Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

Inclusion of California Republicans category

Recently I added this article to Category:California Republicans. A few minutes later, that edit was reverted with the comment "If the intention were to pigeonhole everybody in California into Republican and non-Republican, this cat tag might be helpful. Don't think that is a useful thing to do. Perhaps this tag has a deeper purpose.".

The reason that I think this is a pertinent category for this article is that as of this writing, there are two cited references that specifically call out that fact in their headlines:

Silverstein, Jason (April 25, 2015). "Bruce Jenner admits to being Republican during '20/20' interview, shocking some on social media". Daily News. New York.
Schwarz, Hunter (April 24, 2015). "Bruce Jenner said he's Republican. Only 21 percent of LGBT Americans are". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286.

Jenner of course is not significant as a California Republican in the same way that Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger were (i.e. statewide and/or nationwide leadership in the GOP), but given the above context, I think the category is appropriate. I would like to have that category re-added, but I want to make sure there is consensus, given the high profile of this article in recent weeks.

Any thoughts on this, let's discuss. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you make a good case, especially when I look at the category list itself. Just skimming it, I see several entries for people not particularly known for political activism. And, as you note, Jenner's membership in the GOP, when it was revealed, was certainly treated as notable--even during the interview itself. Barte (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that input - Unless there any objections, I will re-add that category a little bit later today. KConWiki (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've no serious objection to this inclusion, but I don't think it serves the category well to include every known person of a particular political affiliation irrespective of their degree of political engagement. It's a bit like randomly assigning everybody to a religion, even if their religious faith is of very little public consequence. Such practices have more in common with stamp collecting than writing a useful reference work. --TS 17:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opposition for this, but I think it may be better if the category is excluded. Common sense tells me the category is meant for individuals whose political affiliations are particularly relevant to their life/career: politicians, journalists, etc., not an individual famous for athletics/entertainment whose political preferences briefly attracted attention because the individual is LGBT. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Several articles have already been written about her political party declaration and the tension of Republicans, especially lately, to demean and discriminate against trans people. I think the category should stay and allow the subject to be introduced organically. Missruption (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments; I will hold off given the interest to allow time for additional comments. Let me just mention though, that if we go with the approach alluded to above and are worried about Category:California Republicans being applied too liberally (please pardon the pun), then there are probably 100 Hollywood-based movie and TV personalities in that category who oughtn't be, such as Hugh Beaumont, Pola Negri, and Dennis Hopper. KConWiki (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

OK - Given the above, with two statements of "I don't have a strong opposition for this" and "I've no serious objection to this inclusion" and two more of "I think you make a good case... ...Jenner's membership in the GOP, when it was revealed, was certainly treated as notable..." and "I think the category should stay..." I am going to re-add the category to this article, with a note referencing this talk page. If necessary, we can worry about the extent to which Hugh Beaumont and others were active in the Republican Party later. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

question of sexuality

Questioning Caitlyn's sexuality, according to source articles, Caitlyn is both attracted to women and asexual? An asexual friend of mine finds this duality problematic and I was wondering if there could be a clarification in the article, maybe more sourcing to prove either way? Gbklyn (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We can only speculate on everything going on as yet. My impression is that Caitlyn was directly answering the oft repeated accusations that conflate and confuse trans issues with sexuality issues. She might have been trying to avoid sexuality issues altogether as asexuality "is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity." So unless or until she clarifies that she has a new romantic or sexual interest we can only go on her latest statement that she is asexual. I'm sure it will be well reported if and when that changes. Missruption (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS: IDENTITY does apply to images as well

