This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). LGBT studies B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:JournProjectArticles

This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in: Kevin Naff (2 February 2007). "Editing Anderson Cooper's sexuality". Washington Blade. Emily Gould (16 February 2007). "Is Anderson Cooper's Wikipedia Entry Being "Straightwashed?"". Gawker. Kevin Naff (2 February 2007). "Anderson Cooper's Hypocrisy". Washington Blade.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

As of 02:09, 5 November 2006 the article still had a good chunk of trivia that I had found online, but hadn't noticed that it was being removed because of the push for proper refs. So I will be adding it back in, but with real refs this time ;) -- Limulus 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added back in the ones I had previously worked on and could find 'good' refs for; that leaves three that I didn't add. I'll have a look at those later:

---

• In 2004 he purchased a multi-million dollar home in The Hamptons.
• Cooper was the featured speaker at the 2005 commencement ceremony for Kean University.
• He is a third cousin of a British duke, John Spencer-Churchill, 11th Duke of Marlborough. The duke's paternal grandmother, Consuelo Vanderbilt, was a first cousin of Cooper's maternal grandfather Reginald Vanderbilt. Consuelo's first husband, Charles Spencer-Churchill, 9th Duke of Marlborough, was a first cousin of Winston Churchill.

---

-- Limulus 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hamptons: can't find a ref; won't add back.
• Kean U: this is true [1]
• cousins: that's some mental gymnastics; the fact that everyone is a cousin of everyone else means that this has very little worth; won't add back.

-- Limulus 07:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Limulus, he is not writing for Details magazine anymore. The last edition he contributed was the October 2005 issue with the article The Face of Famine [2]Worldnewsjunkie 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cooper, delivered the Class Day Address, (May 21, 2006) at Yale University [3] Worldnewsjunkie 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Yale ref; regarding Details it says "Cooper also is a free-lance writer whose articles have appeared in many other outlets, including Details magazine." How would you change that? Speaking of, *you* could make these edits now; the article is no longer semi-protected, remember? :) -- Limulus 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His book article Dispatches from the Edge needs to be made, it's the work of a prominent journalist and was on the bestseller list so I think it's notable enough to have an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.101 (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Create an account and write the article yourself! Surfeited 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies himself.[4] Banjeboi 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear here - Cooper has also parodied himself on the popular children's show Sesame Street. could be a helpful addition to the article.Banjeboi 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elle article[5]. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is messy and needs expanding. It should be a stand alone summary article of the subject. -- Banjeboi 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've removed the above as non-sensical and unsourced. Let's re-add with reliable soucing. -- Banjeboi 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? How is it vandalism to say Anderson Cooper is single and never married? That's a fact! Prove to me he isn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.74.48 (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you've got it backwards. You need to prove he is single, and has never been married. You do that with a reliable source and citation. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some Speculation that he has been married (at least on this Wikipedia talk page, see archive 1) decussion "No mention of wife".). On his blog he wrote: "I've discussed it with my colleagues. I've discussed it with my wife." (Note: on the blog, "wife" is not in bold.) The URL/link is: [6]. Hope this helps!!! --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was posted by Rick Sanchez, not Cooper. Still, Tool2Die4 is right - the burden of proof is on those who want to add information, not those who want to remove it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, had to hurry through the article as I did not have much time to read it. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Cooper has never married and has actively avoided discussing his private life, citing a desire to protect his neutrality as a journalist is already in the article. We have no reliable source that he is dating or single that I'm aware and we do have sources that he actively avoids the topic. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a claim that Anderson Cooper is part of the homosexual lifestyle when there is absolutely no concrete proof whatsoever? We don't dare claim that Jonathan Taylor Thomas is an unrepentant homosexual because there is a similar lack of irrefutable evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.75.149 (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed previously but the short version is that multiple reliable sources have stated he is gay and we are reporting that. Wikipedia doesn't out someone but we do report of reliable sources have. -- Banjeboi 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I would like to note that Cooper himself has not verified the clam. So we cannot know for sure. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we never state that he does, we quote him as to why he doesn't talk about his personal life and state what reliable sources have stated. -- Banjeboi 23:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where have these "reliable sources" gotten the info??? How do you know that they did not make it up just to get attention??? --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you could assume that, although that tends to get news outlets sued for defamation. Are you suggesting that all the sources have made up that similar information over the course of a decade? Or is there a particular source you think is making something up? -- Banjeboi 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the first source made it up, and the other sources followed (not knowing that the info was made up). Now the first souce could have been some 13 year old kid on a blog that disliked the news, and then an other blog and an other blog took that at face value. Then the first publication publicized the news. Now I am not saying that the term "gay" should be used as an insult, but it is. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's quite a conspiracy you have going there. It also discounts that many of these sources are seasoned journalists who would easily have discounted a falsified blog posting. I'll consider the matter closed for now. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What conspiracy??? It’s not like I am saying that there is a secret society out to get AC. That would be a conspiracy. And I have read you user page and the user page of other that have argued about whether or not the gay stuff should be put in. There seems to be a lot of liberal bias to say the least. But don't worry; I'll always be on the look out for that. I conserder that those sources have a bias in LGBT issues and thus cannot be cosederd a reliable source by themselves (the gay mags that have said this). You have to remain objective and question the sources. The only fully reliable source is AC himself. And if there is photographic "proof", see if it looks real, and not doctored. Another thing is that, how is his sexual orientation encyclopedia if it is really only gossip. And another thing to remember is that out general audience is (I hate to say it, but here goes), idiots. They, when they read this (the gay stuff in article) will really believe that AC is gay. And that it is not just speculation, which it is. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what proof do you have that the sources are not reliable? Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What proof do you have that the souses are reliable??? The thing that spots on there reliability is the A: they tend to be very bias (toward LGBT stuff). B: no one has commented on this speculation (like AC or someone who knows him). And also, a lot of the mags that wrote this are tabloids. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all, maybe this is a new year's resolution, I will try to be as encouraging as possible as we re-hash yet again the same issue that has been discussed so many times in prior years. However, Miagirljmw14, please don't dismiss WP readers as "idiots" (at least until you learn how to spell), and please see WP:RS as to what constitutes a reliable source. Benjiboi, you know I respect your contributions to WP, but we discussed the Naff quote last month, and I thought it was agreed that this article is about AC, not Kevin Naff. The article doesn't name anyone else (except Keith Olbermann, also your addition) in connection with their opinions of AC. If the article doesn't publish other people's opinions of AC's journalism, which is what he is famous for, why on earth would it include other people's opinions about whether he should talk about his sexual orientation? If we include everyone who has an opinion on the subject, from the Pope to Urvashi Vaid (who at least has her own article), then the article will become "Other People's Opinions of Anderson Cooper." Please look at how WP describes other journalists, and apply the same standards to AC. Miagirljmw14 alleged a "liberal bias" (without providing examples), but the goal should be WP:NPOV, i.e. consistently reporting reliably sourced facts. There was no source for your suggestion that AC is "dogged by speculation;" to the contrary, he seems to be doing quite well thank you very much, and whatever tempests may stir WP teapots do not appear to have affected him at all. If you are really determined to make Kevin Naff famous, why not create an article for him, and put his opinions there? I would agree with you that he is notable, in case anyone challenges that.TVC 15 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect you may have agreed that Naff's writing/ opinion isn't that notable but this is the editor of a major LGBT publication spelling out why he feels Cooper's reticence to address the subject directly is hypocritical and spells out clearly that it's because Cooper, as a journalist, asks the "gay " question. No one ever suggested this article was about Naff or anyone else but Cooper. If the Pope addresses Cooper's sexuality I'm quite sure it would be quickly included. If Urvashi Vaid devoted an article about Cooper's sexuality in the context of her also being the editor of a notable LGBT publication i would generally think that too would be worth considering. And no, the editor of a reliable source doesn't need to also have an article for us to take seriously their opinion. And yes, Cooper has been dogged by rumors but we can add that if it's really needed later. I've removed the "dogged by rumors" phrase for now; it's the same phrase we used for Clay Aiken before he finally outed himself. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "you" above is meant in the plural, but can you find any WP article about a journalist that names other people in connection with their criticisms of the journalist? It isn't a matter of whether to take Naff or his criticisms seriously, it's a matter of whether they're noteworthy in AC's life, and treating AC like any other journalist, and treating the fact that he's gay like any other fact.TVC 15 (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that journalist BLPs get treated as a special class, it's that per NPOV, we - the plural Wikipedia "we" - don't say "____ is a hypocrite", we qualify who has characterized him as such and let the reader decide. Our sum total information about Naff here is "Washington Blade editor, Kevin Naff". I'm open to several changes if you think they might help. We could further add that Washington Blade is a LGBT newspaper, we could add for which city. Another step, which may or may not help, is to add a statement from the National LGBT Journalist's Association (NLGJA) about how "outing someone without permission remains a dicey proposition" or similar. Or even that outing anyone is considered controversial. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could put it back as it was before, since this page is not a forum for Kevin Naff or the NLGJA or anyone to discuss their own opinions on Anderson's sexuality, or hypocrisy, or outing in general, but it's a work of reference meant for citing facts about a person, and this quote (or article, or person) is as good as irrelevant to Anderson Cooper as a whole and does not treat his sexuality as any other fact on his WP page, as TVC 15 said. (Cooper is primarily known to the larger public as 'Anderson Cooper, Journalist', on which no one is quoted here to help 'let the reader decide' the way it's helping us decide if we agree with Kevin Naff that he's a hypocrite, which again is not the (direct) point of an encyclopedia. Cooper doesn't even discuss his sexuality himself and yet there are two people with no important place in Cooper's life cited and linked on their opinions on 'Anderson Cooper, Teh Gay', on here. (Both negative.)) I'd also like to see the other WP pages quoting other people's opinions on a journalists personal life.

