Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 2

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?

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)

On February 18, the NBC coverage once again included initial very hopeful predictions of Weir's score (they described the bronze medalist as tensely waiting to see if he would keep his position), followed by questioning whether Weir was "underscored" after he came out at something like 7 points below that. But I only found one newspaper reference to this [6] which is fairly obscure - and they also left it unclear whether the animal-rights crap had more to do with it. (I have to say, I can't comprehend why people would be throwing death threats at and/or underscoring a skater because he wears an animal product in a skating costume, when leather jackets are so popular for everyday use without comment. I know unequivocally that animal rights believers are cowards who target anyone separated from a conformist crowd, but how they arrange to all go after the same target?) Wnt (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A few points here: (1) Scott Hamilton has a long history of mis-calling competition results before the actual marks come up, going back at least as far as the broadcast of the 1990 World Figure Skating Championships. And TV commentators in general often try to play up the drama and suspense of the judging as much as possible, whether or not it's actually realistic to do so. (2) The TV commentators didn't know that Weir had gotten deductions for a wrong-edge takeoff on his flip in either program until the marks were actually posted. Some of the deductions in the scoring system being used nowadays are not at all obvious to people just watching along in real time. (The technical panel -- not judges-- who make those decisions are huddled over slow-motion replays after each skater's performance to check those things.) (3) The Olympics always seem to bring out arm-chair critics who have little technical knowledge of figure skating but nonetheless have some pet conspiracy theory about how so-and-so was robbed of a medal. Even if such theories appear in a published news source, WP:FRINGE applies here, plus "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's a long leap from people in the media expressing disagreement or confusion with the judging, to having a reliable source that indicates evidence that any of the judges or technical panel officials specifically marked down a specific skater for factors that had to do with anything other than his/her skating. Dr.frog (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

One point that may help here is I believe Weir's scores, when announce, were the only ones booed by the audience in both short and long program. here's Outsports take on him officially coming out or not and here's 140 some GNews hits on the subject. A good article would certainly cover this but it simply may be premature unless someone is willing to clean up the whole article. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Animal rights controversy

{{editsemiprotected}}

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). [[7]] [[8]] —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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.

---

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." —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[9] 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)

the topic has been the subject of much speculation according/by whom? Do you have a citation for this part? It just seems unencyclopediatic. Of course, this seems to be current eventish, but I would agree that we don't need to "rush" this issue, especially since this is am encyclopeidia and not tabloid/news/whatever. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below (21:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)). Wine Guy~Talk 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I did. I would agree that removing "much" would be a good start since that is subjective and seems to be a synthesis/original research based on that article. I tend towards "less is better, unless clearly sourced" in these type of "issues" Anyways, not a biggie and didn't mean anything by my reversion, ie good faith all around :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AGF absolutely :) I think we're all trying to work out the best way of handling this issue. In a moment, I'll propose a revised wording below and see if we have consensus. I think we may already be there, but I think it best to confirm that here before making any further changes to the article. Wine Guy~Talk 22:00, 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 not true. He answered 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)

(edit conflict) First of all, I'm not heated at all, just explaining the rationale for my edit; sorry if you interpret that as "heated". Second, the statement "has consistently declined to answer questions..." was not my addition, it was already there; the word "consistently" should probably be removed. My addition (as I tried to explain above) was "While the topic has been the subject of much speculation"; I should not have used the word "much", but that phrase is sourced from the NYT article ("His total package has not only led to assumptions..." and "Weir, 23, declined to end the speculation..."). I have no interest in an edit war, or "heated" discussion over this. Feel free to refer to my comments in future discussions of this topic, but I frankly don't see how the timing, whether it be before, during, or after the Olympics, has anything to do with this topic. Wine Guy~Talk 21:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies I meant some of the more passionate posts and editing. The timing is that what we write here has real world implications, he has been working towards the Olympics for years and there was even a documentary produced about his training. He is also on the world's biggest stage but I think the competition for men's ends tonight although I only follow it all so much. In any case I appreciate the effort. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, no apologies necessary. Timing-wise, I do agree that right now he is on a big stage and is getting more media attention than ever; all the more reason that this article must be absolutely accurate, well sourced, and NPOV... right now. This discussion is the best way of getting there. Wine Guy~Talk 21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm reticent to add anything until it's confirmed he's done competing this month (they end 28th I believe). After than I'll help or if there is some rush need let me know. -- Banjeboi 21:59, 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)

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[10]. It's a simple matter of responsible reporting on our part. _99.142.6.146 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording

While the topic has been the subject of speculation, Weir has declined to answer questions about his sexuality. He has stated: "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use."

