Talk:Gary Cooper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Gary Cooper is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2015.

RfC: Adding mention of Anderson Lawler[edit]

The consensus here seems to be to specifically exclude the rumour that the two friends shared a bed - and also a weaker consensus to exclude mention of the friendship between the two, at least in the form proposed by Engleham. I do not see a strong consensus that the friendship with Lawler should not be mentioned at all, and to me it seems reasonable to mention close friendships in a biographic articles. I would also want to note that one function of Wikipedia is to dispell rumours and common misconceptions. On that account it might be worth mentioning explicitly that the rumous exists and that the main biographers consider it to be only an unsubstantiated rumour. This possibility however would require a second RfC. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two editors dispute that Gary Cooper's closest friend should be mentioned in his article. A previous RfC failed to garner comments apart from their own, and that of one other who didn't review the proposed citations. This RfC is an attempt to obtain a consensus that is genuinely representative and democratic. The proposed text and citations for the inclusion will be in the first post. Engleham (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The proposed inclusion is: "In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez. According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once shared a bed."

Citations would be:

  • Mann, William J. Behind the screen: how gays and lesbians shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, Viking, 2001, pp105
  • Swindell, Larry The Last Hero: A Biography of Gary Cooper, New York: Doubleday, 1980, pp104-6
  • Fleming, E. J. The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine; McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina & London 2005, p92
  • Vogel, Michelle Lupe Velez: The Life And Career of Hollywood's Mexican Spitfire, (McFarland & Company 1972) p71
  • Ankerich, Michael G. The Sound of Silence: Conversations with 16 Film and Stage Personalities Who Bridged the Gap Between Silents and Talkies, McFarland and Company, 1998, pp127-128

The following citations can be easily reviewed:

Engleham (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Include — sources seem okay to me, this is not a BLP, and wikipedia is not censored. Ratel (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Note CANVASS and Stalking problems User_talk:Writegeist#Collect.27s_Laws "Don't forget to record a Support or Oppose to the move at the relevant talk page. Yes, I have been gone for years, made the mistake of socking to try to avoid wikistalking editors (inter alia). Now I know it's better just to face them head on. Live and learn. Ratel (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)" Collect (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Also User_talk:Engleham#Gary_Cooper where two editors seem to act in direct collusion. Collect (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlike yourself User: Collect, no collusion. He posted on my Talk page (which clearly you are stalking again - you really need to get another hobby) regarding your behaviour. As the last RfC didn't attract sufficient comments, I simply invited him here to vote however he felt – exactly as you did a few hours ago on the Dispute page with a certain mentor of Ho's. Hypocrite much? Engleham (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No one has ever shown any sign of me "colluding" with anyone at all. I have five thousand pages on my watchlist, by the way. And Ratel admitted to stalking me, by the way, and was banned from Wikipedia for his use of socks in the past. So your declamation here is of zilch value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not stalking you, Collect, but I think you know why our paths crossed. I have a lot of data and I'm speaking to admins behind the scenes. I won't discuss this with you publicly further, but you are welcome to email me. Ratel (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RELIABLE, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, etc. None of the five major Cooper biographies support this rumor. The books cited are not strong fact sources. Larry Swindell (The Last Hero) presents the Lawler story as a "rumor" sustained by "certain scabrous books" and notes that most of his Cooper's friends at the time "insisted there was no truth to the rumor" (Swindell 105). Michelle Vogel (Lupe Velez) cites Swindell as the source for her rumor. She also presents a supposed quote from an interview with actor William Janny in Michael Ankerich's The Sound of Silence, but the quote does not appear in that book. If it did, it would be one author reporting a story told to him by another person who passed on a rumor he heard. Stephen Michael Shearer (Patricia Neal: An Unquiet Life), whom you previously cited, also cites Swindell for his rumor. You also previously cited Neal, who never mentions Lawler in her book As I Am. William Mann (Behind the screen) also cites Swindell. All of these sources cite an author who presents the story as a rumor and provides evidence to contradict the rumor—Cooper's friends. The Fixers states that "it was known that they were lovers"—and that's about it. The Jack Lawrence book (They All Sang My Songs), whom you previously cited, is published by Barricade Books—not a reputable publisher. The most reliable biographical source, Jeffrey Meyer's American Hero, devotes a single paragraph to Cooper's friendship with Lawler—nothing about a "relationship". The other three major biographers—Kaminsky, Carpozi, and Arce—never even mention Lawler. There is no evidence in reliable sources that supports your claims above. There were hundreds of actual facts about Cooper that I did not include in this article, based on relevance and the need to keep the article to a manageable size (it is over 10,000 words of readable prose). The only relationships I included in the article were those publicly acknowledged by Cooper and which played some meaningful role in his life or career. I omitted many other alleged relationships with actresses because they were not relevant to the article. Adding a rumor hardly meets the criteria for any article, let alone a featured article. Two previous attempts were made to add this content, both of which were rejected by consensus here and here. WP:ANI rejected another attempt. Bede735 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
WTF? You appear to be recycling old shit you posted half a year ago about a completely different requested submission. Read the new proposed wording, Granda. It is as follows:""In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler" PLAIN FACT, NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SOURCE. "with whom he lived with for a year." NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SOURCE. "Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society" NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SOURCE. "but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez." NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SOURCE "According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once shared a bed."PRIMARY SOURCE, EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT. William J. Mann ALONE is a highly respected and authoritative source. And the Janney account is exceptional. You can't get two STRONGER sources. Shall we limit it to those?!Engleham (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Your proposed wording is not supported by any of the five major Gary Cooper biographies. Bede735 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Still Oppose Weak sources, including ones which specifically call the material "rumor" do not make for strong enough sourcing for this tabloid fluff. I note also the very argumentative wording for this RfC which is contrary to policy. RfCs are not supposed to contain direct or indirect attacks on other editors. Collect (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
NONE the straightforward statements in the proposed wording are "rumors", which makes a nonsense of that claim. Stop trying to engage in WP:CRUSH. Engleham (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
And so Bede is a horrid liar when he wrote
Larry Swindell (The Last Hero) presents the Lawler story as a "rumor" sustained by "certain scabrous books" and notes that most of his Cooper's friends at the time "insisted there was no truth to the rumor" (Swindell 105).
On which case, report him for abusing sources, but it damn sure looks like "rumor" is in quotation marks to me. And I fear you do not understand that your sort of argumentation in an RfC is possibly not going to gain you any support at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • include all except EXCLUDE the shared a bed summoned by legobot. The prior items seem well sourced. The final item is an anecdote with no supporting documentation and as this incident or similar incidents are not covered in his other biographies, it is WP:UNDUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The first two sentences explain Cooper's friendship with a gay man, the third sentence cites a rumor that they slept together. A verifiable (per WP:V) gay romance would certainly be encyclopedic. Being friends with a gay actor and a rumor of "sharing a bed" aren't policy compliant additions, particularly for a WP:FA.LM2000 (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I understand how LGBTQ history too often gets pushed back in the closet or ignored. This just doesn't seem that important in the course of someone's life story. I agree with LM2000's reasoning. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discusion[edit]

