Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 1

message: Anderson was NOT in Skull and Bones, but rather another secret society - Manuscript. I believe the society has a wikipedia entry. Their "tomb" is on Elm st. in New Haven.
Does anyone know if he was in Skull and Bones?
:Anderson has said in interviews that he was not in Skull and Bones.  That he was a "loser" in college and locked himself in his dorm most of the time.
:: Aww, that's so sad -- do you know when he said that ? 65.13.3.52 04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull and Bones membership 

message: Has anyone seen/heard anything about Cooper's theological beliefs?  It just struck me that I haven't run across mention of religion in any of the articles I've read about him. -- Limulus 05:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious beliefs 

message: On 15:38, 2 January 2006, William Graham removed the Fansites subsection from External links for the reason that "Wikipedia is not a directory of fansites":
While I agree in principle, some of those might have interesting content worth linking to; should any of them go back in? -- Limulus 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If they have any good content that should be summarized here. -Will Beback 19:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: *Cooper is the youngest son of writer Wyatt Emory Cooper and artist, designer and writer Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt. Although Cooper is of mostly English descent, he has fairly distant Dutch and Spanish ancestry.
Checking the bios that we have on his ancestor, I don't see any trace of English heritage. The Vanderbilts came to America in 1650. If a family has been in a country for a few generations, that becomes their nation. When was Cooper's last ancestor born in England? -Willmcw 00:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly a process of narrowing down. His most distant (listed) ancestor is Cornelius Vanderbilt. The entry for him says he had some distant Dutch ancestry. None of the Vanderbilt's wives since Cornelius have even vaguely Dutch names (most are English) and one was even the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. Gloria Vanderbilt's entry says that she is of Spanish, Irish, English and Dutch descent. We know her Dutch is very distant, the Spanish part refers to her mother's maternal grandmother (thus Gloria would be 1/8th Spanish). I'm certain that Wyatt Cooper was of English descent as well. I'll add Irish to the article.Vulturell 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So Cooper is 1/16th Spanish? Are you sure that's Spanish, not Chilean? According to this article, Gloria Laura Mercedes Morgan-Vanderbilt, the Spanish connection is very distant. How many generations are necessary before a person is no longer a hyphenated American? -Willmcw 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do we have enough information to know that Cooper is even 1/4 English extraction? It sounds like a real mix. The Kingdom of Navarre ended in the 16th century, and was inhabited by Basques, so even calling that line "Spanish" is tenuous. Unless one of Cooper's four grandparents was born abroad, it seems safe to call him an un-hyphenated American. -Willmcw 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.. Well, I took out English-Americans and tweaked the note on his ancestry a bit. I might investigate further on Cooper later - it doesn't matter that much for now.Vulturell 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should create a new category- "American", or perhaps, "American-American". -Willmcw 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ancestry Mixed to the point of Being Unlabelable, even by VultureLL-American"Vulturell 01:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "LOL" is a cliche, but that really did make me laugh out loud. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So does that mean you're creating that category, or should I? :)Vulturell 07:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. For less thoroughbred lineages, categories like "Americans with ____ ancestry", though wordy, might help distinguish those who were born in the U.S. to an ethnic family versus those who themselves immigrated. So, Bob Hope would be one of the "English-Americans", Sean Hannity would be a one of "Americans with Irish ancestry", and Anderson Cooper would still be "Plain-old Americans" (comprising those whose most recent immigrant ancestor was a great-grandparent).  Just a thought. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I was not aware "LOL" had become a cliche - that is disturbing information. Your idea may certainly work for the specific and much-hated "English Americans", but I think it might create a lot of confusion among most categories. "Irish-American", for example, is commonly known to define specifically Americans of Irish descent, not Irish-born. I guess English-Americans is just one category I should refrain from using that often if I don't want to annoy people.Vulturell 08:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: Because:
1) It's completely irrelevant regarding Anderson Cooper's work.
2) He DOES NOT like to talk about his personal life. Plus, his job is in journalism, not gaynalism or something. 209.124.124.219
:Strong disagree.  If we have to leave out biographical information because the subject "doesn't like to talk about it", half of George W. Bush's life would be shrouded in darkness.  You could change "Sexual Orientation" to "Personal Life" a la Kevin Spacey, but removing the section entirely is uncalled for and unnecessary. --Aemilia 03:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree -- It's irrelevant to his professionalism, but an important factor in his life. And, he comes from a vast pedigree, but is unlikely to leave any descendants. So leave something in, link to appropriate sites, and move on. Next topic. (And if anyone asks, I'm a straight guy from a gay neighborhood, and have a cat, not a dog. Big deal.) ScottAdler 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt an article about his work, it is about him.  also, whether or not he 'likes' facts or speculation is not relavant.  also, sexuality isnt something must be declared before it is attributed.  this is especially not the case with 'presumed' heterosexual persons, alive or dead.
Strong Agree:  Unless he comes out personally and addresses the issue for his own reasons (either way) I don't see why this is in the article.  It is 100% speculation and non encyclopedic.  Are there is he or isn't he sections in every journalist's entry in Wiki? JMHO. KsprayDad 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For an interesting perspective (and an uncommon one, coming from the media) on the relationship between NPOV reporting and respect for personal privacy, check out this op-ed. Might help out this discussion a bit. --207.38.190.34 02:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has commented on it publicly, if only to deflect any sexual identification. Ergo, it should be part of the article. It is part of his persona for an article, which includes not only his work but also his public image, detailed biography, etc. It should stay in the article, as written, which is non POV and merely stating the facts, with Cooper's comments also. We have included this in Prince Albert of Monaco's article, since he, too, has commented on the rumors publicly; why not here? Mowens35 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll remove the sexual orientation thing 

