Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:04, 25 February 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johnny Weir article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography United States: Delaware This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fashion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Figure Skating This article is within the scope of WikiProject Figure Skating, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of figure skating-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Figure SkatingWikipedia:WikiProject Figure SkatingTemplate:WikiProject Figure SkatingFigure skating ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johnny Weir article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Excessive discussion

Excessive circular discussion amounting to 100 000 bits that is about speculation surrounding this article subjects sexuality is excessive and has BLP issues. If any editors think that there is more discussion needed please take it to a policy discussion page. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that some of the archived discussion is stale and redundant, and some of the general discussion belongs elsewhere (I'm not sure where exactly, WT:BLP or WP:BLP/N?), there were currently active discussions regarding the specific content and wording of this particular article. There is consensus that the current wording of the article needs to be adjusted, and discussion is necessary to find the best way of wording any mention of sexuality. This issue was discussed at ANI, where the discussion was closed with the instruction that discussion should continue here . Wine Guy~Talk 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, we had a SPA who has seemed to move on and the remaining discussion has been collegial and can be escalated to dispute resolution if needed. -- Banjeboi 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Project tag discussion (redux)

After a discussion about the LGBT project tag was removed from this page by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) (wherein three editors agreed the project tag could stay, with the "explanation", and two disagreed), now that user has removed the project tag again. Off2riorob, why did you remove the tag again? Either the discussion is closed with a 3-2 keep margin (as you imply by archiving it) and you shouldn't have removed the banner, or it's still open and you probably shouldn't have archived the discussion.

Additionally, the tag was removed with the edit summary there was no consensus to add this, please take it to a specific policy discussion page. The relevant policy here is WP:CONSENSUS. I don't see a need to bring the discussion about a particular article's inclusion in a WikiProject to that policy discussion. I do, however, see a need for one user to stop WP:OWNing the talk page and to allow the process to move forward. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are having a math problem here. In the original thread regarding the tag the following editors were against adding the tag: myself (User:Nsk92), Tom, User:Off2riorob, User:Scott MacDonald, User:Cla68, User:99.144.240.136 and, although not very clearly articulated, User:Wine Guy. The initial adding of the tag was quickly contested and after a long discussion there has not been anything even close to consensus to re-add the tag. Nsk92 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my "not very clearly articulated" comment in the previous discussion was not meant to oppose the banner, but rather to express my view regarding assumptions. I was then, and remain now, neutral on the issue of the banner; I will probably weigh in below. Wine Guy~Talk 01:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob was correct to remove the tag. There was clear consensus that it caused BLP issues by having it in this article. I recommend that anyone who readds it in the future be blocked immediately. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There was certainly no "clear consensus" on that. And while I suggested that the discussion should be taken off this page and moved to a policy forum, I was thinking of a specific policy forum with a link leading to it, not just deleting it and putting up a vague statement that we ought to take it somewhere. I think this is what the RfC's are for; the only question is whether it has anything to do with the massive existing Requests for comment/Biographies of living people discussion, or whether it is a totally new RfC. The thing is, that policy is about deleting "unsourced or poorly sourced" material, whereas the people here seem to be interested in deleting sourced material that cites specific facts but does not draw a clear conclusion (or else they say the conclusion is irrelevant). My concern is that if we demand certainty not on whether the source is verifiable but on whether the facts are verifiable, it would impose an unreasonable style on Misplaced Pages.