The essence of a policy is to be followed not the lawyers specific definitions of a turn of phrase. While i agree that a more current, like in the last few months, image would be better i also agree that any image is likely acceptable in this case since Jenner is internationally iconic pre-transition. And the cultural markers of what makes someone more masculine and feminine are also more fluid as more more men embrace personal care products and woman eschew traditional trappings of traditional femininity. But the essence of MOS: IDENTITY remains applying to images as well. I just don't think it has as much weight in this case. Missruption (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Many seem to disagree that the essence of MOS: IDENTITY remains applying to images as well. Myself included. Shouldn't this section be combined with the above one where the same discussion is occurring? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not apply to images, because MOS:IDENTITY is an objective guideline; applying it to images would make it subjective. At the heart of MOS:IDENTITY is "terms relating to gender identity"—specifically that "Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise." Terms relating to gender identity are objective. Pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns are inherently objective; there is no subjectivity about the word "she". In the English language, "she" is a female pronoun. Period. The same is not the case with images. Images of people are not objectively feminine or masculine. Some people might consider this picture of Miley Cyrus to be fairly masculine: she has short hair and has grown armpit hair, but Miley Cyrus still identifies as a female. MOS:IDENTITY is an objective standard, and trying to apply that to the subjective realm of images is absolutely inappropriate. As you have said, what makes someone more masculine and feminine has become more fluid, and for that very reason, applying MOS:IDENTITY to images would be wrong. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless MOS:IDENTITY explicitly states it covers only prose in an article or some other restrictive nonsense I have no reason to believe the essence also covers other situations on Wikipedia where some wonkish instruction creep hasn't already spelled out don't be a-holes to trans people. Sadly we need to tell people and make rules to enforce being nice to others and consideration. Missruption (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that using a photo of Jenner from an Olympics ceremony when she looked like what society says males "should" look like is being an a-hole to her. You yourself said that the cultural markers of masculinity and femininity are fluid. What pictures would be acceptable and what wouldn't? I'm fairly confident that these wouldn't violate your interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY [1] [2] [3], but what about these? [4] [5] [6] Like I said above, pronouns are objectively masculine or feminine. Pictures are not. Maybe Jenner thinks all of those images express her gender indentification. Maybe she doesn't even think the first three do. Dealing with pictures is a lot harder than pronouns, and common sense says that we should apply policies and guidelines to only what they say the apply to. The test shouldn't be unless MOS:IDENTITY says it doesn't apply to pictures; it should be if it does say that it applies to them, and it does not. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the essence of MOS:IDENTITY is simply don't be an a-hole to trans people. I did not state that using a former gender identity image would be doing so and do not think that is true. I await a new image of her to be made available and I think a lot of the arguing is wasted energy. We'll get a new image, there is no rush. Missruption (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Would Jenner say that the image (of the person) portrayed in this picture => was of Caitlyn or Bruce?

For all I know she might not answer the question leaving a potential enigma and let others decide.

I, as far as I am aware, believe in presenting LGBT issues in positive ways and, for instance, made this, I believe, positive compilation edit. However I have to wonder whether it is encyclopedic to present "Caitlyn Jenner" as a caption above the picture. It would also, arguably, be clearly wrong to present "Bruce Jenner" and I think that it would also raise unnecessary questions to cut the presented name down so as to present only "Jenner". I think that the most encyclopedic thing to do (without getting out a WP:CRYSTALball) would be to remove any name from the top of the infobox until a post announcement picture becomes available or until Jenner begins to significantly - predominantly begin to refer to her previously presented incarnation as being Caitlyn.

Obviously the person now is Caitlyn and this, according to my vote amongst others at WP:PUMP, should be indicated in connection to past achievements. Its the person. However, my vote like many others, was to present either "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce Jenner)" or "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner)". I certainly voted against the second option which would have replaced all reference to Bruce with Caitlyn.

Also, from everything that I have heard, I suspect that if Jenner saw a picture of herself such as at the Olympics or at the Olympics ceremony, she might say something like "that's me - as 'Bruce Jenner'". I think that the most representative thing to do in the situation would be to remove the name from the top of the infobox. When was the name Caitlyn even conceived / decided on? Let's just let people look at the picture themselves and let them see the person portrayed. Greg Kaye 13:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm imagining what the infobox would look like sans the name at the top. I think it would be diminished. I can see the argument for other options, or for leaving it as is. But it needs that capstone, if for no other reason than other biographical infoboxes have them. Barte (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell I'm guessing she's thrilled to be able to live her life and no longer feel trapped or fraudulent in any way. Many trans women I know could care less what you think or call them, they just go on about their lives. As for referencing her I think it will be a gradual phasing as only so much was anyone talking about Jenner's Olympic anything until it became a sticking point about her gender transition. Most references should just be changed sooner than later with some exceptions for her athletic achievements ("as Bruce Jenner" seems fine to me). Missruption (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How about we not speculate on this? This is basically just FORUM talk. We have guidelines on how to deal with this situation already. Unless Jenner says otherwise, we follow that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, let's not speculate, let's not crystal ball, let's not present content that we cannot cite. Greg Kaye 20:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Image in Infobox person that conflicts with MOS: IDENTITY removed - awaiting a new image

