Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

So that whole policy of going with the name people are known by is out the window?

I know the genderist community is chomping at the bit to control every aspect of this article, but isn't "Bruce Jenner" the name every human on Earth knows this person as? One article comes out where Bruce Jenner is going by "Caitlyn", no legal change, no sense of permanence, and that's now the Wikipedia article's title? If he's going by Christina or Caylee next week, will you change it again? inb4 hurr genderfluidity bias, transbias, etc. I just don't like tabloid or activist Wikipediasm no need for up to the second updates, you people kick out the feet of the guy in front of you to immediately change articles, and no business doing social activism on Wikipedia, though admittedly the trans-crowd is falling way behind their rivals, the feminists who have dominated altering every article to have a feminist bias. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn is more famously known by Bruce, but her name is now changed. Articles change over time, that this is not the first article to get renamed. There are literally hundreds of articles referring to Jenner as Caitlyn. She will not change her name again, this is permanent. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Caitlyn Jenner, a female did not compete in the Olympics. Nothing Bruce or anyone else does can change the fact that Bruce Jenner, a man, did. It's silly and ridiculous to say a "she" won the men's competitions that he won. If Bruce were to become blind due to illness or accident, would we speak of how a blind person competed and won? No. Time is linear, not all at once. There was a time when Bruce Jenner was a man - we can't erase that or go back in time and change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.84.74 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand gender. Jenner identified as female from an early age, she just didn't tell anyone about that until much more recently. So, all sources prior to 1 June 2015 unknowingly misgendered her. It's that simple. Skyerise (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. Ironholds (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Then Bruce Jenner did not understand gender either as he represented himself as a man in the Olympics and more importantly 3 times as a man on an application for a marriage license. QuintBy (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well I guess if it's easier for readers we can get rid of WP:BLP entirely. I'd never thought of that! Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is name change legal at this point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed; I agree with that. That's why I object to the idea that we have to wait until (or even debate) its legality. Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Legality has little to do with article naming, cf. Martin Sheen, whose official legal name has always been Ramón Estévez. Wikipedia always refers to people by their own, prefered public name without regard to legal documents. We don't stop doing this merely because the subject of the article is transgendered. That is, Martin Sheen does not have more rights to define his own public persona and name more than Caitlyn Jenner does, merely because Martin Sheen is cisgendered and Caitlyn Jenner is transgendered. We default to people's own preferred public name, without regard for legal documentation. --Jayron32 03:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanity fair photo

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

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

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

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

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

IP, the image is WP:Non-free; Wikipedia doesn't allow a non-free image for Template:Infobox person in the case of living people (deceased people and fictional characters are a different matter). The only reason the image in question is allowed in the section it's currently in is because of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; the image passes the "Images with iconic status or historical importance" and "Images that are themselves subject of commentary" aspects. "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also see this new note. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Drake Bell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's not like I'm participating in the massive vandalism going on at Drake Bell's article (but I am laughing at it). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

There's no way that would ever go on this page, completely WP:UNDUE. Bell's tweets have nothing to do with anyone but Bell. If Jenner responds or addresses it in some major way that becomes notable, then it would have a chance of going on her article, which is a biography, not a roundup of opinions from people she's probably never heard of. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this going off topic? Surely Wiki policy applies on Wiki, but Wiki cannot stop anyone from calling him Bruce Jenner. Why is this even being debated here? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Some past discussions on the issue of birth names can be found here: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Also the usage notes on Template:Infobox person suggest including it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a rule, but this article must be encyclopedic. This was her name for 65 years, and that is an encyclopedic fact. I don't think it's too distracting to have it in the infobox, which is basically a summary of facts. The infobox title is clearly Caitlyn. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. To me it juts out like every time someone purposely uses a trans woman's former name to sully her experience. I still don't see a need for it also in the infobox when it's already in the article. Missruption (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner was this person's original name. We cannot erase that fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That is true. While we cannot know (for certainty) what a person's perceived gender are at all given moments in their life (indeed, there's nothing wrong with noting that gender may be a fluid concept, and that a person may be different genders at different times) we should respect a person's expressed gender at the current time. Noting the past gender identity (or, more properly, the past name a person used during times in their life) is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate, however, to demand that our belief about what their gender should be in conflict with their express wishes on the matter. We should, where appropriate, note when they were known by certain names. MOS:IDENTITY is a previously negotiated guideline for dealing with issues like this; based on prior (exhaustively discussed and negotiated) consensus, in the article about a subject, we consistently use their current identity (including pronouns) throughout the article, excepting where where to note prior names for the sake of completeness. --Jayron32 03:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Jenner, like Manning a year ago, is one of those odd cases where a person is very notable for accomplishments under a specific name. I don't see how it is misgendering to note the name they are most known by when it is clearly stated that they are now known by their preferred name. Can you demonstrate how it is? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the general problem of articles (outside of this one) where Caitlyn Jenner is known as Bruce for historical reasons, WP:VPP is discussing the matter, and your contributions are quite welcome as Wikipedia policy may need clarifying here. However, for articles about the subject directly, it was exhaustively discussed and decided, as reflected by the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY, that articles about a subject person, refer to said person using their preferred name and gender pronouns consistently throughout said article, regardless of what they were known as at various phases of their life. If you wish to change this policy, a new discussion at WP:VPP may be in order, but insofar as this has been discussed exhaustively in the past, and a carefully negotiated consensus was established at MOS:IDENTITY, it's not particularly useful to re-debate settled policy every time a new noteworthy case arises. It's why we have guidelines and policies to begin with; to avoid having to have the same discussions ad nauseum. --Jayron32 04:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronouns != name, but thanks for the misguided shpiel. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We're clearly talking past one another. Can you indicate what specific text, currently in the article (as of when we are both writing) which you object to? --Jayron32 04:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The big bit at the top that says "Caitlyn Jenner" on an article about a person famous and notable (and entirely so per our requirements for an article on a person) for forty years by the name Bruce Jenner, and not at all (except as an extension of that previous notability) by the name Caitlyn. That is all. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:IDENTITY. Wikipedia discussed this, as a community, exhaustively over a year ago, and the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY reflects that exhaustive discussion. If you wish to change the general policy regarding these issues, a news discussion should be started at WP:VPP to change this otherwise clear guideline. Since we have a general guideline, there's no need to discuss it here, since we cannot change overall policy for a single article. You may have a point, but this venue is not the correct place to discuss settled Wikipedia-wide policy. WP:VPP is. --Jayron32 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY states that it applies to the pronouns and gender-specific text in the article, not to the title a person goes by. Regardless, individual articles are the place to discuss changes that are exceptions to precedent... though it needs to be noted that this is a high profile case, beyond the norm that the rule was created for. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. This seems like exactly the sort of case the rule was created for. The rules don't exist for only those articles you aren't interested in. You've also presented no evidence that this article represents significant difference from established policy, except that it's the one in the news right now. News sources which are nearly universally using the name Caitlyn, FWIW. --Jayron32 06:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, you're also wrong that MOS:IDENTITY doesn't apply to article titles. It clearly states, and I quote "and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article". --Jayron32 06:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedians jumped on this so quickly, and in such number, is definitely an outlier due to Caitlyn's prominence as a figure. But the idea that the change is an outlier in this scenario - that we should not extend the same humanity and empathy to any transgender individual as soon as we notice - is false. Ironholds (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I see no reason why the birth name should not be in the infobox. We do the same for those who have a professional or stage name, why not for Jenner? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  The birth name is currently (as of when you made your comment, and I made this response) in the infobox, as it belongs. I'm not sure what your objection is. --Jayron32 04:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I have an objection to it being there. There are those (above my response) who think it shouldn't be there. My comment is for those objecting to her birth name being in the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for both her birth name and her former common name to be in the infobox. One of them should be deleted. -- haminoon (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The full birth name should definitely remain in the infobox. At this point, I'm neutral on the removal of the common name from the infobox. It is somewhat redundant, but it does have the benefit of showing when the official name change occurred. I know people have a lot of strong feelings on this issue, but we need to keep readers in mind. Wikipedia policy is behind changing the pronouns in the article to the preference of the subject, and I fully support that. However, some readers may be confused or ignorant as to the name/gender change of Ms. Jenner. Noting her original birth name and birth gender, where appropriate, is necessary to provide readers with all relevant information they may be seeking and to aid readers in understanding the gender identity change/name change that has occurred. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Other links to this article - Bruce or Caitlyn?

