98.111.92.238 (talk) |
Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) →Project tag: no tag, no mention |
||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
:::::I know that the intended point of a project tag is to help editors interested in covering a particular topic. I am talking about ''the practical effect'' of a project tag. A casual reader, unfamiliar with inner workings of Wikipedia, cannot be (and will not be) expected to understand what the intended meaning of an LGBT project tag is and will most likely draw a conclusion that the subject of the article is gay or bisexual. This creates a BLP problem and, as I explained, BLP concerns are, IMO, more important in such a case than convenience of wikiproject members. Benjiboi wants the tag added because there have been ''speculations'', reported in conventional newsmedia, about Weir's sexuality. IMO, in view of BLP concerns, that is not a good enough reason to place a tag here. Regarding people like [[Jerry Falwell]] and other vocal opponents of LGBT causes, I am not too happy about that page being tagged either. But at least Falwell has publicly and often spoken out on LGBT related issues, which is not true about Weir. He has refused to comment on his sexuality and all there is in his case is a bunch of speculations (expressly presented as such) in the press and in the blogosphere. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::::I know that the intended point of a project tag is to help editors interested in covering a particular topic. I am talking about ''the practical effect'' of a project tag. A casual reader, unfamiliar with inner workings of Wikipedia, cannot be (and will not be) expected to understand what the intended meaning of an LGBT project tag is and will most likely draw a conclusion that the subject of the article is gay or bisexual. This creates a BLP problem and, as I explained, BLP concerns are, IMO, more important in such a case than convenience of wikiproject members. Benjiboi wants the tag added because there have been ''speculations'', reported in conventional newsmedia, about Weir's sexuality. IMO, in view of BLP concerns, that is not a good enough reason to place a tag here. Regarding people like [[Jerry Falwell]] and other vocal opponents of LGBT causes, I am not too happy about that page being tagged either. But at least Falwell has publicly and often spoken out on LGBT related issues, which is not true about Weir. He has refused to comment on his sexuality and all there is in his case is a bunch of speculations (expressly presented as such) in the press and in the blogosphere. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I support not including the tag, if there is nothing in the article to explain its addition, if the speculation is kept out of the article for blp reasons then the tag should imo stay off. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC) |
:I support not including the tag, if there is nothing in the article to explain its addition, if the speculation is kept out of the article for blp reasons then the tag should imo stay off. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Do not include tag''' our principle is "do no harm". Granted, the harm of a tag is limited. Nevertheless, if the guy has refused to comment on his sexuality, why are we wanting to tag him as under the scope of a particular sexuality based wikiproject? What good does this do? Shall we tag him under "wikiproject:Hetrosexuality"? Seems to me, there's no verifiable facts on his sexuality - and he's saying nothing (and obviously wanting nothing said) then there ought to be '''no mention of sexuality on the article or on its talk page'''. It is clearly unencyclopedic. We are not in the business of recording unverifiable speculation--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 16:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Olympics final results == |
== Olympics final results == |
Revision as of 16:15, 19 February 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tatiana Tarasova
Ok, maniacs. It`s better to discuss about Tatiana Tarasova in biography of Johnny Weir... I think you didn`t delete her article as a result =) Thx, Tatiana Tarasova was a former coach of Johnny 2003-2006? Am I right?
- 2003-2005, in the summers only, actually. Priscilla Hill was still his main coach at the time.