2 3

I think (hope?) this satisfies all concerns in that it is accurate to the cited sources (note removal of "much" as a modifier of speculation, and "consistently" modifying declined), it is NPOV, and concisely covers the issue in an encyclopedic fashion. The main reason for the phrase "While the topic has been the subject of speculation," is that (again IMO) it helps explain to the reader why the subject is mentioned at all. Without that phrase, the topic of his sexuality jumps out more (Whoa! Who said anything about his sexuality, why is it mentioned here?). If we can agree to this (or similar) wording, we're done here in saecula saeculorum; any future changes can be reverted without further discussion with an edit summary pointing here. Thoughts? Wine Guy~Talk 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems pretty tame/npov and I would not object unless I am missing something, which I usually do :) --Tom (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ps, maybe something like "Weir has declined to directly answer questions about his sexuality" since I think above somebody said that he HAS answered questions about it, just that he hasn't really given a "firm" answer either way, ect. --Tom (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The above proposed wording is fine by me. I am also OK with adding the word "directly" as Tom suggests. Nsk92 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be best not to insert "directly" because that could be read to imply that he has indirectly answered the question. It seems that the only comment on the subject that he has made, directly or indirectly, is that he won't answer the question directly. (Does that make sense, I hope you understand what I mean.) I think we should just avoid implying anything. Wine Guy~Talk 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Directly" implies he's avoiding the answer, he has answered directly just not an answer everyone likes but I suggest we use his own words - when asked Weir stated "You can't judge a book by it's cover, ever. . . . I am who I am, and I don't need to justify anything to anyone."[11] It's unambiguous and removes the middle name bit which is actually a matter of public record and get us away from the hand-moisturizing bit which also seems a bit problematic. -- Banjeboi 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that link is a good source, although I would use the quote: "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." It sums up the entire issue quite well, in his own words. Do you agree with the first sentence of the proposed wording? And what preferences does anyone else have regarding quotes? Wine Guy~Talk 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest more emphasis on the article's subject:

"Weir has declined to answer questions about his sexuality. He has stated: "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use."

An important distinction. (Just as an aside, has it escaped anyones attention that, as per the quote - we really don't know his middle name?)99.144.240.136 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging the last two ideas, I'd suggest: Weir has declined to answer questions about his sexuality. He has stated: "I don't feel the need to express my sexual being because it's not part of my sport and it's private." Dr.frog (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

While I would prefer including the introductory phrase for reasons stated above, I'm also happy to forget about it for the sake of consensus. What does anyone else think, Dr.Frog's wording is good as far as I'm concerned. Wine Guy~Talk 07:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Although personally I rather like the other quote, Dr.frog's version is fine by me. Nsk92 (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the wider policy discussion, summarized here[12] may have found a consensus opposed to shoehorning gossip on sexual orientation and notability regarding cultural perceptions as to what constitutes social deviancy suitable for BLP notability. As I noted throughout, I rather liked the one quote and supported it's inclusion, but I am genuinely swayed by the implied arguments in support of normalization.99.144.240.136 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

There appears to be a consensus that speculation re: sexual orientation is not in and of itself acceptable. I actually supported a form of inclusion[13], but am now swayed by the implicit arguments for cultural normalcy, and respect the apparent consensus that barring notable activity regarding sexual orientation (Obviously activism, political hypocrisy and the like are in and of themselves notable) we should treat Weir as we treat other's - as a person. (Note here the lack of "sexual orientation"[14][15][16][17]). I think this is a fair take on the general principles expressed here->[18] _99.144.240.136 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

