Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

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)

• The cisgender term is Not Applicable here. Caitlyn is transgender. While there is some fluidity in that might be considered, she would not be cisgender. The word MUST be deleted everywhere that it is not directly attributed to an outside source that describes Jenner in this manner. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure if the proposed question with regards to the disputed content (mainly if her birth name should be noted as William [cisgendered]) is an adequate one, or even whether the term is being used correctly. According to Wikipedia's article on cisgender: it is a label for "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity". Utilising this definition, stating her birth name as William (cisgendered) would be the exact opposite of what's going on - she precisely lacked this match, ergo her transition. If cisgender is the match between birth gender and identifiable gender, then clearly this isn't the case here. Keep it simple, folks. She was born as William Bruce, she is transgender, and she is now called Caitlyn. I see no need to introduce complicated gender studies terminology (applied incorrectly, if I might add) which isn't conducive towards improving the article's quality. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - On [[I am Cait]], Caitlyn currently refers to herself as "cisgender". How can we argue with that? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Got a ref? I watched a few of the shows and don't remember that. Very confused, maybe that's why it's not a very good term? Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Caitlyn Jenner refers to herself as a "cisgender" can of course be mentioned in the article as information but it does not affect the RfC, which is about where in the article should the term be used. -The Gnome (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Admin ping Can we have some kind of result, any result, for this RfC, please? It's been more than a month since it went up and we want to go home some time this year. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 30 October 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)

How about "athletic career" or "sports career"? Sounds like the most obvious solution. Or am I missing something? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just overlooked the obvious! --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, we're talking about replacing the word "Olympics" from titles referring to Jenner's sports career??? It's fine to mention the specific event, but I don't think such an important word as "Olympics" should be removed!
Richard27182 (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If these titles refer to sections treating not only Olympic but also non-Olympic sports events and related issues, why use the specific term rather than a more general one? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ping:  @Mark Miller:  @Walnuts go kapow:  @Florian Blaschke:

I'm sorry if my remarks were misleading.  I didn't mean that the specific terms should be omitted in favor of mentioning the Olympics.  But the Olympics are a petty big thing, especially when you're talking about winning the gold medal!  There should be some way to include referencing the specific event(s) while still including mention of the Olympics in the title.  Having won an Olympic gold medal is arguably Jenner's greatest accomplishment; and I think it would be remiss to completely omit the word "Olympics" from the title of the section describing Jenner's sports career.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. What do you think about a combined title like "Sports career and Olympic victory"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:07, 31 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)

it VERY clearly states "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." as Bruce jenner is most often referred to as a man, the proper identity here is male. it dosent matter that he thinks hes a woman, this isnt a debate on that. but as you see, the most commonly used reputable sources are the ones that MUST be used. that would be the ~30 years of refering to him as what he is, a man. and just to add this in, if i say im a dragon whos lived his life as a male human, it dosent work. because im not. the same goes for bruce jenner until he has functioning female reproductive organs.67.247.243.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• MOS:IDENTITY does not say that, so this thread is misleading. Recommend hatting it so users are not confused/misled. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 25 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)

What if we moved her Vanity Fair image to the infobox and moved her 2012 image to the left side of the body so her face is facing the text? Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use the Vanity Fair image in the infobox, because of the titling -- this is not an article on Vanity Fair. And we can't remove the text on that image because it is a copyrighted work that cannot be altered. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the Wheaties box picture I see Jenner. When I look at the Vanity Fair cover I see Jenner saying "Call me Caitlyn." Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that someone could contact Jenner or her "people" (even her family members) via social media or IMDB Pro and request that an image be officially (either via email for OTRS, or otherwise) released to public domain for use on this article. My understanding is that she has somehow already expressed certain desires about this article, so this shouldn't be too hard I don't think. Could also ask whoever sent those messages about her personal desires for this article to provide the image. (I really don't know or recall how these messages were transmitted, if at all; I may be mistaken about that.) Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 15 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)

It should be noted that this person is in reality NOT a woman (i.e., has not undergone sex reassignment surgery, retains male genitalia, and so on), and at any rate, even if this person IS to be regarded as a female, has not (to this point, Nov 2015) been a woman for an ENTIRE year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.114.93 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 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)

