Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

Infobox image again

Read the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is going on in this article? It has gone DOWN HILL and straight to hell in a hand basket! The intro pic should be this: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/22/19/29DEF15C00000578-3134959-Family_time_Caitlyn_Jenner_shared_this_picture_on_Twitter_after_-m-10_1434997651432.jpg It was PUBLICLY RELEASED by Caitlyn on twitter. THAT is how CAITLYN wants to be seen by the world, not as that false shell she had to wear for 65 years! Instead of torturing Caitlyn even more with your gender bias and transphobia, do the right thing and portray Caitlyn as her true gender! Stop being such trans-Nazis and censorship hounds! It's 2015 - stop hiding away Caitlyn's truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.91.22 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC) fix caitlyn jenner's photograph to her depicted as a woman. now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.22.140.4 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, particularly questions 1, 2, and 3. -sche (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Just because she tweeted it does not make it free use for Wikipedia. Image licensing doesn't work that day. 152.10.213.17 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the above image has not been licensed under a free license. Simply posting it on social media does not make the image free. There is still a copyright on it by default unless the copyright owner releases it or licenses the image in some way. If you can find a free image, feel free to link to it here and I'll take a look. If it's a high quality image, free, and portrays her as herself, I'll do the work to get it in the article. It MUST meet all of those criteria, though. ~ RobTalk 22:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC) There is a picture later on in the article depicting her more recently than the current main picture, if it is being shown further down the page surely it passes the free use rules. Therefore, that should the main photo. If not possible I think it would be preferable to not have a photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingmango (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Photograph

Read the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems to me that a post-transition picture of Jenner would be more suitable. I'm interested in the community's thoughts. --Lpm.mcc (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC) @Lpm.mcc: There have been many discussions about this, but so far no image has been found that is available under a free license. Keep in mind that non-free content cannot be used under fair use for a portrait of a living person, as there is a reasonable expectation that a free equivalent does or could exist (i.e. anyone can go out to an event Jenner appears at and snap a photo). If you find a photo available under a free license, which means it must explicitly include a release into the public domain or availability under a license such as GNU or certain CC licenses (i.e. not just anything on Instagram/Twitter/the internet at large), feel free to link it here and I'll take a look. If it's suitable, I'll upload it into the Commons and replace the photo in the article. ~ RobTalk 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) I agree, 100%, Caitlyn Jenner should have a post trans leading photo on her page. It appears disrespectful otherwise. And the page already contains a post trans photo of her (Vanity Fair cover). Just use that! You must already have the rights... Using a pre trans photo would make the author of the article appear resistant to accepting her new identity, like the way they treat her on Fox News. Thank you. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeBrock (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC) @LeeBrock: this has already been addressed numerous times and the answer for why we're not using the Vanity Fair picture as the main image is in the FAQ box at the top of this page. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I definitely think that the current photo for Jenner misgenders her and is disrespectful. My recommendation is that the photo be removed from her article, and no photo should be present on her article until one depicting her as her proper gender can be used is found. Better no photo at all thn one that misrepresents and disrespects her gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.191.230 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Already been discussed here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) FWIW, I contacted her PR firm that is managing her publicity and pointed them to Commons licensing types and our current misgendered photo and the issue of needing a properly released photo. They replied and are aware of it. Keep in mind that her transition and publicity is being actively managed and it affects her income, privacy and probably hundreds of other things. We should patiently wait until they release an image as it is her wishes we are respecting and it is really not our place to jeopardize her career or livelihood. --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Interesting. Thanks for the update. I'm glad to know that they're at least aware of the issue. Lpm.mcc (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Can someone do a CU check on all those new accounts posting on this talk page?, They all seem to be the same person creating multiple accounts and its getting a bit tiring..next time someone adds a topic regarding image, just revert them as vandalism, no need to allow "trolls" to post anymore..and also, if by "luck' we do manage to get a free pic of Caitlyn, there is NO NEED to remove the previous pic, Bruce Jenner has been a dude for 60 odd years and a lady for the last 5 months, just move the picture further down to his "career" section...do we really want this article to become the next "GenderGate" ?--Stemoc 12:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I can vouch that I'm not posting from other accounts. I, personally, don't find a pre-transition photo of Caitlyn to be "disrespectful" and I'm confident that she would feel similarly. Lpm.mcc (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Please assume good faith. It's perfectly natural for many people to visit this page and question why we have an image of Caitlyn pre-transition in the infobox. As per MOS:IDENTITY, as soon as a free and high-quality post-transition image is found, we should change it to the post-transition image. Considering every person not familiar with our policies on non-free content to be trolls is a great way to discourage new editors from contributing to the project. Instead, it's worthwhile to take some time to explain the policies to them and attempt to turn them into constructive contributors. Everyone's new once. ~ RobTalk 13:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) A way to use a male photo that is non offensive would simply to have a photo of jenner getting the Olympic metal on the podium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:480:240::2 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 July 2015

