Talk:Gary Cooper/Archive 1

2007–2016

Cooper mentioned on sitcom

he was mentioned in season 1 episode 1 of Curb Your Enthusiasm when richard louis says that larry has to call by sundown and larry responds "What are you Gary Cooper?" posted by 69.122.196.117 at 02:08, 4 January 2007

Death and legacy

Chunda18, now that's a fine contribution to Wikipedia. No grinding axes, just good solid information. I appreciate you getting the cancer facts straight. As someone who has dealt with this issue at home, it's irritating to see how disinformation and error is passed along. Monkeyzpop 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The cause of death should be listed as prostate cancer, since where the cancer begins is what it is called. (BreckColeman 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Communism

Gary Cooper's HIGH NOON image helps bring down Communism. This section could be developed... A poster with GAry Cooper's image from HIGH NOON was put up around Poland during the famous 1980's Solidarity struggle in Poland. Posters were a POTENT part of the Solidarity battle. Chicago's Copernicus Center has held an exhibit showing the famous posters used then. The most famous is the Gary Cooper HIGH NOON image. Solidarity leader Lech Walesa has been asked regularly to autograph this famous image, as the struggling Poles saw the then-Communist rulers as the "Frank Miller and Gang" of their country. See the Wall Street Journal article with Walesa's connection of Gary Cooper's High Noon sheriff to Reagan standing up to Communism in the 80's. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005204 http://www.contemporaryposters.com/rel_exhibits/rel_exhibits.php Page down and look on the right side also the artist who used the Cooper image in what the Poles call "the Solidarity Poster".Victorianezine (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that really the best photo available for the man?

It's horrible - and for some reason it reminds me of the opening credits of Gilligan's Island. Bacrito 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A picture from High Noon would be best. (Daer11 12:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

I agree, Gary Cooper was a very handsome man and this picture makes him look like a character from MASH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.172.114 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, it was the only photo of Cooper available in Wiki Commons, and thus pretty much the only one usable here. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mother

Gary Cooper's mother, Mrs. Alice Cooper, was born in England (Kent). Her maiden name was either Frasier or Grazier, and given the spelling she was likely of English and French/Norman Huguenot descent. She was not Montana-born as it states in this wiki entry.

Paula Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.232.250.251 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Sandra Shaw redirected here, merge option

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Shaw, the article Sandra Shaw has been redirected here. Some opinions in the AFD indicate that there is content to merge. GRBerry 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged...IP4240207xx 18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Brazier was born on the Isle of sheppey kent england. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.37.83 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

The opening paragraph refers to "a fictional Lou Gehrig in The Pride of the Yankees, and the real-life hero Alvin York in Sergeant York" - since both Gehrig and York were based on real-life characters, what is this trying to say ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

I understand the policy, but I;d like to shift focus momentarily to the content to ask: it's referenced, but that's not an absolute guarantee of validity -- is this stuff true or not? (Again, this is apart from the banned-user policy.) Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(out) I'd prefer to hear that from someone else, as opposed to the person repeatedly posting this material, who is alleged to be a banned user. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A banned user could insist the sky is blue, and we'd still remove it on the basis that a banned user has no right to contribute anything to this project, regardless of accuracy or relevance. As stated above, Patricia Neal is still living, as is Kirk Douglas. WP:BLP applies and anything of such a controversial and emotive nature must be scrupulously cited and referenced no matter who adds it. The reference given does not give a page number, and although this is a minor point, the previous history that leads to a particular editors being banned, does not inspire confidence in accepting citations. I've been removing these edits on sight, but like Ed, I would be interested if another party could offer a viewpoint. Rossrs (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest one for two weeks; this is a single-issue editor who tries to "out" film-stars using tendentious sources- that's why he's explicitly banned, and blockable on sight. My feeling is that if any other editor feels it important enough to provide verifiable and reliable sources, they will add it. But this editor has no rights or privileges at all on this project; that's what banning is, obviously. --Rodhullandemu 14:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected this article for now. If the IP(s) want(s) to contribute in a non-controversial manner, they can discuss the changes here. I too agree that the persistency in which the text has been added back without discussion is a first sign of a bad faith editor and this way they can discuss it here and the material, if correct and properly sourced, can still be included without any trouble. Regards SoWhy 11:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes all of those edits are factual and referenced, and should be included in the article. (92.14.245.157 (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Unfortunately, you don't get to play in this garden. Shoo - go away and find another backyard to play in. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking of years to topical articles

While it is true (or rather, I've been told that it's true - would someone kindly point me to the proper page where it's actually laid out?) that the general linking of dates for autoformatting has been deprecated, it is still that case that linking years to topical "year in" articles, such as "year in film", "year in television" and so on is still allowed, as is any link that provides the reader with additional information and context not availble in the article they're currently reading. In the spirt of the new regime in date-linking, I, personally, have cut back significantly on linking dates -- for instance, I never link month/days, and remove them when I come across them -- however, there are still some links that I think need to be standard for being linked to topical articles:

• release years of films and music albums, publication years of books, broadcast year of television and radio programs throughout articles, especially in filmographies, discographies, bilbiographies etc.
• birth and death dates of actors, musicians, writers, etc. in lede sections of articles
• years of activity for actors, musicians, writers, etc. in infoboxes

The theory behind this is simple: the reader may well want to know what else what happening in the world of films, TV, music, etc, during these significant dates, and the links provide them with a means to find that information, quickly and effectively. The additional value provided by these links means that they are not "overlinking" or an example of a deprecated practice (date autoformatting), they are simply, like every other Wikilnk, providing the reader with a means for getting to additional information should they wish to use it.

I would direct people interested in this issue to this conversation on the Wikiproject Film talk page, and to this discussion on WP:AN/I (and to a lesser extent, this one).

The linking of dates is not disallowed wherever and whenever found, it is to be evaluated in context for its value. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A few suggested grammatical corrections...

Congressional Testimony==

While filming Good Sam, Cooper testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on October 23, 1947, characterized as a "friendly" witness. Asked if he had observed "communistic influence in Hollywood," Cooper named no one in particular, but said he had "turned down quite a few scripts because I thought they were tinged with communistic ideas". He also said he had heard statements such as, "Don't you think the Constitution of the United States is about 150 years out of date?" and "Perhaps this would be a more efficient government, without a Congress"&mdash statements he characterized as "very un-American." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.233.129 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Anderson Lawler

User 129.79.208.55 removed without explanation the line about Cooper living with gay actor Anderson Lawler in 1929. Since this is mentioned in every Cooper biography I have read and was referenced by three different sources it should not have been removed. (92.0.44.140 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

If there are three sources (and who's to say they are independent or reliable?) and the best that can be said is "believed". That's just not good enough here in a biography, even though Cooper is conveniently dead. Since more than one editor has reverted this content, it is clear there is no consensus for its inclusion, and I have therefore semi-protected the article to enable reliable sources to be cited, otherwise this rumour should stay out. Rodhullandemu 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Would Jeffrey Meyer's highly-acclaimed biography "Gary Cooper: American Hero" and Larry Swindell's "The Last Hero: A Biography of Gary Cooper" count as reliable sources? It isn't certain that Cooper and Anderson Lawler were lovers but it is known that Lawler was gay and that they lived together for some time. (92.0.44.140 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

I would ask at WP:RSN. However, as you say "It isn't certain that Cooper and Anderson Lawler were lovers", that is precisely the type of innuendo that does not belong in this article, in my opinion. Other editors are free to disagree. Rodhullandemu 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wouldn't take Larry Swindell's word day was light and night was dark, but that's beside the point. I agree with User_talk:Rodhullandemu that we need better citation & wording for something like this, particularly considering the ISP of the insistent submitter is within the range used almost exclusively on WP by the HarveyCarter sockpuppet. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case I think it should at least say something like, "Cooper lived with his close friend, gay actor Anderson Lawler, in 1929". (92.0.44.140 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

I'm a newbie, so I'm not going to start an edit war, but I want to appeal to common sense here. If I lived with a gay man and sent him messages signed "Love", wouldn't it be reasonable to suppose I was gay? Well, Gary Cooper did those very things, and for verification, I'd refer to "Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969" by William J. Mann. It is carefully researched and cites its sources, and humbly admits, for example, that Rudolph Valentino was straight and that there is no proof about the supposed lesbianism of actresses like Barbara Stanwyck.

Some might say "why does it matter?", but IF Cooper's relationships with women are encyclopedic, so are his relationships with men, and anything else is imposing a point of view. The burden of proof cannot be higher for homosexual relationships, in other words. Furthermore, it is historically important in that both Cooper's personal life AND his image changed as Hollywood became more conservative (when the Hays Code gained teeth). He was basically a pretty boy in the 1920's, but as times changed his solemn, masculine image became more acceptable. FelixFB (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Errors (Legacy)

The following was probably written by a non-native speaker and should be corrected by somebody with editing privileges:

"Gary Cooper's photograph from High Noon was used on a famous poster for campaign before first free elections in communist Poland in 1989."

Puttin' On the Ritz

In the song Puttin' On the Ritz by Irving Berlin a Gary Cooper is mentioned. I would not be surprised if it's about the actor Gary Cooper. Shouldn't that be in the article? (Just wondering.) Cassandro (talk) Cassandro (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing and am pleased to see that it's now added into the article. --Robthepiper (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Was "Dick Turpin" A Western?

This term ususally means a horse and cattle driven drama, set during a certain period and in a certain locale, ie the American west. How could a picture about an English highwayman be a western? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.113 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

minor cleanup

cleanup - intro paragraph was fairly poorly written, fixed it up to be a bit more solid... neutral/factual/less opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.159.197 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

September 2014

Because this article is level-4 vital I will begin a major expansion and major improvement tomorrow. Anyone's advice, suggestions, or input is more than welcome. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 02:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's done. It's now worth a GA-nomination. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just nominated it under Media and Drama. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You have removed too many important details. (JimFrads (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC))

I'm all out of fucks to give about this article as other editors shit on all the work I have done. Do whatever want. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Bede735 I appreciate the work you're doing on the article Gary Cooper. I would just like to mention a few concerns I have:

1) You've added some links to things like "drama films" and "crime films". According to WP:OVERLINK, generally things should be linked only once in an article.

2) I see you've changed "persona" to "image". I think "persona" is a more accurate and appropriate word here.

