Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Johnny Weir
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Articles > Biographies of Living Persons
NotARepublican55
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Article fully protected, discussion should continue at Talk:Johnny Weir#Blatant BLP Violation - Wikipedia attempts to "Out" athlete who makes no public claim about his sexuality to avoid duplication of discussions. –xenotalk 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


---

This new edit: "LGBT newspaper Edge noted during the 2010 Olympics that "like Matthew Mitcham, [Weir] is a rare Olympic athlete who feels comfortable about being out even while his career is in full swing".[25]" As said elsewhere, BLP clearly states that: "This is a matter in which the Wikipedia rules applicable to articles about living people are especially relevant. Those guidelines specifically note that information about sexual orientation should be used only if "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life". Mr Weir is notable for his competitive figure skating." Weir has been clear that who he sleeps with is his private life, "Johnny has also said, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use."[135]

It's not a debatable question, the athlete has not stated his personal preference. --99.142.6.146 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from the article linked from the reference, it appears he has stated a preference. No admin action needed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote that, please? --99.142.6.146 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On re-reading, guess I can't. The closest I can get is "I have no shame in who I am, and who I go to sleep with is a very small part of who I am."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean he's disclosing his sexual preference. Per BLP, it should not be stated or implied unless there are high quality references for it. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note. I have removed the sentence until the matter is resolved. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

---

etc etc, sigh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An/...t_his_sexuality
tarantino
Jay Brannan (T-H-L-K-D) has been complaining about a similar situation for years.

He said in 2008:

QUOTE
i do NOT want to be included on wikipedia. i don't want to learn your protocols for editing and deletion and discussion. i don't have the time or interest.

i don't care how people represent me on personal sites. but wikipedia is presented to the public as if it were a fact-based encyclopedia, when that is not at all the case.

i hate when my sexuality is sewn to my very name as if it were on my birth certificate, particularly when it is completely unrelated to the ensuing paragraph.


The cult has decided the best way to deal with this is to save mention of his gayness for the last sentence of the article.
BelovedFox
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 1st March 2010, 3:17am) *

Jay Brannan (T-H-L-K-D) has been complaining about a similar situation for years.

He said in 2008:

QUOTE
i do NOT want to be included on wikipedia. i don't want to learn your protocols for editing and deletion and discussion. i don't have the time or interest.

i don't care how people represent me on personal sites. but wikipedia is presented to the public as if it were a fact-based encyclopedia, when that is not at all the case.

i hate when my sexuality is sewn to my very name as if it were on my birth certificate, particularly when it is completely unrelated to the ensuing paragraph.


The cult has decided the best way to deal with this is to save mention of his gayness for the last sentence of the article.


Brannan blanked the page with no explanation and is railing against the article using images that are freely licensed (despite what he says, File:JayBrannan-MercuryLounge.jpg is most likely a valid and perfectly legal image.) And, my personal opinions of AllStarEcho aside... Brannan's not helping himself or his supposed opinion that it's all private when he puts reliable sources that blatantly say he's gay and discuss his sex life on his own site, i.e., http://jaybrannan.com/images/DC12.2006.jpg. This isn't someone who refuses to comment on his sexuality. This is someone who is clearly out as a homosexual, frankly, and is reaping what he's sown.
Somey
QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Sun 28th February 2010, 10:01pm) *
Brannan blanked the page with no explanation and is railing against the article using images that are freely licensed (despite what he says, File:JayBrannan-MercuryLounge.jpg is most likely a valid and perfectly legal image.) And, my personal opinions of AllStarEcho aside... Brannan's not helping himself or his supposed opinion that it's all private when he puts reliable sources that blatantly say he's gay and discuss his sex life on his own site, i.e., http://jaybrannan.com/images/DC12.2006.jpg. This isn't someone who refuses to comment on his sexuality. This is someone who is clearly out as a homosexual, frankly, and is reaping what he's sown.

Personally, I think we're focusing too much on the gay issue here, because that's what Wikipedia is all about. The simple fact of it is, he doesn't like WP and wants the article about him deleted, and of course, because he's gay, and good-looking, they won't do it. If he were gay and ugly, the article would have been deleted a long time ago - he's not that "notable," even by Wikipedia standards. I'd never heard of him until just now myself, and very few people around here know more about pop music than I do.