I posted here before, but can not find what I posted on the talk page or in the archive. I stated then that the image in infobox person conflicted with MOS: IDENTITY and needed to go. I had seen that somebody else had declined a request to update the image stating that no free-use photo was available showing Caitlyn Jenner in the correct gender.

I stated back then that I believed that the correct course of action would be to remove the photo that conflicts with MOS:IDENTITY and wait for a compatible photo to become available. Since then, another editor has changed one photo that conflicts with MOS:IDENTITY for another photo that also conflicts with MOS:IDENTITY.

I have recently been shown how to fix the code, and have done so. I would be grateful if other editors would search for a free use photo of Caitlyn Jenner, so that we can get a good picture up. Thanks in advance. Big Mac (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted. There is no consensus on this talk page to remove the image. MOS:IDENTITY governs the use of "pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns". It says nothing about photos. Barte (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Barte. We do not need consensus to avoid offending the subject of an article. MOS:IDENTITY clearly states that we must use the identity a subject identifies with. In this case, we clearly have a woman who has a male photograph and that conflicts with the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY. I am reapplying my edit, as it is the right thing to do. Kindly go look for a picture that we *can* use without being offensive to the subject of the article.

If you do not agree with my edit, kindly take this to dispute resolution and do not edit war over this. Thanks. 23:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

IDENTITY is not about images. See Chelsea Manning for example of trans woman's article with old pic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing someone from removing a photo that misgenders the subject of this article from the header. We do not require consensus to improve articles. That is the normal way. Putting back bad photos is not good for the subject of this article. Please take this to dispute proceedures and explain why you think it is better to misgender a woman than to remove the photo and wait for a good photo. Please stop edit war removal of my improvement. Big Mac (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not misgendering. That's still Caitlyn. We do require consensus for contentious edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There have been enough people calling for the photo to be changed to one that complies with the subject's chosen gender to warrant my original edit. The revert applied to me was not warranted. Please initiate a dispute resolution process, so that editors who wish to keep this photo at the top of the article can explain how retaining a photograph that misgenders this subject is not transphobic and does not conflict with MOS:IDENTITY. Thanks. Big Mac (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, just a small very vocal minority. Do you have a photo besides Vanity Fair showing Jenner with a less "misgendered" appearance? Besides, I've seen plenty of women that look like men, so perhaps it is you who is misgendering? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see the photo changed the instant a newer free photo is available. Ideally we'd have one that better reflects her current gender expression, but Wikipedia is always behind the curve on that issue. Now if she publicly said she wanted the current photo removed, I'd be all for that. But the photo is of her, even if outdated, and it's the best we have for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think any image is fine as long as it is of Jenner. I prefer one in her new gender identity but it has to be correctly licensed. Hopefully she'll see we need one here and donate a selfie. Missruption (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I second that. The later the image, the better, as long as it is properly licensed. But I don't think that editors can or should be judging the conveyed gender of any image. Fashions are too fluid. Personal tastes are too variable. Cultural clues are too vague for us to know what is misgendering and what is not. And to repeat, there is nothing in MOS:IDENTITY that remotely addresses images. To apply it as such is to stretch it too far. Barte (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there some reason the Vanity Fair picture can't be used in the infobox? It's already in the article. 67.141.141.249 (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. As the FAQ at the top of this page states, "Per WP:NFCC, copyrighted images may only be used at Wikipedia where the text of the article discusses the image itself. The magazine cover is only appropriate directly next to the text in this article where the magazine cover itself is discussed. As a general illustration for the infobox, where there is no accompanying text, we cannot include the image in that way." -sche (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing this as a violation of MOS:IDENTITY is simply incorrect, by its plain, explicit and narrow meaning. You might argue that the rationale behind the exception announced at MOS:IDENTITY is applicable by analogy – something like "the same respect for a person's transition that should cause us to switch use of gender pronouns, as memorialized at MOS:IDENTITY, is also relevant and should be applied to decisions on image use", but you cannot say this "conflicts with MOS:IDENTITY". Addressing that supplied position, I think it is only partially apt. Because of the very nature of the English language, how we refer to someone requires us to identify their gender by the words we use. It will always be a volitional act we are taking up as the writers – that we impose on the subject as it were. An image, by contrast, captures a visual moment in time that actually existed. The analogy breaks because we are not imposing that capture and have no ability to alter it to fit a position of respect (and to do so, were it possible, would be a false, revisionist act). On the other hand, our selection of a photo, where we are presented with meaningful choices, may be influenced by the same underlying respect sentiment, but it's very far from presenting an apples-to-apples comparison.