There's also speculation that he's Jewish, and not gay.[23] "Why need you, who are not a gossip, talk as a gossip? R.W. Emerson." _ 99.144.240.136 (talk) 21:12, 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. Weir 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)

To answer Ctjf83, I'm a little shocked. There is a heated discussion how to present content on Weir's non-heterosexuality which has been reported in mainstream media and asked of him in mainstream news reports and answered by him. The only Wikiproject devoted to non-heterosexuality? The LGBT Wikiproject. I'm not sure how to make it more clear. -- Banjeboi 02:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Benjiboi, but I really have to disagree with you here. You appear to be making the very same assumption here that we are trying very hard to avoid as we discuss wording for the article, i.e. that Weir is a non-heterosexual. There has been a considerable amount of media coverage regarding questions about his sexuality, but Weir neither confirms nor denies that he is non-hetero. We must not encourage the assumption that he is. Wine Guy~Talk 07:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well let's be more clear because my opinion shouldn't govern what is or is not in the article. His sexuality, coded language almost everytime someone's sexuality is questioned, for are they gay or bi or what?, has been repeatedly talked about in mainstream media. I give you this bit that actually discusses Weir vs. Evan Lysachek - as a few articles have specifically done. About the vast differences between the two, the "future of male figure skating" and they always seem to discuss their vastly different "styles" ala the subtitle - "The straightlaced Evan Lysacek and Flamboyant Johnny Weir Duel for The Soul of teh Most Sequined Olympic Sport" (Details March 2010):

“ Oh, one more thing: Lysacek, who used to date skater Tanith Belbin, still wears the ring an ex-girlfriend gave him, and although Weir ostensibly keeps his sexuality under wraps, really, it's a mystery only in the sense that if JOHNN_ WEIR IS GA_ were a puzzle on Wheel of Fortune, it would still, technically, be unsolved. As inspiring as Lysacek's preternatural concentration, poise, and humility are, Weir's defiant, witty, "I am who I am" stance is a welcome finger in the eye of every homophobe who has ever decided that skating needs butching up. As he saunters into the Ice Vault's snack bar after practice, clad in full footballer's-wife regalia—shiny gold boots, purple leather gloves, a calf-length fur coat that draws the wistful caresses of a female Russian Olympic hopeful, fur earmuffs, and oversize Jackie O sunglasses—he's like David Bowie as the Man Who Fell to Jersey. Three spotty teenage boys by the video games look unsure whether they should beat him up or ask for his autograph. "I love walking through this place looking like this and scaring the hockey people," he deadpans. "Although I do get called 'Ma'am' more often than I'd like." ”

I'm not suggesting we lead here, I'm saying that policy is that we follow reliable sources. We don't work for the Olympic committee or Weir or anyone else, we simply dispassionately write about a subject. When an abundance of sources talk about a subject's sexuality, in any form that a reasonable editor could see as within the range of LGBT subject area then excluding the only Wikiproject that is devoted to encyclopedic coverage of this area should be welcomed here - not excluded by majority vote or otherwise. -- Banjeboi 14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do not include tag 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)

