Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Gender test insults

User:Cyclopia has added this content, imo it is excessive titillating content and should not be inserted, in the first line it mentions that he was mocked, toilet wall kindergarten commentary.

During the 2010 Winter Olympics he is mocked by Canadian broadcasters who suggested his costumes and "body language" set a bad example for male skaters and joked he may have to take a gender test. Johnny Weir response during a press conference ”I hope more kids can grow up the same way that I did and more kids can feel the freedom that I feel to be themselves and to express themselves”. “There’s a whole generation of people that aren’t defined by their sex or their race or by who they like to sleep with. I think as a person you know what your values are and what you believe in, and I think that’s the most important thing.” Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a trimmed down version that would be better? It's been all over the news (CNN, even), so leaving it out of the article doesn't seem like a good idea to me. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No there is not. Keeping such rubbish out of the article is the only position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's one opinion. Others? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with SatyrTN. I reinserted it because it is really obviously notable: just see this Gnews search. Also Weir personally answered to the comments, and that is all other the news too. It also provoked a reaction by LGBT communities. All in all it was an absolutely notable incident, and if anything Weir comes out really well out of it, not badly. It is positive for him: if it's a BLP issue at all, it is for the Canadian broadcasters. I'd say to check WP:WELLKNOWN too, but there is not even reason to think that Weir should dislike this mention, since he's clearly the "good guy" in this case. Non-issue to me. --Cyclopia^talk 23:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] [2]: two more clearly RS discussing the incident and, most importantly, Weir's response to it. Notice how Weir is at the center of such coverage from the titles. --Cyclopia^talk 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not notable at all, it's insulting and more of the same speculation, gender test and insulting homophobic content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is insulting and speculation - on the part of the CBC broadcasters. The fact that Fox News and CNN are covering the issue, however is notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is sexual titillation and excessive tabloid style commentary and unworthy of inclusion in this biography. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not "tabloid style commentary". It was an incident in which Weir was involved and that Weir himself addressed publicly, reported on major media. his addressing is reported all over the place, worldwide, in major media and networks. Even in the (unlikely) case Weir should not like at all the discussion of it, the content would fall firmly into WP:WELLKNOWN -which is part of WP:BLP. But again, if anything, this incident proves clearly that Weir is a smart guy, while his critics are not. --Cyclopia^talk 23:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: The commentators who made the remarks were from Réseau des sports (RDS), not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Wine Guy~Talk 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is a BLP. The utter rubbish that the Canadian broadcasters insulted him stays out no matter how many "sources" you find. It's simply an end-around to implications that some seem determined to make. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, this is, indeed, a BLP. Would you comment on that? --Cyclopia^talk 23:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Totally correct Unitanode and these are the same editors that are also insisting on adding their lesbian and gay and bisexual project template with the excuse that they want to add it so they can improve the article, their insertion of this content disputes that completely. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This material is eminently suitable for an article on the broadcaster, but not here. We're trying to make an encyclopedia, not a laundry list of speculation. Kevin (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Which speculation? It is facts we're talking here. Fact that he has been at the center of a very public unfortunate media incident (note:unfortunate much more for the broadcasters than for Weir), fact that he publicly addressed it, all extensively sourced. Which speculation are you talking about? --Cyclopia^talk 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • The "speculation" was more mere insults than anything else, and has no place in this BLP. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
          • But again, there is no speculation whatsoever here. Weir has been publicly insulted by broadcasters: fact. The incident was widely and publicly reported on national networks and news:fact. The incident stirred up response also in LGBT groups:fact. Weir has answered such insults in a public press conference: fact. All these facts are backed up by several RS. What speculation we're talking about? --Cyclopia^talk 00:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• See my comments above about "see how mean people are being to poor Johnny". Why does the article have to mention every instance where somebody said something nasty about him and it was quoted in a newspaper? Do you think the article about, say, George W. Bush needs to report every single incident where somebody criticized him or made fun of him that was covered in the media? Just because there is a reliable source for such comments doesn't mean they are important to the subject of the article. Dr.frog (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It is quite different in my opinion. Was it Bush, given the magnitude of the coverage of the person, I'd be inclined to agree. But this incident (and, most importantly, Weir's reaction) pretty much monopolized Weir coverage for a while. --Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • • • • This is a biography of the life of a Olympic ice skater, not a titillating celebrity gossip column in a lads mag. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I already know that, Off2riorob. But fortunately this has nothing to do with the issue, since coverage is much heavier than "celebrity gossip columns". --Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Weir may not be as famous as Bush, but the same principle applies: the article should focus on his accomplishments, and not give undue weight to an incident where some idiots tried to make a bad joke about him. Dr.frog (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Undue weight shouldn't be, for sure. A brief mention would suffice. --Cyclopia^talk 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Well user cyclopia if as you claim you already know that I fail to see why you inserted this content, imo adding it is against most of our policy and no respectable NPOV editor should ever have added such content to a BLP, unless that is the thing that the subject is notable for. Dr Frog has it exactly correct. Off2riorob (talk)
  • Have you, again, read WP:WELLKNOWN, for example? It's part of the BLP policy. Have a look. And, ehm, can you explain me meanwhile what has NPOV to do with that? --Cyclopia^talk 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you, again, read WP:WELLKNOWN, for example? It's part of the BLP policy, but it's most definitely not a license for you to insert insults that random commentators level at Weir. Even when those insults stir up the LGBT community. That's not why that portion of the policy was written, and you need to stop trying to twist it to your own ends. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Well if as you claim you already know that I fail to see why you inserted this content, imo adding it is against most of our policy and no respectable NPOV editor should add such content to a BLP, unless that is the thing that the subject is notable for. Off2riorob (talk)
      • It's a licence for inserting notable facts reported in numerous sources, even if the subject may dislike them. If you think that inserting the insults themselves is derogatory (in my opinion is much more derogatory for the Canadian commentators, but your mileage may vary), would be something like that acceptable as a compromise?

