Jump to content

Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

in early life it says "Jenner has a younger sister named Nicole." with a citation but this is wrong so could it be changed to say he has two sisters named Lisa and Pam and the source is when bruce's mother gave an interview with the dailymail and gave them pictures and they are mentioned a few times in the interview http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2830520/Bruce-Jenner-s-mother-not-fan-son-s-new-effeminate-look-lets-rip-controlling-monster-ex-Kris-no-holds-barred-interview.html she also claims the jenner family is descended from Edward Jenner and that could be added also sort of backed up by a tweet from kylie jenner saying he's a relative [1] but is stated as an ancestor in the article and i also saw it on ancestry.com but since i don't have a tree you can say the family claim 80.1.219.140 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: Need better source than dailymail. Doesn't have a reputation for accurate BLPs. But will remove the statement about Nicole since it's unsourced. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

it should not matter if it is the dailymail as i have said it is an interview just like u may object to celebuzz but his sister lisa gave an interview to them [2] his mother has provided proof to the dailymail of their existence and it is near impossible to find a better source online because they are out of the limelight if you read that other celebuzz interview 80.1.219.140 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources confirming this, though they all point back to People magazine. Time will tell soon enough.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 15:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitive RS coming on transition by May

"Bruce Jenner to discuss transition in Diane Sawyer interview" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bruce-jenner-to-discuss-transition-in-diane-sawyer-interview TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Saw that too. Look forward to the interview. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Canadian

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

his father was CANADIAN!!! http://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=dowfam3&id=I315775 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.219.140 (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

was a joke but mainly pointing that fact out and could be added to early life if u get a better source on the family tree also those examples u gave were terrible 80.1.219.140 (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This page is here to discuss issues regarding the main entry. This isn't a proper forum for "jokes." (2601:1:580:1A8:8CA5:B9BA:8098:3E06 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC))

You do realize that "joke" is almost a year old? The targets of your wrath have long since moved on. 75.150.163.113 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps you should realize that this page is reserved for discussion as to how to improve the article, not a forum for your irrelevant, simplistic and pointless comments! If you want to make silly comments, join the IMDB forums. (Sellpink (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

You're not improving the article by insulting my choice of words. It would be an improvement if you got over your self-importance. 75.150.163.113 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Full protection ending

Just a heads up for everyone here, I plan on dropping the protection level back down to indefinite semiprotection late tomorrow evening, roughly 32 hours from now. I apologize for not leaving a note sooner stating my intentions - I didn't want to set a fixed duration when I protected it so that it wouldn't be completely unprotected when the full protection expired. I originally planned on removing full protection after about three days, but the request at WP:RFPP had asked for one week, which I agreed was a little better. This will end up being just a little bit short of one week. Thanks everyone. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What's better than part of two decades?

Can we change "the better part of two decades" to something less obtuse – e.g., "about fifteen years"? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote that. I can't recall from my own memory exactly what years, even though I personally worked a lot of those meets. I believe Bert Bonnano started the meet in 1977, the year immediately after he won the the gold medal, and I can't recall what year in the mid-90's it stopped. The thing about sourcing this kind of fact is the PR efforts for a big event like this tend to try to minimize publicity (damage control) on the dates of an event's demise. Its usually due to something like the pull out of a sponsor and they hope they can find another sponsor to come in. It will get spun like "We are taking a year off, but we'll be back next year." Based on googling results, there was a 1996 Jenner Invitational and a 1978 Jenner Invitational, I haven't found results for 1977 or 1997. So I'm pretty certain it ran for 19 years. I'll have to dig through old issues of Track and Field News to try to find more info, but also the first year out it might not have attracted top name talent (though hey never invited me to run). Since I'm unsure about either end, give or take a year or two; "Better part of two decades is a safer statement of fact." Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
How about "almost two decades". "Better part" is an idiom. Marteau (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer "about twenty years" or "about 19 years" or "from about 1978 to 1996". I find that more straightforward and factually equivalent, and when I encounter "almost" and "more than", my WP:EDITORIALIZING alarm bells start ringing (at least softly). Incidentally, I also suggest adding a comma after "meet" in the next sentence for improved parsing, removing the comma from the previous sentence, and changing "frequently shortened to 'Jenner'" to "frequently shortened to 'Jenner Invitational'". —BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Since I do not have sources to declare the exact dates, I would prefer not to publish inaccurate information. Without a source, I do not know if it was, in fact, two decades. The meet could have existed in 1977 or 1997, which would make both the exact dates proposed and the 19 year statement wrong. It is ambiguous for a reason. You can dislike and are welcome to change my wording, but do not change the meaning by adding inaccurate, unsourced precision. Trackinfo (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I removed any mention of time frame. Marteau (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we report on the reporting?

No mainstream news outlet has reported that Jenner is transitioning yet, so obviously we shouldn't report that either. However, multiple major outlets have reported on the reports in other forms of media. The New York Times writes "Though he has not confirmed it, he is widely reported to be in the midst of making a transition from male to female." The Washington Post writes "The evolving appearance of Jenner, the 65-year-old 1976 Olympic decathlon champion, has led to reports, most recently by Us Weekly, that the former athlete is in the midst of a 'transition from male to female.' " And so on. My question is, if multiple reliable sources see fit to at least report on the rumors, mightn't we report on them too? Something along the lines of "In late 2014 and early 2015, reports surfaced in tabloid magazines and other entertainment media that Jenner is undergoing a gender transition. Jenner has not confirmed the reports." And then maybe note the reports about the reality series and the Sawyer interview.

I'm all for respecting living people's privacy, but I don't think we need to hold back on writing about what even highly reputable sources like the Times and the Post consider to be fair game. We can respect Jenner's privacy without unnecessarily censoring ourselves. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Times and the Post are for-profit newspapers. This is a non-profit encylopedia and as such it has different aims and standards. That said, I do not support covering meta issues surrounding Jenner's transformation at this time, at least until the issue of his transformation per se is included Marteau (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
We do not disqualify reliable sources because they are for profit businesses. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. PinkAmpersand said "My question is, if multiple reliable sources see fit to at least report on the rumors, mightn't we report on them too?" My point was that they, as completely different types of publications, have different standards for inclusion, often based on what will bring in revenue. Wikipeida has different, and I would say higer, standards, and that just because they cover something is not reason for us to cover something, was my point. Marteau (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not. We are not a newspaper, and we don't deal in rumors. Our standard here is higher. Townlake (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The trans Jenner issue is all over the news, in reliable sources. It is a glaring omission and defect in the article. Readers who want to learn more about this issue may turn to Wikipedia and we should summarize what has been reliably reported. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Newspapers write about a lot of things that Wikipedia does not. Saying we shold include something because it's "all over the news" is to ignore the fact that encyclopedias and newpapers are different and have different goals and different standards. Marteau (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Townlake and Marteau. "Reporting on the reporting" is just a backdoor way of inserting rumors and speculation, generally by anonymous, uncited, unnamed, unattributed, shadowy "sources" making unsubstantiated claims. Any anonymous person can claim anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times isn't rumor mongering. I think Wikipedia should provide objective info because it is of interest to our readers. Jehochman Talk 19:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that Wikipedia has "higher standards". The only standards are the standards of good writing. The New York Times and The Washington Post are sources of adequate quality, but only if used properly, and this does not only apply to this issue. Any assertion we make has to be adequately supported by sources. I don't think anyone has suggested that we assert that Jenner is transitioning from male to female. That is not something the sources support. But the sources do support that he may be doing this, and the sources do support that this is only speculation at this time, and the sources do support that this certainly has not been confirmed by Jenner. Our rule-of-thumb should be that reliably sourced assertions can be passed along to the reader. We should formulate our wording conservatively. We should exercise restraint in the wording that we choose. If we fulfill those requirements we are holding to "higher standards". Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I say wait until we know Jenner's identity. If Jenner is trans or GQ, then the reporting is notable in terms of the rumors beforehand. If Jenner is not, then the reporting is notable for being wrong. But as it stands, the reporting itself is not that notable, or at least we can't say why it's notable because we don't know the nature of its notability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia has a higher standard. Speculations about who "may be" gender transitioning is a thing one might expect to see in a tabloid headline while waiting in a grocery checkout line, not in an encyclopedia. And the fact that the Times or the Post has anything to do with such things says more about the abysmal state and pandering tendencies of modern journalism than it does for its includability here. Marteau (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reporting on the reporting would require sources themselves reporting on the reporting. The subject of the articles in question is Jenner. No articles (that I am aware of) are written about the other articles as their topic. In this context, the articles are WP:PRIMARY and reporting on them would be WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Paparazzi

