Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Just a note: if you edit the info on Carter's suicide, please also edit the info on the Gloria Vanderbilt and Carter Vanderbilt Cooper pages so they stay in sync. Thanks! -- Limulus 02:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Carter's last words (see MJ article summary) are more appropriate to just the CC article though, so I'll only put them there. -- Limulus 07:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that an anonymous editor who uses IP addresses on widely used ISPs' is removing material. As it's inappropriate to block them, I'm semi-protecting the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; this should help maintaining the article :) -- Limulus 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI to anyone reading this page since I've moved the old discussions to the Archive, the near-consensus regarding inclusion of mention on Cooper's sexual orientation in the background section is the following:

---
Cooper has never married and avoids discussing his relationships or sexual orientation when interviewed, 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 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."

---

The Van Meter article that the quote is from specifically mentions that the interviewer asked Cooper about his "sexuality" after a lead-in about 'internet chatter' about the possibility that Cooper is gay. Please suggest changes here first before changing them on the main page. Thank you. -- Limulus 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

First let me apologize for making edits without getting consensus. I didn't realize this wording was disputed prior to editing. I changed it from "his relationships or orientation" to "his personal life" because he specifically states that he does not talk about his personal life (at least not on a consistent basis). Writing that he avoids discussing his "relationships and orientation" almost implies that he only avoids talking about those things. If it can be demonstrated that this is the case, I'm absolutely fine with using this wording. I think the passage (about his personal life) is NPOV and somewhat notable, but only technically. It definitely states the truth, but I think it would be more accurate to cite his words and write that he (consistently) avoids talking about his personal life.

Regarding using the term "personal life" there are a few minor reasons I can think against it. First, Cooper himself uses the term twice in the quote. Three times would be overkill :) Second, its been mentioned that Cooper's talking about his brother's suicide and its impact on him could considered to be an aspect of his 'personal life', yet he does not shy away from that topic. As a slight aside, its almost creepy how CNN's PR people are willing to show off Cooper when it fits with the image they want to project; consider the CNN ad featuring "Anderson Cooper's On-The-Road Playlist" Third, the article specifically mentions that the question was about "sexuality"; it has been expressed that simply using something to the effect of 'Cooper has avoided discussing his sexual orientation when interviewed' appears to be an incomplete thought and so it was expanded by tying it into the fact that he has never married and doesn't seem to talk about his 'relationships' in interviews (contrast with various celebs who can't stop talking about their relationships). However, as per your edit below, these seem to be moot points :) -- Limulus 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: After doing some "research" and looking through the rest of the article, it looks like this part isn't much of a priority at all. It could probably be left as is. There is an unsourced statement that I think needs attention: "The intensity of his questioning of Sen. Landrieu, in particular, was criticized by some observers[citation needed], but many television viewers and media observers considered Cooper's publicly taking an elected official to task as refreshing as it was unexpected.[citation needed]" --Ubiq 23:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As you insist in using this quote: [snip; as above -- Limulus] I think it would be fair to use a more recent quote from Cooper to reporter Po Bonson from Men's Journal, in his article: Anderson Cooper's Private War, March 2007, where he addresses the controversy about the speculation, the schedule he has led since he started working as a journalist and explains his reasons for not revealing anything from his private life and his wishes to start a family in the future. -- Worldnewsjunkie 06:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Neat. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be online (am I mistaken?) If its only available in print and if you have a copy handy, would you kindly copy out some quotes and/or write out a detailed summary and post it here? Perhaps I am getting the wrong impression BTW, but is not revealing "his wishes to start a family" part of his "private life"? Also, does he say anywhere in the article "no I am not gay" or something explicitly to that effect rather than dancing around the "sexuality" issue? (I made a promise about editing the entry if a ref to that effect ever came up :) -- Limulus 12:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a scanned copy of the entire article on a blog, I can give you the link, but I don't know if it goes against the rules to actually post the link here. Please let me know if it is ok. Worldnewsjunkie 13:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I found the article online in this link [1]you have to click each scan to enlarge and read. Hope this helps. Worldnewsjunkie 13:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I forgot, there are also more notes from the interview made by the author, Po Bronson, on his blog [2]:

In fact I was very interested in why Anderson Cooper talks about his family life growing up, quite openly, but doesn't talk publicly about his personal life today. Why? The more I studied him, the more I could see how watching his mother live her life in the tabloids decade after decade affected him. He vowed when young not to repeat that strategy. Unfortunately, this may be backfiring, and I got him to admit so. Not talking about his personal life today just makes those details more of a "get" for the tabloids.

