if the information is not libelous or slanderous (it is obviously not), from notable and verifiable sources and properly cited. What's more, since Mr Cooper HIMSELF raised the matter of his personal life being something he "doesn't talk about" or discuss, and a notable source has in turn raised a question here about his integrity on that very point, and a journalist's integrity is everything. If you blank that out, I would say you are ELIMINATING the balance of the section. And you are, in my view as an editor, engaging in censorship on behalf of a subject's commercial and financial interests (given the content in question) rather than allowing for balance under your own rules of the road, as well as perhaps siding with homophobes who wish to supress sourced content from a publication like the Washington Blade, which is a verifiable and notable source which has run an editorial on this subject's integrity as a journalist over this specific issue! And both would be a possible subject for a press article, to be honest. Then, would you still repress it? NYDCSP 14:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And btw - he has NOT denied it, Proto. Read the content again. If that's what you're basing your decision on, you're way off. NYDCSP 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not denied. Refrained from comment. I'm not basing any decision on anything. You asked me to have a look (due to the IP removal). I agree that their could be many reasons for the anon IP's removal of the content, but we assume good faith until other ebvidence presents itself. I think the undue weight discussions above are very cogent here - are five paragraphs about this speculation absolutely positively necessary? Proto::► 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In a biographical article of a very prominent person, which is completely devoid of criticism, to cut out the one critical part of it is, in my view, very unbalanced and it is an effort to stop the article from being improved. New York Magazine, from its editor on down, found it appropriate to run that paragraph in the article, plus Cooper's reply. To remove the introductory paragraph to Cooper's comments cuts out the necessary content to understand both Cooper's reply, and Kevin Naff's criticism in response. I think this section is as short as possible to include the bare-bones information. And if it makes Mr Cooper, his network marketing department, and his fans uncomfortable, I'm sorry. But that's not a reason under WP's own rules, to delete it or to down-play its relevance. NYDCSP 14:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we try and pare it down a little. How is this? My notes in italics.

Cooper's sexual orientation has been the subject of public speculation. In a September 2005 article by Jonathan Van Meter in New York magazine, it was reported that there has been "chatter" about Cooper's sexuality. (ref - no need to quote the paragraph)

Van Meter asked Cooper about the public speculation on his sexual orientation, and he replied: "You know, 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." (ref)

Cooper's comment in the article led the editor of a leading newspaper for the gay and lesbian community (ref), The Washington Blade, to pen an editorial criticizing Cooper and other celebrities for "choosing the closet over honesty." (ref)

The last sentence and quote isn't specific to Cooper, so could probably be excised.

Would that be acceptable? Proto::► 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say no it wouldn't because the last sentence is indeed specific to Cooper. The "he" he refers to is Cooper, and a reader can go to the article and clearly see that. It also gives context to the issue not being just about Cooper's sexuality, but the statement he is making (so argues the editor of the Blade) by refusing to answer the question. Otherwise it cheapens the context as if this content is just about Cooper's sex life, which it is *not*. (If it was, I would agree that it was overkill). It is about his *notable* refusal to discuss a profound aspect of his identity and it raises questions about his integrity as a result because *he* claims it is related to his integrity and effectiveness as a journalist. In turn, Naff asks what it is about being gay that would threaten that. I think the editing you suggest would have the unfortunate result of turning the current content into exactly what you want to avoid - that this is about Anderson Cooper's sex life, rather than about his identity - simply because you want to reduce the number of characters and lines. NYDCSP 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to reduce it down. As I have said, why should this article dedicate 10% of itself to speculation? His life does not revolve around speculating about his sexuality. Our WP:NPOV policy has a section regarding undue weight. This is the main issue here. We need to trim it down else it is being given too much focus.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction, it is not only about speculation. By the subject's own words in a sourced reference, it is about his ability to do his job as a journalist. HE brought this subject to that level, and for that reason it is highly relevant, highly due the space it is afforded, highly NPOV from an editor's standpoint, and given the entire article's failure to include anything else critical of this highly prominent individual, who grills public officials on a regular basis, the portion of this section which deals with the criticism he received for HIS comments on the subject, provide necessary balance to the subject's own views on the subject. I worry that the repeated 'cleansing' of this matter, even when it objectively fits WP criteria, is becoming the NPOV problem here. NYDCSP 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BRIMBA - this has not been resolved. I would appreciate you not taking it upon yourself to delete that material, and I ask that you reverse your edit until this has been resolved here.NYDCSP