3) I see you've changed "wartime drama film" to "war film". I don't understand that change. To me, "wartime drama film" is more specific than "war film". You can still link it to "war film" if necessary, but "war film" is already linked in the lead. ("Wartime drama" might also work.)

4) I see you've added to the description of Cooper's image, or persona, in the lead. Do you really think all those details are necessary? I think it's a bit wordy now and was more concise before. Couldn't some of those details be saved for later in the article? Besides that, now there is an em-dash before "tall, handsome...", and there really should be another em-dash at the end of the parenthetical phrase.

5) Earlier, you changed "western" to "Western" several times. Unless it's a proper noun, I think it should be lowercase throughout the article. Right now, it is not consistent. Also, the phrase "western history", regardless of whether "western" is capitalized or not, is a little ambiguous. Is it "history of the western film genre" or "history of the western United States"? Perhaps one of those phrases should be used. I look forward to learning your thoughts. CorinneSD (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, CorinneSD, for your feedback and your earlier edits. Some thoughts:

1) According to WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I originally included the links in the Career assessment section when I wrote it, but removed those links and placed them "at the first occurance" per MOS. If you think these are not helpful to the reader, I can remove them, or remove the lead links. What do you think?

I did a search for the word "crime" in order to find "crime films" and found three instances: in the lead, in the second paragraph in Gary Cooper#Hollywood stardom, 1929–35, and in Gary Cooper#Career assessment and legacy. Now, the first and second of these is linked. Because the article is so long, I suppose it would help the reader to have the links not only in the lead but in an appropriate place later in the article. Maybe you've already realized this, but if you go with linking in the lead and "at the first occurrence after the lead", then those second links (for crime film, romance film, romantic comedy film, etc.) will not all be together. Some of them appear before the Career assessment section. You could put all the links back into Career assessment and take out the others, but then you wouldn't be following that guideline "at the first occurrence after the lead". I guess the different types of film in that list in Career assessment don't all have to be linked there. I would follow that guideline.

Yes, my initial thought was that having them together in the Assessment section might be more convenient for the reader, but it goes against the MOS, and the reader does have the grouping of links in the lead.

2) When I wrote the lead, I used the term "persona" three times in the first two paragraphs. I changed the second instance to avoid redundancy, but I can change it back. I agree it's a more accurate term.

I did a search for "persona" and found that the word is used, usually in the phrase "screen persona", quite a few times in the article. I looked through all of them and found one that I think could be taken out if the sentence is re-worded: it's in the second paragraph of the lead:

• After developing a Western heroic screen persona in his early silent films, Cooper became a major movie star in 1929 with the release of his first sound pictureThe Virginian.

I think the adverbial clause at the beginning of this sentence could be re-worded to avoid using "screen persona". I think the clause is a touch academic, and perhaps simpler language would be better for the average reader. Or maybe you could find another instance that could be deleted.

I see your point. The clause, which covers the first four years of his career, could be reworded. Maybe: "After establishing himself as a Western hero in his early silent films, ..."

Very good.

3) Well it's a subgenre of war film, but I agree that "wartime drama" would be better in the body of the article. I'll change it.

4) The terms "tall" and "handsome" are used in all of the sources in relation to his image description, as are the terms "sincerity" and "integrity". But to your point, the sentence is a bit wordy. I'll reword it in both the lead and Career assessment section to make it less busy.

I wasn't specifically objecting to "tall" and "handsome". I just saw that the sentence was longer than it was. I think a short, concise sentence is good for the lead. More details can be given later in the article. That's all.

I trimmed it down a bit, but will look at it again.

It's much better now.

5) In nearly all of my sources, and in the main Wikipedia article, the "Western" genre is always capitalized, which is how its presented consistently in this article. And when used to refer to the "Western frontier", it is also capitalized, as in the American West (see American frontier). You're right about the inconsistent use of "Western history" versus "western history", but I'll change the lowercase to uppercase and provide the appropriate link. If you think that one or both of these meanings should be lowercase, I'm open to discussion.

I see that in the article on the American West, "West" and "Western" are capitalized, so I guess it should be capitalized here also (I don't think it should be capitalized there, either, but I'm not going to argue with a whole lot of people who think it should be.) I just think the phrase "Western history" could mean at least two different things and I'm not sure which meaning is the one intended here.

After I responded yesterday, I double-checked my five main sources for the article, and all present the genre "Western" capitalized. I then checked a few dictionaries and found mixed results. Oxford presents the genre lowercase. Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com present genre lowercase, but indicate "often capitalized". Well that's not much help. We already knew that. I checked two recent film biographies: Eyman's John Wayne uses lowercase, and Wilson's A Life of Barbara Stanwyck capitalizes. I'll look into it more. For "Western history" I added a piped link to the American frontier article.

Following up on the presentation of "Western" versus "western", I found more mixed results: Britannica (lowercase), AFI (lowercase), BFI (capitalized), TCM (both), The Encyclopedia of Western Movies (capitalized), The Great Moviemakers of Hollywood's Golden Age (capitalized), Where God Put the West (capitalized), West of Everything (capitalized), Zane Grey Romancing the West (lowercase), and Zane Grey: A Biography (capitalized). Common usage still seems to favor the capitalized presentation, while current dictionaries and some scholarly sources have moved to lowercase. It's an interesting question and might be worth bringing up at the WikiProject Film and Talk:Western (genre). Of course, you'd have to convince a lot of ornery cowboys. :-) Bede735 (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about a sentence I came across while looking at the use of "persona". It's in the second paragraph in the section Gary Cooper#Mature roles, 1944–52. The sentence is:

• While he still played conventional heroic roles, his films now relied less on his heroic screen persona and character and more on novel and exotic settings and stories.

It's not clear to me what is meant by "his...character". Does this mean the actual character he was playing or the quality of his being (as in, "he is a man of good character")? I'm not sure how you would go about clarifying it. I think it would depend upon which meaning is intended. Alternatively, instead of attempting to clarify it, you could just delete it and leave "his heroic screen persona". I also wonder whether the second phrase, "and more on novel and exotic settings and stories", isn't a little wordy. Perhaps a word could be left out. Perhaps you could re-word it so that it reads "novel stories and exotic settings". Just a thought.

I like your wording. I'll make the change.

Looks good now.

I also wonder about a sentence in the first paragraph in the section Gary Cooper#American folk hero, 1936–43. The sentence is:

• Capra and screenwriter Robert Riskin were able to leverage Cooper's well-established screen persona as the "quintessential American hero" who symbolized honesty, courage, and goodness to create a lasting image of a "mythological folk hero" that would inform and inspire many of the actor's future roles.

To me, this sentence is real academic writing, but it also sounds a bit opaque, obscure, pompous (I'm not sure what the right word is). I'm thinking particularly of the words "leverage" and "inform and inspire". I'm wondering if, either by using synonyms for those words or by simplifying the sentence, you could bring it down a notch so that the average reader will not be scratching his or her head upon reading this. Well, that's all for now. CorinneSD (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. There's a lot going on in that sentence. I will reword it.

I look forward to your thoughts, and any further suggestions on making this article ready for GA review. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, and thanks for your courteous reply. (I hope you don't mind; I replaced the number symbol (#) with numbers because the numbers didn't come out right after I added my replies to each of your points. CorinneSD (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks again, Corinne. Bede735 (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll see that I made brief comments -- all positive -- at the end of some points, above. I have one more comment. It's something I thought of yesterday but forgot to mention. In the last paragraph of the section Gary Cooper#Early life, you added "boyhood" in the phrase "Cooper met two boyhood friends from Montana". I was just wondering whether that word was needed since Cooper was only twenty-three years old, so any friend of his would be a boyhood friend. If you really like the word, then leave it. I just like to cut out any unnecessary words. CorinneSD (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bede735 I was reading the sentence you added:

• More than a half century after his death, Cooper's enduring legacy is his image of that ideal American hero that film audiences still find so attractive and compelling.

I noticed the use of the word "that" twice in close proximity, and I was trying to figure out a way to change one to avoid that repetition without changing an otherwise good sentence. Here are two possibilities:

1) More than a half century after his death, Cooper's enduring legacy is his image of the ideal American hero that film audiences still find so attractive and compelling.

2) More than a half century after his death, Cooper's enduring legacy is his image of that ideal American hero film audiences still find so attractive and compelling.

CorinneSD (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne. I think your option 2 reads better. I'll make the change. Bede735 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Trimming excessive detail about others

At first they kept their affair discreet, but eventually it became an open secret in Hollywood, and Cooper's wife confronted him with the rumors, which he admitted were true. He also confessed that he was in love with Neal, and continued to see her.<ref name="shearer-124">Shearer 2006, p. 124.</ref><ref>Meyers 1998, p. 226.</ref> In October 1950, after Neal discovered she was pregnant, Cooper arranged for her to have an abortion to avoid the public scandal of having a child out of wedlock.<ref name="shearer-133-134">Shearer 2006, pp. 133–134.</ref><ref>Meyers 1998, pp. 227–228.</ref> Cooper and his wife were legally separated in May 1951,<ref name="meyers-229">Meyers 1998, p. 229.</ref> but he did not seek a divorce, fearing he would lose the respect of his daughter.<ref>Shearer 2006, pp. 114–122.</ref>

adds nothing of specific biographical value beyond what:

After he was married in December 1933, Cooper remained faithful to his wife until the summer of 1942, when he began an affair with Ingrid Bergman during the production of ''For Whom the Bell Tolls''.<ref>Wayne 1988, p. 100.</ref> Their relationship lasted through the completion of filming ''Saratoga Trunk'' in June 1943.<ref>Meyers 1998, pp. 179, 183.</ref> In 1948, after finishing work on ''The Fountainhead'', Cooper began a serious love affair with actress Patricia Neal, his co-star in the film.<ref>Meyers 1998, p. 225.</ref> Neal finally ended their relationship in late December 1951.<ref name="shearer-126-127">Shearer 2006, pp. 126–127.</ref> During his three year separation from his wife, Cooper also had affairs with Grace Kelly,<ref>Meyers 1998, p. 231.</ref> Lorraine Chanel,<ref>Meyers 1998, pp. 259–263.</ref> and [[Gisèle Pascal]].<ref>Meyers 1998, pp. 263–264.</ref>

already covers as far as value to readers is concerned. Collect (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Cooper's love affair with Neal was well-publicized and documented in Neal's autobiography, as well as all of the Cooper biographies. By all accounts this was not a casual fling, but a serious relationship, which led to Cooper's three-year separation from his wife (which you also deleted)—a major event in his personal life. After his death, Cooper's daughter Maria reached out to Neal and helped her through a difficult time. A few sentences about their affair and the direct impact on his marriage is appropriate for this article. If the focus of your objection is the sentence on abortion, delete that one sentence. A fair argument can be made for its removal. Keep in mind that a number of editors have recently reviewed this article—GA and Peer Review—and it was not brought up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this here. Bede735 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Abortion

Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It needs to be mentioned that Cooper forced Patricia Neal to have an abortion in October 1950, as this was the most infamous episode of his life and career in Hollywood. It also turned her into a pro-life activist. (MichaelO'Finn (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)) First of all you assert "forced" for which there is no strong sourcing. And you assert it is relevant to Patricia Neal but it is not relevant to Mr. Cooper, unless yo wish to insert such a weakly sourced claim into a biography. Collect (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Since Cooper was a conservative Republican who represented family values it is very notable that he pressured Neal to abort their child. The fact that Cooper punched Neal in the face should also be mentioned. (MichaelO'Finn (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC))

recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"The relationship was parodied in Clare Booth Luce's The Women as the characters Buck Winston and the Countess de Lage." is not sourced, and does not belong on any Wikipedia article without strong sourcing.

