Talk:Johnny Weir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Johnny Weir is part of WikiProject Delaware, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Delaware.
Delaware Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Figure Skating, a WikiProject dedicated to improving coverage of figure skating-related articles on Wikipedia.
Figure Skating Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johnny Weir article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


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

Contents

[edit] Quit messing around

Hey, Johnny Weir's manager or whoever you are: STOP REVERTING. Weir's costumes have been a source of critical jokes since he started skating. Plenty of references will be provided. As far as Weir's self-loving comments, I'll be sure to collect a bunch for you. 69.248.156.22 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)BadMojoDE

Weir's manager? That's a new one. The section is riddled with POV and is also unencyclopedic content. It does not belong in Wikipedia. Kolindigo 02:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, which section do you find "riddled with POV?" It seems to be a very straight-forward biography of him. Most of the controversy and POV stuff is right here on the talk page. 68.44.224.112 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)BadMojoDE

PLEASE STOP REVERTING THE INFORMATION IN "PERSONAL LIFE" EVERY DAY! Whoever is doing it, you are just being annoying for no apparent reason. The information is not only correct, it is properly referenced, it links to other articles in Wikipedia, and his pets and his collections are relevant aspects of his personal life. It is exhausting not only having to retype it twice a day, but having to re-reference it. ENOUGH ALREADY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.244.219 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have known it was Dr. Frog engaging in yet another editing war in which he has designated himself Emperor of all things Johnny Weir, of course. Sigghhhh. Dr. Frog, knock it off already. The subject heading is "Personal Life", so it is not relevant whether or not what he chooses to collect or the pets he owns are "related to his skating", as you claim that is your reason for repeatedly deleting the information. Now stop it already. You are not Johnny Weir, you are not the keeper of all things Johnny Weir, and your strange obsession with being the ONLY one who is allowed to decide what information about him is permitted on Wikipedia continues to be creepy.

Comment: 64.222.244.219, I'd like to remind you that we have a policy called WP:Civil and you have violated that policy several times. What can be included in the article is based on WP:Notability. If we look at other pages on Wikipedia such as Hillary Clinton, George Bush, Bill Clinton, there is little talk concerning their pets or their hobbies. I think that Weir's collecting of Russian Cheburashka memorabilia might be included as part of his discussion as a Russiaphile. Your case for inclusion would be helped if you found a source for the information beyond Weir's personal website. WP:Notability states a topic is notable if it: "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."User:calbear22 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Frog is engaging in an editing war, and has refused repeatedly to come onto the discussion page to talk about the issue, instead just deleting the same information dozens of times without discussion. That is most certainly not civil.
Excuse me, I have not "refused repeatedly" to do anything. I just now noticed that there was discussion about this going on on the talk page. I have also not reverted the edits about the dogs "dozens of times" -- as a simple glance at the edit history for the article will show. Please simmer down. In 20 years or so, do you think anybody is going to care about Johnny's dogs? Why do you think this information is so gosh-darned important that you're getting your knickers in a twist when other wikipedians question its relevance and whether it is truly encyclopedic information or just random trivia? Dr.frog (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No one has their "knickers in a twist", Dr. Frog, but it is just that kind of superior, pretentious rudeness that gets you into arguments repeatedly. I have tried to have a calm debate with you in "talk" and asked you to resolve the issue peaceably, but you were just as rude and unwilling to be reasonable there. The standard for an article in an online encyclopedia that is regularly updated should not be what people will care about twenty years from now, but what is relevant to the topic headings of the article and might be of interest to those seeking factual information about the subject now. I don't happen to think his pets are of paramount importance, but apparently you think it of great importance that the information not be included, for all of your hysteria in repeatedly deleting it several times a day and making inappropriate remarks toward anyone who disagrees with you. Perhaps you need a nap. 64.222.244.219 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


As for your comment about the Cheburashka: first, the argument could be made that his being a Russiaphile should be deleted as trivial, but since you like that bit of information, you argue the other way and say you might allow the Cheburashka bit to stay as it connects to the Russiaphile bit. The same could be said about many of the other pieces of information in the "Personal Life" section that you have no problem with. Secondly, the fact that he collects a particular type of memorabilia would obviously have to be confirmed by Weir himself, which he does in a question-and-answer session with fans on his official web site, and that is exactly how I referenced it. A secondary source such as an article about him would clearly be LESS reliable on an issue like that, not more, which is why I used a first-person source. (I am a Librarian/Archivist by profession and am more than well aware of the proper way to cite and use references, by the way).