Taking up some examples to explore the contours, would we properly remove one of the most famous photographs in history from an article because the subject had changed their gender identity – one where the photograph itself is a big part of the subject's fame? (Say, from Phan Thi Kim Phuc?) I hope the answer that comes to mind is "definitely not", and that that reductio doesn't need to be argued. What if this subject's incredibly iconic photo, hands thrown up in triumph after winning the decathlon, was in the public domain? I would argue it would be a great disservice to our readers not to include it. That moment-in-time-capture is highly relevant history to this topic, and that will never change. Putting that aside, the question currently appears to be: where the only suitably-free (but ordinary) photo available for a transitioned person is from the time before they were visibly transitioned, do we include no photo? I say no (and that there's nothing disrespectful [or "transphobic" as you put it] about it). Doing so is not analogous to using male gender pronouns at all. Rather its removal, is analogous to stripping the article of mention that the person was born biologically male or from talking about the transition itself out of some idea that to be revisionist is necessary to display respect. The only really relevant query is: if we have essentially equal (from an iconic standpoint) photographs of a transitioned person both before and after, should we favor the post-transition one? To that I say yes, but even there it might be relevant to the topic – if the person's transition is important to the content, then I don't see why a before and after would not perfectly meet the goal of informing readers and providing context. That's not disrespectful, that reportage.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been doing this for a few years now, i.e searching for free images of celebrities and believe me its hard, it was hard enough to get the current picture of Bruce too and obviously the previous one was deleted because it was a copyright violation, the next time an image is added, it will get scrutinized as the last one survived over 3 years before i caught it..that said, if people think by removing his current picture and adding a picture of "Caitlyn" will be easy, lol, we would be lucky if we get "get" a picture of "her" in the next 2 years, unlike the other kardashians, Bruce isn't really seen in public much nor does he attend events where we might get lucky...I did come across an old (1985) free pic of his with some other people but its too poor a quality to be cropped and used..speaking of other kardashiahs, Kim is the ONLY one that we have lots of images of, even her mother isn't photographed much, nor her sisters..btw, people world over know BRUCE, not CAITLYN, and as per MOS:IDENTITY, the picture for what he/she is most famous for will be shown..and I think he is most famous for being a "guy" who won the 1976 Olympics gold in decathlon, not the Guy who became a woman, we have a few million of the latter but only ONE of the former..--Ste moc 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc: No need for the scare quotes or the masculine pronouns. She is Caitlyn now and the request is to find a recent picture of her. She is still most famous for winning Olympic gold. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Its not a "scare quote", i use it all the time along with CAPS and BOLD, I'm just distinguishing my speech from those relating to Bruce and those and those relating to Caitlyn..the WHOLE problem in this thread is because of this...I'm sorry but when a person has been a "dude" for 66 years and a lady for only 3 months, I prefer to use the former as its the most descriptive and best term to use..Lets not create another GamerGate situation because of one anonIP who refuses to budge or bother understanding our own policies and keeps pushing his/her agenda... and PLEASE discuss the question at hand which is the image itself instead of picking on the "use of words" ..I'm an uninvolved editor, I don't care what image gets used, i just told you above that if the current image is removed, the chance of getting a free image of "Caitlyn" will be ZERO for the next 2 years....I don't want a Good High Quality image of a distinguished athlete be removed because of something so ridiculous ..--Ste moc 04:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not want the current image removed. It is of Caitlyn, regardless of her gender expression. But I do hope that a free high quality image that is more recent and shows Caitlyn's current gender expression will be made available. And when that time comes, it should be used. But please consider your language more carefully (even if it's not the question at hand, editor behavior matters, especially when discussing living people). Her public transition is not something so ridiculous unless you're referring to the media's behavior and Caitlyn's own part in that. Anyway, let's just hope she donates a more suitable image soon. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

