Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 1

message: Does anyone know his sexual orientation? Not a derogatory question, I was just curious. 24.71.223.140 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: lots of ... specious comments here. there are plenty of fora out there where people are chatting to their heart's content about weir. feel free to locate them.
for the record, weir has not made any statement about his sexual orientation, and so neither should the wpedia.
i removed the sentence about the olympic village--he did stay there, see . even aside from that factual error, picking out the princess-y comment to fit in this short article seems like trying to make a point to me, although i could imagine a better way of talking about the hubbub over his comments this week that would not be terribly out of place. there is already a note about his 'outrageous manner', which probably ought to be sourced to avoid looking like original research. certainly anything else about these statements needs to be well sourced and to reference the stated opinions of others, not make opinions.
i also removed the note about his not medaling despite good effort, as his record in these olympics is already noted and there was no source for the claim about his effort.
it is our responsibility to report facts and statements made by others, not judge or make inferences, no matter how obvious they may seem or how out of the mainstream the subject is.
Burgher 06:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: addendum: incidentally, if we are looking for a way to show how the US is reacting to him, this jim caple op-ed from espn.com seems like a decent place to start. i personally find caple's article fairly repugnant, but that is neither here nor there.
Burgher 08:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: not to imply that my approval is needed for edits to this page, but i think what you have added is quite acceptable. thank you again for your candid reasonableness. i especially agree with your point about the image he is trying to present and leaving things open to interpretation. Burgher 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sigh 

message: Is there any reason why his height is listed in cm even though he's an American?
:He is an Olympic athlete and I believe the Olympics goes by metric. Although his heigth in inches should likely be mentioned as well.--T. Anthony 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  height in cm 

message: It's not actually his MySpace profile. See his website for more details. 
Actually, his myspace profile says that he's bisexual. Not that I believe him, but that's enough proof that he's LGBT.
:I think you should give the link on that and it's credibility first. Although he's clearly LGBT I think there's way too much putting of LGBT categories on people based on speculation or who just may not fit.--T. Anthony 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thats enough proof that someone who wanted to create a myspace account claiming to be him says he's bi. surely you are aware that the probability of it actually being him is approximately 0.03%. linking to this profile would be non-encyclopedic. Burgher 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  myspace and reality 

message: I saw this added and in this case I decided not to remove it. Because being a Gay Icon doesn't require the person be gay or even bisexual. Judging by several gay commentators blogs or editorials I'd say he did become, a likely temporary, "icon" in that world. I also think he likely accepts that to some degree.--T. Anthony 11:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gay Icon category 

message: Please keep the Johnny Weir: A Rising Star link. It is a semi-official fan site. Weir has done interviews and Q&As there and contributes some of the content. Kolindigo 04:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny Weir: A Rising Star 

message: I am changing his position to 10th in the world IAW ISU webpage.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.252.182 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  position 

message: # 1) Yahoo Group is dead http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnnyWeirFans/ It`s reasonable to remove it.
WRONG!  This group is NOT dead - it is active and there is NO reason to remove it.  The person who wrote this is the same person who keeps deleting our site because they are afraid it competes with THEIR fan club (Rising Star, which is NOT "semi-official", although they claim it is - it is NOT run by or endorsed by Johnny) - KNOCK IT OFF AND LEAVE OUR FAN SITE AND OUR LINK ALONE, JERK!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.74.58 (talk • contribs). 
# 2) Michael Collins Enterprises isn`t so important
# 3) Johnny Weir: A Rising Star - the main sourse after the oficial site. Is`s well known semi-official site like Johnny Weir - Russia
I think, that structure of links sould be
# Johnny Weir Online - Official website
# Johnny Weir at the International Skating Union biography page
# Johnny Weir at the United States Figure Skating Association
# Johnny Weir: A Rising Star
# Michael Collins Enterprises Weir Page
# Johnny Weir - Russia (Russian) - Russian website
# Official U.S. Olympic Team bio ... with photos, wallpapers, features —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arealy (talk • contribs).
: How about switching the USFSA and ISU pages? The USFSA page has a picture and a more detailed competitive history, along with links to latest news and notes on his season. The ISU only has a short bio. Kolindigo 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm from the LJ comm, not A Rising Star. And I've been deleting your stuff because you keep leaving rants in ALL CAPS that don't belong in the article itself. Your fan group has eleven members. A Rising Star has information, interviews, and pictures of Weir, therefore I believe that it is worth including in the links list. Kolindigo 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about links 