How US Presidents like Bill Clinton or George Bush are covered in their Wikipedia articles is not really relevant to how a figure skater's article is likely to read; it would have made a lot more sense to compare to other current figure skater's Wiki articles such as Evan Lysacek's (which mentions that his prized possession is his Greek Orthodox cross) or Stephane Lambiel's (which talks about his good-luck charm being a ladybug). That is being realistic instead of pretentious. Johnny Weir is not the President of the United States, he is a popular figure skater. Different kinds of public figures tend to be covered somewhat differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.244.219 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lysacek's cross is confirmed by a secondary source and Lambiel's good luck charm is related to his skating. Being a Russianphile is notable because it is very influential in his skating. The Clinton's and Bush were mentioned because of their high editor traffic which helps ensure quality. If we take a look at recently approved FA in sports, both Tim Duncan and Joe Sakic have information concerning their personal lives but all information is from secondary sources. In general, secondary sources are better because they "can have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" when no such reputation exists for an individual.(Wikipedia:Verifiability) On balance, I think we can use the part about his collection under this section: Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselvesUser:calbear22 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will change the source for his dogs to another one - there are plenty to choose from. According to professional archivist rules, a first-person source is preferable for something like this, but since you are going to insist, I will use a third-person source instead. That easily makes it comparable to "Evan Lysacek's cross" for inclusion, and therefore eliminates your basis for objection. As for the Cheburashka, I can probably find a third-person source for that, too, although any such source will certainly only be quoting Johnny Weir, the first-person source, about what he collects anyway, making the exercise pointless. But again, if you insist, I will do it, for the sake of ending this silly editing war.64.222.244.219 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't he gay?

I read somewhere that he was openly homosexual. Obviously, I'll have to find the source text before posting it, but wouldn't this be a valid point to insert in a living person's biography? BadMojoDE 17:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)BadMojoDE

While it's been the subject of some speculation in the skating community and in the press, Weir himself has steadfastly refused to discuss his sexual orientation or personal relationships, so there is no sufficiently reliable source to warrant including any information about it in Wikipedia. Dr.frog 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
True - I could have sworn that I saw an article somewhere stating that he "came out." After a little bit of Google searching, I've given up. It was probably a fake; sorry about that. 68.44.224.112 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)BadMojoDE
It would be a valid point, if it were true. Weir has repeatedly refused to talk about it, so I doubt what you read even comes close to being a reliable source. Kolindigo 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It is false; someone hacked onto his myspace page back in early 2007 and edited to say that he was gay. In response, he shut the myspace page down for a month and put out a statement letting people know it had been hacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.244.219 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about links

  1. 1) Yahoo Group is dead http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnnyWeirFans/ It`s reasonable to remove it.

WRONG! This group is NOT dead - it is active and there is NO reason to remove it. The person who wrote this is the same person who keeps deleting our site because they are afraid it competes with THEIR fan club (Rising Star, which is NOT "semi-official", although they claim it is - it is NOT run by or endorsed by Johnny) - KNOCK IT OFF AND LEAVE OUR FAN SITE AND OUR LINK ALONE, JERK!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.74.58 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 December 2006.

  1. 2) Michael Collins Enterprises isn`t so important
  2. 3) Johnny Weir: A Rising Star - the main sourse after the oficial site. Is`s well known semi-official site like Johnny Weir - Russia

I think, that structure of links sould be

  1. Johnny Weir Online - Official website
  2. Johnny Weir at the International Skating Union biography page
  3. Johnny Weir at the United States Figure Skating Association
  4. Johnny Weir: A Rising Star
  5. Michael Collins Enterprises Weir Page
  6. Johnny Weir - Russia (Russian) - Russian website
  7. Official U.S. Olympic Team bio ... with photos, wallpapers, features —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arealy (talk • contribs) 06:53, 23 September 2006.


