Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) reorder |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== Excessive discussion == |
|||
==Is the LGBT Wikiproject tag acceptable on this talkpage == |
|||
Excessive circular discussion amounting to 100 000 bits that is about speculation surrounding this article subjects sexuality is excessive and has BLP issues. If any editors think that there is more discussion needed please take it to a policy discussion page. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''This discussion has been removed as inappropriate in itself. The subject of this article has declined to comment on his sexuality, and the unending discussion of it here, over something as minor and "in house" as a wikiproject tag is unacceptable.''' |
|||
:While I agree that ''some'' of the archived discussion is stale and redundant, and some of the general discussion belongs elsewhere (I'm not sure where exactly, [[WT:BLP]] or [[WP:BLP/N]]?), there were currently active discussions regarding the specific content and wording of this particular article. There is consensus that the current wording of the article needs to be adjusted, and discussion is necessary to find the best way of wording any mention of sexuality. This issue was discussed at ANI, where the discussion was closed with the instruction that discussion should continue here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Blatant_BLP_Violation_-_Wikipedia_attempts_to_.22Out.22_athlete_who_makes_no_public_claim_about_his_sexuality]. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree, we had a SPA who has seemed to move on and the remaining discussion has been collegial and can be escalated to dispute resolution if needed. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''Respect for our subjects is absolute, unless we are talking about verifiable facts. And [[WP:BLP]] trumps all else here (certainly wikiproject bagging, by gay activist editors). There is to be no more comment on this individuals sexuality on this page, unless there are verifiable facts to discuss placing on the article. ''' |
|||
== Project tag discussion (redux) == |
|||
'''Editors violating the spirit of BLP for inhouse gaming will be blocked. Complaints about this notice should be taken to my talk page or to the [[WP:AN|Administrators noticeboard]]. You have been warned.'''--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 09:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
After [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johnny_Weir/Archive_3#Project_tag a discussion about the LGBT project tag] was removed from this page by {{user|Off2riorob}} (wherein three editors agreed the project tag could stay, with the "explanation", and two disagreed), now that user has removed the project tag again. Off2riorob, why did you remove the tag again? Either the discussion is closed with a 3-2 keep margin (as you imply by archiving it) and you shouldn't have removed the banner, or it's still open and you probably shouldn't have archived the discussion. |
|||
Additionally, the tag was removed with the edit summary ''there was no consensus to add this, please take it to a specific policy discussion page''. The relevant policy here is [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. I don't see a need to bring the discussion about a particular article's inclusion in a WikiProject to that policy discussion. I do, however, see a need for one user to stop [[WP:OWN]]ing the talk page and to allow the process to move forward. -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 05:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::You are having a math problem here. In the original thread regarding the tag the following editors were against adding the tag: myself ([[User:Nsk92]]), [[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]], [[User:Off2riorob]], [[User:Scott MacDonald]], [[User:Cla68]], [[User:99.144.240.136]] and, although not very clearly articulated, [[User:Wine Guy]]. The initial adding of the tag was quickly contested and after a long discussion there has not been anything even close to consensus to re-add the tag. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::For the record, my "not very clearly articulated" comment in the previous discussion was not meant to oppose the banner, but rather to express my view regarding assumptions. I was then, and remain now, neutral on the issue of the banner; I will probably weigh in below. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 01:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Off2riorob was correct to remove the tag. There was clear consensus that it caused BLP issues by having it in this article. I recommend that anyone who readds it in the future be blocked immediately. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 05:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::There was certainly no "clear consensus" on that. And while I suggested that the discussion should be taken off this page and moved to a policy forum, I was thinking of a ''specific'' policy forum with a link leading to it, not just deleting it and putting up a vague statement that we ought to take it somewhere. I think this is what the RfC's are for; the only question is whether it has anything to do with the massive existing [[Requests for comment/Biographies of living people]] discussion, or whether it is a totally new RfC. The thing is, that policy is about deleting "unsourced or poorly sourced" material, whereas the people here seem to be interested in deleting ''sourced'' material that cites specific facts but does not draw a clear conclusion (or else they say the conclusion is irrelevant). My concern is that if we demand certainty not on whether the ''source'' is verifiable but on whether the ''facts'' are verifiable, it would impose an unreasonable style on Wikipedia. |
|||
::For example, in the article on [[Tiananmen Square]] we would need to state the Chinese government's position verbatim, without admitting that any other viewpoint exists, because to suggest that the Living Persons in the 27<sup>th</sup> Army killed more than 23 people when the consensus of the Chinese government and public strongly disagrees with this would clearly be the worst sort of contentious defamation - far more serious than anything done here. Just because we have a few foreign propaganda sources saying such things doesn't outweigh the strong consensus to the contrary. That's where you get with all the stuff about "contentious" and "fringe" and "conservative" and "consensus" - a Wikipedia that unwaveringly accepts that the much-maligned Chinese censorship is actually the one correct and proper way to run things. The question is, is that the sort of Wikipedia we want to run? Or do we want to say that so and so said this and so and so said that and this source debated the point but wasn't sure and the other source offered such and such a quote. That's what we need to RFC, and RFC to the correct conclusion. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Wnt, I'm confused. The policy discussion you're talking about is regarding BLP issues '''in the article'''. What we're talking about here is whether or not a particular WikiProject can use it's banner to track and improve an article. I fail to see how the two are related. Why, exactly, do people here object to a WikiProject banner being included on the talk page? -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::There are objections from good faith editors here at the article that the tag is is excessive, considering the fact that the links with him to any bisexual lesbian or gay issues is speculative, there are no conditions to add templates but there is no consensus here to add the template, if in doubt leave it out. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Good faith editors do not trump common sense, A Wikiproject tag is only that. Discussion about Weir's sexuality has been a source of talkpage discussion for several years and is documented and reliably sourced in the article. As the Wikiproject that specializes in exactly this subject area the LGBT Wikiproject is encouraged to help here, not forbidden from using a common tag to organize the efforts. If you want to start a policy maybe [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council]] would make sense. The Wikiproject tag does not signifie that the subject of the article is part of the LGBT community. It signifies that it comes under the umberella of LGBT studies - which means that there is some connection with LGBT issues, not that the articles subject is affiliated, and so this tag can in no way violate wp:blp as someone has suggested elsewhere. It's not a categorisation as part of the LGBT community - it's a tag that says it comes under the remit of LGBT studies, which it inarguably does. Jerry Falwell and Jesse Helms are considered leaders in anti-LGBT campaigning and the project tag only denotes it is part of the LGBT studies and we are among the Wikiprojects who can serve to improve the article. It means no more and no less. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:You should not try to force the LGBT tag on the article when its inclusion is resisted and when the association with him to lesbian gay bisexual studies is unconfirmed speculation. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::The Wikiproiject tag on the article's talkpage is disputed for dubious reasons, it's clear that LGBT Wikiproject tag makes him no more LGBT than the Russian Wikiproject tag makes him Russian. There is no BLP concern here, just as we tag [[Jerry Falwell]] and others for LGBT studies because the LGBT Wikiproject focusses on sexuality and gender minorities not becuse the subject identifies or is LGBT. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 00:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:There is a single sentence about this person sexuality and he says it is a private matter, there is nothing to study here and never will be. I can understand Falwell, that article has a complete section called ''LGBT Issues'' and he is a LGBT rights activist. These is nothing to study here, just a private man who says he doesn't want to discuss his sexuality, perhaps we could do him a favor and not repeatedly circle discussion about it here on his talkpage. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::As pointed out several times this is the ''main'' topic of discussion on this talkpage going back several years, it is discussed by him in response to mainstream reliable sources asking him. He is not a private man, his sexuality has been discussed repeatedly in regards to his skating (what he is most notable for), Falwell is not a LGBT rights activist and there are many many people who are also tagged for the LGBT Wikiproject because they fall under the studies umbrella of impacting LGBT culture. The only reason ''this'' discussion has endured is because you seem to be edit-warring over a project tag. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 00:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am not the only person that has objected to the tag,, there were other editors also,there was no consensus to add it. As the association with him and the Lesbian and gay and bisexual studies is only speculative and these is only one sentence in the article related to his sexuality there will be no benefit to the article from adding the template anyway and there is nothing to study here only a man who says that his sexual preference is his private business. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