Hi all, just an admin note that I have edited through full-protection to remove a sentence that struck me as particularly BLP-problematic, about paparazzi being involved/not involved in the accident. My sense is that the text I removed gives the implication that Jenner has lied, and I prefer to err on the side of BLP in a case like that. I have no problem with the content being added back if it can be adapted to a less-problematic phrasing, or if consensus is reached that I'm being silly and the content is fine as-is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You should have gained consensus first before continuing the edit war through a full protection, admin or not. Admin tools were not designed to skirt the consensus process. That sentence was sourced and some editors thought it was notable enough to include. It shouldn't have been removed without first gaining consensus. The fact that you saw fit to explain your rationale on the talk page AFTER you extended an edit war, I'd of no concern. The only concern is that you edited the article and bypassed full protection without consensus. And the fact that what you removed was part of the original edit war and was the reason the article was fully protected in the first place, makes your edit worse. JOJ Hutton 20:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
BLP trumps consensus and BLP violations do not need consensus for removal. The statement was in quotes but unattributed. Fluffer was correct in removing it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Jojhutton. I'm sorry my action has upset you, but our BLP policy requires the removal of contentious or poorly-sourced content from articles about living people. It even adds that such content should be removed "immediately and without discussion". In this case, the information—one sentence that was a small part of a larger section that people have spent the day edit warring over—was negative, poorly-sourced (it cites a reliable source, but the content of that source is essentially "we have no idea whether this is true or not", which is not sufficient support for our article stating something that hits the BLP borderline, at best, as fact) and contentious. So we have negative BLP content, that is contentious (the edit war is evidence of that) and which is poorly-sourced. WP:BLP's admonishment about such content is so strong that I believe it justifies making an edit through full protection (something I would almost never do in any other circumstance) to remove it.

I have no opinion in the content dispute that is driving all of this; my action here is solely administrative. If the sentence can be better-sourced or rephrased and a consensus is reached to add it back to the article, give me a ping and I will be happy to add it back if the article is still protected. Until affirmative consensus is reached that the content (in its current form or an adapted form) is not problematic, however, policy requires that we proactively err on the side of excluding it. 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly that was a BLP violation. How was it negative? I'm not buying that argument at all. The sentence wasn't negative enough to warrant immediate removal. Not as negative as some of the things I've read about him in the past week. Even if it was borderline BLP, there wouldn't have been any major harm at getting a bit of consensus before taking it upon yourself to decide what is and is not a BLP violation. The main point I'm trying to make is that unless it was a "gross" violation of BLP, admins shouldn't be inclined to decide if something should or should not be removed as a BLP violation without consensus, ESPECIALLY when the article is fully protected and the information was part of what contributed to the full protection in the first place. JOJ Hutton 21:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Fluffernutter believes that the statement in question is enough of a BLP concern to warrant summary removal per the BLP policy, I am inclined to agree. The BLP policy permits editing through protection to remove it, even if the administrator is involved (which she is not). If you can come up with consensus here that it is not, it can be readded, but it does not get left in the article while consensus is developed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It was actually a quotation of the subheading of the title of the particular article. But this will all shake out in due course. We can all be patient; nothing to get upset about. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I tend to get upset when admins edit through full protection without consensus or discussion. We might decide retroactively that it was a BLP problem, but unless it was a gross violation of BLP, which it wasn't, the edit should have been discussed first. JOJ Hutton 23:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Any violation of BLP is a gross violation of BLP. We always have an extraordinary responsibility to be cautious with every word of biographies of living people. When any doubt exists, removal is appropriate. Townlake (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, no. Then I disagree that it was BLP problematic at all. This trivial matter is sourced. It's been covered.00:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)

Date of second marriage?

The info box says Jenner married Linda in 1982, the article says 1981. 140.209.60.162 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The date of January 7, 1981 shows up in the source. That actually predates the divorce date reported as the last week of January 1981. "Immediately" is also included in the source so we have a pretty accurate month, perhaps the divorce date is not exact. Trackinfo (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Jenner immediately married actress Linda Thompson on January 5, 1981" is in the Wikipedia article. Jenner's first divorce and second marriage occurring in 1981 appears to be properly cited. It's the info box that seems to be wrong, as it says Jenner married Thompson in 1982. I think the info box needs to be corrected. 140.209.60.162 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Admin attention needed. Since the article is locked, an Admin should make this correction.Trackinfo (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request - Date change

In the infobox under "spouses", please change the date range below Linda Thompson from "1982-84" to "1981-84". See the above discussion for reasoning behind the edit request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 February 2015

I take issue with the article cited, Bacardi, Francesca (December 18, 2014). "Kris Jenner and Bruce Jenner's Divorce Finalized". E!. Retrieved January 29, 2015. #37 and the other articles because they incorrectly used legal terms. #37 specifically incorrectly states that the "divorce is finalized" when what the article should actually state is that the terms of the divorce were finalized. The actual process is that someone files for divorce via a Summons and Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. If the parties can agree on everything and no one contests the divorce, they file a Marital Settlement Agreement with terms of divorce. The divorce can only be finalized via a Divorce Judgement (or Judgement of Dissolution of Marriage) which a judge can only sign into effect if it's been at least 6 months and 1 day from the time the petition was filed.

Leave it to an entertainment writer to misunderstand the legal process! People can live apart for as long as they like, but are not legally separated until paperwork is filed. Please see the divorce overview page here: http://www.lacourt.org/selfhelp/divorceorseparation/SH_DS001.aspx I would be happy to come up with something myself, but can't do this because of the current block. Hopefully everything will turn out OK for Bruce.

Cherubino3 (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing protecting this page. Come up with sources, come up with language and post it here for an admin to post into the article. This is a frequently vandalized article, thus the protection, but most wikipedians and I happen to like and encourage accuracy. Trackinfo (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Not done for now: @Cherubino3: What Trackinfo said. Please come up with a new wording that is both correct and follows what the sources say. This might mean using different sources, or if there are no sources that correctly sum up the legal situation, then it might mean removing the material altogether. Once you have a wording, post it here and reopen the protected edit request, and an admin will add it to the page. Also, you should be aware that an edit request requires consensus, but in this case it seems the problem isn't one of a lack of consensus, just that others haven't been willing to do the necessary research to fix this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The article says that the divorce will be finalized in March 2015 (due to 6-month period), so this request is mostly already taken care of. I would change the sentence to:

Their divorce terms were finalized in December 2014, but it will not officially go into effect at least until March 23, 2015 due to a six-month state legal requirement. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Second divorce?

The article currently says taht Jenner is getting a divorce from his current wife; how-ever, earlier, the article talks about a previous wife, going only so far as "As of February 1986 they were separated.[31] " They must have gotten divorced. Can't we get a source on that and put it in.?05:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)05:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)211.225.34.159 (talk)

I hate to use People magazine as a source since that photoshop job ruins their credibility as a WP:RS, but this article from 1981 puts the week of the divorce as late January 1981. Trackinfo (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The Photoshop job where they made him a woman? That wasn't People, that was In Touch Weekly. Melonkelon (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why peoples slam on People Magazine's credibility like this... yes, it is devoted to pop culture and celebrity news, but it is not a tabloid. It's a subsidiary of Time Inc. along with Sports Illustrated and many others with never-questioned credibility, and holds itself to the same standards. It doesn't publish made-up stuff. I can't remember if it's even ever been sued or in a scandal. Wikimandia (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 February 2015