During the 2010 Winter Olympics Weir has been mocked by Canadian broadcasters for aspects of his costumes and body language. Johnny Weir response during a press conference ”I hope more kids can grow up the same way that I did and more kids can feel the freedom that I feel to be themselves and to express themselves”. “There’s a whole generation of people that aren’t defined by their sex or their race or by who they like to sleep with. I think as a person you know what your values are and what you believe in, and I think that’s the most important thing.”

--Cyclopia^talk 00:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A word of advice, if you are ever looking for a compromise, start from a less extreme position. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• At some point, I think it would be entirely appropriate to add a section on Weir's public image to the article. I believe that much of the stuff that some people have associated with his sexuality -- and therefore being taboo for a BLP article -- is in fact related to the way he has challenged traditional gender roles and gender-based stereotypes both on and off the ice, as distinct from whether or not he might be gay. For example, I believe he has sometimes posed for photos wearing women's clothing and has referred to himself in the third person as "she" in a recent interview, besides his comments about wanting to be "pretty", etc. All taken together, this is a major part of his public image and claim to fame. (He seems to know darn well that every time he does something like that, it's a sure-fire way to get people to talk about him.) But -- any such text in the article needs to be carefully crafted and written with full consideration to how it fits in with Weir's entire career; with reliable sources to back up every statement; without resorting to original research in drawing conclusions or asserting any particular meaning to his behavior; and without giving undue weight to any single incident or controversy. I cannot believe that the incident that is in the news right now is so critically important to Weir's career that the article is incomplete without mentioning it. Surely we can wait and see how it fits in to the entire pattern of his life and career. Dr.frog (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the incident is not notable in this respect; but I agree on the inclusion of such a section. --Cyclopia^talk 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• This is an encyclopedia article, not a People Magazine profile. This type of nonsense needs to stop. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Could not agree more. In fact, we should be adding notable, reliably sourced content to this encyclopedia article -that's what encyclopedias do, isn't it? regardless of what we think about such content, isn't it? But it seems that some people make it difficult. . --Cyclopia^talk 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • What you're attempting to ramrod into this article isn't "notable" in any way. It's moronic horse shit insults from a couple of idiot commentators. It has no place here, nor does your cavalier relationship with BLP. I find particularly appalling your (I can only no assume intentional) misuse of WELLKNOWN as some kind of net to throw over this garbage. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
      • "Moronic horse shit insults", I agree. But this doesn't make them less notable. Notability is established by multiple RS coverage: pick your choice. And again, it's not the insults themselves the point -it's all the drama that happened on the media and the public press conference by the subject that set their notability and relevance. Nor I understand why my attitude towards BLPs could be construed as "cavalier". I simply happen to think that notable incidents have to be covered, and WP:WELLKNOWN is not "some kind of net": it is an important part of BLP policy, as are all the others. We can write a factual, respectful BLP without necessarily avoiding to cover (inconvenient) facts. --Cyclopia^talk 02:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not an "inconvenient fact", it's random insults by these guys. Your insistence that you can throw WELLKNOWN over it like a blanket is becoming tendentious. You need to stop beating on this horse now. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

At the cost of repeating myself: Weir has been publicly insulted by broadcasters: fact. The incident was widely and publicly reported on national networks and news:fact. The incident stirred up response also in LGBT groups:fact. Weir has answered such insults in a public press conference: fact. All these facts are backed up by several RS. Again, pick your choice. I cite WP:WELLKNOWN to indicate that WP:BLP does not prohibit us to report verifiable, reliably sourced facts. You have to explain why WELLKNOWN doesn't apply to facts (it applies even to allegations!). There may be other grounds for disagreement about inclusion of the content (see Dr.frog above), but BLP is not the reason. What is tendentious, if anything, is you disregarding what policies say without a meaningful rationale, resorting on comments bordering on attacks to editors instead. --Cyclopia^talk 02:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You can bold "fact" all you like, you're not getting those insults into the article. You've become tendentious and, frankly, quite boring. I'm done with you, but will revert on-sight any attempt you make to reinsert that nonsense. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see you have no remaining arguments for your position than threats of edit warring. You can't deny facts, after all. That said, be assured I am not attempting to reinsert anything myself, unless there is a clear consensus for it. --Cyclopia^talk 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "threat of edit warring", and you will be blocked if you try to add material in circumvention of BLP. It really is as simple as that. Scottaka UnitAnode 03:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1)You yourself cannot block me since you're not an admin and 2)I just said I am not going to reinsert anything without clear consensus: what is the point in such moot threats, therefore? That said, please explain what is the BLP violation in such material. Citing the policy wording, if possible. At least there would be some objective ground on which to discuss: you cannot assume that something is a BLP violation only because you happen to think it is. --Cyclopia^talk 03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the volume of this tabloid speculation, and where it is coming from, it tells us nothing about Weir, but quite a bit about those broadcasting the material. The fact that Weir is the target is incidental. Kevin (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I propose that we wait a few weeks for this incident to be over, and then assess how notable it is to Weir's biography and career. This is all happening right now, so its hard to say what its overall impact will be. When its finished, we can c0me back to the issue having all the facts. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I second what The Wordsmith said. Let's wait a few weeks first. Things need to cool down here also. Please keep WP:CIVIL in mind too. BejinhanTalk 04:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm okay with waiting a bit, though the sheer amount of coverage would support *some* sort of inclusion. As I mentioned above, Fox News? CNN? Yes, the subject seems a bit trivial, kind of like name calling. But all of this - Weir's presentation, the RDS commentators, the public reaction to both of those, gender / masculinity - all of that is notable and is the subject of several news reports. There is a definite intersection between figure skating and gender/sexuality - see Figure Skating and Cultural Meaning, or this article in The Advocate. Weir's actions are smack dab in the middle of these issues and he's exemplifying a notable phenomenon - how his sexuality (and refusal to talk about it) relate to his profession and sports in general, as well as how our culture in general views the sport and the men involved in it. Now, perhaps we can work that into an actual section of the article about Weir, rather than two editors offering nothing but opposition to additions? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it could be done off this page or the article page and then later merge it into the article? BejinhanTalk 05:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• When you can find a scholarly source (see WP:NOTNEWS) with an analysis of "his sexuality (and refusal to talk about it)" then you might have a point. Until then, the proposed topic is just gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem kind of odd that everything that Weir says is deemed unsuitable to quote in Wikipedia because it might defame him? I mean, that might make sense if it was Sarah Palin, but Johnny has said nothing to be ashamed of! Wnt (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this article from NPR from last night? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to create more drama but....