For the record, I am still '''strongly opposed''' to adding the LGBT project tag to the article. I have stated my reasons several times before, and my opinion has not changed. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 00:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' I've started an RfC to invite more eyes on this and hopefully achieve consensus. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*Oh for goodness sake. This guy doesn't want to comment on his sexuality. And what are we doing? Damning his decision, ignoring what he's notable for, and discussing LGBT issues interminably on his talk page, all over a stupid useless banner. Look, wikiprojects tag thousands of articles with these things, and their utility is questionable at best. So, what use is this, that we need to discuss this endlessly on the page of a guy who doesn't want to talk about his sexuality. '''Speedy close this discussion and take process wanking over inhouse niceties and LGBT pov-pushing and article bagging elsewhere'''.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Excessive discussion == |
|||
Excessive circular discussion amounting to 100 000 bits that is about speculation surrounding this article subjects sexuality is excessive and has BLP issues. If any editors think that there is more discussion needed please take it to a policy discussion page. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:While I agree that ''some'' of the archived discussion is stale and redundant, and some of the general discussion belongs elsewhere (I'm not sure where exactly, [[WT:BLP]] or [[WP:BLP/N]]?), there were currently active discussions regarding the specific content and wording of this particular article. There is consensus that the current wording of the article needs to be adjusted, and discussion is necessary to find the best way of wording any mention of sexuality. This issue was discussed at ANI, where the discussion was closed with the instruction that discussion should continue here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Blatant_BLP_Violation_-_Wikipedia_attempts_to_.22Out.22_athlete_who_makes_no_public_claim_about_his_sexuality]. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree, we had a SPA who has seemed to move on and the remaining discussion has been collegial and can be escalated to dispute resolution if needed. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Wording adjusted per archived discussion == |
== Wording adjusted per archived discussion == |
||
Line 102: | Line 91: | ||
:::I also support Dr.frog's version, putting the question into an introductory subordinate clause rather than giving it a whole sentence unto itself.[[User:TVC 15|TVC 15]] ([[User talk:TVC 15|talk]]) 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::I also support Dr.frog's version, putting the question into an introductory subordinate clause rather than giving it a whole sentence unto itself.[[User:TVC 15|TVC 15]] ([[User talk:TVC 15|talk]]) 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
== RfC: Is the LGBT Wikiproject tag acceptable on this talkpage == |
|||
{{rfctag|proj|policy|bio|media|soc}} |
|||
Is the LGBT Wikiproject tag acceptable on this subject's talkpage? There seems to be a concern that the project tag for LGBT studies in some way is unacceptable although members of the Wikiproject seem to feel it falls within their project's area of interest. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] |
|||
For reference purposes, here is a link to the initial discussion regarding the tag:[[Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3#Project tag]]. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Endorse, perfectly acceptable''' as nom. Does the tag itself confer that a subject is LGBT? No. And wouldn't the next likely step be to remove the project tag from all BLPs with this logic? This subjects's sexuality has been discussed on this talkpage for several years; has been raised in numerous mainstream national media. He's been outed a few times in the LGBT media, and discussion over the last week has been how to word that his (i) sexuality has been discussed repeatedly and (ii) he has avoided giving a binary sexuality answer for whatever reasons. As the Wikiproject that specializes in this area the LGBT Wikiproject should be welcomed to find the best path forward not spin wheels having to defend a project tag which aids in ''management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work''. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Question''': ''If'' the tag were to be added, would the explanation parameter (see [[Template:LGBTProject/doc]]) be used? If so, what would the explanation be for placing the banner to this article? [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::* It could although it's rarely used. Likely the same explanation as the above threads - ''Weir's sexuality has been the subject of attention in the mainstream media.''. We could add more if needed or link to an archived thread on the subject as well. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::- The explanation text suggested earlier was "''Repeated reliably sourced periodicals have reported on Weir's sexuality, which brings this article within the WikiProject's scope.''". The explanation used on [[Jodie Foster]], who is a person in a similar situation, is "''Foster's sexuality has been the subject of much discussion, thus she is "of interest" to the WikiProject.''" -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strongly oppose''' adding the tag. Since this is a formal RfC, I'll repeat my reasons, stated in detail in prior threads. An LGBT tag has considerable BLP implications, particularly for uninitiated readers of Wikipedia who are unfamiliar with the inner workings of Wikipedia and have no idea about wikiprojects, the internal technical meaning of the tags etc. I am pretty sure that the great majority of people reading this article fall into this "uninitiated" category and a great many of them will look here, at the talk page. When they see an LGBT tag here, these readers will, not unreasonably, assume that the tag means that the subject of the article is gay or bisexual. In view of this, a tag like this should be added rather conservatively to BLP articles, only when there is a clear and significant reason for doing so. In this case the subject of the article has refused to address questions about his sexuality and told the reporters to bug-off. All we have in this case is ''speculations'' by other people, reported by conventional newsmedia, about the subject's sexuality. In view of BLP considerations I believe that in the absence of a more solid reason than speculations about his sexuality, the tag should remain off the article. Yes, this inconveniences members of the LGBT Wikiproject. However, Wikiprojects are voluntary informal associations of Wikipedia editors interested in a particular topic. On the other hand, we have real world privacy concerns of living individuals, that are addressed by [[WP:BLP]], a core policy of the project. In a case like that it seems clear to me that BLP concerns are much more important than convenience of members of a particular wikiproject. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Here is an edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohnny_Weir&action=historysubmit&diff=344963332&oldid=344961614], by an IP editor, illustrating the real harm that can be caused here by adding speculative material about the subject's sexuality to the article or an LGBT tag to the article's talk page. We should not give people like this IP, any more ammunition to feed their appetite for gossip or to draw unsubstantiated conclusions about the subject's sexuality. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 02:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**Disagree strongly with the idea that this or any Wikiproject tag has strong implications, we can't prevent anyone from thinking what they do but any reasonable editor would quickly read the article and note that questions about the subject's sexuality are shown to be notable and sourced. That should be the end of it, we don't cater to anyone's fears here. Nothing about the project tag states it indicates someones sexuality and gender non-conformity etc. Applying special, arbitrary and subjective conditions for one Wikiproject is counter to policy I'm quite sure. We ''neutrally'' and ''dispassionately'' cover a subject. If they are in the arena of a subject area that some of our readers or editors are uncomfortable with we don't punish the Wikiproject, we ensure that we are covering the issue with due weight per policy. The dubious assertions that speculation isn't notable and the subject has refused to address the question have has already been addressed - the ''only'' reason we are discussing this is that the speculation itself is notable and he ''has'' answered these questions repeatedly. The project tag is not equal to any content in the article nor is it on the same level as an article category. I'm afraid you need to recheck the facts of this situation and also how we apply BLP and Wikiproject tags. You seem very passionate about this which may be helpful at some point but really this tag only means it's in the interest area of a Wikiproject - the one project that solely tries to address these sexuality and social label issues. And as to that "example" of real harm caused by the LGBT tag? You'll note that that project tag wasn't even there so more eyes watching an article would likely help clean off that non-sense not cause it. You're effectively pushing off the very people who are specialists in dealing with these issues for vandalism that seems to happen regardless if the tag is there or not. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 02:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose inclusion of tag on BLPs''', particularly when the subject is not out. As Nsk notes above, there are considerable implications for people who don't identify as gay, regardless of what you "disagree strongly" with, Benji. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 02:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**First off my user name is Benjiboi, secondly we don't apply the same standards for content to Wikiproject banners, you seem to be conflating the two as the same. They are not. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
