Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In every sense of the word. I tried to fix up some of the more egregious material on his sexuality, though I doubt that any of it is genuinely relevant at all. Material from blogs is not RS for WP purposes, and I doubt that the gay cites are anything more than opinion poeces which are pretty far down the list of allowable material. The primary concern should be that BLPs are expected to be edited being mindful of the possibility of damage to the people involved, which I am not sure has been done here. Collect (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Collect, I'm not sure how _every_ sense of Excelsior applies ("wood wool"?), but the Emmy award is consistent with "superior." However, regarding the relevance and sourcing, you can be sure they have both been discussed at great length; if you have any doubt, please peruse the archived discussion. I agree about blogs but The Independent and The Village Voice are major newspapers. Noting a fact that has already been widely published elsewhere is unlikely to cause damage; to the contrary, the fact has been on WP for almost two years now, and AC has continued "ever upward" (Excelsior). As for relevance, as stated previously, it's similar to other facts in the bio, e.g. family background etc.TVC 15 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for overkill on his sexuality -- one or two refs are sufficient. Thanks for noting the varied usages of Excelsior, all of which apply <g>. Collect (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure they do but we digress ... blogs are not evil and many are completely reliable sources. Naff's blog, by the way is fine for how we were utilizing it and many blogs are certainly acceptable especially as more and more industry professionals in all fields are migrating content online in various fashions. The assertion that Washington Blade didn't endorse his blog seems quite false as there doesn't seem to be a way that the magazine either endorses or non-endorses his posts. And, as the editor there, wouldn't he be a part of that process? In any case removing sourcing here that has already been grist through the mill doesn't seem helpful in this case. We pushed most of it into the footnotes for just this reason. That this issue is a hot button for many and those who wish to see our sourcing can easily do so if they desire. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The current reference note resulted from an edit war in which one side dismissed the sources that had been there previously, and then as more sources were added, kept dismissing those too, even after the sources added up to more than were cited for any other fact in the article. Per WP:RS, one reliable source would be enough, but the issue then becomes if someone doesn't believe that particular source, it gets deleted entirely. As between newspapers and the blogs that they publish, the difference is similar to WP articles and talk pages: the newspaper endorses something by including it in an article or editorial, while individual blogs, letters to the editor, and op-ed pieces reflect the views of the authors. For example, from the Blade website: "Editorial positions of the Washington Blade are expressed in editorials and in editors’ notes as determined by the paper’s editors. Other opinions are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Washington Blade or its staff."[1] Naff is a Blade editor, but his blog reflects his views only; he may even have tried but failed to get the Blade to include them in an official editorial or news story. Personally, I would leave the official publications in, and put the blog comments on the Talk pages, but I don't feel strongly about it.TVC 15 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Like ot or not, blogs are specifically mentioned as not being RS in WP standards. Using them where you have a genuine RS weakens the claims of being NPOV. Collect (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia gennerally does not accsept self published sourses. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Naff's blog is perfectly reliable to source what Naff himself has published. As yes, blogs are being regularly used as reliable sources and yes, the RS guidelines are having to be updated to reflect this. In general, as with all sourcing, we need to look to how the source is being used, in this case it's fine. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Miagirljmw14 for the link, where I found these quotes: "[I]t is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published...blogs.... Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons.... Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...." Benjiboi, I renew my suggestion that if you want to cite Naff's blog, you should create an article about Naff. However, the facts in AC's bio are about AC, and Naff's blog does not qualify as a WP:RS.TVC 15 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
TVC 15, I admire your tenacity in this, but SPS concerns the problem if Naff's blog was ... about Naff and not concerning general LGBT topics and wasn't delivered by a reputable authority on those subjects. SPS is to address a person writing about themselves and making claims unsupported by reliable sources. If on Mr X's blog they write "Mr. X has written twelve New York Times bestsellers" but no reliable sources can be found to support this then likely that should go. I also want to to stop you here and now regarding the false premise that content about Copper by Naff would be more suitable in Naff's article. It simply wouldn't under normal circumstances. In a BLP about Naff, it's unlikely to be noteworthy that he wrote about Cooper or dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other LGBT people and celebrities. -- Banjeboi 03:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Umm, I think you've got the relevant section of SPS backwards, i.e. it says "may be used ... about themselves" but not about others. That they said it doesn't make it true, but it shows they themselves said it. And if Naff's statements wouldn't even be relevant in his own bio, how on earth could they be relevant in someone else's?TVC 15 (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