PLease check the article again per my above comments, others have simply been working how to word what is there, and notable spoecualtion can be encyclopedia and everyone has already agredd mention should be included. - "questions about his sexuality". -- Banjeboi 02:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lokking at the proposed insertion, I still see no reason to include him in this catagory. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a category, it's a Wikiproject banner for the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 14:50, 20 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)
  • Actually, in this case the harm that a tag can cause is not particularly hypothetical. E.g. look at this recent edit here[24] from an IP (I have rolled-back that edit). It is not a good idea to give people like this IP more ammunition to feed their appetite for unverifiable gossip, which is what a tag might do in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • At its base, there is simply nothing that places this skater's BLP in that category for "study". _99.144.240.136 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually local consensus does not itself change policy although it can present a case for doing so. The likely path, by the way, of this logic is that any article can thus become a battleground to push off Wikiprojects deemed in some way offensive or unworthy to someone. A Wikiproject tag is not a category the two are similarly used but we have steadfast rules about reporting someone's religion or non-heterosexuality in categories but we actually encourage Wikiprojects to help improve the article offering their expertise is those areas. There remains no reason to remove the projects tag besides ones that have little to do with improving Wikipedia as a whole. -- Banjeboi 02:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Reporting a person's religion, sexual identity, or other personal data can sometimes harm them and we are not qualified to judge their reasons why. Using a project to skirt the general policy is too clever by half. I sympathize with the social goals of the project inclusionists, but I submit that WP is not an appropriate place to fight that battle.Jarhed (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • A Wikiproject tag is never considered reporting anything and no one is suggesting any policy be skirted. -- Banjeboi 03:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • By "reporting" I mean revealing information in an article as a reporter might. Putting a Christian project tag on an article for someone who lives in Gaza might be the wrong thing to do, and so might this.Jarhed (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Understand what you mean now but it remains the same issue. This is the talkpage and that remains just a project tag. If religious/spirituality/political Wikiproject tags were disputed - which I imagine they sometimes are - a similar discussion could take place to establish if reasonably a particular Wikiproject is seen as having a logical involvement. We want to encourage more eyes on articles so if a particular project member questions it likely it should be discussed within that project - does this article make sense for our project, etc. -- Banjeboi 14:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep the tag. It doesn't imply that the subject is LGBT, just that the subject is related to LGBT issues and falls within the scope of the WikiProject. If Randy in Boise doesn't read the tag properly and makes blind assumptions, that's his own fault and not our problem. Cher and Judy Garland both have the tag, and nobody is even speculating that either of them are LGBT people. Protecting BLPs is important, but removing this tag won't help. In fact, having the tag here gives it the assistance of one of the more active projects, who can help protect the integrity of the article even more efficiently. So, it would appear that keeping the tag is the easiest way to protect it, more eyes watching and all that. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Does the LGBT project have a policy on this, or is it left up to editors to decide?--Jarhed (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Same with every other project, anyone can add one and removing the LGBT tag is routinely done as forms of vandalism, in this case I see it only as a philosophical difference and not vandalism. -- Banjeboi 14:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep project tag: As with Anderson Cooper and Jodie Foster, the discussion of a person's sexuality is often enough to bring it into WP:LGBT's sphere. Also, there is an |explanation= section of the project tag that can explain that the person may not be gay, but is of interest to the project. That also satisfies BLP issues. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't even know that field existed, but now that I do I feel it would be a good compromise. As long as we say in the tag that he may or may not be LGBT, it should clear up any lingering BLP concerns. If somebody chooses not to read that part of the tag and makes their own assumptions, that's their problem, not ours. Its also not likely to cause any harm whatsoever to the article subject. If anybody decides to tell people "...but wikipedia says he's gay, I saw this tag thingy on the discussion page" other people can go look it up and tell him he's an idiot for not actually reading it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:22, 20 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.

(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)

Sexuality verbiage still needs work

Note: moved from above discussion as it seems to have gotten lost in the heatedness.

I think we still have some problems, first off we should not imply he has dodged or not answered the questions. He has, it's just not the answer some folks may want. I also think the middle name, hand cream quote is off for reasons stated already, perhaps combining two quotes would work?

“ Weir's sexuality has been the subject of mainstream media attention. When asked on the subject and how it relates to his work he has stated "You can't judge a book by it's cover, ever..." and "... 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."[25] ”

