Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

Transition to female

Some sources are citing that Jenner is in fact transitioning into a woman. Should we add this into Personal Life or wait until more sources poor in supporting this information? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say wait. Right now it's just anonymous, unattributed, shadowy "sources" who may or may not be correct in any number of ways. I think as an encyclopedia, we need to have it concretely nailed down and confirmed before including it.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

People and Entertainment Tonight are anonymous, unattributed, shadowy sources? http://www.ew.com/bruce-jenner-transition-to-woman-docuseries

To whoever posted the above: Not People and Entertainment Tonight — the anonymous, unattributed sources they're currently citing. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Too premature to include. There are some articles that say he is "ready to come out as a woman", but until that happens or he makes a statement, I don't think it should be included. Melonkelon (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to add it but decided against it after rereading the article and realizing he didn't actually verify. RockStarRei (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is this People magazine source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not confirmed by Jenner him/(her?)self. RockStarRei (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Per numerous discussions here and elsewhere, Wikipedia requires unimpeachable, non-tabloid direct statements from the person themselves for changes like this. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm usually guarded, but I think it has gained enough significant coverage, that it should be mentioned in a careful way, because unless the article is locked fully people will keep adding it day in and day out. People Magazine is really not a tabloid at all - they would not go with this kind of confirmation unless it was 100 percent. The "source" is basically him or his agent/publicist. Especially with him doing his TV show, there's going to be continual press promotion about this. If this is the typical E! TV show, he himself is not going to say anything or do any interviews until it's time to do promotion for the show. And Kim K's comments were fairly significant (contrived), talking about his "journey" and that he's going to tell people when he's ready etc. Additionally the coverage that that one magazine did (of photoshopping makeup on him) was fairly shocking and received significant media coverage. And by the way, I don't mean that cover itself was any kind of confirmation, but printing a cover like this was just nuts and I have a feeling upset a lot of people sensitive to transgender issues. Wikimandia (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The show's publicist may very well be behind this. But we don't know. Anonymous sources have all sorts of reasons for saying the things they do, and few times is it because they're exposing corruption and are afraid of retaliation. In the entertainment world, anonymous sources have their own agenda. Given that an encyclopedia is,optimally, an unimpeachable, concrete source of facts for reference-seekers, I think we need to hold off until we have concrete confirmation. Even if we were to take the anonymous sources at their word, we don't know by any means if (for the sake of argument) we're taking transvestism, full-scale gender-assignment surgery or something in-between. We don't have concrete facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree if it were to be written in the article as a fact or mere speculation; however, it can be discussed what was reported. Even Time Magazine went with the story, and it is most definitely not a tabloid, nor would Time green light the story if their editors felt the People source was not reliable. Additionally, Variety ran an article specifically about his new reality show and that it is devoted to his transition (read article here). And again, not a tabloid but a highly respected industry source with no credibility problems. The show announcement should at least be placed on the page. Wikimandia (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So, rampant speculation about a BLP subject's appearance leading to insinuations that Jenner may be gender transitioning. How is this okay to mention in a BLP, given there is no reliable source of evidence that this is what's actually happening? Bear in mind that transitioning is either a medical issue, a psychiatric issue, or a psychological issue depending on who you talk to. So when is it okay to speculate about these issues on a BLP based on someone's appearance? - Alison ^❤ 10:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not speculation. Speculation would be - "Jenner's long hair and nail polish have led to media discussion and commentary about him possibly being transgender." .... It is not speculation to include, "Trade industry publication Variety reported on January 28, 2015, that Jenner will have his own reality series on E! devoted to his transition from male to female." Variety = not a tabloid nor a gossip blog. Wikimandia (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For BLP concerns such as this, statements like you describe are insuccificent. but in any case, Variety doesn't even say that. it says "has generated considerable speculation in the tabloid press that he is on the verge of revealing he is transgender" a clearly insufficient "fact" for saying anything of substance about anyone. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The LA Times and Fox News have confirmed this transition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We need to hear it from Jenner or at the very least named sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please delete the article on the Watergate scandal because much of it was based on shadowy anonymous source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.242.23 (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

New York Times just published an article, in the article they say the Kardashian family still refers to Jenner as "him". The pronoun issue is discussed. People magazine still uses "him/he" and the article refers to Jenner as "Mr Jenner". I suppose we'll have to wait until the interview. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been said that Jenner's mother confirms his transition and that it has been delayed due to the crash. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anything is being delayed. He's still filming his show. There's nothing to suggest his life will be imminently affected by the crash, as horrible as I'm sure he feels. But it's not like he was not intoxicated at the time or anything. An investigation may or may not result in a charge of manslaughter, but it seems a bit doubtful as he was following too closely but while going the speed limit and he was not texting or doing something else distracting. He may be the secondary cause of the accident and not the initial cause. He'll definitely have a civil suit for wrongful death but those take years. Wikimandia (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this article, among multiple other articles, Bruce Jenner is in fact becoming a woman. He has already shaven his Adam's apple, although it is unknown if he is planning to get gender reassignment surgery. It will reportedly be announced on the show as well. So do you think it could possibly be written now, since The Daily Mail (in my opinion) is a reliable source? Nyazkilam (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Bruce hasn't announced the change. Your source is fourth-hand information, which is nowhere near good enough for a Wikipedia BLP. Townlake (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you define fourth-hand information and how it differs from the first 3 "hands"?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Firsthand would be Bruce. Secondhand would be the people in his family Bruce told. Thirdhand is Us Weekly; it appears family members told Us Weekly what Bruce said. Fourth-hand is Daily Mail reporting on the Us Weekly report. I assume you've played the telephone game at some point in your life; in this case, for something this sensitive, the information and specifics attached to it really need to come from the lion's mouth. Townlake (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh alright then. I suppose we'll wait until the Diane Sawyer interview or the E! News documentary. Nyazkilam (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

How much do those sources pay attention to Jenner?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an interview with him -- that's when he discloses his new name. And the E! News documentary is going to feature him and his family. Nyazkilam (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's absolutely absurd that the Wikipedia article still mentions nothing about this sex change Cole Dalton (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We now see clips from the upcoming interviews with Jenner discussing his sex transition. Wikipedia however still sees nothing, hears nothing, knows nothing. A ludicrous position. aldiboronti (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news source. Also we can't risk getting it wrong. "Clips" are not enough. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

When to start using female pronouns?

Cosmidering the complete chaos surrounding changes to the Chelsea Manning article (one of the biggest conflicts in Wikipedia history), it would be nice to have a calm pre-discussion about when and how the changes here might take place. What are the guidelines? Moncrief (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:VNT, we have to wait until at least one reliable source reveals Jenner is a trans woman. Georgia guy (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Beyond that MOS:IDENTITY says we need to use the pronouns they say they want used. A source discussing/claiming a transition says nothing about what Jenner themselves wants. We need a clear an unambiguous statement/interview from Jenner themselves saying they are a (trans) woman or would like female pronouns used. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean, some trans women prefer to be referred to as men?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean we cannot assume "trans woman" nor which pronouns Jenner would prefer. Third gender. Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns#Summary not to mention just the fact that if they have not discussed it publicly, perhaps they don't want it to be discussed/known publicly. (Beyond that, as a celebrity/actor, stuff such as this could affect future job prospects and if we get it wrong, wikipedia could be liable. ) There are numerous examples where things have been "known" for a long time, but we did not update our articles without official statements. Tim Cook or Anderson Cooper coming out are two easy to point to examples where it was a widely discussed open secret, completely not mentioned in wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin is correct. A "reliable source" that doesn't directly quote Jenner's own wishes won't be sufficient. Townlake (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. And what if Jenner never explicitly tells "us" (the public) about any preferences. Then what? Just because an individual undergoes this type of transition does not require that that individual explicitly articulate to the general public what their preferences are. (Especially in the case on non-celebrities.) No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If they never say anything publicly, then we never say anything either. See Tim Cook and Anderson Cooper and when the first mentinos of them being gay made (and stayed) in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Then one obviously defaults to the status quo. I am in Jenner's implied position, or perhaps close, it is a very complicated one, even without celebrity status, and even contractual issues, as a celebrity name equals brand. The initiative lies there, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.80.181.204 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)

WP:IDENTITY is paramount here. The BLP subject must confirm this themselves. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Sources that appear to be coming from the Jenner family still use the male pronouns per this article. We need to adhere to MOS:IDENTITY and use the pronouns that are currently being used until such time that it may change, if at all.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To this point in time he has been identifying as male. Pronouns for events transpiring before this supposed future transition should still remain in the masculine. "Her" would have no reference to his performance in the male division of the Olympics, celebrity era as male characters or Kardashians as step-dad. There is no reason to go back and rewrite the article. We do the same thing with women after they get married and take on their husband's surname. The events before the marriage are still referred to under their birth surname. Trackinfo (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Incorrect. Please see WP:IDENTITY and Wikipedia:Gender identity. We use whatever pronoun the person prefers throughout the entire article. If something needs clarifying, we do so in footnotes or by rewording it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Because that viewpoint has won out at Wikipedia, I recommend avoiding using pronouns at all in the sections pertaining to a transgender person's life before transitioning. --DavidK93 (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd need to propose a change to the essay/guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Or invoke the "common sense" exception clause available for every guideline. Marteau (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not "common sense" though. If the person says to use different pronouns for the past, then do it. But assume consistent pronouns otherwise. We can tweak grammar if something is difficult to understand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding use of pronouns at all is something well within editorial discretion at this article, which does not require any changes to policy/guidelines/mos. There was previously guidance to that effect in MOS:IDENTITY, but it was apparently removed at some time "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)." But we can easily just say "Jenner" in place of pronouns anywhere that it would cause confusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