***Unitanode, how is a WikiProject tag a BLP issue? Does the tag on [[Focus on the Family]] imply that group is LGBT? And is being gay still considered a ''bad'' thing? -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 06:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
****What an utterly nonsensical comparison. Do you really fail to understand the difference between FotF and a biography of a '''''LIVING PERSON'''''?!? What utter rubbish. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. Until the man can be identified as LGBT to the satisfaction of BLP standards, the tag shouldn't be there because it really shouldn't fall into the purview of the project. Putting the tag there most certainly does imply that the subject is LGB or T. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 02:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**To be fair, I can imagine some other situations where an LGBT project tag on a BLP page may be OK, e.g. if the subject is a notable activist on LGBT issues or a notable author of a book/books on LGBT topics. But this situation is a far cry from that; the only thing available here is some people speculating about the subject's sexuality. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
***So you don't agree with [[Jodie Foster]] being included in the WikiProject? Or [[Anderson Cooper]]? Or [[Tom Cruise]]? All of these folks are within the projects scope precisely because speculation about their sexuality has been mainstream and notable. -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::*Yes, I disagree with the tag being on those unless they can be identified as gay under BLP standards. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
****Yes, that's correct. If the only reason those pages are tagged is that there have been some speculations regarding their sexuality, I believe the tags should be removed. But I also realize that per [[WP:CONSENSUS]], if a tag has been there for a long time, then expressed consensus to remove it is needed and otherwise the tag would have to stay. In this case the initial addition of a tag was quickly contested, so expressed consensus to add the tag is needed for the article to be tagged, and in the absence of such consensus the tag should remain off. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 03:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
***Perhaps we should take a closer look at those ''some people'' to be clear of this is a far cry or not? I personally think the ''New York Times'' and the ''Wall Street Journal'' are quite reliable but others may disagree. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I'm as uninvolved as you'll find. I'v never edited this article, Jodie Foster, Tom Cruise or Anderson Cooper. The WSJ and the NYT are indeed reliable, but simply being speculated on in a RS isn't the standard fro BLP is it? Maybe it has changed since I last read it. Does BLP now say that if a RS ''speculates'' on someones sexual orientation, we can now start considering it fair game? Place the LGBT tag on the article definately gives that impression. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::To clarify, this is less a BLP issue than it is a WikiProject issue. The tag has the option of entering an "explanation" field to say that the person is not GLBTQ. What's at question here is whether this article, which has information of interest to the GLBTQ community, can have the WikiProject's tag on it. Again, the issue isn't whether or not Weir is gay - that's covered in the article in a way that is NPOV and sourced. The issue is whether or not an article about a person who has had speculation about their sexuality in such sources as the NYTimes is of interest to the LGBT WikiProject. -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::*To clarify further, it might not be a BLP issue in ''your'' mind, but that doesn't prevent it from being one to others. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::"What's at question here is whether this article, which has information of interest to the GLBTQ community, can have the WikiProject's tag on it." |
|||
:::::::Sounds like what dogs do to fire hydrants.[[Special:Contributions/24.22.141.61|24.22.141.61]] ([[User talk:24.22.141.61|talk]]) 07:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::*And my position, as well as the position of others, is that the inclusion of the project tag causes a BLP issue. BLP over-rides projects "interests" every time. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Niteshift36, Benjiboi blanked a portion of my comment, so as to reverse its meaning.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnny_Weir&diff=prev&oldid=346047870][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnny_Weir&diff=346106561&oldid=346104077]; I've restored it. As you see we're in agreement.[[Special:Contributions/24.22.141.61|24.22.141.61]] ([[User talk:24.22.141.61|talk]]) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Opposed''' to the project tag, as this person has not self-identified as gay. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 05:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**That is not the standard for use of a Wikiproject tag. If sourced that ''is'' the standard for inclusion of appropriate LGBT categories but that is not the point of this discussion. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strongly Endorse''' having the WikiProject tag. How in the world does an indication that a person is "of interest" to a WikiProject [[WP:HARM]] the person or the article? If WikiProjects are set up to *better* articles, than how can we dis-allowing a project? -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 06:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*The project tag should be allowed, along with using the explaination= parameter. Someone, at some point, was obviously aware enough of the potential issues with adding an LGBT item to an article that this parameter is already implemented. All of the noise about BLP issues is all heat and no light due to the simple expedient of having an explaination available on the banner. Shame on all of you for letting this get to the point where an RFC is seen as necessary. Those of you involved in starting all of this bickering should be ashamed of your behavior here.<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 06:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Shame on you for resorting to [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] to make your point. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 11:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' the tag. [[Judy Garland]] wasn't LGBT either (that we know of), but she's of interest to the wikiproject, so she has a tag. Especially if the explanation field was used, there's no reason we should worry about people who don't read it will assume. Should we worry about what people who only read every third word of the article would assume, as well? At a certain point, "do no harm" transitions into "if they want to be morons, that's their problem." <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Communicate]]</sup> 06:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' We can't try to accurately and neutrally present the issue of this man's sexuality as has been reported in reliable sources, while blocking involvement from a WikiProject with participants that have a strong familiarity with those issues. The LGBTProject tag does not in itself identify the article's subject as gay. The tag is on several non-biographical articles, articles related to gay icons such as Garland noted above. Placing LGBTProject on a project talk page doesn't place the article's subject in any LGBT people categories in the same way that living=yes on the Bio project tag does. Homophobic vandalism by IPs won't stop without the tag. -[[User:Optigan13|Optigan13]] ([[User talk:Optigan13|talk]]) 07:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strongly Oppose'''-Sexual speculation without any basic in facts surrounding what I can only presume due to the bigoted '''he looks gay''' sexual stereotyping and bias is actually a good reason not to include him in this group, he has said it is a private matter and imo adding him to this group is nothing more than a way of adding to the speculation, as in he won't say if hes gay but he looks gay to me, lets add him to the lesbian and gay and bisexual study group and give weight to the speculation by the association with the group, clear BLP issues by association. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 11:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**A project tag does not add anyone to any group, it's a Wikipedia project management tool only. And reliable sources dispute your reading of the situation. When plenty have discussed his sexuality and he himself discusses the issues, again, publicly, then it rises to a notable level. Wikipedia is not speculating, reliable sources are, they lead we follow. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' use of the tag, which in itself does not suggest anything about the man's sexual orientation. We shouldn't be whitewashing the fact—reliably sourced in myriad places—that the ''discussion'' of his sexual orientation has been widely reported and highly public. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 15:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*::Here is a quote from [[WP:BLP]] that is directly on point: "'''Biographies of living persons''' must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The fact that some respectable newspapers have stooped down to the tabloid level and reported speculations rather than facts does not mean that we should do the same here. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Nsk, that BLP refers to content in the article, not to the project tag used with an "explanation" parameter. -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*::::BLP applies to all living people at all locations on the Wikipedia, not just to article content. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 18:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**I think that it needs to be mentioned that editors supporting the addition of the LGBT template are active editors in the LGB realm. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 15:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