My request is that the articles he/him/his pronouns when referring to Jenner be changed to she/her. The reason is that Jenner identifies as a woman. As such, she/her pronouns are appropriate. Intentionally misgendering her would be considered disrespectful and inaccurate. 2602:306:833F:EC80:918:75FC:F30F:A220 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: - there are no reliable sources as yet to support that. See the section above, #When to start using female pronouns? - Alison ❤ 02:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Won't it be a bit tricky even if reliable sources do later emerge? Jenner is notable primarily for winning the decathlon--not only was Jenner clearly a man at the time, the decathlon is an event only open to men. His notability appears to be as a man even if a later transition to becoming a woman is later confirmed. Dash77 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure we can find a way to word it so it respects Jenner's identity and isn't overly confusing to the reader. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
We are already headed for idiocy. Here's an edit that shows the ramification outside of this article. That one, ultimately sourced to The Star got reverted, but for how long? For comparison, here, look at how we treat Mary Decker over the course of three different names. Following the policy you are citing above, we will be reporting Belinda or whatever it becomes setting the world record and winning the Olympic Decathlon. He was Bruce at the time. For every other Olympic performer, we carefully report the name they were using at the time of the performance. We (later) pipe link to their current name. Wikipedia will wipe out that accuracy in the many places Jenner is embedded across wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: Please be cautious with your language. We went over this with the whole "Manning dispute". We can find a wording that is both accurate and reflects Jenner's identity. It will not be that difficult, even if it means including a statement "who then was known as Bruce Jenner". We can discuss the wording when/if the time comes. Frankly we have little idea what Jenner will reveal in their interview. They may say they're genderqueer, agender, etc. Let's just wait and worry about it when the time comes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Car accident

I would like to request that we remove the recent car accident reporting. This article is appearing on Wikipedia's most-viewed article reports including WP:TOP25 and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-11/Traffic report. Viewers coming to the article will be deceived into thinking the article and subject is popular because of the car accident (which is the only recent event we deal with at the moment), which viewcount analysis shows is not true. Traffic greatly increased in the days prior to the car accident, due to an issue which I see is currently being held from being covered in the article content. The car accident was an unfortunate event in Jenner's life, but there are millions of car accidents where someone dies, we do not report on them all.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your issue. A lot of people come to wikipedia, to this article for information which we can accurately provide, and you want that to go away? Its one small paragraph on an article of an already controversial celebrity. It is not an everyday occurrence for an already notable celebrity to be involved in a fatal traffic accident, particularly involving a former professional race car driver. We also report Lindsay Lohan's traffic accidents. Trackinfo (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't find your reasons for removal compelling and I support the retention of the paragraph relating to the accident. Marteau (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My point is that for readers arriving at the article via our top-viewed article lists, they may be deceived into thinking the article is popular because of the car accident. It is because readers wish Wikipedia would provide guidance about the status and legitimacy of the other issue. Why bother covering a car accident when we can't cover what readers want to know about? Just leave the article a bit more stale on recent events, that's all I'm suggesting.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware of your rationale. I simply don't think it's a valid reason for removing properly sourced information. Marteau (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I don't think it's true that "we can't cover what readers want to know about". I'm sure plenty of people are reading the Jenner article not looking for information about gender issues... they can get that in plenty of places... but because they are interested in the entirity of his life. Several generations have passed since his Olympic days, people who know nothing about him except current events and Kardashians, and people are going to want to come here to learn about his life prior to the current events. Save the current BLP issue, we are and can "cover what readers want to know about" for many if not most readers of this article.Marteau (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think this article is popular because of the car accident but because of massive interest in Bruce since his sex change news (I don't think this is article is popular because people want to know about his life in general - he's been a household name since the 1970s and been familiar to a younger generation as part of the reality show scene for what, 10 years?). The car accident wasn't trivial, as someone died. Whether or not Bruce is held legally responsible remains to be seen, but he (and possibly the other driver) will certainly face a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, which is not a small thing either. Wikimandia (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This request and the rationale for it are ridiculous. The car accident was/is noteworthy, and the TOP25 stuff is completely irrelevant. Townlake (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Milowent, what you asking for is a voluntary censorship of a relevant and notable event that occurred in his life based on the tenuous claim that some people who come here will do so thinking that part of his recent life was a bigger story than it was. I don't see that as a sufficient reason to remove the bit about the car wreck. It's notable, well-sourced and covered, and doesn't disagree with BLP. Beyond that, people will come to whatever conclusions that they'll come to. The car wreck is well-documented, the trans stuff is not (and would probably be a BLP vio to include now). It isn't deception on our part to write a good article on a subject who has recently been newsworthy for reasons we are reticent to describe. Deadbeef 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I originally added the information here [3] I felt the information was relevant to the article. (I disagree that Bruce Jenner is "controversial" as the user TrackInfo says) The information I added was deleted later, and subsequently restored by another editor. I believe the info should remain in the article, provided it meets the criteria for biographies of living people. I don't understand User Milowent's concerns at all. The info should remain in the article. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I include controversial only because of the transgender issues covered extensively on this talk page. Trackinfo (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

From the Olympics section, emphasis mine:

"In the era before professionalism was allowed in athletics this kind of training was unheard of."

What exactly does this mean? Athletes in general, much less Olympic athletes, didn't train to improve themselves?

- Lafin T. Jack 04:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LafinJack (talk • contribs)

That part was not written very succinctly and it should be clarified: it refers to professionalism not in manner of behavior, but in that only athletes who were designated as "amateurs" (not making any money off their sport) were allowed to compete in the Olympics until the ban on "professionalism" was done in 1992. For example, NBA players and pro tennis players were not allowed to play for their countries at the Olympics. Ice skaters were not allowed to do professional tours and make money until they had "retired" from being amateurs and become professionals (at which point they could only skate for money and could not compete anymore). So, Jenner was at a handicap because he couldn't just train for a living, he had to actually have a job. Only the Eastern Bloc (USSR, etc) that had 100 percent state-funded sports programs (free living/coaching/medical/etc) allowed athletes to devote their lives to training and competing. So the number of hours Jenner was able to train while also working in an office all day were "unheard of" for an American, basically. Hope that answers your question. Wikimandia (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you. So this was a ban by the US (and 'righteous' countries) specifically for its participants, or a ban by the IOC for everybody? And if in the second case, the USSR participants' "job" was to be an athlete, so they got around the ban?
- Lafin T. Jack 22:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LafinJack (talk • contribs)
Nevermind, I just saw the relevant edit to that section, thanks again. (also I know how to sign properly now) - Lafin T. Jack 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LafinJack (talk • contribs)
(Edit conflict) First of all, let me take credit or blame for that section of the article. I've tried to cover this in a lot of articles, but still the history is shaded in euphemism in may articles of wikipedia. Amateurism was the official law of the Olympics and thus of Olympic sports, enforced by the American president of the International Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage until his retirement in 1972. Until that time, both sides found ways of cheating but the Soviet style, not exclusive to communist countries, of employing athletes on military or police payrolls was decidedly more effective than the American system of under the table appearance fees and cashed in travel allowances. On paper, athletes were not allowed to make any money from their participation in sports. Most American athletes had their living expenses paid through scholarships in college. That meant most careers after college, after about age 23 or 24, were in the form of an elaborate hobby. Between 1972 and 1978 in the USA, there were experiments in trying to find ways of paying athletes, but they were elaborate rouses to funnel money through a track club entity, which then provided more communal support to its group of athletes. It was not until the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, two years after the end of Jenner's career, that provided for any way for an athlete to legitimately receive money for participating in sports and still be eligible for the Olympics. Thats a lot of text to write into the article, but that is the background that is necessary for even a small understanding of the subject. Trackinfo (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries, the edit I was referring to was the one that now links to the Amateur Sports article. :) - Lafin T. Jack 23:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LafinJack (talk • contribs)

American record in decathlon

It is perhaps notable that Jenner's 1976 world record in the decathlon stood as an American record until 1991, when it was broken by Dan O'Brien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdominal Pain (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

√ Done Trackinfo (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Trackinfo, except that the word "stood" has been repeated. — Abdominal Pain (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Fixed Deadbeef 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Motivational speaker and businessman

The first sentence of the lead says he is a "current motivational speaker" and a "businessman". Is he really? I can't find any mention of motivational speaking in the article. Searching the article for "motiv" and "spea" yields nothing. I also can't find any description of current business activities. I am removing that. No source is cited. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

He's quite notable as a motivational speaker, though the article doesn't reflect that. His motivational speaking has also been featured in episodes of Keeping Up with the Kardashians. This 1996 article says he "has done more motivational speaking than anyone since Norman Vincent Peale." Melonkelon (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that article appears sufficient to establish him as both a motivational speaker and businessman, although it's 19 years old, which is too long ago to justify the use of "current". However, the article is now protected, so I can't add a citation to the article or restore those terms. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned that article because it shows he has been a motivational speaker for a long time. A lot of recent sources also mention that he is one if you are looking for a source for "current". Melonkelon (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
No way he's doing any motivational speaking now. That went out the window when the reality TV show millions came in. He definitely was a motivational speaker for many years - he came to speak to my high school in the 1990s. I remember a bit of it, it was good.Wikimandia (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Source? Melonkelon (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