"Swan" Glove in Smithsonian Story
I can find no verifiable proof to the story that Weir's red glove from his 2006 "Swan" costume was displayed in the Smithsonian, so I have deleted that. The two "references" that were attached to it did not actually confirm the story at all - they only cited a joke Weir made in an interview in which he said maybe he should "donate it to a museum". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.244.219 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The sourcing is weak. The Marshalls Figure Skating Commentary seemed to me to be the truth, but I agree a stronger source might be needed compared to a few weak ones.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Middle Name
Sifnolie, how in the world have you been accessing his tax records and birth certificate? That seems like a huge violation of privacy and at the least unethical, if not illegal. Sorry, but for information to be included on Wikipedia, you need to be able to attach a reference to it and show it is sourced, and we have only your word that you have checked his tax and personal records. Weir's middle name has never been stated in a published source, as he has repeatedly said he keeps it private. Until you have an actual reference for the information, it comes off the page. 70.16.102.219 (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, please stop repeatedly putting up information that has no published source!! EVERYTHING on this Wikipedia page is fully referenced and sourced (just look at the article), and you cannot add information that there is NO SOURCE for! As for your message to me: Yes, I AM American, and so I know that it is NOT legal to order a stranger's birth certificate or access their private tax records, and quite frankly, doing so for a famous person is very stalker-ish and kind of scary. Again, those are NOT published sources and so cannot be referenced. Wikipedia is not required to take your word that you have been looking into the private records of a celebrity and so "know" unpublished information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.102.219 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the state and the source. Not all states consider birth records to be private. And as for tax records, often the information is sold for data mining when you use third party services (HR Block, etc.) to prepare your taxes. So relax already... it should be more about reliable sources. This is not. Kaihoku (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sexuality queston
Actually, the question on his sexual orientation is mentioned quite often in different publications, i.e. [1], [2], [3], [4]. I suppose, they are reliable sources, right? Maybe this fact should be somehow menioned in the article. -- deerstop. 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- it should but may I recommend we wait until after the winter Olympics next month? In that way whatever happens there will not be impacted by a battle on his article about what to put. I do think there is more than enough to add something but also that we can wait until the biggest event in his life has past as we aren't in a rush. -- Banjeboi 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly could you source, though? That people speculate about his sexuality? That he doesn't answer questions about it? Unless he comes out as some sexual orientation, I'm not sure how relevant it is. Kolindigo (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've quickly found at least a dozen sources including the documentary about him that discuss the sexuality issues. Similar to other public figures we can state something along the lines that speculation about his sexuality has endured in part due to his perceived flamboyant costuming and skating style attributed to his sensitive nature. Or something similar so it is discussed in relation to how the sources discuss it. There is plenty but i would like to wait until after the Olympics. 02:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, waiting until after the Olympics would be good. I anticipate this article getting a lot of vandalism during it. And who knows, maybe some day there will be something more concrete than assumped homosexuality based on fitting a stereotype rather than necessarily fitting the definition. Kolindigo (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Relevant or no, I'm not sure. But he is often asked about it. Agree with waiting proposal. -- deerstop. 11:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Has he come out of the closet yet?
- I've quickly found at least a dozen sources including the documentary about him that discuss the sexuality issues. Similar to other public figures we can state something along the lines that speculation about his sexuality has endured in part due to his perceived flamboyant costuming and skating style attributed to his sensitive nature. Or something similar so it is discussed in relation to how the sources discuss it. There is plenty but i would like to wait until after the Olympics. 02:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That's half the reason why people come to this page. The other half is to see more pictures of what he wears. Has there been no issue about his sexuality? Or more probable is that someone is purposely keeping it out of this page. The question I pose to Wikipedia is, do you want to give people the answers THEY want, or do you want to only give the answers you want. A simple search reveals the answer: Mr. Weir wants to keep the answer to that question secret, or private as they say. I respect that, and a fan wanting to protect someone from possible slander...but what about the fans of [Clay Aiken] before he came out? What about the fans of [Anderson Cooper]? Their pages all contained reports they were suspected of being gay. So why do we protect one from that allegation, but not the rest? That's simply not fair.
I request a section on his gay rumors be included in his private life section. No waiting, that is ridiculous and unfair to the rest that HAVE been labeled 'out' by Wikipedia.
Stop this BS politic and power trip. Fadedroots (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Gay rumors" are not encyclopedic content, nor is a statement that lots of people wonder about his sexual orientation. See WP:BLP. OTOH, I think a statement that Weir has refused to discuss his personal life -- with appropriate references, of course -- would be OK. Frankly, I don't understand why random Wikipedia readers think they need to know about it anyway. It's not like he's going to date you, after all -- and anyone for whom the question is actually relevant probably already has the answer. Dr.frog (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I am a little saddened that you don't think I could get a date with him, as I consider myself a good looking male ;) I definitely understand where you are coming from Dr Frog, and I'm glad for your opinion. My whole point of this wasn't because I even cared what his sexuality is (like you said, I already knew the answer) but it was the fact that some editors wanted to suppress that information, no matter how brief of a statement it would be (I argue that 1 sentence about his sexuality is more than enough for the topic) while other BOLP weren't afforded the same protection. I already named a few like Anderson Cooper. As for vandalism, it is pretty well guaranteed that if Johnny Weir does well in the Olympics or is given a lot of attention, his page will be vandalized. That is why I suggest adding the 1 sentence about his sexuality rumors (There is this GREAT quote from Johnny Weir that is appropriate on the subject "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use." [5] ) and then locking the article during the Olympics with 'frequent' updates in relation to his scoring, standing, medal wins, ect ect.