Either way, in between sweetly implying Anderson's an attention-seeking wuss making ridiculous claims about his job, Kevin Naff uses faulty logic in accusing Anderson Cooper of being a hypocrite.

He says Cooper can't ask other people if they're gay even if it's relevant to the profile of that person, because Cooper doesn't answer the question himself when asked. However Cooper, to my knowledge, has not blamed others for asking him about his sexuality, which would be the actual equivalent; ('You asking me about mine is wrong but I'll ask you about yours.') He answers the question with "I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life.". ('You can ask me, but I choose not to answer.') His interview subject had the exact same options as Cooper does, so unless Cooper faults the interviewee for not answering questions on his sexuality, (which he did choose to answer in the interview with Cooper so that's not even possible here, and what makes you think they didn't agree to discuss it beforehand? You simply don't know.), or faults his own interviewers for asking him in the first place, that is not hypocrisy.

I also doubt the use of quoting Keith Olbermann here, which you added previously, linking to an interview in which he compares Cooper to the Bush Administration, for laughing out loud. A person decides for himself what he finds personal or not, and if Cooper thinks the things in his book are less private to him than talking about his sex life or sexuality, then that's his judgement to make, not Olbermanns, even if he (or anyone else) disagrees with it or thinks it's 'unlogical' to feel so. He did answer questions on his book. I understand Olbermann's position as an anchor on MSNBC makes him more recognizable than Kevin Naff, who I'm not sure is all that well known (outside the gay community), but they're not even on the same network, could you please explain to me why you feel it's relevant to put his quote here, on Cooper's page? Regards, Elphie13 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]