Anyway, if he had "body image issues" while growing up, that's a clear indicator of massive insecurity, and that often leads to paranoia. That's probably the reason he dislikes Wikipedia so much; I doubt that it's narcissism. If it were narcissism, he'd be subtly trying to gain control of the article himself with well-reasoned arguments and sock puppets and so on, like Gary Weiss or MB or someone like that - rather than crudely blanking it in an apparent fit of pique. And frankly, I can think of no simpler way to feed someone's paranoia than to post a Wikipedia article about them.

Wikipedia is basically torturing this guy for no legitimate reason whatsoever. They might as well tie him down to a table, blindfold him and gag him, and stick needles into him at random.

Johnny Weir, on the other hand, is probably just an exhibitionist, and he's figured out that he can maximize the attention he gets by not talking about his sex life. True, that's just my opinion, but it appears to me that Wikipedia is giving him just what he wants, and lowering itself to tabloid status (or worse) by doing so. I'm not so concerned for him, personally. WP should still leave the sex stuff out of the article, though of course they won't, for the same reason they won't for Brannan.
carbuncle
QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Mon 1st March 2010, 4:01am) *

Brannan blanked the page with no explanation and is railing against the article using images that are freely licensed (despite what he says, File:JayBrannan-MercuryLounge.jpg is most likely a valid and perfectly legal image.) And, my personal opinions of AllStarEcho aside... Brannan's not helping himself or his supposed opinion that it's all private when he puts reliable sources that blatantly say he's gay and discuss his sex life on his own site, i.e., http://jaybrannan.com/images/DC12.2006.jpg. This isn't someone who refuses to comment on his sexuality. This is someone who is clearly out as a homosexual, frankly, and is reaping what he's sown.

"Reaping what he's sown"? Are you trying to punish him for something?

Why should anyone's sexuality or sexual identity be identified if they state that they don't want it to be?
BelovedFox
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 1st March 2010, 3:17pm) *

QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Mon 1st March 2010, 4:01am) *

Brannan blanked the page with no explanation and is railing against the article using images that are freely licensed (despite what he says, File:JayBrannan-MercuryLounge.jpg is most likely a valid and perfectly legal image.) And, my personal opinions of AllStarEcho aside... Brannan's not helping himself or his supposed opinion that it's all private when he puts reliable sources that blatantly say he's gay and discuss his sex life on his own site, i.e., http://jaybrannan.com/images/DC12.2006.jpg. This isn't someone who refuses to comment on his sexuality. This is someone who is clearly out as a homosexual, frankly, and is reaping what he's sown.

"Reaping what he's sown"? Are you trying to punish him for something?

Why should anyone's sexuality or sexual identity be identified if they state that they don't want it to be?


If he didn't want his sexuality to be identified, he probably shouldn't have openly stated it several times in publications. It's not about "punishing" someone, but saying "I can talk about this, but I don't expect other venues to" is foolish and shortsighted.
thekohser
QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Mon 1st March 2010, 10:56am) *

If he didn't want his sexuality to be identified, he probably shouldn't have openly stated it several times in publications. It's not about "punishing" someone, but saying "I can talk about this, but I don't expect other venues to" is foolish and shortsighted.


Most "other venues" can be sued in court if they're irresponsible with what they publish. Not so, Wikipedia, though, huh BelovedFox? That's a really special deal they've got there with Section 230.
BelovedFox
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 1st March 2010, 4:34pm) *

QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Mon 1st March 2010, 10:56am) *

If he didn't want his sexuality to be identified, he probably shouldn't have openly stated it several times in publications. It's not about "punishing" someone, but saying "I can talk about this, but I don't expect other venues to" is foolish and shortsighted.


Most "other venues" can be sued in court if they're irresponsible with what they publish. Not so, Wikipedia, though, huh BelovedFox? That's a really special deal they've got there with Section 230.


He obviously isn't going to sue those venues, since he participated in interviews and has the press clippings on his web site.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.