Swindell's book was published Swindell's published in 1980 — 36 years ago. The sources Mann, Fleming, & Ankerich were published LONG after his book, so he could not have read them in 1980! What is more, your argument against inclusion is specious because Swindell only questions the rumor that Cooper and Lawler had an affair. From the moment he begins spending several pages outlining their association "Cooper met Anderson Lawler in 1929", he NEVER denies they had a close friendship, or that is IMPORTANT to mention it.

So the very source you wave in the air - Swindell - actually supports the argument for Lawler's inclusion! If you read my proposed words they make no mention of an affair: only that Ankerich "claims" that Cooper, Lawler, and Velez at least once shared a bed.

What is more, Swindell qualifies his own denial. He doesn't write "all of Cooper's vintage pals have insisted that there was no truth to the rumor" — the rumor of an affair. He writes "most of Cooper's vintage pals". So some didn't deny it. Biographer Stephen Michael Shearer who wrote in his biography of Patricia Neal that it was an affair, added: "Patricia Neal confirmed in conversation with SMS in May 2005 that she knew of this relationship." But again, the proposed inclusion errs on the side of caution and only states it as a close friendship.

So, to sum up: the biography you hold to support non-inclusion actually does the opposite: it supports inclusion, and further, it is but ONE biography is a slew of biographical citations. So by supporting Swindell you and Bede support inclusion of Lawler in Gary Cooper's entry. So, having been acquainted with these facts, I now presume you both acknowledge the need for Lawler's inclusion, as per he who you champion, Swindell. Engleham (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag, so mere rumours, as in this case that Cooper had a homosexual relationship with Lawler, don't belong here. If Cooper had gone public with having had a sexual relationship with Lawler, or it had had substantial coverage in major biographies, it would have been different. But he didn't, and they didn't, so no way. Thomas.W talk 08:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W That's NOT what the proposed wording is saying. Read it again. It makes NO mention of any homosexual relationship. It says "close friendship", which ALL the sources agree on. Engleham (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Who do you think you're fooling? Writing that they lived together, that Lawler was "unabashedly homosexual" and that Cooper and Lawler "shared a bed" is in the mind of most readers as clear a way of implying that they had a homosexual relationship as it gets. Which combined with your previously proposed wording (as seen on WP:ANI) that "Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once had a threesome" clearly shows that you're trying to portray Cooper as having been homosexual/bisexual. And maybe he was, but without solid sourcing, much more solid than what you have now, you're not going to get it into the article... Thomas.W talk 09:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The supposition that they may have had an affair is for the reader to decide. What is proposed is only what the facts support, facts provided by rocksolid authoritative sources: (A) That they had a close friendship (B) That they lived together for a time (C) that an eye-witness acoount from a fellow actor claims that they at least once shared a bed with Velez. You keep trying to weasel by saying "without solid sourcing". Every damn Cooper biography that explores his life in depth mentions Lawler. Just because you find the fact unpalatable doesn't alter the truth. Engleham (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
As WP:NPA says, "comment on content, not contributors", there's no way for you to know if I find it unpalatable or not. All you have is a rumour about Cooper having shared the same bed as two other men one night when there were more people in the house than there were beds, and having joked about it later, a rumour that you, through your choice of words, try to present to the readers here in a way that clearly implies that Cooper was having a homosexual/bisexual relationship with Lawler. Refusing to stop your attempts to get your material into the article, even though it ought to be clear even to you by now that you have no support from other editors here for it... Thomas.W talk 14:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I know your opinion precisely. As anyone of intelligence here would. Because there's no other reason to stonewall any inclusion of Cooper's best friend - whatever the status of the friendship. THAT'S the Alpha and Omega. And one more thing. An eye witness account isn't a rumour. But anyone reading your responses and those of Collect and Bede would fully understand that honouring Truth (rather than endless dissembling) is the very last consideration here. If it was, Anderson Lawler - who was in Cooper's life for several years, and is mentioned in EVERY definitive Cooper biography, would be mentioned in the article to some degree. So you can spare us the circuitous patronising bullshit about respect for facts - there is none. The prejudice is transparent. Engleham (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Being mentioned as his friend to some degree is very different from the gossip rag style edits you've tried to make, where you imply that the two were homosexual lovers (and, yes, an "eyewitness account" of this kind is only a rumour unless there's something else to back it up). And please indent your posts properly so that it's possible to see what other posts your posts are in reply to, because I'm tired of fixing it for you. I'm also extremely tired of your repeated attempts to make it seem as if I'm opposing your proposed edit(s) because of a homophobic agenda, or something, I'm opposing your edit(s) because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag... Thomas.W talk 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