Trying to suppress it for a month (maybe longer) seems like a gross negligence of trying to cover up for someone you admire.
The hardest part about editing a Wikipedia article on someone you respect is that you must play by the fair rules of others and if that means including something you don't like, then so be it, that is the name of the game. Fadedroots (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I am not even particularly a fan of Weir, and have no interest at all in trying to "protect" him or "cover up" for him. He seems to enjoy being controversial for the sake of being controversial, which has made the WP article about him a magnet for both vandalism from his detractors and excessive fannishness from his supporters. I'm just tired of both his fans and detractors stuffing this article with non-encyclopedic/POV/unreferenced/libelous/etc comments. Let's stick to the plain facts, please.Dr.frog (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you have notable information you don't wait til their big life event is over to come out with it. You don't do that in news or on online encyclopedia's (which are more like real time news). It is dishonest and not professional) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.75.168 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a matter in which the Wikipedia rules applicable to articles about living people are especially relevant. Those guidelines specifically note that information about sexual orientation should be used only if "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life". Mr Weir is notable for his competitive figure skating and his sexuality is tangential at most. He may be notable for flamboyant costumes and so forth, but to move from this to his sexuality is to confuse his notable activity with stereotypes, speculation, and rumour about his private life. His sexuality is not a notable aspect of his public life because he has not stated anything in public about his sexuality.
The guidelines regarding reliability go beyond just the respectability of the publication. These apparently respectable publications have presented information about his sexuality not as fact, but rather as speculation. A repetition by a reliable source of gossip and speculation does not cause the content to cease to be gossip and speculation. The fact that all the publications that comment about his sexuality have not indicated any confirmation indicates that no facts have been verified by a reliable source. --Jules7484 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Guy certainly seems to have a gay fan base determined to claim him as one of their own. http://www.autostraddle.com/johnny-weir-was-robbed-33655/ 98.111.92.238 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sexuality discrimination and skating
I know nothing about this sport, but even I will tell you: get to the "meat" of this question. What intrigues people is the peculiarity that Weir seems "out" without being "out" in a way that we don't understand. To understand that, this article might provide a perspective; it claims that somewhere from 25% to 50% of skaters are actually gay, but that they face oppression from judges and high-ranking officials. And most revealingly, that while originally this was a fully "closeted" situation where athletes were forced to pretend to heterosexual relationships, that since 1996 that the athletes have been permitted to be "out" in personal life but not formally.
All this has nothing to do with Weir, of course; but what might is that the NBC broadcast for the Olympics short program tonight repeatedly called him "controversial", and then (the first time I've heard this year) questioned whether the judges had "underscored" him. I could certainly believe it (knowing nothing at all of scoring, he seemed third best to me rather than fifth best...). The point is this: the question of whether Weir was underscored and why Weir was underscored will allow the topic to be properly addressed in this article, provided that newspapers follow through with the stories one might expect. Wnt (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weir is controversial for so many other things -- his shopping binges, his Russia-holisim, his peculiar sense of fashion, his liking for wearing fur, just to name a few -- it seems unlikely that "controversial" is being used as a euphemism for anything else here. As for being underscored at the Olympics, the scoring system in figure skating nowadays is so arbitrary and literally(!) random that it is impossible to say. Why does it need to be addressed in the article at all? Are there reliable sources that state that Weir was underscored at all, much less because of suspicions about his sexual orientation? Why should we take the word of someone who admits to knowing nothing about the sport that something was wrong? Dr.frog (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Liking to wear fur is probably controversial, I mean, its frowned on by a lot of people. I saw the performance, too, with the black and pink outfit, right? --24.20.129.18 (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It can wait another day I think, isn't the men's finals in less than 20 hours? We do our best to avoid bringing harm to real live people as this is the world's encyclopedia. What we write here impacts people's lives. As is the article needs a lot of clean-up. After than the issues of how his sexuality and skating intertwine should certainly be added with strong sourcing. Many many people care not one bit who he sleeps with, and many love his being a Paris Hilton of the ice world. As the Olympics is the biggest event in his life that he has been working on for the last few years, and his last competitive performance is in less than a day I think we can reign in things for just a bit until then. -- Banjeboi 07:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Animal rights controversy