message: I think I've corrected this at least 3 times already.  The nationals web site in question is this one.  That site is put up by the local organizing committee, which is not the USFSA, nor part of the USFSA.  It is an independent local Spokane business group which has contracted with the USFSA to handle local arrangements for the championships.  Dr.frog 03:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the media controversy, is this the article to which you are referring? Because there are so many factual errors in that article (ex: confusing the marshalls events, and Lysacek wasn't even at the 2005 Skating Idol) that I would take everything in it with a grain of salt. The other article I can find is from Deadspin and though it has fewer factual errors, is entirely hearsay. All the other articles I can find on the subject, including the first NY Daily News article on the subject are merely repeating what someone whined to Deadspin about. That doesn't seem like much media attention to me. Awartha 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My $.02 worth on this is that there was indeed a brief stir about the website photos when the NY Daily News picked up on it.  But, while there probably are people in the USFSA who prefer Lysacek to Weir, there's never been any evidence presented that either (a) Weir's omission from the LOC website and brochure was anything other than accidental or (b) that the USFSA -- either as an organization, or through the actions of individuals representing the organization -- had anything to do with it.  For instance, how do we know that the LOC didn't just give their web site designer a stack of skater photos and it was the designer who chose which ones to use, or not?  I don't think it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to report that Weir was omitted from the web site, or that the fact was noted by the press, since those things are verifiable.  But this isn't the place to promote conspiracy theories about the omission being a plot by the USFSA to slight Weir, for which there is no reliable source.  And frankly, aren't there more interesting things about Weir's career to focus on in an article about him?  Dr.frog 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 2007 Nationals website controversy 

message: Per WP:EL, it's not appropriate to include external links to fan sites or message boards on Wikipedia.  Please don't keep adding them back.  Dr.frog 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I think :Image:JohnnyWeirSwan.jpg is the best picture for the infobox. 1) It's most recent, 2) it has a good shot of his face, and 3) it's the "iconic" Weir as the Swan.  Awartha 14:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Swan" Glove in Smithsonian Story 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Middle Name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Wine Guy~Talk 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Excessive discussion 

message: Should I include in the article that Johnny Weir is to to collaborate with Mr Hudson? I have a reliable source to back that up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A306200130048123 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Johnny Weir to collaborate with Mr Hudson 

message: :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)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable. Add an inline citation and it's ready to roll, imo. Rivertorch (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Works for me. We don't need to state it's there because the mainstream media discuss it; the fact that it'll have a little [1] after it linking to the mainstream media does that for us. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also can see nothing wrong with changing to Dr Frog's edit, especially if it closes down the discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone ahead and made the edit to the article.  I hope we can put this subject to rest now.  Dr.frog (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I will ask at WP:AN for a completely uninvolved admin to review this discussion and close it it they concur. Wine Guy~Talk 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AN#Admin needed to close discussion -- Wine Guy~Talk 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Current proposal