Thank you for doing the research! I will incorporate sections of the new article when I'm done reading it. Cooper's statements about his strong desire for privacy will definitely flesh out the article more. -- Limulus 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

About your comment: "Also, does he say anywhere in the article "no I am not gay" or something explicitly to that effect rather than dancing around the "sexuality" issue? (I made a promise about editing the entry if a ref to that effect ever came up :) -- Limulus 12:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC), I think it is a widespread understanding that Mr. Cooper is "dancing around the sexuality issue", he simple won't talk about his private life, and the reasons are more than understandable, when we take into consideration that her mother's life was as public as some of today's starlets.

I insist that the sexuality issue in the entry is only feeding tabloid speculation. In the same matter that you have stated "I made a promise about editing the entry if a ref to that effect ever came up :)", why can't that comprise be hold if Mr. Cooper presents a position one way or the other. Leaving it as a probable thing - even with Cooper's quote, where he does not disclose his sexual orientation-, it ends up been a rumor, not a fact. it reads as if you had a personal interest with that entry, and as a Wiki editor, I think you should not place yourself in that position, just my humble opinion, I think the real compromise should be to keep Wikipedia clean from a tabloid tone.

Allow me to quote my promise from the archive: "BTW, if you can provide me with a single reference where AC says 'no I'm not' to someone asking if he's gay, I will personally remove the entire sexual orientation section. -- Limulus 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)" Also, its not a "rumor" if we are directly quoting him! (I take issue with your implication that the curent edit has a "tabloid tone".) He is the one allowing the public ambiguity. My personal interest is getting the article 'right'; I hate this tip-toeing around the matter and just want it to be resolved. But I can't because Cooper just keeps doing the no-comment thing. The new article sounds like it will flesh out the matter significantly; switching to a privacy theme would suit me better than the current 'never married' lead-in. -- Limulus 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Benson article, is more serious in tone, perspective and analysis than the one from disputed quote. Sorry to insist so much about this. But we should never forget, that although Mr. Cooper is a public figure, he is alive, and whatever is stated in this article affects him and his family directly and we should always try to comply with the WP:BLP. Thanks. Worldnewsjunkie 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

@Ubiq, I have personally read some academic journals about the Sen. Landrieu interview. If I am not mistaken, the Columbia Journalism Review and the Poynter Institute might have some articles online, I will try to find then because I think they are very important documents that are not mainstream media. Worldnewsjunkie 13:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok cool. I would have done it but I've got interest in other projects at the moment.

About the mention of his orientation, WNJ is echoing the same concerns I had in viewing and investigating this initially, I just did not want to assume bad faith on whoever worded it this way. There could be many reasons for Cooper's ambiguity. He may just not find it to be relevant to who he is as a journalist and doesn't care to answer. I don't know. I have a problem with the wording for the same reasons that WNJ does, citing cases like Ricky Martin where it was pretty much assumed from his ambiguity on the answer that he was gay. While it is true that the wording is NPOV and accurate, I think we can also use wording that meets the same criteria without allowing the reader to make judgments on his orientation, especially in the case where his orientation can't be known with the evidence we have. As it reads, it is almost, in a sense, asking the reader to think that he's probably gay. And I simply don't think it's in our place as editors to do that. --Ubiq 10:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that AC is naive or media savvy? What impression is AC giving?

Anyway, here are notes I took from the Men's Journal article:

---
odd eating habits

"He doesn't drink hard liquor or coffee"

AC: "I have no guilt about having a nice meal and laughing.... I mean, those are the things which I think are important."

"He does not celebrate his birthday"

"he and his mother Gloria Vanderbilt do not celebrate Thanksgiving or Christmas, which feel like forced rituals."

Congo

Carter's last words: "Will I ever feel again?"

Summer 1983: spent time in the Rockies with NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School)

"This contrast - between his mother's life and the one he wanted for himself - is a recurring theme in his life."

Trip to Africa at age 17: company "Encounter Overland" "a trip through Africa in a 13-ton British Army truck."

AC: "Africa was a place to forget and be forgotten in."

AC: "Jumping out of a plane I have no interest in. It seems like an unnecessary risk for me. I wouldn't rock climb, really. I hate heights."

First time a sniper took a shot at him was in Sarajevo. "the moment brought a hint of a smile to his face."

AC: "I wouldn't make any claim to actually having any kind of impact at all on anything. I mean, I've got a little TV show, but you know.... It's very hard."

"He's quite pessimistic about the world affairs."

He once burned out, in 1994; in Rwanda he had become desensitized to horrors. AC: "I would see a dozen bodies and think, you know, It's a dozen, it's not so bad." Cooper took a photo of the hand of a decomposing corpse "for his personal album" and someone took a picture of him doing that and later showed it to him saying "You need to take a look at what you were doing." AC: "And that's when I realized I've got to stop, I've got to report on some state fairs or a beauty pageant or something, to just, like, remind myself of some perspective."