LGBT

She should be categorized as a woman now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.14.89 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

His website, as of this morning, does not mention any transition to a transgender woman. So as of now HE is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk • contribs)

¶ I would very much like to see a segment addressing Jenner's dramatic changes in appearance and the suspicion that he is transgendering or something similar. Sussmanbern (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it seems she will be fully transgendering soon, shouldn't the article reflect this transgenderization status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:d6d:5710:399f:c116:1ec1:400b (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

When soon arrives, it will. Until then, this is just a (admitted fairly well supported) rumor. --Camipco (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is as much evidence now to support that Bruce Jenner is a woman as there ever was to support that Jenner was a man. Does anyone have a documented quote of Bruce herself coming out publicly and saying "I am a man"? I understand that there is an important level of care that needs to be taken to ensure that no articles about living people contain false information, but at this point the only defenses that can be made for categorizing Bruce Jenners as a man are rooted in cisnormativity. It is in fact far more reasonable to assume that she is a woman. Being a trans woman is dangerous and greeted with lots of public humility, it's not something you pretend to do to have fun. I understand that the subject matter is delicate and because of the rules in place that run wikipedia, it might be unwise to list her gender as the one that is likely most accurate. But classifying her as a man is even more of a misstep. Perhaps changing the pronouns in the article to something gender-neutral? "They" is widely accepted all over the English speaking world to be an acceptable pronoun, though I can understand there might be an issue, because it is regarded to be a plural pronoun by people who are strict about this kind of thing. Alternatively, (s)he? she/he, him/her? Just "Jenner" or "Bruce Jenner?" Full transparency, I am, indeed, writing this comment as someone who is concerned about the social implications, not just someone who wants to be perfectly neutral and objective. Even so, I don't think listing her as a man is a truthful, honest, reasonable decision. 74.130.173.237 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It is indeed cisnormative, but Wikipedia is (1) a tertiary source that reflects what reliable sources (which are also cisnormative, sadly) say and (2) extremely sensitive with issues of libel and rumors. Because trans people are stigmatized in Western society, to suggest someone is trans can be grounds for a lawsuit same with suggesting someone's gay. It's ridiculous, but sadly true. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@74.130.173.237: Bruce competed in the Olympics as a man. I think this constitutes a more official source than rumors, don't you think? If/when (s)he goes official with the announcement, it'll be time to edit the pronouns. For now, I absolutely think there's more evidence that Bruce is a man than a woman, and I think it's difficult to argue that it's merely a result of cisnormativity. Bruce HAS lived as a man for most of his/her life, and it's reasonable to assume that's the case until it's confirmed otherwise.98.179.0.112 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir:That makes sense. This seems to me to mostly be an issue of Wikipedia's editing policy, which I am not at all versed in, so I guess I'll just ask a few questions. 1) Would it be unreasonable to at least avoid referring to Jenner with masculine pronouns in the article, for now at least? 2) I question your use of the point that wikipedia is "a tertiary source that reflects what reliable sources." I mean, I understand that to be true. But if I understand correctly, we're NOT allowed to use news sources to say that Jenner is a trans woman, or even put a section in the article saying that such a 'rumor' is being discussed, but we are allowed to assume that Jenner is a man based on cisnormative information sources? I understand that wikipedia is not a tabloid that keeps up with gossip. But I don't think someone's gender is "gossip;" comparing someone's status as a trans woman as gossip is degrading to trans women, really, and you can't argue the information is trivial either, because wikipedia lists the gender of every human being who has an article. It currently lists Jenner's gender as male, so clearly whatever gender Jenner is is relevant to this article. And an honest, reliable source that reflects the knowledge that has been published would not list Jenner as male, I do not believe. I concede that there is an argument against listing her as a woman (at this time,) but are there any sources listing Jenner as a man that are as reliable and valid as sources listing her as a woman? What makes that version of the story more valid? 3) Am I correct in assuming that a direct statement from Jenner confirming she is a woman would make this an open and shut case? If an article was released tomorrow quoting Jenner saying she is a woman, would the article be changed to reflect this?74.130.173.237 (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, per MOS:IDENTITY, "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." L33tminion (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I am confused. Not to start a fight, but the field says "Gender" not "Gender Identity". If we are going to be pedantic gender identity normative prejudice is not part of this argument either way it is as simple as the definitions of the terms "Gender" and "Gender Identity". Bringing up gender politics might be looking for trouble where none exists.
If we are to leave the qualifier “gender” on the title block and not change it to “gender identity”, then we would be forced by the definition of the word gender to keep it Male, no matter how much it frustrates us. Being that the person does not identify with being male, and they along with the public would consider this information significant, I suggest one of the two following changes
  1. Changing the title block to replace the field “gender” with “gender identity” for Jenner.
  2. Listing both Jenner's “gender identity” and “gender” separately.
I would suggest the second option as it is most specific, as both “gender” and “gender identity” are relevant to those trying to learn more about this person’s life. Such a transition is a difficult thing, and glossing over that there has been a transition subtracts a large part of this person’s life.192.136.15.19 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that just trolling? In cases of doubt, we really have no reasonably agreed definition of what a person's "gender" is, other than what they self-identify as their gender. (Just as we have no other reasonably agreed basis for determining who a person's "mother" or "father" is, or whether a person is a "Christian" or not.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You are indeed confused about how gender is dealt with on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
(And MOS:IDENTITY.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Some people are confusing the word gender with sex. Gender and gender identity are not the terms used to draw a distinction between your identity and your chromosomes. In the trans context, both gender and gender identity are used to address the cultural construct and abstract ideas of woman/manhood. Sex is the (mostly) accepted term used to talk about biological gender, but is often a sensitive subject and rude to bring up without a good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.162.214 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

People who still have any doubts or qualms about including Jenner's transgender identity in the article should see the New York Times op-ed on it by regular Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, 2/05/15. He gives plenty of reasons why Jenner's evidently imminent coming-out is a healthy thing for all of us in the circumstances, and comments on how Jenner's mother and step-daughter have told the press they're looking forward to it. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/opinion/nicholas-kristof-bruce-jenners-courage.html 24.90.203.188 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

But if you read the NYT news, there are statements such as “Jenner has not self-identified as transgender,” said Denise A. Norris, the director of the Institute for Transgender Economic Advancement. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to jump the gun on this. We are WP:NOTNEWS. Wait until Jenner does the interview. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
As a transitioning woman myself, I have to admit I bristle a little at the word "he" whenever it is applied to Jenner. That said, I have to agree that, while "they" might have more academic and journalistic integrity, and without that term important factual information regarding the current situation such as Jenner's trache shave has no context for discussion and must be omitted or destroyed, the political situation, gender rigidity of the English language, and Wikipedia's own policies, make "he" the best choice. There is no right answer here, and given that this policy across the board gives Jenner more power over media portrayal, it is the "best of the worst". The real problem has nothing to do with Jenner or Wiki policies. One of the unfortunate side effects of what is looking more like the consensus decision, is that people will pick up on "he" as the "correct" pronoun, and not only be slow to change, but fast to use it with other trans women as well. While Wiki alone can't prevent this, we can still be "good neighbors" on the internet and mitigate this effect. Therefore, I would strongly suggest, as soon as possible, that the lock on this page be partially lifted to allow for an explanation of the policies that went into the consensus decision. That is all I would personally like to ask. Something I can point at when I encounter someone on this internet Wiki is a powerful part of, when they inevitably use our presentation as leverage for promoting their own world views. Links to other articles on trans women establishing some judicial precedence so to speak would go a very long way. Trans issues are very confusing for most people, and like it or not they tend to come to sites like this to determine what is appropriate. We here at wikipedia shouldn't just cover our butts. We should use the power we need to admit we have however inconvenient it is responsibly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdpennell (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The pronouns should be adjusted as well as a section referencing their coming out. It would be most prudent to adjust the pronouns to gender neutral ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeondolphin (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
When (if) Jenner finally makes the annoncement, there will certainly be a day or so of heated debate here, perhaps leading to an edit war, perhaps leading to the article being locked down and a ruling by decree based on prior discussions and prior concensus being issued. The battle has already been fought (see Chelsea Manning and the precident is not there for a wholesale adjustment of pronouns to the neutral, rather, the precident is for changing them to the subject's chosen gender. It's pretty much a done deal should Jenner announce. Marteau (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner is a woman