"Within the studios, Cooper's bisexuality as a young man was well known" is sourced to "The Fixers". It is seemingly based on a single anecdote about his wife sniffing his pants.

"In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he had a three year affair, and also lived with for a time. " is sourced to Swindell's biography of Cooper. Not checkable online, alas. The real source appears to be [1] for which the claim appears to be a fairly simple rewording. "Cooper also had a three year affair with a man, the young Alabama born Anderson Lawler, an aspiring film actor." The Mann ref is also not readily checkable online. The Laurence book is likely problematic - it is not published by a major reputable publisher (basically "Lyle Stuart").

"Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but the relationship (also confirmed by Cooper's later wife Patricia Neal, caused intense jealousy with Bow and Velez" is sourced to the Shearer book (the likely source for the earlier claim). Unfortunately, the claim is not backed explicitly by the work cited.

What would be left is:

In 1929 Cooper met an actor named Anderson Lawler, whom he lived with for a time.

sourced to the Shearer book - and sticking to ascertainable and sourced fact. Collect (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Since WHEN have book references not available online been discounted as references on Wikipedia? That would discount more 50% of its existing references! As well as Shearer, the Mann is book is readily checkable on Amazon. We can also add another corker: Vogel, Michelle Lupe Velez: The Life And Career of Hollywood's Mexican Spitfire, (McFarland & Company 1972) p71 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0Qt_kZTt4JYC (Again, do a word search for 'Andy Lawler') The Buck Winston and the Countess de Lage reference is the Shearer book. Chapter 6 Note 9 The very same note goes into explicit detail about the Lawler relationship. Sorry, no DNA! Engleham (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You really wish to use material from books where the claim is clearly described as anecdotal? BTW, the aside in Shearer would need to be given as a cite for the claim made. Unfortunately, the books cited are not strong fact sources for much more than what I suggest is present as fact. If you wish to start a Request for Comment (WP:RFC) then I would ask you do so, but you need a consensus for adding what might be contentious claims in a WP:FA. Major changes to featured articles often result in a downgrading of the article entirely. Collect (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"You really wish to use material from books where the claim is clearly described a:s anecdotal?" Golly gee: you mean in the same way they're employed to reference his casual female roots? And who in their right mind would seek a consensus in a heterosexual dictatorship? You can only bludgeon by fact. Yes, I'm aware that there can be no equivalency of claims; that any claim of bisexuality or homosexuality is held to much more rigorous standards of support; but there comes a point when the referencing demands tip over from reasonable to discriminatory and risible. I think we've reached that point. The article can state them as claims. But the claims exist, have been made repeatedly, and deserve to be known. Engleham (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored mention of Lawler relationship, rewritten to be stated as a CLAIM only, and supported with six book references -- more than for any other claim made in the article. It should be noted that in his comments above the User Collect misrepresents the references. e.g. The Fixers, which details the claim far more than he alleges. However, it's a solid reference by a reputable publisher so clearly has to be smeared. He also alleges that the deeply researched Mann book can't be checked online, which a quick click to Amazon gives lie to. And to suggest -- against all prior Wikipedia practice - that only book references that can be checked online should be used as cite material really takes the cake. If it wasn't so nauseous, the dissembling would be comical. Engleham (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect that the books cited are not strong fact sources and that you need a consensus for adding contentious claims to a featured article. I checked four of your five sources. Larry Swindell (The Last Hero) presents the Lawler story as a "rumor" sustained by "certain scabrous books" and notes that most of his friends at the time "insisted there was no truth to the rumor" (Swindell 105). Michelle Vogel (Lupe Velez) cites Swindell as the source for her rumor. She also presents a supposed quote from an interview with actor William Janny in Michael Ankerich's The Sound of Silence, but the quote does not appear in that book. If it did, it would be one author reporting a story told to him by another person who passed on a rumor he heard. Stephen Michael Shearer (Patricia Neal: An Unquiet Life) also cites Swindell for his rumor. Neal herself never mentions Lawler in her book As I Am. William Mann (Behind the screen) also cites Swindell. All of these sources cite an author who presents the story as a rumor and provides evidence to contradict the rumor—Cooper's friends. The Fixers states that "it was known that they were lovers"—and that's about it. The Jack Lawrence book (They All Sang My Songs) is published by Barricade Books—not a reputable publisher. The most reliable biographical source, Jeffrey Meyer's American Hero, devotes a single paragraph to Cooper's friendship with Lawler—nothing about a "relationship". The other three major biographers—Kaminsky, Carpozi, and Arce—never mention Lawler. There were hundreds of actual facts about Cooper that I did not include in this article, based on relevance and the need to keep the article to a managable size. The only relationships mentioned in the article were those publically acknowledged by Cooper and which played some meaningful role in his life or career. I omitted many other alleged relationships with actresses because they were not relevant to the article. Adding a "claim" or rumor hardly meets the criteria for a featured article. You need to gain consensus on this talk page before adding this "claim" or rumor. Bede735 (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

William Janney from The Sound Of Silence p129: "There were two beds in the room. I slept in one, and Andy, Gary and Lupe in the other. All during the night, all I heard was giggling and all sorts of carrying on. I asked Andy the next morning what was going on over there. He said they were having a threesome - a menage a trois. They were a wild bunch." http://www.amazon.com/The-Sound-Silence-Conversations-Personalities/dp/078646383X I include this because it supports statements made that, like Bow, Velez was jealous of Lawler, and didn't want him involved with Cooper unless it involved her. I also include it here simply because it's exceptionally rare to get a first-person recounting of Hollywood sex from the Golden Era of any kind! Cooper lived with Lawler, and as William Mann states, they were lifelong friends.