Why not burning out now? - Carter's death almost two decades ago - now works with a team instead of alone - no longer on assignment for years at a stretch; better balance: works in field until wanting to go home, stays home until wanting to work in the field

GV sold her two houses in the mid-90's to pay the IRS $2.5M in back taxes and moved in with AC.

"he refuses to discuss his sexual orientation"

AC: "I'd like to have kids at some point, I think I'll have a family someday."

After a "month of Katrina coverage", AC told to take a vacation by his boss. He went to Oaxaca "for its annual Day of the Dead celebration." AC: "Oaxaca felt very alien to me, The whole notion of sitting around a grave and laughing and singing and all that - I could not do that in a million years. I was glad I saw it, and I found it incredibly moving and I'm glad these people were able to do it and it meant something to them. But that's something I don't think I would ever..."

Author comments that he thinks Cooper believes "little separates those who thrive from those who do not [...] survivors are the lucky ones" AC: "Our skin is very thin, It doesn't take much for us to jump off a ledge or to kill one another. It can happen very, very quickly."
---

I will incorporate the non-sexuality aspects of the article into the Wikipedia entry first and then propose changes for anything covering his sexuality here -- Limulus 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the info previously in the Wikipedia page about his trip to Africa and catching malaria has been removed (in the MJ article its the "Encounter Overland" part). This looks like it might become a lot more work than I had originally thought; I'll work on the SO phrasing first. -- Limulus 02:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's my suggestion for a new version based on the MJ text; comments?

---
Cooper has never married, but expresses a desire to eventually have a family and children. In contrast to his mother's life spent in the spotlight of tabloid journalists however, Cooper has actively avoided discussing his relationships or even his sexual orientation when interviewed, 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 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."

---

-- Limulus 03:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is definitely much better, and is not insinuatory. I'm fine with it being included in the article. Thanks for taking this seriously and improving on it. Remind me to give you a barnstar for your efforts on this article. Comments WNJ? --Ubiq 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the award; its the very first I've ever gotten on Wikipedia and it means a lot to me :) -- Limulus 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

MUCH BETTER! Thank you Limulus for your effort! @Ubiq, I know I still owe you the articles, I hope to link them tomorrow. Worldnewsjunkie 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear that the latest edit is pleasing to everyone who has responded thus far. I will make the changes and start a new section in case anyone wants to discuss the SO mention further. -- Limulus 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, the consensus regarding inclusion of mention on Cooper's sexual orientation in the background section is the following:

---
Cooper has never married, but expresses a desire to eventually have a family and children. In contrast to his mother's life spent in the spotlight of tabloid journalists however, Cooper has actively avoided discussing his relationships or even his sexual orientation when interviewed, 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 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."

---

-- Limulus 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I just noticed the article is no longer semi-protected. -- Limulus 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi - I've read the commentary on the sexual orientation coverage, and I think both sides of the debate have overlooked an important sublety in Anderson's quote above and his overall handling of the issue. Anderson is a successful media professional and words are his craft; he chooses words carefully anticipating the spin that will likely be put on them by rivals (e.g. Fox News) and others. For some people in the audience, and maybe some in the profession, 'coming out of the closet' amounts to doing something that threatens a journalist's perceived objectivity and adaptability, like announcing a (minority) point of view on an issue. If he _announced_ that he's gay, it could become the lead story on Fox News and they would try to portray him as an example of the 'liberal bias' in media. However, it is a mistake to assume (as at least one Wikipedia commentator did) that his refusal to discuss the fact means he wants it excluded from all discussion about him, or to assume (as Washington Blade commentators have suggested) that he's keeping it secret. All he said is that he personally does not talk about it.

(BTW, Proto's unbelievable attack on the Washington Blade reflects a distressing ignorance, as the Washington Blade and its sibling New York Blade are both more quotable than Wikipedia. That's not just my opinion, it's fact, as academic departments prohibit citing Wikipedia which can be changed by anyone at any time - I recently saw an amusing Wikipedia entry on cucumbers that attack when disturbed, for example, which Fox might pick up under the headline "WHEN VICIOUS FRUITS ATTACK..." The references to tabloids are likewise misleading: although celebrity gossip publications have reported "rumors," because rumors are themselves "news" in the context of a gossip reporter, the actual fact has been reported in non-tabloid media. For years before other newspapers would even use the word "gay," the Blade was among the few newspapers reporting serious stories important to gay readers, such as a DC EMS worker who let a gay man die rather than administer CPR. The Blade is not a tabloid, and for years it was one of very few sources for such vital information.)