message: I'm concerned about the Trivia section for a few reasons:
#Some of it (pets, doesn't drink hot beverages) seem very unencylopedic and worthy of a Fan Site, which Wikipedia is not.
#Other information: modeling background, disease contracted in Africa could better be incorporated into the article itself if it can be verifed, rather than grouped together as "Trivia."
#Much of it:  Iron Chef America, Maxim, Esquire, Celebrity Jeopardy, could be grouped into a category called "Media appearances" and appropriately cited.  Crunch 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All trivia is considered unencylopaedic and ultimately all of these sections must go and if important be incorporated into the article per MOS. Doc 00:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Anyone remember when he was on Channel 1?  I remember him crying on camera in Bosnia because he was afraid of getting shot.  Wolf Blitzer wouldn't have cried.
:Have you ever been in combat with bullets whizzing around you?  Some of the most hardcase "grunts" break down and cry in those circumstances.  Wolf Blitzer might have too.  I'm thankful that when I was in the military it was during peacetime and I didn't have to take a bullet, because I know many who did.--MarshallStack 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel 1 

message: I added that he was actually born in New York City, because I didn't think it was clearly stated where he was born - just where he is "based" and where he usually broadcasts he show. -Fairy Incognito 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in... 

message: I too question the addition of 'former child fashion model' to Cooper's bio, and certainly in the first para. If you could point me to similar notables whose pre-teen careers as dogwalker, baby sitter, lawn mower or paper carrier is also highlighted in the first paragraph, I would be very interested to see it. The only exception should be those whose showbiz careers started as child actors or mouseketeers, for instance, or working models who began as child models. 
I suggest its continuous re-inclusion in this page is the work of detractors (possibly even Aaron Brown) who feel Cooper is a journalistic lightweight and this is their way of making their not-so-subtle point.
:Moved this to a more appropriate section. Doc 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Former Child Fashion Model

message: If would be nice if someone mentioned or wrote about his reporting during the Sago Mine Disaster and that if he dosent know something about a subject hes not afriad to ask questions and learn on air--24.23.82.233 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sago 

message: Anybody know the exact months and years Cooper anchored ABC's overnight World News Now? And, with which co-anchors? Thanks.  Thistheman 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World News Now]] 