How about switching the USFSA and ISU pages? The USFSA page has a picture and a more detailed competitive history, along with links to latest news and notes on his season. The ISU only has a short bio. Kolindigo 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Rising Star is NOT Official or "Semi-Official", either - it is completely UNofficial, run entirely by a few of his fans. Johnny has occasionally answered some questions they have sent him, but that is in no way the same as an official site authorized and paid for by the celebrity. The Rising Star webmistresses are WAY out of control, deleting links to other Johnny fan clubs on Wikipedia and deleting facts and correct information that anyone else posts on Wpedia because they have appointed themselves the only guardians of all things Johnny Weir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.99.239 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 September 2006.


Actually, I'm from the LJ comm, not A Rising Star. And I've been deleting your stuff because you keep leaving rants in ALL CAPS that don't belong in the article itself. Your fan group has eleven members. A Rising Star has information, interviews, and pictures of Weir, therefore I believe that it is worth including in the links list. Kolindigo 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Any Johnny fan club is worth including a link to (are you afraid people might see the link and join our club?), and any correct and factual information about him deserves to be included in the encyclopedia, not deleted by an overly hysterical obsessive who thinks only THEY should be allowed to post information about a particular celebrity. Get a grip - there was NO reason at all to delete our club link and correct information about Johnny we posted just because YOU weren't the one who put it up. If you don't want YOUR posts deleted, then stop deleting ours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.99.239 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 September 2006.

How about the dick who keeps manically deleting everyone else's FACTUAL additions and links over and over again gets a life and knocks it off already? You are not Johnny Weir or his appointed representative (and even if you were, this is an encyclopedia and not a press release - it is not intended to only present what the subject decides they want presented), it is not your job to decide which true information about him is allowed to be told; as long as it is correct, on topic, grammatical and spelled properly, LEAVE IT ALONE. Time to get over the idea that you are the Lord of all things Johnny Weir. An encyclopedia is an information source, not YOUR personal essay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.74.58 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 December 2006.

