Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) →Project tag: comment |
99.144.240.136 (talk) |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
:::::::While I was writing the above comment, [[User:Threeafterthree]] reverted my edit. I'll leave it pending further discussion. [[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>]] 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::While I was writing the above comment, [[User:Threeafterthree]] reverted my edit. I'll leave it pending further discussion. [[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>]] 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::(ec) I would prefer to leave it out altogether until after the Olympics have ended (roughly ten days from now). Several of us agreed to table the discussion until then to avoid exactly this kind of heated discussion. I agree the phrasing I used to try to fix what I saw were problems had their own problems so that obviously didn't help. Once the dust has settled a bit I think there is a some sources we can look to but I'm in no hurry. Wine Guy, the statement that "has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality" is patently false. He answered many many direct media questions about his sexuality and we likely should use his own words to describe his label. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
::::::(ec) I would prefer to leave it out altogether until after the Olympics have ended (roughly ten days from now). Several of us agreed to table the discussion until then to avoid exactly this kind of heated discussion. I agree the phrasing I used to try to fix what I saw were problems had their own problems so that obviously didn't help. Once the dust has settled a bit I think there is a some sources we can look to but I'm in no hurry. Wine Guy, the statement that "has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality" is patently false. He answered many many direct media questions about his sexuality and we likely should use his own words to describe his label. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Agree with the number of editors who support the inclusion of ''"Johnny has also said, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use." [1]''. Appropriate, succinct, and leaves the question to Weir, the BLP subject here. [[Special:Contributions/99.144.240.136|99.144.240.136]] ([[User talk:99.144.240.136|talk]]) 21:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
As the article was locked and no response was given here earlier, I took the question to AN/I. Here is the link to that ongoing discussion[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_BLP_Violation_-_Wikipedia_attempts_to_.22Out.22_athlete_who_makes_no_public_claim_about_his_sexuality]. It's a simple matter of responsible reporting on our part. _[[Special:Contributions/99.142.6.146|99.142.6.146]] ([[User talk:99.142.6.146|talk]]) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
As the article was locked and no response was given here earlier, I took the question to AN/I. Here is the link to that ongoing discussion[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_BLP_Violation_-_Wikipedia_attempts_to_.22Out.22_athlete_who_makes_no_public_claim_about_his_sexuality]. It's a simple matter of responsible reporting on our part. _[[Special:Contributions/99.142.6.146|99.142.6.146]] ([[User talk:99.142.6.146|talk]]) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:03, 17 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)
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
This new edit: "LGBT newspaper Edge noted during the 2010 Olympics that "like Matthew Mitcham, [Weir] is a rare Olympic athlete who feels comfortable about being out even while his career is in full swing".[25]" As said elsewhere, BLP clearly states that: "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." Weir has been clear that who he sleeps with is his private life, "Johnny has also said, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.6.146 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am basically with 99.142.6.146 here. What we have in this case is a lot of speculations about Weir's sexuality. Yes, many of these speculations are reported in newspaper/magazine articles, that is sources technically satisfying WP:RS. However, in the absence of definitive statements from Weir, they remain just that, speculations, and as such their coverage in the article should be kept close to a minimum, particularly in view of WP:BLP considerations. I think that 1-2 sentences, perhaps with the above direct quote from Weir, is about as much as is appropriate to have about this topic in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the contentious material and substituted a single sentence that states what I think we can all agree on: Weir has refused to say anything about the subject himself.Dr.frog (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. However, I would also be Ok with adding the quote from Weir cited above There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use. This quote is rather punchy and it is sourceable to New York Times[8] Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- As noted above I think it can wait a week or two. As to what content would be best it's clear that even though it is speculation, the speculation itself has risen to a notable level that not reporting it becomes a NPOV issue. He has been asked by major media outlets about these issues specifically and he has provided various answers which I think is best summed up as his response is he prefers not to be labelled. Similar to Anderson Cooper I think we need to collect the best sources and see how they suss out the issues and act accordingly. It can certainly wait until after the Olympics though. -- Banjeboi 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see speculations about somebody's sexuality as particularly encyclopedic, especially in a BLP case. This is more in the line of gossip and