I see now User:Brimba deleted the Blade criticism of Cooper and called it "editorializing" - this is completely unacceptable. I'm sorry if a fan of MR Cooper doesnt like a source (whose notablity was defended with two separate sources) raising questions about Cooper's integrity based on his public statements, but that edit was in violation of WP:NPOV and I reverted it. I also reverted the deletion of the rest of the material - this has NOT been resolved yet.NYDCSP 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Until a change occurs within Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons my actions stand. If you have problems with it, I would subject that you reread the policy. Its quite clear. “Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately”. I removed much of the same material on November 5th of last year, using the same reason, and almost an identical edit summery at that time. This has been discussed multiple times, to say that it is not yet settled is to say that it will never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction. In cases such as this, following established policy is our only option. If you are unhappy with that policy, or certain aspects of that policy, fell free to have it changed. Brimba 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, excuse me? I see nothing anywhere in this talk page in which a decision was made by editors and/or administrators that the editorial page of the Washington Blade newspaper was a poor source to draw material that criticizes Cooper's own public statement, which you left un-deleted. Care to point that out to me? This is REALLY starting to get fishy now. Before I rv again, I'll await your reply. NYDCSP 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I have researched this on WP:BLP.

Your statement on the edit summary is:

17:02, 2 February 2007 Brimba (Talk | contribs) (Rm material per WP:BLP Reports of speculation concerning someone’s sexual orientation, even when sourced to an established magazine, is still speculation and thus “poorly sourced”.)

WP:BLP very clearly does NOT say this anywhere on it. In fact, it says the following:

"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."

In reality, the criticism brought by the Washington Blade referred to Mr Cooper's own statement in response to published 'speculation' - perhaps even 'allegation' since Michael Musto has come out and said it, but let's stay with 'speculation'. And this, coming from the editor-in-chief of what two cited sources (in what you deleted) independently vouched for its notability, and therefore is a matter of journalistic integrity, not sex life. We're not even talking about a scandal! And yet WP:BLP says even that would be permitted if it fit Example Two. The Washington Blade and New York Magazine have both published the 'allegation'/'speculation', Mr Cooper commented on the latter in the same article, and the former reacted to those comments in how they impact Mr Cooper's integrity as a journalist. Your repeated deletion of THIS content (not the previous content, this is the first time THIS has been added) does not hold up as being consistent with WP:BLP. And what's more, saying "this stands" in such a unilateral fashion makes it almost impossible to assume good faith, but I will hang onto it.NYDCSP 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"This [section] is about Anderson Cooper's identity, not his sex life", and the Washington Blade

After another message on my talk page, I have looked into this in more detail. Sorry, NYDCSP, the section as you want it to be is about his sex life, and nothing but. Certainly not his "identity". The entire section headed 'Personal life' does not discuss his family, it does not discuss his hobbies, his hopes, his likes, his dislikes, his favourite kind of cake, anything. All it discusses, for five paragraphs, is gossip about Anderson Cooper's sexuality. It shouldn't even be called "Personal life", as it's misleading; in your version, it may as well be called "Anderson Cooper is gay". Brimba has pared this down. He may have been overeager to cut it down, but right now you are very keen on including the entirety of the gossip from the Washington Blade.

You then include two references to justify the Washington Blade as being a relevant and major news source. The first link, from ABC news, is dead. No such destination exists on their website. The second is a passing mention as being 'influential' in a "wicked whisper" gossip column. I would humbly suggest that this is not sufficient to establish the Washington Blade as a major and relevant news source, and I believe this is why Brimba removed the information. Pursuant to WP:BLP, which requires great care when it comes to biographies of living persons, I agree with him. There is no evidence the Washington Blade is a significant, non-trivial, reliable source.

