Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

Different person

I came here to look for info on the athlete Bruce Jenner - really weird to see what this page looks like. Bruce was a totally different person than Caitlyn, the two identities deserve separate, but linked pages, slamming it into one page looks seriously odd.

For example, look under Olympic career: "she ran a fast last lap" - really? That was Bruce running, not Caitlyn. He competed in the men's category. Re-writing history like that is absurd.

2601:CA:C201:74A0:F9B8:ACFA:A80A:A755 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Bruce & Caitlyn may have different identities, but they are the same person. Hence, a single article. Re: pronoun use, we are following MOS:IDENTITY (bullet #2) guidelines. Barte (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear lack of differentiation in the Caitlyn/Bruce dichotomy here, that much is certain. Whilst the guidelines for identity are followed very much to a tee here, there is a clear excess of representation of the post-transition part of Jenner's life. In other words, most of the article focuses on Jenner's life as the Caitlyn identity, and very little representation of life as the Bruce identity is made.

It is understandable why people focus on this so heavily, but pre-transition Jenner is treated as if Jenner was always post-transition. Long before openly identifying, Bruce went along the strict vein of male categorization (A men's category athlete would clearly be a he at the time of participation), and the article does not reflect this. It seems as if Bruce never existed, and Wikipedia simply requires equal coverage of both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.187.0 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

most of the article focuses on Jenner's life as the Caitlyn identity, and very little representation of life as the Bruce identity is made. That's demonstrably false. Look at the article, count the column inches, and see for yourself. Barte (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To the OP... YES SHE RAN A FAST LAP! Caitlyn has ALWAYS BEEN A WOMAN! She has also ALWAYS BEEN Caitlyn! How dare you say that it was Bruce running and not Caitlyn, that is just utterly transphobic and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community! Fact: Bruce Never Existed. She was always Cait. So as much as you want cisgendered, Republican, white male Bruce Jenner to have existed - he never did. It was always Cait, honey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@100.2.244.59: Calling OP "utterly transphobic and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community" is not in good faith. Just because the OP feels the article is written strangely as such doesn't mean they are transphobic. Zappa24Mati 22:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Have A Heart

The world knows that Cait is a SHE now. Why is the article loaded with "Jenner" in places that SHE can easily fit in. Especially in places where the use of SHE would possibly offend the transphobes that read this article. It's disgusting and completely offensive to the entire LGBT community when something like THIS is on a wikipedia article:

"Jenner was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974 and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue."

Are the transphobes that run this page ashamed to note that a SHE (Caitlyn) was the American champion in the men's decathlon? It's time the truth be revealed. Cait stands for honesty and truth - let's not HIDE anymore. Just change all those "Jenner"s in the article to SHE so that it can be clear that a PROUD WOMAN that was ALWAYS a WOMAN won those men events! Please have a heart for the entire LGBT community. Just think of how offensive it would be for a young trans-kid to come onto this article wanting to learn more about an icon in the trans-community in Cait and see that the authors of this page are hiding the fact that a WOMAN won the men's decathlon by not using the appropriate pronoun (SHE) but rather mask it with Cait's last name... shameful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This article has been carefully written to conform with MOS:IDENTITY, Wikipedia's guideline on gender identity. The reason "Jenner" is used in place of just "she" is (1) to avoid repetitiveness, which makes for a dull article comprised simply of "she did this, she did that" and (2) to avoid ambiguity – other women are mentioned in the article. It is standard to refer to all subjects of Wikipedia articles by their surname, not just transgender individuals. I can assure you that a concerted effort has been made to eliminate any language that could be perceived as transphobic. Also, I would suggest that in future you assume that other editors' contributions have been made with good intentions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed by IgnorantArmies. Please do not modify it.
OK, honey, I'll play your game. Can you explain what's the difference between saying "Jenner did this, Jenner did that" to "She did this, she did that" especially when the use of "She" would come right after "Jenner" was used about 10 times. It seems extremely suspicious to me that the parts that mention Cait winning MEN's sports, "Jenner" is used when "SHE" would be more appropriate and better to avoid the repetition of "Jenner". It's almost as if *gasp* the transphobic writers are getting their way to create the ambiguity that you claim to be fighting against. It needs to be made clear that a 100% woman - since birth - won the men's decathlon. Hiding behind "Jenner" instead of saying SHE is extremely transphobic, ambiguous, and offensive. I've had to swallow the bitter pill that is the refusal to swap out Cait's profile picture with one of CAITLYN, but I will NOT succumb to this one. I demand that SHE be used when talking about Cait's win of the men's decathlon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't (generally) work on the basis of anonymous demands. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Well excuse me, sugar cakes, but you better back on up with that attitude! I mighty fine know how Wikipedia works and I know for a fact that it works the way that's best for the masses. The fact is that I am declaring a VOTE on SHE being used instead of "Jenner" in the sentence that I previously posted. Take that, little girl. Oh, and by the way it is my RIGHT as an American to do whatever I want wherever I want. Go look up the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia, thank you and lose nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be heartless, but it's really weird to read about a man breaking male Olympic records and see the pronoun "she." If you want to be neutral, then acknowledge that Jenner was a man in the Olympics. By retrograding the gender change, we not only write a less true article, but we patronize the gender identity. Isn't that more heartless? 130.22.184.1 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That IS being heartless! What is the big deal with a pure breed 100% WOMAN winning the male Olympics? How is that weird? You stating that is heartless and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community! I demand an apology right now. Where are the Wikipedia moderators to deal with this bigotry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

130.22.184.1 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Your post justifies EXACTLY why this article needs to have it made clear that a woman won the men's Olympics. Just because you a cisgendered white male feels 'weird' about seeing the pronoun SHE linked to the person who won the men's Olympics doesn't mean we have to cater to you. GET USED TO IT. This isn't the 1950's anymore. Stoop trying to hide and regress all the advancements in the LGBTQ community just because you feel uncomfortable! Be on the RIGHT side of history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk)

I'm not going to get into the politics of the discussion here, but as an aide in answering the question of whether Caitlyn's surname is overused in this article, I conducted an analysis. In the introduction to the Wikipedia article about Niels Bohr, he is referred to as "Bohr" 10 times and with third person male pronouns 10 times. In the introduction to the article on Caitlyn Jenner, she is referred to as "Jenner" 7 times and with third person female pronouns 6 times.

While a difference does exist in the claimed direction, the results are broadly very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.118.246 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.118.246 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 

^^ To this guy... alright, you want to wage war with the LGBTQ community then BRING IT ON SISTER! I used your own weapon against you, little girl. My whole issue was that conveniently in the OLYMPICS section there was a deliberate attempt to avoid saying "SHE" or "HER" when talking about Cait and the Olympics. Well, the results are in! "Jenner" is used 18 times in that section, while "SHE" is used ONCE and "HER" is NEVER used. That just SCREAMS a deliberate attempt by the cisgendered privileged white males that run this place to hide and disassociate Cait - WHO WAS ALWAYS A WOMAN - from winning the men's Olympics. All I ask for specifically is this sentence: "Jenner was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974, and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue." be changed to: "SHE was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974, and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue." And also sprinkle a few more "SHE"s and "HER"s in there to even it out. It's CLEAR that for the Olympics section, there was malicious intent to purposefully avoid female pronouns and use "Jenner" instead. Get with the times people, it ain't 1950 anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, don't go calling editors "transphobic" for not sharing your exact point of view (which isn't even the point of view shared by all trans people). Claiming that someone who disagrees with you is suffering from a pseudo-medical disorder is offensive, and claiming that edits not made from your point of view were made with "malicious intent" violates our Assume Good Faith guideline. Second, asking for the record books to be changed to indicate that a woman won those men's events is not something that Caitlyn has ever done, as far as I know, and probably isn't something she would strongly fight for as it would indicate that she was never qualified to enter those events in the first place. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