The male pronouns in this article are very offensive. 2601:2:5E00:6A3:1DA0:E80F:2DE1:45E4 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the talk page. Jenner has not personally come out yet. Until Jenner does, we keep the status quo. We do not know what Jenner identifies as yet. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

I would change it, but these edits [4] are from a user who has been purposely adding false information to articles. Just a heads up. Eik Corell (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the above-referenced edit inserted "Jaguar", which is a term not mentioned in the articles about the video games that are discussed in that sentence (nor on their Talk pages), so that should probably be removed. The rest of that edit looks like an improvement of the article to me. (The article is protected, so I can't remove "Jaguar" myself.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Digging further into this, I found an explanation from the user. It seems that the "vandalism" was just an unusual form of accidental editing error, and "Jaguar" should be "video"! —BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I've changed that back to video games. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The article states "He hit a "home run" by achieving personal bests on the first day, turning his notorious second day into a gold medal coronation." There's nothing in the source that shows that the day was notorious nor is there anything on the web or elsewhere in the article showing that the day was notorious or known in any way for something bad. I removed the word "notorious" and it was reverted with no explanation. Why? What did Jenner do on that day that was notorious? Hagrinas (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a frequently asked question section for this page?

I found the Frequently asked questions area at Talk:Chelsea Manning helpful and covered some of these same issues as to when we use her new name and how things are reported. That might help people looking for the same information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missruption (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If and when Jenner goes public, a talk page treatment similar to Manning's will be appropriate. Implementing something similar now, to this talk page, would be premature. Marteau (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
She has gone public. She's been working with her family to get them used to the idea and has a mini-series and some media appearances lined-up -- Bruce Jenner will sit down with Diane Sawyer to discuss his transition from male to female, Us Weekly can confirm. A source close to the ABC News veteran tells Us that Sawyer's interview with Jenner, 65, is no surprise. "Diane has always been very supportive of the LGBT community," the insider tells Us. "She has been honored by GLAAD." http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/bruce-jenner-diane-sawyer-interview-to-discuss-gender-transition-201522 and she is doing a docu-series to air n the fall. Missruption — Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Per concensus (see discussions above) second or third hand attributions on this issue are not acceptable, only Jenner's personal statement will do. Marteau (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
If it was public, we would have the statement from Jenner. the only thing that is public is rumor and speculation, and hearsay, on hypothetical private statements. When the show starts, or Jenner does an interview, and directly addresses a transition then we will have a public statement. However, A FAQ of why we aren't covering the transition could cut down on a lot of this repetitive discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I would not have a problem with that. I suspect, however, that we would not save any time or effort. There would no doubt be a long debate over what should be included, what should not be included, how things should be said, how things should not be said, etc etc. The collective editor attention time spent tweaking the language could even exceed the time we would otherwise spend addressing the questions about lack of coverage people bring here. Marteau (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you are mistaking how many years this will be going on. I'm happy to copy over what's on the Chelsea page. A FAQ would have saved me asking my question. Miisruption — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missruption (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
A quick skim of this talk page would have saved you from asking your question. Also, I was addressing Gaijin42's recommendation that a FAQ address why we are not mentioning anything regarding Jenner's gender yet. That issue will last only as long as it takes Jenner to make an announcement, not "years". Marteau (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Like Chelsea Manning, the same questions about Jenner's transition, use of pronouns and various other aspects of her transition will not end with her announcement. They have only just started and her high-profile in the the most successful reality show family will only interest more people in the issues raised. Like other people who have been public about transitioning and gained fame, or been famous prior, the issues are talked about for a very long time. Missruption (talk — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Bruce Jenner is a man. And until such time as he sees fit to share any additional information publicly, which he hasn't, he will continue to be refered to as a man. Even his own family acknowledges that he is still a man and they refer to him as a man with male pronouns. People here need to just wait and stop pushing an issue that isn't even an issue yet. JOJ Hutton 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Jenner used to be known only as a man but has started a long transition and coming out process. To insinuate this is not an issue is funny since it's reported on every day. "Bruce Jenner recently opened up to his family that he has known since the age of 5 that he was a female.

Family sources tell TMZ, Bruce told the klan he has kept his "true self" inside since he was a child, and even during the '76 Olympics -- when he was considered the greatest male athlete in the world -- in his head he was a woman." http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/16/bruce-jenner-transgender-sex-change-woman-kardashians-diane-sawyer/. "transition into becoming a woman will be chronicled in a docuseries that will air as early as May. Production and Jenner family sources tell us it will NOT premiere until "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" Season 10 has fully aired. The Sawyer interview is tricky. We're told Bruce wants to maintain enough mystery for his docuseries but use other media promotionally." http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/05/diane-sawyer-bruce-jenner-interview-sex-change/. There remains no reason why a FAQ wouldn't be helpful on this page. The subject is being discussed and hyped by Jenner herself in a promotional fashion. Look clueless in the article itself but at least answer the questions here. Missruption (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Unnamed, unattributed, shadowy "sources," who may or may not have been paid for their unsubstantiated claims, are in no way reliable sources of facts for an encyclopedia. Until something is verifiably confirmed by an authoritative source, an encyclopedia cannot use it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Jenner's own family is not shadowy. Also you're missing the point. This story is being reported globally so the story itself is certainly relevant for putting something in the article. But that's not the point either, is it. The point is that people will be coming here looking for information and like the Chelsea page this one can have some non-condescending replies to FAQs. It would be helpful to those who wonder why Wikipedia is purposeful avoiding this months-long high-profile media story with no mention at all. The news media certainly think it's worth prime time. Missruption (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

this situation is somewhat ironic. The current policies were put in place to protect trans people. basically the only thing that counts is direct statements from the person themselves. This is to prevent the issue where the NYT says "'John graduated when he was 28" and us having to follow those pronouns. There have been zero statements from Jenner themeself. There have been lots of rumors, speculation, and hearsay. Maybe (probably?) those rumors will turn out to be true. But until we have a statement from Jenner themselves nothing is going to change in this article, and all you are doing is wasting your and everyone else's time my making the same tired hashed out arguments that are not going to go anywhere. WP:DROPTHESTICK Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.I certainly disagree with you and apparently so do most major news outlets that note his changing appearance as noticeable and to be discussed by Jenner as part of his ducu-series. What you have failed to address is that a FAQ on this page, not the article, would be quite helpful. Missruption (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If we're being gender inclusive, Jenner's presentation/appearance has nothing to do with their gender and they could easily still be a man who has chosen to not look like what society thinks men should look like. :) - Lafin T. Jack 19:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LafinJack (talk • contribs)
If we're "not sure if Jenner is male or female" how about using gender neutral pronouns? I think it's insulting to use male pronouns given that it's plausible that Jenner is planning on coming out within months from now. You're assuming things if you start using female pronouns but you're also assuming things if you use male pronouns. -pinkboi — Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Who are you quoting? Anyway, a quick search on the NY Times, LA Times and USA Today show them continuing to refer to Jenner as "he" and "him", all within the past month. Certainly Jenner, being media savvy, is aware of how he is referred to in the media, and should he find that "insulting" he could simply make a statement in public. That he chooses not to is on him. Marteau (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
He's been called a he all his life, so I expect that he expects to be called a he since he hasn't requested for anyone to call him anything different. Calling someone a "they" for no good reason is what's insulting. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Transition to female