DavidK93 was not talking about using different pronouns, though. He was speaking of using surnames. Were someone to insert, for example, "She won the men's pentathlon" I would not object to someone changing the pronoun to a surname. Marteau (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and for those that advocate that we should already be using "transitioned" language, this is an acceptable action to do now. Switch everything to Jenner away from pronouns, and then both "sides" should be happy (at the cost of some ease of readability) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Too soon imho. Jenner has yet to comment on the rumors and until they do, WP:STATUSQUO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My point is that using "Jenner" in place of a pronoun is accurate either way. If (he) comes out and says "this is all bullshit, I'm 100% man", "Jenner" is still correct. Conversely "I am and always have been a woman trapped in a man's body" or something of that effect, "Jenner" is also still correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It is, but it's so clunky most of the time. ::shrug:: I think it's a bit early to change things, but that's my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The manual of style does not say to use the pronouns a subject asks for, but to use those consistent with the latest expressed gender identity. Exotic nonbinary options do not need to be considered preemptively. It would be a massive failure of common sense to expunge all the pronouns used of all trans people mentioned in the Wikipedia until they issue specific requests. Rhoark (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This news item http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/news//171361/bruce_jenner%27s_mom_opens_up_about_his_gender_journey_ said to be an interview with Jenner's mother would seem to confirm the transgender story, but she still refers to Jenner as "him", possibly advisedly. Based on this the status quo still seems the good choice, but it might be time to include the issue in the main article, subject to verification of the soundness of the source by another editor better equipped to do so. It seems now to be a significant factor in the subject's life and also will become an important element in transgender history, and transgender sportspeople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.121.249 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally suspect these releasings of partial information, over time, little by little, regarding Jenner's transition is on purpose and aim at breaking the news gradually, as well as to use the media and gain publicity, attention and anticipation for whatever documentaries or shows Jenner is to appear on. I continue to recommend the encyclopedia wait for Jenner to conclusivly make a statement, and recommend we have nothing to do with this publicity bandwagon that is developing and rolling towards what is to be a no doubt spectacular conclusion live and in color with limited commercial interruption with Diane Sawyer or whomever. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a vehicle for publicity for any cause or person.Marteau (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the interview this evening, Jenner stated that "I'm a woman," is this conclusive enough to move forward with changing to female pronouns? Jordanbowden (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

No, not with multiple sources saying use of masculine pronouns still. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source saying that Jenner would like she/her pronouns starting after the recent ABC interview, in paragraph six: 137.90.0.177 (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Question from IP editor

Is this article going to claim that Bruce Jenner was the first woman to win the Men's decathlon ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First known trans woman perhaps. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely as one would need a reliable source to say so, and Jenner was not transitioned at the time so was not a trans woman at the time. (MOS:IDENTITY's pronoun rule notwithstanding) Gaijin42 (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought that the Wikipedia policy on trans-gender was retroactive. In other words it does not matter if Bruce Jenner was identified as a man, and called himself a man in 1976 when he won the decathlon. If Bruce Jenner says that she is a trans woman today then the article would read, “She won the men's decathlon in 1976”. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not claim to fully understand the Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's the general gist of the policy, though in practice that sentence would not be used due to its awkwardness. For that sentence, "Jenner" would be used instead of "she," but the pronouns all around that sentence would be female for Jenner. See Chelsea Manning for reference, for examples of how the policy has been painstakingly put into practice. Moncrief (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If Jenner comes out as transgender, I think we could say that Jenner is the first winner of the Men's Decathlon to identify as transgender (as opposed to "transgender winner," which could imply having won after transitioning; if a transitioned person ever wins an Olympic event, we'd deal with how to word it then). However, I'm not sure it's encyclopedic to do so; "winner of the Men's Decathlon" may be too specific a category to bother identifying someone as the first to do something not related to the event; i.e., the first Olympic gold medalist of each gender to identify as transgender should be mentioned as such (I don't know if that would be Jenner or not.), and I don't think we need to identify transgender "firsts" by Olympic event. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, theres a big difference between being the first person to win and then come out as trans, vs the first trans person to win (which in this case would mean Jenner would have needed to win the Women's medal). The second would probably be notable. The first not so much. - An analogy would be Oscar Pistorius running in the regular olympics as a paraplegic (especially had he medaled), vs the numberrous olympians who probably have become disabled after their Olympic involvement. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the wikipedia policy on external articles regarding trans-gender individuals? For example: I notice that the article on Sonny Bono has this text, “On March 4, 1969, their daughter Chastity was born.” Is that an error? Should it be changed? Also I believe that most modern day Olympic athletes have undergone “Gender testing.” How should links to those external sources be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't mean external articles, just other WP articles that refer to someone transgender. Same rules apply. I rewrote the sentence in Sony Bono. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not stand alone and must cite reliable external sources for its facts. Many (I am guessing most) of these external sources do not adhere to the same trans-gender policy as does Wikipedia. These sources are the external articles that I was referring to. I think that it is problematic to cite a source for a wikipedia article that disagrees with the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Is this article going to claim that Bruce Jenner was the first woman to win the Men's decathlon ?" That would be like claiming that Neil Armstrong was the first dead person to walk on the Moon. Bruce Jenner was neither a woman nor a transgendered person when he won his gold medal. 99.141.238.204 (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the logic is that Bruce Jenner identified as a woman in 1976, when the medal was won, and therefore was a woman in 1976. I could easily be wrong here about the logic, but the Wikipedia policy (as I understand it) is that Jenner's should be recognized as a woman throughout her entire life. My problem with the policy is, at the least, it causes confusion and is in conflict with other valid historical sources about the lives of transsexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's complicated. We have no comments from Bruce Jenner, but even if we assume that Jenner now identifies as a woman, we don't know if she feels that her gender identity has changed over time or if her current gender identity has been a lifelong one. Most transgender individuals who have spoken publicly hold the latter position. In any event, it should be noted that there is a difference among being transgender (feeling that one is of a different gender), transitioning (living one's life as a different gender), and being transsexual (i.e., having had sex reassignment surgery to change one's biological sex). So it is entirely possible that Bruce Jenner felt she was a woman in 1976 when she competed in the Olympics, even though she had not yet transitioned. I believe Wikipedia holds that we must identify such a person as a woman, although I personally would describe such a person as female but a man, and a woman only after transitioning. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

DavidK93; you're the opposite of User:JanetWand when it comes to distinguishing the terms male/female and man/woman. Georgia guy (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DavidK93's statement. To clarify, male/female is a biological state of being and man/woman is a social construct and an important basis of self-identity. Your failure to understand this basic conceptual distinction leads me to believe that you are misguided or misinformed as to the subject matter, but that is okay so long as you cite sources and keep your opinions to yourself. JanetWand (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Read DavidK93's statement. He's saying "...although I personally would describe such a person as female but a man, and a woman only after transitioning." This is the opposite of what you say, JanetWand. What YOU say is that a trans woman is a woman, but male, and female only after transitioning. Georgia guy (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of distinguishing terms: Like the Transgender article notes, the terms transgender and transsexualism are not always distinguished. As for changing one's biological sex: Well one's biological sex is not truly changed by sex reassignment therapy/sex reassignment surgery, but some sexual characteristics are changed, and obviously the point is to align the body with the mind. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:99.141.238.204, what you're saying makes common sense, but on this particular subject common sense runs counter to WP:MoS, and is thus verboten. One reason I don't edit much anymore.174.101.121.104 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Car crash not notable

The paragraph about Jenner's recent car crash should be removed. It's not notable and it's inclusion is WP:RECENTISM and violates WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I concur and was about to suggest the same thing.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Laura Bush's page includes her killing another driver in 1963. Causing the death of another person is entirely notable and shouldn't be removed just because it (literally) happened yesterday. Deadbeef 10:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I disagree. This is well-covered by good sources. More importantly I don't see some serious violation of policy here. Over time, if a multitude of editors feel the referred-to material really needs to be whittled back, that can be done. If it is all removed—so be it. But it does not have to be erased in its entirety, immediately. I don't find it so problematic. Is it a WP:BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait for the proverbial dust to settle on this issue. This is still breaking news and waiting a couple of days for things to pan out will avoid what would be an almost inevitable push by some editors to want to include all sorts of speculations and allegations and unknowns and details and trivia, much of which is and will come from reliable sources, and much of which will certainly suffer from WP:NEWS and WP:RECENTISM issues. This back and forth can all be avoided by waiting a couple of days... eventually, this issue will almost certainly warrant inclusion, but with it unfolding and still being breaking news, I'd advocate waiting a couple of days. Marteau (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I heard on the local news here in Los Angeles this morning that the police believe the driver of the Prius, the first car in the chain, stopped abruptly to make an illegal-u turn. The police said her story is vague about why she was stopped 300 feet from the traffic signal. They said they believe the Lexus rear-ended her, then Jenner rear-ended the Lexus. The report said, Jenner tried to avoid the Lexus by steering abruptly to the right, which caused him to hit the Lexus off-center, which turned the Lexus to the left, which is what pushed it into oncoming traffic. But Jenner did not cause this accident. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's related to paparazzi, it will belong in the transition stuff. If it was just a fluke, I see no reason to include it. Jenner was just involved, not the cause of it (unlike Bush mentioned above). Just wait until we know details. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Clearly notable and well sourced. That he was involved in the crash and that someone was killed under dubious circumstances is a fact. Period. The story and details develop further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC) User:EvergreenFir, Thank you for the reminder. Brain fart! Sorry for not signing that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is "dubious" about the circumstances of the crash? It was a three-car chain reaction crash with tragic results. Nearly three months after the crash, Jenner has been charged with nothing. Unless and until he is charged with a crime, this is a non-notable event in his life. --Crunch (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This talk page needs a special banner