^ Well Mr. Typical Cisgendered White Protestant Straight Male Response... I didn't ask to change the record books. All I asked was for the article to say that SHE was the American champion. That doesn't state that Caitlyn was fully transitioned when she won. It does the following: 1) Eliminate the repetitive use of "Jenner". A rather rude editor yelled at me about the reason "Jenner" and "she"/"her" were interchanged was to eliminate a repetitive usage of either. The Olympics section is LOADED with only "Jenner". Yes, I believe that was intentional by the editors here because they don't want to write an article about Caitlyn winning the Olympics and associating the female pronouns with the Olympic win. The other sections in the article have an about even usage of Jenner/female pronouns, so why is it ONLY the Olympics section with the usgae of Jenner/female pronouns: 18:1? Misogynistic and transphobic much? 2) The article is just stating that SHE (the subject ie Caitlyn) was the American champion in the men's decathlon. That's not changing history because SHE really WAS the American champion in the men's decathlon! I find your attitude extremely offensive to me. You can be as bigoted as you want in your personal life, but this is WIKIPEDIA. It is a public forum. That means you need to be tolerant and accepting of others, and not be hostile and offensive. So... please, Wikipedia editors, can more female pronouns be used in the Olympics sections ESPECIALLY changing the sentences I mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to use personal attacks every time you post and then accuse other editors, who have been nothing but rational and polite, of being hostile and offensive is making it seem like you are just trolling. I am not intolerant of anyone's gender identity or sexual orientation, but I have very little tolerance for people who think that insulting people and accusing everybody else of acting with malicious intent is the way to get what they want. If you wish to have a rational discussion about the content of the article, fine, but if you're just going to call people names then I think we're done here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a copy-edit of the Olympic career section, including swapping a few instances of "Jenner" to "she" (or otherwise re-wording), especially where the usage of "Jenner" felt stilted or awkward. To the IP, what you wanted changed was quite reasonable, but it would have been accomplished a lot sooner if you had adopted a better tone. You're welcome to create an account so that you make edits to protected pages yourself, but Wikipedia is a collaboration, so you would be expected to interact more civilly with other editors. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

^ You know, I thought you were on my side until you posted that lie. I checked the article and there are no changes. Thank you for raising my hopes that someone on here was not transphobic and not a bigot, but now it's been confirmed the otherwise. CVan another moderator deal with this situation please and make the appropriate changes that will make this article not a bigotry and hate motivated written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you've dragged this hoax out long enough. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I did make the changes, IP, but it appears another editor accidentally reverted it while making a different edit. I've restored it. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hoax? Honey please, all I asked for is some changes in the Olympics section. The real hoax is you as a moderator didn't help me in anyway at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Correction: On behalf of the entire LGBTQ community, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification close

Drmies (talk · contribs) has closed Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. Here is Drmies' conclusion:

In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation.

"This article" refers to Caitlyn Jenner. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to parse this out. Proposal 1 stated:

In articles outside of the biography itself, the timeframe of which only covers the period when the person self-identified as one gender, with a particular name, default to the historic name and gender.

But Drmies concludes that (per above):

...there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article.

My read is that the decision for this article is to revert to Jenner's historical identity, e.g. "his", "him", "Bruce", for the period when Jenner self-identified as male, which would be up to the 20/20 interview. Anyone disagree? Barte (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that when talking about Jenner historically, especially for sports accomplishments, use "him/he". For the interview, I think that's a little less clear has Jenner was in the process of transitioning publicly... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The complete transition was clear in the Vanity Faire cover story, a work-in-progress with 20/20. Barte (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My read was that this article referred to 1976 Summer Olympics, not Caitlyn Jenner. The only option that would seem to apply to the Caitlyn Jenner article was Option 2, which was rejected, but rejection of that option, when combined with the consensus around option 1, indicates that the timeframe should be taken into account for some specific articles, but nothing in the close indicated to me that MOS:IDENTITY didn't still apply to the main biography. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Drmies should clarify what they meant by "application of proposal 1 to this article". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point: I see now that this wasn't altogether clear. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's the 1976 article (and other articles outside of the biography proper), though the conversation that led to it took place on Talk:CJ. And Ahecht is correct that "proposal 1" logically can't really refer to the Jenner article, though the others do. And since, as you saw, I read the consensus somewhat narrowly (I think), I don't see sufficient ground for applying proposal 1 to, for instance, to the Jenner article up until the transition, for instance. However, one certainly senses that many of the "supports" for 1 would support that as well, a dual usage in the Jenner article, but since that was not the original question we can't decide that much based on the discussion--though we can surmise a thing or to. Strikes me as an excellent reason to have an RfC on the talk page to settle it. Ahecht and others, thank you for the question; Cunard, my apologies--I knew I was going to make a mistake somewhere, and this lack of clarification certainly counts as one. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Drmies. Barte (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Drmies (talk · contribs), for misunderstanding what "this article" referred to. Cunard (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• So, moving forward, it looks like we need a similar RfC for this article. Who is going to start one? I for one, dislike and object to the use of the female pronoun before Jenner's transition -- especially since he competed in athletics and won awards in the Men's category of those competitions. As with all things Wikipedian, I think it best to follow the usage of the reportage at the time. I'd like to see a carefully worded RfC for this article, so that hopefully in the end the reader does not experience a disconnect while reading it. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with Softlavender here about disliking and objecting to use of the female pronoun before Jenner's transition. We end up with sentences like:  "She was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974,"  and  "She was married to Chrystie Scott (née Crownover) from 1972 to 1981...... ."  One makes it sound like Jenner competed in the wrong gender category; the other makes it sound like Jenner was in a same-sex marriage for a time. Neither, of course, is true, and they sound ludicrous! I don't think we want Wikipedia to become a laughingstock. When talking about any event in Jenner's life, I believe we should use the pronoun that applied to Jenner at the time of the event.
  Richard27182 (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean, you think the rule should be "Any person whose gender may be questioned should be referred to..." Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Georgia guy.  I want to reply but I honestly don't understand your question. If you would expand a bit about what you mean and/or give an example, I will be happy to reply with my opinion.
Richard27182 (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the appropriate section of WP:MOS and you'll see what I mean. Georgia guy (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Georgia guy.  By "the appropriate section of WP:MOS" do you mean:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY

OR

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification

OR

• Something else ?

Please provide a wiki link. I will be happy to read whatever you want me to read and reply with my comments (overnight because I'm going out now for the rest of the day).

Richard27182 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's on the MOS, not the village pump. Go to Wikipedia:Manual of style and do the appropriate search.

Hello Georgia guy.  (Please remember to sign your postings.)  Having just read it, I'll agree that MOS:IDENTITY does apparently represent the view you yourself hold.  However that does not mean that I personally agree with that particular element of the MOS.  Please read the closing of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification where it says:

• In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY [emphasis added].  Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies's suggestion that we need to revisit the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY (concerning that particular element of it).  And I am ready to do my part in initiating and supporting that broader conversation.  Thank you for making me aware of this situation.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Name and gender change paperwork filed today

{{Admin help}} If her gender and name has not been formally adjudicated yet why do we have to be so fearful about the fine points? What if it does not get approved by the authority having jurisdiction? She is only submitting the paperwork today, according to reliable news sources. Over in the Kendall Jenner there was a pending changes request to drop Bruce as her birth parent and change it to Caitlyn which I approved but somebody reverted it to say Bruce (now known as Caitlyn). I thought per the WP Arbitration Committee we are ordered to refer to her as she from the beginning of her life? In which case, Kendall was born to Kris and Caitlyn, not to Kris and Bruce. Decisions made regarding content on Caitlyn's page should apply to all the pages she is mentioned on. Oh, and that photo is hideous even for Bruce. I hope Caitlyn sends us some better ones. Checkingfax (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, why do you need admin help for this? {{Admin help}} is used only for issues that only administrators can resolve. I will put {{Help needed}} below. Epic Genius (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

_{adding the helpme tag in the middle of a discussion is not the proper use of the tag. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)}

yeah, but it's the only place where it would even make sense in my comment. Epic Genius (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to answer your question @Checkingfax, we should optimally refer to Jenner as she wants to be called; however, we should not unnecessarily confuse the reader as well. According to MOS:ID, Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in the article.

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 applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., she became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).

So basically, if Jenner was a man when s/he fathered Kendall (and Kylie), the article should probably reflect that. So "Bruce (now Caitlyn)" is fine. Epic Genius (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bruce (now Caitlyn)" is obviously fine, and is preferable to "Caitlyn (then Bruce)", for cognitive dissonance reasons. It would be outright falsification to only use "Caitlyn" in such a context. Why was this even an argument?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Photos should face text

Is there a way to move the info box to the left so her infobox photo faces the text per MOS:IMAGES? Checkingfax (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

While it is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text, consistency between infoboxes is much more important, and there are virtually no article on the english wikipedia with infoboxes on the left. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox on the left or using image manipulation software to roate would be appropriate. Or moving the image down to the left side of the body text. This is about the harshest most glaring example on Wikipedia about how not to face an image. It is already a harsh image of Caitlyn which is exacerbated by its unpreferred orientation. Checkingfax (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:IMGLOC: "images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer" --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Car crash details

In the personal life section, the following sentence appears to be inacurrate "Kim Howe, an animal rights activist and actress, was killed when Jenner's SUV ran into Howe's car which had just run into the back of another car". Howe's car was rear-ended by Jenner. However, it seems Howe never ran into any car before that (Footage of the accident, Accident Reconstruction , picture when Jenner's SUV hit Howe's car). You might also add that Jenner's SUV ran into a second car. Could someone with the ability to edit semi-protected article take care of this ? MaccouM (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed the article, relying on the most recent LA Times report, which gives two accounts but nothing definitive on the record:

Initially, investigators said Howe rear-ended Steindorff’s Prius and then Jenner hit Howe’s Lexus. But Steindorff's attorney, Robert Simon, has said the crash unfolded differently. After hitting the Lexus, Jenner’s SUV continued traveling and slammed into Steindorff’s car, Simon said. A law enforcement source, not authorized to discuss the investigation, said the evidence supports that version of events.