CONTROVERSY Johnny Weir has been the center of an animal rights controversy recently by adding fox fur to his skating costume. He has recieved protests from the animal rights groups Friends of Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals(PETA). [[6]] [[7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoodic pnt (talk • contribs) 01:42:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Done Ronhjones (Talk) 23:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Blatant BLP Violation - Wikipedia attempts to "Out" athlete who makes no public claim about his sexuality
Project tag
I see that today (February 17), an LGBT Wikiproject tag was first added[19], then removed[20] then added[21] and then removed again[22]. Since the addition of the tag earlier today has been disputed by at least two editors, IMO the tag should remain off until and unless consensus to add it has been established here at this talk page. My own view on the underlying issue is that adding such a tag is inappropriate for a BLP page until and unless there is a solid WP:V confirmation by multiple reliable sources that the subject is gay or bisexual (rather than just newsreports of speculations about the subject's sexuality). Placing an LGBT tag has on an article has significant BLP implications and WP:BLP considerations here are, IMO, more important than the wishes of a particular wikiproject. Nsk92 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Being one who removed the tag, I would leave it off for now and maybe add it down the road if appropriate. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually you are mistaken. A Wikiproject tag means only that a Wikiproject has an article in it's sphere of organizing content improvement. The LGBT Wikiproject has over 11,000 articles and it's a system to organize article clean-up and improvement. The wikiproject deals with sexuality and gender identity issues all the time just as someone from the Russian wikiproject may help clean-up any content we have here concerning Weir's interest in that area. LGBT categories are a different matter as is categories about religion. By removing a Wikiproject tag you are impeding the regular editing of an article mainly by frustrating the bots that pull information from each article to each project. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is not so simple. With most wikiprojects you'd be correct, but an LGBT wikiproject tag has BLP implications, especially for WP readers who are not regular WP editors and are not familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia. If a casual Wikipedia reader looks at the article's talk page and sees an LGBT project tag there, that reader is likely to draw rather different conclusions than the ones you describe above. That's why I believe that an LGBT Wikiproject tag should be placed much more conservatively (especially for BLP cases) than, say, a Wikiproject Russia tag. Yeah, the absence of a tag may frustrate the bots and may make the work of the Wikiproject harder, but I think that BLP considerations are more important here. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- We may have to agree to disagree - 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. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is a major collision of Wikipedia policies, but it sounds like WPLGBT has the right view. Every other Wikiproject gets the right to tag whatever it feels like. If you don't allow them here, how can the LGBT project be allowed to put its tag on any article without getting special permission first from some large consensus committee, administrators, Jimbo Wales? You might as well ban the project altogether if that's what you think - maybe ban all the editors with a special little pink triangle block notice while you're at it, since if they got together on any otherwise-named project you'd have to make the same decision. (Hmmm, would that be a BLP violation?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs)
- I don't think that's correct - like any other edit, a project tag addition is subject to WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page of a given article that is not overriddent by some sort of a global claim of a particular Wikiproject. Moreover, WP:BLP is the more important policy here than considerations of Wikiprojects' wishes. Wikiprojects exist largely for convenience of editors interested in a particular topic and as such are rather informal, although certainly useful, ad-hoc groups. WP:BLP protects the privacy rights of living individuals who are subjects of WP articles. It seems pretty clear to me that the latter is much more important than the former. What Benjiboi says about the meaning of a project tag is correct in terms of its meaning for experienced Wikipedia users. However, the great majority of the people viewing the article are not in that category (and are probably not WP editors at all but rather readers interested in the information about the subject of the article). Quite a few of them will look at the article's talk page and when they see an LGBT tag there, they will naturally assume something quite different from what the technical meaning of a tag is to experienced wikipedians. That is why Wikiproject tags on any BLP sensitive topics (not just LGBT) should be placed rather conservatively. Yes, this makes it more difficult for the LGBT Wikiproject, but BLP considerations are more important, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah no, we don't conservatively push Wikiprojects to defend improving content, we encourage them to do so and remove roadblocks that impede them doing so. We can start a more formal process if you wish but it boils down to does the subject of this article logically come under the the auspices of the one Wikiproject that deals with sexuality labels all the time.