More chance of IMDb getting a pic of Jenner as a woman than wikipedia as they have deals with Getty and Wireimages and its not the transition which is ridiculous, its the discussion on this page.. i have had my fair share of discussion where people who don't even edit the wiki want images removed because it doesn't "look" like the person in the picture even though its "their" picture so not keen on the idea of removing a pic of a person not because its not the same person in the picture but because the person in the pic is no longer a "dude" .....sounds ridiculous now?..--Ste moc 06:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this whole notion of an image showing Caitlyn's "gender expression". That in itself conflicts with the whole notion of imposing gender on appearance. Unless the picture shows that she has received implants, it's just makeup and a wig and/or extensions. It's the same person with or without those accessories. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Floydian: Gender expression refers to appearance and behavior as opposed to identity. See this link for more. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, exactly. Her appearance and behavior are being argued here without reference to her identity. White liberal guilt. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

(←) Agreed with other editors that the current image is not an IDENTITY vio. There are currently no free, good quality images of post-transition Jenner (and when one becomes available, the lead image should be changed immediately) and removing the current one entirely would be inappropriate, as readers need to be able to identify the subject and know instantly that they came to the right article, especially if they're coming from the Bruce Jenner redirect and may not be familiar with the new "Caitlyn" name (you never know who still lives under a rock). As others have said, this can be revisited if Jenner specifically requests a removal. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So how many times has Caitylyn been photographed since her vanity fair (heavily photoshopped) issue came out? yes ZERO. How is wikipedia suppose to find a pic of a person who refuses to be photographed?..grow up people, as mentioned above, it may take 2 years to get a free pic of Caitlyn and it would be stupid to remove the ONLY identifying pic of Jenner cause regardless of whats underneath that picture, its still the same person..--Ste moc 03:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the remaining question of whether she looks as she did on Vanity Fair in public, or if that was a photoshoot that was designed to make her look that way, when in reality she may look the exact same as the current image, just with longer hair. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, she was photographed outside a personal appearance in LA, umbrella and coffee in hand. See The Advocate cite: #99 (as of now). It's not a free image of course, but shows the potential. Barte (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Retained male genitalia

