Jump to content

Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Pro-Transgender to the point of absurdity

This is not up for debate. See MOS:IDENTITY. Closing this as WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I know many of you were just waiting for this and were beyond ecstatic when someone so famous came out as transgender. And this is likely why many of you decided on such an absurd editing decision. I'm assuming that you weren't trying to push POV or anything, just delirious with excitement.

Anything Caitlyn did prior as Bruce Jenner needs to use the name Bruce Jenner as well as the personal pronoun "he". This is proper encyclopedic style. It confuses the reader to say "At the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, Canada, she won the gold medal in the decathlon," especially since women weren't allowed to compete in the decathlon. I can go on. "Her first marriage was to Chrystie Scott (née Crownover) from 1972 to 1981." So, Chrystie Scott was obviously a man since same sex marriage was illegal in 1972 . . .

It's not just that it's horribly absurd because of the confusion you give the reader. You're also taking a page out of George Orwell's 1984. You are acting like the Department of Truth. You're going back and rewriting history. Instead of saying what happened. A man won the Olympic decathlon, he married and fathered children, he made himself a male role model, later decided to become Caitlyn, and then she decided to promote transgender people. You rewrite history to say, "A female won the Olympic decathlon, she married and fathered children, she made herself a male role model, later she decided to become Caitlyn and promote transgender people." While very good at pushing a POV, this edit is an absolute and complete lie. Just like in 1984.

"We made peace with Eurasia, Yeeeeaaaa!" Alright, I love peace.

"In fact, we never at war with Eurasia!" What, huh, I guess I was wrong . . . how can you make peace with someone you weren't . . . oh nvm, I hate rats so I won't rock the boat.

"We have always been at war with Evil East Asia." Weren't we at peace with . . . I don't like war . . . but rats, Rats are worse RATS - NOOOoooo! Death to East Asia, MAY THEY DIE IN HORRIBLE AGONY!

Yes, these edits are that absurd. There are reasons why a truthful encyclopedia editor doesn't back and change history to fit the present narrative. It is unethical to go back and rewrite history to support a PoV, no matter how honorable that PoV is.

It fails so many Wikipedia standards. I'm fairly new at this but WP:PROVEIT since there is no reliable source saying that Caitlyn won the 1976 Olympic games. No reliable source mentions the first lesbian wedding in 1972. It becomes the point that you are removing the "he" simply because WP:youdontlikeit. Did you'all go back and resource all the material? Well? Did you? Or did you change history just to bring justice to wrongs in the past and present?

The final absurdity with the edits is sad, but true. Caitlyn would never, ever, been able to win the 1976 decathlon. Being a woman in 1976 sucked. And badly. If I were a woman and I got pregnant, my boss would fire me. If I got raped, it would be my fault unless I was a white woman and pointed at a black guy. I would not be free to choose any profession and I wouldn't even be allowed to participate in sports much less football or the decathlon. I wouldn't be on a Wheaties box even if I managed the nearly impossible to get onto a good female athletics program. And on, and on. These edits, instead of respecting transgender people, actually mock the situation women were in in the 1970s.

Previous articles on Wikipedia which could serve as examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly

I hope people don't have a kneejerk reaction because I said something they didn't like. I'm hoping you'll think and understand what a dangerous path this editing is going in, especially if the entire encyclopedia decides to follow suit in other articles.Hilltrot (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree with you, as does the one transgender person I know personally. Prior to the change to Caitlyn, it's proper, factual and good writing to use the personal pronoun "he." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree Hilltrot; a total revisionist view of history is being justified here but then again one can basically say anything they want in this world without reason we live in and get away with it whether it's true or not or makes sense or not. I left this website years ago after putting up with this sort of unintelligent mindlessness; it's just too stressful to deal with and it's relentless. "This is not up for debate" just shows how totalitarian those promoting this agenda really are. NewYork1956 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think the worries that using the correct pronouns might be viewed as confusing or transphobic are misplaced, but if you believe it'll lessen confusion go ahead and try out your change on the article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well,  Already done. I, personally, think that it is redundant, and confusing besides, to add "as herself". Epic Genius (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. And yes, it's somewhat redundant to boot—generally it's not reality television if you're not there as yourself, and for game shows the same can usually be said as well. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AddWittyNameHere : using feminine pronouns when Jenner was still a man is just needlessly confusing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bravo!

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

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

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

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

I think it is trivial information that does not belong in this article. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Too trivial. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Jenner is not a politician, but rather a citizen and a voter. There seems no logical reason to include the categories "California Republicans" or "New York Republicans" here. Similarly, including in a "Christians" category strikes me as category spamming. If Jenner runs for office or takes a prominent part in some public Christian event, then obviously things change. I would make a strong suggestion that in the meantime these categories be removed from the already bloated list... Carrite (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Since she is not associated the Republican Party—rather, she is a voter, which doesn't automatically imply direct association with the party—I've struck the categories. Epic Genius (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all children listed in sidebar

There are two children, Burt & Casey, mentioned in the Personal Life section but not the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Already done here. Epic Genius (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
And now undone. MOS for infoboxes allows only for number of children unless children are notable in their own right. Then names can be provided with interlinking (if applicable). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Drake Bell

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

He's trending worldwide on twitter because everyone on the internet thinks he's behaving unacceptably. One billboard source might be sufficient to list that in his article; it's not immediately relevant to Jenner's. Ironholds (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are some more sources. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/drake-bell-tweets-deletes-tone-deaf-post-caitlyn-article-1.2242899 http://www.eonline.com/news/661956/drake-bell-deletes-his-transphobic-tweet-about-caitlyn-jenner-but-not-before-getting-people-fired-up -- Deadpool100 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "mental neanderthal holds antiquated opinions" is worth including here.--Jorm (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No, his douchedom would be relevant on his article, not on this one. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Biased much? Editors need to learn not to get too personally involved. -- Deadpool100 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we're all capable of holding anti-douche biases yet still edit in a fair and even-handed manner. -- haminoon (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's not like I'm participating in the massive vandalism going on at Drake Bell's article (but I am laughing at it). —МандичкаYO 😜 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree completely w/Wikimandia, Drake Bell shows every sign of trolling for attention and Caitlyn is likely schooled how to deal with wannabe frenemies and the bags with which one douches. Missruption (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Frankly not notable. If more mainstream or international sources address this, maybe consider its inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that anyone who ever mentions anyone else gets to be on their Wikipedia page? Seems like a slippery slope, no? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no way that would ever go on this page, completely WP:UNDUE. Bell's tweets have nothing to do with anyone but Bell. If Jenner responds or addresses it in some major way that becomes notable, then it would have a chance of going on her article, which is a biography, not a roundup of opinions from people she's probably never heard of. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