I recently made an edit removing "formerly Bruce Jenner" in the first sentence. I thought it was redundant, given the "born" phrase right before it. It was reverted by Naue7. I admit, I should have looked at the talk page before making that edit, and I'm sympathetic to the concern of keeping pages consistent. However, I still think the redundancy is undesirable. Could we get rid of the "born" phrase instead? I feel like it's needlessly emphasizing her former identity, and is just cumbersome to read. It might also be relevant to note that the intro sentence for Chelsea Manning lists her old name just once. Maybe consistency among articles about trans people should be valued as highly as consistency among articles about the Jenner family. But I could be off-base here. What do you think? Montgolfière (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that some editors want to clarify that Jenner wasn't formerly usually called "William Jenner" or by both first names, but the redundancy is clumsy. She is now more commonly known as "Caitlyn Jenner" than as "Caitlyn Marie Jenner", should we be saying "Caitlyn Marie Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949), formerly Bruce Jenner and now generally Caitlyn Jenner,..." in order to clarify that? -sche (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Montgolfière: Seems talk was recently archived see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 9#.22Bruce Jenner.22 in the first sentence Naue7 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Naue7: Ah, thanks. I didn't think to check the archive. It seems this issue has already been discussed quite a bit. I am still not quite happy with the current consensus, but I don't want to make a big deal about it. Being transgender myself, I guess I'm more sensitive to this kind of thing than other people. Montgolfière (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No image for now?

It has been suggested that perhaps removing the image of "Bruce" prior to the gender transition is best for the article now. It has also been suggested that the vanity fair image could be moved to the infobox? Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Remove the image in the infobox - temporarily having no image is better than having an inaccurate image. The infobox image is one of the first things someone sees in an article. It should accurately represent the subject. clpo13_(talk) 04:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: You may get some "thoughts" here, but in my opinion the only way to get a binding consensus is to have an WP:RfC. Any "thoughts" acted upon here are merely going to be the subject of edit wars without a public RfC of standard duration. This article is already under Discretionary Sanctions, so the least little edit-warring or even reverting of the status quo on this will likely result in immediate blocks. For all these reasons and more, an RfC is imperative here to correctly establish actual community consensus for any change. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The talk page of the article is capable of forming the needed consensus without a formal RFC. Lets get people's thoughts on the matter.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just offering my suggestion, based on observation and the likely outcome of any discussion here. You may get a "consensus" on Friday that will change on Sunday and then a heated argument with all kinds of distraction could erupt on Tuesday, and then the whole charade could/would repeat itself every time a new bunch of viewers ended up on this controversial article. This will likely end up with: (A) people blocked, when that could have been easily avoided. (B) the page locked down, when that could have been easily avoided. We've already seen above that the simple matter of pronouns has had to go to RfC after weeks of fruitless arguments on this talk page and edit wars on the article. This Talk page and the article are too controversial and too changeable and too prominent to decide such major things about without a site-wide public RfC. This would also save everybody an enormous waste of time, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Seems that, even though we tend to be on opposite sides of many issues, we talk it out and find some compromise we both can live with that most others agree with as well. The article seems stable enough but does attract different views. We can't keep them all out and it is possible the issue glares enough to be attracting image content disputes on an almost regular basis so... stability is far from great.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Move her Vanity Fair image to infobox (remove massive caption) and move her 2012 image down in to the body of the article near the appropriate timeframe. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can't move the Vanity Fair image to the infobox, because (1) It is a copyrighted image, and this article is not about Vanity Fair, thus there is no fair-use rationale which would cover its use there; (2) The "VANITY FAIR" headline also would not make sense, again because this article is about Jenner, not Vanity Fair; (3) We cannot remove the headline and other text, because, again the image is copyrighted and cannot be altered. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can use non free content in the info box. That is not an issue. There is certainly a fair use rationale, as there is no free image for the time being. We have IAR for infobox images such as the Coat of arms of Canada that is actually a direct svg copy of copy protected art. Discussion has stated that until a Wikipedia creates something better to keep it. Having the name Vanity Fair is also not an issue. Its a trademark not a copyright.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no valid fair use rationale, as the threshold isn't whether a free image exists, it's whether it "is available or could be created". WP:NFC#UUI is very clear that "pictures of people still alive" do not qualify as fair use. Also, we do have a properly licensed 3-year-old picture of Caitlyn as she presented herself in public in 2012, and despite what many (or even most) trans people feel about pre-transition pictures of themselves, indications are that Caitlyn Jenner doesn't have a problem with this (when editors contacted Jenner's management about obtaining a free image for use in this article they didn't receive any response). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Ahecht. For one, it's disappointing that Jenner's management did not provide an image of her now. For another, however, it indicates that Jenner doesn't mind the image from 2012 in the infobox. Which is another possible argument to keep that image in the infobox, since the subject does not object to it as a primary identification. Softlavender (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. We are not discussing the fair use of adding the image, but re-using it in the infobox. NFCC#1 only states "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That does not actually say that living people cannot have a non free image in the info box or that it is not a valid reason to state that no free image is available and unlikely to be available as the subject strictly controls her image. Specifically says: "Meeting the no free equivalent criterion Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created. As a quick test, before adding non-free content, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion."