[edit] Controversy, and External links, Revisited

The yahoo group (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnnyWeirFans) has 21 members and has no activity in the last 7 days. I don't think it's noteworthy enough to list it. As for the "controversy" regarding 2007 Nationals, I also don't think that's major. It was reported in one online paper. As for an outcry? Show me an outcry. The fans pointed it out and it was put in. The only thing Weir has said about it, iirc, is that he doesn't care. Kolindigo 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we only have 21 members (our club just started this year). So what? If we only had five members, what would it matter? Who are YOU to decide how many members a club needs to have in order to be "noteworthy"?! We are Johnny fans willing to welcome any more Johnny fans who would like to join, so what is the problem with listing our link? And the reason that we have had no activity in the last seven days is because we agreed to take a break over the holidays while our modertor is on vacation and while Johnny is not skating in any competitions, not that it is any of your business. The real question is why YOU are so very threatened by the presence of a link to our club that you feel so desperate to delete it eight times a day?!? You blatantly lied on the discussion page and said our club was "dead" and should be deleted just to justify doing so! Really, that is pathetic.
You are just wrong about the USFSA controversy regarding omitting Johnny from promotional materials for 2007 Nationals. For one thing, it was picked up by more than "one online paper". It was reported by the New York Daily News, as well as OutSports and a number of online periodicals (all of whom contacted USFSA for comment but were denied), and was discussed extensively and heatedly on every figure skating site online for months. Hundreds of the posters made it very clear that they were sending both emails and letters to USFSA protesting Weir's omission. You can be certain that USFSA's decision to add Johnny's picture to the website was a response to that attention. And Johnny did NOT say that he "doesn't care" about the incident - he has not commented about it at all, and neither has USFSA.
The real question is why YOU are so very bothered by any mention of the incident and hysterically delete it from the Wikipedia article hundreds of times. Does it for some reason personally embarrass you that Johnny was treated poorly by USFSA? It is a factual incident and deserves to be included in the article, but you seem to take it personally for some reason. This is an encyclopedia, and you need to take a step back and recognize that its purpose is to provide facts about a subject. It is not a press release or a lovefest. I am a Johnny Weir fan, too, but if you want to write an homage to Johnny, go start a fan site for him. Don't edit his encyclopedia site. I am getting tired of hearing how YOU "don't feel this is noteworthy" or "don't think this is major" when something clearly is just as noteworthy or major (or more so) as anything else on the site, but is apparently just something you feel personally threatened by.
Really, get a grip and get over yourself already. The site is not about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.74.58 (talk • contribs)
First of all, you should be WP:CIVIL. This is a valid discussionpoint. I can't say anything about the USFSA controversy, but about fansites.... In general one official fansite, or if not existing, one major fansite is generally endorsed within the external links. So if this is the largest fangroup of this skater, then I think the link should be just fine. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The largest Johnny Weir fansite is Johnny Weir: A Rising Star, which happens to be the second google result for "Johnny Weir". It is a semi-official fansite. Weir contributes some of the content, such as personal photos, and they have interviews. There is also http://weir.ru, a major Russian-language fansite. Both have much more than 21 members, although I don't have a count. And while I was one of the people who e-mailed the USFS telling them that I noticed they didn't have a picture of Weir, I still don't think it's major enough to warrant a mention in his encyclopedia article. After all, we aren't mentioning every controversy Weir has ever found himself in.
The comment I was thinking of is: I never regret anything I say. Whether it's about drugs, my family, myself, other people, if it's mean or if it's too candy sweet, I stand by everything I say. I would never dumb myself down enough to actually be PC. I have thoughts about the world, other people, culture and life, and if I want to talk about, I'm entitled to my opinions. If being myself hurts my career, then I don't really care if I get a contract with Coca Cola or Reebok or have my face on a National Championship brochure. I want to be me in life and nothing and nobody will change that. If you have to achieve something by being someone you're not, then to me, it's not worth it. Do what you love and be happy. Money is just money, if you have a lot of it, it can be good, if you don't have a lot of it, life can also be good, but with that said, everything I've earned, I've earned it my way. So it wasn't exactly how I remembered it. Sorry. Kolindigo 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing CIVIL about YOUR behavior. What is "civil" about deleting another group's fan club link hundreds of times for no reason? There is no rule or law stating that a group needs to have a certain number of members to be included. Plenty of other bio pages have numerous fan club links. As for Rising Star, which you repeatedly refer to as "semi-official" - it is NOT run by, paid for or endorsed by Johnny Weir or his agents, and that is a fact. While some members do in fact attend figure skating events and run into Johnny or his mother there and sometimes report back with photos they take or quotes they get from them, that in no way makes the site "semi-official". And the interviews they put up on the site are ones they find on the internet from other sources. I have no problem with Rising Star or any other fan club having their link included; there is simply no reason why you have to be so hysterical about deleting OUR club link, as if you find it some kind of a personal threat. No matter how many times you delete it, we will just put it back.

That quote you listed is completely out of context and in no way related to the controversy about the USFSA and the 2007 Championship promotional materials and you know it! He said that around the time of the Olympics, well before that controversy ever happened! Johnny has never given any comment at all about the 2007 Championship incident; you made that up. And the controversy was a pretty big deal to a lot of fans; the fact that you personally feel somehow threatened by it is YOUR problem alone. Again, the fact that YOU "don't think" it is that big a deal is really not enough of a reason for you to delete it hundreds of times from the encyclopedia page when it is factual information. It belongs on the page just as much as information about Johnny having studied linguistics or wanting to be a fashion designer.

You really do need to get over the idea that you, Kolindigo, are God of all things Johnny Weir. This is Wikipedia. The whole point is that anyone with correct and factual information can contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.74.58 (talk • contribs).

I just tried to link his two English message boards : Rising Star and Johnny's Aristocrats Both links were automatically deleted by wikipedia because of the rule that no external links to message boards are permitted. I think they both should be linked as they are his two largest English boards and this is the English wikipedia page for Johnny Weir. I'm sure it would be helpful for fans visiting his wikipedia page to have direct access to them both. His Myspace page would also be beneficial to fans: However, I'm assuming that isn't permitted as well?