Some sources are citing that Jenner is in fact transitioning into a woman. Should we add this into Personal Life or wait until more sources poor in supporting this information? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say wait. Right now it's just anonymous, unattributed, shadowy "sources" who may or may not be correct in any number of ways. I think as an encyclopedia, we need to have it concretely nailed down and confirmed before including it.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
People and Entertainment Tonight are anonymous, unattributed, shadowy sources? http://www.ew.com/bruce-jenner-transition-to-woman-docuseries
To whoever posted the above: Not People and Entertainment Tonight — the anonymous, unattributed sources they're currently citing. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Too premature to include. There are some articles that say he is "ready to come out as a woman", but until that happens or he makes a statement, I don't think it should be included. Melonkelon (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I was going to add it but decided against it after rereading the article and realizing he didn't actually verify. RockStarRei (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There is this People magazine source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Not confirmed by Jenner him/(her?)self. RockStarRei (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Per numerous discussions here and elsewhere, Wikipedia requires unimpeachable, non-tabloid direct statements from the person themselves for changes like this. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm usually guarded, but I think it has gained enough significant coverage, that it should be mentioned in a careful way, because unless the article is locked fully people will keep adding it day in and day out. People Magazine is really not a tabloid at all - they would not go with this kind of confirmation unless it was 100 percent. The "source" is basically him or his agent/publicist. Especially with him doing his TV show, there's going to be continual press promotion about this. If this is the typical E! TV show, he himself is not going to say anything or do any interviews until it's time to do promotion for the show. And Kim K's comments were fairly significant (contrived), talking about his "journey" and that he's going to tell people when he's ready etc. Additionally the coverage that that one magazine did (of photoshopping makeup on him) was fairly shocking and received significant media coverage. And by the way, I don't mean that cover itself was any kind of confirmation, but printing a cover like this was just nuts and I have a feeling upset a lot of people sensitive to transgender issues. Wikimandia (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The show's publicist may very well be behind this. But we don't know. Anonymous sources have all sorts of reasons for saying the things they do, and few times is it because they're exposing corruption and are afraid of retaliation. In the entertainment world, anonymous sources have their own agenda. Given that an encyclopedia is,optimally, an unimpeachable, concrete source of facts for reference-seekers, I think we need to hold off until we have concrete confirmation. Even if we were to take the anonymous sources at their word, we don't know by any means if (for the sake of argument) we're taking transvestism, full-scale gender-assignment surgery or something in-between. We don't have concrete facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree if it were to be written in the article as a fact or mere speculation; however, it can be discussed what was reported. Even Time Magazine went with the story, and it is most definitely not a tabloid, nor would Time green light the story if their editors felt the People source was not reliable. Additionally, Variety ran an article specifically about his new reality show and that it is devoted to his transition (read article here). And again, not a tabloid but a highly respected industry source with no credibility problems. The show announcement should at least be placed on the page. Wikimandia (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
So, rampant speculation about a BLP subject's appearance leading to insinuations that Jenner may be gender transitioning. How is this okay to mention in a BLP, given there is no reliable source of evidence that this is what's actually happening? Bear in mind that transitioning is either a medical issue, a psychiatric issue, or a psychological issue depending on who you talk to. So when is it okay to speculate about these issues on a BLP based on someone's appearance? - Alison ❤ 10:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not speculation. Speculation would be - "Jenner's long hair and nail polish have led to media discussion and commentary about him possibly being transgender." .... It is not speculation to include, "Trade industry publication Variety reported on January 28, 2015, that Jenner will have his own reality series on E! devoted to his transition from male to female." Variety = not a tabloid nor a gossip blog. Wikimandia (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For BLP concerns such as this, statements like you describe are insuccificent. but in any case, Variety doesn't even say that. it says "has generated considerable speculation in the tabloid press that he is on the verge of revealing he is transgender" a clearly insufficient "fact" for saying anything of substance about anyone. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The LA Times and Fox News have confirmed this transition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
We need to hear it from Jenner or at the very least named sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Please delete the article on the Watergate scandal because much of it was based on shadowy anonymous source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.242.23 (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
New York Times just published an article, in the article they say the Kardashian family still refers to Jenner as "him". The pronoun issue is discussed. People magazine still uses "him/he" and the article refers to Jenner as "Mr Jenner". I suppose we'll have to wait until the interview. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It has been said that Jenner's mother confirms his transition and that it has been delayed due to the crash. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anything is being delayed. He's still filming his show. There's nothing to suggest his life will be imminently affected by the crash, as horrible as I'm sure he feels. But it's not like he was not intoxicated at the time or anything. An investigation may or may not result in a charge of manslaughter, but it seems a bit doubtful as he was following too closely but while going the speed limit and he was not texting or doing something else distracting. He may be the secondary cause of the accident and not the initial cause. He'll definitely have a civil suit for wrongful death but those take years. Wikimandia (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this article, among multiple other articles, Bruce Jenner is in fact becoming a woman. He has already shaven his Adam's apple, although it is unknown if he is planning to get gender reassignment surgery. It will reportedly be announced on the show as well. So do you think it could possibly be written now, since The Daily Mail (in my opinion) is a reliable source? Nyazkilam (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Bruce hasn't announced the change. Your source is fourth-hand information, which is nowhere near good enough for a Wikipedia BLP. Townlake (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you define fourth-hand information and how it differs from the first 3 "hands"?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Firsthand would be Bruce. Secondhand would be the people in his family Bruce told. Thirdhand is Us Weekly; it appears family members told Us Weekly what Bruce said. Fourth-hand is Daily Mail reporting on the Us Weekly report. I assume you've played the telephone game at some point in your life; in this case, for something this sensitive, the information and specifics attached to it really need to come from the lion's mouth. Townlake (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh alright then. I suppose we'll wait until the Diane Sawyer interview or the E! News documentary. Nyazkilam (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
How much do those sources pay attention to Jenner?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's an interview with him -- that's when he discloses his new name. And the E! News documentary is going to feature him and his family. Nyazkilam (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It's absolutely absurd that the Wikipedia article still mentions nothing about this sex change Cole Dalton (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
We now see clips from the upcoming interviews with Jenner discussing his sex transition. Wikipedia however still sees nothing, hears nothing, knows nothing. A ludicrous position. aldiboronti (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news source. Also we can't risk getting it wrong. "Clips" are not enough. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

When to start using female pronouns?

Cosmidering the complete chaos surrounding changes to the Chelsea Manning article (one of the biggest conflicts in Wikipedia history), it would be nice to have a calm pre-discussion about when and how the changes here might take place. What are the guidelines? Moncrief (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:VNT, we have to wait until at least one reliable source reveals Jenner is a trans woman. Georgia guy (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Beyond that MOS:IDENTITY says we need to use the pronouns they say they want used. A source discussing/claiming a transition says nothing about what Jenner themselves wants. We need a clear an unambiguous statement/interview from Jenner themselves saying they are a (trans) woman or would like female pronouns used. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You mean, some trans women prefer to be referred to as men?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I mean we cannot assume "trans woman" nor which pronouns Jenner would prefer. Third gender. Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns#Summary not to mention just the fact that if they have not discussed it publicly, perhaps they don't want it to be discussed/known publicly. (Beyond that, as a celebrity/actor, stuff such as this could affect future job prospects and if we get it wrong, wikipedia could be liable. ) There are numerous examples where things have been "known" for a long time, but we did not update our articles without official statements. Tim Cook or Anderson Cooper coming out are two easy to point to examples where it was a widely discussed open secret, completely not mentioned in wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Gaijin is correct. A "reliable source" that doesn't directly quote Jenner's own wishes won't be sufficient. Townlake (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. And what if Jenner never explicitly tells "us" (the public) about any preferences. Then what? Just because an individual undergoes this type of transition does not require that that individual explicitly articulate to the general public what their preferences are. (Especially in the case on non-celebrities.) No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
If they never say anything publicly, then we never say anything either. See Tim Cook and Anderson Cooper and when the first mentinos of them being gay made (and stayed) in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Then one obviously defaults to the status quo. I am in Jenner's implied position, or perhaps close, it is a very complicated one, even without celebrity status, and even contractual issues, as a celebrity name equals brand. The initiative lies there, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.80.181.204 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)