WP:NFCI states: "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia." I don't know how reasonable it is to expect Caitlyn to stroll within a photographers view right now. It also states: "#Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."

References

Also, it is important to remember that NFCUUI does have a disclaimer: "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

All of that lengthy text you've quoted gives precisely the reasons we can't use a magazine cover: (1) A free equivalent could be created. (2) Not to be used for primary identification (i.e. infobox); only to be used for critical commentary, and even for critical commentary it has to have an overwhelmingly compelling reason. You will not find a single BLP with a non-free image in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-free paparazzi shots of Caitlyn that have been taken, so it's not unreasonable to assume that a dedicated Wikipedia editor could also obtain an image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this discussion should be confined just to this talk page as it's not a special case as the results should apply to other articles like Chelsea Manning's picture on her page. Naue7 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep for now. No image is worse than an old image. Until something else comes along that's not a copyvio, I see no harm in keeping the older pre-transition image. After all, that is what Caitlyn Jenner looked like for a long, long time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This is to date the best picture we have: hence, it should be in the infobox until we can do better. That we don't have a more recent image is, for whatever reason, intentional. This is speculative, of course, but given that this article is the first link in the Google Knowledge Graph and that it typically gets over 5,000 hits a day, I find it inconceivable that Jenner's management is unaware of how she is presented here. Of course they have no obligation to provide us with an image we can use, but surely, they understand the tradeoff. The promotion of Caitlyn Jenner's transition has been executed with textbook sophistication. Hat's off. So I assume they have considered our request and have, for whatever reason, left it unfulfilled. Until that changes or until someone snaps a candid and licenses it properly, we should run with what we have, sans apologies. Barte (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, and with the caveat that if Caitlyn makes any sort of statement about not wanting pre-transition images to be associated with her that we should IAR and remove it until we have a properly licensed recent image. I didn't revert the recent removal because I didn't want to violate 1RR, but I feel that the image shouldn't have been removed while this discussion was still ongoing. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree--the burden is on those intending to remove a legitimate 2012 image of Jenner from the infobox to make a case and seek consensus before doing so. Barte (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• No image for now - the image doesn't accurately represent Caitlyn as she looks now, nor is it very sensitive to the person that they should be identified as that image in their Wikipedia article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep somewhere in the article. This is an encyclopedia. To not have an image of how Jenner looked during the vast bulk of Jenner's life, during which she made the accomplishments for which she is notable, is completely wrong from any objective, research-oriented standpoint. We're not here to be "sensitive" to any particular person or any particular cause — we're here to provide neutral, objective, comprehensive information about a subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Moved her image down where it makes sense and so she's facing the article text. Win/win until we have a good infobox image that is current and facing front or left. Make your case here if you want to move it back or delete it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus (including from those who keep replacing the image) seems to be to keep it in the infobox until another image is forthcoming. I recommend creating an actual RfC if further clarification is desired. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep - again, when 'her' transition happened, i mentioned here that it will take us atleast a YEAR to get a "free" image of "Caitlyn".. people just assume that we should use the vanity fair image, I'd personally get that image deleted because its confusing a lot of people, its a 'non-free image' which means it CANNOT be used in the infobox.....unless Caitlyn dies tomorrow as NFC images are only for those that have died and free images are not available..regarding the Bruce image, again, as per my revert, Caitlyn has been Bruce for over 65 years (780 months) and caitlyn for barely 9 months so he is more recognised as Bruce than Caitlyn and the chances of us finding an image of Caitlyn which is free is closer to 0% than 50% so NAY image that gets uploaded to commons and enwiki will be subject to VERIFICATION first before its added to the article..We do NOT trust very flickr account and unless that image is added by a trusted user such as an admin on enwiki or trusted users like commons admins or licence reviewers or OTRS agents, it will NOT be accepted and should be reverted and a discussion brought to this talk page to decide and verify it legitimacy. The current image is High Quality and recent and thus should be kept in the infobox until an image of 'Caitlyn' is either found or added by a trusted user. It does not matter if Bruce is facing the article or looking away but what does matter is that we have a picture of what Bruce looks like, either it was taken 10 days ago or 10 years ago..People do not change so regardless of what people think, the current image is of Caitlyn (a.k.a Bruce Jenner)--Stemoc 12:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Image and IP comments