For example, in the article on Tiananmen Square we would need to state the Chinese government's position verbatim, without admitting that any other viewpoint exists, because to suggest that the Living Persons in the 27 Army killed more than 23 people when the consensus of the Chinese government and public strongly disagrees with this would clearly be the worst sort of contentious defamation - far more serious than anything done here. Just because we have a few foreign propaganda sources saying such things doesn't outweigh the strong consensus to the contrary. That's where you get with all the stuff about "contentious" and "fringe" and "conservative" and "consensus" - a Misplaced Pages that unwaveringly accepts that the much-maligned Chinese censorship is actually the one correct and proper way to run things. The question is, is that the sort of Misplaced Pages we want to run? Or do we want to say that so and so said this and so and so said that and this source debated the point but wasn't sure and the other source offered such and such a quote. That's what we need to RFC, and RFC to the correct conclusion. Wnt (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, I'm confused. The policy discussion you're talking about is regarding BLP issues in the article. What we're talking about here is whether or not a particular WikiProject can use it's banner to track and improve an article. I fail to see how the two are related. Why, exactly, do people here object to a WikiProject banner being included on the talk page? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There are objections from good faith editors here at the article that the tag is is excessive, considering the fact that the links with him to any bisexual lesbian or gay issues is speculative, there are no conditions to add templates but there is no consensus here to add the template, if in doubt leave it out. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith editors do not trump common sense, A Wikiproject tag is only that. Discussion about Weir's sexuality has been a source of talkpage discussion for several years and is documented and reliably sourced in the article. As the Wikiproject that specializes in exactly this subject area the LGBT Wikiproject is encouraged to help here, not forbidden from using a common tag to organize the efforts. If you want to start a policy maybe Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council would make sense. The Wikiproject tag does not signifie that the subject of the article is part of the LGBT community. It signifies that it comes under the umberella of LGBT studies - which means that there is some connection with LGBT issues, not that the articles subject is affiliated, and so this tag can in no way violate wp:blp as someone has suggested elsewhere. It's not a categorisation as part of the LGBT community - it's a tag that says it comes under the remit of LGBT studies, which it inarguably does. Jerry Falwell and Jesse Helms are considered leaders in anti-LGBT campaigning and the project tag only denotes it is part of the LGBT studies and we are among the Wikiprojects who can serve to improve the article. It means no more and no less. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You should not try to force the LGBT tag on the article when its inclusion is resisted and when the association with him to lesbian gay bisexual studies is unconfirmed speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikiproiject tag on the article's talkpage is disputed for dubious reasons, it's clear that LGBT Wikiproject tag makes him no more LGBT than the Russian Wikiproject tag makes him Russian. There is no BLP concern here, just as we tag Jerry Falwell and others for LGBT studies because the LGBT Wikiproject focusses on sexuality and gender minorities not becuse the subject identifies or is LGBT. -- Banjeboi 00:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a single sentence about this person sexuality and he says it is a private matter, there is nothing to study here and never will be. I can understand Falwell, that article has a complete section called LGBT Issues and he is a LGBT rights activist. These is nothing to study here, just a private man who says he doesn't want to discuss his sexuality, perhaps we could do him a favor and not repeatedly circle discussion about it here on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out several times this is the main topic of discussion on this talkpage going back several years, it is discussed by him in response to mainstream reliable sources asking him. He is not a private man, his sexuality has been discussed repeatedly in regards to his skating (what he is most notable for), Falwell is not a LGBT rights activist and there are many many people who are also tagged for the LGBT Wikiproject because they fall under the studies umbrella of impacting LGBT culture. The only reason this discussion has endured is because you seem to be edit-warring over a project tag. -- Banjeboi 00:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only person that has objected to the tag,, there were other editors also,there was no consensus to add it. As the association with him and the Lesbian and gay and bisexual studies is only speculative and these is only one sentence in the article related to his sexuality there will be no benefit to the article from adding the template anyway and there is nothing to study here only a man who says that his sexual preference is his private business. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am still strongly opposed to adding the LGBT project tag to the article. I have stated my reasons several times before, and my opinion has not changed. Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've started an RfC to invite more eyes on this and hopefully achieve consensus. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake. This guy doesn't want to comment on his sexuality. And what are we doing? Damning his decision, ignoring what he's notable for, and discussing LGBT issues interminably on his talk page, all over a stupid useless banner. Look, wikiprojects tag thousands of articles with these things, and their utility is questionable at best. So, what use is this, that we need to discuss this endlessly on the page of a guy who doesn't want to talk about his sexuality. Speedy close this discussion and take process wanking over inhouse niceties and LGBT pov-pushing and article bagging elsewhere.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording adjusted per archived discussion