It would also be a mistake for people to think they're doing Anderson a favor by building a closet around him, or demanding he break out of a closet that others have built. The Men's Journal cover story described him as "America's Toughest Reporter," and he is certainly a contender for that title. Another contender is Christiane Amanpour, and Wikipedia readily reports that she is a woman. My point is, you can be the toughest reporter in America without being a heterosexual male, and you're not doing Anderson any favors by suggesting that re-publishing already-published facts on Wikipedia would hurt him personally, professionally, or with his family. For all we know, that may be his point as well.

Anyway, given his work schedule, his sexual orientation is probably moot. Why should he have to discuss it? He's free to discuss what he wants to (or not), and others are free to report facts, and Wikipedia entries should follow WP:BLP and report facts that are properly sourced regardless of whether the subject chooses to discuss them publicly.

The current summary quoted above omits well-sourced information that many readers are trying to find, while possibly suggesting a false connection between marriage (which is still heterosexual-only where Anderson lives) and having "a family and children" (yes they can be connected but not necessarily, as many gay couples who are not allowed to marry nevertheless form a family and have children). It also seems to reinforce the impression that he's trying to create a closeted image, which is getting him into trouble elsewhere (the aforementioned Blade, for example, and countless blogs), when in fact he is not necessarily doing that at all. So, I suggest the following:

'Cooper has never married. News organizations have reported that he is gay [cite ABC, USN&WR, Washington Blade]; however, Cooper has actively avoided discussing his relationships or even his sexual orientation when interviewed, 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 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."[1]

He does discuss other aspects of his personal life including his desire to have a family and children.'

That's almost as brief as the current version. It removes the reference to tabloids covering his mother because she has her own Wikipedia entry; this one is about him. It adds the fact that respected news organizations have reported that he is gay, while at the same time continuing to make it plain that he himself does not comment publicly on the subject, thus preserving his official neutrality and adaptability.TVC 15 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary, but I have three points that need to be satisfied before your changes are adopted:

* Please actually list the "ABC, USN&WR, Washington Blade" refs. The one I offered was not considered good enough. Once you present them in detail, they can actually be argued about.

* The Men's Journal article specifically mentioned that AC doesn't want the life his mother had and that it is a recurring theme with him. If that's the case its likely on par with his brother's suicide or father's early death in terms of shaping his psyche and so is important to his biographical information.

* Cooper mentioned family in the MJ article; if you're saying its spin, its Cooper's spin, not ours. Direct quote from "Article semi-protected" section above: "I'd like to have kids at some point, I think I'll have a family someday."

-- Limulus 09:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind praise and further observations. [NOTE: I moved TVC 15's links from here to part 3 -- Limulus 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]

You're right about the media coverage of his mother affecting his perspective. I had misread it as belonging in her bio rather than his, when in fact it influences his decisions in his own life also.

Regarding the marriage comment, he said "family" and "kids" but I didn't see him say "marriage." (Perhaps he said it elsewhere and I missed it?) Currently, New York law restricts marriage to heterosexual couples only, although Governor Spitzer supports recognizing equal marriage rights for gay couples. I don't see it as "spin" so much as another example of his careful avoidance of stating a position on a contentious issue (in this instance whether gay couples have the same right to the equal protection of the marriage laws as everyone else has). When San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Anderson interviewed City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who actually had to invoke attorney-client privilege to avoid some of Anderson's questions; I happened to see the interview and can definitely state that Anderson is a tough reporter first, and anything else a distant second. TVC 15 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the 'kids and family' mention to a direct quote and the word "but" to "though"; does that sound better? Regarding the links I'm going to start a new section for those and ask the people who had objections the first time around to weigh-in. -- Limulus 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea about the new section for the links.

Regarding the sentence that currently combines "marriage" and "family," I don't think the change from conjunction to adverb makes much difference. The fact that he has never been married is a complete thought by itself. He lives in New York, where the highest state court recently ruled gay couples have no right to marriage even if they already have children or plan to have (and despite the fact that heterosexual couples have a right to marriage even if they cannot have children or will not). Lower courts had disagreed about this issue, and the state's voters have since elected a new governor who campaigned on a platform that included equal protection of the marriage laws, but legislation at the national level limits what the state can do. So, where Anderson lives, legal marriage is currently a special right for heterosexual couples only, and otherwise unrelated to family and children. There could be any number of reasons why someone has never married, but the discriminatory application of the laws relating to marriage becomes painfully obvious when you're talking about someone who is gay and might be expected to want the equal protection of the marriage laws for his family and children. (That might be another reason why he doesn't discuss his sexual orientation, since his job includes covering the ongoing political and legal debate and Fox might accuse him of "liberal bias.") So, in the interest of maintaining NPOV in the article, I think the fact that he has never been married should go in a sentence by itself. TVC 15 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting a new (sub)section here to discuss TVC 15's links. -- Limulus 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My search for linkable sources brought back the Washington Blade (over and over again, also reprinted on affiliates HoustonVoice.com and SouthernVoice.com), the Village Voice (a venerable NYC newspaper), Out Magazine (both print and online editions), and the blog Queer Day, among others. Here are some links:

http://www.out.com/detail.asp?t=voices&id=10297 http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=2462 http://www.houstonvoice.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=11711 http://www.southernvoice.com/blog/ http://www.washingtonblade.com/blog/ http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?start=1/28/07&end=2/3/07 http://www.queerday.com/2004/dec/02/anderson_cooper_is_gay_and_it_isnt_a_secret.html http://www.queerday.com/2005/jan/14/anderson_cooper_to_put_a_more_prominent_gay_face_on_cnn.html http://www.queerday.com/2005/mar/07/anderson_cooper_no_comment_on_gay_magazine_story.html

Before anyone objects that the Blade links are to the paper's blog site, please note they are written by the Managing Editor (Kevin Naff) and the Online Editor (Steve Koval), both for attribution, not anonymous posts by people who have no other connection to the site (like Wikipedia).

One of the most interesting comments I've seen on this issue was on PlanetOut, re-typing a comment by Rupert Everett in the print edition of Out magazine (http://blogs.planetout.com/popnography/2007/02/how_many_times_.html). The difficulty facing Anderson Cooper is, if he starts talking about the fact that he's gay, it will be the only thing many people want to ask him about [if you doubt that, look at how much virtual ink has been spilled on Wikipedia, probably more on this one issue than the combined totals for everything else in his life], and then he risks the stereotype of "flaunting" it just by answering the questions people ask him. (Although no one accuses heterosexual celebrities of "flaunting" their heteresexuality when they answer questions or pose for pictures with their significant others, the same standard is not always applied to celebrities who are gay.) So, credit where it's due, he's done a careful job walking the tightrope between being accused of hiding the fact that he's gay vs. being accused of flaunting it. Thus, it's understandable that Anderson doesn't discuss the fact that he's gay, but that doesn't mean he's hiding it, and either way WP:BLP suggests the fact should be included in his Wikipedia biography (as it was until someone removed it).

(above links by TVC 15 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC) )

Just in case it helps the discussion, here is some further information about the sources. The Village Voice has been publishing in New York since 1955 and has print circulation around 250,000 (http://aan.org/gyrobase/Aan/ViewCompany?oid=oid%3A94). Out Magazine has been publishing in California since 1992 and has print circulation around 160,000 (http://www.out.com/pubmediakit/adv/pdf/pno_publishing_mediakit.pdf) The Washington Blade has been publishing in Washington DC since 1969 and has print circulation around 30,000 (http://www.verifiedaudit.com/pubco.php?pid=4403). Add the affiliates and online readers, and the total audiences are much larger.

BTW, if Anderson actually reads any of this discussion about his wikipedia bio, it certainly hasn't fazed him. His reporting on the Scooter Libby conviction (March 6, 2007) was outstanding, especially his interview with Ambassador Joe Wilson about the "outing" of Wilson's wife as a CIA agent. Cut to commercial: a motorist gets directions from a talking Garmin GPS navigator; replies along the lines of, 'you helped me find all these great things, I always count on you, I love you;" long pause, Garmin says, "Take the Market Street Exit;" motorist replies, "You're right, let's just keep this professional." TVC 15 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One more link (actually the same one Limulus used but that I should have copied for the above list): http://www.washblade.com/2003/11-7/news/national/debate.cfm (Cooper "in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay"). Reviewing the history on this issue, two facts seem clear. First, the fact that Anderson is gay is actually better-sourced than many of the assertions that are published about living people on Wikipedia. Second, although the people trying to 'straightwash' his biography talk about "respecting" him (or at least his privacy), they seem not to have much respect for him personally - maybe misguided pity, but not respect. One anonymous IP address claimed it was "vicious" to call him gay, but it's not vicious at all; actually, suggesting that he's straight is worse, because it builds a closet around him. At this point, having produced so many sources for the fact that he's gay, I think the burden is on the straightwashers to find some sources claiming he's straight. Otherwise, the fact belongs in the biography. TVC 15 03:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I still want to hear from those who previously objected to the links, but assuming that at least some are acceptable, how about this; where it now says:

"Cooper has never married, though has said "I'd like to have kids at some point, I think I'll have a family someday."[2] In contrast to his mother's life spent in the spotlight of tabloid journalists however, Cooper has actively avoided discussing his relationships or even his sexual orientation when interviewed, citing a desire to protect his neutrality as a journalist:"

we could add acceptable links as refs immediately following "sexual orientation" -- Limulus 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Limulus - I still think the sentence combining (1) marriage and (2) family & kids is problematic at the moment, given the New York Court of Appeals' 2006 decision to limit legal marriage to heterosexual couples, making it otherwise unrelated to family & kids. (For some purposes, e.g. pensions, New York might still recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.) How about the revised version below:

'Cooper has never married and avoids discussing his relationships or sexual orientation when interviewed, 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 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."

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.[1] Independent news media have reported that he is gay [cite Village Voice, Out, Washington Blade], and he does discuss other aspects of his personal life including his desire to have a family and children.'

This restores the reference to his mother's spotlight because of its role in his own decision-making. (I left out the names of the celebrities though, to avoid undue emphasis and accusations of tabloid tone.) Putting the fact that he's gay in the same sentence with his plans to have a family and children seems to fit better; it may sharpen the relevance of New York's marriage laws, but I don't see any honest way to avoid that. TVC 15 04:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Limulus - As far as I was able to review, all of the Blades links are OPINIONS pieces[[3]] - mostly from Naff-, there are no recorded factual items nor has Mr. Cooper ever granted an interview ( or any reliable source to that matter )[[4]] to that publication - contrary to the Po Bronson article - and the Blade is not even recognized as a bona fide source for the WikiProjectLGBT [[5]] , same with the Everett quote, he is stating HIS opinion. There is a huge difference between an article and an open editorial. If the mainstream media is blurring the line with the likes of a Glenn Beck, O'Reilly and Tucker, it is a huge mistake and a disservice from the news industry to the public. Wikepedia should stay as far as possible to that dichotomy, maintain a strict control over the BLP policy (comedian Sinbad biography entry mishap for example) [6]because its credibility (Wiki's)is now under scrutiny more than ever.

I also believe that stating all of Ms. Vanderbilt lovers should be placed in her biography. It gives a tabloid overtone to this article.

In concrete, this article is about the biography of a living person, not about the legal or social issues of the gay community[[7]]. There are entries for that. If Mr. Cooper ever decides to be a spoke person, an activist to this matters, then it should be addressed in his bio. If not, the insistence is just a tiring exercise leading to nowhere.Worldnewsjunkie 19:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Limulus & WorldNewsJunkie (WNJ) -

First, here is yet another link, to the Village Voice referenced above:

http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0512,webmusto,62236,15.html

In particular, I would point out Michael Musto's comment about how he knows Anderson Cooper is gay: Musto is a reporter, that's how. For decades now, Michael Musto has been reporting NYC social life for the Village Voice and, in recent years, for television as well. He knows the difference between a rumor and a fact. I have never heard anyone accuse him of making up stories or phoning in false statements, and, to the contrary, I have seen him out and about covering the events and people that become the subjects of his reports. The Village Voice is a reliable source, Michael Musto is a reliable reporter, and NYC social life is his beat; if the Voice publishes a statement of fact by Michael Musto on the subject of his beat then that is a reliable citation.

WNJ differentiates between news articles and opinion pieces. I do not entirely agree with WNJ's characterizations, but in any event we are talking about specific factual statements that have never been retracted or even contradicted.

Also, WNJ only addresses the Blade and Rupert Everett, ignoring the abundance of other sources. Regarding the Blade, WNJ says that "the Blade is not even recognized as a bona fide source for the WikiProjectLGBT" and offers a link to support that statement. I followed the link, and as far as I can tell it does not support WNJ's argument at all. The page does not purport to offer any list of "bona fide" sources, nor any exhaustive list of sources. It does make factual assertions backed up by sources, but there is no claim that the cited sources are in any way a comprehensive list of relevant or reliable sources. The Blade has been in print for nearly 30 years, is distributed in major cities and widely read online, etc. It's a good paper, and besides on this subject there are other publications reporting the same information.

Similarly, WNJ's characterization of Rupert Everett's opinion is a selective reference to the Planetout link above. I say selective because WNJ ignores the more direct quote from Josh Kilmer-Purcell: "Anderson's sexual orientation became even more apparent when one evening he introduced me in a gay bar to the man he was currently dating." (http://blogs.planetout.com/popnography/2007/02/how_many_times_.html, already linked above) Eventually I have to wonder whether some people just don't want to see what is right in front of them.