My take is that until we have a definitive account of what happened, we should just say that accounts have varied. Barte (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Barte. MaccouM (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Change picture on page to Caitlyn NOT Bruce

I believe that Caitlyn has been female for long enough now for it to be easy to find a picture of her as a female. She is no longer 'Bruce' and has fully transitioned into life as a woman, Caitlyn. Therefore I think it would be fair and decent to change the picture on this page to one of Caitlyn and not Bruce. She has been a very brave individual and has been through an awful lot, let's show her the respect she deserves. 94.1.241.37 (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.
Please note that any picture you propose using must not be copyright, which excludes almost all images that you find on the internet, in magazines etc., and you will need proof that it is not copyright, just saying it is not copyright is not acceptable.
I agree a more recent picture would be useful, but AFAIK Jenner is being very careful about issuing/allowing pictures to be taken, so finding a copyright free image could be difficult. Arjayay (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I TOTALLY agree! It's clear that more and more people are trying to be heard that the profile picture is offensive and transphobic. Just ask Caitlyn for an image because this article is incredibly offensive! Caitlyn has been through too much to be insulted by Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a photo of Jenner aged 62. Adopting a new look at 65 does not make photos from three years previously, offensive. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If fans are offended, they can take their own advice and petition Jenner to release a non-copyrighted image (properly licensed for Wikipedia use) on the Commons for this article's use. This is an option for any person with a Wikipedia article, isn't it? Apparently it is the burden of those of us un-bothered by the image to ask Jenner for a new one, and not the burden of those who want it replaced? 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. There's no assignment desk on Wikipedia. If you want a more recent picture of Jenner on this much-visited Wikipedia entry, petition her to release one. Barte (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You're offended? Who cares. Many Muslims are offended by Wikipedia's use of artistic depictions of Muhammad, but Wikipedia is not censored to cater to those who take offense to things. The current image is of Jenner a few years ago, and you can't pretend that's not a fact. If you can find an appropriate recent image of Jenner, feel free to add it. Otherwise, stop whining about "being offended" because it will get you nowhere. Crumpled Fire (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it is repulsive that the Wikipedia editors are laughing off the disgust of users just because they feel they are superior because they are cisgendered straight white males. Secondly, it is clear at how transphobic the aforementioned Wikipedia editors (who believe themselves to be gods, no less!) are because they refuse to even try to find an appropriate image and rather hold on to the image of a male Jenner as they cannot accept CAITLYN MARIE as a WOMAN, something that she ALWAYS WAS - YES EVEN WHEN SHE WON THE OLYMPICS! Thirdly, was it that hard to find a beautiful image of Caitlyn? Here you go: http://cdn3.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/675x380/2015/06/caitlyn_jenner_vf.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of assumptions being made here about the gender and feelings of fellow Wikipedians here. It is not transphobic to be too lazy to find a new photo. Surely you share this trait not finding it yourself? 64.228.90.87 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, where is the proof that that image from THR has a compatible free license or meets our fair-use criteria? Finding an image is not as simple as doing a Google image search for "Caitlyn Jenner". Don't accuse other editors of suffering from pseudo-medical disorders or make assumptions about their gender and race when you are unable to find an appropriate image yourself. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Subsection or anchor for collision

Would it be okay to have this? Where My Country Gone? makes multiple references to Jenner's driving (runs over a woman at start and end and people ignore and keep cheering) and being able to link directly to where it is discussed in the article would be helpful for considering the incident at the article's talk page.

I don't recall Stunning and Brave making reference to this but its strong focus on Jenner seems worth a mention. Maybe in an "influence on culture" section or "depictions in media" perhaps? 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)]

I agree that being the subject of parody on South Park is a notable measure of cultural currency. But in these two episodes, Jenner is at the edges of the stories, not the center. I'd prefer to see the latter before adding. Barte (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Stunning and Brave has Caitlyn Jenner at the center of the plot, complete with the title. The joke continues on the second episode, where she bookends the episode with her driving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. I've added a paragraph to the Gender Transition section. Barte (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Division of the coming out material, that it's in both the Personal life and Gender transition section

Since Mark Miller's division of this material (see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 8#Having the Gender transition section as part of the Personal life section....again), there have been issues with the division. That is seen with this this, this, this, this and this edit. WP:Pinging Checkingfax and Nightscream, since these edits concern them and me. I started this section for more discussion of the current division setup. If editors feel that the current division setup is fine, we'll continue with that. And for why there is a division setup, do read enough of the "Having the Gender transition section as part of the Personal life section....again" discussion I linked to in this paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner is a long article to assimilate and can be a Vulcan mind meld. Readers that parachute in to the Personal life section are cut short on the full Gender transition topic.

The Gender transition subheading should be removed because it fools the mind. Checkingfax (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is not that big, certainly not on the WP:SIZE scale or judging by the table of contents. If readers dive right into the Personal life section, they will see the Gender transition section soon after it. So one section leads nicely into the other, despite the fact that I see the division of the coming out material as unnecessary. Plus, readers can easily see the section titles from the table of contents. What I see as a problem is if readers dive right into the Gender transition section; if they do this without knowing of the coming out material covered in the Personal life section, they will have skipped the coming out material that's there. And if we remove the Gender transition heading, that would make it so that all of that content is a part of the Personal life section when it is more so a public life matter. As noted in the aforementioned discussion, my problem with having all of the gender transition material in the Personal life section is that the vast majority of it cannot simply be described as "personal life." That stated, we could validly combine all of the material into one section (with subsections remaining, of course) by putting it under the title Personal life and public image. Or something similar. Yes, Jenner's Olympic career was also a part of her public image, but that's covered higher up in the article, and her Olympic fame is not what her public image mostly concerns these days. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have suggested Personal life and media attention as the heading, but the Olympic and Post-Olympic aspects of the article are also "media attention." Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the gender transition being very much a public thing. My proposed solution is that the last two paragraphs of the "Personal life" section as it currently stands be moved into the "Gender transition" section, and then the rest of the "Personal life" section be moved down to appear after the "Gender transition" section. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I wasted your time Flyer22. My bad. Strike what I said and reverse it. What I meant to type was that if somebody parachutes in to the Gender transition section or skims down to it they will miss the Gender transition paragraph in the Personal life section. They will also miss a helpful nugget of detail about the 20/20 interview as that is in the Personal life section too. Checkingfax (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think having the gender transition material divided between two sections makes the article very confusing to read through. I don't really get the reasoning behind the split. Section headings are about making an article that is clear, has a natural flow, and can easily be scanned and navigated. Ontological debates about whether gender transition (or a portion of it) is truly a subspecies of personal life are only marginally relevant.--Trystan (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the Personal life section should have a brief, factual mention of the gender transition, and the media events surrounding it should be in a separate media section. She is most notable for 2 things: Olympic decathalon gold medalist, and a very public gender transition of a notable public figure. Those two events should have their own sections or at least subsections. Minor4th 18:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal life is generally where I place (and where I have noticed others place) things about a person's life that is generally not a part of their public life. Whereas public life sections include not only the work for which they may be known (i.e.: the parts played by an actor or albums by a musician), but also the charity work they've done and the political causes they've championed and candidates they've endorsed (since those activities are usually done to be deliberately public), I usually include things like relationships, children, hobbies, medical status and sometimes their death in Personal life.

Jenner's transition is not merely "personal", since she has made it a point to make it public.