This talk page needs a special banner that talks about the fact that regardless of rumor, Jenner is known by all reliable sources as a man and not a trans woman. Georgia guy (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Yes, occasionally someone comes by who cannot be bothered with reading the existing discussions on the talk page and demonstrates that by saying or requesting something uninformed, but such instances are few and are not overwhelming. The talk page is serving its purpose and I don't see any need for any banner or FAQ yet. When/if Jenner decides to make a change and say so in public, the need for a FAQ will probably be there, but I don't see it yet. Marteau (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Would that then be the "Bruce Banner"? 68.164.204.212 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

GET OUT. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gone ahead and added one. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, not anymore. I think that addition is inappropriate and unnecessary. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It's useful. It shows the difference between how Wikipedia handles trans women and how Wikipedia handles Bruce Jenner and why it is different. If you don't like the way it's written, then feel free to re-word it. Georgia guy (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going rewrite a sentence that I think shouldn't be there at all. The rest of the text in the banner does an adequate job of explaining the situation. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement says:

"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns ... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."

The emphasis of the word "latest" suggests that we normally refer to transgender people by their identified gender and not their birth-assigned sex. I have a big concern that people will think this means that Jenner is a trans man, not a rumored trans woman, per this statement and the guideline of referring to Jenner with male terms. Georgia guy (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How's this? –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Georgia guy (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Are USA Today and Bruce Jenner's own mom not considered reliable sources?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/02/04/bruce-jenners-mom-opens-up-about-his-gender-journey/22894205/

Bruce Jenner's mom on his gender journey

[...]

AP: He has opened up in terms of his gender identity, which he is now owning, as opposed to hiding like so many transgender people have to do? Is that right?

Jenner: That's absolutely right. He said, 'Mom, I'm still the same person.' He said, 'I'm still going to race cars, I'm still going to fly airplanes and I'm going to get my helicopter license.'

Dansan99 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Not for purposes of switching Gener's identity.
2. If a transition is personally announced, these sources can be used for additional details/backfill
3. Note the use of male pronouns in the story, not sure this is the story you want to be saying is a reliable source, and that we should follow their lead.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"... A publicist for the 65-year-old Jenner would not comment about his mother's remarks. ..." -- apparently not. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I know of no reliable sources about the gender pronoun Jenner prefers, but there is a very reliable source speaking on the topic of Bruce's gender identity. This is a notable fact, and should be covered in the Wikipedia article in a responsible way, probably as a short paragraph in the Personal section. For example: "In a February 2015 interview published in USA Today, Bruce Jenner's mother confirmed that Bruce had opened up to her about Bruce's gender identity and was not hiding it, as some transgender individuals do. 'Mom, I'm still the same person.' the elder Jenner quoted Bruce saying to her."

A non-comment from a publicist doesn't strike me as notable. An hour long interview with Bruce's mom is notable. If, in similar circumstances, Bruce's mom said that Bruce liked chocolate ice cream, Bruce was undergoing cancer treatment, Bruce sang in a chorus, or Bruce was going to get his helicopter license(!), there would be no question of accepting it as a reliable source. There should be no double standard. -- Dansan99 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The double standard is in place to protect the gender identity of individuals. Otherwise when a reliable soures print that Bradley Manning is in prison and is a man, we would have to follow it. Have patience. If Jenner is announcing, it will be soon, and no harm has been done. 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it has to be Bruce Jenner himself who says he prefers the general public to refer to him as a she. He might be transgender in a typical way and let his friends/family know about it and it might show in his physical appearance in a subtle way -- and still prefer that the media and everyone else refer to him as they always have. This does make sense. If you think that "he's transgender therefore we have to refer to him as a she" then you're wrong. It's his prerogative to decide that. Not his mom's, and definitely not ours.

(What I'm saying here pertains to the pronouns we use and how we define him in the lead section and categories etc, I don't have an opinion on adding information to the article based on reliable sources that talk about his gender identity.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of like the rule should not be:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.

but instead:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's preferred gender terms.

Is this the right description?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we're getting too hung up on the pronoun question. I don't think it's that important at this point. That we're discussing pronouns at all is more due to the accident of the English language being poor at expressing things in a gender-neutral way. As long as we don't have any evidence of Bruce's pronoun preferences to the contrary, I think we should continue to use male pronouns. The far more important question is whether Bruce is transgender. What we know now from a reliable source is that Bruce told his mom, his mom told a reporter, and the reporter told us. For some reason that's not considered noteworthy enough to put in the article. But, if Bruce told a reporter and the reporter told us, then it would merit inclusion. Usually, the objection in these types of circumstances is that we don't want to include mere rumor. But, that doesn't seem to apply here, since it was the mom relaying what Bruce told her directly, and moms would be considered very reliable. At the very least, it seems it could be included in terms of what the mom said Bruce said to her. Dansan99 (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

88-year-old moms are a little less reliable though... :p I think it might be okay to write about this in the article as long as we don't give undue weight to it (i.e. writing about it too much or including in the lead section). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dansan99: Absolutely not. Given the litany of examples of parents misgendering their children, it would be foolish to rely on them without confirmation from the person themselves. WP:IDENTITY is paramount here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not to what? There are at least two questions here. One is regarding the pronouns to use when referring to Bruce. I have not proposed that we change the pronouns in the article to female. This seems to be in keeping with MOS:IDENTITY, because Bruce has used male pronouns his whole life we have no indication either from him or from his mom that that has changed. The second question is whether Bruce is transgender, or more specifically, if Bruce told his mom that he is transgender. These questions can be considered orthogonal because some transgender individuals choose not to change the pronouns they use to describe themselves. We know from a reliable source that Bruce's mom is claiming that Bruce told her that Bruce is transgender. That seems worth noting with sentence or two in the Personal Life section. At the very least, Bruce's mom is part of his personal life, and her saying this publicly is notable. It could be expressed in exactly those terms, that Bruce's mom told a reporter that Bruce talked to her about being transgender. It doesn't have to say that Bruce definitely is transgender. Regarding parents misgendering children, there are very very few examples of parents calling their children transgender when they are not. It's almost always the other way around. Dansan99 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement was regarding relying on just Jenner's mom as source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well now, give that all these "unreliable" sources have turned out to be completely accurate, perhaps Wikipedia needs to reevaluate their policy on what is considered "reliable". While the pronouns shouldn't have been changed or anything until Bruce says "call me "her"" the article should have at least mentioned this sex transition stuff, period. Cole Dalton (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015

Hello, I would like to change the pronouns in relation to Bruce as she has now revealed she is transgender and the article uses male pro nouns to address her. Lleuad glas (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You're gonna have to provide a source for that. See discussions above. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide sources –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

TV Guide reporting upcoming Diane Sawyer interview

A story on Page 7 of the April 20, 2015 TV Guide, which generally does not repeat tabloid rumors, but restricts its reporting to the content of TV programming, reports that during Jenner's April 24 interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC:

For months, the world has watched as 1976 Olympic decathlon champion Bruce Jenner grew his hair long, donned earrings, polished his nails, divorced his wife, and appeared to be transitioning to life as a woman. The question then became which media outlet would score the reveal with the 65-year-old father of 10.....ABC's Diane Sawyer won the honor.....Sawyer, who would not use the word transgender in advance of the airing, says she conducted several sit-downs with Jenner on both the east and west coasts, revisiting places that were meaningful to him.

Can we add to the article the fact that he will have this interview with Sawyer, and quote from the TV Guide article? Or should we wait until after the interview has aired? Nightscream (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say wait until the interview airs; we'll then have more information to work with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I would go further to say we should be very specific in terms of what is quoted for this future interview. Note even the quote above does not say a conclusive statement. Sawyer is deliberately not using the word, so how would that make it appropriate for wikipedia to use the word? While I am on record suggesting Jenner's 45 year history of acting as a man in the public eye should be addressed throughout our reporting of that history, there are others who quote some wikipedia policy to artificially (my words) alter that history to adhere to this potential future announcement. But that move should not be undertaken at all until we hear from Jenner. Trackinfo (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggesting using the word. I'm suggesting adding mention of the upcoming interview without mentioning that word. The TV Guide story quotes Sawyer as saying that her interview with Jenner is "a really compelling conversation about so many things, a broad look at life...It's about family and how we all live our lives." Can't this be added, and then any more specific contents of the interview added after it airs? Nightscream (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing pronouns from "he" to "she"

When do we live, the 50s!? Just label Caitlyn Jenner's pronouns throughout this article as she and her please! I cannot stand the fact that you all are purposely trying to hold back the truth! Caitlyn is transgender! Poor Caitlyn's page is smeared with all of this "Bruce" crap, when the truth is that Caitlyn's her own person! Just read eXTRA! READ PEOPLE READ! That's why we have encyclopedias so that lies like this whole page can be fixed with true and correct information! http://extratv.com/2015/04/15/source-reveals-bruce-jenners-female-name-is-kaitlyn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.211 (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush. Please see and take part in the discussions above. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