First public appearance

In the way that broken clocks are right twice a day, a point was made in this thread which is worth discussing: the article states "Jenner's first public appearance as Caitlyn will be to receive the Arthur Ashe Courage Award during the 2015 ESPY Awards in July." But the IP says that "she appeared at the LA Gay Center to film I AM CAIT. There's also the very public appearance at the NYC Gay PRIDE parade." I'll rewrite the sentence to simply note that she will be receiving the courage award (since this is the key info that needs to be noted in order for the following sentence to make sense); if someone wants to note when her first public appearance actually was, they can add referenced language about that. -sche (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"First public appearance" is a bit of PR fluff. We should write about what we get from reliable sources, so if somebody does something that wasn't on the agenda as published a few months ago we still write about it (and what on earth were we doing publishing planned appearances in the first place?). --TS 02:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Who cares what is the first, just mention noteworthy appearances, such as the NYC Pride Parade. The part regarding I Am Cait is rather trivial and doesn't warrant inclusion IMHO. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

World's greatest athlete

@Josve05a: just added a disambiguation needed tag to the World's Greatest Athlete line near the top. They obviously missed all the discussion. The current disambiguation page shows as its second definition, the winner of the Olympic Decathlon (it actually points to the generalization of combined events) is bestowed an unofficial title of World's Greatest Athlete, much like the winner of the 100 meters is given the title of World's Fastest Man. There is no awarding body. It is a recognized term passed around newspaper headlines to sum up this person's achievement in three words, which is why it was used in the article. It was significant enough of a concept to be at the core of Jenner's marketing, according to Jenner's agent later in the article. We could kill the wikilink, we could write an article, we could add a couple of sentences to the prose which will be bulky, sideways content. The phrase deserves an explanation, the current disambiguation page is the best option for brevity. Josve05a, you don't like it, come up with a solution. Trackinfo (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I was about to add a "sez {{who}}" cleanup tag to the same phrase during one of my earlier reviews of the article, until I dug into the matter further and learned the same thing you say above. I've replaced the cleanup tag with an HTML comment, but would welcome an even better solution. Perhaps we could add an anchor to the section of Decathlon which discusses this title (currently the lead, but perhaps it would be better to repeat it somewhere in the body of the article), and then update both this article and the relevant line of the world's greatest athlete disambig page to point to that anchor. -sche (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the lead - in its current form it's confusing if you don't understand the term, and redundant if you do. A brief explanation of the title may be in order when it's mentioned later on - if, that is, it's actually important enough. The article doesn't actually say that the phrase was at the core of Jenner's marketing; if that is the case then it should be stated clearly with an explanation, otherwise just leave it out. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the sentence that was leading to the confusion. Considering the brevity of the surrounding paragraph and the fact that we are adjusting this content to avoid confusing statements, we have no need to have that in the lede. It certainly does belong below where Wallach viewed the marketing of Jenner. Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The current photograph should be removed