"There were hundreds of actual facts about Cooper that I did not include in this article, based on relevance and the need to keep the article to a managable size. The only relationships mentioned in the article were those publically acknowledged by Cooper and which played some meaningful role in his life or career." Yes, a similar line of dissembling was once employed to blank any reference to Randolph Scott in the Cary Grant entry. Like most successful actors Grant and Cooper constantly reinvented themselves as individuals, and whitewashed aspects of their past. In whatever terms the relationship is framed, Lawler was a significant person in Cooper's life - and most especially, given the allegation. Given the article's current length, if he were a woman, there is no way he would not be included. Lawler was well known in Hollywood because he was considered the most flamboyant homosexual in the industry at the time. (See Mann for that ref.) For Cooper to dare living with him in 1929 was a statement in itself, and shows that Cooper was - when young - an exceptionally freewheeling guy. I suggest you read *every* reference to Lawler in William Mann's Behind the screen which can be done via Amazon. Link provided. Mann is well regarded in LA, and undertook the deepest research of anyone with regard to Lawler. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Behind-Screen-Lesbians-Hollywood-1910-1969/dp/0670030171/ Engleham (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And That might work as a source for "Anecdotopedia" but, unfortunately, Wikipedia has decided celebrity gossip and anecdote-based sources are not that great and has the entirely silly conceit that we rely on "reliable sources." Wikipedi is not a tabloid nor gossip magazine. Collect (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Collect (1) There is no way Mann can be discounted as an 'unreliable source'. Reputable author, reputable research, reputable publisher. (2) "Wikipedia is not a tabloid nor gossip magazine". In that case, the Bow, Velez, and di Frasso sections should also be removed. Nice try to suggest Lawler is a false equivalency - once a favourite homophobic tactic in academia to distort history, but one which now is constantly called to account. Engleham (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you in any way whatsoever calling me "homophobic"? If so - then please leave this venue. Mann makes no overt statement that Cooper was gay that I can find (Amazon does not give full page views, by the way). Now should other sections be removed? Probably so, given the low level of sourcing allowed in the past. That is, moreover, not a reason to allow low level sourcing for claims in any Wikipedia article. Collect (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Collect "Amazon does not give full page views, by the way". Perhaps you could ask a young person to show you how? In the meantime, here's a few fair-use extracts from the full page views of Mann on Amazon: "Some still tie themselves in knots over whether Cooper was homosexual…The question seems extraneous, beside the point. The demarcations of sexuality were far more fluid in 1929 than they are today."p103 "Anderson Lawler personifies, in his relationship with Gary Cooper, the free-love experience of the late 1920s and early 1930s."p107 .After Cooper became an American icon, the facts of his relationship with Andy Lawler were denied, ignored, and then forgotten." p104 "They met in mid-1929 soon after Andy's arrival on the Paramount lot.…They became inseparable" p104 "A few months before their Catalina excursion, Andy moved in with Gary at 7511 Franklin Avenue."p106 "Certainly Cooper wasn't blind to the impression he was creating by consorting with Lawler. "Andy Lawler was probably the best known homosexual in Hollywood during that time" said Robert Wheaton, who knew Lawler through George Cukor.p104 Lawler's cousin: "…their family did know about the relationship, he said, and at least some believed it to be sexual…Andy offered a whole new world among the Zoe Akins-Billy Haines-George Cukor set.." p106 And much, much, more of the same, including enigmatic telegrams that at the very least show their closeness: ""Sorry you think I turned out bad. Will write. Love, G". Clearly it was an important relationship in Coopers life, however it's framed. And there is Janny's eyewitness account (which I provided upthread) that they, at the very least, had a threesome. So to include at least one qualified sentence to the article regarding Lawler, such as "In 1929 Cooper also met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived for a time, and it has been claimed, had an affair." is relevant, valid, fair, and more than balanced.Engleham (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your level of snark. The source does not support your desire to label everyone in your path as either gay or homophobic. "some believed it to be sexual" is not a source for "the relationship was sexual". And "it has been claimed" makes no assertion of fact. What you are doing is using weak sources to make strong claims. In fact I regret to say that you might be so intent on pushing your personal point of view that you neglect the policies behind Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Collect"Congratulations on your level of snark." You make it too easy. Especially with your level of comprehension. No one - not me, not the sources, have ever suggested Cooper was gay. OK? The bluntest is Fleming's The Fixers which states 'bisexual'. So you can drop the smelling salts. Was he perhaps a 1 on the Kinsey Scale. More than likely. For the Hollywood It-Boy of 1929 to be living with one of its most high-profile and flamboyant homosexuals, spending weekends away together, sending telegrams signed "Love, G", mixing in the gay Billy Haines set, and seen sharing a bed with him and Velez, does suggest he - like many highly sexed attractive people - didn't block himself off from attractive possibilities, wherever they presented themselves. You write: "I regret to say that you might be so intent on pushing your personal point of view that you neglect the policies behind Wikipedia." And of course, you're not pushing your own point of view: you're totally neutral. For someone whose Talk page proudly displays an award for their work on the entry for Christian Science - a religion which rules that any sexuality but heterosexuality is Human Error requiring *healing* -- one can well understand this facet of Cooper's backstory this might present a significant problem. Because clearly it does. Despite presenting enough references that would more than justify its inclusion were the claim heterosexual, you continually discount them. And when backed into a corner, you threaten the last card of those unable to frame a valid argument: spatter the page with the linked acronyms of Wikipedia policies, which as we all know - as well intentioned as they are - are so broadly defined, can be interpreted to justify any line of reasoning. Now: I've more than indulged you, and the demands of your religiosity, but its clear there can be no reasonable negotiation with you. To close: the statement that should at least be included is: "In 1929 Cooper also met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived for a time, and it has been claimed, had an affair." with the following references (these three are sufficient): Mann, William, Behind The Screen: How Gays & Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, Viking Books, 2001 pp103-109; Ankerich, Michael The Sound of Silence, McFarland & Company 2011, p92, and Fleming, EJ The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine, McFarland & Company, 2005, p92 Engleham (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hell -- the use of "Love" as a closer for a telegram is proof of what? Anything at all? Do you know hw many celebrities used "love" routinely on autographed photos (many of which were not even signed by them, or were even rubber stamps)? The use of weak material in any article on Wikipedia is endemic, but that does not mean we should not try to remove it. My work on Christian Science bringing it up to Good Article status has absolutely notihing to do with my beliefs at all - the work was editing a badly written article into reasonably good status. Nor was my work on Joseph Widney related to anything at all - the article started as horridly bloated, and my editing was trimming the fat from an article. And your assertion that I have "demands of (my) religiosity" is a gross and inept as well as inapt personal attack here. "It is claimed" is one of the worst suggestions for implications known to man and beast - includingwriters. Collect (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: per Bede735 and Collect, claims such as these need particularly solid referencing. None of the sources provided thus far appear to hold much ground. That being said, these sorts of claims are made ever so frequently in this age, and the fact is most often than not they appear in fanciful Holywood sensational biographies which are written to satisfy a certain market. Perhaps this is indicative that there is a bias against serious reporting on said allegations. Unfortunately that's not part of Wikipedia's domain, and at most we can discuss whether we could include some sort of text alluding to such information, and selecting quality sources to go with it. I'd be happy to review such text and sources if they are presented. However, I repeat that at present I haven't seen quality sourcing and language needed to satisfy both neutrality and notability in the general sense. I also suggest you both abstain from commenting any further, as this is quickly turning into a cock fight - pun intended. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding Anderson Lawler

"After Cooper became an American icon, the facts of his relationship with Andy Lawler were denied, ignored, and then forgotten. What stories survived mutated into tales of an older wealthy homosexual who "kept" Cooper in the early days." Mann p103 Most Hollywood stars rewrite their backstory. While Lawler may have been whitewashed from Cooper's, he shouldn't be here. Lawler was Cooper's closest friend during the critical years of his early stardom; they did share a house for a year; (and even after that); and Lawler did introduce Cooper to a wider social circle (e.g. Cukor, Haines - whose home was a Hollywood social epicentre, etc.) This would have knocked off Cooper's provincial edges, and can only have helped his career. So, in an entry which features trivia far less worthy of recording, this association is worth recording in some form - albeit, without any recording of the sexual allegation - which even as an allegation, however heavily cited (citations that would be more than accepted were the allegation heterosexual), is an intolerable idea to some. So, I suggest adding the following discreetly worded sentences to the beginning of the section Hollywood Stardom 1929-35:

On the cusp of stardom in 1929, Cooper met the Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, a popular and flamboyant homosexual who for a time became his closest friend: they lived together until mid-1930. Lawyer introduced Cooper to a wider, sophisticated social circle.

The citations for this would be: Mann, William Behind The Screen: How Gays & Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, Viking Books, 2001 pp103-109, p144; Ankerich, Michael The Sound of Silence McFarland & Company 2011, p92; Fleming, EJ The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine McFarland & Company, 2005, p92. The Mann entry can be read via Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/184-3388031-6171132

Any objections? I mean objections based on solid reason - not, as in the previous discussion, dissembling. Engleham (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of this content was proposed and rejected based on the reasons provided in the above recent discussion and in previous discussions. Please respect WP:CONSENSUS. Bede735 (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS governs on this sort of material - I strongly suggest you not make rash edits. Collect (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with my comprehension. As I stated it, the previous rejection - as I read it - was due to the documented implication that there was some form of relationship between the two. The new proposal is that this merely be stated as a close and influential friendship. Is there some issue with that? Engleham (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've tweaked the suggested inclusion a little further. I think this reads slightly more elegantly. Thoughts?

On the cusp of stardom in 1929, Cooper met the Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, who for a time became his closest friend: they lived together until mid-1930. Lawyer, who was popular within the Hollywood movie colony, and widely known to be homosexual, introduced Cooper to a more sophisticated social circle. Engleham (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• You are certainly persistent. Now all you need to do is get a positive consensus for insertion of that tangential allegation. So far, you have not gotten one in the past, so I think you are unlikely to get one in the future. Try - but do not add the material until after you get a consensus on this talk page please. Collect (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't dream of it. Because we know how you operate. And I agree: gaining consensus is going to be a challenge. Not simply because the number of Wiki editors has plummeted precipitously; but because this a personality who is now of interest to only a tiny minority. Engleham (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Adding mention of Anderson Lawler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two editors dispute that Gary Cooper's closest friend should be mentioned in his article. A previous RfC failed to garner comments apart from their own, and that of one other who didn't review the proposed citations. This RfC is an attempt to obtain a consensus that is genuinely representative and democratic. The proposed text and citations for the inclusion will be in the first post. Engleham (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The proposed inclusion is: "In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez. According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once shared a bed."

Citations would be:

• Mann, William J. Behind the screen: how gays and lesbians shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, Viking, 2001, pp105
• Swindell, Larry The Last Hero: A Biography of Gary Cooper, New York: Doubleday, 1980, pp104-6
• Fleming, E. J. The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine; McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina & London 2005, p92
• Vogel, Michelle Lupe Velez: The Life And Career of Hollywood's Mexican Spitfire, (McFarland & Company 1972) p71
• Ankerich, Michael G. The Sound of Silence: Conversations with 16 Film and Stage Personalities Who Bridged the Gap Between Silents and Talkies, McFarland and Company, 1998, pp127-128

The following citations can be easily reviewed:

• The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine (Word search for 'Lawler' in the book preview) :http://www.amazon.com/Fixers-Mannix-Strickling-Publicity-Machine/dp/0786420278/
• Shearer, Stephen Michael Patricia Neal: An Unquiet Life, University of Kentucky Press 2006, Chapter 6, Note 9
• The William J. Mann reference can also be read on Amazon by doing a word search for Lawler in the book preview, and selecting the p105 one: http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Screen-Lesbians-Hollywood-1910-1969/dp/0670030171/
• William Janney's account of the bedsharing of Cooper, Lawler & Velez (which clarifies the closeness of the friendship) can be read on Google Books here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=N4WhCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&dq=%22anderson+lawler