The wiki policy is to call him Caitlyn, there is no need to call her Bruce, except in direct quotes prior to her coming out the closest.--88.104.134.104 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
But that's sort of the point: is there a Wiki policy on this issue which covers talk pages? That's why I thought this thread was going off-topic, which IS the Wiki policy on article pages. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Gendered pronouns in the lede

"He leveraged her celebrity status": Surely this should be either 'He leveraged his' or 'She leveraged her', shouldn't it? Given the Manual of Style guidelines on gendered pronouns, I'm thinking the latter of the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woden87 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

A different photo should be on Caitlyn Jenner's Wikipedia page. The current photo is outdated (2011) and was when she was Bruce.[1] 104.178.86.149 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-cover-annie-leibovitz

 Not done There is no free picture currently available to use. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

many news sources have described her as the most famous openly transgender person in the world.

I believe this line is controversial and upsets myself and many other users who have been following other trans icons for a lot longer. This line should be removed for bias and lack of accuracy. Swilcoxson (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as this statement has three references clearly stating that -

  • "Caitlyn Jenner’s transition on the cover of Vanity Fair into the most famous trans woman in the world"
  • "As Caitlyn Jenner becomes the most famous transgender woman in history,"
  • "With Jenner undoubtedly becoming the world’s most well-known transgender woman overnight,"
- Arjayay (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Public speaker section is redundant to the Gender transition section

Missruption (talk · contribs), the Public speaker section you created is redundant to the Gender transition section. I don't see why the article should have a Public speaker section. The only part of that content that I see needs to be kept is the following: "She signed with Creative Artists Agency’s speakers department and will collaborate with the CAA Foundation on a philanthropic strategy focusing on LGBT issues." And that can go in the Business section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with your assessment. I think it will emerge more in the next few weeks what her public speaking, and other promotional aspects for the trans community will be. By definition it's not personal life, and by organization it wouldn't go with her former business ventures. This is something new and being rolled out over this summer. I'll let others comment and perhaps some development from Caitlyn herself will make it more clear what the section should be(?) Missruption (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the article itself needs a bit of restructuring unless the pinnacle of her life is the Olympics and everything else is just stuff she did after. Missruption (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Jenner has been a public speaker doing motivational and public speeches for awhile. CAA may be new or not and on this single issue is new for but I can't do refs right now. I do know that her public speaking career was noted on KUWTK reality show.ChangalangaIP (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Missruption, right now, the content you added is redundant to the Personal life section. I don't think we need what is essentially the same commentary about her impact on transgender issues and the world at large in two different sections. And, to me, all of that detail fits best in the Personal life section. That is, unless the public speaker material significantly develops for Jenner. I didn't state that the "She signed with Creative Artists Agency" sentence should go in the Personal life section. That and any other future public speaking material can go in a Public speaker section. But right now, I don't see why a Public speaker section is needed for this article. I don't see the Business heading as strictly as you do; since it bothers you, we could expand it to Business and public speaking, and stick the "She signed with Creative Artists Agency" sentence there. I am against unnecessarily creating a subheading, and I don't like creating a subheading for a little bit of material; something that I often cite is MOS:Paragraphs, which states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You bring up some great points as well and I think I may have a solution if someone hasn't tried it yet. Why don't we just pull the Gender transition into its own section and see about transferring the new public speaking information there as well. Maybe that would wash? Missruption (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I like your solution, especially since Jenner's gender transition is not as much of a personal matter as it used to be; by that, I mean that it is now a widespread public matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Your change also aids the #"General" heading matter above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"General" heading