Lest anyone even begins to think this is a redux of the gender misrepresentation issue that has been chewed above, it is distinctly not. I am in fact on the other side of that issue, believing it to be mostly irrelevant (see here – and I hope we can avoid discussing it entirely). The issue is that it is a terrible, highly unflattering picture – I think we can all see that without much analysis. That is something I think most of us have experienced – in every grouping of many photographs we will all almost always find one taken at some stroboscopic moment in time where our face is screwed up in some weird expression, the lighting is from underneath our mouth is hanging open and so on, and we go "eww", and get out the lighter fluid or delete from our phone (or ask to be deleted by someone else). I said most of what I wanted to say in my back-to-back edit summaries upon removing the photograph. In short, the idea we must include an image because a free one is available seems to be a hasty assumption many people go on. I believe a very bad picture is worse than no picture and may rise to the level of a BLP concern. (Oh, as I said in my edit summary, I expected to be reverted and did not have to wait long, though I personally think "revert because not yet discussed", as opposed to "revert because I disagree for X reason" is almost always flawed). Thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted not only because it was highly controversial and should have been discussed here first, but because I disagree with your logic completely. We don't include images for decoration's sake. They're here so that readers can visually identify the subject so they (a) know they have come to the right article, or (b) have an understanding of what this person they don't know looks like. (The fact that Jenner's picture is outdated is not relevant.) It's a disservice to the reader to have no image at all. Frankly, the idea to not have a picture just because one is not flattering is really silly. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Article should have image though (WP:LEADIMAGE). Do you have one you'd suggest replace the current one? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Chasewc91. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on ones definition of a 'bad picture' ..the previous image used was a bad picture (as well as a copyright violation which went undetected for 3 years), the current image used is not only of a very high quality but also very good compared to images of other 'Jenners' and Kardashians' on this wikis.. This Gender nonsense is really getting a bit out of hand, its funny how people come here and claim that we should be using a 'feminine' picture of Jenner since he is now a she and those who disagree based on that are either misogynists or anti-LGBT ...I mentioned this when the news broke of his Genderchange and i will mention it again, It doesn't matter what image gets used cause regardless of how famous he/she is, the chance of getting a free image within a year is low and if by chance we did get one "blurry" or low-res image of Caitlyn, people would still come here complaining as to why we are using a "bad" picture of Caitlyn..No one ever wins these battles.. We just have to hope Caitlyn decides to go to the White House or some US military event cause only then can we actually get a 'free' image of her...Any image that gets added of her from outside sources will nearly always be a copyright violation--Stemoc 03:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If you all can get them to release these, one, two, three, and four, it would be highly beneficial to her as a human being of course, which she is actually a woman, who doesn't want to identify herself as a man anymore that the picture erroneously does on her behalf. Please, let's get this done for her!Dustblower (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles are written for readers, not for the article subjects. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but we strive to accept people for who they are above and beyond those rules... get with the paradigm shift already! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the article, Jenner is working with Creative Artists Agency, which, I would guess, is reasonably sophisticated in this area. The picture is there for them to see. Wikipedia's copyright constraints are clearly stated, as is the desire here for a current, copyright-free image. As CAA hasn't provided one, we should unblushingly go with what we've got. Barte (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Or go with no image at all. There are plenty of biographical articles where there is no image because a free one has not been located. It would only be a temporary scenario because Jenner is not cloistered in some cave; she will be seen at more public events increasing the possibility of a Wikipedia Commons affiliate getting an image that is acceptable. (As an aside I remain curious as I was when I asked this question 7 years ago as to whether Wikipedia has ever actually had a copyright suit filed against them for the use of a photo.) 68.146.52.234 (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of biographical articles where there is no image because a free one has not been located. But... that's not the case here. There are free images of Jenner, they're just outdated. An outdated picture is better than none at all. A visual representation of the subject helps the reader know they came to the right article. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Siri

Apple's factotum app Siri has clear opinions on Caitlyn's transition.

http://time.com/3960387/siri-caitlyn-jenner-iphone-bruce/

Possibly worth a word or two in the account of public reactions to her transition. --TS 11:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: If you look at a better source such as http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2015/7/15/8970859/siri-caitlyn-jenner-apple it explains that this isn't because of Apple.--Iady391 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"slanted toward recent events" tag

I don't understand why this was tagged that way - the gender transition section is not bigger than the rest of the article, and it's a significant to Jenner's biography. Does anyone care if I take it down? This is a high-traffic article and it shouldn't be tagged as having an issue without good reason. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion that hasn't even been archived yet about this and why the tag was put in place. With roughly a quarter of the article devoted to the gender transition and pre-transition life lacking, this is absolutely biased towards newer information. Pre-2015 information needs to be expanded, or transition content needs to be condensed, for the article to be balanced. Removing tags from articles that clearly have issues just because said articles are high traffic is never appropriate. If it is not re-added soon, I plan to add it back myself. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015