message: Half the information in this article is unsourced POV and Original Research. -24.92.41.95 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: Wow, I thought we had agreed to remove speculation from this section and shorten it into something that wasn't given undue weight? Why then, do we now have a large chunk of information about some comedian using Anderson Cooper as the punchline in a joke? IT IS A JOKE!! It should not be taken seriously as speculation. Why is it here? Who says it is the most widely reported example?
This has just proven to me that you have no concept of the number of people on this site who do not think there should be idle speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality in this article. Have a look through the history - you will see various people removing the information, including someone just 2 days after our discussion. You have not stuck to our compromise, you have just gone back to expanding the section with as much juicy rumour and speculation as possible. I am finding it hard to assume good faith because of these actions.-Localzuk(talk) 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why I understand this is a joke, I think as it stands now, there is just enough background and context to maybe satisfy the casual reader to any curiosity on the matter. It's just going to be one of those life long mysteries until he either gets married or comes out. Personally, I would love it if he was single and straight and into girls that color their hair weird colors. immunity 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you understand that it is a joke then it shouldn't be here. Simple really. It is someone using speculation as a gag. This adds nothing to  the article and should definitely not be here.-Localzuk(talk) 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not one of the main editors of this article, but I do have it on my watch list. And I do not wish to get in a revert war. It comes down and goes back up. My point in responding to you earlier as that there is a joke yes, but its in a context in which I think it actually satisfies someone who was reading the article as there has been continual rumors to his sexuality, which at this point is a part of who he is and thus background information. Now if I had written this article, would I have included it, probably not. Because I never knew one way or the other before I read this. Thus my ambiguity to action one way or the other. immunity 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize I may have upset some people just now, but I have added back material on the issue of Cooper's sexuality that is derived entirely from verifiable, credible sources that are properly cited, and even in one case the source's notability is defended by third-party sources (ABCNews and USN&WP to be precise), and it puts the question in, I think, the proper context given the discussion that has taken place here.  Nothing about jokes or gossip websites or rumors.  Simply content derived entirely from legitimate sources, placed NPOV.  The NY Magazine interview was indeed significant, since it was in a credible publication that utilizes I think proper editorial processes for its content, and it was also an occasion where Cooper himself addressed this issue.  And the fact that it prompted a critical editorial from one of the most important gay news publications in the United States is, I feel, of unquestionable relevance, particularly given the context that the editorial raised which was excerpted.  This isn't just about his personal life, it is about how questions about his personal life feed into publicly raised questions about his integrity.  Is there any more relevant issue for a journalist, particularly one so prominent?NYDCSP 20:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: An anonymous user has deleted the entire personal life section now, which was NPOV and thoroughly sourced, without even raising it on this discussion page.  That is vandalism.  I'm going to post a complaint with an administrator before I revert it because I assume it will be a revert war, and I'd rather just settle this the right way.NYDCSP 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a reminder of official Wikipedia policy on WP:BLP: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (emphasis added)NYDCSP 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But at the same time we should also take a look at WP:NPOV and its undue weight section. We have to gauge whether or not events are as significant as they seem when put in the context of the person's entire life.-Localzuk(talk) 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This content is from the subject's own comments on the record, in a verifiable source that is also used in other parts of the article about the subject's family, experiences, et al.  The sourced content (not the editor's wording, but the original wording of the sourced content excerpted and cited) refers to other published material on the subject and/or an incident which occured on-air involving the subject, and subsequent public dispute over what he said.  The sourced content (not the editor's wording -- the original content that is sourced and linked to a verifiable location where the published content originated, and it is FURTHER defended as a notable, relevant source from two ADDITIONAL sources, namely ABC News and US News and World Report) also is an editorial (not a gossip column) calling the subject's integrity into question on the topic of the content from the first source.  And all of it refers to how the subject's refusal to discuss his personal life (see the section title??) is related to his integrity and reliability as a journalist, and then includes BALANCE (hello, NPOV?) including criticism which uses the subject's words to call his integrity into question.  This is about one of the most prominent journalists in the world.  Do I have to continue?  Frankly, I find the objections at this point to be the POV problem, not the content.  Just my opinion as an editor. NYDCSP 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there is just too much of it. 5 paragraphs for a section based on speculation is far too much. His life doesn't revolve around this speculation, so why should the article?-Localzuk(talk) 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming back