WNJ describes the process as a "tiring exercise," and I agree it is tiring, but some of us are making an effort to present facts (rather than suppress them) and to proceed to a proper result. WP:BLP does not require subjects to talk about every fact that is reported about them. It is not appropriate to create a "gay exception" to that rule. Wikipedia does not have a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. To the contrary, its function is to research and present accurate information, which I think is undermined by the article's current text combining marriage with family & kids in one sentence. Frankly, I find it tiring that I have to produce so many more sources for this one fact than anyone else has to produce for so many other facts. As for the political context discussed in the discussion section, it is appropriate to the discussion section. WNJ refers to the Po Bronson article, so I would like to add a follow-up comment from Po Bronson's own website: "Contrary to being married, I also meant that if he is indeed a gay man - as is assumed by many - that being a gay man wasn't going to keep him from being a father, and I was glad about that." http://www.pobronson.com/blog/2007/02/anderson-coopers-private-war.html In other words, Po Bronson is also separating the marriage issue from the family & kids issue, as my proposed article text did above. In conclusion, my proposed article text above stays within the bounds of what I think properly belongs in the article, and in fact 1/3 of it is a sourced quote from the subject. TVC 15 06:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to address WNJ's comment that "this article is ... not about the legal or social issues of the gay community... If Mr. Cooper ever decides to be a spoke person [sic], an activist to this matters [sic], then it should be addressed in his bio." Nothing against WorldNewsJunkie personally, but it reminds me of a survey conducted in America during what is now called the first Gulf War in Kuwait. Ironically, the survey found that the more TV news Americans watched, the less they seemed to know about the war and its context. For example, more than 80% of regular viewers knew that the Patriot Missile was manufactured by Raytheon Corporation (and Raytheon stock soared), but most of them could not find Kuwait on a map. In the 2004 election, Karl Rove et al. encouraged the placement of ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage in 11 American states, as an effort to bring out what they call the Republican "base" (religious fundamentalists, social regressives). W campaigned on the issue, and was re-elected despite an overall record that, today, 2/3 of Americans disapprove of. Among the comments that leaped out from that debate (and the related "Don't Ask Don't Tell" debate) was a statement to the effect that, in a time of war, the nation should not cater to the whims of people who define themselves solely on the basis of their sexual needs. The statement was ridiculous, but it drove the political wedge. People like Anderson Cooper obviously do not define themselves that way (although Fox News might try to define him that way), and the equal protection of the marriage laws is not a whim to someone who cares about being a good father and providing for a secure family. Ignorance is not bliss. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is a perfect metaphor for this situation, as it substitutes perception for reality, belief for fact. (Other examples include Colin Powell's claim to the U.N. that "we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction," etc.) Although these issues might seem unrelated to the superficial observer, they are in fact different manifestations of the same conflict between evidence-based decision-making, which requires facts, and faith-based initiative, which relies on "truthiness." No one expects heterosexual celebrities to be "spoke persons" for heterosexuality, or to define themselves solely on the basis of their sexual needs, or even to talk on the record about the subject, so imposing such a requirement on gay celebrities makes no sense. Suppressing the facts until someone becomes a "spoke person" simply perpetuates ignorance, and basing a democracy on ignorance has consequences. To paraphrase John Kerry's lame joke, it's how you wind up invading the wrong country. It is possible to start from a broad perspective (e.g. "world news") but see only very narrowly. It is also possible to look outwards from a possibly more focused point of view (e.g. "legal or social issues of the gay community") and see more broadly. The difference depends partly on whether you look for facts or suppress them. TVC 15 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with TVC 15, and I think that the text he or she proposes, with those citations, is an entirely reasonable compromise between Anderson's policy of not talking about his personal life, and his clear lack of guilt about or effort to hide his sexuality. It's not like the guy's going around with a beard, trying to pretend he's straight; apparently, he's introducing his boyfriend to people in bars. Building a closet around him he hasn't asked for would be doing him just as much of a disservice as stating outright that he's gay. ETA: oops, wasn't signed in. Let's try this again. Rustynose 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the Coordinator for the LGBT WikiProject. I don't fully know what's been happening here, but as a result of someone using a rude edit summary to claim that the Washington Blade is not a reliable source, the editor published an editorial slamming Wikipedia and its "homophobia". Someone above claimed that WikiProject LGBT studies does not consider the Washington Blade to be a reliable source - this is utterly untrue. We follow WP:RS, and as the Washington Blade is a fact-checking newpaper whose articles are as reliable as any; whether a comment column is acceptable or not is questionable, but the principle that the Washington Blade is reliable or not is beyond question. It has an editorial and fact-checking process, and thus we can reference it until the cows come home. Please do not make claims about WP:LGBT without letting us know. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and corroboration. I have made the change to the article because, after three weeks of discussion, the only objections were WNJ's and they have been thoroughly addressed. In sum, WP:BLP does not require the subjects of articles to be "activists" or "spoke people" regarding every fact in their Wikipedia biographies, and the Washington Blade qualifies as a reliable source under WP:RS (as do the Village Voice and Out Magazine). Seeing no other objection, it's time the facts go in the bio. TVC 15 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I just want to add that I assume good faith on both sides of this debate, and that it would be wrong to assume everyone on one side or the other is motivated by homophobia. In the McCarthy era, it was generally the bad guys who said someone was homosexual (or a communist), and they intended it as an attack: an invitation to discrimination and prosecution. Today, the context has changed: prosecution is no longer an issue where Anderson lives, but discrimination (e.g. in the marriage laws) persists and is rationalized by partisans who claim not to understand that gay people are people first, and generally want the same things that most people want, including marriage and family. (The 2006 court decision in Anderson's home state was a particularly sad example, stating that while heterosexual couples have a fundamental right to marry, gay couples might at best have a statutory privilege subject to legislative politics. "'Til death do us part, or the legislature changes political parties...") One contributor wrote of his experience of the rumor mill where everyone "knew" he was gay (which he wasn't) because he shared a flat with a gay roommate; it would be unfair to describe his concerns about sources as homophobic. In this instance though, we're talking about a fact that has been published by at least three reliable sources we can link to, and that has never been retracted or contradicted. Although having to produce more sources felt frustrating at the time, that extra effort may also be healthy in some way. The easiest lives are not always the best, as may be illustrated by Anderson's career choice to risk his life as a reporter in war zones and disaster areas, when he could have stayed safely on 5th Avenue. TVC 15 21:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been told that Anderson Cooper admitted he was gay in his autobiography. Anyone have a reference for that?

