Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

Outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition of Caitlyn Jenner

As seen with this edit, I restored the Gender transition section back to what it was, per the WP:Consensus seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition of Caitlyn Jenner to merge that article back into this article, and so that editors would not have to start from scratch and rehash all the debated content that has already been debated at this talk page (such as what should be in that section and wording changes). As also seen by that edit, Mark Miller reverted, stating that there is no consensus for that "major change." And I replied, "This major change is supported by the AfD; there is no longer a Transition of Caitlyn Jenner article. Well, there won't be if following the WP:Consensus of that WP:AfD."

Mark Miller, what lack of consensus are you referring to, considering the outcome of the aforementioned WP:AfD? Should we ignore that close? I think not. If you and others don't like the outcome of that close, then that is what WP:Deletion review is for. Flyer22 (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Iady391's edit here is also incorrect. And I see that WP:Deletion review is next then. Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: I rolledback. Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was clear. I don't understand what the problem is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I made a mistake in reverting, believing that a discussion was supposed to take place first as to what content to merge into the article for due weight but that can easily be done afterwards in regards to what should be trimmed for due weight. But I believe Joe Decker mentions that those discussion are better on the talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't a mistake it seems, as discussion on the target page is actually supposed to happen. The rough consensus at the delete discussion begins the merge discussion here per: Wikipedia:Merging:

Merger as a result of a deletion discussion

While mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions (also see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion), it is not uncommon for editors, in an effort to mediate and/or compromise, to suggest that the article(s) nominated for deletion instead be merged to a parent article. If there is a rough consensus for a merger at the end of a deletion discussion, the following template is placed at the top of the nominated article:

{{Afd-merge to|destination article|debate name|debate closure date}}

Similarly, the following template is placed on the destination article's talk page:

{{Afd-merge from|nominated article|debate name|debate closure date}}

This informs users involved in those pages that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merger. Proceed in the manner described above.

The mistake I made was reverting material I don't feel strongly against, but do feel it should not be placed on this article without a full discussion of how to present it and what is not needed etc. I also should note to Flyer22 that per our guidelines, if a merge is reverted, you are supposed to consider that opposition to the merge to the target location. In other words, the consensus at the AFD discussion is local and cannot override the wider community consensus per our full guidelines and policies for merging as well as the consensus of editors at the target page. Because this is a controversial article I would like to ask Flyer22 if we could add the proper templates to the page and discuss how to add the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I will not revert the addition of the content and will add to the consensus that the content should be merged here. However I do believe we should discuss what is undue weight etc.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Templates are in place and the only thing left is to discuss any content issues and redirect the original article. I see no issues raised by anyone above about the mass merge and I only object to my being originally reverted but that is only a violation of BRD as merging has no real guideline or policy to break and BRD itself is only accepted practice and cannot be forced on editors. I won't object to anything other than the sub section and not a separate section as that seems undue weight at the moment which, over time could change. Merging from an AFD is a recommendation. The target page does not have to accept the merging content (I believe in this case, so far there are no objections) and generally speaking, merging without discussion to controversial articles is discouraged. My mistake here was assuming this content would require discussion. I am not seeing that need here.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