So if you're famous enough to get a Wikipedia page, you want us to just go ahead and change your gender based on some tabloid bullshit instead of your own words? Calm the fuck down, he's doing an interview in like a week.... he will say what he needs to say then.24.222.1.2 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

In the "Personal Information" box on the right side of screen/article, Bruce Jenner's third wife is listed as "Kris Jenner". I believe the proper way to list this would be by her last name(s) prior to her marriage to Bruce, i.e. "Kris Houghton Kardashian". Please make this change. CincyDude5 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The article's title is Kris Jenner so I imagine the infobox should reflect that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you are not meant to compare articles but check president obamas spouse on his infobox... or is it because the kardashians are more prestigious than the obamas? 80.1.219.140 (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@80.1.219.140: No, that's a very good question. Pointing out inconsistencies is fine. I am going to ask on Template talk:Infobox person. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Interview and Kris Jenner edits

Naue7 has been removing sourced info about the upcoming interview as well as a link about Kris Jenner (link). The info was originally added by Nightscream in this edit and has been restored by myself and Tinton5. This is becoming a content dispute, so I am beginning discussion here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

the last edit summary said "I don't see your name anywhere on the talk page, not anything about this edit" i was referring in part to Talk:Bruce Jenner#TV Guide reporting upcoming Diane Sawyer interview and as it stands for people that haven't heard about his rumored transition and those that have will just see a synopsis for an upcoming interview which gives no detail about said transition just the word 'appears' and diane hasn't used the word transition it states so is still speculation. so why would it be included? it is possible (yet unlikely) that it could just be an interview about his divorce as stated in the tv guide source. also if the kris jenner marriage is in the lead then why not linda thompson as they also have 'famous' children together. Naue7 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the interview or its contents should be mentioned before it has aired in full. It's like an advertisement, and too sensationalistic for an encyclopedia. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "speculative" or "sensationalistic" about it, precisely because it doesn't mention any gender transition. It mentions that he will be interviewed on his life, which is a fact. Numerous BLP articles mention major interviews that subjects have with various outlets, so this is no different. Since it mentions his divorce adn changes to his life, it is relevant. Nightscream (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't aired yet, that's the problem. There's no actual information in that section about Jenner, it's just an advertisement meant to pique interest. It hardly deserves a mention right now, and definitely not its own section. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The interview will air in like 12 hours, at which point editing of this article is going to turn chaotic anyway. No need to start early with WP:CRYSTAL info. Townlake (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Wikipedia shouldn't include text which seems to be promoting a specific interview, but it appears to be fairly well known that the interview is going to discuss that Jenner is transitioning to a woman, and at this point, this seems reliably sourced, [1], [2], so it would seem better to include text regarding the transition specifically instead of a teaser about a soon to air interview. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sawyer interview

IT JUST GOT CONFIRMED ON HER SIT DOWN INTERVIEW WITH DIANE SAWYER!!! CHANGE ALL THE PRONOUNS NOW!!! "BRUCE" ADDRESSED HER TRUE GENDER IDENTITY AS A "HER"! I AM OFFENDED AT THIS ARTICLE REFERRING TO HER AS A "HIM"! FIX IT PLEASE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.211 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, calm down. No, Bruce Jenner did not identify as a woman for pronoun purposes. In fact, Jenner has been very ambiguous as to the use of pronouns. The article should, in my opinion, omit all gendered pronouns whenever possible until Jenner makes a descion one way or the other. --krimin_killr21(talk) 01:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Just now Diane Sawyer clearly spelled out during the interview that he still wants to use male pronouns. I agree with Krimin, please calm down. Crumpled Fire (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Are some (not necessarily many, but some) trans women this way?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's actually pretty rare for a transwoman to ask that male pronouns be used. Many will say they don't care that much to make other people less self-conscious but once someone makes such a fundamental decision their presentation and preference is usually to be female whenever possible. Missruption (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the pronouns, Bruce is quoted in the linked article below as saying that “For all intents and purposes, I’m a woman.” That should be in Jenner's Wikipedia article. Dansan99 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You're "offended" that the article still used the male pronoun five minutes after Jenner came out? Really? I think you get offended far too easily. Carlo (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Until he makes an unambivalent statement that he wants, or greatly prefers, to be referred to by the female pronoun, or until major media outlets use it anyway, he should remain a "he", in our article.(mercurywoodrose)108.94.1.44 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"I am a woman" is unambiguous. It would make no sense for Jenner to use "he" after that. Is it actual Wikipedia policy not to change it? Because I think it should be changed. Carlo (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jenner has stated that it would be preferred to use the male pronouns for now. Whether you find that choice "sensible" is irrelevant.--krimin_killr21(talk) 02:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. And yes, that settles the question. Carlo (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the interview should be taken note of in the article, and the fact he has said "I am a women". Polloloco51 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Currently RS say he identifies as a trans woman but will continue to use masculine pronouns and the name Bruce for now. Source NYTimes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He is a Republican

In the interview he stated that he is a Republican. Can we add this? If so where? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary source or link to interview needed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/24/bruce-jenner-said-hes-republican-only-21-percent-of-lgbt-americans-are/ 71.197.166.72 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A secondary source is not needed, we can trust Jenner when he says he's Republican. He even answered specific question about going to the leading Republicans in the GOP for support on trans issues - which would be a logical way of presenting the information. Missruption (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I added the factoid, along with a couple of secondary cites, including the WaPo blog noted by EvergreenFir. Barte (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Now, one thing to know is that I always thought Republicans generally think transgenderism is a mental disorder. Has this statement become less true in recent years?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is the medical community treats gender dysphoria as a medical disorder, with hormonal and physical changes sometimes used as treatment. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) I don't think that's a "Republican" thing. But that's a medical diagnosis, and until Jenner himself discloses he has gender dysphoria, that's a rabbit hole we shouldn't go down in the article. Townlake (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally on all LGBT issues Republicans are extremely far-right wing and their party represents those who continually call for hateful legislation banning trans people from all equal rights including using bathrooms and keeping their families together. Zealously sticking to their religious bent they predominantly see transgenderism as evil, and morally deficient. And just like "pray the gay away" many falsely adhere that trans issues should be cured because it is a disease. A stance that medical and science fields have long disproved. I think it's very much a Republican thing, similar to global warming denialists. And Jenner has already acknowledged gender dysphoria. Missruption (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Republicans are more diverse than you think - a consequence of America's two-party system. Republicans come in the following stripes: religious Republicans, libertarian Republicans (including Second Amendment Republicans), fiscal conservative Republicans (which overlap with the libertarian variety), and military Republicans (including supporters of the military). Also, there are business Republicans, who support businesses. It's a multi-faceted party. 69.142.222.250 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we have that FAQ now?

Can we have that FAQ now? Missruption (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you propose it say? PS check out the nytimes article about the pronouns. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I copied the Manning article FAQ and took a try. Can you link to the NY Times article? Missruption (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the current faq addresses some of the major issues quite well. good job. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

People who watch this article, I recommend you put Talk:Bruce Jenner/FAQ in your watchlist as well. Just in case. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The interview

Why are any references to the interview with Diane Sawyer deleted? The special was aired nationwide in the United States and there are various online sources for validation but every time ano info from the interview is included, someone removes the quote. The only thing that has remained is the date of broadcast which seems irrelevant if the interview cannot be used. Jrmypatt (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Came here to say this, basically. A television interview is a valid source. Particularly, this edit threw me for a loop: it is sourced as is. He said it in the interview. If you want to have a superscripted number at the end of the sentence, we can simply put the interview in there. -- Irn (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It definitely does need to be at the end of the sentence or else it's assumed to be unsourced. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Maybe that's your assumption, but that's certainly not the only acceptable form of citation. While I think the context makes it abundantly clear in this situation that it refers to the interview, all that you would really need is the phrase "in the interview" tacked on after "Jenner stated" for it to be adequately sourced with an in-line citation in the sentence itself. -- Irn (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is just a MESS

Seriously ladies, is this the best that you guys can do? You don't acknowledge that he referred to his other side as "Her", you don't mention that he's a confirmed Republican or anything that the juicy interview revealed. I think there needs to be a section dedicated to the interview. There were way too many hot scoops of FACTUAL INFORMATION revealed to not put on his page. Please fix this now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.211 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comments, including the one above under your same IP, are disruptive, not helpful and aggressive. Although in the interview he referred to his "other side" as female, he never explicitly stated that he would like to be referred to as "her", whereas Sawyer explicitly stated he wanted to be referred to as "he" during the interview. I'm sure the Republican information will be added soon, but with how popular this story is currently and lots of information being added unsourced, which is against BLP policy, it takes time. ThirdWard (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe Sawyer and Jenner BOTH referred to Jenner's "her" as emerging, to be revealed soon. Missruption (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed both Sawyer and Jenner refer to Jenner as she. Missruption (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

change from he to she NOW

change from he to she NOW. Bruce is a transgender woman and it should not be "he" when she sees herself as a she. Fix it, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.42.111 (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently he currently prefers male pronouns, so no. Read the article and see discussions above. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mispelling and proper versus improper use of term "transgender"

Transgender is misspelled as "transgendar" in its first mention and Bruce is repeatedly referred to as "a transgender," which is dehumanizing. It's simply transgender. Bruce Jenner is transgender. 174.61.49.126 (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed now. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Trans woman which is technically a transgender person who identifies as female, is the correct term. Missruption (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Identifies as a woman, not as a female. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Car crash info UNDUE

I pared down the section about the car crash. There was WP:UNDUE detail that is not needed in this BLP. Also WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Entire article feels disjointed

Just throwing the concept out there but does anyone feel like the entire flow is put off a bit by putting aspects of his life in separate sections rather than chronologically?