In addition, it I think it may be appropriate to split it into its own article, since it easily qualifies under Notability guidelines, by virtue of the sources available for it, and the fact that it represents a considerable milestone for the LGBT community that qualifies it as its own topic. This would also give some of the details of that topic room to breathe, while the parent article would summarize that material more briefly, and include a link to that split article. Nightscream (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nightscream, it had its own article, but the consensus was to merge it back into this one; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition of Caitlyn Jenner. Now it looks like this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• For what is worth, I don't think we need a "personal life" section. The entire article is about the subject and the concept of "public" verses "personal" tends to get un-encyclopedic in the manner it gets presented. I support losing the "Personal life" section and incorporating the material into the "Gender transition" and /or other relevant areas within the article. Basically we are just creating redundant content there.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I meant to state this earlier, but I that think this and this edit by Television fan (talk · contribs) acts as sort of a compromise and/or solution to the division of the content. It makes it so that it is clear that the Personal life content about the gender aspect is more so about coming out, which means that the Gender transition section is more so about the transition and aftermath of coming out. Of course, it still remains that the Gender transition section is mainly about the media attention the coming out aspect received. So the division can still be problematic in a chronological sense when updating the Personal life section with post-gender transition material. So this is part of why I suggested the change of heading aspect that I suggested above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Cisgender is mainstream and germane

Cisgender is mainstream and germane. If cisgender was a neologism it would not qualify to have its own Wikipedia article. Cisgender is also in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not a MOS:NEO violation. I am rolling back. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax is referring to this and this revert of mine. Checkingfax, cisgender is not mainstream; that it recently entered the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (in June 2015) does not make it mainstream. It is indeed a neologism. And as made clear at WP:Neologism, some neologisms can have their own Wikipedia articles. Like I stated at Talk:Gender dysphoria, "since cisgender is a neologism, I do think that we should generally avoid that word on Wikipedia; this is per MOS:Neo and WP:Neo. [...] the general public has never heard of it; when we can use clearer language, but without offending transgender people, we should. [...] The average person doesn't know what it means, and, considering that I've used it in discussions when trying to educate people on transgender issues, only to have those people even more confused upon hearing it and many of them still not wanting to use it afterward, I definitely have experience with just how underused it is. As for its offensiveness, well, if you go by the current state of the Cisgender talk page, you will see some people calling the term cisgender offensive; some of them are likely WP:Trolling. And you can see from the Cisgender article, that use of the term is criticized in addition to being accepted. I'm not against ever using the term cisgender on Wikipedia; it's rather that I am more so for clearer language (layperson language) being used when it can be reasonably used. As someone who deals with anatomy Wikipedia articles, other medical and biological Wikipedia articles, WP:Technical, WP:Jargon and MOS:Neo are guidelines that I am often aware of. As another option, a person can also WP:Pipelink cisgender with clearer language."

I reverted you not only because the general public has never heard of the word, but because you used it in places where plain English should suffice, and because you went overboard with it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet you re-added the jargon. I don't know what you mean by "compromise", but I'm certain that a WP:RfC on this matter will result in all of those cisgender additions being removed. That is, if someone else doesn't revert you first. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems that Checkingfax has nothing else to state on this matter and is determined to include that word in multiple places within the article, I've started a WP:RfC on this matter below. I see no need to wait, given how Checkingfax has responded and considering that this is a highly viewed article. It's also the weekend, so editor participation is lower. I would hope that Checkingfax is not trying to promote greater usage of that word by thoroughly advertising it in this article. Also, for hopefully wider commentary, I will alert Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to this discussion since it concerns MOS:NEO and WP:Neo. Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article?

For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, or arriving here via one of the talk page alerts, see the section immediately above this one for more detail. This edit shows the disputed content. One view is that "Cisgender is mainstream and germane. If cisgender was a neologism it would not qualify to have its own Wikipedia article. Cisgender is also in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not a MOS:NEO violation." The other view is that "cisgender is not mainstream; that it recently entered the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (in June 2015) does not make it mainstream. It is indeed a neologism. And as made clear at WP:Neologism, some neologisms can have their own Wikipedia articles. [...] since cisgender is a neologism [...] the general public has never heard of [we should use clearer language when it can be reasonably used]."

So should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article? If one or two of the uses are okay, then what are they? Or should those one or two uses be placed elsewhere in the article? Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Neologism or not, widely understood or not, they don't add anything, do they? It's like editing Douglas Bader's entry to say "Bader was born bipedal on 21 February 1910...". --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't even think the term is being used correctly. Cisgender isn't a verb (at least not that I've seen), so it makes no sense to say someone was "born and cisgendered". I assume assigned male at birth is what is meant, but including that is just unnecessary. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also agree. Until the term starts showing up in mainstream obituaries, I think it's a neologism for our purposes, and per above, an unnecessary stumbling block for readers. Barte (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Since "cisgender" is a term that is complementary to "transgender", and since it is an as yet uncommonly used term, it is probably better to use it only if and when "transgender" is used. If worded correctly, then "cisgender" will be more easily understood in context by readers who have not yet heard the term. Also, since "transgender" may be used as the past participle "transgendered", the usage of "cisgendered", even though verb forms are not yet common, can be expected to eventually enter the vernacular. This term is "cutting edge" much like this encyclopedia is. Painius  14:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, "transgendered" is frowned upon. (Probably for no apparent reason, but hey). Edit: and it's not just the one person saying that, I've seen that opinion quite a few times. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case the verb form of "cisgender" will probably elicit the same negativity at this time, so its use as "cisgendered" should be avoided in the same way that "transgendered" would be avoided. It's use as a noun or an adjective should be allowed in the context I described above. Painius  01:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• COMMENT/VOTE: I strongly urge that cisgendered be used frequently in this article. Caitlyn's article is mainly about education of the transgender community (her biggest claim to fame). So it is obvious that cisgender will be used in this article. It's amazing how the cisgender straight white males here that feel this is the 1950's will hide important terminology just to maintain their agenda. Wake up! It's 2015! Wikipedia is about education and research, and Cait's article is all about the trans-cause so I think it just makes sense to mention the word cisgender at least once (or is this against the Bible?) Please make this happen immediately! I am offended by how undetailed the article is without mentioning Cait's unfortunate cisgender status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I say again, I think you've dragged this hoax out long enough. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Calling me and my beliefs and who I support a "hoax" is completely offensive to me! Like, how dare you? My identity is my own and my beliefs are my own, and for you to not accept them and see them as a "hoax" are just like all the haters still calling precious and innocent Cait a man! In the words of Cait, "I can take it" but there are others on Wikipedia who can't and I will stand up for them and demand that you apologize for your hate-filled comments to me and ask that you refrain from being offensive to others on here. Wikipedia is a group effort, let's try and be helpful and respectful of each other - no matter how different we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. Cisgender should not be used to describe non-transgendered people in this article. None of the RS use it in articles about Jenner and it is not a word that has wide usage in the overall population as describing a non-transgendered person. Ordinary language and understsnding does not require an specific label (cis or cusgender) to identify a person as not transgendred -- it is assumed. Just like sources do not use the modifier "straight" to describe all peopke who are not gay. Minor4th 18:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• YES Cisgendered is a term that goes hand in hand with transgenders. Therefore it's only obvious that an article that is about a young and stunning trans-woman would include the word. It's rather offensive that some people want to hide the word from the rest of the world. One mention isn't going to kill anyone, but rather it will educate which is what Wikipedia is all about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Ah, that discretionary sanctions template got my attention.

For "Caitlyn Marie Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949)" I would suggest "Caitlyn Marie Jenner (female; born and identified as male William Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949)" Cisgender cannot be used here because Jenner would not have a sense of her gender identity at birth.

For other references about Jenner: Even if we accept that Jenner had a sense of herself as male during most of her life as qualifying to refer to her as cisgender during that period, it would need to be referred to in the active sense. By using cisgender as a verb, that implies that others were forcing her to believe she was male. Do we have any reliable citations that she now believes that to be the case, that she would have discovered it much earlier? (Perhaps we do. If so, then it might be relevant. But it probably would belong in a separate paragraph, not slipped in via a verb.)

As a sidenote, if the {{Transgender sidebar}} template were to gain a "Spokespeople" section and Jenner were to be noted as a spokesperson, which she may or may not already be at this point, then the Transgender sidebar would belong on this page.