***Indeed, we should make everyone fill out a survey so we know what editor sleeps with who, because only LGBT editors edit LGBT articles and only non-LGBT people edit non-LGBT articles - what rubbish. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*****That is uncalled for Banjeboi. It is legitimate to point out that those pushing the keep have a vested interest in it since it expands their project. Drop the persecution complex, it's not becoming.[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
******Ridiculous! The LGBT Wikiproject has thousands of articles and never have I ever heard of someone suggesting our goal was to have more, or even this one. We use the same standards for inclusion for all articles. This one is simply being looked at as all the rest. No one in the project is eager to simply add this one or any particular article to our already massive numbers. If anything we'd be selfish and push off thousands of articles that need a lot of work but instead we work to improve them all. Each editor in their own way. Articles, and our reader don't care and don't know the sexuality or much else about the editors. What they care about is a good article and getting the information they desire, the LGBT Wikiproject has the same goals as do most editors. The sexuality of an editor is no one's business and we aren't looking to weight opinions based on it so please drop this line of discussion as only being divisive. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 17:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*Almost every project seeks to expand their coverage to one degree or another. The fact that you've never heard it doesn't make it less true. Further, He didn't comment on the sexual preference of the editors, he commented on their association with the project. Unless you'd like to state right here that straight editors are not welcome to participate in the project? Is that your position? Otherwise, how is saying that someone is associated with the project "making their sexuality an issue"? Again, drop the persecution complex. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*We've discussed - and decided *not* to tag articles before. [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_26#Project_tag|Example 1]], [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_6#Ugly_Betty.3F|Example 2]], [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_2#How_broad_should_our_coverage_be.3F |Example 3]] (a very early one), etc.... -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 00:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::*Does the phrase "speaking in general terms" mean anything to you? So you can dig out some examples of when you didn't. So what? That doesn't disprove the tendency for projects to try to expand their sphere of influence. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Nsk92, I think we can safely assume that everyone here is aware of the wording of [[WP:BLP]], which, like any policy or guideline, can be quoted selectively to make a specific point. You had already made your point quite clearly; I simply disagreed with it. I also disagree with what you say here because I don't see that the question of someone's sexual orientation necessarily involves sensationalism or "titillating claims", nor do I think that matter of privacy is particularly relevant when every non-Wikipedia Web page plus every TV program and newspaper or magazine article that discusses someone's life already is rife with discussion of the very question you're seeking to banish from Wikipedia. The metaphor that comes to mind here is shutting the barn door after the horse is out—and on a different barn, no less. I'm also finding it difficult to imagine what harm could conceivably come to the subject of this article due to the article's briefly acknowledging what multiple high-profile sources have been discussing in depth for years. |
|||
:::Off2riorob, in the interest of not creating unnecessary drama, I uttered not a peep when you unilaterally decided to remove relevant comments, including my own, from this talk page yesterday. I will, however, speak up now to protest your gratuitous comment regarding editors who, in good faith, have commented on this RFC. I'm not sure what "the LGB realm" is, but I'd remind you that neutrality in editing doesn't depend upon the topics one edits. For instance, I've assumed—I hope correctly—that you're making the argument you're making because it makes sense to you, not because your editing follows an anti-gay agenda. In return, I would expect you to assume that ''my'' argument is similarly free of any unfortunate motivation, and I would respectfully ask that you limit your further participation to matters involving the article and not its editors. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Endorse''' the use of the LGBT-Project tag on the talkpage, with an explanation similar to the one on [[Talk:Jodie Foster]]. The project tag does not categorise anyone as gay, it's merely a maintenence tag that helps get more eyes on the article. There are many editors in the project that have experience with BLPs, and understand verifiability, neutrality and reliability of sources. Having an article within another project can only help it's development.--[[User:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#4682B4; font-family: trebuchet">Beloved</span>]][[User talk:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#008B8B; font-family: trebuchet">Freak</span>]] 18:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, the situation with Jodie Foster is different. In her case, there are newsreports like this[http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3040426.ece]. In Weir's case there is nothing of the sort; the only stated reasons for speculations about his sexuality are based on his artistic style, rather than relationships. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Whatever reasons for the speculation, it's out there in the world and in the news, not just interpretations by Wikipedia editors. The validity of such speculation has bearing on the article, but not (in my opinion) on the application of a Wikiproject tag.--[[User:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#4682B4; font-family: trebuchet">Beloved</span>]][[User talk:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#008B8B; font-family: trebuchet">Freak</span>]] 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:In a perfect world it would be well understood that the purpose of these tags is to say that "WikiProject Whatever is interested in this topic." This is not a perfect world, however, and there are various reasons that tags of this nature could be viewed as something different. Take for example the way it is phrased : "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Whatever." To the uninitiated, this phrasing endows the tag with a certain authoritative air a-la a categorizing system. While personally I feel that the optional explanation parameter clears up any confusion (and thus my comment may be interpreted as a tacit '''endorsing''' of the tag's presence) I would not be so quick to dismiss the concerns of those who feel otherwise. Ultimately it must be remembered that WikiProjects exist to serve the community and not vice versa, and if a significant number of editors feel the presence of a tag on the talk page has a potential for detrimental confusion, it must be removed to satisfy the concerns of the community at the expense of the convenience of the WikiProject in question. [[User:Shereth|<b><font color="#0000FF">Sher</font></b>]]<b><font color="#6060BF">[[User_talk:Shereth|eth]]</font></b> 19:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Like I said, I don't view BLP concerns in this case as particularly hypothetical. I feel that we should not give people like this IP[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohnny_Weir&action=historysubmit&diff=344963332&oldid=344961614] any additional fodder to feed their appetite for gossip. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*I would '''endorse''' the banner as long as the explanation is used. My only concern with the tag is that it could imply to the casual reader that Weir ''is'' gay, or definitively falls into an LGBT "category". A well worded explanation in the banner resolves this concern. It is up to the members of any Wikiproject to determine what articles fall within their purview; members of WP:LGBT have clearly (and I believe rightly) determined that this article falls within the scope of their project. The active involvement of that project's members is to be encouraged, as they arguably have more experience and understanding of how best to deal with this issue. Some editors appear to believe that any involvement of LGBT members here is POV-pushing; that assertion is frankly, IMO, out of line. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': I'd be very interested in hearing how Benji (or any of the other project members) explains how Weir's BLP falls under the project's purview. All I can see is that some people have speculated on his sexuality. That seems a bit thin, as support for including his BLP in a project where inclusion clearly implies that he's gay. As for the number of people who are active members of the project supporting inclusion of the project's tag, there's nothing ''wrong'' with it, but it ''is'' a factor that deserves consideration when discerning the results of this RFC. Members of the project are ''clearly'' not going to oppose inclusion of the tag. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I disagree with your last comment; just because editors are interested in, or perhaps invested in, a particular topic, doesn't mean they will necessarily have the same opinion about the use of project tags. However, I can only speak for myself. I agree that the connections are "a bit thin", and I don't personally feel strongly about including this article in the project. On the other hand, I don't see a compelling reason not to. Not because I don't think BLP issues are important - I think they're very important and we always need to err on the side of caution where real people's lives are concerned - in articles. I just don't, personally, see a huge issue with the project tag. I don't think it would be a bad idea if the project tag was reworded slightly to make it clear (by default) that the tag is not a label. Speculation in the press about his sexuality is likely to draw people to the article wondering, maybe seeing nothing there about his sexuality and deciding to add unsourced information, or coming to vandalise. More eyes on it can only help. There is for example, the LGBT watchlist where members of the project (or anyone) can see recent changes of all tagged articles. That's one reason for including it.--[[User:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#4682B4; font-family: trebuchet">Beloved</span>]][[User talk:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#008B8B; font-family: trebuchet">Freak</span>]] 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' banner provided that there is an explanation. Wine Guy above explains pretty well why. And let's all [[WP:AGF|assume some good faith]], please, on both sides. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**I can't see how you can write any sort of explanation in the tag that would not be too prejudicial. I have just looked up the tag at [[Jodie Foster]] and the explanation field there reads:"Foster's sexuality has been the subject of much discussion, thus she is "of interest" to the WikiProject." I must say I had to cringe while reading it, so artificial it sounded. Anything one can say in Weir's case would sound even more forced and flimsy. Like I said, I don't like the fact that the Foster article is tagged, but at least in that case there are newsreports claiming actual relationships[http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3040426.ece]. But what do we have here? ''Only'' speculations about his sexuality by people with way too much free time on their hands. I don't see how this justifies overriding genuine privacy BLP concerns here. That is what [[WP:BLP]] is meant to deal with. Let me repeat another point. Wikiprojects are informal groups existing for convenience of editors interested in a particular topic. The wikiprojects have no special rights codified in policy that I am aware of at all. On the other hand, [[WP:BLP]] is a crucial Wikipedia policy. I would think that in case of genuine BLP concerns, those concerns should override wishes of any specific wikiproject every time. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