TVC 15, you reverted this edit, stating WP:RS applied. (I agree on The Independent, not sure on the Village Voice.) Are you sure it does? I might be interpreting the rules wrong but the link you gave states;
Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. Some caveats:
• News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.
[Bold not mine, but kind of what I was alluding to anyway.]
In addition to the Village Voice article, a part of the links mentioned as having 'reported that Cooper is gay' are opinion pieces, so I would think they don't meet that policy the way I understand it to be. Is this correct? Would you clarify how you meant this, please? What qualifies as 'independent media' on WP by the way, is there an official definition of it? Thanks, Elphie13 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elphie13, I'm not sure what edit you're referring to, but if you provide a link I will certainly look at it. (To do that, click the history tab on the relevant page, use the buttons to compare the before and after versions, copy the resulting URL, and paste it between brackets like this [2].) The linked sources saying AC is gay include news stories, for example The Independent article is a news story, not an opinion piece [3]. Also The Village Voice article counts as a news story because Michael Musto is a staff writer[4] on NYC social life, i.e. he reports facts about the people and events around town; he also reports on the same subject for television, as described in his WP bio. The Independent, the Voice, the Blade, and Out are all high quality publications, and Out actually put AC on the cover. I used the phrase "independent media" to mean media that are independent of AC, including conveniently The Independent. On WP, the phrase independent media redirects to alternative media, which applied to the Village Voice 50 years ago[5] although now Village Voice Media is a major national publisher.[6] I hope that addresses everything; if I missed anything, just let me know.TVC 15 (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my previous post was unclear in separating talk about reference articles and talk about sources. About the reference articles, what I meant was, I looked at the WP:RS page and the bit I quoted above makes a distinction between opinion pieces and news reporting, and states; "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact," [7] (They talk about 'opinion piece' and 'reporting', so I assume they are talking about the reference article itself, not the media organization or the writer.)
I do agree note 1 includes news stories, like the one in The Independent. I know other pieces in the note are writing about the same thing they are, but a couple of them are opinion pieces. However, we are using those seperately from the others as (examples of) reporting facts here in and of themselves ("Independent media sources reporting Cooper is gay include:"), which seems to be in conflict with the distinction made between reporting and opinion pieces in the policy, if I understand it correctly.
So while Musto is a staff writer for the Village Voice, the piece he wrote I'd say is an opinion piece, which the policy states is different from news reporting and may not be used for reporting facts on WP but solely for the opinion of the author. Doesn't this also apply here? Is that right or am I completely overlooking something right now?
So there is no actual official definition of 'independent media' WP uses in their policy outlines? That's kind of odd, given that they use that phrase quite a lot. Anyway, thanks for explaining! Elphie13 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I respect the distinction between news and opinion, but as many observers have lamented, the line has been blurring in recent years.[8] A writer can write both, sometimes in the same publication, and (perhaps regrettably) even in the same story. An economic report containing statements about last year's numbers and predicting next year's numbers, for example, mixes fact and opinion. In the linked Voice article, Musto defends his earlier Out article in which he wrote that AC is gay, repeats that fact, and defends his own credibility ("I'm a reporter...I said he was gay...I write about celebrities' personal lives for a living.") Musto uses a conversational writing style, but the style does not change the content from fact to opinion, and I think the specific factual statements remain facts. As a reporter, Musto is especially credible; anyone who has lived in NYC for any length of time has probably seen Musto at least once. As noted in his WP bio, Musto is a gossip columnist whose reporting actually resulted in a murder conviction - quite a rare distinction - and he is an expert on the differences among gossip, rumor, fact, and opinion.TVC 15 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I know who he is, and I wasn't trying to discredit him, it's this specific article that I wasn't sure complied with the rule. I'm still not sure it does as I interpret the policy to be talking about the entire article on that, and they're quite emphatic on when not to use opinion pieces, but you're right the line has blurred so I have no idea to what extent it's still admissible or not. I would say within the article opinion and fact are quite clear.
Do you think the other articles should be included here as well? (Most seem comparable or with less own opinion than this one, although the Naff piece for the most part repeats the same accusations we dismissed here earlier. He does talk about Cooper being gay which is what it's linked for, but the quote he cites is already included through the popnography/ link. Is that a yes or no? Does the accuracy of the rest of the content on the page matter for linking here? (The Voice article is just facts and opinion, it doesn't go into name calling or demonstrably false facts.)) Elphie13 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Blade" and "Out" etc. are quite specifically and deliberately gay in nature, and should not be taken as a reliable source in a BLP on whether a person is "Gay." Per WP:BLP "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. " Also "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator." and the issue is whther this aggressive pointing of the "gay" finget in a BLP "potentially defamatory." Collect (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Blade and Out are WP:RS, as has been discussed before. If you read the article on The Washington Blade, you may note that it has been publishing for more than 30 years, has won awards from the Society of Professional Journalists and (for coverage of legal issues) the American Bar Association, and has a print circulation more than 30,000; it also has a much larger online readership including affiliates nationwide. Likewise Out magazine is very prominent, which is why The Independent cited it. Respectfully, your statement that gay-oriented publications should not be taken as a source as to whether a person is gay seems the opposite of reality, like saying the journal Paleontology [9] should not be cited as a source as to whether someone is a paleontologist, or Ebony magazine should not be taken as a source on whether someone is African American. These are high quality sources, with fact checking departments and long histories of publication, not self-published sources or blogs. There is no issue of defamation: first, the fact is reliably sourced and true; second, although calling someone gay who wasn't gay used to be considered 'slander per se' back in the days when sodomy was a crime, that is no longer the case. This matter has been brought to the BLP noticeboard and has been discussed at length, including administrators. I am not sure what you mean when you refer to "this aggressive pointing of the "gay" finger" but simply mentioning he's gay is not "aggressive," and besides the Out magazine cover was very prominent on newsstands around the country including in NYC where AC lives. There are zero reports of him ever denying it; he doesn't have to comment but it is a reliably sourced fact of comparable relevance to the other facts generally reported in the personal life sections in journalists' biographies.TVC 15 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources with a specific POV are not great if one wishes NPOV for the entire article. And where you can use an RS without the specific POV, those are preferred. And I do not think one needs to "deny" all that is rumored -- then that is the "are you still beating your wife?" type issue. If Cooper does not discuss this, it is not up to us to discuss it for him without anything more than opinion pieces. Collect (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, they're news stories, not just opinion pieces. You misapply the "are you still" question because the problem with that question is that any answer, yes or no, would imply an admission of either past or current conduct. As reported in the Voice, AC was asked about the Out story, and said he had no comment. You seem to object to gay publications as POV, but that is not really fair; if a Dallas newspaper reports that someone is from Dallas, I think you would agree it's credible, not POV. I find myself in the awkward position of having to defend from both sides, which I guess makes me neutral: the fact is reliably sourced and therefore can be included, but AC is not required to make a news story out of it.TVC 15 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! It is important to include the fact that he does not respond to a story? To me "no comment" is about as meaningless as anything one could put into a BLP. Collect (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The "no comment" is not included in the WP article at all. I assume good faith, but it seems like you are (mis)perceiving some sort of issue where there just isn't one.TVC 15 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"As reported in the Voice, AC was asked about the Out story, and said he had no comment" came from a post by TVC at 18:31 on 16 January. Collect (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not included in the biography. This is a talk page.TVC 15 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