And yes, let's avoid attacking people. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if cisgender is used, it would be good to make the first use a Wikilink and possibly even explain it on first use. I agree with the comment that if it is used, that its first use be shortly after the word "transgender". Since it can't (since it refers to self-identification) be used to refer to Jenner at birth, that would not be difficult to arrange. Thisisnotatest (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Change focus This RfC is phrased as a referendum on the propriety of "cisgender," and that seems like asking for a fight that doesn't need to be fought. It was removed from this article because it was being used wrong. It's an adjective and it was being used as a verb, and it was applied to a person to whom it did not apply. Removing a word that is being used incorrectly, neologism or not, politically loaded or not, should not be treated as controversial. We can cross the "is cisgender standard English?" question when we actually come to it. By then, it will have at least a slightly longer pedigree. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I thought about having the WP:RfC titled "Should cisgender be included in this article?" And maybe with the addition of "If so, how?" But I went with "Should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article?" because I don't have an issue with the term cisgender being used somewhere in the article; what I had an issue with is how the term was used, and how often it was used. And it didn't seem that the other editor would budge on the matter (as you can see, that editor still has yet to continue the discussion or weigh in on this WP:RfC). So going with the title I chose seemed better, even though I perceived it as a little pointy/combative. How do you think I should have titled the WP:RfC? Or are you thinking I shouldn't have started one? I explained in the section immediately above this one why I started it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is misconduct or anything like that, but it could have been much more efficient. A few people here are responding as if the issue were whether "cisgender" should be allowed or banned entirely. If it were me, I'd have kept it to those specific edits and skipped any mention of WP:NEO, etc., or at least kept them as afterthoughts rather than the main focus: "Is 'cisgender' being used correctly? Is it the best way to express this meaning? Is it a neologism?" in that order. As for whether you should have started this RfC at all, if the other editor was reverting your correct and legitimate removal of "cisgender," then yes, taking some action, whether a third opinion or an RfC or just inviting more people to talk, is appropriate, though an RfC seems like the heaviest of these options. Basically, I think this should have been a non-issue, but if it isn't a non-issue, what are you going to do? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The neologism aspect was a part of the dispute, though, so I felt I needed to mention that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I find that "cisgender" meets the criteria stipulated in WP:NEO, that there be secondary sources that discuss and explain its meaning (in addition to RS that use it). Since WP:NEO primarily addresses whether there should be articles about a word, I'll say that I also personally feel that it's appropriate to use the word on Wikipedia. Because it's so recently gone mainstream, the case could be made that there might be a better word than "cisgender" in any given instance. However, I wouldn't support a blanket ban on a legit word. In this article, though, the word was used incorrectly and its removal was proper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:NEO, rather than WP:NEO, is more so what applies in this case. In the #Cisgender is mainstream and germane section above, I explained my reasons for why I think we should generally avoid the word cisgender. The word is gaining more attention, but I certainly wouldn't call it mainstream. For example, Thisisnotatest listed a source below that asks "Will 'Cisgender' Survive?." Similarly, MOS:NEO states, "[Neologisms] should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last." Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh. "Cisgender" also meets the criteria given in MOS:NEO. In addition to less concrete qualifications, it has appeared in multiple general-audience dictionaries, including Oxford and American Heritage.[1] There might be a better word than "cisgender" in any given case, but it's certainly among our legitimate options. A word can be new without being a neologism in the sense that is meant here. Like I said, should the issue of "is 'cisgender' appropriate for use n Wikipedia?" actually come up, its history will by then have become at least a little longer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, cisgender is a neologism. I considered starting a wide-scale discussion about that. But given your comments about it, I suppose I might, especially since I see editors adding it in places where plain English should suffice. MOS:NEO states, "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions." That is certainly what the word cisgender is. It generally appears in isolated circumstances, especially in relation to transgender topics. Does it generally appear in general-interest dictionaries? No. It has gotten more attention in recent yeas, and entered the OED in 2015. The word flexitarian was listed in the mainstream Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in 2012; that doesn't mean that flexitarian is no longer a neologism.

And like the aforementioned 2014 source I pointed you to states, "However, the politics of 'cisgender' have already proven divisive. Perhaps the most surprising protests are coming from the left—from people, that is, who might otherwise be counted on to support the transgender movement. There are feminists who balk at the idea that cisgender women are privileged in relation to transgender women, who were born male. Among other potential benefits, such as 'passing' as men in a patriarchal culture, transgender women don't have to worry about reproductive rights. The Huffington Post recently collected a grab-bag of very mixed reactions to 'cisgender' from the gay community. It's clear that some gay men and lesbians see 'cisgender' as a slur, a way of labeling them as elitists or conformists after all (i.e., as not 'queer' enough). Some think 'cisgender' validates the notion that there are two (and only two) genders, correlating with two (and only two) sexes, just as many are exploring non-binary gender identities, such as 'genderqueer.' All of which brings us back to the problem of the word 'cisgender' itself. Linguists agree that the survival of a neologism relies, above all, on whether it names a stable and coherent concept, an idea that will last. It's the uncertainty of the concept behind the word 'cisgender,' for now, that really hints at trouble." Not much has changed since then with regard to what that source states about the term. Note that the source is clear that cisgender is a neologism. It's a neologism that some people object to, as noted by that source and by other sources in its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Neologisms are not objectionable per se. Selfie, YouTuber, upvote, and cryptocurrancy are all neologisms and used on Wikipedia. The issue here is more a political one being argued with NEO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And I didn't state that neologisms are necessarily objectionable. MOS:NEO and WP:NEO do not state or imply that either. I've been clear why I generally object to using cisgender on Wikipedia. Also, what do you mean by "The issue here is more a political one being argued with NEO"? Judging by why the editor added the term in multiple places in the article, and the IP arguments in this thread (whether or not one considers that IP a WP:Troll because of various comments he or she has made under different IPs), I'd definitely state that some who are seeking to add the term are doing so for political reasons. And, anyway, sources about the term are clear that it is very much a political term; it's one the LGBT community as a whole can't even agree on. My objecting to the term is not political, but I certainly consider the political motivations of using or shunning the term, meaning why some people want to use it and why some people do not want to use it. This term is not close to being as accepted as the term transgender is, and it's nowhere close to being as popular. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to using the word "cisgender" somewhere in the article if inline-cited by major mainstream objective independent neutral WP:RSs, but the disputed usages/placements that Flyer22 highlighted [2] are truly bizarre and uncalled-for, and not supported by a single objective independent neutral WP:RS. This is just some bizarre hoax or POV gone very wrong. We should only use the word "cisgender" if and when and as it is used by major mainstream objective independent neutral WP:RS (like, say, the New York Times) regarding Jenner. This goes without saying -- it is basic Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Clearly all you cisgendered straight white males don't watch I AM CAIT (so why the hell do you all even have power on this page?) and it was clearly a major topic in the episode what cisgender meant. That was seen by at least 1 million people, so the answer is clear - the world knows what cisgender means. Caitlyn said it about herself, so how about you put it in this article to make sure that people know that she was cisgender as Bruce and she's finally free and beautiful as Cait! Kthnx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• No per Softlavender. If mainstream, independent reliable sources use the term cisgender for reasons that might add encyclopedic value, a mention might occur here. However, the proposed usage is not suitable—Wikipedia follows mainstream sources, not leads. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The Kendall Jenner article handles cisgendering well but "Bruce" is only uttered once in that article. Wikipedia redirects readers from cisgendered to the cisgender article and the cisgender article goes on to define cisgendered. In a compromise edit I left "at birth" intact and appended it with cisgendered. Anybody taking umbrage or having better phrasing was welcome to edit, but instead chose to blank it within 15 minutes of being added. Caitlyn was cised as Bruce at birth. How do we properly document that? As an aside, since I posted on the Talk page about my rolling back intentions it would have been courteous to ping me and discuss with others before reverting. In fact, the first time I added cisgendered it could have been bounced around here before being reverted. Its original inclusion was non controversial. Checkingfax (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I don't see what about your edit after I reverted you was a compromise. As for discussion, you started the #Cisgender is mainstream and germane section, and declared that you would be reverting (note that WP:Rollback is different); you did so without even bothering to discuss the matter with me. I explained in that section why your "cisgender" additions did not belong. And I don't see why I need to WP:Ping you to a section that you started, or on an article that you regularly edit. Put the article on your WP:Watchlist if it's not already on it. Don't expect people to WP:Ping you for each reply. It is your job to follow up on a section you started, whether the article is on your WP:Watchlist or not. It is your job to reply. I did my part on responding. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And none of your edits on this matter, seen here, here and here, were non-controversial. Comments in this WP:RfC show that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• A strong No.  I'd never even heard the term "cisgender" before, and I very seriously doubt even one out of ten people have. If that word is not a neologism then I don't know what is. I agree with Flyer22 that "we should use clearer language when it can be reasonably used."  Also I've read saved (view history) copies of the article using the word, and to me it sounds ridiculous. I also agree with Softlavender that "We should only use the word "cisgender" if and when and as it is used by major mainstream objective independent neutral WP:RS (like, say, the New York Times)".  I believe that the article as it exists as of this writing (06:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)) meets all Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, and does so without being dragged onto the "euphemism treadmill."
  Richard27182 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes to using with appropriate edits, No to verbing. I did a Google search on cisgender (and also on cisgender jenner) and in the first three pages of the results came up with uses of cisgender in the following articles. Given that these publications are fine using it in headlines and discussing the word (and writing satire about it), it's safe to say that "cisgender" is on people's radar, including with regard to discussions of Caitlyn Jenner. Please don't derail the RfC. The question is whether it belongs as used in this article. And if not, it's better to improve rather than revert. Please drop the "hoax" business; it's insulting.

The Atlantic: Will 'Cisgender' Survive?