Engleham (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Include — sources seem okay to me, this is not a BLP, and wikipedia is not censored. Ratel (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Note CANVASS and Stalking problems User_talk:Writegeist#Collect.27s_Laws "Don't forget to record a Support or Oppose to the move at the relevant talk page. Yes, I have been gone for years, made the mistake of socking to try to avoid wikistalking editors (inter alia). Now I know it's better just to face them head on. Live and learn. Ratel (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)" Collect (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Also User_talk:Engleham#Gary_Cooper where two editors seem to act in direct collusion. Collect (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlike yourself User: Collect, no collusion. He posted on my Talk page (which clearly you are stalking again - you really need to get another hobby) regarding your behaviour. As the last RfC didn't attract sufficient comments, I simply invited him here to vote however he felt – exactly as you did a few hours ago on the Dispute page with a certain mentor of Ho's. Hypocrite much? Engleham (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No one has ever shown any sign of me "colluding" with anyone at all. I have five thousand pages on my watchlist, by the way. And Ratel admitted to stalking me, by the way, and was banned from Wikipedia for his use of socks in the past. So your declamation here is of zilch value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you, Collect, but I think you know why our paths crossed. I have a lot of data and I'm speaking to admins behind the scenes. I won't discuss this with you publicly further, but you are welcome to email me. Ratel (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RELIABLE, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, etc. None of the five major Cooper biographies support this rumor. The books cited are not strong fact sources. Larry Swindell (The Last Hero) presents the Lawler story as a "rumor" sustained by "certain scabrous books" and notes that most of his Cooper's friends at the time "insisted there was no truth to the rumor" (Swindell 105). Michelle Vogel (Lupe Velez) cites Swindell as the source for her rumor. She also presents a supposed quote from an interview with actor William Janny in Michael Ankerich's The Sound of Silence, but the quote does not appear in that book. If it did, it would be one author reporting a story told to him by another person who passed on a rumor he heard. Stephen Michael Shearer (Patricia Neal: An Unquiet Life), whom you previously cited, also cites Swindell for his rumor. You also previously cited Neal, who never mentions Lawler in her book As I Am. William Mann (Behind the screen) also cites Swindell. All of these sources cite an author who presents the story as a rumor and provides evidence to contradict the rumor—Cooper's friends. The Fixers states that "it was known that they were lovers"—and that's about it. The Jack Lawrence book (They All Sang My Songs), whom you previously cited, is published by Barricade Books—not a reputable publisher. The most reliable biographical source, Jeffrey Meyer's American Hero, devotes a single paragraph to Cooper's friendship with Lawler—nothing about a "relationship". The other three major biographers—Kaminsky, Carpozi, and Arce—never even mention Lawler. There is no evidence in reliable sources that supports your claims above. There were hundreds of actual facts about Cooper that I did not include in this article, based on relevance and the need to keep the article to a manageable size (it is over 10,000 words of readable prose). The only relationships I included in the article were those publicly acknowledged by Cooper and which played some meaningful role in his life or career. I omitted many other alleged relationships with actresses because they were not relevant to the article. Adding a rumor hardly meets the criteria for any article, let alone a featured article. Two previous attempts were made to add this content, both of which were rejected by consensus here and here. WP:ANI rejected another attempt. Bede735 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WTF? You appear to be recycling old shit you posted half a year ago about a completely different requested submission. Read the new proposed wording, Granda. It is as follows:""In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler" PLAIN FACT, NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SOURCE. "with whom he lived with for a year." NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SOURCE. "Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society" NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SOURCE. "but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez." NOT DISPUTED BY ANY SOURCE "According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once shared a bed."PRIMARY SOURCE, EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT. William J. Mann ALONE is a highly respected and authoritative source. And the Janney account is exceptional. You can't get two STRONGER sources. Shall we limit it to those?!Engleham (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is not supported by any of the five major Gary Cooper biographies. Bede735 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Still Oppose Weak sources, including ones which specifically call the material "rumor" do not make for strong enough sourcing for this tabloid fluff. I note also the very argumentative wording for this RfC which is contrary to policy. RfCs are not supposed to contain direct or indirect attacks on other editors. Collect (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

NONE the straightforward statements in the proposed wording are "rumors", which makes a nonsense of that claim. Stop trying to engage in WP:CRUSH. Engleham (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

And so Bede is a horrid liar when he wrote

Larry Swindell (The Last Hero) presents the Lawler story as a "rumor" sustained by "certain scabrous books" and notes that most of his Cooper's friends at the time "insisted there was no truth to the rumor" (Swindell 105).

On which case, report him for abusing sources, but it damn sure looks like "rumor" is in quotation marks to me. And I fear you do not understand that your sort of argumentation in an RfC is possibly not going to gain you any support at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• include all except EXCLUDE the shared a bed summoned by legobot. The prior items seem well sourced. The final item is an anecdote with no supporting documentation and as this incident or similar incidents are not covered in his other biographies, it is WP:UNDUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The first two sentences explain Cooper's friendship with a gay man, the third sentence cites a rumor that they slept together. A verifiable (per WP:V) gay romance would certainly be encyclopedic. Being friends with a gay actor and a rumor of "sharing a bed" aren't policy compliant additions, particularly for a WP:FA.LM2000 (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I understand how LGBTQ history too often gets pushed back in the closet or ignored. This just doesn't seem that important in the course of someone's life story. I agree with LM2000's reasoning. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discusion

Swindell's book was published Swindell's published in 1980 — 36 years ago. The sources Mann, Fleming, & Ankerich were published LONG after his book, so he could not have read them in 1980! What is more, your argument against inclusion is specious because Swindell only questions the rumor that Cooper and Lawler had an affair. From the moment he begins spending several pages outlining their association "Cooper met Anderson Lawler in 1929", he NEVER denies they had a close friendship, or that is IMPORTANT to mention it.

So the very source you wave in the air - Swindell - actually supports the argument for Lawler's inclusion! If you read my proposed words they make no mention of an affair: only that Ankerich "claims" that Cooper, Lawler, and Velez at least once shared a bed.

What is more, Swindell qualifies his own denial. He doesn't write "all of Cooper's vintage pals have insisted that there was no truth to the rumor" — the rumor of an affair. He writes "most of Cooper's vintage pals". So some didn't deny it. Biographer Stephen Michael Shearer who wrote in his biography of Patricia Neal that it was an affair, added: "Patricia Neal confirmed in conversation with SMS in May 2005 that she knew of this relationship." But again, the proposed inclusion errs on the side of caution and only states it as a close friendship.

So, to sum up: the biography you hold to support non-inclusion actually does the opposite: it supports inclusion, and further, it is but ONE biography is a slew of biographical citations. So by supporting Swindell you and Bede support inclusion of Lawler in Gary Cooper's entry. So, having been acquainted with these facts, I now presume you both acknowledge the need for Lawler's inclusion, as per he who you champion, Swindell. Engleham (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag, so mere rumours, as in this case that Cooper had a homosexual relationship with Lawler, don't belong here. If Cooper had gone public with having had a sexual relationship with Lawler, or it had had substantial coverage in major biographies, it would have been different. But he didn't, and they didn't, so no way. Thomas.W ^talk 08:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W That's NOT what the proposed wording is saying. Read it again. It makes NO mention of any homosexual relationship. It says "close friendship", which ALL the sources agree on. Engleham (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Who do you think you're fooling? Writing that they lived together, that Lawler was "unabashedly homosexual" and that Cooper and Lawler "shared a bed" is in the mind of most readers as clear a way of implying that they had a homosexual relationship as it gets. Which combined with your previously proposed wording (as seen on WP:ANI) that "Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once had a threesome" clearly shows that you're trying to portray Cooper as having been homosexual/bisexual. And maybe he was, but without solid sourcing, much more solid than what you have now, you're not going to get it into the article... Thomas.W ^talk 09:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The supposition that they may have had an affair is for the reader to decide. What is proposed is only what the facts support, facts provided by rocksolid authoritative sources: (A) That they had a close friendship (B) That they lived together for a time (C) that an eye-witness acoount from a fellow actor claims that they at least once shared a bed with Velez. You keep trying to weasel by saying "without solid sourcing". Every damn Cooper biography that explores his life in depth mentions Lawler. Just because you find the fact unpalatable doesn't alter the truth. Engleham (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As WP:NPA says, "comment on content, not contributors", there's no way for you to know if I find it unpalatable or not. All you have is a rumour about Cooper having shared the same bed as two other men one night when there were more people in the house than there were beds, and having joked about it later, a rumour that you, through your choice of words, try to present to the readers here in a way that clearly implies that Cooper was having a homosexual/bisexual relationship with Lawler. Refusing to stop your attempts to get your material into the article, even though it ought to be clear even to you by now that you have no support from other editors here for it... Thomas.W ^talk 14:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I know your opinion precisely. As anyone of intelligence here would. Because there's no other reason to stonewall any inclusion of Cooper's best friend - whatever the status of the friendship. THAT'S the Alpha and Omega. And one more thing. An eye witness account isn't a rumour. But anyone reading your responses and those of Collect and Bede would fully understand that honouring Truth (rather than endless dissembling) is the very last consideration here. If it was, Anderson Lawler - who was in Cooper's life for several years, and is mentioned in EVERY definitive Cooper biography, would be mentioned in the article to some degree. So you can spare us the circuitous patronising bullshit about respect for facts - there is none. The prejudice is transparent. Engleham (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Being mentioned as his friend to some degree is very different from the gossip rag style edits you've tried to make, where you imply that the two were homosexual lovers (and, yes, an "eyewitness account" of this kind is only a rumour unless there's something else to back it up). And please indent your posts properly so that it's possible to see what other posts your posts are in reply to, because I'm tired of fixing it for you. I'm also extremely tired of your repeated attempts to make it seem as if I'm opposing your proposed edit(s) because of a homophobic agenda, or something, I'm opposing your edit(s) because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag... Thomas.W ^talk 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

because I'm tired Not as tired as I am of your dissembling and false arguments. If you find the proposed inclusion so "gossip rag", please share with us exactly what phrasing would be acceptable to you to include Lawler in the article. Engleham (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I don't feel there's any need to include Lawler in the article at all, but if you get the other editors here to support it I'm fine with it. I came here to voice my opinion in this RfC after seeing the posts on WP:ANI, and since I have voiced my opinion above, by opposing the inclusion of the proposed text, I see no reason to waste more time than I already have by attempting to discuss it with you, so this is my final response to you. Thomas.W ^talk 18:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course you won't provide it. I knew that before throwing down the gauntlet. I merely wanted to publicly demonstrate your refusal to countenance Lawler's inclusion under any circumstances. And so make a mockery of your justifications. Engleham (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Include - forgot to add my own. And for the reasons stated above. Engleham (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Include Include With Caveats (see below) — Sources look good (except The Fixers, but my objections to that book are clearly in the minority on Wikipedia). I would also suggest including Queer America: A GLBT History of the 20th Century by Vicki Lynn Eaklor, as it phrases the subject in a way that might be more encyclopedic: "Gary Cooper and openly gay Anderson Lawler shared a house, and it has been suggested that Cooper consciously changed his image from "sophisticated pretty boy to the rugged leather-faced cowboy" to avoid the fate of actors like William "Billy" Haines." Another suggested source would be Hollywoodland by David Wallace and Ann Miller, who source a cousin of Lawler's as knowing about the affair. (Jeffrey A. Brown's 1995 article on Cooper for Screen entitled "Putting on the Ritz: Masculinity and the Young Gary Cooper" also mentions the affair, but I don't have access to the article myself.) I don't see why this information can't be paired with something like, say, Jeffrey Meyers's American Hero which talks about Cooper's uneasiness at being thought of as gay. Seems perfectly appropriate to include both sides of the issue and indicate it's a subject that biographers and historians discuss with some frequency. Clockster (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Clockster Thanks so much for your wonderfully informed comment. The Brown essay on his erotic objectification is excellent --and I note, repeatedly sourced in studies. (It addresses what is certainly a glaring gap the Wiki article: any mention of Cooper's early screen image, vs the later one. So I've added a sentence, with an additional citation from a similar study.) Am not so keen on Hollywoodland, as it lacks sufficient citations for its claims. Reviewing the sources, I noted that Cecil Beaton also claimed to have bagged Cooper at least once in the 30s. But unlike the long close Lawler friendship, I think mentioning it would be erring into trivia. Engleham (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Include With Caveats - Am clarifying my vote above. Would like to make it clear that I think the gist of the topic should be included, but the wording of the sentence as it exists needs work to make it neutral. Would suggest a neutral sentence or two on the topic that includes multiple points of view. The topic needs to be addressed in good faith, not used simply as a way to introduce questionable content regarding Cooper's sexuality. Clockster (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I care less about the first two sentences, although there may be neutrality problems there as homosexuality is heavily implied; the third sentence is egregious. Even if totally verifiable and true, I'm not sure how "sharing a bed" is encyclopedic.LM2000 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