The second sentence from the longer quote can be left off altogether but either way is fine by me. Also I think we should look to reintegrating this information at the end of the paragraph rather than having it be a small mini-paragraph on its own per WP:Undue but that can wait until wording is sorted out. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 04:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. Weir has been asked outright if he is gay, and he has responded by saying he doesn't want to talk about his private life. So, no, he hasn't answered the question people keep asking. Personally, I think the article does need to say something on this topic simply to stop people from trying to invent answers -- but it should be as brief as possible, include a direct quote from Weir, and be phrased in such a way that discourages other editors from trying to expand it with mentions of every news article or editorial where somebody else says something about Weir's alleged sexuality. The "it's not part of my sport and it's private" quote accomplishes that, I think, but the more you try to expand it or point out that it's been discussed in the media, the more likely it is that it's going to snowball out of control again. So, short and to the point, please. Dr.frog (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I hear you but technically we can't say he refuses to answer, etc; Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality is simply false. He has answered repeatedly every question about his sexuality just not given the one answer everyone presumes is "the truth". Let's find a way to note why we are even noting it in the article (because mainstream media address it) and I agree about the short and to the point. So can we further combine the above or just trim the quotes? -- Banjeboi 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, you're both right; Weir has been asked "Johnny, are you queer?", he has answered that question and similar ones (as Benjiboi points out), but he has not answered the question with a direct yes or no, as Dr.frog said. While I agree with 95% of what Dr.frog said in the entirety of their post above, I do tend to agree with Benjiboi in that Weir has answered the questions in his own way, and we should not imply that he has refused to answer. I think we are all agreed that any mention should be short and to the point; i.e. max two sentences, stating that questions surrounding his sexuality have been a notable part of media coverage about Weir, followed by a quote from him. This could be incorporated into the second paragraph of Personal life, perhaps right after: "...modeled in runway shows for the fashion label Heatherette." How's about this wording: Questions regarding Weir's sexuality have been the subject of attention in the mainstream media . In response, 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". I think that covers everything. What does anyone else think? Wine Guy~Talk 07:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Wine Guy's suggested edit. Cla68 (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

support' only If there is a consensus here to include a comment, the comment above is very clear. Although it could be altered to a degree of speculation in the America media. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My only concern about the proposed new wording above is that the first sentence is going to leave the door open for other folks who come along later to try to tack on more text about third-party discussion of Weir's sexuality, which I think we all agree ought not to be in the article per the BLP policy. As a specific suggestion for alternative wording, how about stripping the first sentence off entirely, and instead just saying "When asked in interviews about his sexuality, Weir has said...."? Dr.frog (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I can guarantee that this subject is only starting a longer process, to quote others he seems to be very out without implicitly saying so. More editors will continue to push for everything under the sun and there is lots of content about his fashion, his documentary, his reality show, his costuming, etc etc that can and eventually should be added with due weight (wikilink added for future editors here). I think we have to do the best we can for what the article is presently and keep eyes on the article for future concerns. His sexuality has been a source of talkpage posts going back several years, our efforts presently won't radically change this, our readers see extensive non-tabloidy coverage elsewhere and expect similar efforts here. All we can do is set a good example. I would try to combine into one sentence to try to ease this. Weir's sexuality has been the subject of mainstream media attention, 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." Does this work? -- Banjeboi 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not a well-formed sentence; it's two sentences joined with incorrect punctuation. Sorry, my tech-writer grammar-geekiness is showing through here, but if this were any other writing I were copy-editing as part of my job, I'd go with the rewrite I already suggested as the simplest and most direct. *shrug* Anyway, I do agree that the article is probably eventually going to grow a new "Public image" section that discusses the various non-skating things Weir has said/done that have made him into a media celebrity beyond the skating world. Dr.frog (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, grammar is not usually my strong suit. And upon further thought we likely should avoid stating "it's not part of my sport and it's private", as arguably it is a part of the sport and talked about publicly. I still think we have to state "mainstream media" somewhere so I offer: Weir's sexuality has been the subject of mainstream media attention. When asked Weir has stated: ".. it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice." Agree about the public image ideas. -- Banjeboi 17:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. If Weir says his sexuality is not part of *his* sport, who are we to dispute that? To be honest, I find his skating to be rather androgynous/asexual and can well believe his statement. Someone like Katarina Witt, or the various pair/dance teams whose routines make me think "get a room, already", may think differently.... but Weir is only talking about himself, here. Dr.frog (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Speculation regarding sexual orientation.