(Incidentally, the article on the paper itself (Washington Blade) will end up being deleted if it doesn't improve, incidentally, as it doesn't assert why this newspaper is notable, at all.)

Finally, we have an opinion piece from the aforementioned Washington Blade. The chunk quoted in the article is 90% of what related to Cooper in the editorial (it's almost a trivial mention). It assumes Anderson Cooper is gay, and effectively labels him a hypocrite. I would suggest that this is unnecessary to an encyclopaedia, and does not need to be there. Proto::► 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm just absolutely amazed and speechless. NYDCSP 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why. I'm not acting as an administrator, btw, I'm giving my opinion as a Wikipedia editor. Proto::► 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I still would be happy with the above version I suggested, as a compromise. A quote from the Blade article would be ok. The whole two paragraphs (merged into one for the Wikipedia article) would not. I'd be ok with that. I don't know if Brimba would be. Proto::► 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the ABC News link -- it's completely live. If you want me to email you a screen capture of it I will:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2189570&page=1

The "wicked whisper" column you mention is written by Paul Bedard, and it is called Washington Whispers, and it's one of the oldest weekly magazine columns covering Washington, D.C. Now I have to defend THIRD generation sources? The article which references the Blade as "influential" goes into detail about a conversy on naming a military vessel with the word "Blade" because the name of the paper is well-known enough as being a gay paper.

I have made my arguments. I will get in touch with some friends now, including some in the press, to get some objective opinions of what just unfolded here. Maybe I'm totally insane; I'm happy to be shown by someone who knows what they're talking about in the business. I really am trying to be reasonable in reading what's behind all this, because all the arguments seem so out of whack with the rules you all are citing. NYDCSP 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept your proposal for now, Proto. And I'll go away for a couple of days unless someone else makes a run at that section again. Promise. NYDCSP 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

At no point do we have verification from Cooper or any other reliable source that he is in fact gay, only speculation. Speculation is not encyclopedic, nor does it have any room in WP. Speculation is only encyclopedic when becomes newsworthy in and of itself. For example if someone was sued by a former companion, or related to some public scandal. To let stand allegations that Cooper or Jodi Foster, or Shepard Smith or anyone else is gay, without proof is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. Cooper was asked, and gave a classic non-answer. That is as much as we can report at this point. The Washington Blade was not speculating that Cooper is gay, they said outright that he is, and called him a hypocrite. Without a reliable source to back that up, we can not use it. We know nether their source, nor their agenda

We have an obligation to make certain that WP is not seen as a vehicle that can be used to “Out” people, or in any other way be used to damage or smear people. Some outings are legitimate, and some are simply smears, and it is beyond the ability of the average editor to determine which is which. The advantage of including such allegations, or in other words the usefulness to the average user of WP, is minimal at best. The liability in terms of negative press and loss of credibility is huge. Policy exists for a reason, and until it changes, this material is out. Brimba 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not empowered to make decisions by fiat, Brimba. You can add your view, but I'll ask for constructive, civil actions, even if you're forceful in your comments in this discussion. Whats more, your interpretation of WP:BLP (I say interpretation because you have yet to cite anything explicit related to one's sexual orientation to back it up from the policy) assumes that being identified as being gay, or even speculated as such, as per the example I laid out from WP:BLP (that referred to infidelity scandal, arguably much more a clear problem subject) is a "smear" or in some way imperils Wikipedia legally. I'm sorry, but that's patently ridiculous. Explain how that can be, please. You have also said yourself some outing is ok. Who makes that decision on Wikipedia?? I never once advocated "outing" Mr Cooper. That's not my interest here. I am just trying to do my best as an editor to place sourced content from reliable, verifiable third-parties that I still argue (and can provide even more and more and more cited evidence if you all need it) are *notable* under WP poicy and guidelines, and refer to Mr Cooper's integrity and, if you want to go there, someone notable has called him hypocritical (although I left that for the reader to see for themselves by linking). And I admit the content is critical of Mr Cooper, but this article is pretty devoid of any criticism of him as of now. To me this is unbalanced. I am not going on a fishing trip to find other suitable criticisms to make my point (that pass the "no gay rule")-- I came across this material myself over due course and found it compelling, and well within the rules, and highly relevant. I find the intensity of the two or three folks coming at it with many, many (I believe) flawed citations of WP policy to be very interesting in and of itself. But it hasn't changed my mind a bit. I also think this is not something that can be solved over two days. It should allow for other editors to at least read if not decide to weigh in on the discussion.