LM2000Clockster " but the wording of the sentence as it exists needs work to make it neutral." "although there may be neutrality problems there as homosexuality is heavily implied." Here's the facts: Cooper lived for a year with a man who had a reputation as being the most 'out' homosexual in Hollywood. (cite: Mann) What is unneutral about stating that? It's the bare bones truth. Do you propose putting in some additional redundant sentence such as "Many straight men share house with homosexuals but never have affairs with them, but simply enjoy their company". Really? I think adult readers can weigh the supplied facts for themselves and make up their own bloody minds! Also re: "I'm not sure how "sharing a bed" is encyclopedic". An encyclopaedia is an authoritative summary of information. The eyewitness account that Cooper and Lawler went to bed at least once with a woman clarifies the nature of the friendship stated in the first sentence, to show how close it was. Clarifying is what encyclopaedias do: morality has nothing to do with it. Again, whether they even touched each other is an unknown, and left for the reader to decide. To restate: the proposed inclusion is: "In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez. According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once shared a bed." I'm really intrigued to see how those objecting to its inclusion would rephrase this to create the 'neutrality' they believe is missing. Engleham (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silent film make-up

Early Movie Make-up:

"As blue-sensitive film renders red as black, unmade-up faces looked darker on the screen than they were in reality and any unevenness in the complexion made faces look dirty. Many early film actors, particularly those that came from the stage, responded to these problems by covering their face with heavy make-up, giving them a look that belonged more on a mortician’s slab than a movie set. The practice was so common that it became almost a convention in early silent films to make the faces of heroes and heroines white, while the rest of the cast, who were less made-up, looked darker."

Nothing whatsoever to do with making anyone look more like a girl at all. Collect (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Cooper's screen image, which was to transition significantly to a more rugged persona, was in the silent years one of a boyish sexual glamour. This was deliberately fostered by Paramount, including by the use of heavy eye makeup, and backlit soft-focus closeups that were more usually employed for female stars.<ref>Brown, Jeffrey A. '' "Putting on the Ritz: Masculinity and the Young Gary Cooper" Screen, Vol 36 Issue 3, 1995</ref><ref>Sheehan, Steven T. "Costly Thy Habit as Thy Purse Can Buy": Gary Cooper and the Making of the Masculine Citizen-Consumer'', American Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1: Spring 2002</ref>

Has been added to this biography. Is the material as cited usable? Collect (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Union Jack on orthochromatic film.

• No, it's not. Every photographer and serious black-and-white movie enthusiast knows that heavy make-up was needed in early movies because of the use of ortochromatic film, a type of b&w film that made blue lighter and yellow and red darker. The image of the Antarctic explorers, shot on ortochromatic film, shows that the film has not only totally distorted the colours of the flag (the Union Jack) but has also made the naturally reddish faces of the men look very dark and dirty. Which is why actors in movies shot on ortochromatic film, both men and women, wore heavy make-up, to look natural, not to look feminine. Panchromatic film is sensitive to all colours of light and doesn't have that problem, but cost more than twice as much per foot as ortochromatic film did, and didn't really take-off until 1926, and it wasn't until after 1930, when Kodak ceased production of ortochromatic film for movie cameras, that all black-and-white movies were shot on panchromatic film, and the male actors no longer needed heavy make-up. Thomas.W ^talk 06:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Summoned by bot. I really don't understand why this text is not usable. It is attributed to two reliable sources. Barring some other problem (undue weight?) I don't see an issue. Whether we like what it says or not is immaterial. Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Note that make-up was dictated by the film stock, so the comparison to Cooper as though he were trying to be like a female seems inapt. In my opinion.

The Screen precis notes that the article was based on a single opinion ("The combination of feminine good looks and masculine role of Cooper in "Man of the West" was seen by critic Steve Neale as an alternative eroticization of the cinematic male") and is not a statement of fact.

The cite from American Studies by Stephen Sheehan states: "The Virginian also capitalized upon and reaffirmed Gary Cooper's sexual glamor. He wears noticeably heavy stage make-up throughout the film, which creates a sharp contrast between the smoothness of his appearance and the ruggedness of both the terrain and the faces of many of the film's other male characters. His light-colored clothing places him in contradistinction to the blackclad villain." and "In order to establish the Virginian's honor and morality, the camera shoots Cooper's close-ups in soft focus with back lighting. Ultimately, the combination of make-up, costume, and lighting tends to frame Cooper in a soft glow that filmmakers at the time usually reserved for female love interests. In addition, Cooper relies on facial expression to develop the Virginian as a 'man-of-few-words.' " The comments about make-up are directed specifically to this role, and do not support the claim for which it is used as a source.

Where one source is clearly a single opinion, noted as such, and the second source does not support the claim as written at all, I fear I doubt the usefulness of this fluff. The use of make-up on lead actors was primarily due to the nature of the film stock, as the cite before this RfC clearly indicates. Collect (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

As you two are getting hung up on makeup, let's ditch the reference to it, and focus on the essential information that needs inclusion -- that Cooper's early screen image was significantly different to what came later. Partly this was due to a changing culture (eg. vamps fell out of fashion, as did feminised males - Valentino etc); directors and studio changing their approach; and partly due to Cooper himself. "By 1932 a transformative maturation, following his restorative vacation in Europe, was noted: "He is a new Gary Cooper. Gone is the gaunt, melancholy forlorn, lad over whom women languished and cooed'" (McLean p78) However, prior to that "Cooper was often "objectified in ways normally reserved for women" (Brown p204) "his persona contained elements of sexual glamor commonly perceived as feminine." (Sheehan) Morocco is probably the last flickering of the old image, the " most outrageous treatment of Cooper as a sexual, effeminized object" (McLlean) There is also: ""The heroic but often femininized image of Gary Cooper has both influenced and reflected the nature of male presentation".(Brown)

• Brown, Jeffrey A. Putting on the Ritz: Masculinity and the Young Gary Cooper, Screen, Vol 36 Issue 3, 1995; http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/3/193.full.pdf+html
• McLean, Adrienne L. (Ed.) Glamour in a Golden Age: Movie Stars of the 1930s, Rutgers University Press 2011 p78-80; https://books.google.com.au/books?id=YBMXN0cUwKAC
• Sheehan, Steven T. Costly Thy Habit as Thy Purse Can Buy: Gary Cooper and the Making of the Masculine Citizen-Consumer, American Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1: Spring 2002

Distilling this down, I therefore suggest the inclusion could be (with the above sources):

From the early 30s, Cooper's screen image underwent a transformation. The gaunt and melancholy 'pretty cowboy' persona, which had been fostered by a directorial and studio glamorisation that verged on the feminine, was replaced by an image of a modern man of gentle masculinity who was strong and confidant. Yes/No Can you do better? Engleham (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the sentence on make-up as originally written did inadvertently dredge up technical aspects of filmmaking. Also, we need to remember essays and articles that discuss the so-called feminine make-up of male silent film stars are doing so as part of larger sociocultural discussions. They don't present the idea of "feminine" make-up on a man as fact, but as an interpretation on which they build evidence for their theses. For instance, Brown's comment about Cooper's objectification is interesting, but you could argue that it was not normally reserved for women, given the way Valentino, Fairbanks, Sessue Hayakawa, John Gilbert, and others were objectified. It's Brown's theory, not undisputed fact, and you could use his quote in this article to bring the idea up, but then you'd have to include an "opposite" quote that would indicate there is disagreement and discussion, and at that point you're cluttering up the entire article.

Still, the general idea that Cooper was seen as both pretty boy and tough guy is an important one, given how frequently it's discussed, and he did seem to have undergone a well-publicized transformation in 1932. It should be included in the article. Would suggest using a sentence that indicates this change and how much it was noted at the time, perhaps by quoting magazines from 1932. Maybe something along the lines of, "Beginning in the early 30s, Cooper's screen image underwent a transformation noticed by fans and critics alike. "Gone is the gaunt, melancholy, forlorn lad over whom women languished and cooed," wrote Photoplay in 1932, while other magazines referred to Cooper's "freshened appearance" and "stalwart masculinity." Embodying both feminine and masculine traits, Cooper in the early 1930s was seen as the successor to both glamorous silent film stars like Valentino and Gilbert, and the rough-and-ready cowboys like William S. Hart." (Sources for this would be McClean and Meyers.) That's just a suggested sentence, though. Clockster (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Engleham: The mistake you make is to look at things with today's eyes, and judge everything by today's standards, instead of putting things into perspective. During the second half of the 1920s it was fashionable for women to be masculine and men to be feminine, regardless of sexual orientation. Women cut their hair short and wore underwear that flattened their breasts and dresses with a straight shape that hid their natural curves, or what was then regarded as mens' clothing, i.e. trousers/pants with a shirt and sweater or a man's suit, and men permanented their hair and wore well tailored clothes, and many men also wore make-up, particularly eye liner (which became fashionable in the 1920s after the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb). Regardless of sexual orientation. Which of course was reflected in the movies of that time. So Cooper having been what today is perhaps regarded as a bit feminine in the movies made between 1925 and 1930, i.e. the time period we're discussing, can not be taken as proving that he was gay, and should not be presented that way in the article, it was only a reflection of what was fashionable during those years. I'm not saying that he wasn't gay, because I have no idea if he was or wasn't, and quite honestly don't care, but this is a featured article in an encyclopaedia, not a post in a blog, and you need much more substantial evidence than this to present him as gay. Thomas.W ^talk 10:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