There seems to be some resistance from an editor regarding that summation [that speculation is not in and of itself notable]. Here are a list of supporting quotes for it:

1. "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)[26]
2. "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 [27]
3. "I see no purpose for speculation on sexual orientation - even from "reliable sources" - in a reputable encyclopedia. If he is, he is; if he isn't, he isn't; and if no one but him and his know, then there's no point to speculate." -Golbez[28]
4. "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[29]
5. "Per BLP, it should not be stated or implied unless there are high quality references for it." Crum375[30]
6. "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 [31]
7. "It is pro-LGBT advocacy of a kind that is carried out mainly, to borrow a phrase from Sister Kitty Catalyst, by "homo-propagandists" and should be viewed the same as any other type of POV-pushing." -Delicious carbuncle[32]
8. "Leave that angle of his personal life out of it unless he chooses to discuss it. I don't care whether a skater's tastes are for men, women or goldfish: what matters is whether he lands a good quadruple axel." -Durova412[33]
9. " until he himself confirms it, it amounts to mere gossip and doesn't belong in the article" -Baseball Bugs[34]
10. "Clearly some editors have a more obvious interest in him being called gay than others do. It comes down to a simple answer. Until he says it, it stays out. Guesses, speculation and conjecture don't belong in the bio, regardless of what magazine, commentator or other "expert" said it." -Niteshift36[35]
11. "It's a fundamental question, does this institution condone using the 'politics of denial' to shoehorn bias and perpetuate sexual orientation stereotypes?" -IP[36]

It's not a controversial observation, it does however appear to be difficult to put into practice. BLP is strict. Wikipedia is not a rumour farm. Proposing that we institutionalize and perpetuate stereotypical labeling by speculating about someone because of the way they act - and then justifying it by saying, "... well that's what someone said.." through the weasel word act of prefacing it with "some people speculate", just makes Wikipedia a gossip magazine in which we engage in the age old dodge, "now I would never say this, but I heard "? R.W. Emerson had it right, "Why need you, who are not a gossip, talk as a gossip?" BLP agrees, as does the community. Will we go where the references take us? Or do we go beyond them in service of a biased agenda? _99.141.248.48 (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a consensus as you so assert vehemently and repeatedly complete with veiled personal slights and bards. The letter and spirit of our policies is to work with other editors, not in competition or battle. You have chosen some very disruptive ways inducing drama to make a point and largely other editors have simply worked to find the best way forward. Speculation can be notable but we have already moved past that point; also the original quote wasn't written as speculation but simply an outright statement. Nothing has suggested it was wrong as much as in a gray area. In any case it was removed, right or wrong, and more NPOV language is being worked out. Spamming this page with meta discussion isn't helping do anything but show a single-purposeness to your editing which is unlikely what you are seeking. Now that many experienced editors are looking at the best way forward you could simply allow that process to unfold and see if the end result isn't acceptable for the present version of the article. -- Banjeboi 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Perpetuating bigotry is not a proper use of the Encyclopedia. I actually supported a form of inclusion earlier[37], but am now swayed by the implicit arguments for cultural normalcy, and respect the apparent consensus that barring notable activity regarding sexual orientation (Obviously activism, political hypocrisy and the like are in and of themselves notable) we should treat Weir as we treat other's - as a person. (Note here the lack of "sexual orientation"[38][39][40][41]).99.141.248.48 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No one seems to be suggesting these things but you. And "cultural normalcy" sounds like a really bad policy. And as for those other skaters? I don't really care one way or another but similar to Weir if reliable sources are talking about their sexuality for four year + then likely Wikipedia should include some mention with due weight. -- Banjeboi 18:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Cultural normalcy is bad policy? You propose that we treat some as cultural deviants? Why, because a person skates, is interested in fashion, or speaks "differently" than you? We then gossip about their sexual orientation? How is perpetuating gender or sexual preference prejudice Encyclopedic? _99.141.248.48 (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are again using this page as some odd WP:Soapbox. If you have something constructive to offer to improve this article then state it without all this drama and disruption. -- Banjeboi 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have clearly responded to your every question with well referenced, reasonable, on topic and concise discussion. I'll suggest that your attempts at provocation[42] and diversionary tactics are not relevant. You're a committed activist on this subject having telephoned Wiki BLP subjects regarding their orientation and have a committed involvement with the goal of outing BLP subjects. Your issue advocacy is a problem. People with a "cause" are often naively blind to the effect it has on their ability to approach a subject in a disinterested, neutral and academic manner. _99.141.248.48 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your speculative and personal attacks. I have no such goal of outing anyone and have been quite clear on that each time you insisted I must. I also have never "telephoned Wiki BLP subjects regarding their orientation", in two cases, both reported by me on the relevant talkpages of the articles I have spoken with representative of BLP subjects who were being either (i) maligned by bloggers (ii) outed by the worldwide press yet we had unconfirmed denials by someone on the talk pages. In each case the calls, made not just by myself, we to ensure we follow BLP in both spirit and letter. Sadly you seem to have an "issue advocacy" problem and for the record can you confirm you are not a blocked/banned user and have never edited Wikipedia under other usernames? -- Banjeboi 19:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

