Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

Untitled

Edit by 71.109.109.136 on 20:43, 21 December 2005 was a direct copy from the following: Google Cache of this now-dead ESPN page.

---

How many children does he have? - Matthew238 08:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

he has six bio kids and 4 step kids

In Newtown, CT it says that the reason the Newtown track was named differently was because he failed to show up at the rededication. This article talks about the burial ground. Can these two be reconciled with some sources? Phil Sandifer 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Editors please be aware

With reference to Jenner's stepdaughter Kim Kardashian, IP addresses have been spamming any Wikipedia mention of her with commercial links to her sex tape. Please double check any references or links relating to mention of Kim Kardashian. Risker 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Bruce Jenner and Paul Vogt are in fact the same person." Check? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkerprint (talk • contribs) 09:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Video Game

Was there not a Bruce Jenner decathlon computer game year ago? I seem to recall playing it. Anyone remember it and/or know some details. Priester (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame

I noticed nothing in his bio that indicates why his in the Bay Area Hall of Fame. There is nothing that indicates any link to California, much less specifically the Greater SF Area. I'm truly curious about this, would love to know more, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.36.92 (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I previously added a section to explain that. He trained for the Olympics at San Jose City College and subsequently lent his name and appeared at the Bruce Jenner Invitational, a high level annual meet on the elite circuit.Trackinfo (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BruceJenner banned. Need resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Community_banning_proposal_of_Brucejenner

User:Brucejenner is community banned. This tarnishes the reputation of Bruce Jenner. A proposal has been made to change the user's name, involuntarily if necessary. See the section following the ban. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Banning the user using this name does nothing to tarnish the reputation of the real Bruce Jenner. Because of his appearance on a popular, current TV show, his article is a constant target for vandalism. I am among several editors who have to revert this junk on a regular basis. That too doesn't hurt the reputation of Mr. Jenner, unless it were allowed to remain on public view.Trackinfo (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Perspective

The section where Jenner becomes a national hero was background trying to relate the perspective of why his Olympic medal was so important. The historical winning streaks in Basketball, and the loss thereof, was the motive for the creation of the The Dream Team[1]. The 100 meters (with Tom Burke, Frank Jarvis, Archie Hahn, Ralph Craig, Charlie Paddock, Eddie Tolan, Jesse Owens, Harrison Dillard]], Lindy Remigino, Bobby Joe Morrow, Bob Hayes and Jim Hines), and the decathlon (with Jim Thorpe, Harold Osborn, James Bausch, Glenn Morris, Bob Mathias twice, Milt Campbell, Rafer Johnson, and Bill Toomey) both had established a similar history of USA athletes winning the gold medal, with expectations following the results.[2] Trackinfo (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be getting into an edit war with some people trying to remove a portion of his track career. While he is now known for being a reality TV star, his individual fame stems from his track career waaaay back in the 1970's. His full time training regimen in the days of amateurism was unheard of and was only financially possibly by the support of his wife working as a stewardess in hopes of being able to cash in from celebrity after winning the gold medal. All eggs in one basket. The scheme succeeded, with the bonus of the world record. Having won the medal, having a major televised annual track meet named in his honor and his personal on camera hosting of said meet kept his name in front of the public for 20 years. All the points about the meet are established in the youtube video source--a record being set, the name of the meet and Jenner hosting. None of this should be removed from the article. Jenner's association to the sport continues to this day, with his leadership on the USATF Foundation and planned hosting of an Olympic tour in 2012. Trackinfo (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How many points to win his 1976 gold medal?

Our article currently says 8,634. And yet, this 1976 newspaper article says 8,618. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC) http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=26tVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3uADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6083,7613108&dq=jenner+pole-vault&hl=en

"officially breaking the 8634-point American decathlon record set by Bruce Jenner at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. (Jenner's score had originally been listed at 8618, but was refigured in 1985, after the decathlon scoring tables ..." http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=Bruce+Jenner+8634+8618&num=10 Can fully pull up this reference because it's just a snippet view, but apparently there is a story behind this.

My take on this. 8618 is the score he had at the end of the event, the originally published world record. Recalculation based on rules and scoring table after the fact in 1985 is what was recognized ex post facto, but 8618 is the number he was known by. It was the number he put on his personalized license plate. 8634 will always appear in the comparative statistics, but was NEVER the listed world record because Decathlon world record progression the record was broken before the new tables were adopted. Trackinfo (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And that kind of makes sense. I tend to think some of this would be valuable to include in our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done and I reworked some sections that have always bugged me. I think there also should be a mention and article on Bert Bonnano, who coached several 1976 Olympians during that era at San Jose City College. But I do not have an articulation to what extent he helped Jenner, whether he was officially or professionally his coach or if he was just one an adjunct to the team. As mentioned in the article, this was before a lot of money polluted the sport. People did things for more altruistic reasons. Trackinfo (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the changes. That the '76 Olympics were in Montreal, showing the progression of the record, that Daley broke it by a mere 4 points in 1980, that that kind of opportunity to train was unheard of in those days (Bruce between '72 and '76), etc. Nicely done. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Knowing

The lead should be outlining what Bruce Jenner accomplished that makes him notable. So which is more informative to the reader; that he won a gold medal, or that he is known to have won a gold medal? Frankly, I think that if he has an article, and it is in the lead of that article that he won a gold medal, then it can be taken as read that he is known for having won a gold medal. Actually stating that he is known for it makes it sound that the being known is more significant that the winning. It actually detracts from his achievement in the decathlon.