So I will pledge to observe a time-out, if Proto's compromise can be put up and observed for a week or so, and other editors can weigh in if they want to. Or not. And we come back later. Agreed?NYDCSP 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is very problematic and I have removed it. A section on the subject's "Personal life" only includes an article where someone speculated about him being a homosexual? What kind of rationale could support that under WP:BLP? None.

Folks, very few if any famous media personalities have not been subject to speculation about their sexual practices. "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." At bottom, including the speculation is simply not relevant to Cooper's notability.

Also, in a section "Personal life", it presents a WP:Undue weight problem.

The info should be excluded until such time as the subject himself specifically "outs", at which point it will become relevant to his notability.

But speculation about it - again, nearly every media personality alive has been subject of such speculation, and even such things as penis size, whether they provide oral sex to partners, spit or swallow, etc. - is simply not relevant to Cooper's notability.

Sure, it may be "interesting" to some in a sort of gawking way, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

CyberAnth 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the most homophobic load of crap disguised as "editing" I've read on WP so far. Frankly, I'm beginning to question whether Wikipedia is worth anyone's time. NYDCSP 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. Biographies are of real people and they effect real lives. We have to be responsible here. CyberAnth 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly short article. Too much coverage of the gay rumors would unbalance it. A few lines about the existence of the rumors and his response to them are sufficient. I don't think we need to quote anyone, we can just summarize the material briefly. I'd like to compare this to the Clay Aiken article. That subject likewise is the subject of widespread rumors, jokes, and even one guy trying to publicize a supposed lurid encounter. The issue is very important to the "fandom" and editing mayhem ensued. Several admins got involved (including me) and we eventually developed material that stuck mostly to the on-screen incidents and to his statements, and that's been enforceable. In Cooper's case there are fewer incidents and statements, but it should still stick to what's neutral. The sitcom joke, only heard by a few hundred people, seems very ephemeral. The Washington Blade may be notable, but its opinion is not notable enough to quote at length. Let's just use those as one of the sources for saying that his sexuality is a matter of debate, but that he maintains his privacy. Wikipedia is a long term project - sooner or later we'll be able to say more. -Will Beback · † · 07:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The editor of the Washington Blade, Kevin Naff, has publicly responded to some of the comments above on the Blade Blog. http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=2/2/07&end=2/5/07#11190. Jake1018 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. Mr Naff's article is a bit of a reality check about how the Blade is indeed notable, and that Wikipedia is, in fact, not; and this discussion thread and this article are glowing examples of why. No wonder Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source on itself. It is an inherently unreliable source of accurate information and always will be given its model, so why do any of us care? I surely care less now, given how I could write endlessly on this talk page making arguments that arguably hew to the rules, and still have people deleting notable, third party, cited content in response and saying there is no argument here, end of story, my ruling stands, your content is cheap gossip, homosexuality clearly referenced in notable sources is salicious and private and let's straight-wash a profile already completely devoid of criticism (even when the mention is part of a larger question of the subject's professional integrity). Under your rules, Monica Lewinksy could not have been mentioned on Bill Clinton's bio until he finally "came out" about it. And that story, I would add, WAS salacious. But by clear implication from all of you folks here, a homosexual identity is something so negative, so spurious, a "smear", so "damaging" that even when a subject refers to it obliquely in response to a reporter's question from widespread public speculation based on the subject's OWN PUBLIC BEHAVIOR, you still say it's too horrifying to add, too "damaging" and "unbalanced" against the rest of this article. Damaging to whom? A multi-millionaire? How? To his network? How? As Mr Naff says in his new column, it all raises more questions that are, in my eyes, fair game to raise about a highly-highly paid journalist who has himself commented on the connection between this subject and his job.