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

For documentation, I initially added the "General" heading when the Personal life section already had two subsections, and I stated, "Added 'General' heading in case readers unknowingly skip over this initial content from the table of contents; this happens often at articles." Hours later, Epicgenius showed up and removed the heading, making the section awkwardly consist of one subheading, and stated, "remove 'General' header. it is an overview?" I reverted him, relaying, "Like I stated, I added it because it is common for people to accidentally overlook the initial content with such a setup." Epicgenius reverted, commenting, "This is not conventional, so, let's leave it out for now, it's like the equivalent of adding 'overview' to the lead of an article." I reverted again, noting, "It is conventional; I can point to various articles on the article talk page, which is where you should take this matter." And after Epicgenius changed the heading, calling the "General" heading stupid, here we are.
Epicgenius, if you have never seen a "General" heading before, it's possible that your Wikipedia editing is not as broad as mine. While "conventional" is too strong a word in this case, this is a heading used for various WP:BLP articles, WP:Film articles, WP:TV articles, WP:Med articles, and so on, whether I added it or someone else added it. For two WP:BLP examples, see the current state of the Kanye West article and the current state of the Justin Bieber article. For film articles, see the current state of the Avatar (2009 film) article and the current state of the Changeling (film) article. And in the case of the Changeling (film) article, that heading came about because editors (including me) unknowingly skipping a section more than once; see this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. In that first discussion, Steve stated of the "Summary" heading he added, "I included it more for navigation purposes, really. Seeing the contents at the top of the page, a reader might see the subsections to the main sections and assume there's no content above them (as clicking through to the subsection puts it at the top of the screen)." And that is essentially my rationale for having included "General" headings at articles. Your "Beliefs, family, and personal issues" heading is okay, but "personal issues" is redundant considering that is the Personal life section. Furthermore, the gender transition aspect was and still is a personal issue. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I called it "stupid" because it was really unclear and, in my opinion, poorly implemented, and I apologize if it was callous. However, I have no problem with "Overview" or "Summary" sections at the top of the article, which I have seen before – just never in the middle of an article, hidden in a section. I suggest we change it to "Beliefs, family, and conflicts", because I agree with your point above that "Personal issues" is redundant, and the California car crash is a conflict that Jenner had once. However, I don't disagree that the gender transition was a personal issue.
And, for the record, I only have 100,000 edits in 2 years while you have about twice that edit count in 8 years, so I'm sure that's a factor. Epic Genius (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No need for an apology; I understand that "General" is vague and bland, and I've seen editors remove it before; for example, this edit by Nightscream at the Chris Crocker article. After he made that edit, I was tempted to let him know that I don't mind much that he removed "General," but that it can also be helpful (going by feedback I have received regarding it). Personally, I generally don't like "Overview" or "Summary" sections at the beginning of a Wikipedia article because the lead is supposed to be the overview, but I understand that such sections are needed, or seemingly needed, in some cases, such as with the current state of the Menstrual cycle article or the current state of the Big Bang article. Anyway, let's go with your newest proposed heading. And, by the way, if you or others find my "current state" wording annoying, I've used it in this discussion so that the WP:Permalinks are there to show what those articles looked like at the time of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Then again, although a section with one subheading looks awkward to me from the table of contents, it's less likely that readers will skip over the content in that case, as opposed to a section with two or more subheadings, which looks uniform, and has content above the subsections. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
My understanding was that people would tend to jump to the higher-level subheading, i.e. "Personal issues", if they wanted a "zoomed out" summary/overview of that section, which is the case now that the "Beliefs"/"General" subheader has been removed. Two or more subheadings implies that Jenner's sex change was as important as the rest of her personal life, even though the former has only been significant for the past few years. Epic Genius (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Epic Genius, by "Personal issues" in this case, I take it that you mean "Personal life." With my "21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)" post above, I mean that when there is the one awkward subheading, in this case the "Gender transition" subheading, then people are likelier not to skip over the initial content than they would if there were two or more subsections in the section. Two subheadings is uniform and doesn't look awkward, and people often assume that there is no content above the first subheading (this goes back to my initial post above in this discussion). I have repeatedly witnessed our editors and/or readers accidentally skipping information because what they saw from the table of contents gave them the impression that there was no content above the subheadings. This is because it is often that there is no "overview" content above the subheadings. So the one subheading is likelier to get people's attention and guide them so that they don't unknowingly skip over the initial content.
As for your statement that "Two or more subheadings implies that Jenner's sex change was as important as the rest of her personal life," I don't understand that argument if you mean subsections unrelated to the gender transition; by that, I mean having more than one subsection about the gender transition, which (as noted above) was the case when I initially added the "General" subsection, can imply that the gender transition is the most important part of Jenner's personal's life. But similar can be argued of the section having one subsection -- one subsection dedicated to the gender transition -- and standing out as special, while the other content has no subheading. Flyer22 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22: You said, But similar can be argued of the section having one subsection -- one subsection dedicated to the gender transition -- and standing out as special, while the other content has no subheading. That is what I meant in my comment. However, having beliefs, family, and conflicts in the main "Personal life" section (i.e., not in a subsection titled "Beliefs, family, and conflicts"), IMO, makes them more important than the gender transition. While I agree that not adding an Overview header would cause people to skip the section about Jenner's beliefs, etc., I also think that the beliefs, etc. would serve as an "overview" for the whole "Personal Life" section, much like a lead is to an article. Epic Genius (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Epicgenius, I'm confused by your statements and reasoning. You stated, "Two or more subheadings implies that Jenner's sex change was as important as the rest of her personal life, even though the former has only been significant for the past few years." I took that to mean that you are stating that the Personal life section should only have one subsection (the one about the gender transition) because more subsections would imply that the gender transition is as important as Jenner's other personal life matters. I stated that unless you were talking about having more than one gender transition section, I don't understand that reasoning; this is why I relayed, "But similar can be argued of the section having one subsection -- one subsection dedicated to the gender transition -- and standing out as special, while the other content has no subheading." It seems to me that you are arguing that having more subsections means that we are stating that the gender transition is as important as Jenner's other personal life matters; I'm stating that the gender transition is already indicated as that, and more so, by being a lone subsection. You clarified, "However, having beliefs, family, and conflicts in the main 'Personal life' section (i.e., not in a subsection titled 'Beliefs, family, and conflicts'), IMO, makes them more important than the gender transition." We disagree on that. I also don't think we should be basing subsection headings on what we personally think are more important parts of Jenner's life. It is likely that Jenner does consider the gender transition as important as some other parts of her personal life, and more important than certain aspects of it. We should be going by WP:Due weight and/or what is best for readers by having a subheading. I don't think that having a "General" heading, or similar, means that it is an overview for the whole Personal life section; when it is titled "General," that simply means that it is not specific information, but rather different aspects of the person's personal life; this is often better then needlessly creating subheadings for a little bit of material. Like MOS:Paragraphs states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Briefly study the other "General" heading examples I noted above for what I mean. And then there is often the option of changing the "General" heading into something specific, which is what you did.
But all that stated, I have gone along with the awkward single subheading in this case (not just since yesterday, but since it was originally that way). As indicated in my posts above, it was the "readers will be more likely to skip over the initial content if there are two or more subheadings without the initial content having a subheading" aspect that I was more concerned about. On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this discussion since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. The only reason that I WP:Pinged you above is in case you overlooked my latest post. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, noted. So, because the "Beliefs", etc. section header was already removed, I guess there's no argument there. Epic Genius (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: The #Public speaker section is redundant to the Gender transition section matter below aided this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I think Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) would be preferable. I don't quite understand your objection to advertising or jargon. If you have a problem with the names of other pages it would be best to discuss it on those article's talk pages. -- haminoon (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
TY and no problem with other articles or their titles just the piped link for this article. Also,the refs connected to the sentence with the internal WP link, do NOT say " hormone replacement therapy". One says exactly what my original revrrted edit said "hormone therapy". And the other was a paraphrased quote from the 20 20 interview that says that estrogen was used for five years in the late 80s. It all could change after the Vanity Fair article is more available. But currently it is not right and speaks to an agenda.ChangalangaIP (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Jenner is an expert on herself and as such is the undisputed authority on what she did or didn't do with hormones. As for the article link i think it should serve the readers who wish more information so i support the Hormone Replace Therapy article even if I don't personally agree with that name or how that article is presented. It will still be helpful to the average reader who likely has no idea what it is all about and as such that article will be helpful. Missruption (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in see elsewhere but this article is not meant to support a trans gender industry. It is about Jenner and her life. I have a problem with the main article being used for any agenda but I do agree that it could serve readers to provide a few see elsewhere links to other articles.ChangalangaIP (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Changalanga, could you please provide diffs showing that anyone intends for the article to support whatever on earth a "trans gender industry" is? If not, could you strike it? Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not accusing any editors of intending anything but saying that the article should not advocate for certain medical treatments that are not even related to Jenner as far as the cites we have there. Maybe when the article is freely available, details about medical treatment or theraputic use of hormones will be revealed. Jenner said she used estrogen which is a vast difference from hormone replacement therapy and the linked article is not even a medical article. So why would WP want to change the facts or what we know to some jargon or treatment when we don't have confirmation that Jenner was following ng a therapeutic plan at that time?73.199.138.75 (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think more details about what she did for hormones and when will be forthcoming. Until those details, and the significance of them is reliable sourced then what we have currently is acceptable. Many various uses of hormones including estrogen, loosely defined, has been used in the past by trans women and the loose umbrella term for those treatments, whatever they were called then, is now understood as variations of what we call HRT. I suggest not wasting too much time on it unless Jenner makes a big deal of it in some way. Missruption (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"What we call HRT"? THAT is the problem! Because HRT is usually the term given to the hormone treatments used for pre and menopausal women. AND that treatment is and was and has been highly contentious. I'd HATE to see WP advocating any kind of treatments that could HARM people physically like the HRT of the past has been documented as causing. Missruption-you have rv my attempts at repairing this problem twice already so imo you are causing this to become a bigger deal in reply to your suggestion. Frankly-and I am sorry for yelling here, but I find your comments disturbing for a few reasons. You admit that there was no such thing in the 80s-(yes (I checked that too)---so now we are RETROACTIVELY prescribing MEDICAL "therapy/treatments" that WERE NOT INVENTED when Jenner says that she used "estrogen"????? Why would it matter if Jenner makes a big deal? Why do we need FALSE, INCORRECT WRONG--possibly DANGEROUS Kwazi-(fake)-"medical-sounding CRAP in THIS article-why? (sorry again for yelling)(ChangalangaIP2601:80:4202:203B:39AB:74E1:8EF0:7218 (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
You're not sorry for yelling if you apologise in the same edit you spend rampaging around with caps lock on. ChangalangaIP, I know you've been informed of the discretionary sanctions, which include adhering to behavioural guidelines - guidelines like treating your fellow editors with respect. If you don't adhere to them this will accelerate. Ironholds (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

