Jump to content

Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

He has never stated...

Does anyone else find this statement:

He, however has never publicly stated anything about his sexual orientation.

troubling? He's never stated anything publicly about drowning puppies, either, but we don't mention that. It seems waay too much like a leading statement - as in, "he's never talked about it, but we know...". Furthermore, the ref provided for that statement leads to a "blurtit.com" website, which hardly qualifies as a WP:RS. I've removed this statement before, but would like feedback from other editors. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be an alternate way of sneaking in the sexual orientation issue. And after all, how can one realistically (or reliably) prove a negative like that? I support removing it. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I hadn't noticed it, but it's definitely a leading statement. NcSchu(Talk) 01:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be more helpful to explain he has kept matters of his personal life private or similar and why. At one point I think the article did that. Banjeboi 01:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I too, endorse the removal of that poorly-worded statement. The article currently states at the end of that paragraph, He does discuss some aspects of his personal life including his desire to have a family and children. I think it would perhaps read better if it said: While Cooper has kept many aspects of his personal life private, he has discussed his desire to have a family and children.[5] Ariel♥Gold 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to agree with Arielgold; repeating rumours and claims, even if published, is not appropriate according to WP:BLP; looking at the "sources" for AC's orientation is embarrassing for WP. One claims he's publicly acknowledged being gay, which is clearly false. The others merely assert or claim that he's been seen in gay hotspots. The repetition of rumours is not the job of Wikipedia, and especially not regarding living people. The only risk of Arielgold's suggestion is that it might seem to imply that he is heterosexual. Perhaps the better part of valour is simply not to mention his private life at all. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression we do report on speculation once those speculations themselves become notable. Being named as one of Out magazine's top 100 certainly seems to meet that level. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, my reading of WP:BLP leads me to the opposite conclusion. Allow me to quote from it: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."
Even putting aside WP:BLP, Cooper's sexual orientation doesn't appear to be relevant to him; as far as I'm aware he hasn't taken any special interest in gay rights or stories respecting the homosexual community; nor has he been criticized for bias when he does report on these kinds of stories. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. That you would refer to the LGBT communities as "the homosexual community" is unsettling but I'm convinced that soon enough his support for LGBT-related efforts and his current relationship will be well documented in reliable sources so it will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with Benjiboi to a point. There have been enough reports, speculations, and rumors about his sexuality that some mention is in order, as long as it's worded correctly. And being named Top 100 by Out (magazine) - that's pretty kewl :) Especially if he's straight! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll bite. What's "troubling" about the term "homosexual community"? As for the substantive issue, I simply cannot see how repetition of speculation about his sexuality is consistent with WP:BLP. I do agree if his sexual orientation becomes relevant and is confirmed by WP:RS, then it should, of course, be mentioned. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Homosexual is generally considered pejorative when not used in a clinical/scientific context - we don't refer to the heterosexual community but rather mainstream culture. Anderson's sexuality certainly seems to have risen to a notable enough level as evidenced by the removed sources. -- Banjeboi 19:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. I had always thought it as neutral as it comes. Getting back to the substantive issue, I fail to see how Cooper's sexuality is notable. Other people may want to claim him, but there's no evidence it's significant to the public understanding of Cooper himself. More importantly, WP:BLP requires that Wikipedia both respect a living subject's privacy, that the article be written conservatively. Ironically, this article contains a quote that gives a suggestion why Cooper would refuse to rebut even inaccurate information, so we cannot take his silence as confirmation (and, as far as WP is concerned, I doubt silence is ever confirmation for anything.) As an aside, the sources removed provide either inaccurate information (the Washington Blade); rumour (the Village Voice) or mere assertion (the others). Not that it matters, since the information is both irrelevant and contrary to policy. Best, Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Per my example above we don't talk about people being openly heterosexual - most everyone is just assumed to be but we ask are they gay or strait. Many terms used to describe LGBT people are mistakenly thought to be neutral so generally it's best to use a person's self-descriptors. It's also not called Homosexual Pride but Gay Pride, I could go on but I think you understand.
Sexuality issues are relevant as treatment of sexual minorities including all manner of torture including death has occurred in the United States and denying sexual minority rights including parental rights, marriage rights, employment rights, medical rights, etc. persists and has been used as wedge issues in American politics for decades including the current presidential election. That Anderson is one of the most respected journalists and reports on current events including culture politics and may be a sexual minority is certainly of interest and the Out magazine names him as one of the most influential LGBT people also seems to suggest the issue has relevance. I found a few more sources that might help:

"his sexuality is regularly discussed just under the radar," and

Obviously, the other downside to his growing fame is that it serves to ratchet up the interest in his personal life, something he has been very careful to keep out of the press. There has been a lot of chatter on the Internet about the fact that Cooper may or may not be gay, and Village Voice columnist Michael Musto has taken pleasure in quoting the gay magazine Metrosource, which has referred to Cooper as “the openly gay news anchor.” It has been assumed in certain circles in New York partly because he lives what looks to some to be a gay social life. He’s often seen at parties with Barry Diller, and he’s friends with the lead singer from the outré gay rock band the Scissor Sisters. And then there was the tempest in a teapot regarding a slightly heated interview last fall with Jerry Falwell about gay marriage. Some Cooper-obsessed bloggers insist that the anchor outed himself on the air, taking the gay side of the debate and saying, “We pay taxes.” They claim CNN originally posted a transcript with the “we” and then later changed it to “You pay taxes.” Cooper has maintained all along that he said “you.”

When I bring up the sexuality issue with Cooper, he says, “You know, I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life. It’s a decision I made a long time ago, before I ever even knew anyone would be interested in my personal life. The whole thing about being a reporter is that you’re supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t want to do anything that threatens that.”

I hope these help demonstrate that this is not an isolated issue or an effort to skirt policy. I felt what we presently had was close to accurately portraying this aspect of Cooper's biography, rewriting might work but removing any hint that this is an issue seems rather unencyclopedic. -- Banjeboi 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, be assured that I do not question your good faith approach to this question. The two sources you cite are indeed better sources, but they are both sources for the same thing: speculation. And I simply cannot see how speculation about an individual's private life, no matter how widespread, can be included in a manner consistent with WP:BLP. As for the political side of things, that perhaps underlines the importance of not including speculation with respect to Cooper. He's a journalist, and one I admire, in part because he makes a genuine effort to be neutral. To quote Cooper: "The whole thing about being a reporter is that you’re supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t want to do anything that threatens that." This lends greater weight to the privacy concerns outlined in WP:BLP. Regards, Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Gabrielthursday, I have to disagree. Speculation itself can be news and can be perfectly good, sourced, encyclopedic info. I think we all agree that we can't out Cooper, but we can say that there is speculation. The version of this article that we had about a month ago seemed to put everything into good perspective:
His public reticence contrasts deliberately with his mother's life spent in the spotlight of tabloid journalists and her publication of memoirs explicitly detailing her affairs with celebrities.[6] Independent news media have reported that he is gay,[7][8][9] and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second among "The Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America."[10] He does discuss some aspects of his personal life including his desire to have a family and children.[5]
Though I might amend that a little to say that "While Cooper does not discuss his personal life, independent news media have reported that he is gay." This version simply states that there have been news reports. It doesn't engage in speculation and doesn't belabor the point, merely states the facts. See [1] for the version I'm referring to. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"Speculation itself can be news and can be perfectly good, sourced, encyclopedic info." True, up to a point. If Cooper were dead, I'd agree with you. But there is a good reason to be conservative and to respect the privacy of living people- and the publishing of speculation is exactly the kind of thing that crosses this line. WP shouldn't publish speculation about relationships between notable living people either, until and unless they are publicly acknowledged. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Strange to be on the *other* end of this discussion. You're absolutely right, but the information isn't some tabloid gossip rag. This is speculation printed in reputable (and reliable) sources, is in no way defaming of Cooper, and doesn't state that he's gay. BLP says "Do no harm" - how does reporting that there is widespread speculation harm? Normally I would agree with you - I constantly patrol the LGBT cats for BLP violations (Talk:Jon Schillaci, for example). The difference here is the number of statements, the quality of the publications, and the fact that the article doesn't *say* he's gay - it says that other sources have printed it. Jodie Foster has a similar issue, where the article says "Some media interpreted this as Foster coming out, as she was believed to be her girlfriend...". If we write it properly, I believe we can include the information without violating BLP. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it particularly matters where the speculation comes from. It's speculation, it's personal, etc. Even if we had proof, it would still be personal information that Cooper himself has chosen not to publicly disclose. So my view remains the same. If either of you feel strongly about this, perhaps we ought to launch an RfC.
I do note that this kind of practice is widespread in WP. I have the same objections to the Jodie Foster article.