OK - I'm done, kids. This discussion thread speaks for itself. No one should care this much about Wikipedia as I have in this case. And Mr Naff's new column says it all more articulately than I ever could as to why this website is not an encyclopedia, never will be, and all those who vainly think it is are kidding themselves. Ciao.NYDCSP 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A reminder about WP:BLP

Look, The New York Blade [4] may enjoy peddling rumour and speculation, but I need to remind all editors that we have a very specific, set-in-stone policy about this sort of thing. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material for more information. We are building an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. Unless you have hard evidence of a particular sexual position of an individual, it's best to either mention it very briefly, or not at all if it can't be done tastefully. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If Cooper was asked, in numerous interviews, about his dislike of pancakes, and consistently said he didn't want to talk about pancakes, we would have an entire section on the "pancake conroversy". His sexuality is clearly controversial; Wikipedia can easily mention this controversy without contributing to specualtion. This page shows it is of interest to people, and it should be included for the person who comes to Wikipedia to research a rumour they may have heard.

Rubbish. Firstly, pancake obsession is not notable. Secondly, pancake obsession is not controversial, at least not that a reasonable person would want it kept out of the public eye. Your analogy doesn't work on any level, I'm afraid. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Its really too late now

I was asked to take a look at the state of this article again and oh my goodness people! The fact that the removal of the sexual orientation section was basically described as homophobic censorship by a Managing Editor at the Washington Blade, "America's gay newspaper of record" (as per its Wikipedia entry), has elevated its status from trivia+1 to public controversy. So you go ahead and try to delete it now and watch the *mainstream media* pick up this story. Does anyone (other than trouble makers) want it mentioned on the Colbert Report? Please do not delete the sexual orientation section or I will be forced to rv it as vandalism. Corrections and improvements though, as always, are welcomed and appreciated :) -- Limulus 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but its inclusion requires very good, reliable sources. If you re-add it without such sources then you will likely end up being blocked for violating WP:BLP. It doesn't matter how much mainstream coverage this gets, the issue is that we have nothing more than speculation about the issue, backed up with flimsy sources and gossip. This is a no-go. Sorry. Localzuk^(talk) 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the facts:

• Some well-known sources say AC is gay, both in public and in print.
• AC refuses to answer direct questions about his sexual orientation.
• Wikipedia edits removing refs to the above two facts are descibed... unflatteringly... by the Managing editor of a well known gay publication.

The central point has now shifted from his sexual orientation (first two) to the censorship of information about it (third). -- Limulus 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the inclusion of that, unless Anderson comes out and states either way publically, can be verified. Furthermore, how is that anyones business but Anderson Coopers? I might also contest that without proper documentation, this might be getting close to libel or defamation of character. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I say that AC is gay? No. "Some well-known sources say AC is gay, both in public and in print." That's not whispered rumors. They have committed it to print. THAT can be and has been verified. As per 'what business is it of ours' we can ask that of the people who reported it; e.g. click the BlogActive link and see why he mentions it. He is very clearly NOT doing it to be malicious. As an aside, one might ask (with admittedly more obvious answers) 'what business is it of ours that George Allen had Jewish ancestors' or 'Strom Thurmond had a black daughter' because that touches on their personal lives and neither of those things is wrong... This is what the WB ME had issue with in calling some of the reasons for the removal "homophobic". As per libel or defamation, the claim that others have made, that 'AC is gay' would have to be untrue, but AC refuses to say one way or the other and there are people making that positive claim. The fact that those people have put it on record should absolve us of either if we maintain a NPOV and stick to the facts that I listed. -- Limulus 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Limulus - you state 'well-known sources say AC is gay' - yes the sources are well known but they are mostly gossip columns. Please read up on some of the discussion on this page, also take some time to study the relevant policies. It doesn't matter if you think it is being censored - the fact remains that the sources do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"First published in 1969, The Washington Blade has grown impressively becoming the weekly news source for Washington’s large and visible Gay community. We have been recognized by The Society of Professional Journalists, The American Bar Association, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and others, as a highly professional news organization."[5]

And the WB says: "CNN anchor Anderson Cooper [...] has in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay."[6]

