Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Unprotecting

• Since discussion seems to be happening, I'm willing to unprotect the page now so that regular editing unrelated to this conflict can resume. Should specific editors begin to edit-war about this topic again while discussion is ongoing, or in violation of a formed consensus, expect blocks to follow. Are there any particular objections? seresin ( ¡? )  23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record I'd like to point out that discussion has been taking place on this for months with various folks involved and prior consensus had already been achieved resulting in a version of what we had above in the article. The recent past issues have been with adding LGBT categories which have a stricter inclusion requirement. There now seems to be only one editor calling for a very conservative interpretation of policy. My impression is that even with all the philosophical disagreements I think we are close to a version after a bit of tweaking. -- Banjeboi 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Banjeboi: this article's revision history and archives show a longstanding consensus in favor of including the fact in the article, although "consensus" does not mean "unanimous." The only wider disagreement was over category tags, as to which there are two somewhat conflicting policies as noted above (one policy says the subject has to self-identify, the other policy does not); I am flexible about that issue and have no intention of reverting it in either direction.TVC 15 (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit about a grammar error

{{editprotected}}edit protected request remove - page is not protected. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Old text: Some of the book's proceeds are donated to charity. (under the writings section)

New text: Some of the books proceeds is donated to charity.

Reason: Because some, which is singular, is the subject, not proceeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabelAsheB (talk • contribs)

Although attention to grammar is always appreciated, the proposed correction above would be a mistake for two reasons. First, the pronoun "some" can be singular or plural depending on its antecedent [1]; the antecedent in the sentence above is the plural "proceeds," so "some" should remain plural. Second, the proposed correction omits the required apostrophe in "book's." Many unprotected WP articles do contain grammar errors though, and such errors are always worth fixing.TVC 15 (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be happier with "A portion of the books proceeds are being donated to charity."Here's the ref. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? "Portion" should be singular (i.e. "A portion ... is," not "are"), "books" is missing the apostrophe, and the link doesn't work.TVC 15 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Link works for me. Howabout "A portion of the proceeds are being donated to charity." -- Banjeboi 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the link, I have tried using both Firefox and MSIE, and I get a server error including this description: "The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine." So, I am guessing you must be at HarperCollins, or an affiliate? As the link does not work for the general public, it doesn't work for WP. Regarding the proposed edit above, do you have a reference for "a portion" being plural? It seems clearly singular to me - although you've been right before so maybe you know something I don't?TVC 15 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd, it worked the first times but now I also get the error - here's a cached copy[2]. -- Banjeboi 23:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That link works but it's from before publication so it says, "Anderson Cooper plans to donate a portion of the proceeds to charity." It doesn't say he actually donated, and who knows how long the cache will remain available? Google found another link that says, "Cooper is donating a portion of the proceeds from this book to charity."[3] Anyway we're straying from the topic, which was grammar, and as far as I know "a portion" is still singular.TVC 15 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I added the link to the article, because previously the charity statement had no source. I did not change the text. I am indifferent between "some" and "a portion," so long as the subject and verb match.TVC 15 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New draft for re-entry

“ Cooper has never married and has actively avoided discussing his romantic relationships - which have been the subject of intense speculation - citing a desire to protect his neutrality as a journalist:

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. 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 contrasts with his mother's life spent in the spotlight of tabloids and her publication of memoirs explicitly detailing her affairs with celebrities; Cooper vowed "not to repeat that strategy". Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay, and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second behind David Geffen in their list of the fifty "Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America." Cooper has expressed a desire to have a family and children but acknowledged that by not directly answering the question of his sexuality he may be engendering speculation. Both fellow news journalist Keith Olbermann and Washington Blade's editor, Kevin Naff, have characterized Cooper's refusals as hypocritical. In New York, Olbermann criticized Cooper for again refusing to talk about his personal life in a Men’s Journal interview although he published a book of "personal stuff for public display" - including the deaths of his father and brother - thus other personal life questions are also relevant. Naff noted that Cooper had asked another celebrity dogged by speculation, Kenny Chesney, if he was gay while conducting an interview on the television newsmagazine 60 Minutes; Chesney stated he was not gay.