message: FYI: the latest vandal (IP 147.253.112.43) is coming out of Stetson University in Florida. Mowens35 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Anderson Cooper is appearantly no longer a contributing editor for this magazine.  His name has been missing from the acknowledgements section since at least the last issue.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Details'' magazine 

message: Not entirely sure if this is the place but the line, "Personal sources have since confirmed  that Cooper is in fact a homosexual."  keeps popping up.  No one seems to be editing the page itself but I will refresh and then it is gone.  I managed to get a screen cap before I refreshed this time  can anyone find what the problem is? --Wonderpup57 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Problem 

message: Well as I see it we are almost there with this issue. However, as it stands it just doesn't make sense as there is no context. It states that he has denied to answer questions about his sexuality but doesn't mention anything about why this is important. We need to have a brief mention of the fact that it has been talked about. What we want is a brief - 2 sentences - analysis of the entire situation, avoiding being overly verbose.-Localzuk(talk) 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever writes it needs to read Out, out damn celebs! by Kevin Naff from October 21, 2005, Did I Ruin My Chances With Anderson Cooper? by Michael Musto from March 17th, 2005 and probably also Musto's article in Out (magazine) from the April 2005 (from what I've read, part of it is here but the full article was only in print) that he references in the VV article.  The Out article seems to be what sparked the 2005 'chatter'. -- Limulus 11:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we can sidestep the above with another simple biographical fact not mentioned in the article: Cooper has never married.  That would make a good lead-in to the 'unfinished thought' that now exists and would make it more appropriate for the background section... -- Limulus 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unlike prior versions which mentioned his sexuality, the edits you deleted were based almost entirely around the quote from AC himself; how you can argue that this is 'speculation' is beyond me.  Suicide is also a "charged subject" BTW; should we omit all traces of Carter's and its influence on AC?  I agree that Wikipedia should not be a tabloid, but at the same time it should not be a fanclub either. -- Limulus 10:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting there

message: Hallo! ;) 
wow... what unbalanced news! 
what do U consider about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.13.99.14 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more comment... 

message: As you might check in my profile, I was the person requesting the initial edit of his biography and the compliance of the regulations. It is very disappointing to see, how this topic has been managed without good faith, and capitalized by other gossip sites and magazines for their own profit and promotion. 
My initial request was based in the WP:BLP policy that stated: 
WP:BLP states clearly: We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. … The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
The editor considered it to be too much, and the talk page remain the same, becoming a widespread source of speculation, and ultimately a joke, mining the credibility of the Wiki project. There is proof of lack of good faith of some of the people editing the entry, they plan their edits in gay gossip forums, Datalounge:10 Years of Gay Gossip, Politics and Pointless Bitchery, , where they have a thread for this issue, they contact people in the media ( as the Blade blogger ) in order to take the issue mainstream and pressure the editors of this site to bend the policies and give in to their request in sheer violation of Mr. Cooper's rights. For many it has become a hobbie to stir things up over this discussion page in order to crawl back to their forums and blogs and keep their entertainment and gossip alive. 
Now you, Wikipedia, are facing an open call from another gossip site - gawker.com - to flood the entry..
So much for compliance.
Worldnewsjunkie 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Worldnewsjunkie, what is your point exactly?  Are you claiming that the current edit is not in line with the WP:BLP?  If so, on what grounds? (verifiability, NPOV or original research?)  Or are you bothered by the fact that the talk page is not?  Talk pages aren't the same as main article pages, so if its the latter, I don't think you have a valid complaint.  -- Limulus 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Limulus, talk pages are as much covered by WP:BLP as any other page on the site. WP:BLP is one of the few policies that are wide ranging and cover everywhere.-Localzuk(talk) 10:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." [emphasis added] Oh.  I stand corrected.  Hmm.  OK, so what shall we do with the talk page then?  Dump most of it into an archive or something and start afresh? -- Limulus 18:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I created the archive and am about to dump almost all of the talk page into it.  Hopefully this will clear things up. -- Limulus 19:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very disappointed for lack of compliance of the WP:BLP