And, for those that think he is not gay or just not sure: just wait until he retires (like Richard Chamberlain). Anderson Cooper was photographed in a gay bar and once had a boyfriend. He doesn't gave a girlfriend. He is gay; the issue is whether he will publicly admit it or not. And, I must say, it is disturbing that in 2007 America, it is still a negative to one's career to 'come out of the closet.' Notably, one of Cooper's own CNN gay correspondents was demoted after he came out.68.211.77.10 08:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

After a lengthy discussion regarding the fact that he is gay, and how to present that in the article, I was dismayed to see a series of vandals, anonyomous addresses, and a couple of others simply strip out the information with no discussion at all. The article as of an hour ago didn't even make sense, because the edits left in the reference to his public reticence but stripped out the entire context as to what he was reticent about. Please do not vandalize the article or censor sourced information. This section has been discussed at length and further changes should be discussed in the Talk section before editing the article.TVC 15 08:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There was initially no source for the statement that he was dyslexic as a child, and it contained a misspelling. So, as a courtesy, I searched and found one, and replaced "admited" with "said." As a cooperative effort, Wikipedia depends on courtesy and helping each other along. There were already more sources for the fact that he is gay than for anything else in his biography, but I added yet another anyway. To anyone who thinks the list of sources is not already long enough, please make an effort and add more instead of trying to censor information that has already been widely published.TVC 15 08:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of one, all the citations concerning his orientation stem from a single writer (Musto). This seems flimsy at best. Even if he was openly gay, I'm not sure that it merits discussion here--is it ever mentioned if someone is openly straight? But the fact that there's no hard evidence for this means it should be cut.

The anonymous paragraph above was initially inserted at the top of this section, but it is subsequent in time to the other paragraphs above so I've moved it here in order to avoid confusion. The question surprises me, because anyone who checks even a few biographies of other celebrities can see that many, perhaps most, mention at least one spouse of the opposite sex. That includes news reporters and anchors such as Peter Jennings, Christiane Amanpour, and Walter Cronkite. Most articles, including this one, provide only one source for each fact; this article provides only one source for Anderson Cooper's statement that he wants to have a family and kids someday, yet you don't object to including that. Anyone who checks the lengthy discussion of this topic would find there are plenty of additional sources, including published reports years apart seeing him out and about with a boyfriend (I don't know if it's still the same boyfriend or their current status). If Governor Spitzer succeeds in securing the equal protection of the marriage laws for same-sex couples in New York, then the matter might become an ordinary public record. Meanwhile, the article cites the most widely recognized reliable sources that have been found so far. TVC 15 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please correct Anderson Cooper's middle name is Hays not Hayes. He was named after his grandmother Laura Morgan's father's middle name Harry Hays Morgan. -- Worldnewsjunkie 06:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; confirmed via IMDB I'll fix that in a sec -- Limulus 12:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)