The Federalist: We’re Sorry For Producing Our Cisgendered Son (satire)

The Independent: Cisgender has been added to the Oxford English Dictionary

Huffington Post: If Trans People Said All The Things Cisgender People Say...

Elle: Laverne Cox on Cisgender Actors Playing Trans Roles

Time: This Is What Cisgender Means

Huffington Post: Caitlyn Jenner Isn’t Threatening Your Womanhood

Huffington Post: Laverne Cox's Reaction To Caitlyn Jenner Reveals The Impossible Expectations Trans Women Face

Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• This RFC is a mess. It seems to have been drafted as a quick reaction to a single user's insertion of several erroneous uses of cisgender into the article — it would have been better to wait a few more hours and let other users join the thread above, and they would have removed the misuses as they indeed have. This RFC was never necessary, and has predictably strayed off topic, with several of the users above giving opinions (pro and con) on the unasked question of whether cisgender should be used at all in Wikipedia. The misuses have been removed; no uses remain. Does anything remain to be done, or can the RFC be procedurally closed as moot? Given how many participants are talking past each other about two different things, I'm not sure what other resolution it could potentially reach. (As a side note, Darkfrog is correct that cisgender is not a neologism in the sense NEO is concerned with; they do a good job of explaining why.) -sche (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I will be starting that aforementioned wider discussion on the use of cisgender then, because stating that it is not a neologism makes not a bit of sense to me, and I am tired of seeing editors using it in place of plain English. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And considering the WP:Reliable sources I have calling it a neologism, in addition to the fact that, on average, people have never heard of the term, it will not be difficult to prove the case that it is a neologism. It will be difficult for those arguing that it is not a neologism to prove that it isn't one and to pinpoint with WP:Reliable sources when it suddenly became "not a neologism." Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should start that wider discussion @Flyer22:. While there are probably a few sentences on Wikipedia where "cisgender" is a better choice than some other more common term, they're probably very rare. Regardless of whether "cisgender" falls under MOS:NEO right now, most of the time, some other word will be better for reasons that have nothing to do with gender politics or privilege. Asking for a blanket community decision about "cisgender" is a fight that doesn't need to be fought, at least not yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I was considering it, but okay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a debate over whether Cisgender is a neologism or not is the issue (it has had a Wikipedia article for 13 years and is wikilinked in hundreds of other articles, so by this time it clearly isn't, and the term can be wikilinked to that article). The issue is if and how to use it in this article, if backed up by excellent independent RS. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Change focus-

Cisgendered was reverted for WP:NEO. Oxford lists it; cisgendered redirects to an article about it.

Cisgendered was reverted a 2nd time for being used as a non-existent verb. The cisgender article uses cisgendered three times, with reliable references attached to each use.

The article is now devoid of the word cisgender.

On TV Caitlyn has updated her status to cisgender.

Checkingfax (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You've made those arguments before but they have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, which is to use cited information from the best major objective reliable neutral sources that are independent of the subject. There's no reason to clutter the article with unnecessary and obviously confusing jargon when the major RSs on the subject do not. Case closed. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Per what I've stated above, I can't agree that cisgender is not a neologism. This is why I also stated that I have WP:Reliable sources citing it as one; they range from 2009 to 2015. But this discussion has served its purpose and should now be closed. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

While the article cisgender does say "cisgendered" twice, the word is used an adjective, not a verb. It is not correct to use "cisgender" as a verb, as in the cases that have been deleted from this article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Using the term, just like much of the unnecessary insertion of female pronouns, is using this very public article to promote the terminology and further general knowledge about the transgender topic. I'm fine with using that terminology in the transgender sections. There is a lot to say about what happened in 2015, during and beyond the transition. However, if we use any pronouns prior to 2015, we should use ones that refer to the person Jenner represented to be at that time. That would also mean using the name Bruce (not William by the way), easily sourceable, as it appears in athletics records, articles and show credits. As a compromise, as I go out of my way to edit, pronouns should be avoided in describing the first 65 years of Jenner's life. That still leads to a confusing article, but less confusing than the artificial forced insertion of female pronouns to prove a WP:POINT. I resent the way WP:POV PUSHING WP:ADVOCATEs have manipulated the system in order to write the WP:MOS to specifically override a host of Wikipedia policies in order to force this pointiness, particularly in the strong-arm tactics, censorship and threats toward people who express a different view. The attitudes exposed around this subject go completely against the collegial attitude we should have here on wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we should NOT use female pronouns for the first 65 years of Jenner's life. Nor should we be forced to avoid male pronouns, especially considering the consensus on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_121#MOS:IDENTITY_clarification, and especially considering he competed in and won numerous MEN'S awards. It's time either to stop that nonsense now, or to create an RfA for the pronouns in this article. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• No: Per Minor4th. The relevant question isn't whether "cisgendered" is an accurate term, but whether it's used in the sources. Wikipedia is built on sourcing. Looking through the sourcing used in this article, the term clearly isn't used in most (if any) of the sources. It's WP:OR for us to add it to certain parts of the article. Let the sources speak for themselves. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• No: It's a politically loaded advocacy neologism that is meaningless to probably 99%+ of our readers, and non-neutral soapboxing in the view of many who do know what it means. One use is sufficient, if it's actually needed. It would be better in a direct quotation, not in WP's own voice, and should be in relation to something closely tied to a gender studies issue, like public response to Jenner's coming out as TG, or Jenner's own statements about gender dysphoria; it should not be used in any kind of WP:AEIS way, making analytical assumptions or interpretations of whether something in Jenner's life raised cisgenderism issues, etc. Also agreed we should not use female pronouns for the earlier part of Jenner's life, or otherwise falsify objective history to satisfy the assumptions some of us are making about what Jenner's own preferences might be with regard to that past and how it's referred to. See MOS:IDENTITY: Avoid confusing usage of language, especially pronouns. Use alternative wording to avoid the need. There's no issue with using "she", however, to refer to Jenner in the present.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Under Early Life: She attended Sleepy Hollow High School in Sleepy Hollow, New York, during her freshman and sophomore years and Newtown High School in Newtown, Connecticut, during her junior and senior years, . . . Graceland track coach L. D. Weldon, was the first to recognize Jenner's potential and encouraged her to pursue the decathlon

I haven't corrected this because I was left a horse's head in my bed. Trackinfo (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My read of MOS:IDENTITY is that if:

• the most up-to-date sources state that Jenner's current preference is to use "she" to refer to Jenner in the present,

• even if there are more overall sources referring to Jenner as "he", and

• that we need to avoid confusing uses of the current preference,

then

we would use "Jenner" earlier in the article when referring specifically to male references, e.g., men's decathlon or Jenner's marriage,

and that we could safely use "she" when referring to references where gender is irrelevant, e.g., graduating from high school (unless Jenner went to an all-male high school), and

what we cannot do, as I read MOS:IDENTITY, is continue to use the word "he" even for Jenner's pre-transition life in violation of Jenner's current identity.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You are interpreting MOS:IDENTITY correctly. The idea of revisiting and if necessary revising MOS:IDENTITY is currently under discussion at WT:MOS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly No to the use of the term "cisgender," as it is attempted. We are not discussing the appropriate uses of the term "cisgenfer" here. We are supposed to discuss whether it is appropriate to label the subject of the entry as "cisgendered" in every mention of the subject's sex, as physically and officially determined (which is crucial in Wikipedia terms), previous to Jenner's sex-change operation. Whether or not Jenner identifies herself to be at any point in her life as "cisgendered" is also irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a battleground for sexual liberation, nor a forum for advocacy or activism. We have to abide by the facts not as we believe them to be but as they are reported by third-party, reliable sources - and, in this case, they all refer to Jenner's life before the sex-change operation as a male person's life. We cannot, at least not in Wikipedia, alter facts and History retroactively for the sake of any kind of cause, however admirable that cause might be. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• No - the term "cisgender" doesn't seem too mainstream to me if it shows up on queerdictionary.com and urbandictionary.com as the top two results for a Google search. It seems to be a term that is controversial and not mainstream, therefore I don't think it should be used. Like the above user mentioned already, we need to look solely at concrete facts, not interpret them. We have to rely on reliable sources, and from what I can see there aren't many. In addition, just because the "no-voters" don't want to include the word in the article does not mean we are trying to "hide it from the rest of the world" as an above user mentioned. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for updated image of Ms. Jenner

The article would be enhanced by a current photo of Caitlyn in the infobox.

Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The main problem with an image is that there are currently no free images available of the subject yet. Use of a non-free image is likely to be deleted in this instance as a free image is likely and probable at public events etc. over time.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a bunch of pics on Disney|ABC Television Group's flickr photostream that give CC license. I'm not expert on license justification for uploaded pics that aren't mine, can someone look into this? Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not OK, just remembered there is a flickr uploader at commons, and the CC licence is not OK. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

CC is okay for Wikipedia use as long as it doesn't specify ND or NC. The "ND" (no derivatives) tag that Disney uses makes it non-compatible. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this image available as fair use: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421063/Television fan (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Found Some Pics!

Please see the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So I did a little search (no idea why the mods here didn't do it themselves since it's SO EASY) and I found some free to use pics of Cait! Here's a gorgeous image of her in something sporty: https://flic. kr/p/xPxWr7 And here's Cait in a classy gown: https://flic. kr/p/wpF5ai Anyway, I think we should have the main profile pic as Cait in the mini-skirt because girlfriend is rocking that look! Then somewhere a little further in the article, we can put her in the classy gown. The most important thing is that we rid the article of that horrendous image of that disgusting MAN. Caitlyn is not a man and that picture is like this horrible reminder of the person that she never was! Offensive much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC) These aren't free: note the "All rights reserved" statement on both. Indeed the site itself is blacklisted on Wikipedia, which is why you couldn't put the actual external link on your comment. Barte (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Excuse me? I don't understand. If that website FLICKr is banned from Wikipedia, then why did the thing above this post say to use FLICKr to find pictures of Cait? And I didn't see that all rights reserved garbage on that page. They are new pics of Cait that I never saw before, so I just assumed they were good to go on Wikipedia! Can't you all just buy the rights? The pic of Cait in a mini-skirt is so pretty, we need to get that one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC) <click> Barte (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"Career" in header titles?

Is that really needed? Do those timelines and sections have to really be about the career subjects? Is that true of those sections now? Would it be better to broaden the scope of those sections by title?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Relatedly, I think the "Olympic career" section should be titled something like "Decathlon career" as it's not just about the Olympics. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What about this picture?

Just plodding around the web, I found this picture of Caitlyn: https://www.flickr.com/photos/132177716@N08/18544239191. It's on Flickr, is licensed CC BY 2.0, which is an acceptable free license. And has been widely used and credited to the photographer (assuming Frank is the photographer). Any chance of our using it in the infobox? Barte (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's just an edit of the Vanity Fair image. They cropped it and flipped it on the vertical axis. Image is also used at GLADD ([3]). That Flickr user doesn't have the rights to it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured there had to be a catch. Thanks. Barte (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a lovely image that I've never seen before. Please can we use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk • contribs)

As I already explained, no we cannot use it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In pop culture section?

Several Wikipedia articles have this kind of section, maybe it would be a good place to regroup some stuff like the South Park episodes and similar events? Maybe even the Wheathies Box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I just spot-checked a couple of other biographies and didn't see "pop culture" sections. I see these in articles, but usually it is for non-biographical articles about a subject which might be known popularly but for which most of the article is less fluffy in nature. An example is Large Hadron Collider. It might be helpful if you have seen a particular biography in which a pop culture section was helpful for you to link it as an example. The Wheaties bit should be with her athletic career in any case. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of feminine Pronouns throughout the article

"The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion." Checkingfax (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, MOS:IDENTITY does say that (or did at one time; it now says something that implies that.) We can discuss on the guideline's talk page whether it should say that, and on this talk page whether it should apply to this article. I find some aspects of the guideline absurd or confusing. It would clearly be inappropriate not to discuss how to remove confusion.

It has been recommended that MOS:IDENTITY be reviewed and updated if necessary. If you wish to participate, go to WT:MOS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, but per the MOS:IDENTITY wouldn't that be exactly what you would do? Pre-coming out both reliable sources, and Jenner, used masculine terms. So if you were talking about her life 20 years ago, all sources, include stuff from Jenner's own mouth would be HE, Him, etc. So per the MOS, and just general Wikipedia guidelines (we summarize the available information), would we not use masculine pronouns when talking about events when Jenner, and everyone else, called Jenner a "He"? Wisnoskij (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wisnoskij: The idea is that Jenner is and always has been a woman who lived as a man until this year. Hence the feminine pronouns throughout. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Say there's a country singer named Missy Smith who says she was born in Nashville. She believes she was born in Nashville. The RS all say she was born in Nashville. But one day she digs up her birth certificate and finds out she was really born in Jacksonville and moved to Nashville when she was six months old, and only then do the RS start to say she was not born in Nashville. We don't have to keep saying that she was born in Nashville, even though most of the RS—the ones from before the announcement of the correction—still say "Nashville." More accurate information has become available. We don't have to use those old RS because, on this one point, they've been proven wrong.

Similarly, if RS from after the announcement still said "he," and "Jenner was a man in 1976," then that argument might hold up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not really an apt comparison unless Missy Smith was widely known in the media for being one of the top musicians born in Nashville, performed primarily in "Nashville-born musicians only" concerts, became famous after winning a "Born in Nashville" music competition that was watched live by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, held several prominent records for album sales by a Nashville-born musician, was inducted into the "Nashville-born musicians hall of fame", and was married to three different people that had publicly stated that they were only attracted to people born in Nashville. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does still hold up. Everyone thought Jenner was a man, and it was a reasonable conclusion to draw, but we've found out that we were wrong. We don't have to still call Jenner a man. Everyone thought Missy Smith was from Nashville, and now that she knows she wasn't, it would be wrong for her to claim that she was born in Nashville. She did perform in those concerts and we don't have to say she didn't. She was married to those people and we don't have to say she wasn't, but a correction is right and proper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Kroc

Could we link Janae Marie Kroc in the see also? Beyond having in common being a transgender athlete, Kroc chose the same middle name as Cait and transitioned a few months later, which I think establishes a notable connection. Cait is linked in Janae's page already. 64.228.90.87 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is better covered in Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople, which has more than 20 entries and is already linked here. Barte (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bruce Jenner" in the first sentence

We've gone back and forth on this, but I think the case for it is compelling and I've restored Bruce Jenner to the lead sentence, in bold. This was the name Caitlyn went by for most of her career, from her Olympic accomplishments to (as the entry points out) her company, "Bruce Jenner Aviation". The name "Bruce Jenner" appears six times in the entry, and it appears in 51 of our references in the cited titles, alone, and presumably all of the articles themselves, prior to her transition. Moreover, per MOS:BOLD, boldface should be used to identify terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the targets of redirects to the article or section.... That's the case here: a search on "Bruce Jenner" goes to Caitlyn Jenner, and, per WP:R#PLA: We follow the "principle of least astonishment"—after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. Barte (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely correct; we always bold the exact name that the person went by for the majority of their public career. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIRTHNAME specifically addresses the first line for transgender people. Let's let Wikipedia's Manual of Style settle the issue of first mentioning the name. That's what it is there for.Television fan (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool with "formerly" instead of "born" in the first line because it is acceptable under WP:BIRTHNAMETelevision fan (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We have to give the full birth name, which is William Bruce Jenner. Since was not known as William, have to give what Jenner was known as (i.e., "Bruce Jenner") for 99% of public career. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anything in WP:BIRTHNAME (or elsewhere) stop us from doing both? formerly William Bruce Jenner or Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949 as it now stands works for me. Barte (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Jenner was never known as William, so we have to state s/he was known as Bruce, not just have it be an "or". If the title of the article were Bruce Jenner this would not be necessary, but since the title is Caitlyn Jenner it is. Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool with "(formerly Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949)". The option of "born" or "formerly" seems to allow for this. His birth name is provided in the info box.Television fan (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops...her birth name...Television fan (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm devout in believing "Bruce Jenner" should be in bold at the top. I'm agnostic as to the rest. Barte (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we've reached a consensus among us.Television fan (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with both. Have "born" in parentheses and "formerly" outside them but immediately afterward. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool with "born" in parentheses and "formerly" outside them but immediately afterward.Television fan (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Works for me too. Barte (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by IP editor