LGBT rights activist

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

I agree that referring to Jenner as an activist is a presumption at best. R5452 (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

BJ vs. CJ?

I'm just wondering, why are these two topics even linked? They are obviously two separate people, right? One cannot be an eggplant and a carrot, or a walrus and a carpenter at the same time, so they cannot be the same thing, eh? Bruce can link to Caitlyn, but they cannot be the same person, or we've crossed into some STNG stuff, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC17:2320:28FD:B82F:6C01:4E92 (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

They are the same person. Plenty of people are male and female at the same time. -- haminoon (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the problem with edits that obscure Jenner's anatomical/genetic history in the interest of honoring one's self-identification. It shouldn't be either/or. Both aspects of sex/gender are important to her biography. Jenner's genotypic/anatomical maleness is important to understanding Jenner's athletic career and marriages. Turning those into a puzzle that readers have to read between the lines to get is doing readers a disservice. --JamesAM (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No new records can be claimed.

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

The IAAF has not, and likely will not, ratify Caitlyn's times and jumps as yearly bests or official world records for women. But that's beside the point on Wikipedia: the only question is whether or not Caitlyn Jenner is a woman and whether or not she should be referred to as such. The clear answer, under Wikipedia policy, is that she is and that she should be. For that reason, there's no real discrepancy between saying something like "Marita Koch has the official world record in the 400 meters, at 47.60, though Caitlyn Jenner has the fastest ever recorded by a woman , running a 47.51 at the Montreal Olympics." This conveys the information about both the official world record and about Caitlyn's superior performance. There's a distinction to be made between ratified world records and unratified performances. Plenty of unratified marks are mentioned across Wikipedia. For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cain_(athlete) mentions the oversize track problems associated with some of Cain's performances. The inquiry isn't whether Governing Body A, B, or C has accepted Jenner's marks as a woman's marks; it's whether or not Jenner (a) ran them, and (b) was a woman when she ran them. (a) is not disputed by anyone and the answer to (b) is clearly "yes" under Wikipedia policy. 162.235.91.193 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC) CaitlynFan
You can just call it "trolling" to avoid answering it, I suppose. (1) Jenner ran a 47.51 in the 400 meters in 1976. (2) Jenner has always been a woman. Which part do you disagree with? We've got numerous sources for both. Now, there's no question that Marita Koch has the officially ratified and recognized women's world record in the 400 meters at 47.60 - but no one is suggesting that Caitlyn's time has been officially ratified as a women's world record. What we're saying is that Caitlyn ran it and was a woman when she ran it. How is that trolling? 162.235.91.193 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC) CaitlynFan
This is beside the point. The question isn't whether she competed in the women's competition; she competed in the men's competition because no one else knew, at the time, that she was a woman. The question is whether or not we acknowledge her performances. There's no reason not to; she really did compete in, and win, the men's decathlon in 1976. She really did run a 10.94 100 meters, a 47.51 400 meters, jump 2.06 for the high jump and 7.22 for the long jump, etc. Caitlyn Jenner did these things. Whether or not the IAAF or Track and Field News or whomever ratifies these as women's performances is not at issue. 162.235.91.193 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlinFan
She was not a she at the time. Biologically she never was and to my knowledge, never can be a she. Its that nasty Y chromosome that gets in the way of any technical gender testing, no matter what she is wearing or identifying as. Track and field has some screwy situations that do need explaining. Thank you for recognizing one in the Mary Cain article, which I wrote. Jenner represented as a male athlete in 1976 and for another 38 plus years after his athletic career was over. I ran against that man in the 1970's. There is nothing a 2015 announcement can do to change that. Trackinfo (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, the spelling is "Caitlyn." Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The claim "She was not a she at the time" is controversial, and depends on many issues of gender identity and recognition which are myriad and way too complex to put on someone. I hate simplifying it this way, because we don't know the specifics in all cases, but the implication that she changed genders is not an assumption; the implication is equally valid that she was always a woman, and that the current situation is a revelation of a lifelong state of existence, not a change. I say I hate simplifying it that way, because while many transgendered people wish to identify their experience in those terms, not all do (wikipedia has a general article on the continuum of gender-identity experiences at genderqueer if you want to read all about it). MOS:IDENTITY was written with this perspective in mind. Again, that is not to say that Jenner did not at the time identity as a man, and saying THAT is not to say that she did. We don't know. We know that you perceived them to be a man, but that certainly is not the same thing. --Jayron32 01:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I doubt there was any question at the time of his gender identity. If there were, he Jenner would probably be asked to undergo some form of a gender test--they were doing that at the time. Jenner did not ask to compete as a female at any point in time. He Jenner would most certainly fail the biological test. Jenner would fail that today. Speaking in biological terms and the athletic usage of gender, he is a man, even today. Jenner is welcome to identify in whatever gender form, but outward appearance, inward psychological feelings have nothing to do with claiming athletic records. Jenner knows that and is making no claims to records HE might have set as a male performer. I believe there is a statement by Jenner to that effect. Other advocates in the community, you, are artificially trying to read more into Jenner's self-identification to suit their agenda of acceptance. In athletics we have global standards to adhere to; regulations. Male performances cannot displace properly deserving performances by true, biological females. We've been down that road with Stella Walsh, Dora Ratjen, Foekje Dillema, Ewa Kłobukowska and the Press sisters in our history. They are still trying to learn about borderline circumstances. Nobody has made a claim that Jenner is anything but XY. Trackinfo (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