And my comment on the talk page about your comment on the talk page is not relevant how? Collect (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, since you've asked, the answer is because your comment was about including it in a BLP, which no one has proposed doing.TVC 15 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome TVC15!!! I do not think that the quotes belong in the article b/c well, think about it, is Naff's comment really necessary??? I mean is it going to destroy the article if we do not have it in there. I think what would be good is if that we remembered that we should not give a f**k. Hope this helps!!! I am getting tired of this. To me it is just one user saying "we need the quotes" and the rest are saying "no, we don't". That does not mean I am going to quit. It just means that I don't think we should have to cater to the needs of one user. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We moved on to the next discussion actually, this isn't about the quotes anymore. I don't believe anyone is arguing for that? We were discussing what does and doesn't belong in the note. Or at least I was. Elphie13 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Correction: Hm, Benjiboy seems to be? I'm not sure since I thought this discussion was in response to Collect´s edit, and not the quotes, which are discussed above in the 'Gay' discussion. I'm so confused! Benjiboy, are you discussing keeping the Naff article in the notes, or keeping the quotes in the biography paragraph? There doesn't seem to be a thread or order here, do we post at the bottom of the text or in thread format? Elphie13 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The sequence does seem to have got confusing, but as far as I can tell the only remaining question is which sources to leave in the note. Having now looked at all of them, I think two could reasonably be deleted. The Smith (2005) link doesn't seem to work, i.e. it links to a book but not to any specific page, so the link should be fixed or removed. [see below] The Naff link is to his blog [comment, see below], and as shown above 3rd-party blogs are not good sources for a BLP. The other sources all report the fact as a fact, including the Blade link from 2003, and I think they should stay.TVC 15 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Smith reference works perfectly fine, and includes a page number which is what we look for. The Washington Blade piece is to the Blade's blog, not Naff's. I don't even know if he has one. The use here is also fine. Please stop demonizing blogs. -- Banjeboi 04:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Smith reference, I see what you mean, if you enter "Anderson Cooper" in the search box it comes back with a quote from page 123. So, I've struck that out above. Regarding the blog, yes it's the Blade Blog, but anyone can post there, staff, readers, whoever. So, the comment is his. I'm not "demonizing" blogs, but they are different from WP:RS specifically because many see "blogging as a means of 'getting around the filter'"[10], including the fact checking that applies to WP:RS reliable sources. Also, I see you've added the criticism comment, even though you weren't able to persuade anyone else that it should be included, plus you added a People magazine link for no apparent reason.TVC 15 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi, I don't want to start edit warring, but I do feel, especially with a BLP, "If in doubt, leave it out". Now, we're not really near 'doubt' here, we're not equally divided on the issue, you're the only person who feels this information should be in the text, both here and on the BLP board. We can discuss the issue, of course, but I think for now it should stay out of the article. With no comment on the other work that Naff and Olbermann have done, the fact checking here leaves something to be desired, as explained in my post in the section above. We shouldn't keep this in if these opinions are based on verifiably false information about the actual subject. To link that information here without correcting the alleged 'facts' does more damage to the article than that the value it adds, which is also being disputed. If they aren't false and I'm mistaken, please address the issues I've listed above. TIA and regards Elphie13 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I will repeat, generally what I posted in the BLP thread. The content we now have is completely watered down and the sourcing for it cover the statement in compliance with RS policies. If you wish to quibble on whether Olberman and Naff are indeed correct or wrong in their quotes and statements you likely should wait until someone either adds or suggests re-adding those. The People magazine ref was to cover that the person Cooper asked about being gay, denied it upfront. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I responded in the BLP thread why I feel the content of the links is relevant to deciding whether or not we should include it, even while linked, not quoted.
Nobody here is denying Chesney denied the rumors. Just that there is no proof in the actual interview that this was in response to anything Cooper said, and Naff states he asked him and Naff himself saw it. Elphie13 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4]
^ The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.
- About the article written by Naff, I've established the piece of work itself to not be accurate nor accurately fact-checked. It doesn't fit the definition of reliable source. You say this is quibbling and haven’t rebutted me (yet), but this is actually relevant because then it shouldn’t be linked in a BLP, which only accepts high quality sources.
Sources in BLPs
Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link.
- Even if you could interpret the definition 'piece of work' from the first policy to be about part of the article, which I don't believe is the case but my English isn't good enough to tell for sure, in this situation it seems that it's the "material" that is the criticism in the article we link it for, with the article falling under "questionable sources or sources of dubious value", and as such it "should not be used, either as a source or as an external link". "questionable sources or sources of dubious value”, I find this description to apply here to the piece of work itself, by this definition the article, given the multiple false facts stated. Either way, while not linked for this reason, the end result is we have external links with derogatory content based on false facts about the subject in the BLP. This policy on that requires the content in the external link to be high quality.
external links in BLPsElphie13 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Or once a witness has been discredited on one point, he is discredited on all points. Collect (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm hesitant to continue this discussion as has been going on even though much of it has remained civil. I have boldly closed the BLP thread as it has largely just become a mirror of this discussion. Elpiel13 did make a comment that I hadn't noticed about the external links section which I have cleaned and will start a new section regarding that. This latest thread, which is really part 4 or 5 in a series, has bobbed and weaved a bit and the content in question further trimmed back to alleviate undue concerns. If this really needs to be discussed further perhaps a new thread would make sense. Also per WP:TLDR, we are collectively likely repelling any substantive, non-drive-by comments. -- Banjeboi 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:TLDR, I'll be brief. Naff's unjustified name-calling in blog comments reflects on him, not AC. Benjiboi, have you ever been wrong about anything? Since you haven't been able to persuade _anyone_ on this, the graceful thing to do would be to withdraw the sentence that you added.TVC 15 (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Haff didn't seem to name-call at all, he stated "For someone so guarded about his own sexual orientation to turn around and ask another celebrity – one who is married and presumably straight – about gay rumors is the height of hypocrisy." Not sure why whether I've ever been right or wrong is raised but, yes, I have certainly been wrong many times. I'm not convinced this is an impartial jury to be passing judgment so no, I felt I've already compromised by paring down and then removing the quotes. We should, in fact, rework that his lengthy quote about his private life is addressing his sexuality and bundle that with this neutered sentence that he's been criticized for not discussing his sexuality. -- Banjeboi 08:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been brought before the BLP noticeboard and this discussion, including people from around the world and with a range of opinions on other issues, yet when you find no one to agree with Naff you respond by questioning the impartiality of the jury. Since you seem unable to acknowledge why you're wrong here, please let me reiterate that Naff's blog comments criticizing someone else's personal life do not belong in an encyclopedia biography - except maybe Naff's. Please read Naff's two brief blog comments in full, not just the brief excerpt you copied above.TVC 15 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So are we discussing the Naff comments??? I still do not think they belong in the article. This has been dragging on for to long. Some on needs to back off. There have been countless discussions about this and it is never ending (or is seems so to me). Maybe we should ignore all the rules and remember not to give a f**k. "Benjiboi", I can tell you feel strongly about this, or you would not keep on discussing this. I do not see why Naff's comments are relevant nor does anyone else. As "TVC 15" says, we are from around the world and with a wide range of opinions. I'm a conservative republican from Minnesota who does not even think homosexuality is moral. I'm not going to debate my beliefs on this talk page. The other user do seem more liberal then me (that is my personal opinion, I could be wrong). It's not like we are all sock puppets of one another. I am not telling you to give up but am telling you to think it over, and see if this is worth your effort. I am not trying to attack you personally or in any other way. I do think that this same discussion has gone on for way to long, I just can't see why we cannot come to a decision. I have been thinking and we could keep Naff's comments in the notes at the most. That is the only thing I can think of now. I will suggest something else if I think of it. Sorry if this ran on for too long!!! --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't, or at least shouldn't, go by a majority rules. If that were the case no mention of his sexuality would have even touched the article. This entire section should be rephrased that it's been the source of much speculation, such-n-such report he's gay, Cooper has avoided discussing it citing ..., he's been criticized for doing do, his follow-up comments why he feels it's a celebrity trap of sorts. He has supported LGBT charities and covered issues particular to LGBT communities. I think this would be a NPOV and balanced well to proceed. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So. Why should we have to talk about this so much. Could you please tell me exactly what you mean "Benjiboi". Feel free to post on my talk page. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, please stop putting my username in scarequotes, it's antogonizing and unhelpful. Secondly, discussing improving articles is a useful way to see where issues are going. Frankly this article needs plenty of work but the issue of sexuality is an ongoing one across BLP articles. How, when and why we report soemone's minority gender and sexuality status has a bearing on the perception of that person so it's better to work on it even if the rest of the article is ignored in the process. -- Banjeboi 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I demur. The first requirement is "getting the story right" -- the current undue emphasis given to a subject on which factual evidence is lacking (other than his refusal to discuss his personal life) is not getting the story right. It is closer to a "hit piece" on that topic than anything else. Per WP standards, people have a right not to be "outed" unless they give the information out in some way themselves. This whole bit of speculation about him is, then, speculation. And that is clear. Collect (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we go with majority rules here? Because it's inconvenient to you? None of us in here nor on the BLP noticeboard think this improves the article but you, it would be polite to regard our right to opinions equal to yours and not collectively accuse us all of bias because we disagree with you. The inclusion or exclusion of actual reports on his sexuality is a different discussion with Collect entirely, I'm talking about your edit, which everyone else also objects to.
Aside from the name calling in the link from note 1, in the link from your added sentence Naff puts words in Coopers mouth to criticize him, and we should not quote or link to such a factually wrong article in Cooper's BLP. While not directly name-calling Cooper here, Naff does everything short of actually doing that. The article is slanderous[11], and it would be irresponsible of us to link to this source on Coopers page, especially in the BLP. (I still have no idea of why that link to people magazine is here, it doesn't even mention Cooper.)
Olbermann’s comments and facts are inaccurate as well.
And also, how other people feel on what decisions Cooper should make in his personal life says more about them and their individual norms than it does about what decisions Cooper should make in his personal life. For all the perceived obligations to Naff and Olbermann by themselves to discuss things they want him to discuss, there´s no actual obligation here to tell anything to anyone, whether it's his name or his pin code, if he thinks that´s the right thing to do. It's not as if he signed a contract with the gay community to do so that he's violating, or breaking the law by not telling. The criticism comes from a sense of entitlement, while other persons can have strong personal opinions on this based on how they feel (famous) gay people should behave, in this instance the subject of that discussion being Cooper, it really is more about their own beliefs of the first topic than that it´s about Cooper, who has his own reasons and norms and priorities and a right to them. Just like he has no obligation to change other things about himself because people disagree for their own reasoning, like being a Christian. So this is insignificant to Coopers biography and it does make it seem like we´re just putting it in to make a point. Elphie13 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look to simply rewriting this content, there is some good discussion here about theory of outing celebrities but we've already established that in Cooper's case the speculation and issues surrounding the speculation has reached a notable level even if he's not directly addressed the questions. Also we are not the arbiters of what is right or wrong, we do not report what is true, but what is verifiable. His sexuality is not verifiable in reliable sources - by our standards - but the speculation, response to that speculation, criticism to that response and then follow up to why Cooper avoids addressing the speculation is verifiable. Olbermann and Naff's criticisms aren't false or misplaced, as far as I can tell, they state their opinions and all we're stating is that they criticized Cooper's avoiding a direct answer. This is very watered down but perhaps in keeping with a shorter BLP, although I think it should be explained, NPOV, why they criticized him. An example how criticism goes on BLPs is for those who are notable for holding fringe theories. The most NPOV statements are something like X believes that the Earth is flat and conspiracies exist to hide this information. X's theories are widely discredited by the scientific community. In a longer, well-written article we would overview X's beliefs and the criticism. In shorter articles, the information is kept more concise but criticism is indeed included, in at least as much that it is mentioned it exists, which is all we're doing here. -- Banjeboi 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't we just say why Ann Coultor criticized Cooper (she does on media bias in her new book guilty). Isn't her opinion just as good as Naff's. I am going by your logic Benjiboi. If Naff's comments are so important then maybe I should ask I Ann's comments can be put in the article??? Can they, or is she too conservative??? (Note: am just trying to prove a point.) And another thing is that good Wikipedian do not disrupt Wikipedia just to prove there point.--Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any realiable sources covering that? If so we certainly can consider it. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia biography, not a 'just quote anyone you agree with' forum, it needs to be actually relevant and deemed notable, and not slanderous, not unduly favoring some viewpoints, and with reliable sources. 'We' have not established the things you say we have. The 'duties' of gay people (like Cooper) in society according to other people is not a 'dispute' that needs to be hashed out in Coopers biography, nor does it need to be in that of everyone else in that category. This isn't even an accusation of media bias, and not about a fact like the earth being round and people disagreeing, this is critique on someone's personal decisions on his own personal life which others may have something to say about but have nothing at all to do with. There are no scientific theories for that, no certificates, and nobody else has an authority in that. It tells us nothing on Cooper, but on Naff and Olbermann, and what they think of these issues and by extension of Cooper. It would not be notable to say 'Keith Olbermann having a girlfriend in her early twenties has been criticized by Anderson Cooper, *other people*. *link to false facts on Olbermann*'. It would not be notable to say 'Susies decision to get a divorce has been criticized by *person with no connection to Susie and no full knowledge of the subject of the decision to make the divorce* *link to false info on Susie*'. This is not notable. Here in Coopers biography, it wanes way to much from the actual subject.
'Not saying what they want him to' is criticism based solely on personal beliefs of what that should be according to that person, and discontent with other peoples boundaries. The criticism we link to is actually less general than their displeasement with Cooper avoiding a direct answer and more on specific incidents. Hypocrisy, some other insinuated evidence of bad character and... whatever it is that Olbermann accuses him of. Being the Bush administration? Having a private life, period? Naff and Olbermann do state more than their opinions, they state multiple facts. False facts on Cooper: Seeing Cooper asking Chesney if he's gay; saying he's being hypocritical (Wrong definition of hypocrisy, which is a negative word and NOT the same thing as irony, which is a neutral word); wrongly attributed quote; Cooper refusing to answer any questions; equal to Bush administration, who makes decisions for other people, amongst other unsimilarities. This should not be linked to. Elphie13 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the five participants' views in this discussion, it looks like we have four in favor of removing the Naff/Olbermann sentence, and only one in favor of keeping it, even after bringing the issue to the BLP noticeboard. I would say that is a WP:CONSENSUS for removal. I have said elsewhere that I personally would not delete this version of the sentence, but just in case anyone else deletes it, I'm writing here to summarize what appears to be consensus at this point.