There are multiple Quotes that are mis-quoted by adjusting the quote as if that is what the article or person said. I understand that this is a sensitive topic surrounding trans-gender but you should not be changing quotes unless you provide something to imply that it has been changed to meet the way that she currently refers to herself. example would he "Her and Wife" this is a quote and should not be adjusted unless it looks similar to this "[Her] and wife" this implies that there has been a change to the quote to make better reading or that there was a missing reference in the quote which I believe are both implied with this quote. Please fix as this carries a huge level of ignorance in just doing a Find and Replace of every reference to Jenner when being mentioned as "Him, His, Himself, He" with the female equivalent. I should not need to provide sources as this article references the sources but manipulates them without signifying that it has done such. 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Moosecouture (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) moosecouture Moosecouture (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The mentioned "Her and wife" is the only such quote I could see in the article, and I corrected it (having first checked the cited source). If there was a valid reason to change it, it would in any case have been to "She and wife", not "Her and wife". --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Who did this??

WP:MOS says that Jenner should be referred to with she/her throughout. But now there's one Wikipedian who still disagrees. Georgia guy (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What specifically are you referring? Missruption (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at the recent edits of the article. Georgia guy (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

At least some of the disruption has come from JLanex, who has made other inappropriate edits here, including referring to dysphoria as "not scientifically verified." S/he has been given a warning for this behavior. I strongly encourage editors to pursue a topic ban if this continues. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence needs work still

What Caitlyn is best known for has arguably changed. And might not need to to be wedged into the first sentence. Perhaps the misgendering can be saved until later in the intro? We are making editorial choices so we could avoid saying men's decathlon if we we bother to accept how offensive it is to misgender trans women. Missruption (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Making a factual statement is not misgendering for the millionth time. Drop the stick. She won a men's event when she was living as a man. That will always be what she is most known for; it's the reason she has an encyclopedia article in the first place. It's not misgendering to point out the obvious. Please stop being overly sensitive. "Won a men's event" ≠ "is a man". Chase (talk | contributions) 02:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that stating "men's decathlon" is not misgendering, but I did question your addition of "best known for." Newer generations primarily know Jenner because of Keeping Up with the Kardashians and/or being a very famous transgender person, as indicated by this "TEENS REACT TO CAITLYN JENNER" video. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally didn't see it as an issue, as the Olympic victory is by far the most encyclopedic/noteworthy thing about her, and her status as a reality TV star and the most famous trans person in the world were mentioned immediately afterward, but I just removed the word "best". Chase (talk | contributions) 03:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because she was technically identified as male before officially transitioning is a fact does not mean you are not misgendering her. You are making a choice to misgender her when several other equally acceptable options are available that don't insult trans women. Violence against transwomen is often proceeded with men misgendering them and challenging their being female. This is just unfortunately another example of how easy it is to be disrespectful to trans women. Missruption (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing the gender reference to her Olympic victory could easily confuse readers into thinking that she won a women's decathlon, which is absolutely not the case. "Men's decathlon" is present for clarity and accuracy, not to misgender Jenner. Your definition of "misgendering" is highly flawed, and your accusations of me doing so border on personal attacks. Jenner lived as a man for the vast majority of her life, and was famous for decades as a man, first rising to fame for competing in a male-only athletic event. It would be impossible to write a clear article without including any references at all to her former life as a man, which is what you seem to want. Specifying which decathlon event she competed in ≠ calling her a man.

several other equally acceptable options are available that don't insult trans women. Then either propose them, or get off your soapbox and stop making false accusations about me. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with how things have progressed. Chase, it's not a soapbox it's how we treat trans people with dignity. When trans women are no longer dead-named and brutally murdered then it will no longer likely be an issue. Until then the issues remained interlinked, dead-naming and misgendering are a precursor to trans violence and tran women face the brunt of violence even if Caitlyn is classed out of much of it. Missruption (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh stop it with the transwomen getting murdered, this is Wikipedia, not Tumblr, keep your political talking points there. Fact is Caitlyn Jenner lived as a man, expressing in public and usually also in private all the characteristics of that gender, for what will very likely be the vast majority of her life and looking back at her life retroactively gendering her as female for that period is really what misgendering is.