BTW, if you can provide me with a single reference where AC says 'no I'm not' to someone asking if he's gay, I will personally remove the entire sexual orientation section. -- Limulus 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't just a simple sentence take care of this issue and make most folks happy? ex: "Anderson Cooper has been the subject of intense speculation over his sexuality, and has responded to these rumors by saying that "You know, I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life." " and referrence the village voice, wash blade and ny magazine articles as approriate. jtowns 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel you must have this included, and have the proper documentation, you definately need to rewrite the section. I would also like to ask why AC should confirm or deny such a question? It has no effect on the quality of his journalism, and is a moot point beyond people running around screaming "OMG He's GAY!".

Perhaps this should just be rewritten to just state that "there have been questions regarding Anderson's sexual orientation" and that he has refused to comment on the situation, and leave it at that. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. You just said it better than I could... jtowns 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "there have been questions regarding Anderson's sexual orientation" is that its not really a 'is he or isn't he' question; its 'some people insist he's gay while he himself refuses to talk about it' (or refuses to talk about it publicly anymore, as per the one link). But I did rewrite it to try to stick more to the subject and mention that he won't comment. -- Limulus 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the violation of WP:AGF I will say this. I am the author of most of the comments quoted with the editorial. In my lifetime I can never remember a time before when I have been described as Homophobic. I have had a gay roommate in the past, one who was openly and publicly gay, he was a good guy, and I could not see any reason for it being an issue. I have also had another roommate sometime before this whom I assumed to be gay. He never said. It was his life and none of my business unless he decided to make it my business. I also know from past experience what it is like to have been “outed” when you where never “in”. I know what it is like to have the same roommate for so long that people begin to assume that there is more to the story. I know what it is like to have a friend who is gay show up at work and then become the source of gossip at the office. You can not disprove it, the best thing you can do is to keep your mouth shut. And lastly I know what it is like to be interested in someone who is female, who already “knows” that you are gay, because everyone knows it. And that last part is the problem. If it where not for that, I suppose it would not be an issue.

Attempting to force someone into a nice neat box for your own benefit, or the benefit of your argument is morally indefensible. People have a right to be themselves, if they choose to place themselves into a box, then that is their choice. We have zero proof, all we have is speculation. And beyond that it is not for us to second guess an individual and his choice. Does it sometimes happen, yes, it does. The fact that it happens at other times mean that we are obligated to allow it to happen here? No we are under no such obligation.

Now getting back to WP. We have policy, policy that is spelled out in detail, which anyone can read. We do not change those policies because someone calls us names. We do not bend because it is expedient at that particular moment to do so. They where created based upon past experience so that we would have something to guide us in just this type of case.

WP:BLP states clearly: We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. … The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

We do not source to blogs, nor to op-ed piece that are highly POV. We do not reference speculation, unless that speculation itself has become highly newsworthy. A simple search of Google News shows this has not occurred, contrary to the argument made above. No major news service has picked it up, nor has any minor news source, infact no one has except for WB. Whatever the perceive notability of the “conflict” between WP and the WB, no one has made reference to it. In the end we hold to policy, because we have policy, and we have it for a reason.

Somehow this talk page is itself deemed notable within AC’s Bio. I am sorry, it escapes me entirely as to how that could be. Nor is the dubious “but it has been further claimed that discussion of Cooper's sexuality is increasingly seen as a liability to his career, and so is no longer publicly acknowledged: "[H]is handlers at CNN... [are] known to call sites and ask editors to delete references to Anderson Cooper being gay".” Strange, I guess Ted lost my number somehow. Brimba 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, Brimba, did you notice that your comment was the one Kevin Naff called "blatantly homophobic"? That would kind of make it a conflict of interest that you edited away that reference, wouldn't it? But anyway, we're slowly moving in the right direction. You also used "public speculation" twice, so I'll fix that in a sec. Also, if we're going to get this back to trivia+1 status it should be merged into the main article; the background section is a good place for it since that's also where there are quotes about Cooper talking about his brother. -- Limulus 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although because there has discussion about this in some news sources, it MAY qualify for mention in this article. There seems too much emphasis on their being a conspiracy, and that the world must and needs to know what his orientation is. I'd say that unless an official declaration from Cooper or his representatives is made, any thing more than what I've written below would be unacceptable:

"Cooper's sexual orientation has been the source of some controversy, as reported by (citation1) and (citation2), although to this date Cooper nor his representatives have made an official declaration of his sexuality, neither straight nor gay, and has refused to discuss the matter."