When Jenner set the records, wasn't she biologically a man? That is the only thing that the officials care for, regardless of Jenner's gender preferences. If she was biologically a woman, she would be disqualified. Epic Genius (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Some thoughts on the matter from the Washington Post and National Review Both reference the Wikipedia entry here, though neither notes the MOS:IDENTITY guidance. Barte (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
These are interesting articles, but they don't provide a definitive resolution to this mess. Epic Genius (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Barte. I noted the matter at the aforementioned WP:Village pump discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This is simple.Use the present tense "she" or don't use it but in this article when referring to historical records we could say "competing as Bruce Jenner". Or she won the gold medal as Bruce Jenner.ChangalangaIP (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Any references to Caitlyn Jenner holding women's track and field records are conflating gender identity with sports sex category. That's not really useful for any reader as it would make Caitlyn Jenner a massively central aspect of the history of women's athletics. She is not. She is a somewhat central aspect of men's decathlon history and a non-entity in the women's division of the sport. Keelin Godsey is a good example of how to approach this. He competes in the women's hammer throw and is of no real relevance to the men's division of the sport. We can recognise athletes identities without shoehorning them into categories of the sport that they have never competed in. We should cover such people exactly the same as we do others – say what events they competed in and refer to them by their chosen name and gender. That doesn't need to extend to fabrication of sports history. SFB 00:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Born as

While it is correct that she was born as William Bruce Jenner she was most commonly known as Bruce Jenner. Can we mention this please?--88.104.137.223 (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done I agree--it should be at the top. Barte (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn "Her" Jenner

As it's been done before for trans characters, I believe that Caitlyn's page should be one of the following: Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner Caitlyn "Her" Jenner Bruce "Her" Jenner

Look at the wikipedia entry for trans woman Unique from GLEE. She is listed as Wade "Unique" Adams. I think that should follow suit here as it's clear there are rules on how to identify transwomen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.92.188 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner is not now, nor has she ever been (even when Bruce Jenner) a "character", rather, a real person. The article is a biography of a living person, therefore, policies regarding BLPs apply in addition to (for this article) WP:MOSIDENTITY. If you are interested in editing the article, please read up on those policies and guidelines first. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Jenner in March 2011 picture violates MOS:IDENTITY and must go

I saw a previous request (Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015) that asked for the "Jenner in March 2011" picture to be replaced by one that matches the gender she now wants to present to the world.

That request was not complied with because Inks.LWC said there were no free pictures currently available to use. However, as this picture is showing Jenner in the wrong gender identity, I believe that it conflicts with the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY and that the top section of the article should have the photo removed from it. As we do not have a free photo that we can include there, I believe the correct course of action is that this article should remain without a photo, until a free photo that is more appropriate to the way that Caitlyn wants to present herself to the world becomes available.

I would be bold and remove the photo myself, because I am 100 percent certain that it is the right thing to do, but I don't want to mess up the wikicode for the top of the article. So I'm dropping this in as a request, in the hope that someone better at formatting biographical articles can replace this photo with whatever an article that lacks a photo gets.