•   Y Merger complete. I have completed all the technical aspects of the merge process. The article is redirected and attribution to the editors added to the talk page. This merge is complete.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How does a WP:AfD qualify as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? I see how the "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." sentence can apply to WP:AfDs, but it usually does not. The result of a WP:AfD should be followed unless the result is seriously flawed. Again, we have WP:Deletion review when it comes to challenging a WP:AfD result. I was not overriding anything by reverting you in this case. Per what I stated above in this section, I believe that I was right to revert you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD and the merging process are two separate procedures. AFD concerns itself ONLY with the keep or delete. The merge process is out of the control of the AFD process. If it is clear that the AFD discussion of ANOTHER article shows a consensus to merge to a target article....that is only ONE step. You refused to respect the revert and edit warred your preferred content back in before discussion. If your merge is reverted, that is opposition to the merge itself to the target article. ALL content, including templates requires a consensus of editors on the articles itself. You were wrong to revert me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting you once is not WP:Edit warring. I reverted you, then brought the matter here to this talk page. Either way, I disagree with your take on this matter; so my opinion on it remains the same. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A single edit is not an edit war, but that is not what we are talking about here. Perhaps it was just truly that you believed the AFD recommendation on a different article was consensus for this article. Adding the bulk of the content without first making note of it on this talk page was why I reverted. There was no discussion here to merge. You also stated in the edit summary that the other article no longer existed however, it did. The AFD outcome was not delete, just merge. Another mistake you made was not making the minimal attribution requirements of linking the articles in the edit summary. You made the bold merge effort but were reverted. You then reverted that revert. You did make a discussion afterwards and there were no objections to the content in mass being merged to the article so I simply completed the merge.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to me stating that the other article no longer existed, I clearly corrected that with a WP:Dummy edit, stating, "Well, there won't be if following the WP:Consensus of that WP:AfD." As for the rest, I stand by what I've stated on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Having the Gender transition section as part of the Personal life section....again

As seen with this edit, I reverted Mark Miller on making the Gender transition section a subsection of the Personal life section, per this matter already having been discussed; see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 5#Public speaker section is redundant to the Gender transition section, and the "General" heading discussion it points to. Mark Miller reverted me, stating, "That archive discussion does not contain a consensus against this content being a sub section of the Personal life section. there may well be parts that can be sectioned off but for now this should remain."

