Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 3

message: Just a heads up,the last three items: Cooper only won the Emmy for his Niger story, although aired through AC360, The Charity Hospital story is by Dr. Sanjay Gupta and the Black Market Infertility, which also aired in AC360 was by Randi Kaye . If the distinction is not made, it could mislead the reader into believing that Cooper won the three awards. Worldnewsjunkie 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Is there any need to promote fan art as official information? 
 Is this site relevant to anything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldnewsjunkie (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Art? 

message: ...okay, how the crap does he have hair that white at age 40?  Bleach?  Genetics?  Yes, because exactly what this discussion needs is an irrelevant question!  But, hey, it's interesting. Jachra 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair 

message: (moved from my talk page to explain to other editors)
:Um.  I've removed the WikiProject's banner.  He's not gay / out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is Fred Phelps, Jodie Foster or Jerry Falwell. I'm re-adding as the LGBT tag denotes it's of interest to our project mot that the subject is gay. Topping the Out list certainly makes him of interest, especially if he's not gay. Benjiboi 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which multiple sources indicate he is. Benjiboi 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Tagging a person with the LGBT Project because they are an "interest" to the project makes no sense. When I first notice the banner, I was not thinking "Gee, they are only an interest to the group". Seriously, the project only solidifies some people's opinions of the person tagged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.4.134 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: For the purposes of such categorization, it does not matter if someone else says he is homosexual. If he does, the categories should be added. But until he does, they do not belong whatsoever. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Apparently you have not read the archived discussion.  Long story short, WP:BLP requires all facts in an article to be reliably sourced, but does not require the subject to become a spokesperson or even comment publicly.  Perhaps you could add something new, for example a distinction between facts and categories?  Otherwise what is the difference between reporting the fact, which is reliably sourced, and adding the category, which applies to the fact?  As noted above, the article reports on his ancestry including English, Irish, and so on, and the corresponding category tags appear at the end of the article.  Since the article contains no sources for ancestry, it would make more sense for you to strip out those categories - if sourcing is your concern.TVC 15 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TVC 15, unfortunately they do have policy on their side. I don't agree with it as it seems homophobic to me but there you go. I don't feel being a porn star, gay or Jewish or any religion or sexuality is an item that has to be publicly declared before we add the related category. I guess I could be dick-ish and create a category for people reported to be LGBT but have not publicly confirmed such reports. Until policy changes or Cooper takes out the ad declaring he's now gay we have to drop the issue of the categories. As always we go by verifiability, not truth. Banjeboi 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you please quote or at least cite what policy you think supports your latest revert?  WP:categorization links to the same WP:reliable sources definition as WP:BLP.  (WP:categorization does say that the category should not apply where reliable sources show it to be controversial, but in this case reliable sources show no controversy about whether he is gay, and there is no obligation on him to pay for an ad declaring the fact.)  The article already links to reliable (and verifiable) sources, which you noted just yesterday in restoring the categories.  Also your Talk page says you have been banned and "will be generally unavailable," so I am especially confused to see you reverting people in contradictory ways.  Yesterday you reverted someone else who had deleted the categories, now today you revert me in the opposite direction.  Since you restored the categories just yesterday, it is very odd to see you delete them now, referring to unspecified "policy" without citation.  I assume good faith, but I wonder if someone hacked your account to use it as a sock poppet?TVC 15 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, let's stick to content please. The policy is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, which, as stated, i don't agree with but until it changes we generally need to abide by it. Banjeboi 22:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Wow - sorry - somehow I hadn't seen there was a special policy for category tags relating to religion and sexual orientation.  Evidently you hadn't seen it either when you reverted someone who had deleted the tag, but you're right this time and I appreciate your providing the link.  The special policy seems possibly misguided, but that is a debate for another day and a different discussion page.TVC 15 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, Miagirljmw14!  I've taken out the statement you added for two reasons.  First, "he's never admitted it" is a negative statement, which implies that he must really be gay, but hasn't said anything. Second, the blurtit.com website isn't a reliable source, and doesn't add much to the discussion.  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT project tag 

message: The page is currently full-protected, but the only reference to protection is a lengthy discussion about semi-protection on Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 2. The full protection was done by Seresin on October 2, 2008 (yesterday-ish), with the following comment accompanying the edit: "Protected Anderson Cooper: Multi-party edit war. Please gather consensus on talk. ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))". While I see that the policy at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Full does not appear to require a justification for full protection on the talk page, I thought it would be useful to at least mention it here, for other people like me who came upon this after the edit war. --RealGrouchy (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mention it here. seresin ( ¡? )  03:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Protection? 

message: The following sources were removed, they may be useful.  -- Banjeboi 14:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sources