If nobody else removes this, I will try looking at some other articles to see how to do this myself. Big Mac (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I support this. Deadpicturing is just as offensive as deadnaming.2602:306:808C:2100:A902:95B4:FA56:6716 (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan
There does not appear to be consensus to remove the image. And whether it violates MOS:IDENTITY is debatable. MOS:IDENTITY does not address pictures at all, and to extrapolate the limited text at MOS:IDENTITY to claim that the picture is a violation of the guideline is not appropriate. That may be your opinion of what the spirit of what MOS:IDENTITY is; however, it just that—an opinion. Let's wait to gain some consensus before removing the image; removal now will just end with an edit war. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY addresses "pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns". To apply it to the infobox picture is a huge leap, not justified IMO. Barte (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that the presence of the photo doesn't violate MOS:IDENTITY. Further, as someone already stated, no photo is worse than the current photo there. With Jenner's transition being big news, I'm certain someone, somewhere, will get a photo of him soon and free license it, put it where it can be obtained by us and used in the infobox. Until then, I don't see how the current photo is a problem. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Why would we remove a picture of Jenner that includes the date it was taken? That's how she appeared at the time and it's part of the historical record. I would support moving it lower in the article so that its adjacent to sections covering that time in her life. I might also add that it's a bit presumptuous to suggest the photo signals the wrong gender based on hair length and clothing. R5452 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is NOT a policy, it is a guideline. That is an important distinction.104.254.93.126 (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear anon IP: Please see the definition of "guideline": [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
WV, please go read our definition of it. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Apples and apples (or red apples and mostly red apples). Same thing, really. It's all about applying best-practices. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is ludicrous. Jenner doesn't just suddenly look like the person on the cover of the magazine. She was dressed and made, and possibly even photoshopped (certainly airbrushed to some degree) to look that way. Further, who is to judge whether Jenner wants images of herself from the past removed, or whether it is even appropriate to erase history like that. Hypersensitivity, pure and simple. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. The year is clearly marked. We will not throw the past down the memory hole. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, on merit, we would rather have the image Jenner prefers. We would like it to be free. It's arguable that we have a "fair use" claim if we kept/cropt the picture from Vanity Fair. We can do that if we keep the image on Wikipedia. Commons won't take it but we are not Commons. Barring that, it's arguable that we take the image out of the info box and move it elsewhere in the bio. That should happen anyway when a new image becomes available for reasons below. I do have concerns with some arguments. this picture is showing Jenner in the wrong gender identity - no, the picture depicts Jenner at a specific point in time in the way she presented herself at the time. "Wrong" is incorrect term to use as no one is qualified to determine whether any particular image is depicting the gender she identifies with. If she was photographed tomorrow in the same clothes and hair would it be the "right gender?" Jenner did not disown her previous identity, and appears to have very publicly embraced her transition. News articles have commented on exactly what types of feminization surgeries she has gone through and the ones she has not. We're not in a position to say from a picture whether it should be "more feminine." This statement I am 100 percent certain that it is the right thing to do about a picture of another person pretty much guarantees it is the wrong thing to do. Jenner has not indicated any part of her life that she is disowning or otherwise not embracing. She is a public figure and has embraced a public life and public lifestyle. She is undoubtedly aware that images of her throughout her life are public and of public interest. She has not indicated that these images of her are in any way offensive nor has she distanced herself from the time before her transition. We should react very cautiously to requests that treat her differently than other public figures. Accepting her for who she is includes the fact that she is a public figure embracing a very public transition. We should definitely not be acting in a way that suggests her public persona prior to transition is shameful in any way or her gender is/was "wrong." --DHeyward (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