One issue that had clear consensus in the previous discussions was that the wording needed slight adjustment to accomplish two things: to be accurate (i.e. he has answered questions; "consistently declined to answer questions" was not accurate), and to use a different , more appropriate quote. I have made a change to the article based on a modicum of support in the previous discussion. This may or may not be the "final" version, discuss here if necessary. Please keep in mind a couple other points that came out of the previous discussion: any mention of his sexuality must be concise; and there must not be any "speculation". As it reads now it is not speculative, it is factual, and is sourced from the New York Times, the Washington Post (an entire article devoted to the subject), and the Wall Street Journal. Any significant changes to this wording should be discussed here, and any speculative or unsourced additions on this subject should be deleted on sight, ad infinitum. Wine Guy~Talk 07:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've looked, but I cannot find any agreement on this wording, rather, the contrary. Wine Guy~Talk 09:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe we were in fact very close to consensus on the two points mentioned above: the "declined to answer" wording in the current version is not entirely accurate, and the "it is private" quote is better than the one that is there now. I suggest changing it to some variant of the short-and-sweet wording I proposed earlier: When asked by the media about his sexuality, Weir has said, "blah blah it is private blah blah.". OK? Dr.frog (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Again, has the sexuality speculation been "tired" to anything other than speculation, ie, getting better/worse scores, being discriminated against or attacked or whatever. If not, then leave the speculation out. This can always be revisted and added IF it rises to such a notable level. --Tom (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about what your objection is to the simplified wording I suggested. There is no speculation there, or reference to speculation. Weir has been asked about his sexuality and said such-and-such about it. How is that speculation? Dr.frog (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He was also asked about small furry creatures. Should we include that? I am not arguring that he was asked about it, I am arguring that it has not YET reached the encyclopediatic level for inclusion, thats all. Again, has this been "tied" to scoring or anything else or is this curiosity?--Tom (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The article already includes two sentences about Weir's sexuality. This isn't about inserting new material, but about replacing those two sentences with even briefer language that is more accurate and succinct. Why do you think the current language in the article is preferable to my proposed replacement phrasing? Dr.frog (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought there consensus from a number of uninvolved folks was to NOT include ANYTHING about the speculation, ect. I know it was removed. I am not for including "material" about the speculation about this individuals sexual preferences, so I will not comment on a "compromise" or how the sexual speculation should be worded. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that speculation has no place in the article, and don't feel strongly that it ought to include any reference to speculation in the media even if it were running rampant. But, it is not "speculation" when an individual is asked directly about his personal life in an interview and he gives an answer which is quoted in a reliable news source. Dr.frog (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There was support for the original insertion and there is no consensus here that the previous insertion needs changing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been various "insertions" over the past couple weeks; could you clarify which "original insertion" and "previous insertion" you are referring to? Wine Guy~Talk 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we do need to change away from the rather odd hand cream quote. I support the following as a stop gap that will hopefully quell the tide for the next few months at least:

This would replace the current wording which as previously discussed is misleading and problematic. Any objections? -- Banjeboi 00:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I object and see nothing wrong with the current comment, hand cream seems fine to me. I just think its obsessive, and think people should leave the poor guy alone, he said its no ones business and why people can't accept that is beyond me, talking on and on about it and wanting to tag him as a lesbian gay bisexual study issue is incredulous.Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It really makes this discussion very difficult when people insist on confusing two completely separate issues; this discussion thread is about the content and wording of the article, the thread above is about the project tag issue. Could we please keep it that way? Wine Guy~Talk 00:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently we have:

First off "Weir has consistently declined to answer questions about his sexuality" is patently false, he has continuously answer questions about his sexuality so we are publishing a false statement. "Weir's sexuality has been the subject of attention in the mainstream media" is accurate, encyclopedic and neutral. We explain why it's addressed in the article. Secondly, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use" is more of a non-answer that lends to more questions than answers. "Keep sacred" has several interpretations whereas "it's not part of my sport and it's private" is clear. Also "My middle name", well it's a matter of public record so how sacred, whatever that means, is also odd as in if we know his middle name we then should be able to know who he sleeps with? I don't think so. Then the oddest part, IMHO, "what kind of hand moisturizer I use", guess what, we could likely find that one out as well. Simply view his documentary which includes a few scenes of him and a male friend in a bathtub together and the moisturizer is likely fully visible, mystery solved. So no, it's a really awkward quote that causes more problems. -- Banjeboi 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not a false statement at all, its fine, he's not answered the questions, he's said it is a private matter, and so what if his comment is not correct cos we can know his middle name, it is an off the cuff reply that is fine, as far as encyclopedic goes, do you really think it is encyclopedic to speculate about someones sexuality, well its not. He said it is a private matter, you can change it to...When asked about his sexual preference he said that is my private business. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He has answered questions about his sexuality, in newspapers, on TV, on his blog. Mainstream media have asked and he has answered. And we should use a neutral non-ambiguous quote of his answer rather than something that is misleading and peculiar as outlined above. And a public figure's sexuality that has been discussed many times is arguably a point of public interest. We should be short and concise to address this not peculiar and misleading. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The comment is not misleading at all, he hasn't answered the question at all. Public interest in someones sexuality, perhaps there are some that are interested or some that want to know, a fringe minority I would say, the vast majority of people do not give a damn of interest about it, most people think it is peoples private business and the titillating sexual speculation is not even nearly encyclopedic type content Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