Arthur Ashe Courage Award, lead-worthy?

Certainly a notable award, and I think it demonstrates her widespread acceptance in the sports world traditionally known for its homophobic and transphobic attitudes. Perhaps something like, in July 2015 she received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Thoughts? Missruption (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

sports world traditionally known for its homophobic and transphobic attitudes — you would need to demonstrate this in relation to Jenner's Courage Award to even include it in the article at all per WP:NOR. Anyway, regarding whether we mention the Courage Award in the lead: I say no: this is not a major award on par with the Nobel Prize, Academy Awards, Grammys, etc. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's most important points, not a reiteration of everything in the article. A reader wanting to learn introductory information about Jenner already has it from the current lead. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I would need to present a rather easily sourced idea sources when I'm not suggesting they be included in the article? Instead of comparing the award to other careers why not compare it to equivalent sports awards? Missruption (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We have an appropriate sports award in the lead already: the Olympic gold medal. Obviously Jenner's line of work doesn't match the awards I referenced in my last post, but the Courage Award is not on par with such noteworthy honors. It's an important detail, sure, one to mention in the article body as we currently do, but a stunt by ESPN to pull in ratings for their telecast does not strike me as lead-worthy. It's not information that is so essential to an understanding of Jenner that it would need to be included in an introductory section about her. Chase (talk | contributions)

Agree with Chasewc91. The award in the lede does not help the reader get a complete, concise summary of the highlights in Jenner's life and career(s), nor does it help a reader better understand her. It only seems important now because media (news and social) have made it "important". It's simply not lede worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Vanity Fair photograph again

With this edit, Dharahara removed the Vanity Fair image, stating, "fair use picture removed because there are now many pictures of Ms. Jenner, before there weren't." I reverted (followup edit here). While I very much doubt that Dharahara is a WP:Newbie despite the newness of the Dharahara account, perhaps Dharahara will explain how such a new Wikipedia account would know what is and what is not appropriate fair use.

See Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 4#Vanity fair photo, where you can see me explaining why use of the fair use image is fine in this case; I stated, "IP, the image is WP:Non-free; Wikipedia doesn't allow a non-free image for Template:Infobox person in the case of living people (deceased people and fictional characters are a different matter). The only reason the image in question is allowed in the section it's currently in is because of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; the image passes the 'Images with iconic status or historical importance' and 'Images that are themselves subject of commentary' aspects. 'Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance.'"

That is still the case. Even if we get a free image of Jenner as Caitlyn, we can still use that Vanity Fair image of Jenner since it passes the "Images with iconic status or historical importance" and "Images that are themselves subject of commentary" aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Read the FAQ and the dozen previous discussions about this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I really think we should have a picture of Caitlyn not Bruce as she is now Caitlyn --Theladyisgaga (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC) Closing EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Transition criticism

Can we mention stories such as this? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/woman-drops-a-truth-bomb-on-bruce-caitlyn-jenner-this-facebook-letter-is-epic/ So that Wikipedia can remain neutral.--Iady391 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Or these? http://godfatherpolitics.com/23983/an-open-letter-to-bruce-jenner-from-a-real-woman/ https://onmogul.com/articles/you-ll-never-believe-how-this-woman-defines-what-it-takes-to-be-a-real-woman --Iady391 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Political Insider thinks transgenderism is a mental disorder. Georgia guy (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like that is what it is from many articles http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/09/30/transgenderism-is-a-mental-illness-not-a-civil-rights-issue-n1898464/page/full http://www.infowars.com/former-johns-hopkins-chief-of-psychiatry-being-transgender-is-a-mental-disorder-biologically-impossible/ http://yiannopoulos.net/2014/08/15/transgenderism-is-a-psychiatric-disorder-its-sufferers-need-therapy-not-surgery/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/03/wsj-promotes-op-ed-claiming-transgender-identity-is-a-mental-disorder/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 July 2015