1. I don't personally believe Cooper was gay. A brief youth exploration of bisexuality, either as hijinks or charity favours, possibly. But my personal opinion is irrelevant. 2. We're not discussing Cooper's off-screen sexuality in this RfC: we're discussing his screen image between 1925 and the early 1930s – only. 3. I don't seek to express my opinion in articles. What I seek to do is restate the facts that the supplied citations record. 4. As you have previously demonstrated, you have zero interest in reading citations, even when the links are supplied. Instead, you prefer to spend your time alleging the information in the proposed text is something I made up. And worse, invented to push one o' them ho-mo-sexshual agendas. 5. Consequently, your comment is (a) unacademic (b) tediously insulting (c) utterly redundant, and (d) the statement of your previous post "I see no reason to waste more time....this is my final response to you" is looking even more like an uncharacteristic shaft of enlightenment. I'm guessing Nurse gave someone a Vitamin B shot. Engleham (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

With respect, this is getting out of hand. The insults (from all sides) are not helping the situation, and neither is adding in new elements like silent film makeup and Cooper's on-screen persona, both of which look as though they were part of a let's-see-what-sticks attempt to get any mention of Cooper's "femininity" mentioned included. I realize now I shouldn't have gone forward with the suggestions on adding information about Cooper's ability to be seen as both masculine and feminine on screen, because we don't have the original RfC decided yet. I think it would be worthwhile to dial back the stuff about silent movie makeup and mention of Cooper's masculine-feminine screen persona until we get the first Anderson Lawler question sorted. Clockster (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Clockster Already done. See revised proposed inclusion in last para of my post (now bolded to make it clear) of 04:46, 19 May 2016. Actually I'm going to close this RfC because the proposed inclusion is no longer about makeup, and the first RfC is still open as it needs to be. Engleham (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually - it is grossly improper for you to close the RfC as the issues remain. Collect (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope my earlier comment didn't suggest that I wanted the RfC closed; I was hoping to deal with the topics one at a time, in chronological order, not just ignore some. Given what has gone down, I suspect my assumption of good faith earlier in this RfC discussion was unwarranted. Will be slightly modifying my vote above and bowing out now. Clockster (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What the sources might support:

In 'The Virginian', Cooper was filmed with make-up and lighting to emphasize the difference between the hero and the villain, who was dressed in black.

Which is the tenor of the source quoted. Collect (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've removed the contentious mention of makeup from the proposed inclusion I'm presuming you're now willing to concede it. Otherwise this RfC is irrelevant Engleham (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Only if you find my suggestion directly above reasonable here. Otherwise, excluding the strange zero-edit "new editors", the consensus appears to be against your edit. Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Engleham: Where exactly does a reliable source say something like "which had been fostered by a directorial and studio glamorisation that verged on the feminine"? Thomas.W ^talk 21:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W >>"Where exactly does a reliable source say something like 'which had been fostered by a directorial and studio glamorisation that verged on the feminine'?"

So you were lying when you said you were fucking off. Or is is just memory loss? Because given I posted the "reliable" sources upthread with quotes, I won't be the only one presuming you're very old. Read the Brown paper. It treats the subject in depth.

• [Directorially] "Cooper was often "objectified in ways normally reserved for women" (Brown p204).
• "the film's [Morocco] most outrageous treatment of Cooper as a sexual effeminized object" (McLean p80)
• "his persona contained elements of sexual glamor commonly perceived as feminine" (Sheehan) etc etc. But again these are irrelevant. The only source acceptable to you is your own myopic opinion.

Collect >> "Only if you find my suggestion directly above reasonable here." No, I find it pointless. You're only including the banal tidbit as a lame blocking tactic to prevent any mention that makeup played a role in Cooper's glamorisation in the Silent Years. And as I've told you, I've moved on. But for the record:

• "I have been trying to think why the sight of Gary Cooper [in The Legion of the Condemned (1928)] wearing lipstick is so interesting. Lipstick was, as the bar scene shows, optional, and in submitting to it (or did he apply it himself?) Cooper looks abandoned in the best sense: desirable, available. A man who wears lipstick will do a lot of things. I cannot agree with Carole Lombard that Cooper was "effeminate." In fact it is his masculinity which makes his lipstick more fascinating, more abandoned than it would be on a babyfaced man." (Boyd McDonald Cruising The Movies, Semiotext(e), 2015)

• "Cooper, now a featured player, also wore heavy makeup, especially around his eyes." (Jeffrey Meyers: Gary Cooper: American Hero p30)

As for his offscreen persona....

• "Carol Lombard regarded him as a dilettante - 'markedly effeminate, especially in his mannerisms and not at all the stalwart he impersonated so effectively on film"(Jeffrey Meyers: Gary Cooper: American Hero p14)

• "Cooper (as his TV interviews showed) had in life a number of effeminate mannerisms."(David Shipman The Great Movie Stars" p120)

• [When giving testimony to the HUAC Committee] "Gary Cooper comes over as disconcertingly effeminate, giggling and writhing and blowing little puffs of air onto his fingernails"(Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan p255) Engleham (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Congrats You had said you were dropping the make-up stuff -- now you seem to think lipstick and make-up when the orthochromatic film made it absolutely essential somehow made Cooper look "effeminate"? Sorry - you are not gaining a single opinion from an experienced editor backing yours here - certainly not enough for anything remotely near WP:CONSENSUS at this point. Collect (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect Congrats for trying to deny you lost the argument. As you know, the quotes on makeup I posted were merely to prove how wrong you were, and that Cooper's makeup in the 20s was exaggerated beyond what was required for orthochromatic film. Similar to the further quotes I provided for the "I'm going away, no I'm not" Thomas W which utterly validate the revised proposed inclusion:

From the early 30s, Cooper's screen image underwent a transformation. The gaunt and melancholy 'pretty cowboy' persona, which had been fostered by a directorial and studio glamorisation that verged on the feminine, was replaced by an image of a modern man of gentle masculinity who was strong and confidant. Engleham (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And so far, your edit does not have consensus here. This is not an "argument" - it is an RfC - a "request for comments" and the comments do not agree with your proposed edit at all. Do you understand that the idea that one "wins an argument" is not how WP:CONSENSUS operates? And that personalizing the discussion is actually an admission that your view is not the consensus view? Collect (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Currently, all I see is your crony Bede, another who won't read supplied citations, and yourself who - when your history of my edits elsewhere is examined, is strongly indicative of consistent harassment. That's no consensus, and you can spare lecturing me on such: your belief that you in a moral high ground position to do so would - in any other situation, be comic. Engleham (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not quite sufficiently clear. I do not know Bede, nor do I recall having any specific interactions with Bede. Period. I fear you appear to be so closely connected to the topic that you fail to understand that others may reasonably disagree with your position, and that WP:CONSENSUS is the proper roadmap for you to follow. Collect (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"nor do I recall having any specific interactions with Bede" Well that was worth a laugh! But again, you can stop lecturing on how RfC's work. We've witnessed your egregious behaviour on other RfC's such as Harold Holt. Your favourite tactic, employed there, and employed here, WP:CRUSH doesn't work on me. And refusing to directly address the proposed inclusion with reference to the sources, after it has been revised, just makes it all the more obvious. Engleham (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Being sourced isn't by and of itself reason enough to include something, WP:Undue also matters. And the consensus here is against including it, so just drop the stick and find something else to do. Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations to working to the Wikipedia bigot's playbook, as I laid out many years ago. (a) Demand endless citations for every third word (b) Endeavour to discount them when provided (c) If this fails, state the article is now unbalanced or too lengthy (d) If that fails, suggest the whole topic is trivial/irrelevant/tangential/tabloid/unencyclopedic/any Wikipolicy policy acronym that could possibly fit in a blue moon e) When all else fails....suggest plagiarism. f) Rinse and repeat. Engleham (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Why is there no mention of his affairs with Anderson Lawler and Cecil Beaton? (213.122.144.28 (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC))

Read the RfC above on this page. Collect (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Or this summary: It's just rumours with no evidence supporting it, and it's not mentioned in any of the main biographies. That's how Wikipedia works, especially on biographies. Thomas.W ^talk 21:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because Collect is keen on censoring any mention of probable straight/bisexual people having gay affairs on the entire site. For personal reasons it seems. We are not here to decide what might be true or not, but if something has had extensive coverage in reliable sources then we cover it. Claims of Cooper's affairs with Lawler and Beaton would need to have widely documented in Cooper's biographies though to make mentioning it worthwhile.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice personal attack there - you seem to have not the least idea about me at all, other than to think a person who actually follows Wikipedia policy must have some "agenda." Sorry to disillusion you, but you are letting your personal ire get in the way of reason. Collect (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@213.122.144.28 @Dr. Blofeld The fling with Beaton has been assumed but there is no published evidence, even in his unexpurgated diaries. There is an eyewitness account of Cooper, Lawler and Velez sharing a bed on at least one occasion. See above. There has been objection to inclusion of Lawler in the article by two individuals, even on the basis of his house sharing and close friendship with Cooper, which contrary to denial, points unequivocally to bigotry. However, as per the closing summary of the RfC, there is now consensus to adding mention of Lawler in the article on at least that neutral basis, which I shall do. I can't be arsed creating another RfC to determine (as per the RfC closing summary advisory) whether speculation that it was an affair should be included. Maybe someone else can. Engleham (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Kindly start an RfC if you wish to overturn the prior RfC result. I find your edits on multiple articles indicate a possible problem. Collect (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not overturning the RfC result. You need to read the RfC's closing summary by maunus again: "I do not see a strong consensus that the friendship with Lawler should not be mentioned at all, and to me it seems reasonable to mention close friendships in a biographic articles." That's all that I intend to include – no other aspect, and have strictly adhered to it. If you object to even that point, you'll need to open another RfC. Also: as you possess one of the longest records on Wikipedia for edit-warring, we'd all appreciate that you spare us the massively hypocritical homilies in that regard. Engleham (talk)

Your edit is far from what the result of the RfC was... Thomas.W ^talk 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The RfC Closing Summary made four points, which I quote:

• 1) "The consensus here seems to be to specifically exclude the rumour that the two friends shared a bed"
• 2) "and also a weaker consensus to exclude mention of the friendship between the two, at least in the form proposed by Engleham"
• 3) "I do not see a strong consensus that the friendship with Lawler should not be mentioned at all, and to me it seems reasonable to mention close friendships in a biographic articles."
• 4) "I would also want to note that one function of Wikipedia is to dispell rumours and common misconceptions. On that account it might be worth mentioning explicitly that the rumous exists and that the main biographers consider it to be only an unsubstantiated rumour. This possibility however would require a second RfC."