Also, User:Benjiboi, you seem to use the word "we" a lot, as if you were a specially authorized representative of Wikipedia. In fact, we are all equally participants in Wikipedia, and every relevant policy runs contrary to your statements of what "we" do. Likewise, you seem to present yourself as an authorized representative of the gay community generally, but your views are atypical and as far as I am aware no one elected you to that capacity. Even the Blade has limited Naff's criticisms to his blog comments, and no other Blade editor has expressed agreement with him. You wrote above of AC, "His sexuality is not verifiable in reliable sources - by our standards...." Your statement is simply false, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by reference to WP:RS and the publications (including the Blade) that have reported it as a fact. You seem to have have switched sides in that debate in order to save the reference to Naff and Olbermann. The article cites multiple reliable sources (WP:RS) stating that AC is gay. In contrast, Naff's blog comments have no business being cited in a WP:BLP. Please stop conflating the issue of whether to include the reliably sourced fact that AC is gay with the entirely separate issue of whether to include Naff and Olbermann's false criticisms. Of the five participants in this discussion, I think we have at least three (probably four) in favor of the reliably sourced fact that he's gay, but no one agrees with you about including the false criticisms from Naff and Olbermann. You finally acknowledged the relevance of the flat earthers, which I pointed out in citing WP:UNDUE, so please read that policy. Including Olbermann and especially Naff gives them undue weight.TVC 15 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