***I don't see BLP privacy concerns of sort, if we explain why the tag is put on. That is, if we make explicitly clear that the LGBT does not imply anything factual about the sexuality of the guy. If the sexuality of the guy has been publicly speculated, or even if he is simply some kind of LGBT icon, then I see quite obvious it belongs to the scope of the LGBT project. I am well aware that BLP is policy, I simply don't see how it applies to this situation. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*Oh for goodness sake. This guy doesn't want to comment on his sexuality. And what are we doing? Damning his decision, ignoring what he's notable for, and discussing LGBT issues interminably on his talk page, all over a stupid useless banner. Look, wikiprojects tag thousands of articles with these things, and their utility is questionable at best. So, what use is this, that we need to discuss this endlessly on the page of a guy who doesn't want to talk about his sexuality. '''Speedy close this discussion and take process wanking over inhouse niceties and LGBT pov-pushing and article bagging elsewhere'''.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*''This guy doesn't want to comment on his sexuality.'' - Which is irrelevant to the discussion. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, it's clearly ''not'' irrelevant. Slapping the LGBT project tag on his BLP is making an implication that is inappropriate when the subject of the BLP seems to be intentionally not commenting on said sexuality. It's hard to AGF when people are making comments about how the BLP subject's wishes are irrelevant. And I've yet to have explained to me the ''basis'' for tagging it as part of the project, other than the speculation surrounding his sexuality. I'm beginning to be swayed more to the opinion of ScottMac here: it seems to be little more than POV-pushing. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 00:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I too find Cyclopia's comment above quite astonishing. BLP is meant to protect the privacy and dignity of living individuals; surely what the person in question has to say about his/her sexuality matters more in this regard that speculations of third parties. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::It is irrelevant: The subject is intentionally not commenting on said sexuality. Fine. But this doesn't mean that ''we'' cannot discuss it. (The subject is not even actively opposing people to discuss it: he simply politely declines to give a clear answer about that when directly inquired, judging from sources.) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602450.html Reliable sources have discussed it]: why can't we? Let's remember that [[WP:WELLKNOWN]] is a part of [[WP:BLP]] -and it covers ''allegations'' too. But <u>we're not even talking about discussing it here</u>. What we're talking about here is that, given that the sexuality of the guy ''is'',indeed,discussed, the LGBT Wikiproject feels that the article falls under its scope. I understand that this can be of BLP concern, but if a proper rationale is given which explicitly clarifies that being in the project scope has no factual relevance of sort for the subject sexuality, the problem vanishes. I mean, take [[Barbra Streisand]], which falls under the LGBT Wikiproject scope but for sure not for being LGBT herself. Same case here. About POV pushing, I don't really understand that: what POV is being pushed? I have no POV on Weir, I simply feel that the LGBT project has all the rights to include the article in its scope, if a proper rationale is given. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 01:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, it is most definitely NOT irrelevant. Weir told the nosey parkers to bug-off and mind their own business, in no uncertain terms; he said that his sexuality is his own private business which pretty clearly implies that he does not wish it discussed in public. The ''only'' thing we have to go on here is a bunch of speculations by other people. IMO, these speculations are gossipy in nature and exactly of the type that [[WP:BLP]] means to exclude from coverage by an encyclopedia. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I understand very well that he does not wish it to be discussed. Again, does it mean that we have to abide to the subject's desired unconditionally? [[WP:WELLKNOWN|Of course not]]. Let me quote [[WP:BLP]]: ''"If an '''allegation''' or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—'''even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it'''. [...] Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. '''The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.''' "''. But here we're not even discussing about going so far. We're discussing basically about not letting people (the LGBT Wikiproject) "We are interested in this article". Should we censor a group of editors to state such interest, even with a proper rationale which explicitly denies that this interest implies something objective about the subject's sexuality? --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't mean to say that the wishes of the subject have to be followed unconditionally. But here we are talking about a purely private matter: there is no allegation of any crime or wrongdoing and it is also not the case that the subject is a public advocate (in either direction) on the issue. Just because he is a notable figure skater does not mean that we have the right to install a camera in his bedroom and then "discuss" it. There has to be more basis than just idle speculations, even if they are reported by [[WP:RS]], for this sort of personal information to be included in an encyclopedia article. About your other point: yes, absolutely, the rights of members of any particular wikiproject (which, by the way, have no basis in any policy) are ''by far'' subordinate to a core policy like [[WP:BLP]]. Yes, it may inconvenience the members of a wikiproject in such cases, but BLP considerations are certainly much more important than convenience of a group of editors interested in a particular topic. There is simply no comparison, in my mind, in terms of priorities in this kind of a situation. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::You continue to cite [[WP:BLP]], but, if I may dare to suggest it, you're not citing it ''properly''. That is, what is the section in WP:BLP which prohibits this? I quoted a relevant section of [[WP:BLP]] itself above, which explicitly seems to ''endorse'' it. The fact that it is not a crime we're talking about makes the thing even lighter (after all, most of us will agree it is much worse to be alleged of being a criminal than being alleged of being LGBT), so I don't really get your point on that. Also, it is not a purely private matter, otherwise [[WP:RS|RS]] discussing it would not exist. They exist (and they're not few), therefore it's not private anymore. I fully agree that Wikiprojects must subordinate to policy, being it WP:BLP or anything else. But here it's all within WP:BLP, per my quotes above. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ec}}<small>moved from below, where it didn't belong IMHO - --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
**Actually ''this guy'' has repeatedly commented on his sexuality in major national media including a FOX News interview, including his own website. He's notable for his skating, and for a lesser extent his eccentricities and he's been asked about his sexuality in context to these things he is notable for. It's the ''only'' reason it's even been discussed, because major media have brought the issue up,repeatedly for the last four years. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong Oppose''' per Niteshift36's ''Until the man can be identified as LGBT to the satisfaction of BLP standards, the tag shouldn't be there because it really shouldn't fall into the purview of the project. Putting the tag there most certainly does imply that the subject is LGB or T.'' and also those who want to ADD the template have the burden of proof to prove the template should be there in the first place; it is not the burden of those who oppose it from even being there since it is "controversial". Prove this man falls under the project's scope on facts rather than rumors or speculations relating to his sexuality. It's not Wikipedia's place nor a Wikipedia Project's place to make rumors into truths. '''<font color="#B9B9B9" face="times">[[Special:Contributions/Oncamera|on]]</font><font color="#DA8FC0" face="times">[[User:Oncamera|camera]]</font>'''<font color="#B9B9B9"><sup>[[User talk:Oncamera|(t)]]</sup></font> 01:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::That's how categories ''on'' articles work not how Wikiproject tags on talkpages work. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Guidelines on Wikipedia should be followed ''everywhere'', no <strike>expections</strike>exceptions for a Project tag. '''<font color="#B9B9B9" face="times">[[Special:Contributions/Oncamera|on]]</font><font color="#DA8FC0" face="times">[[User:Oncamera|camera]]</font>'''<font color="#B9B9B9"><sup>[[User talk:Oncamera|(t)]]</sup></font> 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::We are following the guidelines. Sourced content on this subjects sexuality is in the article and the one Wikiproject that deals in this area is to add their project tag. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::: You mean to tell me that this ''Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality.[19][20] He stated: "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use."[20]'' is meaningful enough to add the project tag to his page? A sentence + a quote? Seriously. '''<font color="#B9B9B9" face="times">[[Special:Contributions/Oncamera|on]]</font><font color="#DA8FC0" face="times">[[User:Oncamera|camera]]</font>'''<font color="#B9B9B9"><sup>[[User talk:Oncamera|(t)]]</sup></font> 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::There exists more than enough reliable source material to have a full section of substantial length devoted entirely to this aspect of his persona (I am ''not'' in any way suggesting that this should happen). There has been consensus in other discussions to keep any mention of his sexuality as concise as possible, despite the fact that publications such as the Washington Post and New York Times have written entire articles on the subject. Please see the thread above where there is a discussion regarding the wording you have quoted. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Adding a paragraph on his sexuality and speculations of this would create an Undue Weight issue here. This article should focus on his career, not what gossip magazines see fitting (I understand the WP and NYT are not gossip mags). This is an encyclopedia. '''<font color="#B9B9B9" face="times">[[Special:Contributions/Oncamera|on]]</font><font color="#DA8FC0" face="times">[[User:Oncamera|camera]]</font>'''<font color="#B9B9B9"><sup>[[User talk:Oncamera|(t)]]</sup></font> 02:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''': I'd normally reserve tagging for ''any'' WikiProject for articles where there is a clear and indelible link between the project's scope "LGBT studies" and the subject. I do not see that here; Weir is neither out nor of anything but a ''very'' minimal importance to LGBT studies. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**Reliable sources disagree with this assessment. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
***If he has come out in one of these reliable sources, feel free to post it here and end this debate. If not, idle speculation about his sexuality in a RS doesn't merit tagging this article. That's just not the way it works, Benji. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': For the record, unless there is clear consensus for adding the project tag at this RFC, the tag stays off. Clearly, the burden of proof is on those who wish to add a tag that is potentially controversial. BLP applies, even if on the talkpage. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. I can't believe the way that people expect the Chinese Wikipedians to be bold about Tiananmen and Tibet and Taiwan, then turn around and play this "I can't see you" game here when the stakes are ''so much'' less. Wikipedia isn't publishing new material here; we're not even taking some obscure column from a local paper and blowing it up; we're just trying not to fall completely out of sight of the herd of free pressmen ahead of us. Sure, a WikiProject tag can be taken to connote something - but the history of homosexuality should tell us that '''''anything''''' can be taken to connote something, when no stronger signal is allowed. The bottom line is that if we simply allow people to put up their project tag and summarize all of the relevant reliable sources that have weighed in on the topic, the net result will be a good paragraph that handles the issue responsibly, and no reams and reams and reams of people making it look like there's heated discussion about Weir during the course of pushing bad policy on the talk page. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Is this Soapboxing? Because I don't understand how this relates to ''this'' article. You can't speculate on the future of this article to determine what's currently in the article. The article has a sentence and quote in regards to his sexuality. Anything more would be adding undue weight to the issue, as the article currently stands. '''<font color="#B9B9B9" face="times">[[Special:Contributions/Oncamera|on]]</font><font color="#DA8FC0" face="times">[[User:Oncamera|camera]]</font>'''<font color="#B9B9B9"><sup>[[User talk:Oncamera|(t)]]</sup></font> 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::New sources float by all the time [http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_wordpress&p=3150&Itemid=248] (though that is a minor source more related to him being underscored than to anything sexual, it reminds us that other media sources aren't so inhibited). I don't think the existing paragraph is even all that bad - it's just the endless "moralizing" on the talk page that is so annoying. But this vote is about a tag on the talk page... the whole thing is a [[Tar Baby]] for everyone. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose using the tag''' - regardless of the project's interest in the subject, the tag is visible, and would introduce a context of the subject's sexual identity which he has already expressed his desire to leave ambiguous. In my opinion, that is a BLP issue. --'''''[[User:Stanistani|<font color="green">Stani</font>]][[User talk:Stanistani|<font color="blue">Stani</font> ]]''''' 01:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Without a proper rationale added to the tag, I would agree. However a proper rationale added to the tag would make the "context" vanish. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::If the tag needs a rationale like this to even be included, then it should not be included. Adding that doesn't evade the BLP issue. '''<font color="#B9B9B9" face="times">[[Special:Contributions/Oncamera|on]]</font><font color="#DA8FC0" face="times">[[User:Oncamera|camera]]</font>'''<font color="#B9B9B9"><sup>[[User talk:Oncamera|(t)]]</sup></font> 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Can you elaborate both statements? --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Can ''you'' elaborate on the rationale you believe ''supports'' inclusion? It's still unclear to me what it's being based upon, other than random speculation, which isn't acceptable. The deafening silence to this question I've asked repeatedly is very telling. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 01:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It is "random speculation" made publicly in several reliable sources. Which would be definitely acceptable in the article per [[WP:WELLKNOWN]], as quoted above (even if I'm not suggesting that inclusion now) and for sure is acceptable for including the article within the scope of a wikiproject. There is no "deafening silence", frankly: several editors explained it above and below. Perhaps a small case of [[WP:HEAR]] {{=)}}? --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You should not move other people's comments justifying "IMHO". Anyway, think: "Rationalizing a speculation". '''<font color="#B9B9B9" face="times">[[Special:Contributions/Oncamera|on]]</font><font color="#DA8FC0" face="times">[[User:Oncamera|camera]]</font>'''<font color="#B9B9B9"><sup>[[User talk:Oncamera|(t)]]</sup></font> 02:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::To answer your question, UnitAnode, a high-profile figure like Weir (or Foster, or Cooper) who evades all questions regarding their sexuality is, to say the least, interesting to the WikiProject. It speaks to exactly what the WikiProject is about - sexuality as an aspect of one's life, how it affects ones activities, occupation, etc. And the fact that multiple reliable sources have commented on it means that it is of interest to the general public - they wouldn't report it, otherwise. -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 04:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::So your reasoning is that the fact that he basically says "fuck off, it's none of your business" when people ask about it means that you can slap a tag on his BLP that implicitly answers the question that he refuses to? That's completely ludicrous, and wildly unacceptable per our policy on BLPs. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 04:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::How in the world does the project tag "implicity answer the question"?!?? Especially when it says specifically "This doesn't indicate his sexuality"!? -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 04:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::A duck - wearing a little hat bearing the motto 'Not a Duck!' - is still a duck. --'''''[[User:Stanistani|<font color="green">Stani</font>]][[User talk:Stanistani|<font color="blue">Stani</font> ]]''''' 06:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong Oppose'''; adding this tag would insinuate things to the lay reader which we have no proof or proper evidence of. Treat all articles as I do my law ones; as if readers are idiots unfamiliar with the wiki-process and/or the subject article. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support freedom''' for WikiProjects (groups of editors) to decide which articles they want to work on. People commenting on this RfC may want to read the long-standing advice from [[WP:COUNCIL|WikiProject Council]], which says: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article_tagging|'''"A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project... if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner."''']] Project banners are ''not'' a kind of [[WP:CAT|categorization]], and they mean ''only'' that some editors are willing to improve the article. It's inappropriate to read too much into the name that the editors choose to be known as. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*:The "WikiProject Council" has no standing when it comes to BLP concerns. Thus, their "advice" holds no sway in this discussion. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 02:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*The quoted WikiProject Council page is a guideline, and as such it does "hold sway"; especially since the relevant policy, [[WP:WELLKNOWN]] (which is a section of the BLP policy) states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per the BLP issues. No verification that he falls within the scope of the project. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] ([[User talk:Epbr123|talk]]) 02:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Good grief - no, people!!''' - it's rampant speculation, it's a [[WP:BLP|BLP]] concern and it's clearly against the subject's wishes. Ugh - why exactly are we having this debate here??? - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 02:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) <small>''(is also LGBT, so let's not go there)''</small> |
|||
:*As someone whose opinions I (and probably others here) respect, could you explain how [[WP:WELLKNOWN]] does not apply here? Also, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article tagging]], specifically: "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." Thanks Alison. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::* I'm frantically searching for [[WP:KINDNESS]] and [[WP:DOINGTHERIGHTTHING]] but they appear to be missing, for some reason. Firstly, if numerous dubious sources say something, this does not imply that we need to report it. [[WP:NOTNEWS]], for starters. I can quote a number of [[Weekly World News|tabloid sources]], for example, which indicate that there's a life-size statue of [[Elvis Presley|this guy]] on [[Mars]], for example. Consider the sources. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, not an on-line magazine containing celebrity speculation. Adding the Wikiproject tag gives sway to speculation about the subject in the eye of the reader, and is something that the subject himself has explicitly avoided. Regardless of what the "WikiProject Council" lays out in their guidelines, we ''must'' consider the subject and the reliability of what's ostensibly tabloid rumormongering. That and [[WP:BLP]] which clearly transcends mere guidelines from a Wikiproject. Sorry, but that's my take on it. Are LGBT-interested editors somehow forbidden from the article because it's not tagged by the Wikiproject? Clearly not, so where's the problem? - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::*So, the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, Fox News, Wall Street Journal etc. are "dubious sources? [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::* Speculation is speculation is speculation. Given this concerns a ''serious'' personal matter such as sexual orientation, wild speculation has no place here regardless of the sources echoing these rumors - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 03:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC) <small>''(Fox News? - C'mon :/ )''</small> |
|||