because I'm tired Not as tired as I am of your dissembling and false arguments. If you find the proposed inclusion so "gossip rag", please share with us exactly what phrasing would be acceptable to you to include Lawler in the article. Engleham (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
To be honest I don't feel there's any need to include Lawler in the article at all, but if you get the other editors here to support it I'm fine with it. I came here to voice my opinion in this RfC after seeing the posts on WP:ANI, and since I have voiced my opinion above, by opposing the inclusion of the proposed text, I see no reason to waste more time than I already have by attempting to discuss it with you, so this is my final response to you. Thomas.W talk 18:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course you won't provide it. I knew that before throwing down the gauntlet. I merely wanted to publicly demonstrate your refusal to countenance Lawler's inclusion under any circumstances. And so make a mockery of your justifications. Engleham (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Include - forgot to add my own. And for the reasons stated above. Engleham (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Include Include With Caveats (see below) — Sources look good (except The Fixers, but my objections to that book are clearly in the minority on Wikipedia). I would also suggest including Queer America: A GLBT History of the 20th Century by Vicki Lynn Eaklor, as it phrases the subject in a way that might be more encyclopedic: "Gary Cooper and openly gay Anderson Lawler shared a house, and it has been suggested that Cooper consciously changed his image from "sophisticated pretty boy to the rugged leather-faced cowboy" to avoid the fate of actors like William "Billy" Haines." Another suggested source would be Hollywoodland by David Wallace and Ann Miller, who source a cousin of Lawler's as knowing about the affair. (Jeffrey A. Brown's 1995 article on Cooper for Screen entitled "Putting on the Ritz: Masculinity and the Young Gary Cooper" also mentions the affair, but I don't have access to the article myself.) I don't see why this information can't be paired with something like, say, Jeffrey Meyers's American Hero which talks about Cooper's uneasiness at being thought of as gay. Seems perfectly appropriate to include both sides of the issue and indicate it's a subject that biographers and historians discuss with some frequency. Clockster (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Clockster Thanks so much for your wonderfully informed comment. The Brown essay on his erotic objectification is excellent --and I note, repeatedly sourced in studies. (It addresses what is certainly a glaring gap the Wiki article: any mention of Cooper's early screen image, vs the later one. So I've added a sentence, with an additional citation from a similar study.) Am not so keen on Hollywoodland, as it lacks sufficient citations for its claims. Reviewing the sources, I noted that Cecil Beaton also claimed to have bagged Cooper at least once in the 30s. But unlike the long close Lawler friendship, I think mentioning it would be erring into trivia. Engleham (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Include With Caveats - Am clarifying my vote above. Would like to make it clear that I think the gist of the topic should be included, but the wording of the sentence as it exists needs work to make it neutral. Would suggest a neutral sentence or two on the topic that includes multiple points of view. The topic needs to be addressed in good faith, not used simply as a way to introduce questionable content regarding Cooper's sexuality. Clockster (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I care less about the first two sentences, although there may be neutrality problems there as homosexuality is heavily implied; the third sentence is egregious. Even if totally verifiable and true, I'm not sure how "sharing a bed" is encyclopedic.LM2000 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

LM2000Clockster " but the wording of the sentence as it exists needs work to make it neutral." "although there may be neutrality problems there as homosexuality is heavily implied." Here's the facts: Cooper lived for a year with a man who had a reputation as being the most 'out' homosexual in Hollywood. (cite: Mann) What is unneutral about stating that? It's the bare bones truth. Do you propose putting in some additional redundant sentence such as "Many straight men share house with homosexuals but never have affairs with them, but simply enjoy their company". Really? I think adult readers can weigh the supplied facts for themselves and make up their own bloody minds! Also re: "I'm not sure how "sharing a bed" is encyclopedic". An encyclopaedia is an authoritative summary of information. The eyewitness account that Cooper and Lawler went to bed at least once with a woman clarifies the nature of the friendship stated in the first sentence, to show how close it was. Clarifying is what encyclopaedias do: morality has nothing to do with it. Again, whether they even touched each other is an unknown, and left for the reader to decide. To restate: the proposed inclusion is: "In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez. According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once shared a bed." I'm really intrigued to see how those objecting to its inclusion would rephrase this to create the 'neutrality' they believe is missing. Engleham (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silent film make-up[edit]

Early Movie Make-up:

"As blue-sensitive film renders red as black, unmade-up faces looked darker on the screen than they were in reality and any unevenness in the complexion made faces look dirty. Many early film actors, particularly those that came from the stage, responded to these problems by covering their face with heavy make-up, giving them a look that belonged more on a mortician’s slab than a movie set. The practice was so common that it became almost a convention in early silent films to make the faces of heroes and heroines white, while the rest of the cast, who were less made-up, looked darker."