TVC 15, again please refrain from making this about me. Cooper has been called gay is not the same as him being gay, he could be gay or bisexual or prefer some other word or simply not acknowledge his sexuality. There has been a concerted effort to remove this information entirely and mitigate its prominence in popular culture and I general oppose that. I will simply look to rewriting this material, again, in hopes those who are very interested in this content might consider other areas of the article, or other articles even, where their efforts might be helpful. Characterizing past discussions to favor a particular editing decision seems like mythologizing to me and trying to paint me as someone speaking on behalf of wikipedia or gay people? or something else also isn't helpful here. We each bring to the project our experiences and abilities. The goal is to write and improve articles and I have only done that. -- Banjeboi 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi, having done a complete 180, you are now contradicting your own arguments. You write that reports in the Blade and other publications' news coverage are not reliable sources as to a neutral fact (he's gay), but you want to include blog comments for negative falsehoods (hypocrisy etc.) You are the only person who has ever supported including those falsehoods, yet you say this is not about you. As for your statement about only having improved the article, obviously we disagree. Can you find any other WP BLP that links to criticisms from blog comments?TVC 15 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well benjiboi, you are the only one that wants the comments. Does anyone want me to get an admin to say what weneed to do. I did not want the Coultor comments in the article, her comments I did (and sometimes do) disagree with her. She is not always right, and her comments do not belong in the article. I was just trying to make a point. If, however we were going to do a critismas section (which we are not) thay would belong there. It is the same with the other two comments. And I do agree with benjiboi on that we do not have 100% proof that AC is gay. We cannot prove beyond reasonible doubt that AC is in fact a homosexual. Nor can we prove that he is a bisexual or heterosexual. He just does not talk about it, so until he does, we can never be 100% sure. That is my opionion and it is not likely to change. TVC 15, that is where I disagree with you. Where I agree with you is that the accusation of hypocracy are falsehoods. And Elphie13, why did you bring the Bush administtartion (BA) into this, AC and the BA are not the same thing, don't compare them at all. Really sorry about the spelling!!! --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hee, no kidding. Olbermann drew that comparison, not me. Your spelling is readable to me, and I'm not a native english speaker, so that's fine. Benjiboi, I removed the edit per the general concensus, nobody thinks this does improve the article, we've all explained ourselves multiple times now, you including, and I don't think anyone will convince anyone on this either way. Again, this has nothing to do with a 'concerted effort' removing all evidence of his supposed sexuality, which both TVC 15 and I, along with you, also object to. Otherwise we can always get an administator to look at this, but it seems to be talked out for now.
On another note, ref 7 is misplaced. I suppose this belongs under 'note 1'? Elphie13 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elphie13!!! BTW what contrey do you live in??? --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 21:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I live in the Netherlands. :) Elphie13 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
TVC 15, no I did not contradict myself, that reliable sources state someone is gay does not make them gay. It becomes a fact that it was stated, not that it is true. There is a difference. I will look to restructuring this whole article as it's clear it needs to be done. Elphie13, you're welcome to get an admin but this is a basic content dispute, your edit summary that I used unreliable sources is also misplaced. But I'll let the facts speak for themselves. Speculation about Cooper's sexuality is certainly notable as is criticism for him not directly answering the questions regarding his sexuality. -- Banjeboi 00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi, why do you feel it needs to be reconstructed entirely? I find it to be a pretty good article. What do you suggest?
Reliable Sources states that: "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability." The article (piece of work itself) contains multiple false facts on Cooper, making it an unreliable source. Even though the material we link it for, the existence of criticism, is verified by it, Sources in BLPs states that "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link.". We do not think the criticism is notable. Elphie13 (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the one that suggested the admin, Benjiboi. The blog is not notable. And BTW, there is no free speech on Wikipedia. So if you want to complain about there being no free speech for you a Naff then fine, b/c there is none. If you want to bi**h abut Ac then get a blog. Sorry if I sound mean but I think that Elphie13, TVC15, and I are getting sick of you complaining about this. Am I right??? --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Again please comment on content not contributors. That newsblog is certainly reliable and I never complained about nor was citing free speech so that seems like another red herring here. This is not a chatroom or a forum but simple a place where we can discuss improving the article. That has always been my goal here and will remain so regardless of what others have intended. -- Banjeboi 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well quotes are out of there so that is good. I don't see why the section needs to be rewrriten. If you could comment on my talk page on how you would like to rewrite the section (i.e. what you would to include and a rough draft if you have time, also include it on this talk page).I do not think I am aking too much. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have no interest in passing drafts by you for approval. Anyone can edit here and we are always improving articles. If you have a specific issue with an editor that should take place elsewhere per WP:Talk. -- Banjeboi 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm boldly archiving this thread. Discussion has veered from the initial concern which has been addressed. -- Banjeboi 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