From the Washington Post (emphasis added):

A figure skating fan from Moscow, writing in to Johnny Weir's Web site, asked ever so delicately the one question sportswriters and the figure skating community have mutually skirted every four years for decades now -- a question put more bluntly in an early-'80s new wave hit written before Weir was even born:

Johnny, are you queer?

"People talk," Weir answered. "Figure skating is thought of as a female sport, something that only girly men compete in. I don't feel the need to express my sexual being because it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice, so speculation is speculation."

Asked. Answered. Reliable source. Yes and No are not the only possible answers to questions. The wording as it stands now is wrong. If you would like, I'd be happy to provide several more sources. Wine Guy~Talk 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to re-state my position on this, I think Banjeboi's proposed wording above is an improvement over what is there now, but I think it would be even better if we could cut the intro sentence, like this:

When asked about his sexuality, Weir has stated: "it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice".

This accomplishes two things: it removes the oblique reference to media speculation about his sexuality (as opposed to a directly-attributed and reliably-sourced statement from Weir himself), and it doesn't leave an obvious WP:coatrack "hook" where future WP editors will be tempted to hang any further reports of media speculation. Dr.frog (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I'll consent for the time being although I still think (i) it will be tied to something in the article ergo becoming OR-ish (ii) we should state clearly that it's in the article because mainstream media discuss it not the other way around. But the other quote and content is sooo poor anything is an improvement so let's go with it. -- Banjeboi 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dr.frog's suggestion works for me. While I have previously stated a preference for an intro sentence to explain why the topic is mentioned at all, Dr.frog makes an excellent point regarding WP:coatrack. This suggestion answers a question that many readers reasonably have (given the significant level of speculation and innuendo which they may have seen elsewhere); and this wording leaves it in such a way that no more need be written on the topic. Thanks Dr.frog. Wine Guy~Talk 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also like Dr Frog's version; a rather elegant solution that avoids esoteric linguistic arguments about the meaning of "answered". Nsk92 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is the LGBT Wikiproject tag acceptable on this talkpage

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: WikiProjects and collaborations Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Biographies Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is the LGBT Wikiproject tag acceptable on this subject's talkpage? There seems to be a concern that the project tag for LGBT studies in some way is unacceptable although members of the Wikiproject seem to feel it falls within their project's area of interest. -- Banjeboi

For reference purposes, here is a link to the initial discussion regarding the tag:Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3#Project tag. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, perfectly acceptable as nom. Does the tag itself confer that a subject is LGBT? No. And wouldn't the next likely step be to remove the project tag from all BLPs with this logic? This subjects's sexuality has been discussed on this talkpage for several years; has been raised in numerous mainstream national media. He's been outed a few times in the LGBT media, and discussion over the last week has been how to word that his (i) sexuality has been discussed repeatedly and (ii) he has avoided giving a binary sexuality answer for whatever reasons. As the Wikiproject that specializes in this area the LGBT Wikiproject should be welcomed to find the best path forward not spin wheels having to defend a project tag which aids in management of a specific topic or family of topics within Misplaced Pages; and, simultaneously, a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. -- Banjeboi 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Question: If the tag were to be added, would the explanation parameter (see Template:LGBTProject/doc) be used? If so, what would the explanation be for placing the banner to this article? Wine Guy~Talk 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• It could although it's rarely used. Likely the same explanation as the above threads - Weir's sexuality has been the subject of attention in the mainstream media.. We could add more if needed or link to an archived thread on the subject as well. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