tabloid press, even if in this case such speculations made their way into mainstream media. I think that your revert gives too much weight to the issue and I'd like to see something shorter. Plus phrases like "has preferred to let his work speak for itself" (particularly following the stuff about his style being "flamboyant" and "sensitive") are a bit too suggestive as to imply a particular conclusion about his sexuality. I don't find it acceptable. Whatever the text says needs to be presented in a more neutral way, such as "refused to address speculations about his sexuality" or some other phrasing that is not suggestive of a particular conclusion. Nsk92 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. I've added that there has been speculation, without going into the details of said speculation. The sentence now reads: While the topic has been the subject of much speculation, Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality. I think this wording makes sense, as it explains to the reader why the topic is mentioned, but avoids saying "everybody thinks he's gay," which would be inappropriate. Regarding the quote ("some things I keep sacred..."), I'm neutral, leaning toward leaving it in. The addition of the quote is useful to concisely explain the topic in his own words, but I wouldn't object if the quote were removed. In an encyclopedic article, nothing more than that which is in the article as I write this should be included. Wine Guy~Talk 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- While I was writing the above comment, User:Threeafterthree reverted my edit. I'll leave it pending further discussion. Wine Guy~Talk 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I would prefer to leave it out altogether until after the Olympics have ended (roughly ten days from now). Several of us agreed to table the discussion until then to avoid exactly this kind of heated discussion. I agree the phrasing I used to try to fix what I saw were problems had their own problems so that obviously didn't help. Once the dust has settled a bit I think there is a some sources we can look to but I'm in no hurry. Wine Guy, the statement that "has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality" is patently false. He answered many many direct media questions about his sexuality and we likely should use his own words to describe his label. -- Banjeboi 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with the number of editors who support the inclusion of "Johnny has also said, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use." [1]. Appropriate, succinct, and leaves the question to Weir, the BLP subject here. 99.144.240.136 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. I've added that there has been speculation, without going into the details of said speculation. The sentence now reads: While the topic has been the subject of much speculation, Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality. I think this wording makes sense, as it explains to the reader why the topic is mentioned, but avoids saying "everybody thinks he's gay," which would be inappropriate. Regarding the quote ("some things I keep sacred..."), I'm neutral, leaning toward leaving it in. The addition of the quote is useful to concisely explain the topic in his own words, but I wouldn't object if the quote were removed. In an encyclopedic article, nothing more than that which is in the article as I write this should be included. Wine Guy~Talk 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see speculations about somebody's sexuality as particularly encyclopedic, especially in a BLP case. This is more in the line of gossip and tabloid press, even if in this case such speculations made their way into mainstream media. I think that your revert gives too much weight to the issue and I'd like to see something shorter. Plus phrases like "has preferred to let his work speak for itself" (particularly following the stuff about his style being "flamboyant" and "sensitive") are a bit too suggestive as to imply a particular conclusion about his sexuality. I don't find it acceptable. Whatever the text says needs to be presented in a more neutral way, such as "refused to address speculations about his sexuality" or some other phrasing that is not suggestive of a particular conclusion. Nsk92 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- As noted above I think it can wait a week or two. As to what content would be best it's clear that even though it is speculation, the speculation itself has risen to a notable level that not reporting it becomes a NPOV issue. He has been asked by major media outlets about these issues specifically and he has provided various answers which I think is best summed up as his response is he prefers not to be labelled. Similar to Anderson Cooper I think we need to collect the best sources and see how they suss out the issues and act accordingly. It can certainly wait until after the Olympics though. -- Banjeboi 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. However, I would also be Ok with adding the quote from Weir cited above There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use. This quote is rather punchy and it is sourceable to New York Times[8] Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the contentious material and substituted a single sentence that states what I think we can all agree on: Weir has refused to say anything about the subject himself.Dr.frog (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
As the article was locked and no response was given here earlier, I took the question to AN/I. Here is the link to that ongoing discussion[9]. It's a simple matter of responsible reporting on our part. _99.142.6.146 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Project tag
I see that today (February 17), an LGBT Wikiproject tag was first added[10], then removed[11] then added[12] and then removed again[13]. 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)