I have semiprotected this talk page for 2 weeks due to the IP comments, which were unambiguously inappropriate. Separately, I am not alone in feeling that an image of Jenner in her former gender should not serve as the primary identifying image - this is at risk of being perceived as a deliberate snub, and I know that the Wikipedia community in general is very accepting of LGBT people and would not, I am sure, want to be seen as engaging in a photographic form of deadnaming. Guy (Help!) 05:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, There are two more strikes for putting that image of her in the infobox:

1. As you said it's not current
2. She's facing away from the text
3. It's not a flattering or "normal" shot. It looks like she's taking a.... well nevermind

Move her 2012 image down to the body where it fits and where it can be left aligned to face the text. Kill two birds with one stone. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 21:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Checkingfax, the "Bruce-photo" (for lack of a better term) just shouldn't be there as it is. Move it down and, when a "Caitlyn-photo" becomes available, we can add it that time.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we use the image she posed for in the Vanity Fair thing? ThatJosh (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's copyrighted; there's no fair-use rationale that would justify it.. Softlavender (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wheaties box image nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_October_18#File:Jenner_on_Wheaties_cereal_box.jpg. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Car Crash section a bit unduly large?

First off why do we sensationalize it as a fatal car crash when no one tied to Caitlyn was even involved. I think just "2015 driving collision" would do. Then this auto accident is just as big as both her marriages and gender transition section. There is no way this incident should be on equal par with either of those sections. Missruption (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I reduced the section way down. Let's see if anyone objects. (I didn't cut the cites, so there are still a lot of them.) Barte (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pretty classic recentism. Three cites per sentence would still be plenty. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Kim Howe had a separate page providing the details that this section contained. It was deleted and redirected to Jenner's page. The details of the crash and lawsuit specifics should be preserved because of the deletion and redirection.Television fan (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to WP:Articles for deletion/Kim Howe. That isn't an argument for keeping any particular content in the article, just for keeping the redirect from Kim Howe in existence. VQuakr (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I received this from an IP editor on my talk page: why no mention of the victims that died due to Caitlyn Jenner's driving? Manslaughter charges are a big issue, no? Just noting it here, but I'm not clear about the comment, as Kim Howe is mentioned and no manslaughter charges were filed. Am I missing something? Barte (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Random meaningless drive-by comments from non-editing IPs should usually be ignored. If they want to ask the question here, they are free to. Softlavender (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

CALM and FURIOUS

More trolling
The following discussion has been closed by IgnorantArmies. Please do not modify it.
After the forum was shut down due to an overload of transphobic hate, one of Cait's biggest fans is back and ready to fight for what's right. Unlike those hooligans who caused this page to be frozen, I will remain calm, yet furious. 1) This article is crammed full of "Jenner" instead of female pronouns. WTF? I was scolded by a rather rude person about using the same repeatedly to start sentences. That person insisted that doing so (as the article currently is) is repetitive and "boring" and should not be done in the article. So, why is it being done right now? Some paragraphs only have "Jenner" and very rarely use female pronouns. This is especially true in the sports sections. It's clear that SOMEONE wants to refrain from using FEMALE pronouns when it comes to Cait's success in the Olympics. Honeys, listen up, girls can excel at sports. Cait WAS A GIRL and ALWAYS WAS A GIRL during the Olympics. So go on and sprinkle some female pronouns in those sections please so that this article doesn't come across as transphobic and triggering to those who may read it. 2) The picture situation. Last time I checked, that icky picture of gross Bruce was gone. Why is it back? I thought it was agreed that NO PICTURE was better than a picture of someone who doesn't exist? Please, fix this. It's offensive to the entire LGBTQ community and is very triggering. 3) I stated this before, but alas it was IGNORED by several Wikipedia personnel (probably due to their transphobic attitudes). However, I have returned with PROOF that Caitlyn is indeed The GLAMOUR WOMAN OF THE YEAR: http://www.glamour.com/inspired/women-of-the-year So please include that in the article and stop trying to hide facts. Please and thank you, hon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've hatted the above per WP:DENY. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween costume controversy?