I asked this before but it was never really answered, wasn't the consensus that there should be NO mention about the sexuality speculation in the article (not talking about the project tag)? I will have to go back, but it looked like there was a number of editors who commented that it did not belong in the article in any form. Maybe we/you/I could do a quick tally of what people thought, anyways...--Tom (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember the consensus either. I think that best practices are to leave it out. I would be fine with a compromise edit that uses mainly quotations from him on the subject.Jarhed (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The current "it is private" quote and wording in the article is what we arrived at by consensus. There is a hidden comment to that effect in the article, if you pull it up to edit it. Yes, the best practice is to leave out any discussion of speculation as there is no consensus that it is appropriate, even when the speculation appears in reliable sources. Let's not re-open that can of worms again already; I'm still exhausted from the last round! Dr.frog (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The hidden comment doesn't really mean anything. I could remove all the sexuality "material" and add a hidden comment not to readd anything claiming consensus, but that doesn't make it so. It always makes me uneasy when people declare a consensus and then say its a closed matter, ect. Again, the best thing to do is to complie a "tally" that makes "consensus" more clear and measurable. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the position, please avoid deciding on the mere basis of tally count. Consensus is something different from mere head count (even if for sure it must be taken into account). --Cyclopia^talk 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the hidden comment is not binding; it's just there to alert editors that if they mess with that text, their changes are very likely to be reverted again unless there is further discussion and consensus to change it. Consensus may very well change in the future if new information becomes available, for instance. Dr.frog (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything like consensus - the mere fact that this discussion is still going on pretty much proves there was none. Besides, if a discussion is deleted because it allegedly violates BLP then I think the consensus is pretty well deleted also, because the consensus exists only as an attribute of the discussion. (Now there's an ivory-tower RfC we could start!) Wnt (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has not been deleted. It is above, at Talk:Johnny_Weir#Current_proposal. Dr.frog (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

unnecessary

Off the ice, he has appeared in a fashion spread in BlackBook magazine[15] (including a shot of him in a wrap-around mini skirt[16])

Why is the mini skirt reference in this? How exactly is it relevant? People need to stop obsessing about him being gay. Get the fuck over it! Someone needs to take that quote out. 75.252.70.23 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wearing a mini-skirt in a fashion shoot implies nothing about sexual orientation. DuncanHill (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it's only included because he's gay. That would never be put on a straight person's article. Everybody keeps hyping it up and throwing their little digs in, and that's just another example. 75.221.43.33 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article plainly states, Weir has never said he's gay. He declines labeling himself as any sexuality. Furthemore, the bit about the skirt speaks more to his off-ice interest in fashion - modeling in runway shows, doing fashion shoots, etc. In fact, given the PETA incident and the various news articles about his on-ice fashion statements, those things could be broken out into a section about his fashion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because he's never said he isn't gay doesn't mean he isn't. The fact still remains that if he were straight, that reference would never be in the article. It's an insignificant detail, and it doesn't need to be there. It will do nothing but provide a false pretense of gays for uneducated people. 174.58.137.241 (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Straight or gay, a flamboyant skater with a penchant for outrageous fashion on- and off-ice should have information in the article that reflects that - skirts, fox fur and all. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotefarm

The quotefarm in unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and looks like an endrun around having no consensus to include the nonsense from the commentators. Scottaka UnitAnode 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a transwiki to q:Johnny Weir, and linking to it in the standard way. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy about "quote farming". Could you explain? WP:quotations is an essay but it doesn't sound like they're banned. (Transwiki would be an option, but I didn't think I had enough to be there yet)

Regarding the commentators, are you seriously interpreting WP:BLP to mean that any quote, however neutral, must be left out if it refers to a source that discusses what some seem to regard as negative material?

Please understand also that in my mind, the quotes are not about the debate we've had over the last week; the debate is about the quotes - or more precisely, over the fact that if you suppress discussion of something mentioned so pervasively in so many media sources, we're left with few usable sources beyond plain lists of scores. To me this has argument has always been about anti-deletionism and about all of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of your comment, Wnt. But Wordsmith is right: it is probably better just to transwiki it to wikiquote. --Cyclopia^talk 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:QUOTEFARM Scottaka UnitAnode 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean: "the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote" I interpreted that to mean that they didn't want an article to be all quotations, not to prohibit the first few. Wnt (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean: "Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject." Honestly, I don't think these would even last at WikiQuote, but they'd be better off there than here. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rank

As of February 2010 Weir is currently ranked fourth in the world. The rank has changed after the Olympics in Vancouver. From ISU: http://www.isuresults.com/ws/wsmen.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.80.79 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what http://www.isuresults.com was, as it is a blank site (or with illegal scripts which I do not see). But the reference in the article http://www.isufs.org apparently is an old site because it redirects to www.isu.org, which in turn gives standings on the above mentioned site, www.isuresults.com. So this should be fixed. Patrick, Kevin, Brian and Jeremy, etc. apparently lost a lot of points recently.