It has been discussed, there is some debate regarding it, but the comment on it should be very very limited. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've folded it into the background section; its a little smaller than the entry on his brother's suicide (and would be a lot smaller, but I didn't want to crop his NYM quote too much). Is that more-or-less acceptable to everyone? Hopefully this will get it back to trivia+1 status where it really should be while at the same time presenting the facts which are out there. -- Limulus 00:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why we are even discussing this? Because some people think he's gay? Because he refuses to comment about the issue? Because his representatives at CNN request that claims that he is gay be removed? If Anderson has never officially stated he is gay or not, then I personally think it is an open and shut case. If someone asked me tomorrow what my orientation was, besides from holding back from knocking them into next week, I would refuse to answer as well, no matter how many people claim I was or wasn't. Without proper documentation, or an official stance, I really believe it is a moot point. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 01:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this. Can I also add: why is it so important to note on the article? Nobody has explained why it is so crucial to this encyclopedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically various reports have indicated that he is gay or even that he has in the past self-identified as gay. I don't see how this is any less relevant to the article than the entries stating that he has Dutch ancestors or two half brothers. Regarding the current edit, I think its not NPOV to say that there was "chatter" which implies some sort of online gossip spread by e-mail or IM; it was actually being published that he was gay. -- Limulus 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Being from a certain country is a basic piece of information, establishing Heritage. Sexual Orientation is far different than what country one is from. The point is if he's gay or not, who cares? That is like putting an asteriks on someones name under a list of 'great journalists' and at the bottom putting *=Homosexual. Stating that it was "chatter", I feel expresses the fact that no official statement has been made from Cooper or his representatives on the subject, so no matter how many people SAY he's gay and publish it, it is still for all intents and purposes speculation. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how someone's sexuality isn't basic information too. I don't know about the US Census, but it's collected by the Canadian one. You might not find it terribly important, but the reality is that a public figure's sexuality is highly relevant to most people whether it should be or not. The homosexuality of someone like Rock Hudson, though he never stepped up and stated it was so, is indespensible in understand him as a person. It is true that all of this is really just speculation, but I think we should understand that issues like these usually are built on speculation until the individual confirms or denies it, and even then, it may still be up in the air. Anderson Cooper's sexuality may not be something we can confirm undoubtably, but I think the speculation of his sexuality is certainly far more notable than indicated by this article.

Also, I think people are also being a bit disingenuous here suggesting that it is somehow slanderous to speculate that he is gay. What exactly is wrong with that? Jamincan 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was that all three (ancestry, siblings and sexual orientation) are basic pieces of biographical information. Hiding that because there are people who consider "gay" to be a pejorative does not seem to be any better than if we were for similar reasons to hide the fact that someone had jewish ancestry or mixed race relatives. If a 'great journalist' from the US was gay, should Should Wikipedia NOT use the "LGBT people from the United States" category at the bottom of their entry? Should Wikipedia scrap the "Gay actors" or "Gay musicians" categories? As per "speculation" and "chatter" your comment runs contrary to the entire concept of journalism. -- Limulus 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting there