Worth mentioning in passing? Seems to be gaining traction in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me????

So another concerned Cait fan had to deal with being silenced by some transphobes. All that person was trying to do was tell you all to add Cait as GLAMOUR WOMAN OF THE YEAR WHICH SHE IS!!!!!! Since when did Wikipedia ignore facts????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.169.163 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Germaine Greer's opinion be mentioned in this article?

Here is the text:

Feminist author Germaine Greer called the magazine's decision misogynistic, questioning whether a transgender woman could be better than "someone who is just born a woman".

References

It's cited to the deprecated Daily Mail, which we largely try to avoid. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the cite to similar coverage from The Guardian. Barte (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. My opinion is no. That might be appropriate for the Germaine Greer article, but it has zero place in an article about Caitlyn Jenner. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Greer commented specifically about Glamour's naming Jenner as a Woman of the Year. Her critique was widely covered (I could add several more cites) and she is certainly a notable observer of gender issues. And whether or not her comments are "transphobic" is irrelevant here. As encyclopedia editors, it is our obligation to cover the controversy--WP:NPOV demands it--without holding judgement over some points of view. The case for Greer's argument to be heard can also be found here. Coverage of canceled college speaking engagements can be read here. (All that said, thanks for taking this to the Talk page, Softlavender. Beyond all else, your civility is appreciated.) Barte (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• keep and note the non neutral phrasing of the question (now fixed). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment An opinion like Greer's (basically "trans people are deluded and just play dress-up", conflating trans people with drag acts), which runs counter to established scientific consensus (not to mention being hateful and unreasonable, considering that transitioning, and going on to live as the gender you identify with, is not a walk in the park even for a rich privileged person like CJ – not something you do only for fun because you're bored out of your mind and crave attention), should not be allowed to remain unchallenged in the article. An opposed critical viewpoint also deserves mention. Maybe a link to one of the articles about feminism and transgender issues. TERF is comparable to other denialist movements. We should not give the impression to the reader that Greer speaks for feminists in general. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• The guiding policy is WP:WEIGHT. Just the fact that Greer made this statement is inadequate reasoning to include here opinion in this article. What is the level of acceptance of here statement? Probably not a majority opinion, but is her statement representative of a widely-held minority viewpoint? VQuakr (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I would describe it as fringe. Greer may be a noted and influential feminist, but here she is simply off base. (Her trans-hostility if not outright transphobia appears to be more typical of her generation compared to younger feminists, though. As far as I understand, transmisogyny – note that trans men are far less denigrated in general – in second-wave feminism has essentially strategical reasons, as trans women are perceived as supporting and reinforcing the patriarchal structures of society by some radical feminists.) See Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people, womyn-born womyn and radical feminism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Greer's opinion could be disputed in the article. To avoid WP:SYNTH, a responding quote should specifically reference Greer's views on Jenner, if not Glamour, as well. But while Greer may not represent mainstream feminist thinking, she's not alone. Consider this New York Times' op/ed piece by Elinor Burkett. My broader concern is that any critical view of Jenner will be banned from the article because editors disagree with it. Except for the South Park reference, we're pretty much on that sterile ground now, and it serves neither Wikipedia readers, the project, or even Jenner herself. Barte (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"But while Greer may not represent mainstream feminist thinking, she's not alone." Well, yeah. Fringe opinions are not usually held by single individuals, but they are decidedly renounced or ignored by the mainstream and have next to no support among actual experts. TERFs form a small – and apparently shrinking (witness the demise of Michfest) – minority even in feminist circles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Burkett was published in the New York Times. It doesn't get much more mainstream than that. Barte (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

OPPOSE Caitlyn's article on Wikipedia doesn't deserve such transphobic hatred! Let alone in the guise of a "feminist" writer! Utterly deplorable that anyone seriously even considered including that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved reference I've moved the Greer reference. Please see next section. Barte (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've combined a summary of Burkett's and Greer's remarks in a small subsection under "General media attention", with references to the New York Times and The Guardian Barte (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The (fringe) view on transgenderness (with Jenner as a specific example) of two second-wave feminists, themselves a minority of feminists, has been given two paragraphs, which is undue. Most of the section consists of general claims of fact that are supported by only personal opinion and often only mention Jenner tangentially, e.g. the unreferenced (more precisely, referenced-only-to-personal-opinion) and off-topic claim that scholarships aren't available to women, the unsupported claim (lacking any appearance of relevance) that Jenner "never had to figure out how to walk streets safely at night", and the general-focus opinion that "a transgender woman could [not] be better than 'someone who is just born a woman'". Pared down, the opinions may belong in Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people, but are undue and out-of-place here.

(Since this thread is a spinout of the one above, on Burkett and Greer's opinions, I'm commenting only on them and not on the South Park bit at this time.)

-sche (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I contest the addition of a separate criticism section in general, for the reasons outlined in this essay. If compliant with WP:DUE, criticism should be integrated into the prose, not relegated to a separate section; especially for BLPs. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As the section has been reverted, I'm putting it here for reference. I've removed the cites for formatting purposes; they can be found in the article history. I do take VQuakr's point that these arguments could be woven into the narrative, but disagree that they violate WP:DUE. They are the only contrarian statements in the entire article. Moreover, except for the South Park reference, they take Jenner's admirers to task, not Jenner herself. The BLP restrictions wouldn't seem to apply.

The accolades accorded Jenner drew some criticism. In a New York Times op/ed, Elinor Burkett wrote that when Lawrence Summers suggested that men and women have different brains, he was castigated, but when Jenner said much the same thing, she was lionized for her bravery. Burkett argued that cognitive differences between the genders derive from life experience, and Jenner's "experience included a hefty dose of male privilege few women could possibly imagine." Her background included a university athletic scholarship and a salary during training, both available to few female athletes. "Tall and strong, he never had to figure out how to walk streets safely at night."

In September 2015, Jenner was depicted on the satirical American animated program South Park, which parodied her supporters' political correctness, as well as her driving record. The Jenner-related episodes were "Stunning and Brave" and "Where My Country Gone?" from the show's 19th season.

Barte (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to hear we agree (or at least see somewhat eye to eye) on the dedicated section. There is extensive discussion immediately above about how much coverage of this viewpoint is due; that discussion should be resolved before any meaningful discussion about how to format the coverage can be had. VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Criticism" section. Against Wikipedia best practices, and against WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and probably against WP:BLP. Definitely no cause for mention of South Park, and the random idiosyncratic opinions of others belong in their articles, not in Jenner's. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Criticism" section. Why the hell should Caitlyn's page feature the criticism and comments from other people? It's unknown if Queen Cait even acknowledges these comments, so why should they be included on HER PAGE? What do those comments have to do about factual information about the Queen? Cait is young, hot, and an eligible bachelorette, why does this page require you to taint it with negativity and SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION OF CAIT!?!? Include those idiots criticisms of Cait on THEIR PAGE. Why should the haters get attention on Cait's page!? I want someone to TELL ME THAT! Come on, step to the fucking plate and answer that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Seems to me that the consensus, at least so far, is clearly opposed. Thanks for the feedback everyone: I won't pursue it further. Barte (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Please see the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it.
Out of respect to her transition, it would best to change the main photo of Caitlyn to a recent (not male) one. For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caitlyn_Jenner.jpg Mcsquirley (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Not done: See the FAQ and dozens of conversations on this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC) PLEASE DO That pic is GORGEOUS! Please use it for lovely Cait's profile pick instead of the icky picture of Bruce - WHO DOESN'T EXIST AND NEVER DID! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

New Pic for Cait!

http://s3.gossipcop.com/up/2015/11/Caitlyn-Jenner-Pay-Cut-I-Am-Cait-201x300.jpg

That image is courtesy Getty Images. I believe that should suffice for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Who holds the copyright, and where is evidence that they have released the image under a Wikipedia-usable license? VQuakr (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@100.2.244.59:, please do not propose any more images unless the image SPECIFICALLY states that it is licensed under a free license that allows any reuse of the image, including commercial use (for example, a CC-BY-SA license). "Courtest Getty Images" is not a free license that allows commercial use. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright... so you seem to have an issue with me (yes I remember you for defacing my talk page). Regardless of that, since I'm a big girl, I will tolerate you for the sake of her highness, Cait. So, I will explain so that maybe you can UNDERSTAND: http://static.celebuzz.com/uploads/2015/11/caitlyn-kris-kendall-jenner-victorias-secret-fashion-show-111015-4-375x560.jpg That image is being used commercially on several pages, with the label "Courtesy Getty Images". That means Wikipedia can use it too. Is it that hard to comprehend, sweetheart?