<==Egad, there is some POV pushing and personal attacks going on, and I see a lot of evidence that we can get through this, so please everyone try to calm down. Perhaps some people here have agendas to push, please let's not worry about that. Let's try to get a proper edit that handles the issue at hand for this particular article and for this particular living person. Reading over the issues here, I think we are close.--Jarhed (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

After seeing Johnny skate at the Olympics on TV the other day, I decided to check the latest on his WP article, and alas it is protected so it can't be updated with his latest results. (He skated well and placed 6th, and WP should link to NBC or YouTube.) If I may offer a suggestion, similar to what others have said above, I think the right thing to do is quote him and say as little else as possible. He is very funny and quotable (e.g. "Care Bear on acid..."). The Edge story linked above[43] may have been overeager in calling him "out;" Edge is not a newspaper per se but is rather a "network of portals"[44] and it isn't clear whether they do independent fact-checking within the meaning of WP:RS. (If anyone wants to contact them and suggest they update their site if they do, that's fine, but currently they present themselves as a portal.) As new media continue to develop, WP:RS adjusts to keep up, but a relevant attribute is fact-checking independent of the individual journalist who reported the story. A good contrast is the Anderson Cooper article, which cites several independent news media and quotes him. Otherwise I agree that speculation is generally not notable in itself, but it certainly drives readers to WP looking for answers, so the subject should be quoted if possible. And, I agree that he has answered, in his own comic way; he just hasn't given one of the two binary answers that some people insist upon.TVC 15 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Weir's sexual orientation has been the subject of speculation repeatedly and for the past four years in various reliable sources, including both news and feature articles in world-famous daily newspapers (and I don't mean tabloids). Anyone with time, patience, and a fast 'net connection can find those articles. So in this case I'd say that speculation is notable. While BLP policy demands that we be very careful and never engage in our own speculation (and avoid synthesis and so on), it would be very strange if WP were the only major site on the Web that discussed Mr. Weir in depth without acknowledging that speculation exists. Questions involving the sexual orientation of celebrities don't constitute some kind of taboo, after all; these things do get talked about out in the world, and our articles can and should reflect that, just as long as we're careful. At any rate, the wording of the current version seems acceptable. Rivertorch (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Speculations and gossip about someone's sexuality only become encyclopedic once they pass into the work of scholars and historians (e.g. for figures like Tchaikovsky). In relation to living individuals such speculations are not encyclopedic and should not be included in view of WP:BLP. If someone is really interested in that kind of stuff, they can do their own google-searching and read the tabloid press. Wikipedia should not stoop down to the tabloid level, even if some mainstream newsmedia have done so. Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So the Denver Post[45] and the Washington Post[46] are tabloids? What about the book "The Outsports Revolution: Truth and Myth in the World of Gay Sports" by Jim Buzinksi, Cyd Zeigler? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. But in this case they have stooped down to the tabloid level; it does not mean that we should follow suit. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I am a deletionist/minimalist(for disclosure) so I usually go with non inclusion if there is this much of a split, difference of opinion. This reminds me of the speculation/rumor/urban legend of an actor being treated at an ER for having a small creature up their butt. The rumor was so rampant and it was such urban folklore that it had a life of its own. General consensus was not to include dispite the huge number of sources/citations/reporting about, ect. and the strong case made by inclusionists that the rumor/speculation had reached such a notable level that it warranted a denial/coverage, ect. in the BLP. Unless Weir's sexuality is somehow "tied" into something more(and I admitt, I don't know if it has), like getting good/bad scores or being discriminated or rewarded or whatever, I would leave it out for now. If more "develops" than pure spectulation this can be re-evaluated as always. Also, I disagree with the idea that "everybody else" is covering this so this makes us look fillintheblank. Anyways, good luck :) --Tom (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP is not meant to be Orwell