Nothing whatsoever to do with making anyone look more like a girl at all. Collect (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


Cooper's screen image, which was to transition significantly to a more rugged persona, was in the silent years one of a boyish sexual glamour. This was deliberately fostered by Paramount, including by the use of heavy eye makeup, and backlit soft-focus closeups that were more usually employed for female stars.<ref>Brown, Jeffrey A. '' "Putting on the Ritz: Masculinity and the Young Gary Cooper" Screen, Vol 36 Issue 3, 1995</ref><ref>Sheehan, Steven T. "Costly Thy Habit as Thy Purse Can Buy": Gary Cooper and the Making of the Masculine Citizen-Consumer'', American Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1: Spring 2002</ref>

Has been added to this biography. Is the material as cited usable? Collect (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Union Jack on orthochromatic film.
  • No, it's not. Every photographer and serious black-and-white movie enthusiast knows that heavy make-up was needed in early movies because of the use of ortochromatic film, a type of b&w film that made blue lighter and yellow and red darker. The image of the Antarctic explorers, shot on ortochromatic film, shows that the film has not only totally distorted the colours of the flag (the Union Jack) but has also made the naturally reddish faces of the men look very dark and dirty. Which is why actors in movies shot on ortochromatic film, both men and women, wore heavy make-up, to look natural, not to look feminine. Panchromatic film is sensitive to all colours of light and doesn't have that problem, but cost more than twice as much per foot as ortochromatic film did, and didn't really take-off until 1926, and it wasn't until after 1930, when Kodak ceased production of ortochromatic film for movie cameras, that all black-and-white movies were shot on panchromatic film, and the male actors no longer needed heavy make-up. Thomas.W talk 06:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Summoned by bot. I really don't understand why this text is not usable. It is attributed to two reliable sources. Barring some other problem (undue weight?) I don't see an issue. Whether we like what it says or not is immaterial. Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


Comments[edit]

Note that make-up was dictated by the film stock, so the comparison to Cooper as though he were trying to be like a female seems inapt. In my opinion.

The Screen precis notes that the article was based on a single opinion ("The combination of feminine good looks and masculine role of Cooper in "Man of the West" was seen by critic Steve Neale as an alternative eroticization of the cinematic male") and is not a statement of fact.

The cite from American Studies by Stephen Sheehan states: "The Virginian also capitalized upon and reaffirmed Gary Cooper's sexual glamor. He wears noticeably heavy stage make-up throughout the film, which creates a sharp contrast between the smoothness of his appearance and the ruggedness of both the terrain and the faces of many of the film's other male characters. His light-colored clothing places him in contradistinction to the blackclad villain." and "In order to establish the Virginian's honor and morality, the camera shoots Cooper's close-ups in soft focus with back lighting. Ultimately, the combination of make-up, costume, and lighting tends to frame Cooper in a soft glow that filmmakers at the time usually reserved for female love interests. In addition, Cooper relies on facial expression to develop the Virginian as a 'man-of-few-words.' " The comments about make-up are directed specifically to this role, and do not support the claim for which it is used as a source.

Where one source is clearly a single opinion, noted as such, and the second source does not support the claim as written at all, I fear I doubt the usefulness of this fluff. The use of make-up on lead actors was primarily due to the nature of the film stock, as the cite before this RfC clearly indicates. Collect (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

As you two are getting hung up on makeup, let's ditch the reference to it, and focus on the essential information that needs inclusion -- that Cooper's early screen image was significantly different to what came later. Partly this was due to a changing culture (eg. vamps fell out of fashion, as did feminised males - Valentino etc); directors and studio changing their approach; and partly due to Cooper himself. "By 1932 a transformative maturation, following his restorative vacation in Europe, was noted: "He is a new Gary Cooper. Gone is the gaunt, melancholy forlorn, lad over whom women languished and cooed'" (McLean p78) However, prior to that "Cooper was often "objectified in ways normally reserved for women" (Brown p204) "his persona contained elements of sexual glamor commonly perceived as feminine." (Sheehan) Morocco is probably the last flickering of the old image, the " most outrageous treatment of Cooper as a sexual, effeminized object" (McLlean) There is also: ""The heroic but often femininized image of Gary Cooper has both influenced and reflected the nature of male presentation".(Brown)
Distilling this down, I therefore suggest the inclusion could be (with the above sources):