As per the RfC, the proposed inclusion was: "In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez. According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once shared a bed." If points 1, 2 & 3 of the RfC are followed, that requires removal of the last sentence from the inclusion, but permits the first two. Well, here's an RfC to clarify it. Engleham (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• "I do not see a strong consensus" is not the same as "I do not see a consensus at all", but means that there is a consensus against mentioning the friendship with Lawler at all, even though it's not a massive one. The rest is the closer's personal comments, which are not binding since the closer's function is to see if there is a consensus in one direction or the other, not to decide the outcome of the RfC, especially not against the consensus the closer says there is. Thomas.W ^talk 09:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No ldea whether it reached you first time. I find article about Gary Cooper alleged Bisexuality odd in that it is found only in Mann gossip book that is not exactly a biography of repute? I note that although tabloid papers are not a source there is no such stipulation concerning bio porn books. (gossip) I read encyclopedia britannica for Gary Copper their sources were as follows Gary Cooper :The last hero : Larry Swindell 1980. Richard Schnickel : Gary Cooper 1985 Gary Copper :The face of a hero lnvolving lnterviews with those who worked with him, and loved him lncluding his daughter. You tube Hope this helps in updating your site it is very good except the porn bit in the middle about sniffing his sexual organ, gross. Thank you. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I am still puzzled by the supposed homosexual relationship Gary Cooper was having; do people really behave in that way when you think he was dating a woman and he was supposed to be having a Homosexual relationship when he is a anti liberal pro Republican actor; seriously how many Conservative actor"s carry on that way common sense would tell you its highly unlikely. Finally what is the difference between a referance from a gossip book and a gossip paper wiki has said no to gossip papers but what about trashy books? Would it noy be best to say rumours suggest... And then say we can find no clear evidence... Much better that way excludes authority. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Correction Would it not be best to say rumours suggest... And the say we can find no real evidence... Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for trying anyway keep going you will get there in the end.

Andrew Dock Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Anderson Lawler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As Anderson Lawler was Gary Cooper's closest friend in the early 30s, and a significant person in his life, it is proposed to include the following two sentences in the article: '"In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez."' Citation would be: Mann, William J. Behind the screen: how gays and lesbians shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, Viking, 2001, pp105-11 Note: Lawler's homosexuality is referred to because (a) it was widely noted in Hollywood at the time and (b) the friendship with Cooper was frowned upon by some contemporaries for that fact (see citation for both points), but this RfC is only for discussing the proposed inclusion. It is NOT for discussing any mention of a possible affair or bedsharing between the two, or the inclusion of such. For clarity, please keep comments succinct if possible, headed by Include or Exclude. Engleham (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Show us a reliable source that unambigiously states that Lawler was Cooper's "closest" friend and a "significant" person in his life. As for the rest we've just been through one RfC discussing just that, with a consensus against you. Thomas.W ^talk 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Authoritative reference cited. STICK to the RfC request. As you have not supplied a vote we'll presume yours was INCLUDE. Engleham (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't an include !vote, it wasn't even a !vote at all, just a comment. I might !vote later though, depending on what happens here (and we don't vote here, or anywhere else on WP, we !vote, note the exclamation mark, because it's not about numbers, it's a policy based discussion). Thomas.W ^talk 10:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include close friend of Coopers, and a notable figure in his early life, as detailed by Mann. As per the observation of the closing editor of first RfC who found there was no consensus to not include mention of the friendship in the article, and that it was reasonable to include mention of such frienships in a biographic article. Lawler is also referred to in all recent Cooper biographies. (nb the bolding is merely to demonstrate that I too can do it, like the hysterics who object to any mention of Cooper having a homosexual best friend.)Engleham (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Noting the continuing edit war taking place to keep inserting this material is against Wikipedia policy, and contrary to the RfC above. This is painfully obvious that one editor has a sacred mission, and Wikipedia is not the place for sacred missions. Sigh. Collect (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is not counter to either the RfC nor Wikipedia policy. Specifically it is in line with the suggestion of my close to have a specific RfC about whether the friendship with lawler should be mentioned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you consulting with anyone regarding short term memory loss? I mean that... kindly. Because on 2 August you wrote: "Kindly start an RfC if you wish to overturn the prior RfC result." So I did! And surprise, surprise – as your latest whinge shows, there's just no pleasing you. What to do? How about: instead of misrepresenting due process as edit warring, you might review some of your own contributions in that regard, beginning here: Talk:Harold_Holt As someone in our office laughingly commented recently while scrolling through a certain history: "There's nothing wrong with being an old steamer. But they need to read what they write!" Engleham (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you need glasses. The prior RfC specified that it might be possible to mention Lawler - but nothing at all about Lawler being a major homosexual who was "close friends" with Cooper, and absolutely did not support the innuendo your edit seeks to promote. As for your behaviour on other pages, I note you had an enforced one month vacation from Wikipedia with notes that you well should behave now. You do not seem to be following that advice. Collect (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus here seems to be to specifically exclude the rumour that the two friends shared a bed - and also a weaker consensus to exclude mention of the friendship between the two, at least in the form proposed by Engleham. Seems clear.

In 1929 Cooper also met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to a wider Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez.

Seems to stress Lawler being homosexual, that he "lived with" Cooper for a year, that their friendship was so "close" as to cause "jealousy" with others, and so on. Precisely the innuendo which was found not to have consensus for inclusion in the prior RfC at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(1) Except for the actual polling, I've removed all the shrill adolescent bolding. Bad form, but it was making the RfC impossible to read, not just your own rants - sorry, opinion. And we don't want to set off the schizophrenics. (2) Shall we review your blocklog? (Your assumption of moral superiority has provided deep amusement to others in our office, but it only makes my eyes glaze.) (3) I think everyone is fully aware of your view, given you've restated it every which way, and made utterly clear you won't concede an inch, however the proposal is stated. So perhaps you can now leave the floor to others. Engleham (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, it was rejected in an RfC that was closed less than a month ago. Which didn't stop Engleham from adding an only slightly modified version of the text, full of insinuations about homosexuality, to the article twice ([2], [3], even falsely claiming that the previous RfC supported it, see edit summary) without prior discussion, and then starting this second RfC only after realising that he wouldn't be able to sneak it into the article. Showing a total disregard for the opinions of others, and the way Wikipedia works. Thomas.W ^talk 16:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What?! You left out the part about the Gay Illuminati Conspiracy. Engleham (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Procedural Oppose Without going into my own interpretation of these sources, I agree with others here that opening a second RfC, so close on the heels of the previous one in which the OP's position was overwhelmingly rejected, represents a disruptive (and arguably bad-faith) refusal to accept the consensus of the first discussion. Now, editorial decisions can, and should, be reviewed from time to time--but this was far, far too soon to launch a second RfC on essentially the same issue, and doing so was all but certain to accomplish nothing but than to raise the (already considerable) acrimony on this page. Now judging from the above, I think I can safely presume that Engleham's position would be that this is a different and more nuanced proposal. But having reviewed all discussion on the matter (that is to say, near the entirety of this talk page), it is my opinion that the core proposals (and the issues they raise) are essentially the same. Indeed, before I had read any of the discussion in either RfC, I read the proposed content of this most recent thread, and it was immediately and unambigously clear that it was intimating a romantic/sexual relationship between Cooper and Lawler--said implication being exactly what was rejected by a large majority of the editorial input of the last discussion, based on available sourcing.

Engleham, the atmosphere on this page has grown quite toxic as the result of battleground mentality being maintained on this issue, and while it is clear that the incivility is not entirely one-sided here, it's still well-past time to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one, at least for the present time. Let me be clear that there's a possibility that, very much dependent upon a careful review of the sources, I may have supported some discussion of these rumors (if for no other reason than that, as others have pointed out above, it serves no interest to our readers to ignore a persistent rumor, when we could instead try to parse what reliable sources say on the matter). But we're past that, and as I was summoned by bot to this discussion, my advice is to accept the consensus, whether you are happy with it or not. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Threre are no procedural grounds for opposing here. My close specifically suggested having a new RfC to find out if there is consensus to include mention of their friendship.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Snow close: This is nearly identical to the first RfC. There is insufficient sourcing for statements as broad as the nominator proposes. Absent any additional or new sources, this is definitely time to drop the WP:STICK. Montanabw^(talk) 05:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• oppose the proposed wording which seems designed to insinuate homosexuality. A much better approach, if sources can be found to support it, would be to note that the friendship have made some biographers discuss whether Cooper was homosexual, but that this has generally been dismissed as unwarranted speculation. The article should neither try to demonstrate that he was or wasn't, and certainly not subtly insinuate or prompt the reader to draw their own conclusions - rather it should note any discussions among biographers and faithfully summarize the consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• oppose and snow close There was a clear consensus against this identical addition for the last RfC, albeit it wasn't quite as strong as it was for that third sentence. There's still an obvious implication that Cooper was a homosexual despite removal of the most egregious sentence. I've seen nothing to convince me that this friendship should be listed at all but it's confounding that we're discussing it written in the same form that was thoroughly rejected not long ago.LM2000 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the sexuality of Cooper's friend does come up in the article, it should be only in the context of notable relationships in the personal life section (or a very well-sourced statement in career along the lines of "Cooper's close friendship with a man seen as homosexual is alleged by some historians to have negatively impacted his casting opportunities"). As another problem, I think the sentence in question has far too much unexplained insinuation to use as a direct quote. I personally find it rather offensive that it insinuates, via wording, that an "unabashedly homosexual" man can't be friends with a straight/bi/closeted man without making the girlfriend jealous. For all we know, maybe Ms. Bow was just pissy that Cooper was spending less time with her, not because she suspected infidelity.Yvarta (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the arguments made by other editors opposing inclusion to be persuasive. I also find it quite strange that our biography of Anderson Lawler mentions neither his alleged homosexuality nor a friendship with Cooper. Similarly, Clara Bow does not discuss either her relationship with Cooper or the claimed jealousy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gary Copper

Interesting article but was it necessary to lnclude a rather fanciful Homosexual relationship when Mann is considered a unreliable source to many film historians ? Why the porn bit about sniffing around his sexual organ? I read encyclopedia britannica their sources are as follow. 1. Gary Cooper : The last hero by Larry Swindell 1980 2. Richard Schickel : Gary Cooper 1985 3. Garry Cooper: The face of a hero lnvolving lnterviews with those who loved him; and worked with him lncluding his daughter. YouTube. Hope this helps with a update good luck. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)