Do we have a policy about how other pages refer to Jenner? There are of course a million links to this article, and I foresee edit wars on numerous articles. Do we change the 1976 Olympic Games results to say Caitlyn Jenner won, or keep as Bruce Jenner? —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be based on what was accomplished at the time. Bruce won the medals not Caitlyn.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. WP:MOSIDENTITY clearly indicates that we default to a person's current preferred identity, regardless of what historic reliable sources state. The issue is clear for articles about the subject directly, but for things like lists of Olympic Medals, it is far less clear in my mind. We should probably discuss somewhere (not here, probably at WP:VPP) what the general policy should be for issues such as this, and arrive at a Wikipedia wide consensus before proceeding. That is, I agree current policy makes it clear how THIS article should be handled, but we may need more guidance on how situations noted above should be handled. --Jayron32 02:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've gone and started the discussion at WP:VPP. Anyone with an opinion can feel free to contribute there. --Jayron32 02:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think so at all, for instance in most articles (every one that I can think of) where someone legally changes their name (and in at least 1 circumstance changed it back), during the time where they where their former name they are referred to as their former name. I can also tell you that referring to Jenner as a "she" during the time Jenner was a male makes no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:101:8610:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I responded as IP on the vpp page..it was a few clicks away, but jftr, in this case, whatever has been decided via MOS essay, does not make sense to me either. I get how using non gender pronouns could cause angst to the subject of a blp who has stated a preference, but why are we given an edit warning at the top of this page that says NOT to delete gender references? I have a problem with that statement as it relates to how this whole article is being used as propaganda with an agenda.ChangalangaIP (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@ChangalangaIP: If you think that a notice informing people they should be consistently using female pronouns, in line with her wishes, makes the article "propoganda with an agenda", you absolutely do not understand how using the wrong pronouncs could cause angst - or do, but don't understand the BLP policy. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The propaganda slash agenda...I should have clarified that I am referring to media reports and articles about how quickly WP reversed the pronouns. I am worried about WP being used as a platform for any one sides political views here.I did not say that I think that editors should use incorrect pronouns or even nuteral in this case because feminine is clearly the subject's current preferred pronoun but rewording edits in some places to leave out what in my reading is an overkill of she and her...I am referring to the yellow box instructions at the top of the page that says not to delete pronoun use. That is going too far imo . The wholesale find and replace job that was done on the article looks weird to me and I think that some off the gender pronouns should be eliminated altogether.ChangalangaIP (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@ChangalangaIP: Please see MOS:IDENTITY and WP:Gender identity. The yellow box at the top is to inform users that the subject of this article is a trans woman and they should use she/her when referring to that person. This is Wikipedia's policy and the box is there to inform people of it. Too often on articles of trans people, users feel it necessary to misgender them. You can see in the edit history of this article that someone tried to revert to "Bruce Jenner" and use he/him articles already EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite. You're complaining about a long-standing policy. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

OK now that I am logged-in on my PC-I was hoping to cut & paste what I was talking-about, I cannot find it. The reason that I jumped-in here was because the article could use a little tweaking, but I AM (re)reading all of the MOS as it applies to gender and WP MOS, and what I really was trying to say was confusing me--(and again-I cannot find it now darn)---was an apparent contradiction that said something like-"don't delete reference to gender" (paraphrase)--as a way of fixing a pronoun-changed subject of a BLP. I completely agree that switching someone in this particular case to gender neutered pronouns would not be right per BLP. Maybe I read it wrong? Because, retroactively changing every pronoun to another bianary gender could be better edited imo by deleting some of the unnecessary references to Catilyn's gender altogether by re-wording/editing boldly. WP is not ever obligated to use gendered pronouns AFAIK , (meaning that we still do have a choice to NOT edit with gender in mind)---and I must have misunderstood or mis-read where we can not just delete what looks to me like too many feminine pronouns in the pre-Caitlyn part of the article.ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

FOUND IT! From edit-mode on the article page, (copied) "The article currently uses female pronouns throughout, as per applicable policy. Please do not change female to male pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion."----that. (bold is mine)"attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether"....UGH! I don't know if they added this BEFORE or AFTER ALL of the pronouns were changed? And i guess i am seeing that the word "all" is used, so common-sense and TP/discuss is still an option.ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)edited to boldChangalangaIP (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As there's a clear policy on the matter, MOS:IDENTITY, your speculations and opinions about it are pointless. We use the subject's preferred pronouns, period. Skyerise (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

NO-you misunderstand me here I guess. We have a choice NOT to use any gender pronouns. We do NOT have to use a pronoun just because someone wants one-and in any event the 400 she her etc. in this article is OVERKILL.ChangalangaIP (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't misunderstand you at all. You are proposing to edit the article based on bigotry. We use she/her pronouns just like in any other article. The warning is clear, we do not try to eliminate gender pronouns simply because we are uncomfortable with transgender people or unaccepting of the use of their preferred pronouns. Go do something useful somewhere else. Policy is clearly established here, and your proposal is to violate it. The policy is not open to article-by-article variation. Skyerise (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We DO eliminate gender pronouns when they make for a crappy encyclopedia article. How dare you get personal with my motivations. (you are wrong btw) I have requested clarification on the template in question.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/Caitlyn_Jenner And how DARE you tell me where to go.ChangalangaIP (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that the type of argument you are making has been made every time a notable person has come out as transgender and the policy has not been changed. Since it is policy, it cannot be changed by making arguments on this talk page. Such discussion must be made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, not here, not on the template page. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

to try and clarify what I think ChangalangaIP is trying to say; ChangalangaIP is objecting to the idea that we are unable to rewrite any sentences to remove pronouns, not necessarily out of any discomfort with Caitlyn's gender identity but because we have a tradition of alternation, right? To avoid writing too repetitive articles we tend to alternate; sentence 1 "Jenner did X". Sentence 2 "She then did Y." The policy rejects rewrites for the purpose of eliminating pronoun usage as a solution to controversies or issues around pronouns to use. Because of this, it potentially impacts what we can do in situations where we have "She did X. She did Y." ChangalangaIP, is that a correct reflection of what you're trying to say here? So it's not about "avoiding all pronouns", it's about not having an article that reads like it was written sentence by sentence in isolation.