From the early 30s, Cooper's screen image underwent a transformation. The gaunt and melancholy 'pretty cowboy' persona, which had been fostered by a directorial and studio glamorisation that verged on the feminine, was replaced by an image of a modern man of gentle masculinity who was strong and confidant. Yes/No Can you do better? Engleham (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the sentence on make-up as originally written did inadvertently dredge up technical aspects of filmmaking. Also, we need to remember essays and articles that discuss the so-called feminine make-up of male silent film stars are doing so as part of larger sociocultural discussions. They don't present the idea of "feminine" make-up on a man as fact, but as an interpretation on which they build evidence for their theses. For instance, Brown's comment about Cooper's objectification is interesting, but you could argue that it was not normally reserved for women, given the way Valentino, Fairbanks, Sessue Hayakawa, John Gilbert, and others were objectified. It's Brown's theory, not undisputed fact, and you could use his quote in this article to bring the idea up, but then you'd have to include an "opposite" quote that would indicate there is disagreement and discussion, and at that point you're cluttering up the entire article.
Still, the general idea that Cooper was seen as both pretty boy and tough guy is an important one, given how frequently it's discussed, and he did seem to have undergone a well-publicized transformation in 1932. It should be included in the article. Would suggest using a sentence that indicates this change and how much it was noted at the time, perhaps by quoting magazines from 1932. Maybe something along the lines of, "Beginning in the early 30s, Cooper's screen image underwent a transformation noticed by fans and critics alike. "Gone is the gaunt, melancholy, forlorn lad over whom women languished and cooed," wrote Photoplay in 1932, while other magazines referred to Cooper's "freshened appearance" and "stalwart masculinity." Embodying both feminine and masculine traits, Cooper in the early 1930s was seen as the successor to both glamorous silent film stars like Valentino and Gilbert, and the rough-and-ready cowboys like William S. Hart." (Sources for this would be McClean and Meyers.) That's just a suggested sentence, though. Clockster (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Engleham: The mistake you make is to look at things with today's eyes, and judge everything by today's standards, instead of putting things into perspective. During the second half of the 1920s it was fashionable for women to be masculine and men to be feminine, regardless of sexual orientation. Women cut their hair short and wore underwear that flattened their breasts and dresses with a straight shape that hid their natural curves, or what was then regarded as mens' clothing, i.e. trousers/pants with a shirt and sweater or a man's suit, and men permanented their hair and wore well tailored clothes, and many men also wore make-up, particularly eye liner (which became fashionable in the 1920s after the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb). Regardless of sexual orientation. Which of course was reflected in the movies of that time. So Cooper having been what today is perhaps regarded as a bit feminine in the movies made between 1925 and 1930, i.e. the time period we're discussing, can not be taken as proving that he was gay, and should not be presented that way in the article, it was only a reflection of what was fashionable during those years. I'm not saying that he wasn't gay, because I have no idea if he was or wasn't, and quite honestly don't care, but this is a featured article in an encyclopaedia, not a post in a blog, and you need much more substantial evidence than this to present him as gay. Thomas.W talk 10:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
1. I don't personally believe Cooper was gay. A brief youth exploration of bisexuality, either as hijinks or charity favours, possibly. But my personal opinion is irrelevant. 2. We're not discussing Cooper's off-screen sexuality in this RfC: we're discussing his screen image between 1925 and the early 1930s – only. 3. I don't seek to express my opinion in articles. What I seek to do is restate the facts that the supplied citations record. 4. As you have previously demonstrated, you have zero interest in reading citations, even when the links are supplied. Instead, you prefer to spend your time alleging the information in the proposed text is something I made up. And worse, invented to push one o' them ho-mo-sexshual agendas. 5. Consequently, your comment is (a) unacademic (b) tediously insulting (c) utterly redundant, and (d) the statement of your previous post "I see no reason to waste more time....this is my final response to you" is looking even more like an uncharacteristic shaft of enlightenment. I'm guessing Nurse gave someone a Vitamin B shot. Engleham (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
With respect, this is getting out of hand. The insults (from all sides) are not helping the situation, and neither is adding in new elements like silent film makeup and Cooper's on-screen persona, both of which look as though they were part of a let's-see-what-sticks attempt to get any mention of Cooper's "femininity" mentioned included. I realize now I shouldn't have gone forward with the suggestions on adding information about Cooper's ability to be seen as both masculine and feminine on screen, because we don't have the original RfC decided yet. I think it would be worthwhile to dial back the stuff about silent movie makeup and mention of Cooper's masculine-feminine screen persona until we get the first Anderson Lawler question sorted. Clockster (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Clockster Already done. See revised proposed inclusion in last para of my post (now bolded to make it clear) of 04:46, 19 May 2016. Actually I'm going to close this RfC because the proposed inclusion is no longer about makeup, and the first RfC is still open as it needs to be. Engleham (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually - it is grossly improper for you to close the RfC as the issues remain. Collect (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I hope my earlier comment didn't suggest that I wanted the RfC closed; I was hoping to deal with the topics one at a time, in chronological order, not just ignore some. Given what has gone down, I suspect my assumption of good faith earlier in this RfC discussion was unwarranted. Will be slightly modifying my vote above and bowing out now. Clockster (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What the sources might support:

In 'The Virginian', Cooper was filmed with make-up and lighting to emphasize the difference between the hero and the villain, who was dressed in black.

Which is the tenor of the source quoted. Collect (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've removed the contentious mention of makeup from the proposed inclusion I'm presuming you're now willing to concede it. Otherwise this RfC is irrelevant Engleham (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Only if you find my suggestion directly above reasonable here. Otherwise, excluding the strange zero-edit "new editors", the consensus appears to be against your edit. Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Engleham: Where exactly does a reliable source say something like "which had been fostered by a directorial and studio glamorisation that verged on the feminine"? Thomas.W talk 21:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W >>"Where exactly does a reliable source say something like 'which had been fostered by a directorial and studio glamorisation that verged on the feminine'?"

So you were lying when you said you were fucking off. Or is is just memory loss? Because given I posted the "reliable" sources upthread with quotes, I won't be the only one presuming you're very old. Read the Brown paper. It treats the subject in depth.

  • [Directorially] "Cooper was often "objectified in ways normally reserved for women" (Brown p204).
  • "the film's [Morocco] most outrageous treatment of Cooper as a sexual effeminized object" (McLean p80)
  • "his persona contained elements of sexual glamor commonly perceived as feminine" (Sheehan) etc etc. But again these are irrelevant. The only source acceptable to you is your own myopic opinion.