My reply? In what way should the Gender transition section, which mostly concerns public material more so than the personal life material we usually see in Personal life sections here at Wikipedia, be a part of the Personal life section for this article? I mean, other than making the Personal life section unnecessarily long. The Gender transition section is an entity in its own right that can be subsectioned, depending on how it grows, because let's face it: Jenner is mostly getting attention for her gender transition these days, and today's youths mostly know her from that and/or Keeping Up with the Kardashians, as previously discussed. Furthermore, this is not about whether or not there was a consensus against having that section as a subsection. WP:Consensus is not always about "consensus against" things. And decisions regarding this article or any Wikipedia article do not always have to be a WP:Consensus matter. But WP:Consensus can be formed with only two or three editors; it does not always involve a medium-sized or big-sized group. WP:Consensus was achieved on this matter, as far as I can see. But here we are again. So how is it better to have the Gender transition section be a part of the Personal life section instead of being its own section? Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you do not understand the difference between public source material and the personal life changes of the subject this articles is summarizing then let me explain that two editors are NOT an consensus. There is another editor besides us and the one in that discussion you linked to with an opinion on that edit. There is NO consensus as yet to make the transition section a level two header. The subject of this article is a living person. A decision to alter one's own gender is DEEPLY personal and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise..--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in your hostile and/or condescending posts. Your "If you do not understand the difference between public source material and the personal life changes of the subject this articles" piece makes no sense to me anyway. You are wrong on this matter, per what I stated above in this section and in the aforementioned discussions I linked to regarding it. There is no need whatsoever to have the Gender transition section be a subsection of the Personal life section. And you have not demonstrated why it should be that way in this case. Stating "two editors are NOT an consensus" is false. When a discussion only involves two editors and those two editors come to an agreement, that is consensus. If the discussion involves three editors, and two of those three editors come to an agreement without the third editor, or any other editor watching that talk page, objecting to that agreement, then that can be considered consensus. The WP:Consensus policy, which I am thoroughly familiar with, is clear on what WP:Consensus is and when it can be presumed. In other words, WP:TALKDONTREVERT is clear about assuming consensus, and nowhere does it state that the discussion should have more than two or three editors. Clearly, WP:Consensus can change, and this discussion is meant to gauge others' feelings on this revisited matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the contributor and not the contribution you will be on your own. I think you understand more than you let on. Gender transition and sexuality are personal aspects of the subjects life. If we separate into a level two header and create completely independent section based on your assertions above: "The Gender transition section is an entity in its own right that can be subsectioned, depending on how it grows, because let's face it: Jenner is mostly getting attention for her gender transition these days, and today's youths mostly know her from that and/or Keeping Up with the Kardashians". This gives undue weight to a small section of a personal life choice, emphasizes a POV and is just un-encyclopedic in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There are far more than two editors involved with the material, not just your archived discussion. Two editors do not make a consensus on any article that has more editors than the two in discussion. There was no consensus just agreement between two editors at one point. Silence is a stronger consensus than the agreement between just two. When I changed that to a subsection I was being bold but not rash as it is the logical placement for personal life issues such as gender and sexuality. It also broke the silent consensus. Consensus, if you feel there was such, can change.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Flyer22, I trust your good faith even though I do feel you are inaccurate here. Consensus is not a vote. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.". As far as being clear about when one can assume a consensus, yes, this section is very clear: "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change". As you can see I object to that change. When I made the edit I received a public "thank you" from another involved editor here. I see that as further demonstration that there are objections to the separation.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There were good reasons to not have the gender transition as part of the Personal Life section. Mainly that it was hardly a personal life-only matter. It was extremely public and well advertised. It also resolved some other issues at the time which are in the history of the talk page if we really need to revisit the whole discussion. Missruption (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As part of the discussion could you state those good reasons. I don't really see them to be honest. Just becoming a matter of public knowledge does not mean it is no longer a longer part of their personal life.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark Miller, except for you stating that you object to the change and that another editor does (that editor was likely Iady391, an editor I've disagreed with on this talk page and cited as non-new), I don't understand your arguments on this matter and how you are using Wikipedia policies. And stating that "[You] think [I] understand more than [I] let on." is another uncalled for attack. I am not a WP:Newbie, and I refuse to be treated like one. And as for stating "If you wish to discuss the contributor and not the contribution you will be on your own.", noting your hostility and condescension is perfectly valid. You focus on me, then expect me to focus on you in return. Furthermore, it's rare that I am ever completely on my own when it comes to my contributions to Wikipedia; there is usually always someone there to back me up. You and I, despite occasionally agreeing on matters, do not mesh well. And I refuse to continue this hostile/condescending discussion with you (especially since I am doing what I can to return to the Flyer22 that I used to be instead of the hothead I had become). I agree to disagree. Bye. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTGETTINGIT: "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is.". I have focused on the contributions you made. I am debating against your argument because, I honestly don't agree with you. "I think you understand more than you let on" is not a personal attack and it came after you accused me of being hostile over my original reply to your thread. You are not a newbie, but you are the one that began attacking me with accusations of "hostile and/or condescending posts". I don't think you are a hothead as you self describe. We may bump heads now and then but I have no issue with you as an editor. We are not always going to agree on everything.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Miller, I think you're missing what is mentioned in the very beginning of the article, that Jenner is not a private person with this personal information. By these same most of her article could be one big personal section when it's certainly not. I think the personal section should be reserved for information that happens outside her public life. Her gender transition has been uniquely public. Cramming it into the personal section makes it awkward and balloons the personal life section unduly while short-serving how huge her gender transition is to her as well as it's impact on the world. Missruption (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Missruption, I actually understand what you are saying: "..that Jenner is not a private person with this personal information". I do not believe you are looking at this in the right direction as a Wikipedia editor. Sometimes we see things in a set manner that may be true in one sense but is not the manner how we judge these matters or the criteria to demonstrate what is important. Yes, Jenner is not a private person like you or I, who have little to no notability or "celebrity" status. There is a difference between being a celebrity/public figure and just being notable. There is also a difference between what is relative to a biographies personal section on Wikipedia, a very common section that refers to the subject "personal life" such as wife, children, sexual preference and gender identity. However there is also a good argument that much of this is beyond just being a part of his personal life like the gender transition that was done in a highly publicized and extremely "public" manner. I feel strongly that the gender identity issue begin in the personal life section if we are going to keep such a section. However, I am not sure we need to keep a Personal Life section at all since the entire article is about the personal life of the subject and I do not see it present in the two FA biographies I just checked. Let me look into that. It may be a better way direction for me to look at the situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I Am Cait section restored