173.73.178.144 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)newtoisu

 Done thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. But "February" is unclear; the pre-olympic was also February. Also the style rank then Olympics then result seems unclear to me. How about:

"At the 2010 United States Figure Skating Championships he was nominated as one of the skaters to represent the United States at the coming Winter Olympics,[ref] with an international ranking of eighth.[ref] At the 2010 Winter Olympics, Weir finished sixth overall,[ref] earning enough points to then be ranked fourth in the world.[ref]" 173.73.178.144 (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)newtoisu

I don't see much of an issue really, is it that you want to show that the new position is a reassessment after the results of the Olympics have been included? It only really matters what his positions is now really, it is a point that he is rising up but not a big issue as he is top ten anyhow, perhaps someone closer to the sport will consider the issue. Also from the citation it is not totally clear that the feb ratings is from after the olympic results have been included. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

US Nationals and selection to the US Olympic team has nothing to do with ISU ranking. Personally, I think the ISU ranking information is kind of bogus anyway; the criteria the ISU uses are arbitrary, and the actual rankings change all the time during the season. I would be just as happy if no articles mentioned this at all, but given that other editors keep inserting this for current competitors, I think the convention is that the most current ranking is given. Dr.frog (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"want to show that the new position is a reassessment"- yes, and for style; "what his positions is now"- showing that the 3rd US pick was 8th worldwide; "has nothing to do with ISU ranking"- the ISU uses them (but their rules don't say how assigned); since it's not clear how to reference the prior rankings, where could one put the text information that the Olympics points moved him from 8th up past people who actually did better at Olympics?

So how about-

"At the 2010 United States Figure Skating Championships he was nominated as one of three skaters to represent the United States at the coming Winter Olympics,[ref] where he finished sixth overall.[ref] After the 2010_Winter_Olympics/future_named_event he was ranked fourth/whatever_happens in the world.[ref]" 173.73.178.144 (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)newtoisu

Are RFC's useless?

Entire forests of virtual trees were killed for discussion here and at an RFC of whether a tiny Wikiproject tag could be included or not. And as best as I could figure it out from the mumble-throated closing summary, the RFC said it was up to the Wikiproject. So just for laughs I tried reverting the last moralistic deletion of the tag, and lo and behold, nothing's changed. So I have to ask: Does the RFC process have any use whatsoever? And I should probably follow up by asking whether talk page debating has any use, when you could be out sitting on articles and reverting edits without comment. Wnt (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If this group of editors is willing to support this article, then they have a right to announce their willingness on this page just like any other group of editors. From the guide: "WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes: A group of editors cannot be forced to support any article that they do not wish to support, or prohibited from supporting any article that they wish to support."

WikiProject LGBT supports many articles about people who are not LGBT (such as sexologists, early anti-discrimination activist Emma Goldman, Janet Jackson, William Shakespeare, James Dean).

It might be helpful if the tag included | explanation= parameter. Many inexperienced editors do not know that a WikiProject tag only means "we are willing to help". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'd like to add the WP:LGBT banner to this article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There were plenty of objections the last time this was discussed. You can be willing to help improve the article without trying to tag it to advertise a special interest group, can't you? Dr.frog (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors cannot prohibit a WikiProject from supporting an article: It is not actually a decision determined by the editors at the article. It is a decision that is wholly determined by the editors who are volunteering to help out (or not). You cannot force a WikiProject to support an article, and you cannot prohibit them from supporting an article.

Not tagging an article that a project is supporting has implications for the project's records and statistics as well as for the WP:1.0 selection process. The banners are not just (or even primarily) a matter of 'advertising a special interest group'.

If editors here don't want project banners to be particularly visible, then they could choose the other banner shell for all of the projects that support it, which is {{WPB}}. Template:WPB is considered particularly appropriate for articles that are supported by as many projects as this one is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This attempt to add the disputed LGBT project tag after such a small amount of time when there was such a lot of heated circular discussion so recently is a bit much, like at ANI, not right now, come back in six months. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the WikiProject guidelines trump the editors of a particular article. Seems to me they don't - but that's just my opinion. The RfC was more about whether or not discussing a project tag had BLP implications. Some of the previous concerns were addressed in that RfC - for instance, the project banners now read "of interest to", belaying some concerns that having a project tag might label the person.

To be clear, I believe this article is "of interest to" WP:LGBT for several reasons. Weir is using and/or challenging the stereotype of flamboyant gay male skater. He is also using and/or challenging the mainstream idea of masculinity in sports while denying a "normal" hetero label. This article from NPR speaks exactly to that, in fact. The LGBT project is interested based as much on society's reaction to him as on his non-heterosexualness - not that he's gay, but that he's refused to take the label "straight". Off2riorob, I haven't heard objections from others - can you clarify why you think the project shouldn't be involved? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Weir is challenging the role of gay male skater, what rubbish. All editors are welcome to be involved, as far as you haven't heard objections from others goes, don't take silence for support, there has if you say been minor adjustments to the templates, but nothing to alter the recent previous discussion. As I said, we only recently had a large discussion about this and sttempting to go there again after such a short period of time and when there has been little change at all is tiresome, what benefit to the article do you see adding the template will bring, none at all, it seems all the editors innvolved know where it is, to be honest the discussion about this is so recent that I find your coming back again tiresome, I have had this discussion a plenty, come back if there is a major change. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, challenging sexuality and gender. And there has been a major change. And you didn't answer my question. Why do you object to including this article in the WikiProject? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What does "including the article in the wikiproject mean"? I fear you are asking loaded questions using circumlocutions. You asked earlier "can you clarify why you think the project shouldn't be involved?". The reply is - no one has even suggested they shouldn't be - of course they can be. Absolutely any editor may involve themselves here. I fear what you are really saying is: "I want to put back the tag about the wikiproject that many editors objected to, because ...." Well, let me ask you why. Given many editors objected (and the reasons were given at length in the RfC and elsewhere) - why is it utterly essential that it goes back? Why is it worth the fuss of reopening the discussion? Why can't any editor, in any any wikiproject, edit without it? How does it benefit this particular article? Why can't the LGBT wikiproject make a note of it on their project space, if they fear they'll forget about it otherwise (and, I mean, is that a real fear?)? Basically, can we all move along and debate content rather than controversial banners? Or do you have an ideological point to make?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have some confusion about why this matters, so let me start the explanation here: Placing a project banner is not like a dog marking its territory by peeing on a tree. The purpose is not to tell other people that the project owns the article.