The Gere gerbil story mentioned above was fairly clearly untrue,[47] but sourced stories about the silly rumor still belong in Richard Gere. The BLP policy suppresses unsourced or poorly sourced commentary (and there has been some valid discussion about that above), but it does not suppress information when the source is unsure. I should add that if it were otherwise, you'd be in a position to destroy much of this talk page, as the policy doesn't distinguish between talk and article - but the point is, the policy is meant to suppress a "I heard --- put a gerbil up the wazoo" tagged on a random person's talk page by some IP without confirmation --- NOT to limit what news reports Wikipedia can cover. Though the gerbil story did not represent Richard Gere's sexuality, it nonetheless was a public nuisance he had to deal with, and by covering it, Wikipedia would more fairly and realistically describe what life was like for him and other celebrities at the turn of the century. For example it would educate people to be more skeptical and to consider that something about Johnny Weir also might not be true even if many sources speculate about it.

It never ceases to amaze me how quick Wikipedians are to criticize the Chinese for running Wikipedia-like sites where nobody talks about the violence at Tiananmen Square, when they embrace (even without formal policy) positions that are just as unrealistic on far less traumatic subjects.

It may be more appropriate to transfer much of this discussion to some other policy forum on Wikipedia like an RfC, as I do feel like this ever-growing sexuality debate here creates something of a false impression that this is all actually about Weir, when his page is really just the battlefield for a Wikipedia policy argument between additionists and deletionists. Wnt (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the current RfCs related to dealing with unsourced BLPs, you'll see that me and Scot MacDonald are pretty much in diametrically opposed camps there. I certainly do not count myself as a deletionist of any kind, BLP or not, particularly in relation to uncontentious and benign BLP material. However, in this case we are dealing with contentious BLP material and in such situations one does need to veer on the side of caution. Yes, the speculations in question can be properly sourced and yes they have been reported in mainstream newsmedia, like New York Times and Washington Post. However, I am still of the opinion that these speculations are unencyclopedic in nature and do not belong in a Wikipedia article. Yes, I realize that there are dangers in self-censorship of any kind and that one has to be really careful as to not start excluding well sourced controversial or negative material that has encyclopedic value. If negative or contentious material is more factual in nature (e.g. when someone is accused of a crime or of wrongdoing), I would see no problem with including such material in a BLP article, provided it is properly sourced. But here all we have is some people speculating about someone else's sexuality. This sort of stuff has little encyclopedic value but does directly infringe on the person's privacy. Nsk92 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Sports reporters speculate about all sorts of things, e.g. who will win the game, and many people even place bets. That might be notable about the speculators (e.g., William Bennett was reportedly a heavy gambler) and so belong in their own BLP's, but it doesn't say much about the people they're speculating about. Regarding the current version, it seems oddly dour ("Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality. He stated: "...). Perhaps something like, "Responding to questions and speculation about his sexuality, Weir joked: "...). (Or, if you think he wasn't joking, "Weir stated.")TVC 15 (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion here as become excessive and should better as regards BLP be moved to a policy discussion page or simply be closed here, there is a comment in the article which has a degree of support as it stands and the LBG template has been resisted which is enough in a BLP to keep it out so really there is nothing left here to discuss. Suggest closure here on the subjects talkpage, wider wikipedia issues should imo be discussed elsewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)