”

Discussion

Taking the round of discussion from above here is a new version which hopefully addresses the stated concerns.

• Approve As nom. -- Banjeboi 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the references to speculation from the first and last sentences. (The speculation about Kenny Chesney was speculation, but the article is not about him so I'm not sure he needs to be in it.) The fact has been reported, as a fact. (Specific relationships have also been reported as fact, but the sources seem less reliable and besides they do not involve other well known public figures, so I would leave them out.) On the subject of _speculation_ about someone's personal life, I tend to agree with Gabrielthursday that mere speculation is unlikely to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. As I see it, the main reasons for including the fact that he's gay are because (a) the sources are reliable and (b) his statement about having a family and kids makes it relevant (indeed essential for NPOV) to understanding what he means when he says that. Also, the article is about AC, not the people talking about AC. In sum, the draft above sounds more like an argument for (or about) including speculation than the simple statement of facts that we had before. Why not start with the consensus language that we had and then add relevant specific facts to the extent additional reliable sources may indicate?TVC 15 (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a follow-up on what I had considered the agreed (consensus) language. According to the article's revision history, it survived basically unchanged through more than 500 article revisions, by countless editors, over more than 15 months. I think that meets or exceeds any definition of consensus seriously propounded. The consensus language remained there until being censored last month. I suggest starting with what we had, and updating if necessary to reflect additional sources.TVC 15 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Therefore, the fact that the section lasted for fifteen months does not prove consensus now that it is appropriate. Please, also, refrain from accusing other editors of censorship. It makes you sound less credible. As for the issue at hand, I'm going to unprotect the article pursuant to what I said above. seresin ( ¡? )  00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion so far, and in light of WP:SILENCE, I have cautiously restored one sentence to the article. It is just the one sentence that we had before, and that is included in the longer statement proposed above. I don't intend personally to build further on it. Some may want to add more, and I don't have any strong opinion about that, although a long digression might risk creating undue emphasis.TVC 15 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New to wikipedia, I really hope I'm doing this right. On the newly added piece about AC's supposed sexuality; I frankly don't see how most of this is relevant for an encyclopedia. Yes, there has been speculation on his sexuality, and it has been reported as a fact (without any proof offered/based on third hand accounts) by different sources that he is gay. Still, I'd think what Keith Olbermann or Kevin Naffs have to say on Anderson's silence on the matter is, while they're amongst the more prominent figures to have commented this, not relevant for an encyclopedia page. Given that his sexuality to begin with has nothing to do with AC's job, which is what he would be known for, saying that there has been speculation on his sexuality but that he himself has refused to comment would suffice, is what I would think. Also, just in my opinion, the amount of space and links in this edit dedicated to describing the speculation and criticism makes it, to me, seem like the writer of the edit has a personal problem with Anderson Cooper's refusal to comment, and wants to drive up speculation this way. That's how it comes over to me at least, I could be wrong on that, but I thought I'd say so since if more people feel that way, some bits may possibly need to be rewritten if it does fit within relevant content of the article. (e.g. "- thus other personal life questions are also relevant" is not attributed as a quote to Olbermann, the way it is written now.)