I think given everything Jenner revealed in the Sawyer interview it shows how deeply his first marriage was impacted by his sports career. And so on.

With the revelation of his ongoing coming out process over decades i think a better read would be to introduce the subject back when he was a child and first knew of it. Missruption (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Original research is discouraged. All structural formatting is set by the basic MOS and is based on years of discussion and consensus. I also feel that any attempt to introduce this particular proposal is creating a narrative that would be extremely biased, go against the spirit of Wikipedia and would violate a host of policies and guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your referring. He just stated this in a nationally televised interview about his being trans his whole life. How does that violate any policy? If it does the policy obviously needs to be updated as it's deeply flawed! Missruption (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it is not his entire life. Due weight must be respected as well as the policies and procedures of the project. That's all I meant. You were suggesting that the article be re-written (from what I see above) to insert a number of things that are not within the policies of Wikipedia. For example, we only introduce content based on sources and what they are stating. Any "over arching" way to write the article must also come from a reliable source. We cannot just begin to alter the entire article to illustrate our own perceptions of his personal life.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If you go over the interview it actually discussed his evolution on trans issues OVER JENNER'S Entire life, He's been physically transitioning for decades and mentally transitioning longer than that. It's pretty regular experience just like people usually are aware of their sexuality issues from an early age but come out gradually later in life. Missruption (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

The final paragraph in the personal life section has had large amounts of information removed on several occasions due to sourcing. All details concerning Jenner's transgender status have been gleaned from the same interview which has been cited at the end of the paragraph.

Do we need to cite the same reference for each detail? Seems unnecessary but would be much less counterproductive. Sardisian 21:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmypatt (talk • contribs)

Actually, these all need multiple sources as these are extreme claims requiring extreme sourcing. Each claim should have at least two very strong sources for accuracy.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This alarmist stance is rather bizarre actually. Did you not hear the words coming out of Jenner's mouth? I think i can accept Jenner's own words about his life and experiences. Any second source is quite likely going off the original source. Missruption (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You might want to familiarize yourself with our policies on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It might make things much more enjoyable for you when contributing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please quote directly or cite where we cannot accept Jenner's own statement about his experiences. Missruption (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a place in the link stating that there should be multiple sources for an isolated event; nor can I locate a requirement for stronger sources than a video interview watched by millions of people. Jenner said it all himself and I agree that any secondary source would only be repeating the primary. Sardisian 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmypatt (talk • contribs)

There is no harm in adding extra sources. We don't need secondary sources, but they surely don't hurt either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We do need secondary sources. Let me explain. We summarize the facts from the sources. If you are using a primary source, there are limits to how it may be used. Some claims beyond the main fact, become interpretations, analysis and editorial and then invite abuse of sources and other issues.

• From WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. BLPs should not have trivia sections."

And that includes balanace:

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

• From WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

Now, just to be clear. I am not saying that there are no other sources and that this needs to be left out, I am saying that specific claims made should have more than a single source, but be mentioned in other sources as well.

• From WP:WELLKNOWN: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

No one questions the transgender issue, but we still have standards and obviously this is completely new information of a subject that has already led a long life with thousands of sources. This needs to b treated with both respect...but also seriously and to our guidelines and policies please.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I mean primary as in statements by the BLP about themselves, not things like court documents necessarily. When it comes to statements about self identity (e.g., sexual orientation, religion, or even political affiliation) primary sources are fine I'd imagine. WP:IDENTITY limits itself to gender identity, and WP:BLPCAT limits itself to categories, but if there's a clear self-identification and no conflicting statements, go with the self-statement. I agree with you that secondary is needed for other stuff though per the citations you give. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically, WP:IDENTITY is the MOS guide. However, it is written into the BLP policy somewhere I think, that the self identification must still be referenced in the same manner, you need multiple, strong sources, The primary source is only illustrative although it can be used to source the quote with attribution, but if you are going to claim anything beyond using a quote from the primary source (and we are here) we need to reference each claim with multiple sources on top of the primary source..or at least one secondary source to accompany the primary one.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

References

This article is just awful

I'm not sure I've ever seen a high-profile article in such a shabby state of disrepair. Just awful. Moncrief (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Moncrief, it would be better if you clarify what you think is so awful about the article. I've seen worse Wikipedia articles than this one with regard to people more famous than Jenner. I don't even view this article as awful as you are making it out to be. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015

There is no specific part of the article that needs editing, but the pronouns are wrong. Bruce Jenner is a woman, so all pronouns should be either she, her, or herself. Her sex is male, but her gender is female. So please change this.

174.117.127.138 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: S/he prefers male pronouns for now, according to the lead and a New York Times article, so until s/he officially prefers otherwise we'll keep it how it is. Kharkiv07^Talk 19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

By analogy, go to Esther Dyson. She is a woman, but she prefers being referred to as a chairman over a chairwoman or chairperson. Georgia guy (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Unclear on phrase

...using the "her" pronoun and referring to that emerging aspect as "she". I'm unsure what this means. Barte (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jenner is in the middle of an 8-part series about coming out as a trans woman. Commonly trans women transition in stages and then want to just blend in covertly making a break between their old bodies they were born into and their new gender identity. Jenner is widely announcing a transition in process presumably with an unveiling of his she with female pronouns in the near future. I think it makes sense if seen as part of the strategy to tie into the reality show about his transition. Because of his families huge involvement with reality shows/paparazzo it's likely he felt this was the best path forward. Missruption (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a way to get the idea across with clearer, more encyclopedic language. Perhaps something like: Jenner indicated that he will prefer to be identified with female pronouns at a later date. Assuming, of course, that's accurate. Barte (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to convey that although he's asking for use of male pronouns now, he has referred to himself as her and his to be revealed identity as her and she. If you can find a way to make that work it would be helpful. I know it's convoluted. Missruption (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. I won't change the phrase in the article, but my (admittedly narrow) guess is that if I don't understand the sentence in its present form, other average readers won't either. Barte (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015

Really should change he/his to she/her for all entries in the article.

142.157.22.9 (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: You don't read well do you. Look above. Quoting the previous response; S/he prefers male pronouns for now, according to the lead and a New York Times article, so until s/he officially prefers otherwise we'll keep it how it is. Trackinfo (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

GARBAGE

Misgender. See FAQ at top of this talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Following their divorce in 2015 he identified in a television interview as a trans woman (albeit still preferring male pronouns),[1] making him the most famous American at the time to do so.[2][3][4] That is just utter trash. How the hell do you even JUDGE him being "the most famous American at the time to do so". Also, that sentence makes it seem like he is the most famous American to announce he is a she after a divorce. It makes it seem like the divorce is key to him coming out. Seriously, is anyone even working on this!? This article is a TRAIN WRECK! WTF!!! I've never seen a worse article on here! FIX THIS NOW PLZ! Also, can you ladies please mention somewhere in the article that his burgeoning femme side is addressed as "She" or "Her". Why is this article so afraid to even CALL HIM A HER!? This is 2015, not 1950! Stop hiding and just say it! Bruce Jenner said it, why can't this article!? HE IS A SHE! SHE IS COMING OUT OF HIM AT LAST! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC) My advice to you, fellow editors, is to not feed the trolls. Marteau (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Are you KIDDING ME! Bruce has the right to use whatever gender pronouns HE wants! DO NOT DEFINE BRUCE'S GENDER FOR HIM! This patriarchal shit needs to stop right now! You have NO RIGHT to enforce your arbitrarily socially constructed gender roles on Bruce's lived experiences as a woman who is in the process of transitioning to a woman but still uses male pronouns! Get a life. Commenceprimaryignition (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A six-sentence introduction?

Anyone else feel that this introduction is woefully inadequate? It's six sentences long. Missruption (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It covers his areas of notability well. Olympic: check. Trans: check. Entertainer: check. It's length is appropriate IMO. Marteau (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article misquoted him. He said "for all intensive purposes, I’m a woman." not "intents and purposes"

The article misquoted him. He said "for all intensive purposes, I’m a woman." not "intents and purposes". A lot of the news sources corrected his grammar to "intents and purposes", but some kept it as he actually said it. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/bruce-jenner-interview-says-hes-a-woman-2015-4 http://www.hot97.com/news/funkmaster-flex/see-what-whole-kardashian-jenner-clan-has-say-about-bruces-transition-womanhood http://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/celebrity/bruce-jenner-interview-for-all-intensive-purposes-i-am-a-woman/ar-BBiEbIC etc.