None of which are reliable sources. Drop the stick; we're not adding your anti-trans propaganda. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Those sources do not appear even close to reliable. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Not WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Iady391, mind sharing with us which previous Wikipedia account you edited with? You are no WP:Newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: LOL. How could you tell? You're right I've had an account in the past, but I forgot the username. I've recently been doing some editing without an account, however I'd prefer to not share that due to privacy reasons.--Iady391 (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Iady391, because, as my user page notes, I'm very good at identifying non-new editors. Editors give me all types of excuses about why they are editing with a new account, or they deny that they have had a past Wikipedia account. And I never buy what they are stating on that unless it seems like I should. Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: That's cool. I didn't bother to look at your user page first, but I understand what you mean know.--Iady391 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you needed to check my user page, since I'm certain we've interacted before and you know that I keep a lookout for disruptive editors returning to Wikipedia under new accounts. In any case, just know that your user page/talk is now on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have interacted before, but I do now know that you keep a lookout for disruptive editors returning to Wikipedia under new accounts. Thanks for telling me that my userpage/talk is now on your WP:Watchlist.I hope to keep collaborating with you in the future.Iady391 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I know of only one editor who edits the way you do, we'll see. You are changing your signature style with different posts you make, but other stuff is pretty consistent. So like I stated, we'll see. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't transgender criticism better discussed as a topic on the transgender page? It sure seems so because it is not Jenner-specific.Television fan (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Television fan:I didn't mean a criticism of the concept of transgender, as that page is written neutrally and logically. However the page about Jenner acts likes everyone is all lovey dovey and happy about Caitlyn's transition and seems to ignore any outlash against it.Iady391 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The only material I've seen from reputed publications is about how some people were upset that she received the Courage Award instead of others. That may be worth adding. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The request for criticism was addressed at this talk page before, and a few WP:Reliable sources were listed; see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 6#Criticism of Jenner [redacted]. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources come into play here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture crop request

Is it possible to crop the picture in the infobox so it is just Jenner?--Iady391 (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

NO one else is in the picture. Georgia guy (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The picture is gone now anyway. It was a press shot and fails NFCC. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture copyright question

The photo that appeared briefly today in the infobox seems to have come from a Disney | ABC Television Group Flickr account, with a Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) license. How does that fit in, or not, with our requirements? Barte (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The photo is a press image from Getty (see here). Per WP:NFCC#2, we can't use non-free images if they interfere with commercial opportunities. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still trying to parse this out. There's a Disney | ABC Television Group press website. At the bottom, there's a link to a corporate Flickr account. There are albums linked to that, and the third album to the left is the 2015 ESPYs. All of which appear to have a CC BY-ND 2.0 license. The photo of Jenner is among them and it is credited to "ABC/Image Group LA". Getty isn't mentioned. Barte (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Barte for looking into this.--Mimi C. (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Mimi C.: could you please pose your Wheaties picture question in a separate section. I think it's also worth considering, but apart from this one. Thanks.) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've done some quick research and Getty Images indeed has a Disney-ABC Television Group among their collections. I was under the assumption that Disney's Flickr account was improperly licensing a Getty image, which seemed strange from an official social media account of a major corporation. In that case, the Flickr licensing would appear to be legitimate, but the Getty Disney-ABC page says clearly at the bottom, "All rights reserved," which means all content is copyrighted and we can't use it. So we have, if my understanding is correct, two different owners of the image saying different things about its licensing info. I'm not sure how this works. I'd like to get input from others. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It could also be a question for the Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Barte (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the rights are shared (i.e. more than one "rightsholder"). While ABC may have released their rights under the CC BY-ND 2.0 license, Getty Images may not have done so (the website isn't clear). Dunno how that works out but I wouldn't presume it's free unless all attributed creators have explicitly released it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

CC-BY-ND is not acceptable for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. Melonkelon (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I contacted DisneyABC a week ago, they refused to change the licence to the one acceptable by Wikimedia Commons so lets drop it ..and as mentioned above, CC-BY-ND is NOT a free licence ...--Stemoc 01:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr is definitive. Thanks everyone for considering. Barte (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wheaties