If I may ask? (a) the sources are reliable - Which reliable sources have stated it outright, and what reliable proof did they offer? (b) his statement about having a family and kids makes it relevant (indeed essential for NPOV) to understanding what he means when he says that. - I personally don't think saying you want a family has anything to do with ones sexuality. Would you explain this to me, please? TIA. (Elphie13 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi and thanks for discussing here rather than simply deleting. The "newly added piece" contains a basic sentence that has been in for more than a year (except a brief deletion recently), plus some new sentences about speculation. As to the new sentences on speculation, I personally would not have added them, but I wasn't about to delete them especially after the recent edit war. Regarding question (a), the article links to the most widely recognized reliable sources, for example those listed in Note 1. As for "proof," or to find additional sources, please see the archived discussion. As for relevance, the same could be asked about the fact that he has two older half-brothers, the fact that he had "mild dyslexia" as a child, the fact that he graduated Dalton at 17, and his birthday; yet nobody ever questions whether any of those facts is relevant. The article _still_ provides no sources for any of his supposed national origins ("primarily English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Spanish, and Dutch"), and the article is even tagged accordingly, yet no one objects to the absence of sourcing or the relevance of that information. The article doesn't even provide a source for the birthday, but just goes right ahead and "outs" him as a Gemini, and nobody questions it (or requests "proof" - maybe a certified copy of his birth certificate?). As for the statement about family and kids, maybe "essential" (for NPOV) was too strong a word, but relevant still seems apt, at least in the context of all the other biographical details. Please, if the concern is for sourcing (or now relevance), let's look at the facts that remain unsourced, and probably less relevant.TVC 15 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur, mostly, with TVC 15 here. This has been the hotly targeted content so it's better that it's sourced and checked above and beyond. There is plenty of anecdotal information we could - but won't include as it really isn't encyclopedic. Also, just to note, the Olbermann content is accurate to what the source states. I don't believe we've misrepresented anything and we've tried to mitigate the sections prominence by pushing much of it into footnotes so those who are interested can verify the sourcing and expanded details. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benjiboi. As stated previously, I don't have any strong objection to what's there, and it is well sourced. (For example, the linked Olbermann source includes this quote from him: "You can’t move this big mass of personal stuff out for public display, then people ask questions and you say, ‘Oh, no, I didn’t say there was going to be any questions.’"[4]) However, I do note a sad irony: the edit warriors may have lost the war but won the peace. Previously, the fact that AC is gay was reported as just an ordinary fact like any other biographical detail; now, the article says it causes AC to be "dogged by speculation" and criticism ("hypocritical"). Also, the article now uses the word "speculation" three times, and solely in connection with this well-sourced fact. These changes seem to re-frame what had been a neutral detail into a controversial affliction. As between the two sides in the edit war, which side does that reflect? Kenny Chesney's article doesn't mention the speculation about him, and Kevin Naff doesn't even have his own article, so the language added from the edit war seems mainly to inject the problem that the other side had with the underlying fact itself.TVC 15 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I try not top write just to appease other editors but to serve the readers. That Chesney's article doesn't cover the information now doesn't mean it's not appropriate here, or there, just that it's not there presently. I think what we have is a fair summary without getting too salacious - I do agree though that speculation three times isn't helping - I'll see if i can address that. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this:

His public reticence contrasts deliberately with his mother's life spent in the spotlight of tabloid journalists and her publication of memoirs detailing her affairs with celebrities; Cooper vowed "not to repeat that strategy".[6][7][8] After Cooper published a professional and personal memoir (_Dispatches from the Edge_), fellow journalist Keith Olbermann said, "You can’t move this big mass of personal stuff out for public display, then people ask questions and you say, ‘Oh, no, I didn’t say there was going to be any questions.’".[10] Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay,[note 1] and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second in their list of the fifty "Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America."[9] Cooper has discussed some aspects of his personal life, including his desire to have a family and children.[5]TVC 15 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wild about it dropping content and sources. Kevin Naff, for instance, as the editor of a major city's LGBT newspaper is certainly noteworthy. I'm also not terribly keen on replacing the subject's own words with a quote from someone else that's not terribly enlightening. Maybe we could look to reworking bit by bit instead? I hadn't noticed speculation used three times until you mentioned it. -- Banjeboi 21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To the extent Kevin Naff may be noteworthy in his own right, that suggests creating a separate article on him, rather than pinning him to AC's coattails. The article names Naff twice, in connection with his opinions; it does not name Michael Musto (who does have his own article) or refer to Musto's opinions. Editors can speculate like anyone else, but there is a distinction between opinion and fact. If two newspaper editors debate each other's opinions of Bill Clinton, their commentary might be noteworthy in their own biographies, but it is unlikely to rate inclusion in his.