For reference if the goal is to avoid pronouns because pronouns, that's a problem. If the goal is to avoid endless repetition...that's less of a problem but I'd suggest being very careful about how and where it's done. I have no issue with say, the alternating rule of thumb; it's the one I use regardless of the subject's gender. If there are stylistic issues, though, we should discuss them as they arise on the talkpage and make sure they're justified, and that we are applying whatever the rule of thumb is reasonably. If you wouldn't change it for a non-transgender individual, don't change it.Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! ironholds thank you. I actually misread the template to mean " any" not "all" as in don't change any pronouns to delete reference to gender. I think the template needs clarifying. I am confused but trying to fully understand the retroactive pronoun gender changes as well and I think that should be respectful of blp but also not make the article unreadable.ChangalangaIP (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Switching male to female pronouns should only impact readability if the article was unreadable before - in which case, let's tease out examples and resolve them on the talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I am not interested in switching any pronouns from male to female, or female to male, or making a non-bianary pronoun. It is tricky though because the options are further limited by also not trying to use the name Bruce, or Caitlyn--(for the retroactive parts), and realizing that certain options like Bruce/Caitlyn for example have probably already been ruled-out for good reasons. I like the idea of applying the test of "would you edit-out gender for someone who is not transgendered?" Because it is awkward and repetitive, yes. And I frequently edit in a non-bianary style for all topics, but never for a BLP where a preference has been stated. I like the MOS of keeping certain styles the same way through an entire article-like using American English spelling or British but I don't know if WP is so rigid that it would apply the same standards to people who can be messier than grammar. I'm probably going to torture myself and lurk-through some of the Chelsea Manning discussions, to try and save repeating old FAQ. Would making slight changes affect the uniformity is probably another test, so any edits to make the article less awkward and repetitive that I make would probably delete gender altogether, and I'd be happy to discuss themChangalangaIP (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Athletic Records

How will Bruce Jenner's athletic records be reflected? With the examples of Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) and Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar), it seems the most common method is to use their birth names for records and stats accumulated while they competed under that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.186.3 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

See above and also discussion at WP:VPP. We're currently working out Wikipedia policy regarding issues of transgender, gender identity, and historical names of people. Please contribute to the discussion at WP:VPP if you have something to say. --Jayron32 03:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Direct link: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#MOS:IDENTITY_clarification. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

Caitlyn's photo should be changed to an image from her vanity fair photoshoot, instead of a photo of "Bruce" Miaquesadilla (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

See the similar requests above; we need a freely licensed image. Ironholds (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

caitlyn-jenner-3-607x560.jpg for Caitlyn's picture? 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not contain any image under that title. --Jayron32 05:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the Vibe photo of her copyrighted? 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. --Jayron32 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Can we semi-protect this article, please?--Jorm (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article is already semi-ed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The talk-page needs to be protected, post haste.Crboyer (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean the talk page? Looks like it just was. -- haminoon (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the talk page. --Jorm (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Has been done by Jayron32 and Bongwarrior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole get tiring after a while --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What does identifying as a man have to do with winning the decathlon?

"Jenner came to international attention when, while identifying as a man, she won the gold medal in the decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics held in Montreal."

Why "While identifying as a man"? What does winning the decathlon have to do with his/her gender reassignment nearly 40 years later? HaniiPuppy (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I presume it's there to explain away the incongruity of a woman winning what is traditionally a men's event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: HaniiPuppy (talk · contribs), I'm sure it's there, per what has been stated on this talk page in other sections; it seems that it's there to clarify that she won the male decathlon. Then again, considering that the lead is clear about her gender transition, it should be clear that it was a male competition she was in at the time. MOS:IDENTITY regarding this matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2:An sich nothing. However, without it, the sentence reads as though she either won the women's decathlon (which would be impossible, since there was no female Olympic decathlon in '76, just the athletics pentathlon), or participated as female in the male decathlon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The current wording makes it sound like the gender transition has something to do with the race, what if it were simply changed to something like "Jenner came to international attention when she won the gold medal in the male decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics held in Montreal." HaniiPuppy (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not my preferred wording either, but then again, I'm not the one that added it. Unfortunately, your wording still suggests she participated as female in the male decathlon. I could see something like "Jenner came to international attention when she won (as Bruce Jenner) the gold medal in the male decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics held in Montreal.", but that has its own significant downsides. Might be best to simply wait and see if some sort of consensus emerges from the Village pump discussion Flyer22 linked above. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What about: "Jenner came to international attention after having won the gold medal in the male decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics held in Montreal."? ★ Nacho ★ (Talk page) ★ 10:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I like it. I prefer a minor grammar change, however: "Jenner came to international attention after winning the gold medal in the male decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal." Epic Genius (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could work. The sentence itself suggests neither the one nor the other; within the context of the surrounding sentences, it should be clear. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What?

This quote "During that period, she spent eight hours a day at the San Jose City College track,[citation needed] along with her Lab Bertha.[26][27] " is bizarre.

NEITHER of the two citations specified state eight hours a day, neither state he was with his lab bertha, one states that he HAD a dog named Bertha at some time.... Neither states exactly that he trained AT the San Jose City College track. It's a mess.Wjhonson (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of the dog, but, um, it does mention that Jenner trained at the college's track. Epic Genius (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Birth name in parenthetical

While this may or may not be "standard" for Wikipedia biographies in general, it is not standard for the biographies of trans people. In general, the birth name of trans people is not mentioned in the lead at all, but rather in the early life section and the infobox. This is in line with MOS:IDENTITY which states that we use the preferred name and pronouns throughout the article and avoid emphasizing the gender change, covering it primarily in the personal life section. Skyerise (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything about that under MOS:IDENTITY. -R. fiend (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much consensus on the collection of biographies of trans people, which I regularly edit. It's extremely rude to use a trans person's birth name at all, and it therefore violates WP:BLP. Leave it. Skyerise (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIRTHNAME is undeniably part of the MOS. Skyerise is arguing for their wording per MOS:IDENTITY, which mentions nothing about the opening sentence of an article. You don't have much ground to stand on, quit edit-warring. ¡Bozzio! 17:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's rude to call someone by their old name? We should pretend that they've never had another name? That's idiotic. Show us the "consensus" isn't just your opinion, and we can do something. ¡Bozzio! 17:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Rude is irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't the courtesy business. Wikipedia is in the accuracy business. -R. fiend (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And both of you are quite clearly ignorant of, respectively, trans issues and Wikipedia. On trans issues; Bozzio, please do yourself a favour and google "deadnaming". Read for a while and come back to this. On Wikipedia; R. fiend, Wikipedia is, around biographies of living people, absolutely in the courtesy business. WP:BLP makes clear that our mandate around BLPs is to act in a responsible and respectful fashion. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, has Wikipedia hurt your pwecious wittle feelings? We don't decide how our articles are going to be written based on sad little articles from sad little Wordpress bloggers. ¡Bozzio! 17:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the person on the internet refusing to respect the wishes of the person they safely, anonymously write about is in a position to call anyone sad. Do some research - read the links mentioned below. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but could you link to a few examples for those of us who aren't as frequent editors on biographies of trans people? I'm guessing the difference might be between people who became notable either because of being trans, LGTB rights activism and matters related to that, or after transitioning and people who were already notable before it became known that they are trans. The articles I know of about trans people who were notable prior to coming out as trans all seem to use the name (birth name) style. On the other hand, the few articles about trans people who became notable after transitioning or who became notable due to LGTB rights activism don't make use of the birth name at all, or as little as possible. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in all the media guides and is well-known to be offensive. A quick Google search on your part could verify this if you effing cared.