As of 02:09, 5 November 2006 the article still had a good chunk of trivia that I had found online, but hadn't noticed that it was being removed because of the push for proper refs. So I will be adding it back in, but with real refs this time ;) -- Limulus 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added back in the ones I had previously worked on and could find 'good' refs for; that leaves three that I didn't add. I'll have a look at those later:



-- Limulus 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hamptons: can't find a ref; won't add back.
  • Kean U: this is true [12]
  • cousins: that's some mental gymnastics; the fact that everyone is a cousin of everyone else means that this has very little worth; won't add back.

-- Limulus 07:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Limulus, he is not writing for Details magazine anymore. The last edition he contributed was the October 2005 issue with the article The Face of Famine [13]Worldnewsjunkie 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Cooper, delivered the Class Day Address, (May 21, 2006) at Yale University [14] Worldnewsjunkie 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the Yale ref; regarding Details it says "Cooper also is a free-lance writer whose articles have appeared in many other outlets, including Details magazine." How would you change that? Speaking of, *you* could make these edits now; the article is no longer semi-protected, remember? :) -- Limulus 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


His book article Dispatches from the Edge needs to be made, it's the work of a prominent journalist and was on the bestseller list so I think it's notable enough to have an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Create an account and write the article yourself! Surfeited 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sesame street

Parodies himself.[15] Banjeboi 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so it's clear here - Cooper has also parodied himself on the popular children's show Sesame Street. could be a helpful addition to the article.Banjeboi 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Interview has moved to here. -- Banjeboi 08:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Expand lede

The lede is messy and needs expanding. It should be a stand alone summary article of the subject. -- Banjeboi 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

External links


I've removed the above external links as not conforming to our WP:EL policy which, in essence, is that we include links to the subject itself - their links, within reason - and appropriate links that would add to our reader's understanding if the article was written at an featured article status. For instance, an article about major baseball league may have a link to a reliable site that fully compares team statistics whereas the article may only touch on that subject. Having stated that many of these might be helpful for background info or even sourcing. -- Banjeboi 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


he mentioned the oath fumble first. (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)



Is he or isn't he? The article waffles on this point without giving a definitive answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it somewhat hypocritical for Wikipedia to include speculation about his private lifestyle choice. There is absolutely no proof that Anderson Cooper is a homosexual, yet you include several allegations by "independent press". What is the difference between that and gossip? Where are your standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment above is out of sequence and the anonymous author evidently did not read the earlier comments below (or WP:RS), but I will reply here. You can find Wikipedia's sourcing standards in WP:RS. There are many differences between independent news media and gossip, including especially fact-checking. Notably, The Washington Blade is an award-winning newspaper in continuous print since 1969, with online affiliates nationwide.TVC 15 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, first you should sign your post by using the "four tides" (i.e.~~~~). And Cooper has never talked about wether or not he is gay so we really do not know. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Anderson Cooper...has in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay."[17] The article is written cautiously because he has avoided commenting on that part of his personal life in interviews. The fact would not be included at all if it were not reliably sourced, but the sources report it without quoting him on it, so the article says simply that they report it.TVC 15 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While I neither know nor care whether the man is gay or not, I find it remarkable that 14 lines of text are devoted to a "note" sourcing the issue - and that doesn't take into account the lines in the References. Hell, the entire "Personal" section the piece is only 15 lines (of which 1/3 is devoted to the same issue.) Does this strike anyone besides me as a bit overdone?Frankly, one can only wonder how much space would be devoted to the topic were he to unequivocally announce that he is or is not gay. The attention to this makes the piece read more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Irish Melkite (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the length of the note, I agree it might add up to undue weight. It got that way because, no matter how many reliable sources were found, some editors insisted more were needed. (In some instances, objections seemed motivated by disapproval of the fact itself, and a related desire to suppress it, regardless of sources.) Eventually this one fact had many more sources than any other fact in the article. The issue is, paring down the sources might invite a return to the edit war that necessitated them. Deleting "group=note" from the source code might convert the note into a standard reference, which would resolve the emphasis issue without creating a sourcing issue.TVC 15 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I converted the note to an ordinary reference, without making any other changes, and it seemed to work.TVC 15 (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that listing any LGBT categories may be premature until he has confirmed his sexual orientation. There have been myriad reports that Tom Cruise is gay, but editors have refrained from applying the categories to him. If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I'll remove them. C1k3 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I see that they were added by a new user unfamiliar with verifiability. I'm taking them out. C1k3 (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And why the fuck is there a picture of him with another guy titled "Anderson Cooper with his boyfriend, Julio Cesar Recio, at the Westminster Kennel Club dog show in New York City in 2006."? I'm deleting that shit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cooper identified himself as gay. Since then, he has never taken it back, and is still homosexual. He now refuses to talk about his personal life. Many mainstream media sources have mentioned his sexual orientation. Why then, does this article not have any LGBT categories, and this talk page not have an LGBT Project banner on it? Lambda 3 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the category tags, the issue was discussed, and the discussion has since been archived. At that time, there were two conflicting policies; one favored including the category tag, the other favored omitting it. Unaware of the second policy, I added the tag, and others removed it. Both policy pages now seem to favor omitting the tag (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality). The article continues to be festooned with category tags related to ethnicity, despite a complete absence of references to support them, but the issue of different policies for different categories is a topic for another page.