Here is a video of him actually saying it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MucsFCvSOto At 10 seconds he clearly says "for all intensive purposes" not "intents and purposes". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Learn American friend, Imma tell you, he said intents and purposes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the official ABC news interview from their youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaqLG3myKUk&t=1m34s 1min 34sec, he said "intensive purposes". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We could paraphrase: He said that for all intents and purposes, "I’m a woman." Barte (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Funny how it's acceptable to question the grammar of a trans-woman and enforce your arbitrary standards on her. I wonder if we would be having this conversation if she were cisgender...Commenceprimaryignition (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to quote anyone, and we are under full obligation to use our best judgement as to what Jenner, or any other Wikipedia subject, intended. This would also work: He said that for all intents and purposes, he is a woman. Barte (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Commenceprimaryignition" is an obvious troll and a vandal as seen on their other edits, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phat_Geez&diff=prev&oldid=659572387 where it vandalizes the subjects name). Please don't feed the trolls. Marteau (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

To the degree that this isn't a troll, perhaps this is a good use case for "[sic]" or "[intents and purposes]" although I think that Jenner's speech at that moment was somewhat mumbled, and it is quite difficult to determine which word he said, but his meaning was clear. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a troll. Here's how I came across it. I found a parody news article on this about another celebrity claiming to say this (a female celebrity they were pretending was secretly born a man) and well I looked up the story and it annoyed me that the parody website didn't quote the bad English properly. I mean it's a parody site so quoting the bad English would be funnier. So I then I checked Wikipedia--surely they would have it right. (I don't edit much but I read Wikipedia a lot.) And so Wikipedia had the altered quote too. It's really no more than a pet peeve. By the way, what he said was pretty clear. News programs generally are pretty easy to hear dialog, it's the shows of some fictional story (e.g. action, drama, fantasy, scifi) where the characters mumble their lines and then they have music and background noise making it hard to hear -- oddly enough $20 headphones clear a lot of that up better than $200 speakers. Anyway, I pointed it out here because it annoyed me that the quote was changed, nothing else. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I listened to it and to my ear it's "for all intents and purposes". I kind of slyly agree with the one who said "learn American". 178.38.131.234 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Transition or just special documented in separate article?

Just like the The Puppy Episode, shouldn't the special have it's own article, considering how impactful it was in our society and in trans-history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.163.199 (talk • contribs)

I was thinking the same thing but I think it may be too quick to tell. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Diane Sawyer and ABC get awards for doing such a good job. I think Jenner's entire article has to be looked at as he's done so much before the transition was announced. I'm seeing articles everyday about how his transition is being received, support from other celebrities and even debates on being conservative and Republican. Missruption (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the interview had significant impact other than more fodder for gossip rags and a one-day increase in cutting Facebook memes and comments? No, I don't think a separate article is appropriate at this time (likely not in the future, either). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No permission or consensus is needed to create a Wikipedia article. All you need going forward is the ability to cite reliable secondary sources that establish subject notability. Maybe the fork will gain traction; maybe it will be nominated for WP:AFD and survive...or not. But creating the actual article is the only way to find out. Barte (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The media is pimping LGBT like crazy as a really popular fad. One person's case isn't what changes things, it's many many people's cases and it's the media always featuring it. The media could promote some other kind of social awkwardness such as autism, otherkin, being germaphobic, being agoraphobic, etc. But they have promoted and featured LGBT for over 20 years and that's what's changing society, not one instance. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jenner himself prefers to be called “Bruce,” “he” and "him.”

"Tonight, The Advocate has official word from writer, professor and Jenner consultant and confidante, Jennifer Finney Boylan, that right now, Jenner himself prefers to be called “Bruce,” “he” and "him.”

Boylan tells The Advocate, “New name and pronouns [are] coming, but not in the next week or two I don't think.”" - Bruce Jenner: Call Me "He" ...For Now http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2015/04/29/bruce-jenner-isnt-she-yet ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The article currently still says he. He said in the interview he hadn't picked out a female name, like changing from Bruce Jenner to Jenna Jenner or someting. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

Add Burton Jenner and Cassandra Jenner to list of children Nicoleeb83 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. Please note that, for their own protection, we usually restrict coverage of Minors- Arjayay (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

Add ALL SIX children of Bruce Jenner to right hand summary column, not just the four "famous" ones. Because it makes it look like he only has four children.

His first marriage was with Chrystie Crownover from 1972 to 1981. They have two children, son Burton and daughter Cassandra, known as Burt and Casey respectively.

On January 5, 1981, Jenner married his second wife, actress Linda Thompson. Jenner and Thompson have two sons together, Brandon and Sam Brody, known as Brody.

Jenner married his third wife, Kris Kardashian on April 21, 1991. They have two daughters, Kendall and Kylie.

Lauracat1217 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 DoneI'm surprised nobody bothered to google on the previous request. I added sources. Trackinfo (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Undone Children need to be independently notable to be included. See Template:Infobox person. To quote, Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names if notable, in which case, separate entries using {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

" or particularly relevant" when we have had multiple requests here? Granted we are not here to accede to the wishes of the public but this is a clearly visible omission of information. Each of the two adult children I added have had newspaper articles written about them and their relationship to their famous father. They are being sought out by the press. It is irresponsible of wikipedia to omit information. At the least you could have mentioned "2 others" which would look absurd but does not embarrass wikipedia by completely omitting publicly known information. Trackinfo (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"2 others" works for me. And I won't revert if someone readds them. Just don't think they're notable enough. But point that they're adults is a good one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit, but it looks incredibly stupid Trackinfo (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone added the names back in. Frankly don't care enough to remove them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

New name

Just announced that Caitlyn Jenner is her new name, time to update this article immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:6B23:CF00:7450:7A7B:C2A0:63E2 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea,and change the url 200.90.252.64 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair cover is out with accompanying article about the cover. Caitlyn is confirmed as the name. Also the article does use female pronouns and there is a CaitlynJenner verified twitter account also with female pronouns. (Lroche nf (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)). <Vanity Fair></http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-cover-annie-leibovitz?mbid=social_twitter>

We should properly change to her preferred gender pronouns, as is Wikipedia policy, but as in l'Affaire Chelsea Manning, the name of the page itself has to be based on what weight of our sources are using to identify Ms. Jenner and at this moment, that appears to still be Bruce Jenner. To aggressively do the exact same thing that led to 3 months of fighting over Ms. Manning's page, without any consensus, or even the slightest bit of discussion about the page title, is just asking for a repeat performance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste

The current Caitlyn Jenner article is a cut-and-paste move (it started out as a redirect until someone pasted the contents of the old article into it). Any admin want to fix it? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Please change the main picture to http://photos.vanityfair.com/2015/06/01/556c7a224ae56e586e457d3e_vf-cover-bruce-jenner-july-2015.jpg Elliemarshmellie (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not possible - that image is copyrighted, and we require a free one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody move this page to Caitlyn Jenner and redirect to Bruce?

Is an admin planning on moving this page to Caitlyn Jenner and redirecting Bruce Jenner, rather than the opposite (which is the current state)? Jami430 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Elefuntboy (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Elefuntboy please stop cut-paste moving, wait for an admin to properly move the page if you don't understand how to otherwise move it. But cut & paste moves aren't constructive. Azealia911 _talk 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I want to add a verified source from her Twitter account since she tweeted the news herself but am unable to undo the edit to add this source! https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/605407919820013568 Thebuck093 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have been done? Caitlyn is still redirecting to Bruce; should be the other way around. —Tony Webster (talk / contribs) 17:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't moved, it was copy/pasted again to the new location, which is sub-optimal because it splits the page history. We don't need to do this quickly, we need to do it right. Move discussion, please. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We should have a *discussion* about the title change. The inclusion of her name and the proper gendered female pronouns as used, as is Wikipedia policy, but the title of a page is based on consensus of what the weight of what our reliable sources are using, not preference of the individual in question. Given the page history of Chelsea Manning's page and the fact that Arb is likely going to closely watch this based on the discretionary sanctions, how about we have a discussion about what reliable sources are using before any page title change and not let this result in edit warring that will likely get us all in hot water and leave Ms. Jenner's page in limbo for months? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no. MOS:IDENTITY specifies that in cases relating to gender identity, we default to using the terms the person has requested ("Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification"). While all the copying and pasting made a right mess of it, the article properly belongs at Caitlyn Jenner as per the subject's wishes and our own policies; otherwise we persist in using an inappropriate name to identify the person. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There was *no* consensus during any of the Chelsea Manning controversy -- which you should know given that you were there -- that MOS:IDENTITY referred to the title of the page itself, as opposed to the pronouns and descriptors within the article. In fact, the Chelsea Manning page was finally moved to Chelsea Manning page not on the basis of her gender identity but the fact that the reliable sources were overwhelmingly using Chelsea Manning at the time. The article should refer to her as Caitlyn Jenner and have "she" instead of "he" but the title is a different matter altogether. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Furthermore, while it is not official policy, Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Common_name provides more information about why gender identity issues are handled differently than other name issues; namely, that doing otherwise misgenders the person and is thus harmful. WP:UCRN states that "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." It is clear that Ms. Jenner will be using the name Caitlyn going forward and so the article should be hosted under that name. Previous notability under the former name is resolved via redirect. I am extremely surprised that Wikipedia does not have an established policy already, but given past precedent (e.g., Chaz Bono, Chelsea Manning), the documentation of the subject's desire to use this name going forward in a reliable source, and the ability to resolve any confusion about the more well-known name with a simple redirect, I cannot see any reason why the page should remain under Jenner's previous name. -- Merope 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• What's going on right now with the page moving is ridiculous -- this is what just happened to me: [3].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Done per MOS:IDENTITY. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• The move was completely inappropriate/premature and should have been discussed first. I'm sure that in time, we would have eventually settled on a decision to title the article "Caitlyn," but to move it mere hours after the announcement with little to no discussion while ignoring Bruce Jenner's long-term notability was highly inappropriate. I have asked Tom Morris to revert his move. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Per MOS:IDENTITY, this was an appropriate move. Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a clear WP:IAR exception due to Jenner's prominence. There should have been a move request and extensive discussion first. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blind adherence to Wikipedia policy and process is counterproductive. In this reality we live in, a person announces that they are transitioning genders, and we use their preferred name and pronouns because it is the humane thing to do. The Biographies of Living Persons policy exhorts us to get it right, and in this case, it's correctly stating what someone's name is. Harej (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Adhering to BLP and using proper pronouns and listing her new name in the lead is one thing. Moving the title after 1-2 hours from a name that the subject has been very well known by for decades is another entirely. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. Harej (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No, there isn't. Just because someone is prominent doesn't mean we don't respect their gender identity. By defition, all Wikipedia BLP are of prominent people, otherwise they wouldn't be notable for inclusion in the first place. -- KTC (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You're missing the point completely. This is not about respecting gender identity; this is about helping the reader. Respecting gender identity would be using female pronouns throughout the article. Helping the reader would be to keep the article title at "Bruce Jenner" until reliable sources have used "Caitlyn" adequately enough that the name would be recognizable. I don't know how you can reasonably think this is not a clear exception. "Bruce Jenner" is a household name. "Caitlyn Jenner," as of now, is not. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• We help the reader by correctly presenting facts. The redirect from Bruce Jenner is sufficient to establish that the subject of the article has a new name. The article content explains that her name was Bruce but is now Caitlyn. Keeping the article at its old title is an arbitrary delay. Harej (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's not an arbitrary delay; it reflects policy via WP:COMMONNAME. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• The encyclopedia is not improved by keeping the article at its wrong name. Harej (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• A name that has been reported in the media since the '70s is not "wrong." Time will tell if "Caitlyn" becomes preferred in the media but as of now the move was inappropriate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME also says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Referring to her as "Bruce" is inaccurate; her name is Caitlyn. A redirect solves any confusion for someone who only knew of her as Bruce. I cannot think of any valid reason I can think of to keep it at the old name. We don't wait a few months to move a page when someone becomes Pope because we know that going forward they'll be referred to by that name. While future reliable sources will mention Jenner's previous name as a point of clarification, many media outlets will refer to her by her correct name in respect of her wishes (cf. the Associated Press standards regarding gender identity). We should use the name that reliable sources will be using going forward. -- Merope 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in MOS:IDENTITY or WP:BLP about names in such a case. I see some discussion of pronouns, but it says that naming should follow the common usage in reliable sources. I think there is no reliable source that would discuss this person without prominently using "Bruce" somewhere, as the general public is not at all likely to be familiar with their new selected name (it is not yet WP:RECOGNIZABLE to most people). I think the WP:BOLD move that was made without following the WP:RM discussion process should be reverted. See also the example of Cat Stevens at WP:AT#People. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article). [...] An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise" (MOS:IDENTITY, emphasis mine) seems to pretty clearly include article titles among the cases in which gender identity renaming follows a different standard than other renaming. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