• "Always use a transgender person's chosen name." - GLAAD Media Reference
• " Do not ask what the person’s birth name was." - Trans Etiquette 101
• "calling someone by their birth name is not only offensive to that person, but in some cases, puts them at risk." - Watching Our Language In Reporting Transgender Stories (NPR)
• "it may be rude to ask what their "real" name or birth name was -- they consider the name they have chosen to suit their gender (if they have done so) to be their real name, and they want you to think of them that way." - How to Respect a Transgender Person (WikiHow)

There are many more. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You're diverting from the issue at hand. No one's suggesting we use Bruce instead of Caitlyn, quit going off-topic. ¡Bozzio! 17:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with WP policy? Until a few days ago Caitlyn Jenner was famous throughout the world as Bruce Jenner. To pretend that isn't the case, and she always been Caitlyn is both disingenuous and confusing. -R. fiend (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have no sensitivity to trans issues whatsoever. I am not saying the birth name should not be mention, just that it should be handled the same way as other trans biographies on Wikipedia, which is to omit the birthname from the lead and include it only in the infobox and early life section. Skyerise (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop prefacing every contribution to this discussion with snarky little insults to other editors. Hmm, let's see, "other trans biographies on Wikipedia", do they do what you say they do? Well, two of the most famous trans sportspeople certainly don't – Andreas Krieger and Erik Schinegger. Get your facts straight. ¡Bozzio! 17:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to grow a thicker skin. I'm just telling like it is. Your insistence is offensive. Skyerise (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're offended. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the sweat lodge. ¡Bozzio! 17:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That idiom would be more valid if your activity was necessary; a heat lodge has to be hard. Your attitude is not necessary, it's just mean and denigrating to other users. We have discretionary sanctions in this area around treating subjects and fellow editors with respect, and you're not following them: I'm going to formally notify you of them and, given the penalties of not obeying the sanctions, I'd suggest you do so. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"You need to stop prefacing every contribution to this discussion with snarky little insults" from a user who responds to a suggestion that they do some research into an area where they're trying to participate with "Oh, no, has Wikipedia hurt your pwecious wittle feelings?" Right. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My biggest concern here is that the name "Bruce Jenner" appear somewhere obvious in the article, because for 99+% of her life, Caitlyn Jenner was a very famous man called Bruce, and people looking up the athlete that was called Bruce Jenner should be told right off the bat that this is the person they're looking for, without having to read between the lines. Anyone reading the article as it stands would think she previously was "William Jenner" which is a name I never even heard of until today. This isn't a case of "outing" anyone. The name is out there, has been out there for decades, and acknowledgment of it is hardly libel or a shameful. -R. fiend (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with R. fiend. Jenner is famous for things done as a man named Bruce, and so the name Bruce Jenner MUST appear in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Martnen (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read any of the links above? Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Putting full birth name like this in the lead sentence unnecessary imho. I see that some articles do not include it (Laverne Cox, Janet Mock) while others do (Chelsea Manning, Kellie Maloney). I understand that putting something like formerly Bruce Jenner might be needed in the case given her fame, but the born William... is too much. in my opinion. This might be something we need to do a village pump policy question about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it should be included at the opening of the article – at least in cases where the person is also notable by some variation of their birth name. Chaz Bono, Chelsea Manning, and Kellie Maloney all follow this convention. Neither Laverne Cox nor Janet Mock seem to have been notable for their birth name. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Village Pump clarification/update submitted

After looking at past discussions on this issue and the apparent norm, I have started a discussion at the Village Pump asking for a clarification/update on WP:BIRTHNAME with respect to MOS:IDENTITY. It can be found here (link). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"General" heading

@Flyer22: You reverted my edit to the "Personal life" section, saying that "General" is a commonly-used heading. I have never seen it before, so where have these headers been placed? Anyway, I have changed it to "Beliefs, family, and personal issues", as that is what the subsection reflects. Epic Genius (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

For documentation, I initially added the "General" heading when the Personal life section already had two subsections, and I stated, "Added 'General' heading in case readers unknowingly skip over this initial content from the table of contents; this happens often at articles." Hours later, Epicgenius showed up and removed the heading, making the section awkwardly consist of one subheading, and stated, "remove 'General' header. it is an overview?" I reverted him, relaying, "Like I stated, I added it because it is common for people to accidentally overlook the initial content with such a setup." Epicgenius reverted, commenting, "This is not conventional, so, let's leave it out for now, it's like the equivalent of adding 'overview' to the lead of an article." I reverted again, noting, "It is conventional; I can point to various articles on the article talk page, which is where you should take this matter." And after Epicgenius changed the heading, calling the "General" heading stupid, here we are.

Epicgenius, if you have never seen a "General" heading before, it's possible that your Wikipedia editing is not as broad as mine. While "conventional" is too strong a word in this case, this is a heading used for various WP:BLP articles, WP:Film articles, WP:TV articles, WP:Med articles, and so on, whether I added it or someone else added it. For two WP:BLP examples, see the current state of the Kanye West article and the current state of the Justin Bieber article. For film articles, see the current state of the Avatar (2009 film) article and the current state of the Changeling (film) article. And in the case of the Changeling (film) article, that heading came about because editors (including me) unknowingly skipping a section more than once; see this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. In that first discussion, Steve stated of the "Summary" heading he added, "I included it more for navigation purposes, really. Seeing the contents at the top of the page, a reader might see the subsections to the main sections and assume there's no content above them (as clicking through to the subsection puts it at the top of the screen)." And that is essentially my rationale for having included "General" headings at articles. Your "Beliefs, family, and personal issues" heading is okay, but "personal issues" is redundant considering that is the Personal life section. Furthermore, the gender transition aspect was and still is a personal issue. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I called it "stupid" because it was really unclear and, in my opinion, poorly implemented, and I apologize if it was callous. However, I have no problem with "Overview" or "Summary" sections at the top of the article, which I have seen before – just never in the middle of an article, hidden in a section. I suggest we change it to "Beliefs, family, and conflicts", because I agree with your point above that "Personal issues" is redundant, and the California car crash is a conflict that Jenner had once. However, I don't disagree that the gender transition was a personal issue.

And, for the record, I only have 100,000 edits in 2 years while you have about twice that edit count in 8 years, so I'm sure that's a factor. Epic Genius (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for an apology; I understand that "General" is vague and bland, and I've seen editors remove it before; for example, this edit by Nightscream at the Chris Crocker article. After he made that edit, I was tempted to let him know that I don't mind much that he removed "General," but that it can also be helpful (going by feedback I have received regarding it). Personally, I generally don't like "Overview" or "Summary" sections at the beginning of a Wikipedia article because the lead is supposed to be the overview, but I understand that such sections are needed, or seemingly needed, in some cases, such as with the current state of the Menstrual cycle article or the current state of the Big Bang article. Anyway, let's go with your newest proposed heading. And, by the way, if you or others find my "current state" wording annoying, I've used it in this discussion so that the WP:Permalinks are there to show what those articles looked like at the time of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Then again, although a section with one subheading looks awkward to me from the table of contents, it's less likely that readers will skip over the content in that case, as opposed to a section with two or more subheadings, which looks uniform, and has content above the subsections. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My understanding was that people would tend to jump to the higher-level subheading, i.e. "Personal issues", if they wanted a "zoomed out" summary/overview of that section, which is the case now that the "Beliefs"/"General" subheader has been removed. Two or more subheadings implies that Jenner's sex change was as important as the rest of her personal life, even though the former has only been significant for the past few years. Epic Genius (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Epic Genius, by "Personal issues" in this case, I take it that you mean "Personal life." With my "21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)" post above, I mean that when there is the one awkward subheading, in this case the "Gender transition" subheading, then people are likelier not to skip over the initial content than they would if there were two or more subsections in the section. Two subheadings is uniform and doesn't look awkward, and people often assume that there is no content above the first subheading (this goes back to my initial post above in this discussion). I have repeatedly witnessed our editors and/or readers accidentally skipping information because what they saw from the table of contents gave them the impression that there was no content above the subheadings. This is because it is often that there is no "overview" content above the subheadings. So the one subheading is likelier to get people's attention and guide them so that they don't unknowingly skip over the initial content.