"Making a note of it in their project space" is the point of project banners. The tag includes the project's categories. It is not possible for a project to put this article correctly "in their project space" without putting, at minimum, two visible project-related categories on this page.

The categories are used by the WP:1.0 team to decide which articles will go into the release versions. This is processed by a bot, which means that if the category is excluded, then the article will not be correctly assessed. The 1.0 bot is not capable of looking at the text on a project page to see whether a special deal was made so that a couple of editors who are squeamish about sexuality could keep the letters "LGBT studies" off the talk page of "their" article.

WikiProjects, which range from very tiny to absolutely enormous, are not treated identically. Excluding articles affects how the project is ranked and therefore how the articles within the project's scope are weighted for the final cutoffs.

The bottom line is this: Excluding this tag produces tangible harm to the processes used by the 1.0 team. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Many editors, Scott? Two or three, as far as I can tell - and many of their objections have been addressed in the RFC. You're right, however, that I mis-spoke. I meant "Can you clarify why you don't want the project banner on this talk page?" I haven't heard any reason not to add the project tag. The benefits of doing so are: Ease of monitoring, Assessment by bot, Review by bot, and Standard WikiProject procedures. All of these fully help better the article. Now, can you tell me how *not* including the banner on the talk page betters the article? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the RfC, which were endorsed by many editors, and have not been addressed. Given the many eyes on this article, I can't see how a tag will make any difference at all. I'm sure you can do all those things without a tag, and do them with a lot less effort than that required to flog this horse any further.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Scott: Can you clarify your remarks?

How exactly is the 1.0 bot, which relies on these banners, supposed to "do all those things" if the banner is not here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what the bot does, but I'm sure the quality of the article won't suffer much without it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of rolling my eyes at this whole discussion. If half the time wasted on this long-winded discussion over a silly banner had been spent actually improving the article instead, it would be feature quality by now! Dr.frog (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. How is Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts, whose content is controlled by a bot that relies exclusively on these banners supposed to be updated if the banner is not here?

(Project members watch article alerts to find out about discussions and other significant article developments that they may be able to help with.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people here are talking as if there were at some time consensus to remove the tag. We should recall that there was never a consensus - only one or a few editors claiming that WP:BLP gave them unlimited rights to remove the tag and stifle discussion. One of those two things worked...

arbitrary break

At this point we have two main options to close out and end this disgrace.

1. We can proceed directly to an edit war and see what happens. In that case there's maybe a 67% chance that one side will get tired and give up, and a 33% chance that administrators or arbitrators will get involved - in which case there is a 25% chance that they'll rule for one side, a 25% chance they'll rule for the other, and a 50% chance that they'll topic-ban if not outright block every editor who has ever commented on this sorry story for any reason whatsoever.
2. We can hold one or more straw polls. The usual terms would apply, i.e. the poll is purely informal and non-binding (which usually means, it is the absolute and final word on the topic); and the poll measures arguments, not votes (which usually means that afterward, if it comes out 7 to 5, that's a consensus...).

I propose three questions:

Does the RFC have any bearing on what we should decide here, or is it completely useless?

Support

Oppose

Comment

Does the RFC tend to support or oppose the placement of this tag on this page?

Support

Oppose

Comment

Then should we or should we not reinstate the tag, unless members of the GLBT wikiproject voluntarily choose to remove it?

Support

Oppose

Comment

Wnt (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The result is pretty clear. Per the outcome of the RfC the tag may be added if LGBT members think it useful. No further discussion is needed - that's the way the chips fell. The changes to the tag and the explanation parameter are welcome attempts to address the concerns of dissenters. Anyone who cares to edit war against consensus here, or any administrator who threatens to use tools to thwart consensus should be asked to stop and, if they persist, should explain themselves on the appropriate dispute resolution forums. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected

I have semiprotected this article for a duration of 1 year, due to excessive BLP violations. If anybody has a problem with this, please discuss it on my user talkpage. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks reasonable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that what I did is eerily similar to User:Lar/Liberal Semi. Maybe its time to bring that back, in lieu of FPPR? The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of RfC

(redacted discussion) I'd like to restore this discussion[3] as well as the LGBT tag[4] (which I restored IMO appropriately, but inadvertently without comment while mousing over the "save" button). It's important both for the archive and as a reference to involved and uninvolved editors to note here the outcome of the RfC, namely the appropriateness of the LGBT tag, and the discussion of how to deal with the handful of editors who keep edit warring on the topic. Further, I suggest we deal with further edit warring on this subject as a behavioral issue at this point, having already resolved this as a content dispute. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The {{LGBTProject}} banner has been re-added to the article and, per the outcome of the RfC on Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people, should not be removed without the consensus of WikiProject LGBT studies. Editors who remove it without the consensus of the WikiProject should be politely informed of the result of the RfC and reverted. If they continue to remove the banner without seeking consensus, they should be cautioned and, finally, reported at WP:AN/I.