Wikipedia is not a link farm. Its purpose is to provide unbiased factual information, not to be "helpful for fans" or "beneficial to fans" of a particular skater, or to use the skater's name to promote web sites run by third parties. Perhaps fans should just bookmark the chat sites that they like to visit. Dr.frog 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 2007 Nationals website controversy

I think I've corrected this at least 3 times already. The nationals web site in question is this one. That site is put up by the local organizing committee, which is not the USFSA, nor part of the USFSA. It is an independent local Spokane business group which has contracted with the USFSA to handle local arrangements for the championships. Dr.frog 03:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The LOC are contracted to put up the promotional information that USFSA GIVES them to put up, Dr. frog. It is a USFSA event...the local organizing committee doesn't decide how to promote it, USFSA does. They pay the LOC to put together the website and brochures to THEIR specifications. USFSA decided what went into the materials they gave to the LOC. Get it now? So stop changing CORRECT information already.


For the media controversy, is this the article to which you are referring? Because there are so many factual errors in that article (ex: confusing the marshalls events, and Lysacek wasn't even at the 2005 Skating Idol) that I would take everything in it with a grain of salt. The other article I can find is from Deadspin and though it has fewer factual errors, is entirely hearsay. All the other articles I can find on the subject, including the first NY Daily News article on the subject are merely repeating what someone whined to Deadspin about. That doesn't seem like much media attention to me. Awartha 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My $.02 worth on this is that there was indeed a brief stir about the website photos when the NY Daily News picked up on it. But, while there probably are people in the USFSA who prefer Lysacek to Weir, there's never been any evidence presented that either (a) Weir's omission from the LOC website and brochure was anything other than accidental or (b) that the USFSA -- either as an organization, or through the actions of individuals representing the organization -- had anything to do with it. For instance, how do we know that the LOC didn't just give their web site designer a stack of skater photos and it was the designer who chose which ones to use, or not? I don't think it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to report that Weir was omitted from the web site, or that the fact was noted by the press, since those things are verifiable. But this isn't the place to promote conspiracy theories about the omission being a plot by the USFSA to slight Weir, for which there is no reliable source. And frankly, aren't there more interesting things about Weir's career to focus on in an article about him? Dr.frog 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No one, including me, ever wrote or implied on the Wikipedia page that it was a "plot" by the USFSA to exclude Weir, nor was anything whatsoever written on the page about Evan Lysacek or USFSA preferring Lysacek to Weir. I also never suggested that USFSA was "trying to slight Weir" - if you drew that conclusion from USFSA excluding Weir from publicity for the 2007 Championships, it was YOU who drew the conclusion: I never wrote it. Like Kolindigo, you, Dr. Frog, seem given to hyperbole and simply making up complete lies about what people have written. Why you feel the need to do this is beyond me. It is quite sad and only reflects on your own character.

Yes, there are other more interesting things about Weir in the article, but that doesn't stop you from including other LESS interesting facts about him, so how are you deciding which facts meet the adequate level of "interest" to be included? It appears to have a lot more to do with keeping USFSA happy than choosing "interresting" information.

If you want to insist that the 3-time and REIGNING champion being left off all promotional materials for the upcoming championships while EVERY other top American skater was featured was only an oversight, that is certainly your choice and anyone else's. But it is still fact that it happened, so insisting on pretending that it didn't is just censoring information for the benefit of generating positive press for USFSA, and that is wrong. Remember, an encyclopedia is for facts, not for pleasing individual parties. 70.16.74.58 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the above user. It seems very obvious that Dr. Frog is either somehow connected with USFSA or is for some other reason overly concerned with offending them; there is no good or ethical reason to deliberately censor from this article the fact that USFSA omitted Johnny from all promotional materials for their National Championships when he was their own National Champion (and it was indeed USFSA that did the omitting, no matter how hard Dr. Frog tries to hide their deed behind a "local organization"...USFSA pays for all promotional materials for THEIR event, of course, and they decide what goes in it).

Come now, Dr. Frog, you don't really expect anyone to buy your pompous "frankly, aren't there more interesting things to focus on?" act while you are obviously just trying to divert attention away from the fact that you are censoring information solely for the purpose of protecting the reputation of the USFSA.

The important thing to note here is: No one wrote anything at all openly critical of USFSA, just a simple fact that they had originally left Johnny off of the promotional materials for the 2007 Championships while featuring every other major American figure skater. Again, that is a FACT. Whatever conclusions anyone chooses to draw about what that fact means or does not mean is their own choice. Dr. Frog, your manic and hysterical insistence that to report this fact is the same this as blatently saying the USFSA loves Evan Lysacek more than Johnny, "plotted" against Johnny and "tried to slight him" is simply absurd and only reflects your own beliefs, not the fact at hand.