and also, since we want to remove the pic of Jenner because she isn't "feminine" enough, shouldn't the IOC take away her Gold medal too because she competed in a Men's event when she won that gold? Bruce Jenner won that GOLD, not Caitlyn....I think that image should remain in the infobox for as long as possible and when one featuring her as a transgender woman pops up which is "free" and uploaded to commons, it can be used in the infobox but at the same time, the CURRENT image be moved to the appropriate section for when she was a dude... There is NO NEED for ANOTHER "non-free" image to be used on her article, one is bad enough....btw, the most famous transgender celeb will always be Lana Wachowski for me, Non-americans people like me know her more so.. --Stemoc 12:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is already answered in the FAQ at top. If and when a better image is available we likely will update. Until then we work with what we have. Missruption (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Putting something in a FAQ doesn't make it sacrosanct. I think the picture should be removed from the infobox (and moved to a relevant section in the article from before the gender transition). Wikipedia's preference should be to have no image at all in the infobox rather than to have a bad image there. There obviously shouldn't be an image there under a claim of fair use (NFCC#1) but I don't think there should be an image there at all unless/until a current free content one becomes available. --B (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Please see the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY which was written over a year ago to specifically address issues like this, to wit, " Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." --Jayron32 01:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Certainly when the discussion occurred, things like this were theoretical. The discussion was probably heavily dominated by POV pushing advocates. I suggest this whole subject be revisited in light of the current situation, in light of realistic (or unrealistic) attempts to use this policy to change the accuracy of information reported by wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to make to make clear Jenner's transition from anatomical male to transwoman in contexts where omitting that information would lead to reader confusion. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, so it's an immense betrayal of our purpose to leave readers in the dark. Readers of the article should not be left wondering how Caitlyn was permitted to compete in the decathlon and how a woman was able to beat a field of men (despite elite men having better results than elite women in the component events). Readers should know that Jenner competed as a biological male. In addition, readers should not be left with the impression that Jenner's ex-wives married him with the intent to enter a same-sex marriage. To do otherwise would effectively be "mis-orienting" them. I understand that many people feel very strongly that any mention of Jenner's anatomical sex at birth is insulting, but Wikipedia's raison d'etre is not to avoid causing people anguish. We sometimes publish things that people find insulting/bigoted/offensive. We have articles about ethnic/religious slurs. We have articles with artistic depictions of Muhammad, despite the fact that many Muslims find that extremely hateful, bigoted, and blasphemous. In fact, Wikipedia has a police on depictions of Muhammad. We have articles that point out the historical references in the Book of Mormon are contradicted by archaeological and linguistic evidence. We have articles with photographs of genitalia and dead people. We have articles about murders that families of the victim would find traumatic to read. We don't include "trigger warnings" in articles about books/movies/etc. that include rape scenes. It's extremely paternalistic to think that transgendered people are so fragile that we have to have a confusing narrative lest it traumatize them. Of course, we shouldn't write things with the purpose of being insulting, but we shouldn't obscure the gender history of a person in a way that leaves readers less informed. Jenner's history as an anatomical male is important to understanding how she was able to compete in the Olympic decathlon and to marry women at times when same-sex marriage was illegal. It's not minutiae that can be glossed over. I'm not saying we need to use male pronouns, but we need to make the sex/gender situation clear in some way. --JamesAM (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: sorry; you're telling me we didn't have articles on transgender individuals a year ago? Have you been living under a rock? Please understand that this area is under discretionary sanctions: referring to people who want to enforce MOS:IDENTITY or who wrote it as "POV pushing advocates" is not adhering to behavioural best practices, and you'd be best to avoid casting aspersions. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought that I was finished with this subject, but since we're also trying to find a coherent guideline at the French wikipedia, I looked at the sources, and wondered about Jenner saying that she still preferred to be referred to as "Bruce" and "Him" until the transition was complete (which logically includes every aspect of her life before said transition). So what of it ? What should be done when the article's subject has a position that seems to contradict MOS:IDENTITY ? That just left me wondering...
Not being a daily user of the english-language wikipedia, I don't have the intention or the time to challenge any guideline here, but JamesAM is actually right to say that systematically and retroactively using feminine pronouns is too confusing for the reader (about Jenner's sports records and private life). It is also conflicting with Jenner's own attitude. MOS:IDENTITY is not a bad thing but it might be too rigid on some aspects. I am myself concerned about the fair treatment of trans people, but I really think that the retroactive aspect of that guideline is not necessarily a good thing : it might either irritate or confuse many people, and generate an unfortunate backlash. Those were just two thoughts, as I have no intention of entering a lenghty debate. But those issues may need to be discussed calmly. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ironholds: What I'm saying is we did not have a significantly famous person, with a 45 year public history representing as one gender, coming out as a different gender. Application of this current policy has a large number of people wishing to make non-realistic, statements in wikipedia's voice based on this policy. These statements, if continued, will go contrary to sources, violating WP:SOURCE and embarrassing wikipedias credibility.
Specifically they wish to say that a female won the 1976 Men's Olympic Decathlon. That this same "female" athlete (ex post facto) broke many women's world records (thus denying the true record holders their glory) violating WP:BLP even though, in the eyes of the sports governing body, through its regulations these are clearly not true. They wish to state that a female married three different women and fathered six children, four of them notable and two who can't seem to even get mentioned on wikipedia (that's another issue). Again, those misstatements violate the WP:BLP of those other individuals. They wish to state that a female played male roles on national TV shows and in two (bad) theatrical movies, including on the number one reality TV series. Clearly, each of these misstatements will violate WP:SOURCE because they did not happen. A man performed all those deeds, in the public eye, continually as every source written before 2015 reported. When the man "accomplished" all of that during his lifetime, it was notable and documented but unremarkable. Reported as a female, it is a fantastical and impossible rewriting of history. It is factually wrong to report that but MOS:IDENTITY is being used to justify that. Rewriting the life's history of a less notable, non-public individual is less visible, but equally ridiculous.
We have better solutions, with many examples of people who have essentially changed their identity at specific points in time--name changes. I suggest that is a far better way to present this information, with occasional references to who the current representation of each individual is. In our push to establish a principle of transgender equity, MOS:IDENTITY is at odds with two other very clear principles on wikipedia; WP:BLP and WP:SOURCE. We need to re-litigate this MOS policy to settle this conflict. Trackinfo (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposing a weakening or elimination of MOS:IDENTITY would be WP:SNOW. Sources usually do not go back and change pronouns because they are not in a continual state of update. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is. That is why sources from pre-coming out are at odds with current pronouns. Many manuals of style, however, do say to use prononus retroactively so if they ever did go back and update things, I suspect some would indeed change them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you just compare a gender transition to...a name change? 20:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely did compare an identity change to a name change. Caitlyn didn't even choose her name until 2015, how could she have participated in the 1976 Olympics? It is the individual named Bruce Jenner, representing as a male athlete who did that. Almost 40 years later she is changing her representation. The record books still have Bruce Jenner's name, not because they are outdated, but because the identity changed MUCH later. Snow would be to undo the accomplishments of 40 years because of announcements this year, the name announcement this week. That chaos is already happening throughout wikipedia trying to accommodate that change and the MOS. And beyond the name, users with that excuse are altering FACTS. Which makes what wikipedia reports not only gender altering to suit the new representation of Caitlyn, but FACTUALLY WRONG when we have a super male athlete claiming women's performance records that (as a) he would not be eligible for. It is not Jenner doing this. She knows better and has said so. It is wikipedia editors who have taken this insufficiently written style guideline to ridiculous, incorrect extremes. The MOS must be rewritten to restrict people from going crazy. Trackinfo (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Trackinfo does it make more sense to you to see using present tense "she" throughout the article? And for matters of history to say for example: she won the men's gold medal as Bruce Jenner. Without making a judgment on our parts whether we think that she was a man? I do think that we are bound by BLP to use the present tense female pronouns and name when writing in the present tense.ChangalangaIP (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Gender transitions and name changes are utterly different things. Trackinfo, from your posts here it seems very clear that you intend to be bound by your view of how gender and biology intersect, nothing else. Gender is not tied inherently to biology and the MOS is quite clearly written to restrict people from going "crazy" if it's written in such a way that it's stymying the edits of someone who compares passport alterations to gender changes. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I see things in a very realistic perspective. Bruce Jenner entered a male only competition in the Olympics and competed against male athletes. At no point in time in 1976 was there any suspicion or discussion of female representation, much less that biologically, which is the basis of that competition, he never will be female. Any wikipedia "guideline" does not change facts here. If someone writes and successfully is able to keep public on wikipedia articles representations that a "she" won the Olympic decathlon, or she set women's world records or even the notable men's world record in the decathlon, it is factually wrong. It is a sad day for wikipedia's credibility to report known, factually wrong information. The IAAF and the IOC recognizes a male athlete named Bruce Jenner. Caitlyn Jenner, who never existed in 1976, cannot displace deserving female athletes in the world record progression based on performances by the male athlete Bruce Jenner; Caitlyn never had the correct chromosomes. I'd further think that the three women he married and fathered six children with did not think they were marrying a "she." To use female pronouns in these situations will make wikipedia a laughing stock. It is fine to say she came out later in life as a transwoman, that she always had these feelings, but Jenner has 45 years of a very notable, public life as a man. You can't imagine that away by a poorly written, POV laden "guideline." Trackinfo (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how harmful this could be to trans* people who are reading the article. By saying Caitlyn Jenner "never had the correct chromosomes" and "never existed in 1976" you are effectively erasing her identity. If we are going to be effective advocates for trans* rights, we cannot let ourselves fall into this sort of trap. YOU DON'T GET TO DEFINE CAITLYN'S IDENTITY. Other people here - Ironholds, Skyerise, etc - have made fantastically-reasoned explanations of your logical errors. But that's clearly enough for you. She won the decathlon in, she is one of the greatest female athletes of all time, and she's an incredibly inspiring figure for every person who wants to be true to themselves! We can't advance trans* rights with this sort of negativity and feigned objectivity. Wikipedia is a safe space, not a place for vile cissexist, transmisogynistic rhetoric. Please cease and desist. 162.235.91.193 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan
Its not about me. In 1976 Bruce Jenner was a he. Bruce Jenner was the Associated Press "Male Athlete of the Year." Biologically Caitlyn Jenner will always be an XY. Bruce Jenner never will qualify as a female athlete under the regulations in place by the world governing body. These are facts. 2015 announcements don't change these things. There is nothing hurtful intended by trying to make wikipedia properly report facts of information. What is hurtful is saying that the World's Greatest (Male) Athlete was on an equitable playing field with other elite female athletes and thus deserves to displace their performances. For example: Even though the reputations of Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvílová are tainted, Caitlyn Jenner, a female, did not run faster than they did and cannot claim the current world record in the 400 metres. Bruce Jenner, a male athlete ran that time. We have people using this guideline to erroneously post that statement in wikipedia's voice. Trackinfo (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
We're not supposed to be advocates for transgendered rights of a safe space. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Sometimes that will have the side effect of making people feel bad. This isn't really a BLP issue, except perhaps in a marginal sense. The policy is "biographies of living persons", not "biographies of persons." People that are disturbed by "misgendering" of a living person are probably similarly disturbed by that being done to a dead person. So why is the policy concerned with living people specifically? And why is it such a central policy? It's because BLP is designed to protect Wikipedia from being wiped out of existence by defamation lawsuits. Defamation applies to living people, not dead ones. That fear isn't really applicable to misgendering, because referring to an objective biology isn't false, even if it is contrary to their self-identification. --JamesAM (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I think both current and former names should be mentioned in the historical Olympic articles etc. with clarification of the name during competition and the subsequent name change. I also don't think it's problematic to use female pronouns when discussing the Olympic events, as long as the original and current contexts are made clear for the reader. Like Trackinfo, I vehemently oppose any mischaracterisation of her as a women's division athlete. The issue with MOS:Identity is that it doesn't give any help in how to approach past actions in gender-divided arenas for a post-transition person. Though sports is a key subset of this, it could also apply to awards in many different fields (e.g. best actress). SFB 00:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems very, very odd to refer to Caitlyn as "her" when discussing her prior career prior to transition. Just to get an idea of what others are doing, I googled Caitlyn Jenner biography. Biography.com uses he/him to discuss Bruce before her transition and she/her afterwards. Britannica.com does the same thing. There is no question whatsoever that when referring to Caitlyn's life in general, we should say she/her (e.g. "she is a registered Republican") ... ditto for the time after her transition. But it just doesn't make any sense - and nobody else seems to do this - to refer to the time that she was a very famous male athlete as her/she. --B (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Film and movie credits