As for "replacing the subject's own words with a quote from someone else," I think you're mistaken. The quote that I suggested replacing is a misquote from Olbermann (compare the text and you'll see it's missing a word), not AC. The proposed replacement is simply the full sentence from Olbermann. The other replaced words are neither from Olbermann nor from AC, they are a paraphrase of the quote from Olbermann. (I forget whether you or GabrielThursday wrote the relevant paraphrase.)

Anyway, I have suggested what I think would be an improvement from the current text, resolving the "speculation" issue and correcting the quote and reducing what seems like undue emphasis. If you have a better improvement, please post it?TVC 15 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the version we have is actually pretty good and will all be replaced if and when the subject or someone more notable addressing the issue more directly. Naff should have his ow article as he's helped shape LGBT community in the nation's capitol - including his peices directly about the issue at hand are not riding anyone's coattails - it's wikipedia avoid original research and letting experts in the field address the issue. Musto, I believe was clumped into a footnote but if he says something that adds and we should move a comment into the text then what should that be? I see now you may mean to replace only the last part of the section instead of the entore section - this may be where I mistook the quote switch out. I still feel though that the Olbermann quote is clunky and confusing so would prefer to tweak what we have to be more clear. Also that independent sources have labeled him gay should come before the Olbermann information as 1. it pre-dated it and 2. it set's up the context of then refusing to discuss the issue as pointed out by Olbermann. -- Banjeboi 17:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

First, yes, we're talking about just that last part of the section. However, the larger issue is, the article is about AC, not the many people who have opinions of AC. Consider Tom Brokaw's article, for example: it does not mention the many people who have accused him of having a 'liberal bias' or being part of the 'liberal media.' The current treatment of Musto is correct; his factual reporting is included, but he himself is not. (He has his own article.) Journalists are professionals who report facts; the lamentable blurring of fact and opinion on certain cable TV channels does not change the distinction between the two concepts. Also, where you wrote "capitol" (i.e. the building with the dome on top), I think you meant "capital" (i.e. the city). Whatever Naff may have done in either location, it belongs in Naff's article, not AC's. Currently, the article treats AC differently from all other news anchors, by digressing into others' opinions and giving them wp:undue weight. I'm not trying to minimize Kevin Naff or say there's anything wrong with him, but this article is simply not about him. As for the Olberman quote, I'm not sure it belongs either, but it's clearer than the current text, and he is a more prominent source than Naff.TVC 15 (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How many other major anchors have their sexuality as the source of persistent and long-term speculation? We could perhaps compare those articles although i think there are few. Naff's article likely wouldn't include his comments about Cooper unless they were seen as notable to Naff's life - they might be I'm not sure. They are notable as a well-respected member of teh LGBT press whereas Olberman presents another equally compelling perspective. Both consider the same issue as a point of hypocrisy, let's let the readers decide what to think about their comments and they can judge for themselves. Obviously sexuality, that is homosexuality, remains a huge hot-button issue in America where Cooper is a prominent voice of what is newsworthy. And yes, "capital" is correct. -- Banjeboi 23:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the new one is an improvement, it's more to the point. For the reasons TVC 15 gave, I too don't feel the many people who have opinions on AC should all be quoted here.

How many other major anchors have their sexuality as the source of persistent and long-term speculation?

Besides the topic of discussion, it's still an opinion, criticism, in the same encyclopedia, and comparable to this situation. I do think the Brokaw comparison is valid. In the new suggestion it's presented much more factual.

Naff's article likely wouldn't include his comments about Cooper unless they were seen as notable to Naff's life - they might be I'm not sure.

