Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

The current photograph should be removed

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

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 (The fact that Jenner's picture is outdated is not relevant.)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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siri

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

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

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

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

Lead sentence needs work still

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh stop it with the transwomen getting murdered, this is Wikipedia, not Tumblr, keep your political talking points there. Fact is Caitlyn Jenner lived as a man, expressing in public and usually also in private all the characteristics of that gender, for what will very likely be the vast majority of her life and looking back at her life retroactively gendering her as female for that period is really what misgendering is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Going on about trans women being murdered and disrespected is the very definition of using Wikipedia as a soapbox: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy ... of any kind It may be an important issue to you, but here is not the place to discuss that. The fact of the matter is that the editors of this article have been incredibly sensitive in their treatment of Jenner and her article since she transitioned, and your claims that the article in its current state misgenders her and fails to treat her with dignity are wrong and completely baseless. Chase (talk | contributions) 03:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Offering an explanation as to why the issue is important, as you seem to be tone-deaf to discussion, is just offering an explanation well documented in sources already. How we choose to present sometimes nuanced information to readers remains editorial choices. We may have to agree to disagree on this point but for future editors at least there is some writing as to ongoing objection over the editorial choice made and enforced. Missruption (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely since Jenner came to fame through his then Olympic career, any subsequent career moves, such as TV, films, etc., were on the back of this, and therefore mentioning him as a male athlete is correct. He was not Trans during his career, unless you take the POV that one always is until one is able to achieve surgical modification to correct your body. This also justfies stating that she was most famous for being an athlete, because the entire clebrity is built on this, even the poblicity about her current life.80.43.21.133 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Transition criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture crop request

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

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

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

Picture copyright question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wheaties

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transition page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm gonna have to side with SNUGGUMS here. WP:WHENSPLIT suggests that no less than 50kb of readable prose justifies a page split, and this page hasn't even hit 20. We've got a lot of content to add before we can justify splitting off pages from her main article. Sock (tock talk) 11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Snuggums and Sock. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

in that case I suggest we remove the recentism tag, as additional content will likely expand the transition section further. Barte (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree I agree with Barte Iady391 | Talk to me here 17:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not unless more content is going to be added about her pre-transition life to balance it out. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Agree with Chase. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if someone feels strongly that a separate transition page is useful, I suggest WP:BOLD: create it and see how it flies. This thread reflects a sense of the community, which is mixed, but no permission is required to give it a go. Barte (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, per intitle:Caitlyn Jenner, the article is now at 55KB, thus meeting the WP:SIZESPLIT criterion. Barte (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done as per WP:BOLD Iady391 | Talk to me here 20:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is now being threatened to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transition_of_Caitlyn_Jenner Iady391 | Talk to me here 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

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

Requested move 4 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per the snowball clause (non-admin closure). I'm aware that this is an early close and I voiced an opinion in the discussion, but... come on. There's no need to waste any more time with this doomed proposal. Per NACD, any objecting administrator may reopen this, but please seriously consider if it's really worth it. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

info box picture

Are there any issue with using this picture for her info box? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caitlyn_Jenner_Vanity_Fair_2015.jpgMimi C. (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Please see the FAQ at the top of the page and the talk page archive. Just search "Vanity" and you'll find past discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

VOTE for NO MAIN PIC

Same IP user with same axe to grind. WP:DENY. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After being severely repulsed and disgusted by the main pic used (yes, I will refrain from claiming it as the blatant transphobia of wikipedia), I have come to the decision that NO main pic should be used for Cait. If there are pictures in the wikipedia database of when Caitlyn presented as 'Bruce' (yuck), I'd like to see which ones are possible to use in the main pic. That main pic is flatout gross - FACT. I did some looking around and found this picture: http://img2-2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150504/bruce-jenner-4-800.jpg According to google, that came up when I searched 'free to use bruce jenner' so I think that's best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Per the FAQ, the image must have a free license. Barte (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Well if THAT's the case, then like I said above - I think there should be no image. That picture is horrific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) This was previously proposed and I'll say the same thing now that I did then: any picture is better than no picture at all. A picture of the subject atop the article ensures the reader that they came to the correct article. The picture is still a woman, still Caitlyn, she just looks different. People change in appearance and new pictures will become available. This is no different than unflattering pictures being used for cisgender individuals when no better options are available. Chase (talk | contributions) 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Agreed. Barte (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Agreed with Barte and Chase. Iady391 | Talk to me here 08:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Look, I have come to terms that the picture used - even if it doesn't look like Cait - is still Cait, just dressed as the hideous 'Bruce' persona. There was another picture of 'Bruce' used, why can't we use that one instead? Where are the available options in the wikipedia database? There must be a better free use image of 'Bruce' since none of Cait are available yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) You see what we see. You can check the Wikimedia Commons database, as well. If you can find a better free use image, please propose it. It's also worth noting, per the FAQ and earlier discussions here, that editors say they have been in touch with Jenner's PR people requesting a better picture, properly licensed for the project. Barte (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Filmography

Could we make a filmography section ?

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421063/

Iady391 | Talk to me here 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've started one at User:Missruption/sandbox anyone is welcome to edit and use it. Missruption (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Gender Transition"

This has been debated as to if it is the correct phrase. See discussion here >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transition_of_Caitlyn_Jenner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Olympic Logic

Rapidly degrading into a WP:FORUM violation. Gender is mentioned in the second sentence of the article.

Stating that Jenner was a woman at the time they competed in the men's decathlon doesn't logically make sense. Perhaps their gender change should be the first section to improve the flow of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.239.159 (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Excuse me? Caitlyn was always Caitlyn, even when she won the MEN's decathlon. It was just a secret, but she was definitely 100% female that the time she participated in The Games. The very beginning of the article says that she's a woman, so why would it be confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.188.7.11 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC) N This is complete nonsense Iady391 | Talk to me here 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 100% female at the time is a 100% false statement or Jenner would have either competed in a Women's event or you would have seen at least one woman that was born a woman (or a man competing in a women's event) competing in the event sometime in the history of the Olympics. Identifying as a gender different than what a person was born as doesn't change their genetics or physical characteristics which is a reason why the events are separated by an athlete's born/physical gender, not the gender they identify as. You can't change history and other people that seem to have clearer heads would agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_decathlon, which tactfully noted that Bruce became Caitlyn later, and http://www.olympic.org/content/results-and-medalists/gamesandsportsummary/?sport=32588&games=1976%2F1&event=32533 honestly and rationally state that Bruce took gold in the 1972 event. It's a shame that this is the only page I've come across that would rather rewrite history than tell the story as it happened which makes whatever adversity Jenner went through seem more insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.239.159 (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender transition section should be restored

This is an integral part of her notability and life and drives a lot of traffic to this article. The current few sentences are very insulting. Missruption (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Already under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition of Caitlyn Jenner. There is nothing "insulting" about a content split, though. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead suggestion

The following sentence should be modified: "Jenner has six children from her marriages to Chrystie Crownover, Linda Thompson, and Kris Jenner. A few months after her divorce from Kardashian, Jenner revealed her gender identification as a trans woman in an April 2015 interview with Diane Sawyer." It's not clear that Kris Jenner, formely Kardashian, is the person Caitlyn divorced from before transitioning. Ok, it is obvious as Kris was the last person mentioned, but only writing the name Kardashian is confusing because that name was not mentioned earlier. I'm suggesting that we either write:

• "A few months after her divorce from Kris (so only her first name)
• "A few months after her divorce from her third wife"
• OR we write "Jenner has six children from her marriages to Chrystie Crownover, Linda Thompson, and Kris Jenner Kardashian." And the name Kardashian stays as is in the next sentence. --Sofffie7 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You bring up a good point.
I think we should do the second one. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's done :-) --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly but here it goes, could you please change the currently picture from the picture of Bruce and change it to a picture of caitlyn? I understand that this page might not have been updated in a while but I feel like it's pretty disrespectful, thank you! Holyhunty (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Please read the FAQ regarding the image. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

see the faq
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PLEASE replace the image on this page of one of Caitlyn after her transition to female. It's disrespectful, as a source many people go to for information, for Wikipedia to have a photo of her before her transition as THE image on her page. Seeing as there is no "Bruce Jenner" page anymore, there also shan't be a photo of Bruce as the identifier on Caitlyn's page. 73.9.19.45 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merger as a result of a deletion discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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