- I have explained my position several times and I am not going to repeat myself again. I am strongly against adding an LGBT project tag to this page for reasons explained above. Further this thread thus far clearly shows that there is not, for now, a consensus to add the tag here. If you wish to pursue something like an RfC or another formal dispute resolution step, please go ahead. Nsk92 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah no, we don't conservatively push Wikiprojects to defend improving content, we encourage them to do so and remove roadblocks that impede them doing so. We can start a more formal process if you wish but it boils down to does the subject of this article logically come under the the auspices of the one Wikiproject that deals with sexuality labels all the time.
- I don't think that's correct - like any other edit, a project tag addition is subject to WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page of a given article that is not overriddent by some sort of a global claim of a particular Wikiproject. Moreover, WP:BLP is the more important policy here than considerations of Wikiprojects' wishes. Wikiprojects exist largely for convenience of editors interested in a particular topic and as such are rather informal, although certainly useful, ad-hoc groups. WP:BLP protects the privacy rights of living individuals who are subjects of WP articles. It seems pretty clear to me that the latter is much more important than the former. What Benjiboi says about the meaning of a project tag is correct in terms of its meaning for experienced Wikipedia users. However, the great majority of the people viewing the article are not in that category (and are probably not WP editors at all but rather readers interested in the information about the subject of the article). Quite a few of them will look at the article's talk page and when they see an LGBT tag there, they will naturally assume something quite different from what the technical meaning of a tag is to experienced wikipedians. That is why Wikiproject tags on any BLP sensitive topics (not just LGBT) should be placed rather conservatively. Yes, this makes it more difficult for the LGBT Wikiproject, but BLP considerations are more important, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is a major collision of Wikipedia policies, but it sounds like WPLGBT has the right view. Every other Wikiproject gets the right to tag whatever it feels like. If you don't allow them here, how can the LGBT project be allowed to put its tag on any article without getting special permission first from some large consensus committee, administrators, Jimbo Wales? You might as well ban the project altogether if that's what you think - maybe ban all the editors with a special little pink triangle block notice while you're at it, since if they got together on any otherwise-named project you'd have to make the same decision. (Hmmm, would that be a BLP violation?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs)
- We may have to agree to disagree - 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. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is not so simple. With most wikiprojects you'd be correct, but an LGBT wikiproject tag has BLP implications, especially for WP readers who are not regular WP editors and are not familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia. If a casual Wikipedia reader looks at the article's talk page and sees an LGBT project tag there, that reader is likely to draw rather different conclusions than the ones you describe above. That's why I believe that an LGBT Wikiproject tag should be placed much more conservatively (especially for BLP cases) than, say, a Wikiproject Russia tag. Yeah, the absence of a tag may frustrate the bots and may make the work of the Wikiproject harder, but I think that BLP considerations are more important here. Nsk92 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh how low we've sunk...tagging as part of a wikiproject is controversial. Let the fights begin on whether Jerusalem's tagging as part of WikiProject Israel and as part of WikiProject Palestine are OK. Can't we all just get along and let the projects decide what is and isn't in their ambit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly is it that places this skater's BLP in the category for "study"?99.144.240.136 (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Look, Weir refuses to say what his sexuality is, making all talk about it speculation and therefore off limits to his Wikipedia entry. Therefore, putting the LGBT tag on this article is a violation of BLP, and trying to add speculation about his sexuality to this article, as Benjiboi and others have apparently tried to do, is a serious violation of BLP. It needs to stop, now. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd have to ask the reason for the LGBT project (which I'm a member of) tag. Benji, if you could let me know why. As Benji says, there are anti-gay people who have the tag too. It not like Benji is trying to add Category:LGBT people or Category:LGBT people from the United States. So as long as there is a good reason to include the LGBT project, what is the problem? As for User:Nsk92's saying the casual reader might assume Weir is gay because of the tag, that isn't the point of the project tags. They are so a group of articles can be worked on and sorted by projects. If the casual reader doesn't take time to actually read or skim the article, and they assume the LGBT project tag means someone is gay, that is unfortunate for them. CTJF83 GoUSA 09:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I know that the intended point of a project tag is to help editors