With regard to note vs. reference, I saw today that Benjiboi had converted the reference back to a note, without discussion. As Irish Melkite observed above, the note was overdone. It stood out from everything else in the article, in a way that amounted to undue weight. So, I have converted the note back to a reference like all the others.TVC 15 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the folks at CNN may have something to do with AC not being labeled "gay". Dreammaker182 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think WP's policy on category labels for living persons should be changed, please start a topic on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories talk page. As long as this article follows that policy, which has nothing to do with CNN, it can't really be attributed to CNN.TVC 15 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"He has, however, discussed his desire to have a family and children." Just for everyone out there, that statement does not automatically mean he's straight. Freddie Mercury also had a deep desire to have a family and children of his own, that did not change what he was. Also, Anderson didn't specifically state that he wanted a wife, by "family and children", he could just as well mean a same-sex partner and kids, since children with same-sex parents are not too entirely uncommon anymore. However, I am not definitively saying he is gay, the point is he has never set the record straight, so to speak, on his sexual orientation/preference. There no reliable photographs of him with any significant other, man or woman. Hell, he could be asexual for all we know. So until he reveals that aspect of his life to the public, everything at this point is just hearsay, nothing more. Draw your own personal conclusions about Anderson Cooper if you like, but don't think that your suspicions or "gaydar" will pass as reliable information regarding AC's personal life.

The interviewer made the same point about the family and children quote, but "Anderson Cooper...has in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay."[18] (The Washington Blade link isn't working right now, while they sort out who will own the archive, but it was working when retrieved above.) People really should read more before commenting.TVC 15 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt he's gay. But I don't really think that it is important to say that he is or isn't. He's a journalist. (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Several sources say he's gay. I seriously think he's gay. But so what. Being gay has no relevance to his job as a journalist, unless and until it's reliably shown that it does. Anderson makes a big deal about not letting his personal life intrude into his professional life. — Becksguy (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz undid my edit on Cooper's companion Benjamin Maisani on the basis that Maisani is non-notable. Google search of "Benjamin Maisani" (in quote marks) returns 'About 17,700 results', proving that Maisani is notable. There is no doubt that Maisani is Cooper's boyfriend, the NY Post snippet I quoted us just one source. Why is Wikipedia denying the obvious? Newtaste (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, google hits are not a measurement of notability that is suitable for Wikipedia purposes. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, come on. This debate has been raging on for, like, over half a decade. He's never married, and has been seen with two men over the past seven years. He flew to China with his current one, Ben, last year. In a debate about gay marriage, he even said, "we pay taxes, too," (which was revised in a CNN transcript as "you pay taxes, too," probably to keep ambiguity prevalent). Not to sound offensive, but this would be like us not acknowledging the fact that he is Caucasian because he never said so publicly. He's also been This is nothing to make a big deal out of, but why shouldn't we list this article in its subject's proper category? He doesn't make his sexual orientation explicit because he doesn't like to talk about his personal life, and coming out just isn't that big of a thing anymore. Off the site, it's consensus, too. CPGACoast (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

info box "official site" is misdescribed

"info box" has line "official site" styled as a link. that link sends one to"

that is not an "official" website; it is merely a bio page on the website of his current employer.

description should be changed (to reflect reality) to read "cooper's biography on" because i am not a registered editor and the article is protected(*), i obviously cannot make the adjustment myself. i trust a registered editor will drift along, see this comment, concur and make the change.

(*) which raises the questions: how long has it been padlocked? how many different times? is it vandalized heavily and immediately each time it's unlocked or are some wikipedians being overly proctective? perhaps some regular watcher of the article can answer (i don't have capacity right now to ferret out the answers). -- (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's repeatedly and regularly vandalized. I'll look to sorting out that link in some way. -- Banjeboi 02:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cooper and Studio 54/Michael Jackson

This was just related on AC360, and appears to be notable enough to report. I just wanted to note that I added it in case there's a dispute. I welcome a discussion of whether it's notable; it fits well with the discussion of his family and childhood and was related by Cooper himself. Wellspring (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)