Bad faith inflammatory comments EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should it be pointed out that Bruce Jenner is both a transgenderist and a lesbian? He's said that he still is attracted to women, even though he has become a woman. That makes him a lesbian as well as a transvestite, surely? I know that LTGB covers both, but should it not be clarified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:5D00:11:103:6190:481F:928E:2369 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) That point is already addressed in the article, which states: "She said she has never been attracted to men, had exclusively been attracted to women before her transition and now identifies as asexual.[95][96]" That covers it, I think. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Pretty much. Yep.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) IP, she's not a transvestite. As for her sexuality, she is clear in the 20/20 interview that she has always been sexually attracted to women, and that she identifies as "asexual for now" to avoid confusing people. So it doesn't seem that she's saying that she's no longer sexually attracted to women and that her asexual identity is permanent. That's why I had "asexual for now" in the article when trying to be clear on her words. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC) This source is the first source for that material in the article, and it relays: This is where Sawyer also delved into the issue of sexuality, trying to clarify for viewers: What happens when a man identifies as a woman but is still attracted to women? “Sexuality was totally different than what my issues were,” Jenner said. “And I always felt heterosexual.” He also added he had never been with a man. “I am not gay… as far as I know, I am heterosexual.” Jenner acknowledged that it can be confusing for some people to understand that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing. “Let’s go with ‘asexual’ for now,” he said. “I’m going to learn a lot in the next year.” So the wording in the Wikipedia article makes it seem like she was only sexually attracted to women before her transition and that such attraction is gone now, which is not at all what she stated or indicated. Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) And keep in mind that this interview was when Jenner was still using masculine pronouns even though she had come out as a transgender woman; this is why the interview and aforementioned source are using masculine pronouns. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC) This is THE MOST offensive thing that I've seen in this section to date, and trust me there have been a lot of offensive things here! How dare you call Cait a transvestite or a lesbian! Your usage of those words are derogatory, to say the least. So please apologize to Caitlyn and me for being extremely offensive. Don't you realize the emotional harm that you're causing? Not only that, but your clear disrespect in even attempting to get the terms right is horrifying. What the hell is a transgenderist!? That is just disgusting of you to be so offensive. Please Wikipedia owners, fix this. This page represents hope for so many young transgender people, if they come on and see THAT - just imagine how they'd feel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure that this section was started to cause trouble. People are commonly confused about sexual orientation and gender identity, and the difference between them, as made clear by Jenner in the quoted comment above. They are also commonly confused about the difference between "transvestite" and "transgender," or do not know that "transvestite" is commonly considered derogatory; and given that "transvestite" is a part of the transgender umbrella (for example, people who identify as a transvestite can validly call themselves transgender), that surely adds to the confusion. Anyway, per my comments above in this section, I tweaked the text in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

New Image

In good faith, ‎Alvandria added a new image of Caitlyn. The image is from the ESPYs and by Kevin Winter and available on a Flickr account named Kevin Winters Photography . It's been used on other media sources (e.g., USA Today) and gives Winters credit for image. However, the Flickr account is brand new and does not seem verified. I'm not convinced the Flickr account is legit and thus the image may not be free. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a brand new Flickr account though. And it's not rare for photographers to publish their images on their own accounts. If he is the photographer, he has full rights on the copyright of the image and is allowed to do so. Flickr doesn't work with a verification system though, so it's up for debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvandria (talk • contribs)

You are right it's not a new account (May 2011) but 2 images, zero followers... seems suspicious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the image (scroll down) credited to Kevin Winter on the Getty Images site. rights are restricted. Barte (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Photographers do not have full rights to images that were either created as a work for hire or for images where they have assigned or sold the copyright to another person or company. In this case, Getty Images requires contributors to give them exclusive licensing rights, meaning that although the photographer still owns the copyright on the image, he doesn't have the right to release it under a free license. Getty Images's contract with contributors also requires that if photographers put their own images on file sharing sites, that they be used for non-commercial use only. Either this account is not actually owned by the photographer, or the photographer is in violation of his contract with Getty Images if he is making them available under a "commercial-use-allowed" license. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a nice image. Don't know if available as fair use: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421063/Television fan (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Television fan: Images of living people don't qualify for fair use unless the image itself (not the subject of the image) is notable enough to be the subject of sourced commentary. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Formerly and former in the lead sentence?

Can't we do better than this? It is clumsy. And, why not put in the cutoff month/year? Checkingfax (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of "former", how about "retired". (See, for example, Sandy Koufax.) Barte (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Cait's Scored Again! WOMAN OF THE YEAR

Yup, Queen Cait's going to be the GLAMOUR Mag WOMAN OF THE YEAR! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3264919/Another-award-shelf-Caitlyn-Jenner-set-honored-Glamour-magazine-s-Woman-Year-taking-secret-photoshoot-December-issue.html

So can we please have this added to the article, kthnx bai! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be added if and when Glamour confirms. Barte (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Caitlyn Jenner family articles in harmony re: formerly/then Bruce

The rest of the family articles (I believe there are seven of them) were pretty well in harmony and stable regarding the formerly/then-Bruce aspect (i.e.- Brandon was born to Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce) and Linda Thompson).

An IP editor is stirring the pot here. We're going to have to work hard to keep the peace and maintain article harmony.

What is the status of the WP:VPP amendment to MOS:IDENTITY? Checkingfax (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The VPP thread was judged to show (I quote) "broad support for the application of" amended treatment to [[1976 Summer Olympics]], and a "need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY". Articles other than [[1976 Summer Olympics]] are still governed by the current text of MOS:IDENTITY. However, because editors [including me] are preparing a new VPP thread which will fulfil the call to revisit MOS:IDENTITY, I think it would be unwise to spend too much energy debating whether the handful of articles you and the IP mention conform to the existing text of MOS:ID or not, since that text may change soon. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Seventh_draft.2C_proposals_1_and_2, the latest proposed wording, if you have feedback on it. -sche (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fake rumors (collapsed)

Fake rumors from spoof site. Collapsed by Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Back to Bruce Well, as "she" no longer feels like a woman and wants people to call "her" Bruce, I guess that it is time for this to go back to the birth name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.63.66 (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I can't find any reliable sources saying this. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC) The source is most likely this article on the Huzler website. It's a fake. Huzler proclaims itself "the most notorious satirical entertainment website in the world." That should be the first clue that this source isn't meant to be taken seriously. Crboyer (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Also, please note something I wrote on the immediately below section of this talk page related to both this section and the section immediately above this one. Georgia guy (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What In God's Name!?

More bad faith discussion re: the image. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So... there was a lovely pic of sweet Cait there - that made me ever so happy... and now there's the offensive and icky Bruce pic?! There's an available pic of Cait that DOESN'T MISGENDER HER, yet you all choose to go with the offensive one? Is Wikipedia trying to insult the entire trans community in this infantile act? Please change the image back to the picture of CAITLYN! Bruce is ONE! Your straight, white, cisgender hero is GONE! He never existed! Cait is all that there is and ever was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @100.2.244.59: Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. The picture was not properly licensed for use on Wikipedia. I understand that it is important to you that a post-transition picture be used, but this article isn't about you, nor is it about anyone else in the trans community other than Caitlyn Jenner. If it were important to Caitlyn that the image on this article reflect her post-transition state, then she or the company that manages her would've released a free image for us to use. However, editors here have contacted them and not received any response. Just because you would be offended by a pre-transition picture of you, or just because you feel that your pre-transition identity never existed, doesn't mean that Caitlyn feels that way. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @100.2.244.59: I also want to add that this is the third or fourth time that a commercial photograph of Caitlyn Jenner has been cropped and flipped to avoid detection by Google Images and then uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I would suggest that you stop doing this, as it's going to make everyone here much more resistant to allowing any post-transition images without a thorough check on the copyright status. If having a post-transition image means so much to you, I would suggest that you instead spend your energy and time trying to contact Jenner or Creative Artists Agency (her agents) to get an image released under a CC-BY-SA license. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) How DARE you all accuse me of making those edits! I came in one day and was delighted to see a post transition pic! Then it changed back to icky Bruce (who never existed!) and all I did was ask an innocent question on what happened to it. Now I get attacked for my identity and my dedication to Cait? Not only that, but the blame is put on me!? What is this, Nazi Germany!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @100.2.244.59: Please do try to remain calm. In order for a post-transition photo to be added, it must be a free image that does not violate any copyrights. Additionally, your behavior seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "There are opinions and lots of them out there. It is impossible to please everyone. But it is possible to comply with guidelines, and this will decide what is included and what not. Some people will like it, others dislike it." If there is a free photo that is not copyrighted (such as being taken from the Internet), then it may be added. Zappa24Mati 02:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Gawd. Is it possible to collapse this waste of bandwidth filled with histrionics and off-topic ranting? Not to mention insults and assumptions in regard to the article subject (has to be against BLP policy, isn't it)? If allowable, I'd appreciate someone collapsing this (my comments here make me "involved", I believe). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

WTF THE ARTICLE IS GONE!?

Alright, who did it!? I'm not going to ask WHY you did it because it's simple. You can't bear to see a transgender woman proud and successful. Fine. Be that way. I will message the owner of Wikipedia to deal with this! Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger will be hearing from me and the LGBTQ community about this horrible disrespect you all have done! Wikipedia doesn't tolerate transphobia and I will NOT let it happen! Poor innocent sweet Cait deserves better than this! The misgendered picture of her as icky Bruce to now NO ARTICLE AT ALL?! Is that what transwomen mean to you white, straight, cisgendered males!? Disgusting!