- The explanation text suggested earlier was "Repeated reliably sourced periodicals have reported on Weir's sexuality, which brings this article within the WikiProject's scope.". The explanation used on Jodie Foster, who is a person in a similar situation, is "Foster's sexuality has been the subject of much discussion, thus she is "of interest" to the WikiProject." -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose adding the tag. Since this is a formal RfC, I'll repeat my reasons, stated in detail in prior threads. An LGBT tag has considerable BLP implications, particularly for uninitiated readers of Misplaced Pages who are unfamiliar with the inner workings of Misplaced Pages and have no idea about wikiprojects, the internal technical meaning of the tags etc. I am pretty sure that the great majority of people reading this article fall into this "uninitiated" category and a great many of them will look here, at the talk page. When they see an LGBT tag here, these readers will, not unreasonably, assume that the tag means that the subject of the article is gay or bisexual. In view of this, a tag like this should be added rather conservatively to BLP articles, only when there is a clear and significant reason for doing so. In this case the subject of the article has refused to address questions about his sexuality and told the reporters to bug-off. All we have in this case is speculations by other people, reported by conventional newsmedia, about the subject's sexuality. In view of BLP considerations I believe that in the absence of a more solid reason than speculations about his sexuality, the tag should remain off the article. Yes, this inconveniences members of the LGBT Wikiproject. However, Wikiprojects are voluntary informal associations of Misplaced Pages editors interested in a particular topic. On the other hand, we have real world privacy concerns of living individuals, that are addressed by WP:BLP, a core policy of the project. In a case like that it seems clear to me that BLP concerns are much more important than convenience of members of a particular wikiproject. Nsk92 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an edit, by an IP editor, illustrating the real harm that can be caused here by adding speculative material about the subject's sexuality to the article or an LGBT tag to the article's talk page. We should not give people like this IP, any more ammunition to feed their appetite for gossip or to draw unsubstantiated conclusions about the subject's sexuality. Nsk92 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Disagree strongly with the idea that this or any Wikiproject tag has strong implications, we can't prevent anyone from thinking what they do but any reasonable editor would quickly read the article and note that questions about the subject's sexuality are shown to be notable and sourced. That should be the end of it, we don't cater to anyone's fears here. Nothing about the project tag states it indicates someones sexuality and gender non-conformity etc. Applying special, arbitrary and subjective conditions for one Wikiproject is counter to policy I'm quite sure. We neutrally and dispassionately cover a subject. If they are in the arena of a subject area that some of our readers or editors are uncomfortable with we don't punish the Wikiproject, we ensure that we are covering the issue with due weight per policy. The dubious assertions that speculation isn't notable and the subject has refused to address the question have has already been addressed - the only reason we are discussing this is that the speculation itself is notable and he has answered these questions repeatedly. The project tag is not equal to any content in the article nor is it on the same level as an article category. I'm afraid you need to recheck the facts of this situation and also how we apply BLP and Wikiproject tags. You seem very passionate about this which may be helpful at some point but really this tag only means it's in the interest area of a Wikiproject - the one project that solely tries to address these sexuality and social label issues. And as to that "example" of real harm caused by the LGBT tag? You'll note that that project tag wasn't even there so more eyes watching an article would likely help clean off that non-sense not cause it. You're effectively pushing off the very people who are specialists in dealing with these issues for vandalism that seems to happen regardless if the tag is there or not. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of tag on BLPs, particularly when the subject is not out. As Nsk notes above, there are considerable implications for people who don't identify as gay, regardless of what you "disagree strongly" with, Benji. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • First off my user name is Benjiboi, secondly we don't apply the same standards for content to Wikiproject banners, you seem to be conflating the two as the same. They are not. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Unitanode, how is a WikiProject tag a BLP issue? Does the tag on Focus on the Family imply that group is LGBT? And is being gay still considered a bad thing? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Until the man can be identified as LGBT to the satisfaction of BLP standards, the tag shouldn't be there because it really shouldn't fall into the purview of the project. Putting the tag there most certainly does imply that the subject is LGB or T. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I can imagine some other situations where an LGBT project tag on a BLP page may be OK, e.g. if the subject is a notable activist on LGBT issues or a notable author of a book/books on LGBT topics. But this situation is a far cry from that; the only thing available here is some people speculating about the subject's sexuality. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • So you don't agree with Jodie Foster being included in the WikiProject? Or Anderson Cooper? Or Tom Cruise? All of these folks are within the projects scope precisely because speculation about their sexuality has been mainstream and notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I disagree with the tag being on those unless they can be identified as gay under BLP standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, that's correct. If the only reason those pages are tagged is that there have been some speculations regarding their sexuality, I believe the tags should be removed. But I also realize that per WP:CONSENSUS, if a tag has been there for a long time, then expressed consensus to remove it is needed and otherwise the tag would have to stay. In this case the initial addition of a tag was quickly contested, so expressed consensus to add the tag is needed for the article to be tagged, and in the absence of such consensus the tag should remain off. Nsk92 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we should take a closer look at those some people to be clear of this is a far cry or not? I personally think the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are quite reliable but others may disagree. -- Banjeboi 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm as uninvolved as you'll find. I'v never edited this article, Jodie Foster, Tom Cruise or Anderson Cooper. The WSJ and the NYT are indeed reliable, but simply being speculated on in a RS isn't the standard fro BLP is it? Maybe it has changed since I last read it. Does BLP now say that if a RS speculates on someones sexual orientation, we can now start considering it fair game? Place the LGBT tag on the article definately gives that impression. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this is less a BLP issue than it is a WikiProject issue. The tag has the option of entering an "explanation" field to say that the person is not GLBTQ. What's at question here is whether this article, which has information of interest to the GLBTQ community, can have the WikiProject's tag on it. Again, the issue isn't whether or not Weir is gay - that's covered in the article in a way that is NPOV and sourced. The issue is whether or not an article about a person who has had speculation about their sexuality in such sources as the NYTimes is of interest to the LGBT WikiProject. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify further, it might not be a BLP issue in your mind, but that doesn't prevent it from being one to others. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"What's at question here is whether this article, which has information of interest to the GLBTQ community, can have the WikiProject's tag on it." 24.22.141.61 (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• And my position, as well as the position of others, is that the inclusion of the project tag causes a BLP issue. BLP over-rides projects "interests" every time. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed to the project tag, as this person has not self-identified as gay. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That is not the standard for use of a Wikiproject tag. If sourced that is the standard for inclusion of appropriate LGBT categories but that is not the point of this discussion. -- Banjeboi 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse having the WikiProject tag. How in the world does an indication that a person is "of interest" to a WikiProject WP:HARM the person or the article? If WikiProjects are set up to *better* articles, than how can we dis-allowing a project? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• The project tag should be allowed, along with using the explaination= parameter. Someone, at some point, was obviously aware enough of the potential issues with adding an LGBT item to an article that this parameter is already implemented. All of the noise about BLP issues is all heat and no light due to the simple expedient of having an explaination available on the banner. Shame on all of you for letting this get to the point where an RFC is seen as necessary. Those of you involved in starting all of this bickering should be ashamed of your behavior here.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Shame on you for resorting to personal attacks to make your point. Nsk92 (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse the tag. Judy Garland wasn't LGBT either (that we know of), but she's of interest to the wikiproject, so she has a tag. Especially if the explanation field was used, there's no reason we should worry about people who don't read it will assume. Should we worry about what people who only read every third word of the article would assume, as well? At a certain point, "do no harm" transitions into "if they want to be morons, that's their problem." The Wordsmith 06:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse We can't try to accurately and neutrally present the issue of this man's sexuality as has been reported in reliable sources, while blocking involvement from a WikiProject with participants that have a strong familiarity with those issues. The LGBTProject tag does not in itself identify the article's subject as gay. The tag is on several non-biographical articles, articles related to gay icons such as Garland noted above. Placing LGBTProject on a project talk page doesn't place the article's subject in any LGBT people categories in the same way that living=yes on the Bio project tag does. Homophobic vandalism by IPs won't stop without the tag. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose-Sexual speculation without any basic in facts surrounding what I can only presume due to the bigoted he looks gay sexual stereotyping and bias is actually a good reason not to include him in this group, he has said it is a private matter and imo adding him to this group is nothing more than a way of adding to the speculation, as in he won't say if hes gay but he looks gay to me, lets add him to the lesbian and gay and bisexual study group and give weight to the speculation by the association with the group, clear BLP issues by association. Off2riorob (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A project tag does not add anyone to any group, it's a Misplaced Pages project management tool only. And reliable sources dispute your reading of the situation. When plenty have discussed his sexuality and he himself discusses the issues, again, publicly, then it rises to a notable level. Misplaced Pages is not speculating, reliable sources are, they lead we follow. -- Banjeboi 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse use of the tag, which in itself does not suggest anything about the man's sexual orientation. We shouldn't be whitewashing the fact—reliably sourced in myriad places—that the discussion of his sexual orientation has been widely reported and highly public. Rivertorch (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  Here is a quote from WP:BLP that is directly on point: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The fact that some respectable newspapers have stooped down to the tabloid level and reported speculations rather than facts does not mean that we should do the same here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  Nsk, that BLP refers to content in the article, not to the project tag used with an "explanation" parameter. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  BLP applies to all living people at all locations on the Misplaced Pages, not just to article content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I think that it needs to be mentioned that editors supporting the addition of the LGBT template are active editors in the LGB realm. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, we should make everyone fill out a survey so we know what editor sleeps with who, because only LGBT editors edit LGBT articles and only non-LGBT people edit non-LGBT articles - what rubbish. -- Banjeboi 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
      • • That is uncalled for Banjeboi. It is legitimate to point out that those pushing the keep have a vested interest in it since it expands their project. Drop the persecution complex, it's not becoming.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Ridiculous! The LGBT Wikiproject has thousands of articles and never have I ever heard of someone suggesting our goal was to have more, or even this one. We use the same standards for inclusion for all articles. This one is simply being looked at as all the rest. No one in the project is eager to simply add this one or any particular article to our already massive numbers. If anything we'd be selfish and push off thousands of articles that need a lot of work but instead we work to improve them all. Each editor in their own way. Articles, and our reader don't care and don't know the sexuality or much else about the editors. What they care about is a good article and getting the information they desire, the LGBT Wikiproject has the same goals as do most editors. The sexuality of an editor is no one's business and we aren't looking to weight opinions based on it so please drop this line of discussion as only being divisive. -- Banjeboi 17:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Almost every project seeks to expand their coverage to one degree or another. The fact that you've never heard it doesn't make it less true. Further, He didn't comment on the sexual preference of the editors, he commented on their association with the project. Unless you'd like to state right here that straight editors are not welcome to participate in the project? Is that your position? Otherwise, how is saying that someone is associated with the project "making their sexuality an issue"? Again, drop the persecution complex. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nsk92, I think we can safely assume that everyone here is aware of the wording of WP:BLP, which, like any policy or guideline, can be quoted selectively to make a specific point. You had already made your point quite clearly; I simply disagreed with it. I also disagree with what you say here because I don't see that the question of someone's sexual orientation necessarily involves sensationalism or "titillating claims", nor do I think that matter of privacy is particularly relevant when every non-Misplaced Pages Web page plus every TV program and newspaper or magazine article that discusses someone's life already is rife with discussion of the very question you're seeking to banish from Misplaced Pages. The metaphor that comes to mind here is shutting the barn door after the horse is out—and on a different barn, no less. I'm also finding it difficult to imagine what harm could conceivably come to the subject of this article due to the article's briefly acknowledging what multiple high-profile sources have been discussing in depth for years.