I'm not sure either, but the question is not 'where do we put this on wikipedia?', it's 'is it relevant for this page?', which I personally also don't think it is. (What Naff thinks of Cooper is not notable to his life either.)

let's let the readers decide what to think about their comments and they can judge for themselves.

I think just stating the facts (and then letting them judge for themselves), like in the new paragraph, is better, since this is not the point of an encyclopedia. I think other people's commentary is interesting, but I feel that these don’t belong in this reference work profile, for the reasons listed above by TVC 15.

(Plus, on top of relevance, some of the points being made to argue for these particular opinions, also quoted here, don't even seem quite logical/are overseeing actual facts. (e.g. AC doesn't refuse being asked. He doesn't forbid anyone tell their sexuality, his own answer is that he chooses not to comment, the country singer had the same option, so I for one really don't get the hypocrisy there. But if you do, would you please explain it to me?))

...Anyway, like I said, I like the new rewritten one much better, I think it's more apt for an encyclopedia.

How is it decided whether or not to change the WP entry, btw? By vote?

To TVC 15, from a while back > Oh, I do agree AC saying that he wants a family is relevant, I just didn’t see how it is an argument. Can’t gay people have a family? Can’t straight people? So couldn’t Anderson have a family in both cases, whatever you think it would be like? (I wasn't trying to question it as an argument to not include the bit, but I just thought it kind of besides the point, that's all I was trying to say. Not really important, I just wanted to clarify.)

(I know the Olbermann content is accurate, I’ve read the source, what I meant is that grammatically, the latter part is not attributed to Olbermann but to the writer of the paragraph the way it’s written now.)(Elphie13 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks Elphie13 :) In answer to your question about how edits get decided, anyone can edit, but it's better to discuss first and try to build a WP:CONSENSUS (otherwise people start reverting edits and the article becomes increasingly unstable). As for the family comment, thanks for clarifying and, yes, many gay people do have families, so AC could have a family (gay or straight). The reason I called it "essential" (admittedly, perhaps too strong a word) for NPOV was because of the assumptions that people make. For example, if you compare the difference between these two versions: [5], the second version seems 'straightwashed:' i.e., implying that he's probably straight, when in fact he's gay. Instead of "essential," I should have simply said "relevant." I do think it's at least as relevant as the fact that he's a Gemini. Anyway, I doubt whether Kevin Naff's opinion is particularly important to AC's life, so I don't think it belongs in AC's encyclopedia biography; however, I am waiting to see who else might want to comment.TVC 15 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As two weeks have passed without further suggestion, I've made the edit discussed above. I corrected the Olbermann quote to match the source, and switched the sentence sequence to reflect Benjiboi's comment above. Everyone thinks their own writing is the clearest (because it's always clear to them) but I think the original quote is clearer than the adaptation that had been written into the article. The previous version read like a war zone, reflecting the war over speculation that produced it. The streamlined paragraph addresses the speculation/criticism without giving it undue weight. Although I still wonder if other journalists' opinions and criticism belong in AC's bio, and I still disagree with their criticism anyway, I respect the need for collaboration and compromise.TVC 15 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gossip from Across the Pond: Articles Published in the United Kingdom's Gay and Lesbian Humanist, 1996-2005

Two of today's most popular TV stars, both gay and strikingly handsome, are CNN's Anderson Cooper (son of Gloria Vanderbilt and the late Wyatt Cooper) and WABC-TV's weatherman Sam Champion. Neither has professed being a member of any organized religion, and both avoid labels. When the ball drops in Times Square on New Year's Eve, it will be CNN's platinum-haired Cooper who will host the program.

• Smith, Warren Allen (2005). Gossip from Across the Pond: Articles Published in the United Kingdom's Gay and Lesbian Humanist, 1996-2005. chelCpress. pp. Page 123. ISBN 1583969160.

Additional source of info to incorporate into the article. Cirt (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)