And the sentence about how he "has been known" as the step-father is just convoluted. Clearer simply to say he is best known as the step-father. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"He won the gold medal for decathlon in the Montreal 1976 Summer Olympics, after which he became a television celebrity. He is also step-father to the Kardashian sisters." (No need to name them all in the lead). - Sitush (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Winning a significant gold medal in the Olympics, made him a national hero and celebrity. Being on the Kardashians is not "best known" in his resume. That TV series is a current phenomenon, but is not likely to carry the same historical significance in the long run. Trackinfo (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So what about my suggestion, then? - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue, not from me, but other WP trolls will claim that is too short for the lede. I was clarifying the position that the current lede is proper, starting with the Gold medal, then the subsequent celebrity career and finally mentioning his current role. The reason I was clarifying is that two editors have recently tried to say that he is "best known" for the Kardashians. That is a recent and probably temporary boost in a long life. Trackinfo (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I could go further and enumerate what made the Kardashian name famous (O J and Ray J). Trackinfo (talk)

(edit conflict) Well, yes ... and no :) This is never likely to be a Good Article. I wasn't actually saying replace the lede with just that pair of sentences, but rather trying to work round the "known" issue & the rather "bleurgh" phrasing being used. I rather thought that was also Escape Orbit's point.

I could have a go at bashing out a new lede but, tbh, there isn't all that much to be said. Let's face it, he pretty much did one notable thing, played on it a bit ... then got married into a family who showed him how to really play on something (& something that is arguably pretty trivial compared to a medal). Purely on chronological grounds, the medal comes first but I absolutely guarantee you that he is better known as the stepfather than as the decathlete. And what he may be better known for in the future is irrelevant now.

It seems that you have an interest in athletics & so you may have a different take on that, but you also have a narrow viewpoint & "specialist" knowledge. The Average Joe will be coming here because of the exposure from those step-kids, TV series etc. My suggestion was based on chronology but I am really not fussed which way round it is done. - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit my prejudice, but in a broader sense, Wikipedia is not supposed to be about any specific point in time. We know the current flavor of the week will always better covered. Our articles are supposed to be accurate on a broader view. When the TV series is long gone, it will be mentioned as a resurgence. Trackinfo (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't know what may happen in the future, so the present information is the best we have, and what readers are living with. It cannot be denied that, at this moment, he is best known as a step father. Whether this is his greatest achievement is a matter of opinion, but Wikipedia should reflect that and not beat about the bush in getting to it. I realise his current notability is, like many "celebs", a matter of being famous for being famous, but the same cannot be said for his achievements as an athlete. So I would drop the whole "known for" aspect entirely. Say he's part of the Kardashian thing, and say he is a former athlete who won a medal. Everything else is just needless complexity verging on peacocking. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to reach a consensus compromise, I suggest we remove references to "known for" and simply list his notable accomplishments. Us, any of us, declaring what he is "known for" is making a broad judgement which we from different perspectives (like age or what gossip magazine we read or watch). WP is supposed to be factual. So lets follow Jack Webb (showing my age) and give them "just the facts." Paraphrasing: He won the Gold Medal. He turned it into being a celebrity, TV star, Wheaties Box etc. Starting 2007, he is (or was when the show finally goes off the air--all shows have a shelf life) on Kardashians. Trackinfo (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember Jack Webb ;) Basically, you are suggesting what I suggested a couple of days ago? NB: I put an "also" in that which, arguably, should not be there. So, He won the gold medal for decathlon in the Montreal 1976 Summer Olympics, after which he became a television celebrity. He is step-father to the Kardashian sisters. Nothing at all judgemental in that. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, I have never had any objection to your suggestion, other than suggesting the length was short. Other users are pushing what he is best known for and I object to the value judgement, because it is influenced by a current TV show. I am suggesting over the long run, a TV phenomenon fades far faster than the permanence of having won an Olympic gold medal. I suggest we not include the value judgement phraseology. Trackinfo (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I recognise the length issue. Let's await a yes/no/alternate from Escape Orbit. If anyone else should join in this thread then that is fine but if not then, with the agreement of EO, we have de facto consensus. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. I'd still lead with his Kardashian connection though. I don't follow Trackinfo's problem with that being "influenced by a current TV show". What of it? If that's what he is currently best known for, then that's what he's best known for. Speculation (and that's all it is) about its future significance is pointless, let future editors worry about that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Read through Wikipedia:Recentism. While most of it addresses deletion of an article, the concept is not to give undue weight to recent events. The four year history of the TV show has brought him to a whole new, younger audience. But he has been a known commodity for over 35 years. Jenner, in particular, has been through other spikes before. When he was on CHiPs, it was one of the top shows in the country. When they released the Village People movie, disco was the big fad and during the run up to the movie (that bombed) he was on every morning talk show and in every entertainment rag. This stuff happens and dies down. WP is supposed to take a broader view of history than just the current flavor. Trackinfo (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that all hinges on whether you think recent events are being given undue weight, simply because they are recent. And does a stretch of four years in a successful TV show count as recentism? I would question that.

But don't let this stop you implementing what was agreed above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I'm sorry but can we get a new picture of Bruce Jenner on here? The one we have up there makes it look like a retard with an additional neurological motor disorder stumbled around and found his way on stage and this picture was taken right before security had him removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.199.191 (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)