Collect >> "Only if you find my suggestion directly above reasonable here." No, I find it pointless. You're only including the banal tidbit as a lame blocking tactic to prevent any mention that makeup played a role in Cooper's glamorisation in the Silent Years. And as I've told you, I've moved on. But for the record:

  • "I have been trying to think why the sight of Gary Cooper [in The Legion of the Condemned (1928)] wearing lipstick is so interesting. Lipstick was, as the bar scene shows, optional, and in submitting to it (or did he apply it himself?) Cooper looks abandoned in the best sense: desirable, available. A man who wears lipstick will do a lot of things. I cannot agree with Carole Lombard that Cooper was "effeminate." In fact it is his masculinity which makes his lipstick more fascinating, more abandoned than it would be on a babyfaced man." (Boyd McDonald Cruising The Movies, Semiotext(e), 2015)
  • "Cooper, now a featured player, also wore heavy makeup, especially around his eyes." (Jeffrey Meyers: Gary Cooper: American Hero p30)

As for his offscreen persona....

  • "Carol Lombard regarded him as a dilettante - 'markedly effeminate, especially in his mannerisms and not at all the stalwart he impersonated so effectively on film"(Jeffrey Meyers: Gary Cooper: American Hero p14)
  • "Cooper (as his TV interviews showed) had in life a number of effeminate mannerisms."(David Shipman The Great Movie Stars" p120)
  • [When giving testimony to the HUAC Committee] "Gary Cooper comes over as disconcertingly effeminate, giggling and writhing and blowing little puffs of air onto his fingernails"(Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan p255) Engleham (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Congrats You had said you were dropping the make-up stuff -- now you seem to think lipstick and make-up when the orthochromatic film made it absolutely essential somehow made Cooper look "effeminate"? Sorry - you are not gaining a single opinion from an experienced editor backing yours here - certainly not enough for anything remotely near WP:CONSENSUS at this point. Collect (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect Congrats for trying to deny you lost the argument. As you know, the quotes on makeup I posted were merely to prove how wrong you were, and that Cooper's makeup in the 20s was exaggerated beyond what was required for orthochromatic film. Similar to the further quotes I provided for the "I'm going away, no I'm not" Thomas W which utterly validate the revised proposed inclusion:

From the early 30s, Cooper's screen image underwent a transformation. The gaunt and melancholy 'pretty cowboy' persona, which had been fostered by a directorial and studio glamorisation that verged on the feminine, was replaced by an image of a modern man of gentle masculinity who was strong and confidant. Engleham (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And so far, your edit does not have consensus here. This is not an "argument" - it is an RfC - a "request for comments" and the comments do not agree with your proposed edit at all. Do you understand that the idea that one "wins an argument" is not how WP:CONSENSUS operates? And that personalizing the discussion is actually an admission that your view is not the consensus view? Collect (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently, all I see is your crony Bede, another who won't read supplied citations, and yourself who - when your history of my edits elsewhere is examined, is strongly indicative of consistent harassment. That's no consensus, and you can spare lecturing me on such: your belief that you in a moral high ground position to do so would - in any other situation, be comic. Engleham (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not quite sufficiently clear. I do not know Bede, nor do I recall having any specific interactions with Bede. Period. I fear you appear to be so closely connected to the topic that you fail to understand that others may reasonably disagree with your position, and that WP:CONSENSUS is the proper roadmap for you to follow. Collect (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
"nor do I recall having any specific interactions with Bede" Well that was worth a laugh! But again, you can stop lecturing on how RfC's work. We've witnessed your egregious behaviour on other RfC's such as Harold Holt. Your favourite tactic, employed there, and employed here, WP:CRUSH doesn't work on me. And refusing to directly address the proposed inclusion with reference to the sources, after it has been revised, just makes it all the more obvious. Engleham (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Being sourced isn't by and of itself reason enough to include something, WP:Undue also matters. And the consensus here is against including it, so just drop the stick and find something else to do. Thomas.W talk 21:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations to working to the Wikipedia bigot's playbook, as I laid out many years ago. (a) Demand endless citations for every third word (b) Endeavour to discount them when provided (c) If this fails, state the article is now unbalanced or too lengthy (d) If that fails, suggest the whole topic is trivial/irrelevant/tangential/tabloid/unencyclopedic/any Wikipolicy policy acronym that could possibly fit in a blue moon e) When all else fails....suggest plagiarism. f) Rinse and repeat. Engleham (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bisexuality[edit]

Why is there no mention of his affairs with Anderson Lawler and Cecil Beaton? (213.122.144.28 (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC))