As this is a television documentary series about the subject of this article I feel it is well justified in having a summary section devoted to it. Missruption (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Missruption, regarding that restored subsection, I don't think it's needed. That content is already summarized higher up in the Gender transition section; that's all that is needed for this article, per WP:Summary style. The rest of it should be dealt with in the I Am Cait article. That stated, I would be fine with you combining the non-redundant material with the material that is already higher up in that section about the show. After that, you should remove the subsection heading. We don't need a subsection for that little bit of material. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that section should be restored in some manner now. The article can grow and expand on some parts and separate by subject in that manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise edit to the two current disputes. I have added some small portions back to the personal life section leaving the Gender transition section as a level two header. I have made the "I am Cait" content a level three as well as "Other media coverage" subsection. I hope tis works but lets see how others feel.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

picture

Please see the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it.
Curious why you've chosen to redirect the page to Caitlyn Jenner, when someone is looking for Bruce Jenner, but have chosen to display a picture of BRUCE Jenner, instead of CAITLYN.74.114.236.45 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Teri Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner/FAQ --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC) @74.114.236.45: Bruce is now known as Caitlyn. Caitlyns surname is still Jenner. The picture is of Caitlyn before the name transition. Iady391 | Talk to me 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Actually I do agree that the image should be removed to A) stop this trouble. And be out of respect of the LGBT communicate and Jenner. This is a picture of pre-Caitlyn Jenner. It's like adding the American flag with the thirteen stars the official image in the article Flag of the United States. It has been updated. I think we should remove this image until a more proper image is found at commons. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Look, at some point this main pic will probably need to be changed.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Absolutely; nearly every image has an expiration date. With what image do you propose replacing it? VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Nothing right now, but we must not let a FAQ rule our editing in the future. It has a place, but it is not policy or guideline. And....I object to the hatting of the discussion. WTF? Really?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Why do you object? This is indeed a frequently asked question. The canned answer works just fine, until such time as it no longer is correct. No one is going to let the FAQ rule our editing. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Funny how people keep objecting to what I would regard as quite an ambiguous photo anyway, yet not the continued references to all the other stuff Caitlyn did as Bruce. If the former is objectionable, then how much worse must the latter be? (At least it's only this article they're targeting, I suppose. If they were at all consistent about these objections, they'd be removing every picture of a dead person from Wikipedia, too. Please, don't do that either.) --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Funny indeed, they make it sound like the 66 year old Jenner was a 'lady' for 90% of her life even though its barely 6 months..I wrote this on the day the change was made in regards to the page move from Bruce to Caitlyn and i'm saying it again, it will take a minimum of ONE YEAR to get Caitlyn Jenner a new image. Its not as easy as it sounds, and this troll since day one has been 'forcing' us to remove the picture of Bruce which we won't because if we allow trolls to get what they want, why bother editing wikipedia? When and if an image is found, it will be checked by licence reviewers and commons admins and then verified and then added to the article and the current picture will REMAIN, but be moved to a lower section which talks about the career and life of "Bruce" Jenner.till then, bear with us, be grateful i found him a High Quality picture to use on his article since the previous image of him walking down the street has been a copyright violation that remained undetected for nearly 4 years, we won't be making the same mistake......--Stemoc 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) A new photo post-transition Nattybee89 (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Pronouns and style

Would it be possible to at least clear some of the 'Jenners' in the part of her life as a woman? I get that it's to stay more gender neutral, but let's limit the repetitive use of her last name for the section that's anterior to the transition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin (talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Post-Transition main pic?

Please see the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it.
Wouldn't it better suit the article to include a photo post-transition? Nattybee89 (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC) You're far from the first person to ask, but we just don't have a suitable image that meets Wikipedia's licensing criteria. (And to be honest, a photo from circa the 1976 Olympic Games might be better anyway... but we don't have a suitable one of those either.) --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Call me stupid but what are the licensing criteria? Nattybee89 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Can you read like litterally almost half of what is written above? It's been explained several times. (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015

Change the id photo at the top to post transition Cait! 😊 108.9.205.206 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Look at the section immediately above. or the FAQ. Cannolis (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)