So there's been some edit warring over at CHiPs and probably elsewhere over whether to use Bruce Jenner or Caitlin Jenner in TV/film credits. This was discussed back in May, June and July of 2012, three years ago, mostly in regard to Lana Wachowski, but also several others. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 42#The Matrix - Larry to Lana (And other films) and Proposal. The result was this change in August 2012 in Template:Infobox film saying "A person should be identified by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made." With regard to Lana Wachowski, as well as Wendy Carlos, and now Caitlin Jenner, we should stick with this previous consensus. If you read over the old discussion, the same points editors are making today were made back then, and in the end the consensus was that the names in the credits are an aspect of the work, which is standard archival practice. This consensus has stood for a few years and we should not re-argue it now without significantly new information to alter the known facts. I simple piped Wikilink, or parenthetical remark, is sufficient to clarify for readers that the name credited is not the name they are currently know as. The articles for films and TV for Jenner, Washowski, and Carlos should all be brought into compliance with this established guideline. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with your general argument, applying the limited discussion that took place on the WikiProject Film talk page to the entire encyclopedia is not appropriate. The proposal adopted there was enacted very specifically for film credits and had only a handful of participants. While I agree that what is currently going on on some articles is a misapplication of MOS:IDENTITY, it would be inappropriate to say that consensus was established encyclopedia-wide. The best course of action, in my opinion, is to establish consensus somewhere unrelated to this page (i.e., what is currently being done at the Village Pump), so that we have something a bit more set in stone going forward. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The Snowball clause is a pretty deeply held principle by most Wikipedians, that we avoid having a discussion merely for the formality of following the process. That we want to re-hash the same set of arguments, and reach the same conclusion, only now with more editors simply for the sake of piling up more support contravenes what WP:SNOW says: "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause." Of course if there is new information, new arguments, that haven't been heard before, then yes, lets go over this again in light of the new augments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that it was only a group of 6 Film Project editors who reached a unanimous conclusion. That conclusion was not unanimously agreed with over at the MOS talk page, and it certainly does not have unanimous support now. Like I said, I agree with the conclusion reached that you referenced, but to say that a brief discussion of a proposal by 6 people established consensus for the entire encyclopedia, when there are clearly differences of opinion now, is a huge stretch. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a sound principle though. When movies and episodes are re-released or re-played, they are with the original credit. While we are thoughtful on the use of names and gender, famous people have a public identity and history. Jenner is a public figure and she has a public past that she is certainly aware of and she embraces her public image. This is quite a bit different than non-public persons that transitioned privately and their deadname is hurtful and offensive. Absent any malice, we should be using the name that appear in the credits of the media. The link should go to the correct bio. There's no reason for long explanations about birthname or gender transition on the pages with credits. It's public and interested persons can find that through the wikilink. It's much more useful and respectful to simply list her as credited with a simple link to her bio. If she was credited as "Bruce Jenner", the the appropriate credit here is "Bruce Jenner." --DHeyward (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
As I've said, I agree that it's a sound principle; however, I do not agree that based on that limited discussion from 2012 among 6 people that we should say, "consensus for the whole encyclopedia was reached, and we should make revisions to all articles to conform to what was decided there". It is much more appropriate to engage in a broad conversation to reach consensus for the entire encyclopedia. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner/Archive_5&oldid=1083509221"