Perhaps appropriately, I'm actually watching AC360 right now. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. I've seen so many corrupted and malformed RfCs already so why don't we just start workshopping some text and suss out what sources have to state and see if that doesn't come to some resolution. I'm concerned that RfC's become semantics battlegrounds so I'd rather focus on the spirit of following current policies governing this. -- Banjeboi 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I take my eye off the article for a little while to upgrade my computer, and someone starts censoring the article without checking the archived discussion. Gabrielthursday, instead of re-inventing the wheel on this, please see the extensive archived discussion that led to the version SatyrTN linked to. For one thing, WP:BLP does not require the subject of an article to comment publicly on facts within the article. The public comment requirement applies only to category tags pertaining to religion and sexual orientation. (BTW, Benjiboi, I owe you an apology on that: in our previous discussion, I had checked two policies that seemed to cover the issue, but I had not realized there was a third policy specifically for category tags. You are right, category tags relating to religion and sexual orientation have a special policy. I am sorry for having overlooked that - an embarrassing error on my part. I would have apologized sooner, but my PC upgrade induced a hiatus.) Moving on to the next point, the archived discussion includes numerous sources reporting the fact that the subject is gay. The agreed phrasing of the article was based on the most widely recognized reliable sources, but was not meant to cast doubt on the fact itself. Lastly (although I still recommend checking the archives on this because more points are discussed there), censoring the fact that he is gay completely skews the sentence about his plans to have a family and children - and you really should read Jonathan Van Meter's blog comments on that point, which are linked to in the archives. Sometimes WP can feel like building a sand castle: just when you have it right, along comes a wave of (in this case somewhat homophobic) censorship, where someone deletes facts he doesn't like. If you check the sources in the archive, you will see that this fact is supported by more sources than any other in the article.TVC 15 (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I don't refer lightly to issues of bias. I also don't think there is anything intrinsically homophobic about referring to "the homosexual community," although it sounds somewhat dated; the term "homosexual" was coined as a self-description in 1879 and remained prevalent through the 1960s, when the older term "gay" (first used in the 14th century) returned and became preferred. I note that the United Negro College Fund and the NAACP have not changed their names, even though common parlance has changed since they were founded. The reason why I mention bias in this article is because somehow this one fact is subjected to a different standard from all others, requiring more sources than any other, and even when those sources are produced people try to censor it anyway. No subject is ever required to take out a billboard ad proclaiming his sexual orientation, or pose for People to announce it. It is enough just to cite reliable sources. As for the special rule governing category tags, it is a debate for another day.TVC 15 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I take umbrage at the accusation that I am taking the view I do out of bias, and the characterization of it as censorship. I'm really not inclined to reply to this comment, littered as it is with violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. If User:TVC 15 would care to retract and treat this as a reasonable discussion, I'd be happy to participate. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Gabrielthursday, the only instance in which the comment mentioned you was in asking you to read the archived discussion. That does not violate any policy. The article language you reverted had stood for months before you deleted it. The archived discussion makes that history plain. If you can raise a substantive objection to the comment, please do so, otherwise there is no reason to retract it (or even to take umbrage).TVC 15 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was responsible for removing the text you are referring to, as the recent editors of this page are aware, and as anyone reading the above discussion or the edit history can surmise. You described that as "censorship" which violates WP:AGF; and then you stated that this "censorship" was due to homophobic bias, which is an insult that violates WP:NPA and WP:CIV. I would appreciate an apology or a retraction. As an aside, I've taken a look at the archived discussion, and in my view, it is tangential to the concerns I've expressed above. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The archived discussion includes thousands of words on exactly this issue, including several drafts of the language that finally went in, so your characterization of it as "tangential" seems difficult to reconcile with WP:AGF. If I may call your attention to another point mentioned in the archived discussion, you might consider that the article _still_ provides no sources for the assertion that the subject is of Spanish descent, yet you did not delete that assertion. Why delete the statement that has more reliable sources than any other, while ignoring a statement that has no sources at all? What can one call that if not bias? And as for censorship, please check the WP definitions. A statement is not an insult when it is factually correct.TVC 15 (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not notice the statement about Spanish descent, and I don't particularly care about it. As far as I'm concerned you can delete it if you want. What a complete red herring. Your claim that my edit was censorship is a violation of WP:AGF. The edit was made in good faith, and in pursuit of compliance with WP:BLP, as I believe both User:Benjiboi and User:SatyrTN will agree, though they may disagree with the reasons behind it. It was your characterization of my motives as biased and homophobic that violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I followed your red herring link and it led to a disambiguation page, so I am not sure which definition you intended. I will assume good faith, and guess that you are calling the Spanish descent observation irrelevant. However, both statements are assertions of fact, and by your own admission you "don't particularly care about" one and yet you have repeatedly deleted the other. I think that tends to prove my point about bias, especially in light of the fact that you deleted the reliably sourced one, but I will await further comment from others.TVC 15 (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
So, to summarize, you're holding my nonactions against me. Let me repeat myself: I did not notice the statement about Spanish descent. I'm reverting you, and until you can discuss this within the bounds of WP etiquette, I'm not going to discuss the substantive issues at play. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement about Spanish ancestry was discussed specifically in the archives that you claimed to have read. Your _actions_ are at issue here, specifically your repeated deletion of reliably sourced facts. As for your motivation, your statements seem to be showing it, including your latest revert coupled with your express refusal "to discuss the substantive issues at play."TVC 15 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] Gabrielthursday, please review the following WP policy statements:

"Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment... Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict."WP:CIV
"Debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia... As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack... The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."WP:NPA

The original comment at which you took umbrage mentioned you in only one sentence, and solely in the context of asking you to read the archived discussion. You responded by accusing me (without justification) of making personal attacks. The comment did refer to bias _in the article_, and you then proceeded to take ownership of the deletions that produced the bias.

By your own admission, your reason for deleting the reliably sourced information while ignoring unsourced information is because you "don't particularly care about" the unsourced information. That necessarily implies that you do "particularly care about" (and object to) the reliably sourced information. To quote again from WP:NPA, "Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack."

You have now deleted the same reliably sourced factual information four times, while expressly refusing even "to discuss the substantive issues" let alone debate them. That adds up to a pattern, and it is disruptive.

Please stop making personal attacks against me, including accusing me (without justification) of violating WP policies. Further, if you have any substantive comments to make, please make them in constructive debate. Finally, please stop deleting reliably sourced facts and disrupting the free flow of information.TVC 15 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gabrielthursday, seeing no reply, I have had to revert your deletion of reliably sourced facts (again). Your earlier comments accused me (without justification) of violating WP policy, and requested an apology from me (it should be the other way round but nevermind), and expressly refused "to discuss the substantive issues" let alone debate them. In other words, you are punishing WP and its readers by disrupting the publication of reliably sourced facts because you feel that you are owed an apology by me. If I promise to write uncharacteristically nicely to you, will you please stop deleting reliably sourced facts from WP? I did apologize to Benjiboi, but that was because he was actually right. In fact, you might look to his comment for a model of how to respond to what you perceived (incorrectly) as a personal attack. Benjiboi focused on content and substance, providing a link to a policy that apparently everyone (including me) had previously overlooked. That policy provided the distinction between the category tag and the article content.TVC 15 (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If I may address substantive points raised earlier on this page by Gabrielthursday and Benjiboi, they are discussed directly in the archives. Regarding newsworthiness, one might keep in mind that the subject is a correspondent for the TV news magazine "60 Minutes." In that capacity, he asked Kenny Chesney directly about the latter's sexual orientation. (The link is in the archive.) In other words, at least in the subject's opinion, it is newsworthy. He acknowledged as much when Jonathan Van Meter asked him. His reluctance to answer directly is understandable because (as noted in the archive), if he makes a public announcement, competitors like Fox will start accusing him and CNN of "liberal bias" (of course Fox already says that about ABC, NBC, and the New York Times, but nevermind). Ellen DeGeneres was openly gay for years before she announced it to Time Magazine, thus earning publicity for her sitcom (which had plateaued in the ratings) and catapulting the show to its most widely watched episode ever. The subject has reportedly introduced acquaintances to his boyfriend in public, so it isn't a secret, it just isn't a press release. (And if it becomes a press release, presumably CNN will get the scoop and award the exclusive first interview to Larry King.) Writing conservatively means avoiding unfounded speculation, but it does not mean imposing a politically conservative bias, or censoring reliably sourced facts.TVC 15 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