Read the RfC above on this page. Collect (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Or this summary: It's just rumours with no evidence supporting it, and it's not mentioned in any of the main biographies. That's how Wikipedia works, especially on biographies. Thomas.W talk 21:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because Collect is keen on censoring any mention of probable straight/bisexual people having gay affairs on the entire site. For personal reasons it seems. We are not here to decide what might be true or not, but if something has had extensive coverage in reliable sources then we cover it. Claims of Cooper's affairs with Lawler and Beaton would need to have widely documented in Cooper's biographies though to make mentioning it worthwhile.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice personal attack there - you seem to have not the least idea about me at all, other than to think a person who actually follows Wikipedia policy must have some "agenda." Sorry to disillusion you, but you are letting your personal ire get in the way of reason. Collect (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@213.122.144.28 @Dr. Blofeld The fling with Beaton has been assumed but there is no published evidence, even in his unexpurgated diaries. There is an eyewitness account of Cooper, Lawler and Velez sharing a bed on at least one occasion. See above. There has been objection to inclusion of Lawler in the article by two individuals, even on the basis of his house sharing and close friendship with Cooper, which contrary to denial, points unequivocally to bigotry. However, as per the closing summary of the RfC, there is now consensus to adding mention of Lawler in the article on at least that neutral basis, which I shall do. I can't be arsed creating another RfC to determine (as per the RfC closing summary advisory) whether speculation that it was an affair should be included. Maybe someone else can. Engleham (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Kindly start an RfC if you wish to overturn the prior RfC result. I find your edits on multiple articles indicate a possible problem. Collect (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not overturning the RfC result. You need to read the RfC's closing summary by maunus again: "I do not see a strong consensus that the friendship with Lawler should not be mentioned at all, and to me it seems reasonable to mention close friendships in a biographic articles." That's all that I intend to include – no other aspect, and have strictly adhered to it. If you object to even that point, you'll need to open another RfC. Also: as you possess one of the longest records on Wikipedia for edit-warring, we'd all appreciate that you spare us the massively hypocritical homilies in that regard. Engleham (talk)
Your edit is far from what the result of the RfC was... Thomas.W talk 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The RfC Closing Summary made four points, which I quote:
  • 1) "The consensus here seems to be to specifically exclude the rumour that the two friends shared a bed"
  • 2) "and also a weaker consensus to exclude mention of the friendship between the two, at least in the form proposed by Engleham"
  • 3) "I do not see a strong consensus that the friendship with Lawler should not be mentioned at all, and to me it seems reasonable to mention close friendships in a biographic articles."
  • 4) "I would also want to note that one function of Wikipedia is to dispell rumours and common misconceptions. On that account it might be worth mentioning explicitly that the rumous exists and that the main biographers consider it to be only an unsubstantiated rumour. This possibility however would require a second RfC."

As per the RfC, the proposed inclusion was: "In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez. According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once shared a bed." If points 1, 2 & 3 of the RfC are followed, that requires removal of the last sentence from the inclusion, but permits the first two. Well, here's an RfC to clarify it. Engleham (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  • "I do not see a strong consensus" is not the same as "I do not see a consensus at all", but means that there is a consensus against mentioning the friendship with Lawler at all, even though it's not a massive one. The rest is the closer's personal comments, which are not binding since the closer's function is to see if there is a consensus in one direction or the other, not to decide the outcome of the RfC, especially not against the consensus the closer says there is. Thomas.W talk 09:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Anderson Lawler[edit]