interested in covering a particular topic. I am talking about the practical effect of a project tag. A casual reader, unfamiliar with inner workings of Wikipedia, cannot be (and will not be) expected to understand what the intended meaning of an LGBT project tag is and will most likely draw a conclusion that the subject of the article is gay or bisexual. This creates a BLP problem and, as I explained, BLP concerns are, IMO, more important in such a case than convenience of wikiproject members. Benjiboi wants the tag added because there have been speculations, reported in conventional newsmedia, about Weir's sexuality. IMO, in view of BLP concerns, that is not a good enough reason to place a tag here. Regarding people like Jerry Falwell and other vocal opponents of LGBT causes, I am not too happy about that page being tagged either. But at least Falwell has publicly and often spoken out on LGBT related issues, which is not true about Weir. He has refused to comment on his sexuality and all there is in his case is a bunch of speculations (expressly presented as such) in the press and in the blogosphere. Nsk92 (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'd have to ask the reason for the LGBT project (which I'm a member of) tag. Benji, if you could let me know why. As Benji says, there are anti-gay people who have the tag too. It not like Benji is trying to add Category:LGBT people or Category:LGBT people from the United States. So as long as there is a good reason to include the LGBT project, what is the problem? As for User:Nsk92's saying the casual reader might assume Weir is gay because of the tag, that isn't the point of the project tags. They are so a group of articles can be worked on and sorted by projects. If the casual reader doesn't take time to actually read or skim the article, and they assume the LGBT project tag means someone is gay, that is unfortunate for them. CTJF83 GoUSA 09:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Look, Weir refuses to say what his sexuality is, making all talk about it speculation and therefore off limits to his Wikipedia entry. Therefore, putting the LGBT tag on this article is a violation of BLP, and trying to add speculation about his sexuality to this article, as Benjiboi and others have apparently tried to do, is a serious violation of BLP. It needs to stop, now. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly is it that places this skater's BLP in the category for "study"?99.144.240.136 (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I support not including the tag, if there is nothing in the article to explain its addition, if the speculation is kept out of the article for blp reasons then the tag should imo stay off. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Do not include tag our principle is "do no harm". Granted, the harm of a tag is limited. Nevertheless, if the guy has refused to comment on his sexuality, why are we wanting to tag him as under the scope of a particular sexuality based wikiproject? What good does this do? Shall we tag him under "wikiproject:Hetrosexuality"? Seems to me, there's no verifiable facts on his sexuality - and he's saying nothing (and obviously wanting nothing said) then there ought to be no mention of sexuality on the article or on its talk page. It is clearly unencyclopedic. We are not in the business of recording unverifiable speculation--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Olympics final results
I am proposing what I hope is an entirely uncontroversial edit, consisting in adding the final results from the 2010 Winter Olympics:
- (1) In the subsection 2009-2010 season, replace the last sentence of the subsection with: At the 2010 Winter Olympics, Weir finished sixths overall, with a combined score of 238.87.[6]
- (2) In the Competitive highlights. Senior table replace TBD in the last entry of the first row by: 6th.
More detailed info may be added later.
- Done Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
As a more bold move, I would also suggest temporarily changing the protection level of the page to semi-protection (perhaps for a day or so). While the other dispute is not yet resolved, it does not seem likely to me that any of the participants are likely to engage in edit warring on the page (at least I hope not). Nsk92 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect you're right, but I'll defer to Cirt. He's quite active, and shouldn't be too hard to reach; if not drop me a note or head over to WP:RFPP. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. Now that the official Olympics results have been added, the matter is not particularly urgent. The reason for temporarily lifting full protection would be so that a bit more detail about the 2010 Winter Olympics may be added (e.g. that he was 6th in both short and free programs, perhaps some brief commentary on his performance, etc). Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- ^ [24]
- ^ "Johnny Weir's Ice Capades: The U.S. skater has his own reality show and fashion label; a costume like 'a Care Bear on acid'" Geoffrey A. Fowler, Wall Street Journal, 12 February, 2010.]
- ^ a b c d e "Figure Skating Rivalry Pits Athleticism Against Artistry" Alan Schwartz, New York Times, March 18, 2008.
- ^ "Johnny Weir's Ice Capades: The U.S. skater has his own reality show and fashion label; a costume like 'a Care Bear on acid'" Geoffrey A. Fowler, Wall Street Journal, 12 February, 2010.]
- ^ "Johnny Weir's Ice Capades: The U.S. skater has his own reality show and fashion label; a costume like 'a Care Bear on acid'" Geoffrey A. Fowler, Wall Street Journal, 12 February, 2010.]
- ^ Men’s Figure Skating. New York Times, February 19, 2010. Accessed February 19, 2010