TVC, I've given you multiple opportunities to apologize, but instead you've engaged in sophistry and dissimulation. For the record, however, the disputed section violates WP:BLP because it does not respect the subject's privacy: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." For whatever reasons, AC has opted not to publicly confirm his sexuality. One can suspect that this has something to do with his desire to adhere to journalistic neutrality. In any event, respect for AC's privacy dictates that something he obviously keeps private, and which is inherently private in nature not be in a BLP. Even if we are in some doubt, well, that's where the injunction that BLP's be "written conservatively" comes into play. As for "reliably sourced", I discussed the current sources above. Suffice it to say, they are but rumour and speculation. Benjiboi identified some better sources, but I note that they were not the ones reinserted into the article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Gabrielthursday, thanks for returning to substantive discussion. (Neither of us has apologized to the other. I honestly don't know which arguments you (mis)perceive as sophistry, but dissimulation is a more intentional accusation and, without examples for justification, I don't appreciate it. In any event, the article is not about us anyway. If you want to remove the entire text of the discussion between us, I have no objection except that I think we should probably finish the debate before removing half of it.) I do respect your concern for privacy, which is a value in itself, but magazine covers and newspaper articles can hardly be considered private. The archived discussion contains links to audited circulation numbers of the periodicals cited in the article; suffice to say the total was very large, and they are reliable sources and not tabloids. Also, magazine covers are seen by many more people than actually read the magazine - on newsstand shelves, advertisements, etc. Further, the subject is a "well known public figure" (see WP:WELLKNOWN), and that section of WP:BLP includes specific examples of including personal information even if "the subject dislikes all mention of it." (There is no indication that AC cares one way or the other about these reports anyway; he spends so much time working that he probably does not have time to read half of what is written about him, and his reporting from disaster areas and war zones probably provides a more serious perspective. The issue is probably not his neutrality, but rather - as noted in one of the archived sources - if he were to make a public declaration like Ellen did, it might overshadow his reporting on more urgent subjects.) As for your (mis)characterization of Michael Musto's reporting as "rumor and speculation," I think that's contrary to the record. Other source links can certainly be added, but that is not a basis to delete the text. Also, in case you missed it in the archive, here is a link to the subject's reporting on Kenny Chesney's sexual orientation: [2], paragraphs 9-13. Perhaps that argument is what you meant by sophistry, but I disagree with that characterization; the CBS news story (and the publication of an autobiography) help to differentiate AC from, for example, Jodie Foster. The article text (as it was before you deleted it) wove together the subject's public comments with reports from reliable sources, adding up to WP:NPOV.TVC 15 (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Other sources discussing private matters is not justification for WP doing so. We need to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis. This case is unlike the example given at WP:WELLKNOWN where speculation becomes the subject of a scandal. As for the Musto piece, it's commentary, not reportage, and the only evidence he adduces is "Well, Anderson's been seen at gay spots." But this isn't about the sources, it's about the appropriateness of including this in WP. WP rightly has a higher standard because it is an encyclopaedia, and, in my view, it's hard to interpret that standard in a manner that favours the inclusion of this speculation. I've previously suggested that if we are at an impasse, we should consider going to an RfC. We could even try for an informal RfC, perhaps soliciting opinion from editors concerned with the WP:BLP policy (if this would help address User:Benjiboi's concerns). As for the personal dispute with TVC, I'm happy to leave it be so long as we can keep it civil going forward. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anderson_Cooper/Archive_4&oldid=1136316029"