message: Is the issue of offensive and hurtful remarks made by Goldberg and Mailhot sufficiently notable for inclusion, especially given that Weir held a press conference specifically to address those comments?
87.192.246.247 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be, I suggest we wait a while and see what happens. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past, some of Weir's fans/defenders have tried to report every critical comment made about him in the media in the article, with a "see how mean people are being to poor Johnny" spin put on them.  Weir is a public figure; he appears to go out of his way to provoke controversy and court media attention; not all of it will be positive.  Is this stuff central to his notability as a skater?  100 years from now, will people look back on Weir's legacy in the sport and think it is about all the mean and nasty things people said about him, or about his skating?  Even when somebody says something mean and nasty about Weir that meets the notability guideline of being reliably sourced, we ought to consider whether it is important enough to be mentioned in the article.  Dr.frog (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why I thought we should wait until the story plays out to see if it is important enough. It might be, it might not be. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldberg/Mailhot comments 

message: 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 Incidents. You have been warned.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If I could comment, for a second: I'd urge everyone to read this WikiProject Council thread from two years ago, which addressed the point of WikiProject bagging. Even then the LGBT project was one of the most notable offenders of this (uncodified) idea. Sceptre (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean this thread which shows an over-whelming opposition to the proposed hurdle. Neither discussion BTW asserts that the LGBT project is an offender of any sort; one discussion concerned duplicative Wikiproject tags the other thread concerned a proposal to compel new Wikiproject tags to an article first get "permission" from the other Wikiprojects already on the talkpage - the proposal was overwhelmingly rejected. For those curious where the unilateral decision to remove an RfC discussion by an involved admin is taking place it is at Wikipedia:Ani#Excessive violations of BLP on Talk:Johnny Weir.  -- Banjeboi 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that the block threat be stricken as out of process, if not self-reverted by the administrator in question.  A standing threat to block anyone who proposes discussing a content matter on the article talk page is not proper at all.  Editors can accept, or reject, the inclusion of a project tag but it is not in any way a BLP violation to discuss whether the project tag should be added.  Further, if there is firm enough consensus among the editors here that the article subject's sexuality is not a fit subject for the article, the best approach would be to add a routine FAQ and refer people there.  - Wikidemon (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of verifiable content can be discussed here as always. Unnecessary and inappropriate discussion of tags can take place elsewhere. The block warning remains. --Scott Mac (Doc) 09:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, what might I do to warrant a block. Be clear, please. --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone's opposed to a civil discussion but you unilaterally ended it and threatened to block for various infractions of your decision against discussion. This while antagonistically referring to those who apparently disagree with your position as "certainly wikiproject bagging, by gay activist editors". You also reiterated a falsehood - declined to comment on his sexuality - which was thoughtfully addressed by other editors and replaced with something more neutral and accurate. It would be helpful if you struck or redacted some of your more incendiary comments as pointed out. No one is asking for any BLP violations to occur, a discussion on a Wikiproject tag was taking place.  -- Banjeboi 04:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Wikiproject tag ended 

message: 1.The New York Times reference "Figure Skating Rivalry..." doesn't seem to be anywhere anymore. It is an important reference relied on by many web commentators.  If nothing else, a sentence "In 2008, ALAN SCHWARZ of the New York Times wrote a long story titled "Figure Skating Rivalry Pits Athleticism Against Artistry", comparing the personalities of Weir and Evan Lysacek ..."
2. The "moisturizer" quote from that story should be restored, not so much for its factual contribution (the current quote is better), but for the ability of his own words to add to the reader's understanding of his personal style, the subject at hand. Could add, "In 2008, he was widely quoted as saying..."  
3. The fact that the "moisturizer" quote is widely quoted elsewhere makes it essential for inclusion. Its omission would reflect badly on the reliability of Wikipedia (after a reader spent half an hour tracking down the quote as found on an unreferenced site and finding it authentic).  It has lasting impact, and Johnny will probably be elaborating on it in future talk-show appearances.
70.17.73.230 (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Re item 1, yes, probably something could be mentioned but one has to look at the case closely and see if the said rivalry is really sufficiently significant (in particular, is it mentioned in other sources) to be worth mentioning. Re items 2-3, we have just concluded a long and painful discussion regarding the quotes and a satisfactory compromise was reached. I don't think it is a good idea to reopen the discussion so quickly. Nsk92 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times reference is important and should be somewhere