WP:IDENTITY is paramount here. The BLP subject must confirm this themselves. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To this point in time he has been identifying as male. Pronouns for events transpiring before this supposed future transition should still remain in the masculine. "Her" would have no reference to his performance in the male division of the Olympics, celebrity era as male characters or Kardashians as step-dad. There is no reason to go back and rewrite the article. We do the same thing with women after they get married and take on their husband's surname. The events before the marriage are still referred to under their birth surname. Trackinfo (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Incorrect. Please see WP:IDENTITY and Wikipedia:Gender identity. We use whatever pronoun the person prefers throughout the entire article. If something needs clarifying, we do so in footnotes or by rewording it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Because that viewpoint has won out at Wikipedia, I recommend avoiding using pronouns at all in the sections pertaining to a transgender person's life before transitioning. --DavidK93 (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You'd need to propose a change to the essay/guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Or invoke the "common sense" exception clause available for every guideline. Marteau (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not "common sense" though. If the person says to use different pronouns for the past, then do it. But assume consistent pronouns otherwise. We can tweak grammar if something is difficult to understand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Avoiding use of pronouns at all is something well within editorial discretion at this article, which does not require any changes to policy/guidelines/mos. There was previously guidance to that effect in MOS:IDENTITY, but it was apparently removed at some time "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)." But we can easily just say "Jenner" in place of pronouns anywhere that it would cause confusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
DavidK93 was not talking about using different pronouns, though. He was speaking of using surnames. Were someone to insert, for example, "She won the men's pentathlon" I would not object to someone changing the pronoun to a surname. Marteau (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and for those that advocate that we should already be using "transitioned" language, this is an acceptable action to do now. Switch everything to Jenner away from pronouns, and then both "sides" should be happy (at the cost of some ease of readability) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Too soon imho. Jenner has yet to comment on the rumors and until they do, WP:STATUSQUO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
My point is that using "Jenner" in place of a pronoun is accurate either way. If (he) comes out and says "this is all bullshit, I'm 100% man", "Jenner" is still correct. Conversely "I am and always have been a woman trapped in a man's body" or something of that effect, "Jenner" is also still correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It is, but it's so clunky most of the time. ::shrug:: I think it's a bit early to change things, but that's my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The manual of style does not say to use the pronouns a subject asks for, but to use those consistent with the latest expressed gender identity. Exotic nonbinary options do not need to be considered preemptively. It would be a massive failure of common sense to expunge all the pronouns used of all trans people mentioned in the Wikipedia until they issue specific requests. Rhoark (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This news item http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/news//171361/bruce_jenner%27s_mom_opens_up_about_his_gender_journey_ said to be an interview with Jenner's mother would seem to confirm the transgender story, but she still refers to Jenner as "him", possibly advisedly. Based on this the status quo still seems the good choice, but it might be time to include the issue in the main article, subject to verification of the soundness of the source by another editor better equipped to do so. It seems now to be a significant factor in the subject's life and also will become an important element in transgender history, and transgender sportspeople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.121.249 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally suspect these releasings of partial information, over time, little by little, regarding Jenner's transition is on purpose and aim at breaking the news gradually, as well as to use the media and gain publicity, attention and anticipation for whatever documentaries or shows Jenner is to appear on. I continue to recommend the encyclopedia wait for Jenner to conclusivly make a statement, and recommend we have nothing to do with this publicity bandwagon that is developing and rolling towards what is to be a no doubt spectacular conclusion live and in color with limited commercial interruption with Diane Sawyer or whomever. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a vehicle for publicity for any cause or person.Marteau (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the interview this evening, Jenner stated that "I'm a woman," is this conclusive enough to move forward with changing to female pronouns? [1] Jordanbowden (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bruce-jenner-im-woman/story?id=30570350
No, not with multiple sources saying use of masculine pronouns still. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source saying that Jenner would like she/her pronouns starting after the recent ABC interview, in paragraph six: [1] 137.90.0.177 (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/04/24/bruce-jenner-for-all-intents-and-purposes-i-am-a-woman/

Question from IP editor

Is this article going to claim that Bruce Jenner was the first woman to win the Men's decathlon ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First known trans woman perhaps. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely as one would need a reliable source to say so, and Jenner was not transitioned at the time so was not a trans woman at the time. (MOS:IDENTITY's pronoun rule notwithstanding) Gaijin42 (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought that the Wikipedia policy on trans-gender was retroactive. In other words it does not matter if Bruce Jenner was identified as a man, and called himself a man in 1976 when he won the decathlon. If Bruce Jenner says that she is a trans woman today then the article would read, “She won the men's decathlon in 1976”. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not claim to fully understand the Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the general gist of the policy, though in practice that sentence would not be used due to its awkwardness. For that sentence, "Jenner" would be used instead of "she," but the pronouns all around that sentence would be female for Jenner. See Chelsea Manning for reference, for examples of how the policy has been painstakingly put into practice. Moncrief (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
If Jenner comes out as transgender, I think we could say that Jenner is the first winner of the Men's Decathlon to identify as transgender (as opposed to "transgender winner," which could imply having won after transitioning; if a transitioned person ever wins an Olympic event, we'd deal with how to word it then). However, I'm not sure it's encyclopedic to do so; "winner of the Men's Decathlon" may be too specific a category to bother identifying someone as the first to do something not related to the event; i.e., the first Olympic gold medalist of each gender to identify as transgender should be mentioned as such (I don't know if that would be Jenner or not.), and I don't think we need to identify transgender "firsts" by Olympic event. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, theres a big difference between being the first person to win and then come out as trans, vs the first trans person to win (which in this case would mean Jenner would have needed to win the Women's medal). The second would probably be notable. The first not so much. - An analogy would be Oscar Pistorius running in the regular olympics as a paraplegic (especially had he medaled), vs the numberrous olympians who probably have become disabled after their Olympic involvement. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the wikipedia policy on external articles regarding trans-gender individuals? For example: I notice that the article on Sonny Bono has this text, “On March 4, 1969, their daughter Chastity was born.” Is that an error? Should it be changed? Also I believe that most modern day Olympic athletes have undergone “Gender testing.” How should links to those external sources be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't mean external articles, just other WP articles that refer to someone transgender. Same rules apply. I rewrote the sentence in Sony Bono. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not stand alone and must cite reliable external sources for its facts. Many (I am guessing most) of these external sources do not adhere to the same trans-gender policy as does Wikipedia. These sources are the external articles that I was referring to. I think that it is problematic to cite a source for a wikipedia article that disagrees with the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Is this article going to claim that Bruce Jenner was the first woman to win the Men's decathlon ?" That would be like claiming that Neil Armstrong was the first dead person to walk on the Moon. Bruce Jenner was neither a woman nor a transgendered person when he won his gold medal. 99.141.238.204 (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the logic is that Bruce Jenner identified as a woman in 1976, when the medal was won, and therefore was a woman in 1976. I could easily be wrong here about the logic, but the Wikipedia policy (as I understand it) is that Jenner's should be recognized as a woman throughout her entire life. My problem with the policy is, at the least, it causes confusion and is in conflict with other valid historical sources about the lives of transsexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.39 (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It's complicated. We have no comments from Bruce Jenner, but even if we assume that Jenner now identifies as a woman, we don't know if she feels that her gender identity has changed over time or if her current gender identity has been a lifelong one. Most transgender individuals who have spoken publicly hold the latter position. In any event, it should be noted that there is a difference among being transgender (feeling that one is of a different gender), transitioning (living one's life as a different gender), and being transsexual (i.e., having had sex reassignment surgery to change one's biological sex). So it is entirely possible that Bruce Jenner felt she was a woman in 1976 when she competed in the Olympics, even though she had not yet transitioned. I believe Wikipedia holds that we must identify such a person as a woman, although I personally would describe such a person as female but a man, and a woman only after transitioning. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
DavidK93; you're the opposite of User:JanetWand when it comes to distinguishing the terms male/female and man/woman. Georgia guy (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DavidK93's statement. To clarify, male/female is a biological state of being and man/woman is a social construct and an important basis of self-identity. Your failure to understand this basic conceptual distinction leads me to believe that you are misguided or misinformed as to the subject matter, but that is okay so long as you cite sources and keep your opinions to yourself. JanetWand (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Read DavidK93's statement. He's saying "...although I personally would describe such a person as female but a man, and a woman only after transitioning." This is the opposite of what you say, JanetWand. What YOU say is that a trans woman is a woman, but male, and female only after transitioning. Georgia guy (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of distinguishing terms: Like the Transgender article notes, the terms transgender and transsexualism are not always distinguished. As for changing one's biological sex: Well one's biological sex is not truly changed by sex reassignment therapy/sex reassignment surgery, but some sexual characteristics are changed, and obviously the point is to align the body with the mind. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:99.141.238.204, what you're saying makes common sense, but on this particular subject common sense runs counter to WP:MoS, and is thus verboten. One reason I don't edit much anymore.174.101.121.104 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Car crash not notable