The discussion about the RfC probably does not need to be restored, and merely linking to the RfC (for instance, I've done so in the paragraph above) should suffice. Although I do not agree with the removal of the discussion from this page—an article's talk page is an appropriate venue for discussing relevant WikiProject banners and RfCs—I think that restoring it will only create additional distraction for little or no benefit. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My primary concern in "disappearing" text like that is that it effectively hides it from the normal archiving process. If it were manually moved into the archives, though, I wouldn't actually object to having it off this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good article

Well. it appears the tag is to stay on the talkpage, resisting it has become disruptive in itself. I would like to suggest as a benefit to the article, while there is a lot of interest and editors, if any interested parties nominate and improve the article to achieve GA status. Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be delighted to assist. My talents lie more in the "finding sources" arena than in the "writing prose" arena, but let's go for it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will help, together it should not be so much work, would you nominate it for assessment as I have never done that? It doesn't look so bad, it is neutral and informative covering all aspects of his life, well cited and such, pretty stable considering the lengthy discussions, here are the desired criteria WP:WIAGA Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Checklinks would need to be clear, the result has a couple of dead links in need of repair or replacing. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Disambiguation, Dablinks, is showing links in need of correction. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done all the disambiguation apart from the one Rudy soundtrack, does anyone know if it is one one the internals there? This one looks a likely suspect Rudy (film) Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I hate that "Programs" table. Is that a standard in other figure skater articles? It seems really unencyclopedic to me. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Turns out the other GA figure skaters - Evan Lysacek and Kimmie Meissner - have the "Programs" table, too. <shrug> -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look but if it is other similar articles it likely is correct, there are still a couple of citations giving issues, and hard to replace, I never do that archive in the cite like you did I just add the archive in the place of the dead link, you are likely doing it correct but I see little value in keeping the dead link, there is one archive link you did that only goes to another sorry couldn't find page, for GA all the content should be cited, some people say if it was once there then keep the dead link but I like to find a live online or book cite to support all content, especially when there is so much available in regards to Weir's life story. I imagine in about a week of pottering about the article should be ready, it is pretty good already, I looked at all the pictures and they all clearly have permission to use, although I would like to see one perhaps two removed or replaced, the dark one in a cross shape that is at the bottom and one of the two very similar skating pictures, this is really just personal preference as I don't think they are particular decent pictures. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Kewl - I'll continue to work on the refs. I like to find (when possible) the same article still online and use that instead of a dead link, but if that isn't avail, I'll look for the archives. And if *that* isn't avail, I look for the same content, but in a different article. I have no big prefs about the pictures, so have at it. But if you need anything cropped or the color adjusted, or something like that, let me know. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, i'll have another look tomorrow, best. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Something that looks kinda messy and not-good-enough with these GA skater articles is the list-likeness of the Career sections. Why just name them by the years alone when some of the smaller years can be combined and given better titles such as these two non-skater GA sports articles (their career sections): Roger Federer and Apolo Ohno? I think it would make the articles feel more complete and read better! Just my thoughts, oncamera^(t) 05:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

dead links

I an struggling to replace this dead link (21) no way-back, it seems to only be supporting this comment and Weir has designed show costumes for Oksana Baiul.[22] We can remove it or can anyone find a citation to support it? Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you already got that one?

BTW, I'm pretty sure the only time I nominated an article for GA was about three years ago. I'm okay with doing it, but I don't really know anything about it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I think we are supposed to review it and get it ready first so there is no real rush, I just had a look and 187 are waiting, I know a couple of reviewers so I may ask in in the next day or two, this is a good place to get tips and how and what to check it over Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articlesOff2riorob (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

New developments

Per the hidden notice, here I am to discuss...

Weir is apparently out, as of an article this week in People/as of the excerpts from his memoir.

I suggest adding a date to the previous statement from Weir about his sexuality ("When asked about his sexuality in February 2006...") and adding a line about this new development. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets wait for the actual quotes in the book, presently looks a bit weakly cited - I don't think that gay website is wikipedia reliable at all even though it is used in almost 500 articles... and the content appears vague to me. Have you got an actual link to the original article in the people? Apparently the actual print article is in the January 17th print version of People and this seems a bit premature, but if you have stronger claims I would be happy to look at them. It would be regarding WP:BLP to assess the actual cited content from the book and not the interpretations of interested parties. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's come up at RS Noticeboard, from which I'll quote: "AfterElton appears to be a property of Viacom, a publisher with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. This does not mean that everything written on the site is by definition reliable, but it is a strong indicator." The People article isn't online yet, but besides quotes/summary, AE also includes a picture which we have no reason to believe is 'shopped. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering how they got permission for that picture, I searched for it and it isn't at people, strange, perhaps they have got a copy of the people article and added the pic but as people have not got the pic on their website it seems very strange, anyway, I don't support adding anything from this article to our article but thats just me, it is imo premature, you could add your desired addition here for me and others to consider. Personally unless I had the exact quotes and context that Weir has said such and such in then I wouldn't support adding any claims as to his sexual preferences but others might disagree. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind holding off; I just like to be on top of things. :P Anyway, for your consideration...

(beginning with the existing sentence, with changes in italics - all moved to the bottom of the section) Weir's sexual orientation was long the subject of media speculation; however, when asked about his sexuality, Weir has stated Weir's response has often been along the lines of, "...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." In January 2011, Weir explicitly came out as gay, citing the recent string of gay youth suicides as one reason for his decision: "With people killing themselves and being scared into the closet, I hope that even just one person can gain strength from my story."