Well as I see it we are almost there with this issue. However, as it stands it just doesn't make sense as there is no context. It states that he has denied to answer questions about his sexuality but doesn't mention anything about why this is important. We need to have a brief mention of the fact that it has been talked about. What we want is a brief - 2 sentences - analysis of the entire situation, avoiding being overly verbose.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever writes it needs to read Out, out damn celebs! by Kevin Naff from October 21, 2005, Did I Ruin My Chances With Anderson Cooper? by Michael Musto from March 17th, 2005 and probably also Musto's article in Out (magazine) from the April 2005 (from what I've read, part of it is here but the full article was only in print) that he references in the VV article. The Out article seems to be what sparked the 2005 'chatter'. -- Limulus 11:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can sidestep the above with another simple biographical fact not mentioned in the article: Cooper has never married. That would make a good lead-in to the 'unfinished thought' that now exists and would make it more appropriate for the background section... -- Limulus 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is very well known to be a highly charged subject as of today (10-Feb-2007), and there is no reason why a website purporting itself to be an encyclopedia should take it upon itself to use copy from a very few recently published sources to speculate upon the sexual orientation of a subject of a Wikipedia biography. While Wikipedia defines itself as being superior to a periodically printed encyclopedia because it can be more current, and in fact online and 'instant', it also defines rules of editorship which encourage it to be circumspect and cautious with facts because of that reason. Time always yields more information. Where does the rush to define or infer the sexual orientation of a biographical subject come from? Is Wikipedia more concerned with being 'current', as in the sense of a periodical or tabloid, or is it more concerned with being 'right', as described in its own guidelines? As with other subjects such as David Bowie and Mick Jagger, time will tell as to what the reportage of sexual orientation should be in a given biography. But in the meantime, intense efforts toward one view or another need to be closely examined for their political motives, which must not hold sway in regards to constructing biographies, and in particular, current biographies. Again, in reading Wikipedia's own self-definition, it holds itself to be superior to printed encyclopedias because it does not have to wait years until the next edition is published. However, if Wikipedia chooses to call itself an encyclopedia, then it must avoid 'tabloidization.' The personal lives of public figures are long and varied. Despite the ability of Wikipedia to paste in and out the current activities of public figures, is that really the mission of a website claiming to be an encyclopedia?

Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlike prior versions which mentioned his sexuality, the edits you deleted were based almost entirely around the quote from AC himself; how you can argue that this is 'speculation' is beyond me. Suicide is also a "charged subject" BTW; should we omit all traces of Carter's and its influence on AC? I agree that Wikipedia should not be a tabloid, but at the same time it should not be a fanclub either. -- Limulus 10:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One more comment...

Hallo! ;) wow... what unbalanced news! what do U consider about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.13.99.14 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Very disappointed for lack of compliance of the WP:BLP

As you might check in my profile, I was the person requesting the initial edit of his biography and the compliance of the regulations. It is very disappointing to see, how this topic has been managed without good faith, and capitalized by other gossip sites and magazines for their own profit and promotion.

My initial request was based in the WP:BLP policy that stated:

WP:BLP states clearly: We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. … The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

The editor considered it to be too much, and the talk page remain the same, becoming a widespread source of speculation, and ultimately a joke, mining the credibility of the Wiki project. There is proof of lack of good faith of some of the people editing the entry, they plan their edits in gay gossip forums, Datalounge:10 Years of Gay Gossip, Politics and Pointless Bitchery, [7], where they have a thread for this issue, they contact people in the media ( as the Blade blogger ) in order to take the issue mainstream and pressure the editors of this site to bend the policies and give in to their request in sheer violation of Mr. Cooper's rights. For many it has become a hobbie to stir things up over this discussion page in order to crawl back to their forums and blogs and keep their entertainment and gossip alive.

Now you, Wikipedia, are facing an open call from another gossip site - gawker.com - to flood the entry.[8].

So much for compliance. Worldnewsjunkie 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldnewsjunkie, what is your point exactly? Are you claiming that the current edit is not in line with the WP:BLP? If so, on what grounds? (verifiability, NPOV or original research?) Or are you bothered by the fact that the talk page is not? Talk pages aren't the same as main article pages, so if its the latter, I don't think you have a valid complaint. -- Limulus 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Limulus, talk pages are as much covered by WP:BLP as any other page on the site. WP:BLP is one of the few policies that are wide ranging and cover everywhere.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." [emphasis added] Oh. I stand corrected. Hmm. OK, so what shall we do with the talk page then? Dump most of it into an archive or something and start afresh? -- Limulus 18:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I created the archive and am about to dump almost all of the talk page into it. Hopefully this will clear things up. -- Limulus 19:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)