You are censoring a FACT because you believe it might lead people to a BELIEF that YOU don't like. That is unethical and wrong, and the fact that you cannot see it, Dr. Frog, is just scary. 198.182.163.102 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


  • For the record, I have no connection at all with the USFSA. I am not even a member or a member of a USFSA club, much less an employee or official of the USFSA. As to why the Wikipedia should omit the so-called "fact" that the USFSA left Weir off the promotional materials for the 2007 Nationals web site -- as I've pointed out many times, it was not the USFSA who did this. It was the LOC. You folks have been asserting that it was really the USFSA behind the decision of the LOC, but have not provided any verifiable and reliable sources to indicate that it was so. Dr.frog 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Dr. Frog, you have made many, many assertions with no facts; most notably, you have asserted that people have written on the Wikipedia page that USFSA prefers Evan Lysacek to Johnny Weir and that USFSA plotted against Weir, neither of which was ever written (Lysacek was never even mentioned by anyone but you).

Nonetheless, it IS a simple fact that ANY figure skating event's publicity is paid for by the group sponsoring the event and the sponsoring group retains control of the publicity. I can guarantee you that this is how it works, as I myself work for a figure skating club that sponsors numerous competitions. It is simply ridiculous to ASSUME, as you are doing, that any other organization would take it upon themselves to pay for the huge expense of promotional materials for something as enormous as the National Championships, or that USFSA would turn over control of what went into those materials for their own Championships to another organization. You are the one assuming, not anyone else, and it is an absurd assumption. That just doesn't happen. You have no idea what you are talking about, and again, the real question is why you are so very uncomfortable with a fact being reported that might merely suggest to some people an idea about USFSA that is not entirely favorable? 198.182.163.102 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • How about forgetting about insulting me or imputing that I have some mysterious motivation for hiding the truth, and just coming up with some verifiable and reliable sources that it was, in fact, the USFSA and not the LOC that made the decision not to put a photo of Weir on the LOC's web site? Dr.frog 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And what exactly is YOUR "verifiable and reliable source", Dr. Frog, for your continued assertion of the so-called "fact" that USFSA turned over control of what to put into the promotional materials for their own National Championships to a local organizing committee? As local organizing committees are only responsible for printing materials and operating sites that the sponsoring club pays them to, I would like YOUR "verifiable" source of the agreement between USFSA and the LOC in which USFSA gave the LOC permission to create the website and the brochures entirely on their own without input from USFSA, despite the fact that it was USFSA's event. And while you are at it, how about you give us your "verifiable" source for your other statements about how people wrote on the page those statements about the USFSA preferring Lysacek to Weir, etc. You are the one making assumptions and calling them facts here. 198.182.163.102 14:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, duh. The spokane2007.com web site is owned by the LOC, not by the USFSA; so the LOC is responsible for its content unless there is evidence to the contrary. In any event, here is a press release on the spokane2007.com web site itself which starts out: "The Spokane Organizing Committee today announced the debut of the redesigned website for the 2007 State Farm U.S. Figure Skating Championships....."

Some additional info: Most of the organization and PR for the event is being handled by a group called Star USA. Here is some background information about how they won the bid from the USFSA. Here is the WHOIS information for the spokane2007.com domain showing that it is registered to the Barb Beddor mentioned in that background article. If you Google for "Star USA" Spokane "figure skating", you will find many, many other references where Star USA is described as being responsible for organizing and promoting the event. Dr.frog 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, duh, indeed. The LOC "won the bid" from the USFSA, as you yourself state, Dr. Frog. How can you not understand what that means? They were paid money to do the work (create the brochures and the web site) BY USFSA. That does NOT mean that USFSA had no say or control over what went into those brochures or onto that web site - on the contrary, as the contractor paying for the work, they had all control. To use your own word, DUH. When an organization wins a bid, they do the work as they are CONTRACTED to do it. That is what a bid is for. Or are you really so dense that you believe a bidder wins a contract and then just does a job however they want, regardless of what is wanted by the company that pays them? Too funny. 198.182.163.102 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have it backwards: the LOC is paying the USFSA for the privilege of hosting the U.S. Championships, not the other way around! It is up to the LOC to figure out how to produce the event in a way that will cover the USFSA's bid/sanction fee and make a profit for the organizers. It's the LOC who markets the event, sells tickets, signs up local sponsors, and finds volunteers to help out behind the scenes.