With all necessary citations, obviously. Once we can see the actual article and/or memoir, it might be possible to expand, but at the moment I don't think it's necessary to include, say, the mysterious "Alex." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Gay means many different things, as does explicit which is a bit weaselly .. sorry, it is too early to even discuss this, see you in a couple of weeks when we have a bit more to look at so to speak, regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Given we're writing an encyclopedia and not delivering "breaking news", I see no need to put information from an autobiography into our article before the biography is released. If it hits the mainstream media, fair enough. A special interest website might be reliable - but do we need an encyclopedia to be that much ahead of the game? Is it worth the (maybe small) risk of getting it wrong, or falling for some publisher's build-up spin? --Scott Mac 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dumbest shit ever. --Moni3 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's on his official website, but we can't add it to his article because it's "weakly sourced"??  — AMK1211^talk! 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems to be a bit of a circular back to the original link posted here to open the thread. There is no hurry, lets see how the issue is reported and make a decent addition when we have all the details, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AMK has a point, though. AfterElton is already generally accepted as a reliable source; now the article is endorsed by Weir's official website. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the story has been posted at his official website, it has been widely reported in the mainstream media, including Associated Press[5], New York Daily News [6], Entertainment Weekly[7], The Australian[8], etc. There is no reason for avoiding covering this issue in the article now. Nsk92 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Using these cites, we may well want to add a small qualifier update comment about his upcoming book and his coming out in coments to the content we already have, and two or three of the strongest of the cites, Ap and the daily news at least. Off2riorob (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a line with some citations, feel free to tweak it of course. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mobile Version

Hi, I was looking at the mobile site for Wikipedia, and the article for Weir includes homophobic comments. I switched to regular Wikipedia to remove them, but found that they only are on the mobile version and not the regular desktop article. I can't figure out how to remove them. Please help.thanks 198.228.195.250 (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone please add...

The article has been protected so I can't edit it. Hopefully one of the privileged folks can add the following links to the "External Links" section. They refer to items discussed in the "Documentary and TV Series" section. Also, there are no pages for these items. If you search for them, you are redirected to the Johnny Weir article.

• Pop Star on Ice at IMDb
• "Be Good Johnny Weir" at IMDb

I have added a link to the IMDb main Johnny Weir page, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2096077 thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above, there is missing information on Johnny Weir's page regarding his television series "Be Good Johnny Weir." As of this writing, there is now a second season (airing in 2012) of this series on the Logo television network. But there is no way to edit the page to reflect this. Missyagogo (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HRC

In the fall of 2010, Weir received the Human Rights Campaign Visibility Award. The notion that he was closeted until 2011 seems to be in error. David Cary Hart (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Last name is not Weir-Voronov

Johnny Weir's last name is NOT Weir-Voronov. Can someone please change the first sentence on his wikipedia article to say "John Garvin "Johnny" Weir" instead of "John Garvin "Johnny" Weir-Voronov"

Thanks 50.74.152.2 (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the source, that was his legal name while married. Presumably he will ask for his previous name back in the divorce proceedings. Pkeets (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I hadn't seen http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20557918,00.html The first sentence in the Johnny Weir wikipedia article uses Twitter as the only source. 50.74.152.2 (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnny_Weir#Gender_questions_2010

Under "Controversies Gender questions 2010", can someone please change "Gender questions 2010" to "Homophobic remarks 2010" as that is actually accurate. They were saying classic homophobic things about Weir, not genderphobic.

50.74.152.2 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think so? Since Weir has been identified as genderqueer, it's not necessarily comments about gayness, but about his gender ambiguity instead. Pkeets (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Gay men are often attacked for being effeminate.

I googled "johnny weir genderqueer" and didn't find any article that said Johnny called himself genderqueer-- just random bloggers saying he seems genderqueer.

Here Johnny says "I'm actually gay, not queer." 50.74.152.2 (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The usage of the term "queer" has recently shifted, but I think it's still inclusive of LGBT. See here. Regardless of what Johnny says, he's clearly non-conformist in ways that suggest he is third gender, as various people have noted. He has also called himself a girl or a bitch in published comments. In making up the heading, I was looking at the sportscasters' comments, which seem to disparage not only gayness, but also genderqueer. Notice they've picked on his body language and costume, which tends to feminine adornment. I think "homophobic" is too limiting a term to apply to what they said. Thoughts? Pkeets (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

Someone has obviously hacked this page to change Weir's name to "Qweir" thoughout the first two sections of his page: "Early Life" and "Personal Life." Please fix this as soon as possible.

In addition, Weir is now divorced and his name is Weir, not Weir-Voronov. He has made no public announcement of the finalization except to celebrate with a tattoo recently: the word "freedom" in Russian. See his Instagram here: http://instagram.com/p/yu2-rLBhaz/ and here: http://instagram.com/p/yvp4hcBhdK/. Dehauser (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)dhauser

Done Thank you very much, Cheers Mlpearc (open channel) 04:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015

Please correct Johnny Weir's name. ETA: from "Weir-Voronov" to "Weir" in the first line of the article, which reads: "John Garvin 'Johnny' Weir-Voronov[1] (born July 2, 1984) is an American figure skater." Weir has updated his bios on both his official Twitter page and his official Facebook page to indicate that he is now divorced. In addition, all of his official media has been updated to state his name as Johnny Weir, NOT Weir-Voronov.

Official Twitter: Name listed: Johnny Weir, user name: @JohnnyGWeir. Bio: "Two-time Olympic figure skater, @NBC Olympic Analyst & Personality, Reality TV Star, Producer, Author, Spokesmodel, Designer, Entertainer, Divorcé, Papa of Тёма"

Official Facebook: Name listed: The Official Johnny G. Weir. Bio: "2X Olympic figure skater, NBC Olympic Analyst & Personality, Reality TV Star, Producer, Author, Spokesmodel, Designer, Entertainer, Divorcé, Papa of Тёма"

Official Instagram: Name listed: JOHNNY WEIR (user name: @johnnygweir)

Official website: Name listed: JOHNNY WEIR, The Official Johnny G. Weir

Dehauser (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)dhauser

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Third-party sources indicating Weir is divorced and no longer uses "Weir-Voronov" as his last name:

"Newly single Chris Salvatore clocked in at No. 3 (he was No. 2 last year), followed closely by (also newly single) Johnny Weir." OUT Magazine: "Top 10: Who is the Most Eligible Bachelor of 2015?," 03-02-2015. .