But you've conveniently left out this part: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns The article title is not mentioned for this. We still follow WP:COMMONNAME for article titles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, hidden in the "[...]" of that quote is "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, Wikipedia should use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources." —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what's in the [...] because the next sentence says "An exception to the above"... Sam Walton (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And you're blatantly ignoring the fact that that bullet point refers only to pronouns and gendered terms such as "chair(wo)man"; not the name in an article title. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a valid point there. It is about "pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns". I suppose a proper name can be a gendered noun. I hadn't noticed that before. But it doesn't provide names as examples. If that's the intent, it would be helpful if that were clarified. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, the move should be undone and a discussion should take place here. The vast majority of sources use the name Bruce, it is a famous and well known name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

To quote WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Emphasis added. It is obvious that a majority of reliable sources use the name "Bruce," since she was known by that name for most of her life. We shouldn't have to wait another four decades to start using her name name simply to comply with some arbitrary calculus. It is more important that we present information that is factually correct. Reliable sources are reporting she is transitioning gender identities and that her name has changed. Wikipedia should correctly reflect what the reliable sources say. Harej (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to wait four decades, but jumping the gun at two hours is wildly inappropriate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Her new name can be used in the article, but the article itself should be located at the common name. This move should be undone and discussed, as is proper for a contentious move, which it is clearly is. People saying this is harmful are strangely confusing, as this person just announced this today. The old name doesn't suddenly become a dagger the moment they announce a new name. Once again, as with other famous transitions, what we have is the LGBT project rolling out and making hard and fast decisions and then poling up to declare that as consensus. Every person in that project will head over here, as what happened with Manning, and declare the past an insult. That's not consensus, it's stonewalling. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This move has been 100% in line with policy, I have no idea how anyone is arguing that it isn't. To reiterate: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article). [...] An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise" Sam Walton (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

...yet you cut the selection off right before this: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This part makes absolutely no mention of how to address the subject's name in the title of the article, and it comes after the "exception to the above" bit. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant, the subject's gender isn't being questioned. Sam Walton (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation" - this refers to pronouns and such, not article titles or the name a persona announces as their own. We have many cases of people who have self-identified by a new name where the old name is used as the article title (Cat Stevens was given above, as an example). This debate is solely a result of the gender transition, and none of this would be here if Bruce Jenner just decided they were Brian Jenner. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The comparison to Cat Stevens isn't a valid one here since referring to him by that name does not cause harm. Referring to a transgender person by the wrong gender does, and as such it is a violation of WP:BLP. If we look at other articles on transgender people, we see that the person's chosen name is the one used for the article title. -- Merope 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It causes harm for a person to ever hear reference to the name that they went by for over 50 years? Can you explain that, cause it just sounds like liberal guilt to me. No harm is done to this person by having the article title under the name they are most recognized by and indicating in the lede that they now go by a different name. Finally, referring to an islamic person by their old name certainly seems just as harmful, no? Or are transgendered people just put on a podium because it's the politically correct thing now? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that all references to her previous name should be purged, just that the title of the article should reflect the most current and correct information. Anyone who knows Jenner only as her previous name will still find the article via the redirect. The essay Wikipedia:Gender_identity has some information about how to refer to transgender individuals, including links to research about how misgendering people is harmful. (Also? I'm actually of the opinion that Cat Stevens' article should be under Yusuf Islam, as that is his current name and the one that is used in reliable sources (though each one includes a reference to his previous stage name), but that's neither here nor there.) You call it political correctness; I call it being respectful of a living person's wishes. The only reasons to keep it at Bruce Jenner are 1) because of potential confusion (which is solved via redirect) and/or 2) because of a refusal to acknowledge her gender identity. Neither reason holds weight. -- Merope 19:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to provide my two cents here. I feel the page should be moved back to Bruce Jenner for now. It will be easier for readers. Jenner is most notable for athletics, and at that point, Caitlyn was Bruce. Not many readers will be looking for Caitlyn, and Bruce is more a notable name. -- Deadpool100 (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And that is why Bruce Jenner redirects and the first line explains the changes. Pretty simple. freshacconci talk to me 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Either way... Looking at the comments this is disputed. We should have a formal consensus regarding the move, if it needs to be done the way Chelsea Manning was done then so be it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "formal consensus" and if you think you need one to decide whether it's appropriate to refer to a person in a way that respects their identity, you don't get how BLP policy works. Caitlyn Jenner is Caitlyn Jenner and we have a policy in place to ensure that we respect that. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Reliable sources that use the name 'Caitlyn' now include: Vanity Fair, BBC, The Guardian, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Time, USA Today, Daily Mirror, CNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, National Post, Billboard, ABC, Daily Express and CBS, Newsweek, MSNBC, The Advocate, Chicago Tribune, Pink News, Rolling Stone, Sydney Morning Herald, Seattle P-I, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, thejournal.ie, BET, Boston Globe and The Independent. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• That is nothing though compared to all of the books written, some I am sure by known authors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Except those books are now inaccurate... —Tom Morris (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a total of 29 sources. Georgia guy (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Daily Mail and Daily Mirror are not reliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know about the Daily Mirror, but the Daily Mail is a reliable source—or at least, the last time Wikipedia debated the matter at WP:RSN, the consensus was that it is reliable (I listed it as such despite my personal disagreement as to its reliability). —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to enter into a discussion about what a common name is or isn't, I'm just going to say that if someone out there has access to wikipedia (aka: has internet), they clearly are not living under a rock. Even with mainstream media only covering her name change as of today, without living under a rock, there's just no way the common public at large doesn't already know that Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner. So long as there's a Bruce Jenner re-direct linking to this Caitlyn Jenner article (which there is), I really don't understand why this conversation is even being had???Cebr1979 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