In the past, this model of running the competition has backfired when the LOC lost money and left the USFSA holding the bag. That happened at the 1992 Championships in Orlando, Florida; the figure skating club that hosted the event ended up declaring bankruptcy and disbanding, IIRC. More recently, the USFSA had problems collecting the money that was due to them from the 2003 Championships in Dallas, Texas. You can read a reference to it in the minutes of the USFSA's Executive Committee from the 2003-2004 season which you can download here; (it's item 22). Farther down in that same document, you can see that the USFSA's Governing Council voted in May, 2004 (item 70, on page 15) to change its rules to allow the USFSA itself to manage the championships directly. But, by that time, the bid agreement with Spokane under the previous rules was already in place (it was announced in February of 2004 [1]), so it will be the last U.S. Championships run by a LOC in the "traditional" way.

Per my hardcopy 2001 USFSA Rulebook, the former language of CR6.01 read: "The LOC shall pay all expenses involved with organizing and conducting the championships...." and went on to specify the division of net profits.

This article at Ice Skating International Online, from early 2004 (before Spokane was announced as the host for 2007) discusses the financial arrangements in holding the Championships, and says (among other things): "The host must anti up $125,000 before the event and agree to pay USFigureSkating an equal amount afterwards. The organizers get to keep any profit over that to plough into local skating activities." Dr.frog 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

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

Dr, frog, there is nothing wrong with external links to fan clubs! There are no rules against them and most bio pages have them. People like them. Quit deleting them already. You are annoying.

  • I may be annoying, but at least I follow WP:Civility guidelines. Please go read WP:EL, under "Links normally to be avoided". Item 10 includes discussion forums. Item 11 lists personal web sites. Item 13 lists sites that don't have a direct, symmetric relationship with the subject of the article, such as fan sites. Dr.frog 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, maniacs of the links war =) Ok, now we have problem with the most popular and informative recourses about Johnny. It`s Funny...
1) Michael Collins Enterprises isn`t so important, i have told about it, not about

and

So... I have started, and i have to finish this war =)
Dr.frog , relax =) Arealy 00:48, 16 January 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Tatiana Tarasova

Ok, maniacs. It`s better to discuss about Tatiana Tarasova in biography of Johnny Weir... I think you didn`t delete her article as a result =) Thx, Tatiana Tarasova was a former coach of Johnny 2003-2006? Am I right?

2003-2005, in the summers only, actually. Priscilla Hill was still his main coach at the time.

[edit] Picture

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

Hi, I am sorry because I think that one is not an attractive one, so I keep changing it. If that really bothers you, I apologize for it. If you insist that one is better for it, just do it. I won't change it anymore because I am tired of doing it, too. Really sorry for it. I think we both just want to find a good one to put on. layido 28, May 2007

I repasted the Swan picture. I love the Dr. Zhivago picture that was posted but, wiki will remove it in 7 days because it hasn't been copyrighted and it's also a very old picture. I also removed the lower Dr. Zhivago picture because he doesn't look very well in it. I'm not real crazy about the Swan picture I posted either but, it's the only recent one I can get my hands on that I can copyright legally. If anyone has a better picture that you can copyright please paste it. I think what we need is a picture 1) showing his face well 2) Preferably in Camille because that's his iconic program 3)semi-recent. And obviously 4) it needs to be Copyrighted. I'll look around and see if I can get hold of one that will make everyone happy. If anyone knows a skating photographer they can contact to help us please do.

[edit] "Swan" Glove in Smithsonian Story

I can find no verifiable proof to the story that Weir's red glove from his 2006 "Swan" costume was displayed in the Smithsonian, so I have deleted that. The two "references" that were attached to it did not actually confirm the story at all - they only cited a joke Weir made in an interview in which he said maybe he should "donate it to a museum". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.244.219 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing is weak. The Marshalls Figure Skating Commentary seemed to me to be the truth, but I agree a stronger source might be needed compared to a few weak ones.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)