Why was the Wheaties pic removed? Also, I think her Wheaties deal should have a separate sub-section under the "Capitalizing on Olympic fame" section since it's one of the most recognizable events of her life--Mimi C. (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a case that the rationale here is as good as for the Vanity Fair cover. Both are, within the context of Jenner's career, iconic. Barte (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the wheaties box is iconic and historical. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree that Wheaties box image was iconic in both culture and her fame. Should be retored iline according to fair use. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've restored the image and section. Barte (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Barte.--Mimi C. (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Transition page

I feel as though this entire event of Caitlyn coming out to the world and causing the reactions it's had, the whole topic of Caitlyn Jenner coming out should be its own Wikipedia page. It's historic; from the Diane Sawyer interview to the Vanity Fair cover, to her transition from Bruce to Caitlyn in the spotlight, it all matters because her telling the world her story is just as good a sub-page. --Matt723star (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's even broke records. --Matt723star (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's way too soon to begin discussing something like this. This is absolute recentism. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Matt. The transition section already takes up a good portion of her bio, and it is a very notable and watershed event in history. As of now, there is enough info on it to warrant another page.--Mimi C. (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is unique enough, big enough, and certainly sourced enough of a topic that a separate article could make sense. I wouldn't let recentism concerns stop you in this very special case. After all, this story's beginning isn't recent and this transitional period was iconic for Jenner as much as it affected public opinion and American/world culture. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There's ample precedent. And a separate article is a way to address the current recentism tag. The section length can be kept proportionate within the main article while allowing the subject, her transition, to be further flushed out. Barte (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

One problem I have with this proposal is that it can make it more likely that people will want this article moved back to Bruce Jenner. Georgia guy (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But that won't matter because no matter how many people would want that, it would violate Wikipedia policy. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there are currently plenty of Wikipedians who want the policy changed. Georgia guy (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ain't happenin', least of all because it is disrespectful to the subject, on top of being factually incorrect. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Though the events are recent, they are certainly notable enough and I think a spinoff article is a possibility. Not sure if now is the best time, but I can see it happening in the near future. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added a split section tag.Iady391 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Far too soon, and would likely violate WP:CFORK if ever created. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems compliant with WP:CFORK and encouraged by WP:WHENSPLIT. Barte (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: It seems to comply with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts:_.22Summary_style.22_articles --Iady391 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Too soon for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.85.123 (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015

Read the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This still shows Bruce Jenner in the picture. There are several pictures of Caitlyn. Just wanted to let y'all know about this. Thank You. 6BackToBack6 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 6BackToBack6 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)  Not done Please read the FAQ. Barte (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

Read the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please change the top picture of Caitlyn Jenner to a current one (perhaps the Vanity Fair magazine cover or one from her Arthur Ashe acceptance speech) because the first picture seen on her page should accurately represent her, particularly now that she has transitioned. Thank you. 71.198.170.166 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)  Not done Please read the FAQ Barte (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 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 (non-admin closure). I'm aware that this is an early close and I voiced an opinion in the discussion, but... come on. There's no need to waste any more time with this doomed proposal. Per NACD, any objecting administrator may reopen this, but please seriously consider if it's really worth it. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Caitlyn Jenner → Cait Jenner – Looking at the new TV series I Am Cait this appears to be the more well known and chosen way to identify to the public in common. The "lyn" syllable doesn't belong in the page title any more than "William" belonged before. Ranze (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: The series website itself refers to her as Caitlyn as does mainstream media converge. Barte (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment if it isn't moved, then a redirect should be created -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I was prepared to speedily close this myself per WP:SNOW, but (a) this RM was started less than a day ago, (b) only two editors have responded, (c) I'm not an admin, and (d) I'm assuming this very misguided request was made in good faith. This is a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME: "cait jenner" (in quotes) only returns 36,900 results on Google (compared to 35.7 million for "caitlyn jenner"); on the first page, many of the results were along the lines of "on I Am Cait, Jenner...", with only one explicitly referring to her as Cait Jenner. "Cait" may be Jenner's personal nickname, but it is not the name by which she is professionally or publicly known. It's the same reason why Jennifer Aniston is not titled "Jen Aniston." Chase (talk | contributions) 18:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose No. Just 'no'. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose most definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME at all Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose not COMMONNAME.LM2000 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Think I've lost faith in humanity!, Someone should close this crap. –Davey2010^Talk 21:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Absolutely not her common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 5 August 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.