The image of Bruce Jenner must be changed to her most recent vanity fair cover picture since that is her new identity. Also, the caption must be changed to Caitlyn Jenner instead of Bruce Jenner. Reillymay (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done We cannot use non-free images unless they are properly licensed. Jenner is a public figure so there will surely be free photos of "Caitlyn" in time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It raises a good point, though. It's somewhat dissonant to, in one instance, correctly refer to someone as a woman, and then use a picture of someone who is ostensibly male. I would be fine with using a nonfree image as a temporary solution, or just having no picture (at least not in the lede). Harej (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't do that at Chelsea Manning and we're not doing it here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It still works, as it's the same person. Even in the new pictures of Bruce Jenner in Vanity Fair, the viewer can still tell that it's a male who is transgendered, and not an actual biological woman. Walterego (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Plus an announcement of gender change does not remove the identity you have had for the years of your life up until that point. That person in the picture is the same person. The gender change is now part of their identity and life. An announcement does not erase history. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't erase history, which is why the article has a section on gender identity explaining her past: it says she has struggled with her identity since her youth. While people have perceived her as a man, her own personal identity is that of a woman and appears to have been such for some time. She has chosen to live publicly as a woman with a new name and so the article on her should reflect the most up-to-date and correct information about her life. It's a good thing that Wikipedia is editable and thus can be kept current! -- Merope 18:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"Not an actual biological woman" thank you for that lovely bit of transmisogyny. I'm totally okay with using a non-free image here; I think it would pass the guidelines for including them. Does anyone else have an opinion on its legal propriety? Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No non-free image is acceptable for a photo of a living person. A free equivalent can be taken easily by anyone and submitted. I'm surprised someone with 20 pieces of featured content and 77 good articles under their belt isn't aware of this. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says in any way; the policy states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Key word: equivalent. Images of Jenner pre-transition no longer accurately represent her, and the idea that "a free equivalent can be taken easily by anyone and submitted" is...well, hokum and bunkum. Please, go find some free images of Jenner post-transition, or take some; I'll be waiting. We've used non-free images of living people in the past for situations where (for example) the figure was so reclusive that, even alive, no image could be created, or situations where a particular change worthy of critically covering was so substantial that those free images available did not encompass it. There's no need to bring article contributions into this, because this isn't about article contributions; this is about being able to read. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If they put a non-free image here, it will open the door to many things that will make the PC police head's explode! Like why aren't there pictures of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom murderers of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome! In any event, we shouldn't steal people's intellectual property. That discredits Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.218.45 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The important point of NFCC#1 relating to this matter is "or could be created". A free image could be easily created by taking a picture of Caitlyn in public at this point. Just because it is not available at the moment doesn't mean we put a copyright image in until such time. See the hundreds of actor/actress pages we have with no images. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment by Ironholds above needs to be indented further. 71.183.132.174 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Defaultsort needs updated

Title says it all. Please and thank you. 99.114.188.208 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Need an edit notice on main page

This request needs to be handled by an admin or template editor. I request a edit notice explaining that all pronouns need to be female similar to the one on the Chelsea Manning page. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Is name change legal at this point?

Redirect MAY be premature. I think Caitlyn Jenner should merely be a subhead on the Bruce Jenner page until the name change is legal. If it is legal can we have backup? - Signed, TT

It is an irrelevant question. MOS:IDENTITY states nothing about legal name changes or lack thereof having any bearing on article titles. Helpsome (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not a Wikipedia policy, tons of articles use nicknames and stage names.108.26.183.199 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Under many jurisdictions laws (not sure on Cali), a formal announcement by a person is considered more or less a legal change. Furthermore, it was pretty well established at the Chelsea Manning debate that legal names aren't the basis for article title. I feel the name a person is notable by should apply, but many feel that the self-identified name matters more in these transgendered cases. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jenner's own declaration is usually enough to be legal in California as well as many other places. There has been reports it was even legally changed prior to her public transitioning process but that is irrelevant. Missruption (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if it's a 'legal' name change or not. The article title is about the most common title.--88.104.136.143 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, with living people it's about the correct one. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity << Here it says the self expressed one for gender is the correct one.--88.104.136.143 (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Please change the featured photograph at the top of the page to this File:Caitlyn Jenner.jpg Jalfmar3 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note, resized image. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: The image has been deleted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Too bad about that, we do need a new image as soon as a free one can be found or taken. Skyerise (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"born Bruce Jenner"

Wouldn't it be better to say "named BJ shortly after birth" or, if named at or before birth, "named BJ at birth"? also, what is the point of the word "still" in "while still identifying as a man"? Is this different from "while identifying as a man"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

fixed both. Elefuntboy (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It was already done in the usual way 'born <birthname>'. It's fine. Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't cite the relevant section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style or whatever, but I have noticed the "born <birthname>" wording in many biographical articles about cisgendered people. Elefuntboy should not have changed it. 71.183.132.174 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean transgendered people? Because the whole point of cisgendered people is that their birth name matches their assigned gender. I don't think that it is 'fine' being written as thus, because it is the assigned name, but not who Jenner identifies as. Elefuntboy (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

All birth names are assigned names. This was the name she used until recently. We don't have enough information about when she chose the name Caitlyn - we can't say she identified as Caitlyn from birth if she didn't hear the name until 1984. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner wasn't her full name at birth so the question is moot. I'm removing it from the infobox as it is silly and misleading. The wording in the article ("formerly known as Bruce Jenner" and "Caitlyn Jenner was born William Bruce Jenner") is clear enough. -- haminoon (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per the snowball clause. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Caitlyn Jenner → Bruce Jenner – Even if Jenner has decided that she would prefer to be called Caitlyn, his most common name is still "Bruce Jenner" and likely will be for a few more months. Most people still know her as "Bruce Jenner". Also, Everyone who knows her as "Caitlyn Jenner" also knows her as "Bruce Jenner", while not everyone who knows her as "Bruce Jenner" would recognize the name "Caitlyn Jenner". Therefore, this article should be called "Bruce Jenner" for at least a couple more months. The fact that someone wants to be called a new name should not affect what we call an article, see Snoop Dogg/Lion. Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Read WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. The fact that someone wants to be called a new name should absolutely affect what we call an article. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ironholds, common human decency, and empathy. --Jorm (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Her name is Caitlyn and her correct pronouns are she/her/hers. The entire fucking point of MOS:IDENTITY is that people who are transitioning get to dictate their name and pronouns. For fucks sake. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, violates MOS:IDENTITY. We do not choose WP:COMMONAME over subject's express and verifiable preference. Skyerise (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per MOS:IDENTITY (as noted a few sections up), our policy is to defer to the article subject's wishes in cases of gender identity. The policy specifically cites gender identity as distinct from other renaming cases; whereas Snoop Dogg's renaming would be subject to things like "yes but how many RSes call him that", Caitlyn Jenner's is determined, first, by her self-identification. BLP is a policy and it requires us to err (inasmuch as "calling someone who they believe themselves to be" can be said to be erring) on the side of not doing gratuitous psychological harm to article subjects. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Never mind COMMONNAME, how about some common sense? The subject of the article goes by Caitlyn, and wants to be known as Caitlyn, so the article should be titled Caitlyn. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - MOS:IDENTITY. Teammm ^talk
  _email 22:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia's style, norms and practices about this issue are now well established. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Add new image, 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We would if we had one under a suitable (free) license. We can't use commercially licensed photos. Unfortunately it will probably take some time before some member of the public photographs her and uploads the image under such a license.-gadfium 23:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article coverage

For the "Online press" template? https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/06/01/wikipedia-editors-honor-caitlyn-jenner-identity/kMBuLrQJYZUZefLBVeVd7H/story.html ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanity fair photo

anyone else think that the magazine cover, if it gets the media attention its likely to get, should be useable under our fair use doctrine? or would it be no more significant than a free photo taken of her in public as a woman? we do allow clearly copyrighted images like this in articles when they win pulitzers and get their own articles. This photo may end up being THE face of the transgender movement, but since im speculating, i think its too soon for fair use. but maybe not for long.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have uploaded the cover. There is a precedent at Dalek#Magazine covers. Unfortunately I don't think there is a case for the magazine cover to be used in the infobox as it isn't the main focus of the article. -- haminoon (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the cover/issue will become so iconic that it deserves its own article.... —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite likely. Missruption (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the initial image shown on the article should perhaps be the Vanity Fair cover, as it better reflects her current gender identity. 98.125.159.153 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Change the photo to anything of Caitlyn. Please. I don't think she wants to be misgendered almost completely done with her transition 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Free picture not available yet. -- haminoon (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Change main picture. Zephyr86 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Free picture not available yet. -- haminoon (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Drake Bell

Would Drake Bell be relevant here? He is trending worldwide on Twitter, and there is a source coming from Billboard. https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6583131/drake-bell-tweets-caitlyn-jenner-bruce -- Deadpool100 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He's trending worldwide on twitter because everyone on the internet thinks he's behaving unacceptably. One billboard source might be sufficient to list that in his article; it's not immediately relevant to Jenner's. Ironholds (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are some more sources. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/drake-bell-tweets-deletes-tone-deaf-post-caitlyn-article-1.2242899 http://www.eonline.com/news/661956/drake-bell-deletes-his-transphobic-tweet-about-caitlyn-jenner-but-not-before-getting-people-fired-up -- Deadpool100 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "mental neanderthal holds antiquated opinions" is worth including here.--Jorm (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, his douchedom would be relevant on his article, not on this one. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Biased much? Editors need to learn not to get too personally involved. -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we're all capable of holding anti-douche biases yet still edit in a fair and even-handed manner. -- haminoon (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely w/Wikimandia, Drake Bell shows every sign of trolling for attention and Caitlyn is likely schooled how to deal with wannabe frenemies and the bags with which one douches. Missruption (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly not notable. If more mainstream or international sources address this, maybe consider its inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that anyone who ever mentions anyone else gets to be on their Wikipedia page? Seems like a slippery slope, no? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please demonstrate that it is a hard rule rather than a choice to put her (misgendering) birth name in the inbox?

Seems like it is much more of a choice and a really bad idea is to further misgender someone who has dealt with gender issues her whole life and is finally free to be herself. So do we do an editorial choice to misgender her on her her own biography which states plainly elsewhere she had a different gender identity and name at birth? Or just maybe it can be left off as no one who seeks the information will be terribly put off to read an extra paragraph or two? Missruption (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)