Off2riorob, in the interest of not creating unnecessary drama, I uttered not a peep when you unilaterally decided to remove relevant comments, including my own, from this talk page yesterday. I will, however, speak up now to protest your gratuitous comment regarding editors who, in good faith, have commented on this RFC. I'm not sure what "the LGB realm" is, but I'd remind you that neutrality in editing doesn't depend upon the topics one edits. For instance, I've assumed—I hope correctly—that you're making the argument you're making because it makes sense to you, not because your editing follows an anti-gay agenda. In return, I would expect you to assume that my argument is similarly free of any unfortunate motivation, and I would respectfully ask that you limit your further participation to matters involving the article and not its editors. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the use of the LGBT-Project tag on the talkpage, with an explanation similar to the one on Talk:Jodie Foster. The project tag does not categorise anyone as gay, it's merely a maintenence tag that helps get more eyes on the article. There are many editors in the project that have experience with BLPs, and understand verifiability, neutrality and reliability of sources. Having an article within another project can only help it's development.--BelovedFreak 18:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the situation with Jodie Foster is different. In her case, there are newsreports like this. In Weir's case there is nothing of the sort; the only stated reasons for speculations about his sexuality are based on his artistic style, rather than relationships. Nsk92 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever reasons for the speculation, it's out there in the world and in the news, not just interpretations by Misplaced Pages editors. The validity of such speculation has bearing on the article, but not (in my opinion) on the application of a Wikiproject tag.--BelovedFreak 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In a perfect world it would be well understood that the purpose of these tags is to say that "WikiProject Whatever is interested in this topic." This is not a perfect world, however, and there are various reasons that tags of this nature could be viewed as something different. Take for example the way it is phrased : "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Whatever." To the uninitiated, this phrasing endows the tag with a certain authoritative air a-la a categorizing system. While personally I feel that the optional explanation parameter clears up any confusion (and thus my comment may be interpreted as a tacit endorsing of the tag's presence) I would not be so quick to dismiss the concerns of those who feel otherwise. Ultimately it must be remembered that WikiProjects exist to serve the community and not vice versa, and if a significant number of editors feel the presence of a tag on the talk page has a potential for detrimental confusion, it must be removed to satisfy the concerns of the community at the expense of the convenience of the WikiProject in question. Shereth 19:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't view BLP concerns in this case as particularly hypothetical. I feel that we should not give people like this IP any additional fodder to feed their appetite for gossip. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would endorse the banner as long as the explanation is used. My only concern with the tag is that it could imply to the casual reader that Weir is gay, or definitively falls into an LGBT "category". A well worded explanation in the banner resolves this concern. It is up to the members of any Wikiproject to determine what articles fall within their purview; members of WP:LGBT have clearly (and I believe rightly) determined that this article falls within the scope of their project. The active involvement of that project's members is to be encouraged, as they arguably have more experience and understanding of how best to deal with this issue. Some editors appear to believe that any involvement of LGBT members here is POV-pushing; that assertion is frankly, IMO, out of line. Wine Guy~Talk 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd be very interested in hearing how Benji (or any of the other project members) explains how Weir's BLP falls under the project's purview. All I can see is that some people have speculated on his sexuality. That seems a bit thin, as support for including his BLP in a project where inclusion clearly implies that he's gay. As for the number of people who are active members of the project supporting inclusion of the project's tag, there's nothing wrong with it, but it is a factor that deserves consideration when discerning the results of this RFC. Members of the project are clearly not going to oppose inclusion of the tag. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your last comment; just because editors are interested in, or perhaps invested in, a particular topic, doesn't mean they will necessarily have the same opinion about the use of project tags. However, I can only speak for myself. I agree that the connections are "a bit thin", and I don't personally feel strongly about including this article in the project. On the other hand, I don't see a compelling reason not to. Not because I don't think BLP issues are important - I think they're very important and we always need to err on the side of caution where real people's lives are concerned - in articles. I just don't, personally, see a huge issue with the project tag. I don't think it would be a bad idea if the project tag was reworded slightly to make it clear (by default) that the tag is not a label. Speculation in the press about his sexuality is likely to draw people to the article wondering, maybe seeing nothing there about his sexuality and deciding to add unsourced information, or coming to vandalise. More eyes on it can only help. There is for example, the LGBT watchlist where members of the project (or anyone) can see recent changes of all tagged articles. That's one reason for including it.--BelovedFreak 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse banner provided that there is an explanation. Wine Guy above explains pretty well why. And let's all assume some good faith, please, on both sides. --Cyclopia 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake. This guy doesn't want to comment on his sexuality. And what are we doing? Damning his decision, ignoring what he's notable for, and discussing LGBT issues interminably on his talk page, all over a stupid useless banner. Look, wikiprojects tag thousands of articles with these things, and their utility is questionable at best. So, what use is this, that we need to discuss this endlessly on the page of a guy who doesn't want to talk about his sexuality. Speedy close this discussion and take process wanking over inhouse niceties and LGBT pov-pushing and article bagging elsewhere.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Weir to collaborate with Mr Hudson

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

That link doesn't seem to assert anything nor be reliable for inclusion on this article. Do you have any independent reliable sourcing? -- Banjeboi 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Unknown-importance Pennsylvania articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Delaware articles
• Unknown-importance Delaware articles
• WikiProject Delaware articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class fashion articles
• Unknown-importance fashion articles
• B-Class Figure skating articles
• Unknown-importance Figure skating articles
• WikiProject Figure Skating articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment