Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Picture

Read the FAQ and the dozen previous discussions about this.

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

I really think we should have a picture of Caitlyn not Bruce as she is now Caitlyn --Theladyisgaga (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The current photograph should be removed

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

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 (The fact that Jenner's picture is outdated is not relevant.)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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture crop request

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

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

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

Picture copyright question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wheaties

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siri

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

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

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

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

Transition criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015

Read the FAQ.

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

This edit request to Caitlyn Jenner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This still shows Bruce Jenner in the picture. There are several pictures of Caitlyn. Just wanted to let y'all know about this. Thank You. 6BackToBack6 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 6BackToBack6 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done Please read the FAQ. Barte (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

Read the FAQ

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

This edit request to Caitlyn Jenner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the top picture of Caitlyn Jenner to a current one (perhaps the Vanity Fair magazine cover or one from her Arthur Ashe acceptance speech) because the first picture seen on her page should accurately represent her, particularly now that she has transitioned. Thank you. 71.198.170.166 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done Please read the FAQ Barte (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2015

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

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

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

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

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

Lead sentence needs work still

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transition page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

info box picture

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

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

VOTE for NO MAIN PIC

Same IP user with same axe to grind. WP:DENY. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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

After being severely repulsed and disgusted by the main pic used (yes, I will refrain from claiming it as the blatant transphobia of wikipedia), I have come to the decision that NO main pic should be used for Cait. If there are pictures in the wikipedia database of when Caitlyn presented as 'Bruce' (yuck), I'd like to see which ones are possible to use in the main pic. That main pic is flatout gross - FACT.

I did some looking around and found this picture: http://img2-2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150504/bruce-jenner-4-800.jpg According to google, that came up when I searched 'free to use bruce jenner' so I think that's best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the FAQ, the image must have a free license. Barte (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if THAT's the case, then like I said above - I think there should be no image. That picture is horrific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This was previously proposed and I'll say the same thing now that I did then: any picture is better than no picture at all. A picture of the subject atop the article ensures the reader that they came to the correct article. The picture is still a woman, still Caitlyn, she just looks different. People change in appearance and new pictures will become available. This is no different than unflattering pictures being used for cisgender individuals when no better options are available. Chase (talk | contributions) 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Barte (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Barte and Chase. Iady391 | Talk to me here 08:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have come to terms that the picture used - even if it doesn't look like Cait - is still Cait, just dressed as the hideous 'Bruce' persona. There was another picture of 'Bruce' used, why can't we use that one instead? Where are the available options in the wikipedia database? There must be a better free use image of 'Bruce' since none of Cait are available yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You see what we see. You can check the Wikimedia Commons database, as well. If you can find a better free use image, please propose it. It's also worth noting, per the FAQ and earlier discussions here, that editors say they have been in touch with Jenner's PR people requesting a better picture, properly licensed for the project. Barte (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Filmography

Could we make a filmography section ?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421063/

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

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

"Gender Transition"

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

Olympic Logic

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Stating that Jenner was a woman at the time they competed in the men's decathlon doesn't logically make sense. Perhaps their gender change should be the first section to improve the flow of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.239.159 (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Caitlyn was always Caitlyn, even when she won the MEN's decathlon. It was just a secret, but she was definitely 100% female that the time she participated in The Games. The very beginning of the article says that she's a woman, so why would it be confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.188.7.11 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

N This is complete nonsense Iady391 | Talk to me here 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

100% female at the time is a 100% false statement or Jenner would have either competed in a Women's event or you would have seen at least one woman that was born a woman (or a man competing in a women's event) competing in the event sometime in the history of the Olympics. Identifying as a gender different than what a person was born as doesn't change their genetics or physical characteristics which is a reason why the events are separated by an athlete's born/physical gender, not the gender they identify as. You can't change history and other people that seem to have clearer heads would agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_decathlon, which tactfully noted that Bruce became Caitlyn later, and http://www.olympic.org/content/results-and-medalists/gamesandsportsummary/?sport=32588&games=1976%2F1&event=32533 honestly and rationally state that Bruce took gold in the 1972 event. It's a shame that this is the only page I've come across that would rather rewrite history than tell the story as it happened which makes whatever adversity Jenner went through seem more insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.239.159 (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender transition section should be restored

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

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

Lead suggestion

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

This edit request to Caitlyn Jenner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly but here it goes, could you please change the currently picture from the picture of Bruce and change it to a picture of caitlyn? I understand that this page might not have been updated in a while but I feel like it's pretty disrespectful, thank you! Holyhunty (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ regarding the image. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

see the faq

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

This edit request to Caitlyn Jenner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merger as a result of a deletion discussion
While mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions (also see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion), it is not uncommon for editors, in an effort to mediate and/or compromise, to suggest that the article(s) nominated for deletion instead be merged to a parent article. If there is a rough consensus for a merger at the end of a deletion discussion, the following template is placed at the top of the nominated article:
{{Afd-merge to|destination article|debate name|debate closure date}}
Similarly, the following template is placed on the destination article's talk page:
{{Afd-merge from|nominated article|debate name|debate closure date}}
This informs users involved in those pages that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merger. Proceed in the manner described above.

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

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

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

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

How does a WP:AfD qualify as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? I see how the "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." sentence can apply to WP:AfDs, but it usually does not. The result of a WP:AfD should be followed unless the result is seriously flawed. Again, we have WP:Deletion review when it comes to challenging a WP:AfD result. I was not overriding anything by reverting you in this case. Per what I stated above in this section, I believe that I was right to revert you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD and the merging process are two separate procedures. AFD concerns itself ONLY with the keep or delete. The merge process is out of the control of the AFD process. If it is clear that the AFD discussion of ANOTHER article shows a consensus to merge to a target article....that is only ONE step. You refused to respect the revert and edit warred your preferred content back in before discussion. If your merge is reverted, that is opposition to the merge itself to the target article. ALL content, including templates requires a consensus of editors on the articles itself. You were wrong to revert me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting you once is not WP:Edit warring. I reverted you, then brought the matter here to this talk page. Either way, I disagree with your take on this matter; so my opinion on it remains the same. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A single edit is not an edit war, but that is not what we are talking about here. Perhaps it was just truly that you believed the AFD recommendation on a different article was consensus for this article. Adding the bulk of the content without first making note of it on this talk page was why I reverted. There was no discussion here to merge. You also stated in the edit summary that the other article no longer existed however, it did. The AFD outcome was not delete, just merge. Another mistake you made was not making the minimal attribution requirements of linking the articles in the edit summary. You made the bold merge effort but were reverted. You then reverted that revert. You did make a discussion afterwards and there were no objections to the content in mass being merged to the article so I simply completed the merge.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to me stating that the other article no longer existed, I clearly corrected that with a WP:Dummy edit, stating, "Well, there won't be if following the WP:Consensus of that WP:AfD." As for the rest, I stand by what I've stated on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I Am Cait section restored

As this is a television documentary series about the subject of this article I feel it is well justified in having a summary section devoted to it. Missruption (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Missruption, regarding that restored subsection, I don't think it's needed. That content is already summarized higher up in the Gender transition section; that's all that is needed for this article, per WP:Summary style. The rest of it should be dealt with in the I Am Cait article. That stated, I would be fine with you combining the non-redundant material with the material that is already higher up in that section about the show. After that, you should remove the subsection heading. We don't need a subsection for that little bit of material. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that section should be restored in some manner now. The article can grow and expand on some parts and separate by subject in that manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise edit to the two current disputes. I have added some small portions back to the personal life section leaving the Gender transition section as a level two header. I have made the "I am Cait" content a level three as well as "Other media coverage" subsection. I hope tis works but lets see how others feel.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Having the Gender transition section as part of the Personal life section....again

As seen with this edit, I reverted Mark Miller on making the Gender transition section a subsection of the Personal life section, per this matter already having been discussed; see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 5#Public speaker section is redundant to the Gender transition section, and the "General" heading discussion it points to. Mark Miller reverted me, stating, "That archive discussion does not contain a consensus against this content being a sub section of the Personal life section. there may well be parts that can be sectioned off but for now this should remain."

My reply? In what way should the Gender transition section, which mostly concerns public material more so than the personal life material we usually see in Personal life sections here at Wikipedia, be a part of the Personal life section for this article? I mean, other than making the Personal life section unnecessarily long. The Gender transition section is an entity in its own right that can be subsectioned, depending on how it grows, because let's face it: Jenner is mostly getting attention for her gender transition these days, and today's youths mostly know her from that and/or Keeping Up with the Kardashians, as previously discussed. Furthermore, this is not about whether or not there was a consensus against having that section as a subsection. WP:Consensus is not always about "consensus against" things. And decisions regarding this article or any Wikipedia article do not always have to be a WP:Consensus matter. But WP:Consensus can be formed with only two or three editors; it does not always involve a medium-sized or big-sized group. WP:Consensus was achieved on this matter, as far as I can see. But here we are again. So how is it better to have the Gender transition section be a part of the Personal life section instead of being its own section? Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you do not understand the difference between public source material and the personal life changes of the subject this articles is summarizing then let me explain that two editors are NOT an consensus. There is another editor besides us and the one in that discussion you linked to with an opinion on that edit. There is NO consensus as yet to make the transition section a level two header. The subject of this article is a living person. A decision to alter one's own gender is DEEPLY personal and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise..--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in your hostile and/or condescending posts. Your "If you do not understand the difference between public source material and the personal life changes of the subject this articles" piece makes no sense to me anyway. You are wrong on this matter, per what I stated above in this section and in the aforementioned discussions I linked to regarding it. There is no need whatsoever to have the Gender transition section be a subsection of the Personal life section. And you have not demonstrated why it should be that way in this case. Stating "two editors are NOT an consensus" is false. When a discussion only involves two editors and those two editors come to an agreement, that is consensus. If the discussion involves three editors, and two of those three editors come to an agreement without the third editor, or any other editor watching that talk page, objecting to that agreement, then that can be considered consensus. The WP:Consensus policy, which I am thoroughly familiar with, is clear on what WP:Consensus is and when it can be presumed. In other words, WP:TALKDONTREVERT is clear about assuming consensus, and nowhere does it state that the discussion should have more than two or three editors. Clearly, WP:Consensus can change, and this discussion is meant to gauge others' feelings on this revisited matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the contributor and not the contribution you will be on your own. I think you understand more than you let on. Gender transition and sexuality are personal aspects of the subjects life. If we separate into a level two header and create completely independent section based on your assertions above: "The Gender transition section is an entity in its own right that can be subsectioned, depending on how it grows, because let's face it: Jenner is mostly getting attention for her gender transition these days, and today's youths mostly know her from that and/or Keeping Up with the Kardashians". This gives undue weight to a small section of a personal life choice, emphasizes a POV and is just un-encyclopedic in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There are far more than two editors involved with the material, not just your archived discussion. Two editors do not make a consensus on any article that has more editors than the two in discussion. There was no consensus just agreement between two editors at one point. Silence is a stronger consensus than the agreement between just two. When I changed that to a subsection I was being bold but not rash as it is the logical placement for personal life issues such as gender and sexuality. It also broke the silent consensus. Consensus, if you feel there was such, can change.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I trust your good faith even though I do feel you are inaccurate here. Consensus is not a vote. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.". As far as being clear about when one can assume a consensus, yes, this section is very clear: "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change". As you can see I object to that change. When I made the edit I received a public "thank you" from another involved editor here. I see that as further demonstration that there are objections to the separation.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There were good reasons to not have the gender transition as part of the Personal Life section. Mainly that it was hardly a personal life-only matter. It was extremely public and well advertised. It also resolved some other issues at the time which are in the history of the talk page if we really need to revisit the whole discussion. Missruption (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As part of the discussion could you state those good reasons. I don't really see them to be honest. Just becoming a matter of public knowledge does not mean it is no longer a longer part of their personal life.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark Miller, except for you stating that you object to the change and that another editor does (that editor was likely Iady391, an editor I've disagreed with on this talk page and cited as non-new), I don't understand your arguments on this matter and how you are using Wikipedia policies. And stating that "[You] think [I] understand more than [I] let on." is another uncalled for attack. I am not a WP:Newbie, and I refuse to be treated like one. And as for stating "If you wish to discuss the contributor and not the contribution you will be on your own.", noting your hostility and condescension is perfectly valid. You focus on me, then expect me to focus on you in return. Furthermore, it's rare that I am ever completely on my own when it comes to my contributions to Wikipedia; there is usually always someone there to back me up. You and I, despite occasionally agreeing on matters, do not mesh well. And I refuse to continue this hostile/condescending discussion with you (especially since I am doing what I can to return to the Flyer22 that I used to be instead of the hothead I had become). I agree to disagree. Bye. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTGETTINGIT: "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is.". I have focused on the contributions you made. I am debating against your argument because, I honestly don't agree with you. "I think you understand more than you let on" is not a personal attack and it came after you accused me of being hostile over my original reply to your thread. You are not a newbie, but you are the one that began attacking me with accusations of "hostile and/or condescending posts". I don't think you are a hothead as you self describe. We may bump heads now and then but I have no issue with you as an editor. We are not always going to agree on everything.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Miller, I think you're missing what is mentioned in the very beginning of the article, that Jenner is not a private person with this personal information. By these same most of her article could be one big personal section when it's certainly not. I think the personal section should be reserved for information that happens outside her public life. Her gender transition has been uniquely public. Cramming it into the personal section makes it awkward and balloons the personal life section unduly while short-serving how huge her gender transition is to her as well as it's impact on the world. Missruption (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Missruption, I actually understand what you are saying: "..that Jenner is not a private person with this personal information". I do not believe you are looking at this in the right direction as a Wikipedia editor. Sometimes we see things in a set manner that may be true in one sense but is not the manner how we judge these matters or the criteria to demonstrate what is important. Yes, Jenner is not a private person like you or I, who have little to no notability or "celebrity" status. There is a difference between being a celebrity/public figure and just being notable. There is also a difference between what is relative to a biographies personal section on Wikipedia, a very common section that refers to the subject "personal life" such as wife, children, sexual preference and gender identity. However there is also a good argument that much of this is beyond just being a part of his personal life like the gender transition that was done in a highly publicized and extremely "public" manner. I feel strongly that the gender identity issue begin in the personal life section if we are going to keep such a section. However, I am not sure we need to keep a Personal Life section at all since the entire article is about the personal life of the subject and I do not see it present in the two FA biographies I just checked. Let me look into that. It may be a better way direction for me to look at the situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

picture

Please see the FAQ

The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it.

Curious why you've chosen to redirect the page to Caitlyn Jenner, when someone is looking for Bruce Jenner, but have chosen to display a picture of BRUCE Jenner, instead of CAITLYN.74.114.236.45 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Teri

Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner/FAQ --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@74.114.236.45: Bruce is now known as Caitlyn. Caitlyns surname is still Jenner. The picture is of Caitlyn before the name transition. Iady391 | Talk to me 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I do agree that the image should be removed to A) stop this trouble. And be out of respect of the LGBT communicate and Jenner. This is a picture of pre-Caitlyn Jenner. It's like adding the American flag with the thirteen stars the official image in the article Flag of the United States. It has been updated. I think we should remove this image until a more proper image is found at commons. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, at some point this main pic will probably need to be changed.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely; nearly every image has an expiration date. With what image do you propose replacing it? VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing right now, but we must not let a FAQ rule our editing in the future. It has a place, but it is not policy or guideline. And....I object to the hatting of the discussion. WTF? Really?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you object? This is indeed a frequently asked question. The canned answer works just fine, until such time as it no longer is correct. No one is going to let the FAQ rule our editing. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny how people keep objecting to what I would regard as quite an ambiguous photo anyway, yet not the continued references to all the other stuff Caitlyn did as Bruce. If the former is objectionable, then how much worse must the latter be? (At least it's only this article they're targeting, I suppose. If they were at all consistent about these objections, they'd be removing every picture of a dead person from Wikipedia, too. Please, don't do that either.) --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny indeed, they make it sound like the 66 year old Jenner was a 'lady' for 90% of her life even though its barely 6 months..I wrote this on the day the change was made in regards to the page move from Bruce to Caitlyn and i'm saying it again, it will take a minimum of ONE YEAR to get Caitlyn Jenner a new image. Its not as easy as it sounds, and this troll since day one has been 'forcing' us to remove the picture of Bruce which we won't because if we allow trolls to get what they want, why bother editing wikipedia? When and if an image is found, it will be checked by licence reviewers and commons admins and then verified and then added to the article and the current picture will REMAIN, but be moved to a lower section which talks about the career and life of "Bruce" Jenner.till then, bear with us, be grateful i found him a High Quality picture to use on his article since the previous image of him walking down the street has been a copyright violation that remained undetected for nearly 4 years, we won't be making the same mistake......--Ste moc 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A new photo post-transition Nattybee89 (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Pronouns and style

Would it be possible to at least clear some of the 'Jenners' in the part of her life as a woman? I get that it's to stay more gender neutral, but let's limit the repetitive use of her last name for the section that's anterior to the transition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin (talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Post-Transition main pic?

Please see the FAQ

The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it.

Wouldn't it better suit the article to include a photo post-transition? Nattybee89 (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're far from the first person to ask, but we just don't have a suitable image that meets Wikipedia's licensing criteria. (And to be honest, a photo from circa the 1976 Olympic Games might be better anyway... but we don't have a suitable one of those either.) --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Call me stupid but what are the licensing criteria? Nattybee89 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you read like litterally almost half of what is written above? It's been explained several times. (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015

This edit request to Caitlyn Jenner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the id photo at the top to post transition Cait! 😊 108.9.205.206 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Look at the section immediately above. or the FAQ. Cannolis (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Have A Heart

The world knows that Cait is a SHE now. Why is the article loaded with "Jenner" in places that SHE can easily fit in. Especially in places where the use of SHE would possibly offend the transphobes that read this article. It's disgusting and completely offensive to the entire LGBT community when something like THIS is on a wikipedia article:

"Jenner was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974 and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue."

Are the transphobes that run this page ashamed to note that a SHE (Caitlyn) was the American champion in the men's decathlon? It's time the truth be revealed. Cait stands for honesty and truth - let's not HIDE anymore. Just change all those "Jenner"s in the article to SHE so that it can be clear that a PROUD WOMAN that was ALWAYS a WOMAN won those men events! Please have a heart for the entire LGBT community. Just think of how offensive it would be for a young trans-kid to come onto this article wanting to learn more about an icon in the trans-community in Cait and see that the authors of this page are hiding the fact that a WOMAN won the men's decathlon by not using the appropriate pronoun (SHE) but rather mask it with Cait's last name... shameful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This article has been carefully written to conform with MOS:IDENTITY, Wikipedia's guideline on gender identity. The reason "Jenner" is used in place of just "she" is (1) to avoid repetitiveness, which makes for a dull article comprised simply of "she did this, she did that" and (2) to avoid ambiguity – other women are mentioned in the article. It is standard to refer to all subjects of Wikipedia articles by their surname, not just transgender individuals. I can assure you that a concerted effort has been made to eliminate any language that could be perceived as transphobic. Also, I would suggest that in future you assume that other editors' contributions have been made with good intentions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Trolling

The following discussion has been closed by IgnorantArmies. Please do not modify it.

OK, honey, I'll play your game. Can you explain what's the difference between saying "Jenner did this, Jenner did that" to "She did this, she did that" especially when the use of "She" would come right after "Jenner" was used about 10 times. It seems extremely suspicious to me that the parts that mention Cait winning MEN's sports, "Jenner" is used when "SHE" would be more appropriate and better to avoid the repetition of "Jenner". It's almost as if *gasp* the transphobic writers are getting their way to create the ambiguity that you claim to be fighting against. It needs to be made clear that a 100% woman - since birth - won the men's decathlon. Hiding behind "Jenner" instead of saying SHE is extremely transphobic, ambiguous, and offensive. I've had to swallow the bitter pill that is the refusal to swap out Cait's profile picture with one of CAITLYN, but I will NOT succumb to this one. I demand that SHE be used when talking about Cait's win of the men's decathlon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't (generally) work on the basis of anonymous demands. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well excuse me, sugar cakes, but you better back on up with that attitude! I mighty fine know how Wikipedia works and I know for a fact that it works the way that's best for the masses. The fact is that I am declaring a VOTE on SHE being used instead of "Jenner" in the sentence that I previously posted. Take that, little girl. Oh, and by the way it is my RIGHT as an American to do whatever I want wherever I want. Go look up the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia, thank you and lose nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be heartless, but it's really weird to read about a man breaking male Olympic records and see the pronoun "she." If you want to be neutral, then acknowledge that Jenner was a man in the Olympics. By retrograding the gender change, we not only write a less true article, but we patronize the gender identity. Isn't that more heartless? 130.22.184.1 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That IS being heartless! What is the big deal with a pure breed 100% WOMAN winning the male Olympics? How is that weird? You stating that is heartless and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community! I demand an apology right now. Where are the Wikipedia moderators to deal with this bigotry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

130.22.184.1 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Your post justifies EXACTLY why this article needs to have it made clear that a woman won the men's Olympics. Just because you a cisgendered white male feels 'weird' about seeing the pronoun SHE linked to the person who won the men's Olympics doesn't mean we have to cater to you. GET USED TO IT. This isn't the 1950's anymore. Stoop trying to hide and regress all the advancements in the LGBTQ community just because you feel uncomfortable! Be on the RIGHT side of history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk)

I'm not going to get into the politics of the discussion here, but as an aide in answering the question of whether Caitlyn's surname is overused in this article, I conducted an analysis. In the introduction to the Wikipedia article about Niels Bohr, he is referred to as "Bohr" 10 times and with third person male pronouns 10 times. In the introduction to the article on Caitlyn Jenner, she is referred to as "Jenner" 7 times and with third person female pronouns 6 times.

While a difference does exist in the claimed direction, the results are broadly very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.118.246 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.118.246 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

^^ To this guy... alright, you want to wage war with the LGBTQ community then BRING IT ON SISTER! I used your own weapon against you, little girl. My whole issue was that conveniently in the OLYMPICS section there was a deliberate attempt to avoid saying "SHE" or "HER" when talking about Cait and the Olympics. Well, the results are in! "Jenner" is used 18 times in that section, while "SHE" is used ONCE and "HER" is NEVER used. That just SCREAMS a deliberate attempt by the cisgendered privileged white males that run this place to hide and disassociate Cait - WHO WAS ALWAYS A WOMAN - from winning the men's Olympics. All I ask for specifically is this sentence: "Jenner was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974, and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue." be changed to: "SHE was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974, and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue." And also sprinkle a few more "SHE"s and "HER"s in there to even it out. It's CLEAR that for the Olympics section, there was malicious intent to purposefully avoid female pronouns and use "Jenner" instead. Get with the times people, it ain't 1950 anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, don't go calling editors "transphobic" for not sharing your exact point of view (which isn't even the point of view shared by all trans people). Claiming that someone who disagrees with you is suffering from a pseudo-medical disorder is offensive, and claiming that edits not made from your point of view were made with "malicious intent" violates our Assume Good Faith guideline. Second, asking for the record books to be changed to indicate that a woman won those men's events is not something that Caitlyn has ever done, as far as I know, and probably isn't something she would strongly fight for as it would indicate that she was never qualified to enter those events in the first place. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

^ Well Mr. Typical Cisgendered White Protestant Straight Male Response... I didn't ask to change the record books. All I asked was for the article to say that SHE was the American champion. That doesn't state that Caitlyn was fully transitioned when she won. It does the following: 1) Eliminate the repetitive use of "Jenner". A rather rude editor yelled at me about the reason "Jenner" and "she"/"her" were interchanged was to eliminate a repetitive usage of either. The Olympics section is LOADED with only "Jenner". Yes, I believe that was intentional by the editors here because they don't want to write an article about Caitlyn winning the Olympics and associating the female pronouns with the Olympic win. The other sections in the article have an about even usage of Jenner/female pronouns, so why is it ONLY the Olympics section with the usgae of Jenner/female pronouns: 18:1? Misogynistic and transphobic much? 2) The article is just stating that SHE (the subject ie Caitlyn) was the American champion in the men's decathlon. That's not changing history because SHE really WAS the American champion in the men's decathlon! I find your attitude extremely offensive to me. You can be as bigoted as you want in your personal life, but this is WIKIPEDIA. It is a public forum. That means you need to be tolerant and accepting of others, and not be hostile and offensive. So... please, Wikipedia editors, can more female pronouns be used in the Olympics sections ESPECIALLY changing the sentences I mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to use personal attacks every time you post and then accuse other editors, who have been nothing but rational and polite, of being hostile and offensive is making it seem like you are just trolling. I am not intolerant of anyone's gender identity or sexual orientation, but I have very little tolerance for people who think that insulting people and accusing everybody else of acting with malicious intent is the way to get what they want. If you wish to have a rational discussion about the content of the article, fine, but if you're just going to call people names then I think we're done here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a copy-edit of the Olympic career section, including swapping a few instances of "Jenner" to "she" (or otherwise re-wording), especially where the usage of "Jenner" felt stilted or awkward. To the IP, what you wanted changed was quite reasonable, but it would have been accomplished a lot sooner if you had adopted a better tone. You're welcome to create an account so that you make edits to protected pages yourself, but Wikipedia is a collaboration, so you would be expected to interact more civilly with other editors. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

^ You know, I thought you were on my side until you posted that lie. I checked the article and there are no changes. Thank you for raising my hopes that someone on here was not transphobic and not a bigot, but now it's been confirmed the otherwise. CVan another moderator deal with this situation please and make the appropriate changes that will make this article not a bigotry and hate motivated written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you've dragged this hoax out long enough. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I did make the changes, IP, but it appears another editor accidentally reverted it while making a different edit. I've restored it. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hoax? Honey please, all I asked for is some changes in the Olympics section. The real hoax is you as a moderator didn't help me in anyway at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Correction: On behalf of the entire LGBTQ community, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Different person

I came here to look for info on the athlete Bruce Jenner - really weird to see what this page looks like. Bruce was a totally different person than Caitlyn, the two identities deserve separate, but linked pages, slamming it into one page looks seriously odd.

For example, look under Olympic career: "she ran a fast last lap" - really? That was Bruce running, not Caitlyn. He competed in the men's category. Re-writing history like that is absurd.

2601:CA:C201:74A0:F9B8:ACFA:A80A:A755 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Bruce & Caitlyn may have different identities, but they are the same person. Hence, a single article. Re: pronoun use, we are following MOS:IDENTITY (bullet #2) guidelines. Barte (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear lack of differentiation in the Caitlyn/Bruce dichotomy here, that much is certain. Whilst the guidelines for identity are followed very much to a tee here, there is a clear excess of representation of the post-transition part of Jenner's life. In other words, most of the article focuses on Jenner's life as the Caitlyn identity, and very little representation of life as the Bruce identity is made.

It is understandable why people focus on this so heavily, but pre-transition Jenner is treated as if Jenner was always post-transition. Long before openly identifying, Bruce went along the strict vein of male categorization (A men's category athlete would clearly be a he at the time of participation), and the article does not reflect this. It seems as if Bruce never existed, and Wikipedia simply requires equal coverage of both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.187.0 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

most of the article focuses on Jenner's life as the Caitlyn identity, and very little representation of life as the Bruce identity is made. That's demonstrably false. Look at the article, count the column inches, and see for yourself. Barte (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To the OP... YES SHE RAN A FAST LAP! Caitlyn has ALWAYS BEEN A WOMAN! She has also ALWAYS BEEN Caitlyn! How dare you say that it was Bruce running and not Caitlyn, that is just utterly transphobic and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community! Fact: Bruce Never Existed. She was always Cait. So as much as you want cisgendered, Republican, white male Bruce Jenner to have existed - he never did. It was always Cait, honey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@100.2.244.59: Calling OP "utterly transphobic and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community" is not in good faith. Just because the OP feels the article is written strangely as such doesn't mean they are transphobic. Zappa 24 Mati 22:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification close

Drmies (talk · contribs) has closed Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. Here is Drmies' conclusion:

In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation.

~~"This article" refers to Caitlyn Jenner.~~ Best, Cunard (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to parse this out. Proposal 1 stated:

In articles outside of the biography itself, the timeframe of which only covers the period when the person self-identified as one gender, with a particular name, default to the historic name and gender.

But Drmies concludes that (per above):

...there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article.

My read is that the decision for this article is to revert to Jenner's historical identity, e.g. "his", "him", "Bruce", for the period when Jenner self-identified as male, which would be up to the 20/20 interview. Anyone disagree? Barte (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that when talking about Jenner historically, especially for sports accomplishments, use "him/he". For the interview, I think that's a little less clear has Jenner was in the process of transitioning publicly... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The complete transition was clear in the Vanity Faire cover story, a work-in-progress with 20/20. Barte (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My read was that this article referred to 1976 Summer Olympics, not Caitlyn Jenner. The only option that would seem to apply to the Caitlyn Jenner article was Option 2, which was rejected, but rejection of that option, when combined with the consensus around option 1, indicates that the timeframe should be taken into account for some specific articles, but nothing in the close indicated to me that MOS:IDENTITY didn't still apply to the main biography. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Drmies should clarify what they meant by "application of proposal 1 to this article". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point: I see now that this wasn't altogether clear. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's the 1976 article (and other articles outside of the biography proper), though the conversation that led to it took place on Talk:CJ. And Ahecht is correct that "proposal 1" logically can't really refer to the Jenner article, though the others do. And since, as you saw, I read the consensus somewhat narrowly (I think), I don't see sufficient ground for applying proposal 1 to, for instance, to the Jenner article up until the transition, for instance. However, one certainly senses that many of the "supports" for 1 would support that as well, a dual usage in the Jenner article, but since that was not the original question we can't decide that much based on the discussion--though we can surmise a thing or to. Strikes me as an excellent reason to have an RfC on the talk page to settle it. Ahecht and others, thank you for the question; Cunard, my apologies--I knew I was going to make a mistake somewhere, and this lack of clarification certainly counts as one. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Drmies. Barte (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Drmies (talk · contribs), for misunderstanding what "this article" referred to. Cunard (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So, moving forward, it looks like we need a similar RfC for this article. Who is going to start one? I for one, dislike and object to the use of the female pronoun before Jenner's transition -- especially since he competed in athletics and won awards in the Men's category of those competitions. As with all things Wikipedian, I think it best to follow the usage of the reportage at the time. I'd like to see a carefully worded RfC for this article, so that hopefully in the end the reader does not experience a disconnect while reading it. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Softlavender here about disliking and objecting to use of the female pronoun before Jenner's transition. We end up with sentences like: "She was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974," and "She was married to Chrystie Scott (née Crownover) from 1972 to 1981...... ." One makes it sound like Jenner competed in the wrong gender category; the other makes it sound like Jenner was in a same-sex marriage for a time. Neither, of course, is true, and they sound ludicrous! I don't think we want Wikipedia to become a laughingstock. When talking about any event in Jenner's life, I believe we should use the pronoun that applied to Jenner at the time of the event.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean, you think the rule should be "Any person whose gender may be questioned should be referred to..." Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Georgia guy. I want to reply but I honestly don't understand your question. If you would expand a bit about what you mean and/or give an example, I will be happy to reply with my opinion.
Richard27182 (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the appropriate section of WP:MOS and you'll see what I mean. Georgia guy (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Georgia guy. By "the appropriate section of WP:MOS" do you mean:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY

OR

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification

OR

Something else ?

Please provide a wiki link. I will be happy to read whatever you want me to read and reply with my comments (overnight because I'm going out now for the rest of the day).

Richard27182 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's on the MOS, not the village pump. Go to Wikipedia:Manual of style and do the appropriate search.

Hello Georgia guy. (Please remember to sign your postings.) Having just read it, I'll agree that MOS:IDENTITY does apparently represent the view you yourself hold. However that does not mean that I personally agree with that particular element of the MOS. Please read the closing of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification where it says:

In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY [emphasis added]. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies's suggestion that we need to revisit the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY (concerning that particular element of it). And I am ready to do my part in initiating and supporting that broader conversation. Thank you for making me aware of this situation.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)