Aside from the person who opened this RfC, everyone seems to oppose the inclusion of the sentence. I'm therefore doing a snow close. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As Anderson Lawler was Gary Cooper's closest friend in the early 30s, and a significant person in his life, it is proposed to include the following two sentences in the article: '"In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez."' Citation would be: Mann, William J. Behind the screen: how gays and lesbians shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, Viking, 2001, pp105-11 Note: Lawler's homosexuality is referred to because (a) it was widely noted in Hollywood at the time and (b) the friendship with Cooper was frowned upon by some contemporaries for that fact (see citation for both points), but this RfC is only for discussing the proposed inclusion. It is NOT for discussing any mention of a possible affair or bedsharing between the two, or the inclusion of such. For clarity, please keep comments succinct if possible, headed by Include or Exclude. Engleham (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Show us a reliable source that unambigiously states that Lawler was Cooper's "closest" friend and a "significant" person in his life. As for the rest we've just been through one RfC discussing just that, with a consensus against you. Thomas.W talk 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Authoritative reference cited. STICK to the RfC request. As you have not supplied a vote we'll presume yours was INCLUDE. Engleham (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course it wasn't an include !vote, it wasn't even a !vote at all, just a comment. I might !vote later though, depending on what happens here (and we don't vote here, or anywhere else on WP, we !vote, note the exclamation mark, because it's not about numbers, it's a policy based discussion). Thomas.W talk 10:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Include close friend of Coopers, and a notable figure in his early life, as detailed by Mann. As per the observation of the closing editor of first RfC who found there was no consensus to not include mention of the friendship in the article, and that it was reasonable to include mention of such frienships in a biographic article. Lawler is also referred to in all recent Cooper biographies. (nb the bolding is merely to demonstrate that I too can do it, like the hysterics who object to any mention of Cooper having a homosexual best friend.)Engleham (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Noting the continuing edit war taking place to keep inserting this material is against Wikipedia policy, and contrary to the RfC above. This is painfully obvious that one editor has a sacred mission, and Wikipedia is not the place for sacred missions. Sigh. Collect (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The proposal is not counter to either the RfC nor Wikipedia policy. Specifically it is in line with the suggestion of my close to have a specific RfC about whether the friendship with lawler should be mentioned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you consulting with anyone regarding short term memory loss? I mean that... kindly. Because on 2 August you wrote: "Kindly start an RfC if you wish to overturn the prior RfC result." So I did! And surprise, surprise – as your latest whinge shows, there's just no pleasing you. What to do? How about: instead of misrepresenting due process as edit warring, you might review some of your own contributions in that regard, beginning here: Talk:Harold_Holt As someone in our office laughingly commented recently while scrolling through a certain history: "There's nothing wrong with being an old steamer. But they need to read what they write!" Engleham (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you need glasses. The prior RfC specified that it might be possible to mention Lawler - but nothing at all about Lawler being a major homosexual who was "close friends" with Cooper, and absolutely did not support the innuendo your edit seeks to promote. As for your behaviour on other pages, I note you had an enforced one month vacation from Wikipedia with notes that you well should behave now. You do not seem to be following that advice. Collect (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The consensus here seems to be to specifically exclude the rumour that the two friends shared a bed - and also a weaker consensus to exclude mention of the friendship between the two, at least in the form proposed by Engleham. Seems clear.
In 1929 Cooper also met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to a wider Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez.
Seems to stress Lawler being homosexual, that he "lived with" Cooper for a year, that their friendship was so "close" as to cause "jealousy" with others, and so on. Precisely the innuendo which was found not to have consensus for inclusion in the prior RfC at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
(1) Except for the actual polling, I've removed all the shrill adolescent bolding. Bad form, but it was making the RfC impossible to read, not just your own rants - sorry, opinion. And we don't want to set off the schizophrenics. (2) Shall we review your blocklog? (Your assumption of moral superiority has provided deep amusement to others in our office, but it only makes my eyes glaze.) (3) I think everyone is fully aware of your view, given you've restated it every which way, and made utterly clear you won't concede an inch, however the proposal is stated. So perhaps you can now leave the floor to others. Engleham (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, it was rejected in an RfC that was closed less than a month ago. Which didn't stop Engleham from adding an only slightly modified version of the text, full of insinuations about homosexuality, to the article twice ([1], [2], even falsely claiming that the previous RfC supported it, see edit summary) without prior discussion, and then starting this second RfC only after realising that he wouldn't be able to sneak it into the article. Showing a total disregard for the opinions of others, and the way Wikipedia works. Thomas.W talk 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
What?! You left out the part about the Gay Illuminati Conspiracy. Engleham (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural Oppose Without going into my own interpretation of these sources, I agree with others here that opening a second RfC, so close on the heels of the previous one in which the OP's position was overwhelmingly rejected, represents a disruptive (and arguably bad-faith) refusal to accept the consensus of the first discussion. Now, editorial decisions can, and should, be reviewed from time to time--but this was far, far too soon to launch a second RfC on essentially the same issue, and doing so was all but certain to accomplish nothing but than to raise the (already considerable) acrimony on this page. Now judging from the above, I think I can safely presume that Engleham's position would be that this is a different and more nuanced proposal. But having reviewed all discussion on the matter (that is to say, near the entirety of this talk page), it is my opinion that the core proposals (and the issues they raise) are essentially the same. Indeed, before I had read any of the discussion in either RfC, I read the proposed content of this most recent thread, and it was immediately and unambigously clear that it was intimating a romantic/sexual relationship between Cooper and Lawler--said implication being exactly what was rejected by a large majority of the editorial input of the last discussion, based on available sourcing.
Engleham, the atmosphere on this page has grown quite toxic as the result of battleground mentality being maintained on this issue, and while it is clear that the incivility is not entirely one-sided here, it's still well-past time to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one, at least for the present time. Let me be clear that there's a possibility that, very much dependent upon a careful review of the sources, I may have supported some discussion of these rumors (if for no other reason than that, as others have pointed out above, it serves no interest to our readers to ignore a persistent rumor, when we could instead try to parse what reliable sources say on the matter). But we're past that, and as I was summoned by bot to this discussion, my advice is to accept the consensus, whether you are happy with it or not. Snow let's rap 00:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Threre are no procedural grounds for opposing here. My close specifically suggested having a new RfC to find out if there is consensus to include mention of their friendship.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow close: This is nearly identical to the first RfC. There is insufficient sourcing for statements as broad as the nominator proposes. Absent any additional or new sources, this is definitely time to drop the WP:STICK. Montanabw(talk) 05:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose the proposed wording which seems designed to insinuate homosexuality. A much better approach, if sources can be found to support it, would be to note that the friendship have made some biographers discuss whether Cooper was homosexual, but that this has generally been dismissed as unwarranted speculation. The article should neither try to demonstrate that he was or wasn't, and certainly not subtly insinuate or prompt the reader to draw their own conclusions - rather it should note any discussions among biographers and faithfully summarize the consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose and snow close There was a clear consensus against this identical addition for the last RfC, albeit it wasn't quite as strong as it was for that third sentence. There's still an obvious implication that Cooper was a homosexual despite removal of the most egregious sentence. I've seen nothing to convince me that this friendship should be listed at all but it's confounding that we're discussing it written in the same form that was thoroughly rejected not long ago.LM2000 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the sexuality of Cooper's friend does come up in the article, it should be only in the context of notable relationships in the personal life section (or a very well-sourced statement in career along the lines of "Cooper's close friendship with a man seen as homosexual is alleged by some historians to have negatively impacted his casting opportunities"). As another problem, I think the sentence in question has far too much unexplained insinuation to use as a direct quote. I personally find it rather offensive that it insinuates, via wording, that an "unabashedly homosexual" man can't be friends with a straight/bi/closeted man without making the girlfriend jealous. For all we know, maybe Ms. Bow was just pissy that Cooper was spending less time with her, not because she suspected infidelity.Yvarta (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find the arguments made by other editors opposing inclusion to be persuasive. I also find it quite strange that our biography of Anderson Lawler mentions neither his alleged homosexuality nor a friendship with Cooper. Similarly, Clara Bow does not discuss either her relationship with Cooper or the claimed jealousy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.