:::::*Exactly. To quote from [[WP:BLP]] once again:"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to the living subject named in the article must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." It is unfortunate that respectable papers like NYT have chosen to succumb to repeating tabloid-like gossip in this case, but it does not mean that we should follow their example. The only thing that these sources report is ''speculations'' by third parties about the subject's sexuality. There is nothing else. Maybe that's acceptable for a newspaper but we are talking about an encyclopedia article about a living person here. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*If they were only regurgitating tabloid gossip I would agree you one-hundred percent. But since the sources quote Johnny Weir on the subject (not exactly a third party), I respectfully disagree. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yeah, but what he is quoted as saying is that they should bug-off that that his sexuality is his own private matter and none of their business. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 03:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Alison, how is the '''project tag''' a "serious personal matter"? How does the '''project tag''', especially one with the "explanation" parameter, a violation of BLP? How is the '''project tag''' not writing the biography conservatively? -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] <small>([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</small></span> 04:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Because 99% of people reading it are not going to be Wikipedians. All they'll see is the good ol' [[rainbow flag]] and the letters LGBT - ''"Oh, he must be gay"''. The vast majority of our readers haven't even ''heard'' of the term "WikiProject" - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 04:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' - Per the arguments given above. This is a potential BLP violation. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Oppose''' the tag for BLP reasons and suggest that Benji and the others here who supported this stay away from BLPs altogether, because they just don't get it. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**Before you go about mischaracterizing the people who disagree with you and suggesting that we stay away from BLPs, I strongly suggest that you take a look at what [[User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing|some of us have been doing]] on the BLP front. I created that initiative, and Benji is listed as a participant. As of this writing, well over two thousand previously-unsourced BLPs have been sourced or deleted. If you would rather that we not touch BLPs, though, i'm sure we would be more than happy to do work elsewhere and let the backlog pile up. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Communicate]]</sup> 04:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*Cla68, try and avoid [[WP:PA|personal attacks]]. If you can't, I would suggest that you stay away from discussions altogether. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 05:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::In my opinion, the lack of respect that you are showing Mr. Weir is absolutely shameful and reflects poorly on you. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 05:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hmm. That seems an odd comment from someone who 4 days ago supported my suggested approach to wording in the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnny_Weir&diff=345183357&oldid=345178068]. That's OK, it's your right to change your mind. I'm confident that throughout this discussion I have tried in [[WP:AGF|good faith]] and with [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] to respect not only Mr. Weir, but other editors as well. I'll let that reflect on me as it will. [[User:Wine Guy|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Wine Guy'''''</span>]][[User talk:Wine Guy|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 07:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' stated far more eloquently by people above me, especially Alison: "speculation is speculation is speculation". It's disgraceful that editors here are trying to foist something like this on a BLP subject who has clearly made his opinion on the matter known. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font>)</small></sup> 04:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Johnny Weir to collaborate with Mr Hudson== |
==Johnny Weir to collaborate with Mr Hudson== |
Revision as of 09:19, 25 February 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Is the LGBT Wikiproject tag acceptable on this talkpage
This discussion has been removed as inappropriate in itself. The subject of this article has declined to comment on his sexuality, and the unending discussion of it here, over something as minor and "in house" as a wikiproject tag is unacceptable.
Respect for our subjects is absolute, unless we are talking about verifiable facts. And WP:BLP trumps all else here (certainly wikiproject bagging, by gay activist editors). There is to be no more comment on this individuals sexuality on this page, unless there are verifiable facts to discuss placing on the article.
Editors violating the spirit of BLP for inhouse gaming will be blocked. Complaints about this notice should be taken to my talk page or to the Administrators noticeboard. You have been warned.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Excessive discussion
Excessive circular discussion amounting to 100 000 bits that is about speculation surrounding this article subjects sexuality is excessive and has BLP issues. If any editors think that there is more discussion needed please take it to a policy discussion page. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that some of the archived discussion is stale and redundant, and some of the general discussion belongs elsewhere (I'm not sure where exactly, WT:BLP or WP:BLP/N?), there were currently active discussions regarding the specific content and wording of this particular article. There is consensus that the current wording of the article needs to be adjusted, and discussion is necessary to find the best way of wording any mention of sexuality. This issue was discussed at ANI, where the discussion was closed with the instruction that discussion should continue here [1]. Wine Guy~Talk 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, we had a SPA who has seemed to move on and the remaining discussion has been collegial and can be escalated to dispute resolution if needed. -- Banjeboi 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Wording adjusted per archived discussion
One issue that had clear consensus in the previous discussions was that the wording needed slight adjustment to accomplish two things: to be accurate (i.e. he has answered questions; "consistently declined to answer questions" was not accurate), and to use a different , more appropriate quote. I have made a change to the article [2] based on a modicum of support in the previous discussion. This may or may not be the "final" version, discuss here if necessary. Please keep in mind a couple other points that came out of the previous discussion: any mention of his sexuality must be concise; and there must not be any "speculation". As it reads now it is not speculative, it is factual, and is sourced from the New York Times, the Washington Post (an entire article devoted to the subject), and the Wall Street Journal. Any significant changes to this wording should be discussed here, and any speculative or unsourced additions on this subject should be deleted on sight, ad infinitum. Wine Guy~Talk 07:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nevermind. [3] I've looked, but I cannot find any agreement on this wording, rather, the contrary. Wine Guy~Talk 09:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I believe we were in fact very close to consensus on the two points mentioned above: the "declined to answer" wording in the current version is not entirely accurate, and the "it is private" quote is better than the one that is there now. I suggest changing it to some variant of the short-and-sweet wording I proposed earlier: When asked by the media about his sexuality, Weir has said, "blah blah it is private blah blah.". OK? Dr.frog (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. Again, has the sexuality speculation been "tired" to anything other than speculation, ie, getting better/worse scores, being discriminated against or attacked or whatever. If not, then leave the speculation out. This can always be revisted and added IF it rises to such a notable level. --Tom (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused about what your objection is to the simplified wording I suggested. There is no speculation there, or reference to speculation. Weir has been asked about his sexuality and said such-and-such about it. How is that speculation? Dr.frog (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- He was also asked about small furry creatures. Should we include that? I am not arguring that he was asked about it, I am arguring that it has not YET reached the encyclopediatic level for inclusion, thats all. Again, has this been "tied" to scoring or anything else or is this curiosity?--Tom (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article already includes two sentences about Weir's sexuality. This isn't about inserting new material, but about replacing those two sentences with even briefer language that is more accurate and succinct. Why do you think the current language in the article is preferable to my proposed replacement phrasing? Dr.frog (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I thought there consensus from a number of uninvolved folks was to NOT include ANYTHING about the speculation, ect. I know it was removed. I am not for including "material" about the speculation about this individuals sexual preferences, so I will not comment on a "compromise" or how the sexual speculation should be worded. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that speculation has no place in the article, and don't feel strongly that it ought to include any reference to speculation in the media even if it were running rampant. But, it is not "speculation" when an individual is asked directly about his personal life in an interview and he gives an answer which is quoted in a reliable news source. Dr.frog (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I thought there consensus from a number of uninvolved folks was to NOT include ANYTHING about the speculation, ect. I know it was removed. I am not for including "material" about the speculation about this individuals sexual preferences, so I will not comment on a "compromise" or how the sexual speculation should be worded. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article already includes two sentences about Weir's sexuality. This isn't about inserting new material, but about replacing those two sentences with even briefer language that is more accurate and succinct. Why do you think the current language in the article is preferable to my proposed replacement phrasing? Dr.frog (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- He was also asked about small furry creatures. Should we include that? I am not arguring that he was asked about it, I am arguring that it has not YET reached the encyclopediatic level for inclusion, thats all. Again, has this been "tied" to scoring or anything else or is this curiosity?--Tom (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- There was support for the original insertion and there is no consensus here that the previous insertion needs changing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused about what your objection is to the simplified wording I suggested. There is no speculation there, or reference to speculation. Weir has been asked about his sexuality and said such-and-such about it. How is that speculation? Dr.frog (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. Again, has the sexuality speculation been "tired" to anything other than speculation, ie, getting better/worse scores, being discriminated against or attacked or whatever. If not, then leave the speculation out. This can always be revisted and added IF it rises to such a notable level. --Tom (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I believe we were in fact very close to consensus on the two points mentioned above: the "declined to answer" wording in the current version is not entirely accurate, and the "it is private" quote is better than the one that is there now. I suggest changing it to some variant of the short-and-sweet wording I proposed earlier: When asked by the media about his sexuality, Weir has said, "blah blah it is private blah blah.". OK? Dr.frog (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I think we do need to change away from the rather odd hand cream quote. I support the following as a stop gap that will hopefully quell the tide for the next few months at least:
“ | Weir's sexuality has been the subject of attention in the mainstream media. Weir has stated: "it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice". | ” |
This would replace the current wording which as previously discussed is misleading and problematic. Any objections? -- Banjeboi 00:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I object and see nothing wrong with the current comment, hand cream seems fine to me. I just think its obsessive, and think people should leave the poor guy alone, he said its no ones business and why people can't accept that is beyond me, talking on and on about it and wanting to tag him as a lesbian gay bisexual study issue is incredulous.Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It really makes this discussion very difficult when people insist on confusing two completely separate issues; this discussion thread is about the content and wording of the article, the thread above is about the project tag issue. Could we please keep it that way? Wine Guy~Talk 00:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Currently we have:
“ | Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality.[19][20] He stated: "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use. | ” |
- First off "Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality" is patently false, he has continuously answer questions about his sexuality so we are publishing a false statement. "Weir's sexuality has been the subject of attention in the mainstream media" is accurate, encyclopedic and neutral. We explain why it's addressed in the article. Secondly, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use" is more of a non-answer that lends to more questions than answers. "Keep sacred" has several interpretations whereas "it's not part of my sport and it's private" is clear. Also "My middle name", well it's a matter of public record so how sacred, whatever that means, is also odd as in if we know his middle name we then should be able to know who he sleeps with? I don't think so. Then the oddest part, IMHO, "what kind of hand moisturizer I use", guess what, we could likely find that one out as well. Simply view his documentary which includes a few scenes of him and a male friend in a bathtub together and the moisturizer is likely fully visible, mystery solved. So no, it's a really awkward quote that causes more problems. -- Banjeboi 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Its not a false statement at all, its fine, he's not answered the questions, he's said it is a private matter, and so what if his comment is not correct cos we can know his middle name, it is an off the cuff reply that is fine, as far as encyclopedic goes, do you really think it is encyclopedic to speculate about someones sexuality, well its not. He said it is a private matter, you can change it to...When asked about his sexual preference he said that is my private business. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- He has answered questions about his sexuality, in newspapers, on TV, on his blog. Mainstream media have asked and he has answered. And we should use a neutral non-ambiguous quote of his answer rather than something that is misleading and peculiar as outlined above. And a public figure's sexuality that has been discussed many times is arguably a point of public interest. We should be short and concise to address this not peculiar and misleading. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- The comment is not misleading at all, he hasn't answered the question at all. Public interest in someones sexuality, perhaps there are some that are interested or some that want to know, a fringe minority I would say, the vast majority of people do not give a damn of interest about it, most people think it is peoples private business and the titillating sexual speculation is not even nearly encyclopedic type content Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- He has answered questions about his sexuality, in newspapers, on TV, on his blog. Mainstream media have asked and he has answered. And we should use a neutral non-ambiguous quote of his answer rather than something that is misleading and peculiar as outlined above. And a public figure's sexuality that has been discussed many times is arguably a point of public interest. We should be short and concise to address this not peculiar and misleading. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Its not a false statement at all, its fine, he's not answered the questions, he's said it is a private matter, and so what if his comment is not correct cos we can know his middle name, it is an off the cuff reply that is fine, as far as encyclopedic goes, do you really think it is encyclopedic to speculate about someones sexuality, well its not. He said it is a private matter, you can change it to...When asked about his sexual preference he said that is my private business. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- First off "Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality" is patently false, he has continuously answer questions about his sexuality so we are publishing a false statement. "Weir's sexuality has been the subject of attention in the mainstream media" is accurate, encyclopedic and neutral. We explain why it's addressed in the article. Secondly, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use" is more of a non-answer that lends to more questions than answers. "Keep sacred" has several interpretations whereas "it's not part of my sport and it's private" is clear. Also "My middle name", well it's a matter of public record so how sacred, whatever that means, is also odd as in if we know his middle name we then should be able to know who he sleeps with? I don't think so. Then the oddest part, IMHO, "what kind of hand moisturizer I use", guess what, we could likely find that one out as well. Simply view his documentary which includes a few scenes of him and a male friend in a bathtub together and the moisturizer is likely fully visible, mystery solved. So no, it's a really awkward quote that causes more problems. -- Banjeboi 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
From the Washington Post (emphasis added):
A figure skating fan from Moscow, writing in to Johnny Weir's Web site, asked ever so delicately the one question sportswriters and the figure skating community have mutually skirted every four years for decades now -- a question put more bluntly in an early-'80s new wave hit written before Weir was even born:
Johnny, are you queer?
"People talk," Weir answered. "Figure skating is thought of as a female sport, something that only girly men compete in. I don't feel the need to express my sexual being because it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice, so speculation is speculation."
Asked. Answered. Reliable source. Yes and No are not the only possible answers to questions. The wording as it stands now is wrong. If you would like, I'd be happy to provide several more sources. Wine Guy~Talk 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to re-state my position on this, I think Banjeboi's proposed wording above is an improvement over what is there now, but I think it would be even better if we could cut the intro sentence, like this:
- When asked about his sexuality, Weir has stated: "it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice".
- This accomplishes two things: it removes the oblique reference to media speculation about his sexuality (as opposed to a directly-attributed and reliably-sourced statement from Weir himself), and it doesn't leave an obvious WP:coatrack "hook" where future WP editors will be tempted to hang any further reports of media speculation. Dr.frog (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. Add an inline citation and it's ready to roll, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll consent for the time being although I still think (i) it will be tied to something in the article ergo becoming OR-ish (ii) we should state clearly that it's in the article because mainstream media discuss it not the other way around. But the other quote and content is sooo poor anything is an improvement so let's go with it. -- Banjeboi 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Dr.frog's suggestion works for me. While I have previously stated a preference for an intro sentence to explain why the topic is mentioned at all, Dr.frog makes an excellent point regarding WP:coatrack. This suggestion answers a question that many readers reasonably have (given the significant level of speculation and innuendo which they may have seen elsewhere); and this wording leaves it in such a way that no more need be written on the topic. Thanks Dr.frog. Wine Guy~Talk 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I also like Dr Frog's version; a rather elegant solution that avoids esoteric linguistic arguments about the meaning of "answered". Nsk92 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I also support Dr.frog's version, putting the question into an introductory subordinate clause rather than giving it a whole sentence unto itself.TVC 15 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Johnny Weir to collaborate with Mr Hudson
Should I include in the article that Johnny Weir is to to collaborate with Mr Hudson? I have a reliable source[4] to back that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A306200130048123 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- That link doesn't seem to assert anything nor be reliable for inclusion on this article. Do you have any independent reliable sourcing? -- Banjeboi 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)