"The double axel-spinning dandy recently went through a very public divorce..." NY Post: "Johnny Weir’s Furs and Louis Vuitton Luggage Can Now Be Yours," 03-23-2015.

Dehauser (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Dehauser

References

Done Thanks for those links. Stickee (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should also have asked that this part of the "Personal life" section be updated as well:

"In February 2014, Weir filed for a divorce, citing domestic difficulties.[23] However, it was reported that the couple reconciled two months later.[24]."

Please change to:

"In February 2014, Weir filed for a divorce, citing domestic difficulties.[23] The couple divorced in early 2015."

Sources same as above:

"Newly single Chris Salvatore clocked in at No. 3 (he was No. 2 last year), followed closely by (also newly single) Johnny Weir." OUT Magazine: "Top 10: Who is the Most Eligible Bachelor of 2015?," 03-02-2015. .

"The double axel-spinning dandy recently went through a very public divorce..." NY Post: "Johnny Weir’s Furs and Louis Vuitton Luggage Can Now Be Yours," 03-23-2015.

Dehauser (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Dehauser

References

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The change request above was marked "Done," but the text still reads as follows:

"In February 2014, Weir filed for a divorce, citing domestic difficulties.[23] However, it was reported that the couple reconciled two months later.[24]"

Please change to:

"In February 2014, Weir filed for a divorce, citing domestic difficulties.[23] The couple divorced in early 2015."

Sources same as previously listed:

"Newly single Chris Salvatore clocked in at No. 3 (he was No. 2 last year), followed closely by (also newly single) Johnny Weir." OUT Magazine: "Top 10: Who is the Most Eligible Bachelor of 2015?," 03-02-2015. .

"The double axel-spinning dandy recently went through a very public divorce..." NY Post: "Johnny Weir’s Furs and Louis Vuitton Luggage Can Now Be Yours," 03-23-2015.

Dehauser (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Dehauser

References

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Amortias (T)(C) 17:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Actually Dehauser needs two more edits and they will be autoconfirmed. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Done See [9] Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 18:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015

The link to Weir's official website is incorrect. Please change from http://figureskatersonline.com/johnnyweir to http://johnnygweir.com. Dehauser (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Dehauser

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2015

Under "Medal record" in the box at the top right hand side of the page, the host city of the 2001 World Junior Championships where Weir won Gold is incorrectly identified as Budapest. The correct city is Sofia. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Junior_Figure_Skating_Championships and to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_World_Junior_Figure_Skating_Championships 2604:2000:69A5:1F00:2032:1EFC:979:9F5D (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Good catch! Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Johnny Weir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928005534/http://www.usoc.org/11506_31483.htm to http://www.usoc.org/11506_31483.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707165245/http://www.articleset.com/Music-and-Movies_articles_en_900-Number-and-Text-Message-Voting-Decide-Figure-Skating-Challenge.htm to http://www.articleset.com/Music-and-Movies_articles_en_900-Number-and-Text-Message-Voting-Decide-Figure-Skating-Challenge.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216081433/http://www.usolympicteam.com:80/11506_50992.htm to http://www.usolympicteam.com/11506_50992.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090504201846/http://www.usocpressbox.org:80/usoc/pressbox.nsf/d25622c850c2bda387256540007b1d12/7d2db2a2d3113c998525713b00120001?OpenDocument to http://www.usocpressbox.org/usoc/pressbox.nsf/d25622c850c2bda387256540007b1d12/7d2db2a2d3113c998525713b00120001?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Johnny Weir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100317050521/http://www.thescny.org:80/content.php?id=39 to http://www.thescny.org/content.php?id=39
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081113050739/http://www.sportcentric.com/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-191593-208816-140518-0-file,00.pdf to http://www.sportcentric.com/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-191593-208816-140518-0-file,00.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090504062103/http://www.usolympicteam.com:80/11506_50992.htm to http://www.usolympicteam.com/11506_50992.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Johnny Weir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504212417/http://www.figureskatersonline.com/johnnyweir/interact12.html to http://www.figureskatersonline.com/johnnyweir/interact12.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportcentric.com/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0%2C11040%2C4844-191593-208816-140518-0-file%2C00.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627181639/http://www.usfigureskating.org/AthleteBio.asp?id=2282 to http://www.usfigureskating.org/AthleteBio.asp?id=2282
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/29716
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.icenetwork.com/skaters/detail.jsp?id=100084
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/PHI-NATL-Johnny-Weir-on-Marriage-the-Olympics--Controversy-139276348.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2012/02/johnny-weir-on-married-life.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skatetoday.com/articles07/0508071.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Johnny Weir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64zWivMEY?url=http://www.usfsa.org/event_story.asp?id=21095 to http://www.usfsa.org/event_story.asp?id=21095
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509061800/http://stlouis2006.usfigureskating.org/News/RecapNews/0114seniormenfree.aspx to http://stlouis2006.usfigureskating.org/News/RecapNews/0114seniormenfree.aspx
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64zRbdExz?url=http://www.usfigureskating.org/event_story.asp?id=37024 to http://www.usfigureskating.org/event_story.asp?id=37024
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216084751/http://www.ifsmagazine.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=492 to http://www.ifsmagazine.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=492
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420103318/http://www.ifsmagazine.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=244 to http://www.ifsmagazine.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=244
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/658F0MOqk?url=http://www.salon.com/2005/03/16/weir_2/ to http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2005/03/16/weir/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)