The paragraph about Jenner's recent car crash should be removed. It's not notable and it's inclusion is WP:RECENTISM and violates WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Laura Bush's page includes her killing another driver in 1963. Causing the death of another person is entirely notable and shouldn't be removed just because it (literally) happened yesterday. Deadbeef 10:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I disagree. This is well-covered by good sources. More importantly I don't see some serious violation of policy here. Over time, if a multitude of editors feel the referred-to material really needs to be whittled back, that can be done. If it is all removed—so be it. But it does not have to be erased in its entirety, immediately. I don't find it so problematic. Is it a WP:BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's wait for the proverbial dust to settle on this issue. This is still breaking news and waiting a couple of days for things to pan out will avoid what would be an almost inevitable push by some editors to want to include all sorts of speculations and allegations and unknowns and details and trivia, much of which is and will come from reliable sources, and much of which will certainly suffer from WP:NEWS and WP:RECENTISM issues. This back and forth can all be avoided by waiting a couple of days... eventually, this issue will almost certainly warrant inclusion, but with it unfolding and still being breaking news, I'd advocate waiting a couple of days. Marteau (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I heard on the local news here in Los Angeles this morning that the police believe the driver of the Prius, the first car in the chain, stopped abruptly to make an illegal-u turn. The police said her story is vague about why she was stopped 300 feet from the traffic signal. They said they believe the Lexus rear-ended her, then Jenner rear-ended the Lexus. The report said, Jenner tried to avoid the Lexus by steering abruptly to the right, which caused him to hit the Lexus off-center, which turned the Lexus to the left, which is what pushed it into oncoming traffic. But Jenner did not cause this accident. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's related to paparazzi, it will belong in the transition stuff. If it was just a fluke, I see no reason to include it. Jenner was just involved, not the cause of it (unlike Bush mentioned above). Just wait until we know details. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Clearly notable and well sourced. That he was involved in the crash and that someone was killed under dubious circumstances is a fact. Period. The story and details develop further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC) User:EvergreenFir, Thank you for the reminder. Brain fart! Sorry for not signing that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is "dubious" about the circumstances of the crash? It was a three-car chain reaction crash with tragic results. Nearly three months after the crash, Jenner has been charged with nothing. Unless and until he is charged with a crime, this is a non-notable event in his life. --Crunch (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This talk page needs a special banner

This talk page needs a special banner that talks about the fact that regardless of rumor, Jenner is known by all reliable sources as a man and not a trans woman. Georgia guy (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Yes, occasionally someone comes by who cannot be bothered with reading the existing discussions on the talk page and demonstrates that by saying or requesting something uninformed, but such instances are few and are not overwhelming. The talk page is serving its purpose and I don't see any need for any banner or FAQ yet. When/if Jenner decides to make a change and say so in public, the need for a FAQ will probably be there, but I don't see it yet. Marteau (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Would that then be the "Bruce Banner"? 68.164.204.212 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
GET OUT. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I've gone ahead and added one. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, not anymore. I think that addition is inappropriate and unnecessary. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It's useful. It shows the difference between how Wikipedia handles trans women and how Wikipedia handles Bruce Jenner and why it is different. If you don't like the way it's written, then feel free to re-word it. Georgia guy (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going rewrite a sentence that I think shouldn't be there at all. The rest of the text in the banner does an adequate job of explaining the situation. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The statement says:

"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."

The emphasis of the word "latest" suggests that we normally refer to transgender people by their identified gender and not their birth-assigned sex. I have a big concern that people will think this means that Jenner is a trans man, not a rumored trans woman, per this statement and the guideline of referring to Jenner with male terms. Georgia guy (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How's this? –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Georgia guy (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Are USA Today and Bruce Jenner's own mom not considered reliable sources?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2015/02/04/bruce-jenners-mom-opens-up-about-his-gender-journey/22894205/

Bruce Jenner's mom on his gender journey

[...]

AP: He has opened up in terms of his gender identity, which he is now owning, as opposed to hiding like so many transgender people have to do? Is that right?

Jenner: That's absolutely right. He said, 'Mom, I'm still the same person.' He said, 'I'm still going to race cars, I'm still going to fly airplanes and I'm going to get my helicopter license.'

Dansan99 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. Not for purposes of switching Gener's identity.
  2. If a transition is personally announced, these sources can be used for additional details/backfill
  3. Note the use of male pronouns in the story, not sure this is the story you want to be saying is a reliable source, and that we should follow their lead.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"... A publicist for the 65-year-old Jenner would not comment about his mother's remarks. ..." -- apparently not. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I know of no reliable sources about the gender pronoun Jenner prefers, but there is a very reliable source speaking on the topic of Bruce's gender identity. This is a notable fact, and should be covered in the Wikipedia article in a responsible way, probably as a short paragraph in the Personal section. For example: "In a February 2015 interview published in USA Today, Bruce Jenner's mother confirmed that Bruce had opened up to her about Bruce's gender identity and was not hiding it, as some transgender individuals do. 'Mom, I'm still the same person.' the elder Jenner quoted Bruce saying to her."
A non-comment from a publicist doesn't strike me as notable. An hour long interview with Bruce's mom is notable. If, in similar circumstances, Bruce's mom said that Bruce liked chocolate ice cream, Bruce was undergoing cancer treatment, Bruce sang in a chorus, or Bruce was going to get his helicopter license(!), there would be no question of accepting it as a reliable source. There should be no double standard. -- Dansan99 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The double standard is in place to protect the gender identity of individuals. Otherwise when a reliable soures print that Bradley Manning is in prison and is a man, we would have to follow it. Have patience. If Jenner is announcing, it will be soon, and no harm has been done. 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it has to be Bruce Jenner himself who says he prefers the general public to refer to him as a she. He might be transgender in a typical way and let his friends/family know about it and it might show in his physical appearance in a subtle way -- and still prefer that the media and everyone else refer to him as they always have. This does make sense. If you think that "he's transgender therefore we have to refer to him as a she" then you're wrong. It's his prerogative to decide that. Not his mom's, and definitely not ours.

(What I'm saying here pertains to the pronouns we use and how we define him in the lead section and categories etc, I don't have an opinion on adding information to the article based on reliable sources that talk about his gender identity.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of like the rule should not be:
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.
but instead:
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 preferred gender terms.
Is this the right description?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I think we're getting too hung up on the pronoun question. I don't think it's that important at this point. That we're discussing pronouns at all is more due to the accident of the English language being poor at expressing things in a gender-neutral way. As long as we don't have any evidence of Bruce's pronoun preferences to the contrary, I think we should continue to use male pronouns. The far more important question is whether Bruce is transgender. What we know now from a reliable source is that Bruce told his mom, his mom told a reporter, and the reporter told us. For some reason that's not considered noteworthy enough to put in the article. But, if Bruce told a reporter and the reporter told us, then it would merit inclusion. Usually, the objection in these types of circumstances is that we don't want to include mere rumor. But, that doesn't seem to apply here, since it was the mom relaying what Bruce told her directly, and moms would be considered very reliable. At the very least, it seems it could be included in terms of what the mom said Bruce said to her. Dansan99 (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
88-year-old moms are a little less reliable though... :p I think it might be okay to write about this in the article as long as we don't give undue weight to it (i.e. writing about it too much or including in the lead section). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dansan99: Absolutely not. Given the litany of examples of parents misgendering their children, it would be foolish to rely on them without confirmation from the person themselves. WP:IDENTITY is paramount here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not to what? There are at least two questions here. One is regarding the pronouns to use when referring to Bruce. I have not proposed that we change the pronouns in the article to female. This seems to be in keeping with MOS:IDENTITY, because Bruce has used male pronouns his whole life we have no indication either from him or from his mom that that has changed. The second question is whether Bruce is transgender, or more specifically, if Bruce told his mom that he is transgender. These questions can be considered orthogonal because some transgender individuals choose not to change the pronouns they use to describe themselves. We know from a reliable source that Bruce's mom is claiming that Bruce told her that Bruce is transgender. That seems worth noting with sentence or two in the Personal Life section. At the very least, Bruce's mom is part of his personal life, and her saying this publicly is notable. It could be expressed in exactly those terms, that Bruce's mom told a reporter that Bruce talked to her about being transgender. It doesn't have to say that Bruce definitely is transgender. Regarding parents misgendering children, there are very very few examples of parents calling their children transgender when they are not. It's almost always the other way around. Dansan99 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement was regarding relying on just Jenner's mom as source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Well now, give that all these "unreliable" sources have turned out to be completely accurate, perhaps Wikipedia needs to reevaluate their policy on what is considered "reliable". While the pronouns shouldn't have been changed or anything until Bruce says "call me "her"" the article should have at least mentioned this sex transition stuff, period. Cole Dalton (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner/Archive_2&oldid=1136587357"