As for your statement that "Two or more subheadings implies that Jenner's sex change was as important as the rest of her personal life," I don't understand that argument if you mean subsections unrelated to the gender transition; by that, I mean having more than one subsection about the gender transition, which (as noted above) was the case when I initially added the "General" subsection, can imply that the gender transition is the most important part of Jenner's personal's life. But similar can be argued of the section having one subsection -- one subsection dedicated to the gender transition -- and standing out as special, while the other content has no subheading. Flyer22 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: You said, But similar can be argued of the section having one subsection -- one subsection dedicated to the gender transition -- and standing out as special, while the other content has no subheading. That is what I meant in my comment. However, having beliefs, family, and conflicts in the main "Personal life" section (i.e., not in a subsection titled "Beliefs, family, and conflicts"), IMO, makes them more important than the gender transition. While I agree that not adding an Overview header would cause people to skip the section about Jenner's beliefs, etc., I also think that the beliefs, etc. would serve as an "overview" for the whole "Personal Life" section, much like a lead is to an article. Epic Genius (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I'm confused by your statements and reasoning. You stated, "Two or more subheadings implies that Jenner's sex change was as important as the rest of her personal life, even though the former has only been significant for the past few years." I took that to mean that you are stating that the Personal life section should only have one subsection (the one about the gender transition) because more subsections would imply that the gender transition is as important as Jenner's other personal life matters. I stated that unless you were talking about having more than one gender transition section, I don't understand that reasoning; this is why I relayed, "But similar can be argued of the section having one subsection -- one subsection dedicated to the gender transition -- and standing out as special, while the other content has no subheading." It seems to me that you are arguing that having more subsections means that we are stating that the gender transition is as important as Jenner's other personal life matters; I'm stating that the gender transition is already indicated as that, and more so, by being a lone subsection. You clarified, "However, having beliefs, family, and conflicts in the main 'Personal life' section (i.e., not in a subsection titled 'Beliefs, family, and conflicts'), IMO, makes them more important than the gender transition." We disagree on that. I also don't think we should be basing subsection headings on what we personally think are more important parts of Jenner's life. It is likely that Jenner does consider the gender transition as important as some other parts of her personal life, and more important than certain aspects of it. We should be going by WP:Due weight and/or what is best for readers by having a subheading. I don't think that having a "General" heading, or similar, means that it is an overview for the whole Personal life section; when it is titled "General," that simply means that it is not specific information, but rather different aspects of the person's personal life; this is often better then needlessly creating subheadings for a little bit of material. Like MOS:Paragraphs states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Briefly study the other "General" heading examples I noted above for what I mean. And then there is often the option of changing the "General" heading into something specific, which is what you did.

But all that stated, I have gone along with the awkward single subheading in this case (not just since yesterday, but since it was originally that way). As indicated in my posts above, it was the "readers will be more likely to skip over the initial content if there are two or more subheadings without the initial content having a subheading" aspect that I was more concerned about. On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this discussion since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. The only reason that I WP:Pinged you above is in case you overlooked my latest post. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, noted. So, because the "Beliefs", etc. section header was already removed, I guess there's no argument there. Epic Genius (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar correction requested

In the section "Gender transition" the following sentence appears:

"She amassed over one million Twitter followers in just over four hours, setting a new Guinness World Record and surpassing Barack Obama, who had, a month prior, did the same feat in four and a half hours."

I would suggest the latter part of the sentence be corrected by either removing "had" or replacing "did" with "accomplished".

Thank you! MichaelCaricofe (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelCaricofe: Thanks for pointing this out, I have changed it to 'accomplished.' Rubbish computer 23:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Transgender to the point of absurdity

This is not up for debate. See MOS:IDENTITY. Closing this as WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know many of you were just waiting for this and were beyond ecstatic when someone so famous came out as transgender. And this is likely why many of you decided on such an absurd editing decision. I'm assuming that you weren't trying to push POV or anything, just delirious with excitement. Anything Caitlyn did prior as Bruce Jenner needs to use the name Bruce Jenner as well as the personal pronoun "he". This is proper encyclopedic style. It confuses the reader to say "At the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, Canada, she won the gold medal in the decathlon," especially since women weren't allowed to compete in the decathlon. I can go on. "Her first marriage was to Chrystie Scott (née Crownover) from 1972 to 1981." So, Chrystie Scott was obviously a man since same sex marriage was illegal in 1972 . . . It's not just that it's horribly absurd because of the confusion you give the reader. You're also taking a page out of George Orwell's 1984. You are acting like the Department of Truth. You're going back and rewriting history. Instead of saying what happened. A man won the Olympic decathlon, he married and fathered children, he made himself a male role model, later decided to become Caitlyn, and then she decided to promote transgender people. You rewrite history to say, "A female won the Olympic decathlon, she married and fathered children, she made herself a male role model, later she decided to become Caitlyn and promote transgender people." While very good at pushing a POV, this edit is an absolute and complete lie. Just like in 1984. "We made peace with Eurasia, Yeeeeaaaa!" Alright, I love peace. "In fact, we never at war with Eurasia!" What, huh, I guess I was wrong . . . how can you make peace with someone you weren't . . . oh nvm, I hate rats so I won't rock the boat. "We have always been at war with Evil East Asia." Weren't we at peace with . . . I don't like war . . . but rats, Rats are worse RATS - NOOOoooo! Death to East Asia, MAY THEY DIE IN HORRIBLE AGONY! Yes, these edits are that absurd. There are reasons why a truthful encyclopedia editor doesn't back and change history to fit the present narrative. It is unethical to go back and rewrite history to support a PoV, no matter how honorable that PoV is. It fails so many Wikipedia standards. I'm fairly new at this but WP:PROVEIT since there is no reliable source saying that Caitlyn won the 1976 Olympic games. No reliable source mentions the first lesbian wedding in 1972. It becomes the point that you are removing the "he" simply because WP:youdontlikeit. Did you'all go back and resource all the material? Well? Did you? Or did you change history just to bring justice to wrongs in the past and present? The final absurdity with the edits is sad, but true. Caitlyn would never, ever, been able to win the 1976 decathlon. Being a woman in 1976 sucked. And badly. If I were a woman and I got pregnant, my boss would fire me. If I got raped, it would be my fault unless I was a white woman and pointed at a black guy. I would not be free to choose any profession and I wouldn't even be allowed to participate in sports much less football or the decathlon. I wouldn't be on a Wheaties box even if I managed the nearly impossible to get onto a good female athletics program. And on, and on. These edits, instead of respecting transgender people, actually mock the situation women were in in the 1970s. Previous articles on Wikipedia which could serve as examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly I hope people don't have a kneejerk reaction because I said something they didn't like. I'm hoping you'll think and understand what a dangerous path this editing is going in, especially if the entire encyclopedia decides to follow suit in other articles.Hilltrot (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC) No, I agree with you, as does the one transgender person I know personally. Prior to the change to Caitlyn, it's proper, factual and good writing to use the personal pronoun "he." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Agree Hilltrot; a total revisionist view of history is being justified here but then again one can basically say anything they want in this world without reason we live in and get away with it whether it's true or not or makes sense or not. I left this website years ago after putting up with this sort of unintelligent mindlessness; it's just too stressful to deal with and it's relentless. "This is not up for debate" just shows how totalitarian those promoting this agenda really are. NewYork1956 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Not what MOSBIO says

WP:MOSBIO reads, "An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise." Jenner made very clear in the time leading up to his gender reassignment about wanting the pronoun "he." That's the subject's announced self-designation for that time period. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is MOS:IDENTITY, and it says use latest gender-identity throughout, which is the correct and respectful way trans people want and deserve to be treated. Here's the quote: "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. 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)." Skyerise (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, we're quoting from the same source. And I think we have some general agreement in that you say, "unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." Jenner indeed made clear that during the time before the change, the preference was "he." Jenner has never said anything since to contradict this. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, just because she wanted to use male pronouns then doesn't mean she wants them used for that period now. We'd need a post-transition statement to that effect, as the declaration of preference voided the previous preference. Skyerise (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to give a source that says she explicitly says to use "he/him" for time prior to her coming out. Otherwise we assume retroactive identity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can see people feel strongly about this for whatever reason, and I'm not willing to fight about. All I'll say for the sake of any possible future discussion is I've never heard of anyone post-transition issuing a statement for the benefit of journalist, grammarians and others writing about pre-transition life, so that seems like a deliberately impossible request. One might equally say that a subject stated a pre-transition preference and never issued a statement repudiating oneself. But whatever. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bravo!

I want to say that the lede paragraph for this article has been beautifully, perfectly written. It acknowledges Jenner's life as a man during his athletic career, his gold medal wins at the '76 Olympics, and up through his marriage to Kris Jenner until their divorce - all without compromising MOS IDENTITY. It gives the correct picture, is done sensitively and respectfully, and complies with policy. Bravo to those who have contributed to making it happen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I basically agree, good job everyone! Missruption (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Jenner has appeared as herself on a variety of game shows and reality television programs."

"Jenner has appeared as herself on a variety of game shows and reality television programs." - section Television and film career, second paragraph. This sentence is problematic in both directions.

On the one hand, due to the use of "as herself", it suggests that she appeared as woman on those shows. While it is definitely possible that she identified as a woman all this time—none of us can read her mind and tell if she has always identified herself as woman and/or if she started doing so before those shows and/or whether she only did so more recent than that—these shows took place during the time when she either still presented herself as male or possibly even identified as male.

On the other hand, because she appeared as (or presented as—once again, we can't read her mind) male on those shows and we do say she appeared "as herself", this sentence can also be read as transphobic. Even though likely not intentional, similar sorts of statements are often used as deliberate subtle digs to imply that the "old identity"—in this case "Bruce Jenner"—is the real her and the self-identification is wrong/delusional/add-the-usual-insults/digs. (In other words, a denial of her self-identification.)

As a result, I propose that we change it to "Jenner has appeared on a variety of game shows and reality television programs." AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the worries that using the correct pronouns might be viewed as confusing or transphobic are misplaced, but if you believe it'll lessen confusion go ahead and try out your change on the article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well,  Already done. I, personally, think that it is redundant, and confusing besides, to add "as herself". Epic Genius (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, it's somewhat redundant to boot—generally it's not reality television if you're not there as yourself, and for game shows the same can usually be said as well. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AddWittyNameHere : using feminine pronouns when Jenner was still a man is just needlessly confusing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

LGBT rights activist

While she is certainly an ally and supporter of LGBTQ rights, is there any source that describes her as such? We cannot call her this unless sources do. Especially so in the lead sentence. It must be something she is primarily notable for. A defining characteristic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Vanity Fair also reported that she considered the names Heather and Cathy before deciding on Caitlyn"

Is this notable in some way and needing of reporting? Missruption (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is trivial information that does not belong in this article. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Too trivial. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Athletics career, retrospectively

As a woman competing in male events, do those achievements still stand? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Bruce Jenner was still legally a man. If I'm not mistaken, the sex change is not retroactive.

But that prompts me to ask a question : is it really a good idea to feminize the whole article retroactively ? Of course it is normal to use "she" after the sex change, but when I read things like "She attended Sleepy Hollow High School" and especially "She went on to finish in 10th place", which regard events that took place when Caitlyn Jenner was still Bruce Jenner, I'm far from convinced. I understand the idea, but as a reader I think it just looks kind of silly. That's especially true of his/her athletics career. If we don't want to use "him", the best thing might be to stay neutral and just write "Jenner". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what Caitlyn was "legally", it's our job to get right what she really was. And she has explained that she's always been a woman. It's the IOC or IAAF's responsibility to take action regarding her achievements, now that they're aware of her identity. Until they do so, there is nothing inaccurate about saying "she won the 1976 decathlon", "she won the 1976 Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year Award", or "She had the best long jump of any woman in the world in 1976." It's not my job to educate you, but go look at the MOS:Identity page. This is not controversial stuff and it's frankly appallingly transphobic that her athletic achievements are being belittled. It's dehumanizing.

162.235.91.193 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan

Yes, that's a mistake many cisgendered people make. A transgender person does not simply one day choose to "change their sex". They have usually identified as the opposite gender from that assigned at birth from the moment they become conscious of the difference, usually around age 5. They choose to hide it and pretend to be their assigned gender until the lie becomes too much to maintain. It doesn't work very well anyway. Also, gender is not physical, it's in the head. So Wikipedia is completely correct and following current psychological and medical opinion when we insist that the correct gender be used throughout the article: pronouns, like clothes and restrooms are not "sexed", they are gendered. The suggestion above confuses gender and sex. We completely ignore sex because as I said, pronouns are gendered. Skyerise (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There are some seriously problematic and offensive assumptions in your post,Skyerise, though I think that your heart may be in the right place. Please educate yourself more so you can be a more effective ally. That being said, I'm glad we're on the same page. It's absurd that Caitlyn could potentially run into a Wikipedia article regarding her past accomplishments and see "Bruce" referenced. It's offensive, factually false, and potentially harmful.

162.235.91.193 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan

I don't think anyone wants to belittle Jenner's athletic achievements. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who proposes some sort of "gender-neutral" solution is belittling Caitlyn's accomplishment. Caitlyn was a woman when she won the Olympic decathlon. Caitlyn has run the fastest 400 meters of any woman, ever! Failing to acknowledge this - even tacitly - is belittling her accomplishments.

162.235.91.193 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan

And you were trolling when you wrote this comment. You have done the most trolling of any IP on this thread. Failing to acknowledge this – especially tacitly – is allowing you to spread your BS. She was not a woman then, so it's a fabrication to say that in 1976, she was a woman. Epic Genius (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Careful. Generally it's assumed that trans people have identified as trans their entire lives, even if they were not public about it. In that sense, she was a woman than even if everyone knew her as a man. This is not true of all trans people, but it's widely true and the general assumption unless the person says otherwise. (WP:Gender identity). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: So if Jenner identified as a woman at the time, then it is possible that Olympic officials could disqualify Jenner's awards. But we will have to wait and see if Jenner ever identified as a man during this time.

But my point is, this IP editor was taking an extreme point of view, so it sounded like they were trolling. Saying "Caitlyn was a woman when she won the Olympic decathlon" when she won the male decathlon is misleading, although not necessarily untrue. Epic Genius (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: AFAIK, the Olympics are more concerned with sex testing and bioloical sex than with gender identity. It's possible to be male in terms of biological sex and a woman in terms of gender identity. (I acknowledge that the use of male/female for sex and man/woman for gender is a more academic distinction, and also that some trans people dislike this language and prefer to talk about sex assignment at birth. But the point I'm trying make is that the Olympics only look at hormones, chromosomes, and genitals, not at identity. This is why intersex Olympians have such a hard time.) But the norm on Wikipedia is to try to avoid gendered terms when talking about past events that are gendered. This is done in the news as well typically. I have no objection to that and I think WP:Gender identity explains who to deal with it fairly well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: You said he Olympics are more concerned with sex testing and bioloical sex than with gender identity. Now the validity of the awards makes sense. Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, you don't know me, so I'll let that slide for now. Everything I said above is correct, and nowhere did I suggest using anything but Caitlyn and female pronouns, so I don't understand why you suggest that I supported that. Perhaps you confused my comment with the above editor's? Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

162.235.91.193 wrote "it's frankly appallingly transphobic that her athletic achievements are being belittled" : I just didn't understand that comment, since as far as I know, no one (at least no me) belittled any achievement. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly didn't suggest that you suggested otherwise. Like I said, I'm glad we're on the same page. Caitlyn/She is the way to go universally on this matter. The transphobia by many other members on this topic is palpable. On other pages, they are getting away with keeping things as "Bruce Jenner" and failing to appropriately list her historical accomplishments as a woman, ostensibly because that's "how she identified then." Such an excuse is flatly in conflict with WP on the topic. It's troubling that the only place where this discussion is happening is on Caitlyn's page, and not on the pages regarding her historical accomplishments. For instance, Caitlyn had the best high jump of any woman in the world in 1976, at 2.06 meters. However, that addition to the page listing top high jump performances by year is continually being reverted to a prior version, wherein another performance - a lesser one - is shown.

162.235.91.193 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan

Yup, quite palpable. And denied even where obvious. Not sure I like the use of the term "transphobia" - the individuals aren't scared. Perhaps "anti-trans bigotry" combined with lack of self-education and knowledge of gender issues. Fortunately, the many high-profile trans men and women coming out are leading to greater public knowledge of the topic. And this happens on every article just after coming out. In a month or so it will be easier to improve the article without interference from those clueless about gender. Skyerise (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mmmmh... I don't see how it could be "transphobic" to aknowledge the fact that, whatever Jenner's inner feelings at the time, her victories as an athlete were scored by someone who was biologically male (in muscles, body mass, bone structure, etc : which is what matter in athletics). Isn't being "born in the wrong body" precisely the point of being transgendered ? If wikipedia goes as far as to deny that he/she was ever a biologically male athlete, we might attract ridicule on Jenner, which is exactly what should be avoided. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not transphobic to describe, factually, how the Olympic officials categorized Jenner – as a man, at the time. To answer the IP, if Jenner had jumped in 1976 and was scored as a woman, then yes, she would have been the highest-jumping woman, but at the time, she was biologically a man, so her jump was not the highest of all women's, because she was, for all realistic purposes, biologically a "he" back then. So, that assumption is misleading. Epic Genius (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Caitlyn Jenner did not win a gold medal as a woman in decathlon, that is absurd. Women did not participate in decathlon in the 1976 olympics. In every other case of an athlete changing their name, the record is listed under their previous name. See: Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor), Metta World Peace (Ron Artest) Tariq Abdul Wahad (Olivier Michael Saint-Jean), Mahmoud Abdul Rauf (Chris Jonhson), Domanick Williams (Domanick Davis), and the list goes on. Caitlyn Jenner was competing as a man in the 1976 Olympics, and thus did not break or set any records for women. The claim is ridiculous.104.254.95.106 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Um, Jenner wasn't a women when she won these awards, so yes, these awards and achievements still stand. Epic Genius (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • She was a woman in her own spectrum but that is irrelevant, she was cleared and competed as a male. Missruption (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • But she was not known as "she" back then. She was "he" then. Today, it is okay to refer to her as a woman, but if I was posting this in 1976, then I would have gotten some stares for calling her a woman. Epic Genius (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You might have gotten some stares back then, but she was still a woman then: It's not that trans people suddenly gain a different gender identity when they came out: Most of us see that as ALWAYS having been an aspect of self. I seriously wish people would actually, like, try to learn about transgender people when trying to argue policy about us? Every time these kinds of discussions happens, it feels like it's always a bunch of people feeling around in the dark when they REALLY don't know what they are talking about. Cam94509 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Excuse me, I am not transgender and so I did not understand that. BUT, maybe Jenner could have competed in 1976 as a woman. Sex reassignment surgery has been available for a long time, I think since before WW2, but maybe Jenner did not wish to get that surgery back then. Epic Genius (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
          • What? Have you read Jenner's description of their gender dysphoria in the article you're discussing? It makes clear that she was dysphoric from a young age. Ironholds (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Indeed, she did have gender identity disorder from a young age, but not until now, at age 65, did she undergo surgery. I'm not contesting anything, just pointing out that she could've competed as a woman back then. – Epic Genius (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Don't mind me, got lost in the thread, misread the context. I'm a little confused by how it was argued, but still, I was just confused by context. Cam94509 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
        • @Cam94509: Also, I am not arguing policy. I am arguing whether the achievements are valid. I say these medals have been rightfully earned. What say you? It sounds like you are arguing that they are invalid, because she was female back then. Epic Genius (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
          • My bad, it's really easy to get lost in these threads, and I'm a little on edge because of the number of times I've heard her called "he" in these kinds of threads. Of course she earned those medals legitimately. Sorry for the confusion. Cam94509 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• All the achievements stand. Missruption (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No new records can be claimed.

By changing the name to Caitlyn does not allow any new status for athletic records. The IAAF, the world athletic governing body who sets the standards for records has regulations regarding females with male attributes. While primarily written for hyperandrogenism situations, Jenner clearly will never qualify under the regulations. "Regulations stipulate that no female . . . shall be eligible to compete in a women’s competition if she has functional androgen levels (testosterone) that are in the male range." Jenner never competed in a female competition and never attempted to do so. He competed solely in male events against primarily male athletes. Nothing Bruce Jenner did as a male athlete would ever qualify as a female performance. Trackinfo (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The IAAF has not, and likely will not, ratify Caitlyn's times and jumps as yearly bests or official world records for women. But that's beside the point on Wikipedia: the only question is whether or not Caitlyn Jenner is a woman and whether or not she should be referred to as such. The clear answer, under Wikipedia policy, is that she is and that she should be. For that reason, there's no real discrepancy between saying something like "Marita Koch has the official world record in the 400 meters, at 47.60, though Caitlyn Jenner has the fastest ever recorded by a woman , running a 47.51 at the Montreal Olympics." This conveys the information about both the official world record and about Caitlyn's superior performance. There's a distinction to be made between ratified world records and unratified performances. Plenty of unratified marks are mentioned across Wikipedia. For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cain_(athlete) mentions the oversize track problems associated with some of Cain's performances. The inquiry isn't whether Governing Body A, B, or C has accepted Jenner's marks as a woman's marks; it's whether or not Jenner (a) ran them, and (b) was a woman when she ran them. (a) is not disputed by anyone and the answer to (b) is clearly "yes" under Wikipedia policy. 162.235.91.193 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC) CaitlynFan

• Only trolls will claim otherwise, so let's not feed them, folks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You can just call it "trolling" to avoid answering it, I suppose. (1) Jenner ran a 47.51 in the 400 meters in 1976. (2) Jenner has always been a woman. Which part do you disagree with? We've got numerous sources for both. Now, there's no question that Marita Koch has the officially ratified and recognized women's world record in the 400 meters at 47.60 - but no one is suggesting that Caitlyn's time has been officially ratified as a women's world record. What we're saying is that Caitlyn ran it and was a woman when she ran it. How is that trolling? 162.235.91.193 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC) CaitlynFan

• Even if Bruce Jenner had publicly identified as female before 1976 and changed to Caitlyn she would not have been able to compete in the women's event. In 1976 there was sex testing at the Olympics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_verification_in_sports#History such tests would have identified Caitlyn Jenner as a man despite the public identification as femail and name change. Ardmhacha (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is beside the point. The question isn't whether she competed in the women's competition; she competed in the men's competition because no one else knew, at the time, that she was a woman. The question is whether or not we acknowledge her performances. There's no reason not to; she really did compete in, and win, the men's decathlon in 1976. She really did run a 10.94 100 meters, a 47.51 400 meters, jump 2.06 for the high jump and 7.22 for the long jump, etc. Caitlyn Jenner did these things. Whether or not the IAAF or Track and Field News or whomever ratifies these as women's performances is not at issue. 162.235.91.193 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlinFan

She was not a she at the time. Biologically she never was and to my knowledge, never can be a she. Its that nasty Y chromosome that gets in the way of any technical gender testing, no matter what she is wearing or identifying as. Track and field has some screwy situations that do need explaining. Thank you for recognizing one in the Mary Cain article, which I wrote. Jenner represented as a male athlete in 1976 and for another 38 plus years after his athletic career was over. I ran against that man in the 1970's. There is nothing a 2015 announcement can do to change that. Trackinfo (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the spelling is "Caitlyn." Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim "She was not a she at the time" is controversial, and depends on many issues of gender identity and recognition which are myriad and way too complex to put on someone. I hate simplifying it this way, because we don't know the specifics in all cases, but the implication that she changed genders is not an assumption; the implication is equally valid that she was always a woman, and that the current situation is a revelation of a lifelong state of existence, not a change. I say I hate simplifying it that way, because while many transgendered people wish to identify their experience in those terms, not all do (wikipedia has a general article on the continuum of gender-identity experiences at genderqueer if you want to read all about it). MOS:IDENTITY was written with this perspective in mind. Again, that is not to say that Jenner did not at the time identity as a man, and saying THAT is not to say that she did. We don't know. We know that you perceived them to be a man, but that certainly is not the same thing. --Jayron32 01:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt there was any question at the time of his gender identity. If there were, he Jenner would probably be asked to undergo some form of a gender test--they were doing that at the time. Jenner did not ask to compete as a female at any point in time. He Jenner would most certainly fail the biological test. Jenner would fail that today. Speaking in biological terms and the athletic usage of gender, he is a man, even today. Jenner is welcome to identify in whatever gender form, but outward appearance, inward psychological feelings have nothing to do with claiming athletic records. Jenner knows that and is making no claims to records HE might have set as a male performer. I believe there is a statement by Jenner to that effect. Other advocates in the community, you, are artificially trying to read more into Jenner's self-identification to suit their agenda of acceptance. In athletics we have global standards to adhere to; regulations. Male performances cannot displace properly deserving performances by true, biological females. We've been down that road with Stella Walsh, Dora Ratjen, Foekje Dillema, Ewa Kłobukowska and the Press sisters in our history. They are still trying to learn about borderline circumstances. Nobody has made a claim that Jenner is anything but XY. Trackinfo (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I follow MOS:IDENTITY; I think it's important that we follow it. That stated, when it comes to the records Jenner set, an approach to analyze is this article by espnmediazone.com regarding the ESPY Award that Jenner will be receiving. That article refers to Jenner with male pronouns when addressing the athletic records, but notes that "the decision to publicly come out as a transgender woman took a different kind of courage and acceptance of one's self. To celebrate that bravery, ESPN today announced that Jenner will be presented with the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at The 2015 ESPYS Presented by Capital One." Going by this Twitter post by Jenner, she is excited for the event and perhaps does not mind the male pronouns for a past matter. Keep in mind that when some transgender people, including transgender Wikipedia editors, were insisting that Jenner should be using female pronouns, she was using male pronouns. Whereas many transgender people cannot stand to be referred to by gender pronouns that they do not identify with, it may be that Jenner is not as offended by being referred to by the opposite pronouns, unless perhaps there is an ignorant and/or malicious intent behind it. I'm not stating that we should not follow MOS:IDENTITY; I'm simply posting this ESPY Award article for further thought on the records aspect. I'll go ahead and post about this in the WP:Village pump discussion that is trying to clarify MOS:IDENTITY with regard to Jenner. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

When Jenner set the records, wasn't she biologically a man? That is the only thing that the officials care for, regardless of Jenner's gender preferences. If she was biologically a woman, she would be disqualified. Epic Genius (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the matter from the Washington Post and National Review Both reference the Wikipedia entry here, though neither notes the MOS:IDENTITY guidance. Barte (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The use of 'her' vs 'his' in this article is not always used appropriately.

Bruce competed in men's Olympic events which are graded against men. To say 'She competed in the decathlon' bears too many implications which a reasonable person would infer that Bruce competed in a woman's event. Also, until this year, he was a man. He publicly decided to be called a she at one point. He should be referred to as a man until that date and then a woman from that point on. I go to Wikipedia in order to bring clarity to a situation or to conduct research. Reading this information about Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn) made me confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.42 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY which was written over a year ago to specifically address issues like this, to wit, " 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." --Jayron32 01:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly when the discussion occurred, things like this were theoretical. The discussion was probably heavily dominated by POV pushing advocates. I suggest this whole subject be revisited in light of the current situation, in light of realistic (or unrealistic) attempts to use this policy to change the accuracy of information reported by wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to make to make clear Jenner's transition from anatomical male to transwoman in contexts where omitting that information would lead to reader confusion. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, so it's an immense betrayal of our purpose to leave readers in the dark. Readers of the article should not be left wondering how Caitlyn was permitted to compete in the decathlon and how a woman was able to beat a field of men (despite elite men having better results than elite women in the component events). Readers should know that Jenner competed as a biological male. In addition, readers should not be left with the impression that Jenner's ex-wives married him with the intent to enter a same-sex marriage. To do otherwise would effectively be "mis-orienting" them. I understand that many people feel very strongly that any mention of Jenner's anatomical sex at birth is insulting, but Wikipedia's raison d'etre is not to avoid causing people anguish. We sometimes publish things that people find insulting/bigoted/offensive. We have articles about ethnic/religious slurs. We have articles with artistic depictions of Muhammad, despite the fact that many Muslims find that extremely hateful, bigoted, and blasphemous. In fact, Wikipedia has a police on depictions of Muhammad. We have articles that point out the historical references in the Book of Mormon are contradicted by archaeological and linguistic evidence. We have articles with photographs of genitalia and dead people. We have articles about murders that families of the victim would find traumatic to read. We don't include "trigger warnings" in articles about books/movies/etc. that include rape scenes. It's extremely paternalistic to think that transgendered people are so fragile that we have to have a confusing narrative lest it traumatize them. Of course, we shouldn't write things with the purpose of being insulting, but we shouldn't obscure the gender history of a person in a way that leaves readers less informed. Jenner's history as an anatomical male is important to understanding how she was able to compete in the Olympic decathlon and to marry women at times when same-sex marriage was illegal. It's not minutiae that can be glossed over. I'm not saying we need to use male pronouns, but we need to make the sex/gender situation clear in some way. --JamesAM (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: sorry; you're telling me we didn't have articles on transgender individuals a year ago? Have you been living under a rock? Please understand that this area is under discretionary sanctions: referring to people who want to enforce MOS:IDENTITY or who wrote it as "POV pushing advocates" is not adhering to behavioural best practices, and you'd be best to avoid casting aspersions. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

(male to female) Hormone replacement therapy vs Hormone replacement therapy, vs Hormone therapy

I've been reverted twice, the second time was a little stealth since it is not labeled in the edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caitlyn_Jenner&diff=prev&oldid=665352920. In the section Gender Identity the piped INT link for my first edit I changed it to say Hormone therapy. Another editor did not like that and boldly rv. I then followed that editor's complaint which said something like I must leave the word replacement because that was the title of the linked article. I did that by using the exact words in the title of the linked article((male to female)Hormone replacement therapy).--removing what I objected-to which was the piped-link term "hormone replacement therapy", because it is confusing with what is known as HRT, or replacing same-sex hormones as-in menopause treatments, or did it mean replacing the sexual hormones of one sex with another? I also object to any jargon that would promote or advertise medical treatments, unless the topic is properly referenced, so that was my initial reason for del the piped wording. I still think that it should be changed but respecting the article warnings--does anyone have an opinion here?73.199.138.75 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) would be preferable. I don't quite understand your objection to advertising or jargon. If you have a problem with the names of other pages it would be best to discuss it on those article's talk pages. -- haminoon (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

TY and no problem with other articles or their titles just the piped link for this article. Also,the refs connected to the sentence with the internal WP link, do NOT say " hormone replacement therapy". One says exactly what my original revrrted edit said "hormone therapy". And the other was a paraphrased quote from the 20 20 interview that says that estrogen was used for five years in the late 80s. It all could change after the Vanity Fair article is more available. But currently it is not right and speaks to an agenda.ChangalangaIP (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)