I attempted to clarify that Jennner still has male genitalia, though their Gender identity is female. My edit was reverted, with the statement of "Not necessary to specify that much. Just a piece of trivia." I would respectfully disagree with that characterization. The article currently sates that "she has not undergone sex reassignment surgery", but doesn't distinguish/specify between male-to-female or female-to-male. The use of the female pronoun "she" makes the sentence confusing, and unspecific to which sex Jenner currently is. We could assume the reader will gather this from the article, but why not state it, and make it clear. It is an important detail to make clear, factual, and appropriate for an encyclopedia . For example, hypothetically, if Jenner were to be convicted of a crime and sentenced to serve time in prison, they would likely go to a male prison. The same sort of thing could be said if Jenner were to decide to compete in some form of organized sports again. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In what other articles do we talk about a person's genitals when they're not directly notable? Doing so violates WP:HARM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the addition in question is harmful, it is merely a factual clarification. Using the pronoun "she" in that sentence makes it ambiguous, if not bordering on erroneous, because it is dealing with the topic of "physical" sex. Wikipedia isn't censored so why not be clear with what is being said in the article. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that she transitioned from male to female, based on the surrounding sentences. If that sentence was not in the same area of the article as the details of her transition, I could at least see the argument being reasonable. As it stands, it's pretty clear that the surgery that she has not undergone would have to be male-to-female. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This violates WP:BLP and is completely invasive. We don't report on people's genitals, period. It is only of interest to voyeurs and tabloids. This is an encyclopedia, not TMZ. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of folks like Jonah Falcon, Liz is completely correct here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that within Wikipedia articles it is deemed acceptable to include only how people self-describe their own "mental" gender, while not being allowed to describe/clarify the actual "physical" sex of the living person. @Liz: what part of WP:BLP are you referring to, WP:BLPCAT?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz is correct. I would only add a point that was made when people proposed adding language about genitalia to [[Chelsea Manning]]: extraordinary claims (like that you know what kind of genitals someone has) require extraordinary evidence, and I'm not convinced we have such evidence. Even if we do, I don't think it would be "due", as Wikipedians say, to mention it, given how invasive and unnecessary it would be; as has been stated, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I once found a blog that specialized in tweaking news stories on cis people so they read the way stories on trans people often do: "Cis celebrity Orlando Bloom will star in a play premiering next week. Bloom, a non-op who still possesses male genitalia, will play the role of..." -sche (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Any objections about changing sex reassignment surgery to sex reassignment surgery within that sentence?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with that, because that is an accurate wikilink. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No objections. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, duly brings some clarification. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's BRUCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CE:8080:40:9C8D:369B:7046:D9DC (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What's Bruce? – the name of her male genitalia? Please clarify. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's SPRUCE! -sche (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't going to fly for one reason, it is too much detail presented in an insensitive manner and almost as if forcing a cold and "encyclopedic" reasoning instead of the actual encyclopedic "value". If we can't separate the two and copy edit appropriately just leave it out.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

While I disagree, the consensus so far in this section, and Wikipedia policy seem to support your comment.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Talking of "Spruce" and similar I was wondering, as I read this thread, if things would be different if we were all flowers or some such generally all having outties with form and function that did not act as invasive parts.

Following that bit of fantasy - I certainly think that the above discussion might have at least been phrased differently if the edited text had read, "Her transition is the subject of an eight-part TV documentary series that will premiere in July 2015. While she has undergone some cosmetic surgery as part of transitioning, she is yet to undergo sex reassignment surgery (retaining male genetalia) ..." I am not suggesting here that any action should necessarily be taken but there is certainly a case for mentioning the genitalia issue. I certainly predict that it will be more than mentioned in the forthcoming documentary and I am unsure as to whether we should necessarily be precious about mentioning it here. The section of text at Caitlyn_Jenner#Gender transition is accompanied by the now famous image File:VanityFairJuly2015.jpg within which attention seems to have been made so as to avoid any vivid indication of the presence of a penis which, for some trans women, may be a person but not entirely necessary choice.

In the case of a trans woman who is seeking anonymity I think there would certainly be strong argument to take the safest possible path as regard to discretion may be concerned. In the case of another person who is about to make a documentary about the subject, while we still need to present issues with respect, I think that we also need make sure we to cover any issue notable issue as and when it becomes relevant. Greg Kaye 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To quote you from the above thread, "let's no speculate"; the tangent here of original research around how the shot was framed and what the motivations were there seems totally extraneous. Absolutely, it will be mentioned within the forthcoming, 8-part documentary; it's an 8-part documentary. Wikipedia's articles should not have 8-parts of runtime. Mentioning Jenner's current physical state might be interesting, albeit crass, trivia for TMZ, but it's not particularly encyclopedic in and of itself and it feels pretty gender essentialist to be reducing someone down to their genitals. My suggestion would be that we cut the line and revisit after the documentary and after the media furore calms down; we've got a far better chance of covering it in a considerate fashion after the noise has died down and when there's a (slight) amount of history we can use as a lens on how to weigh things. Until then, let's err on the side of being overly respectful. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I know its picking on words (rather than intended meanings) but let's not err. Let's stay firmly on the side of being encyclopedic. We have an obligation to both to our readership and to NPOV. Jenner is an Olympic hero and cultural icon. In this context we can react to fairly and reasonably present realities as they are presented. Jenner seems to be clear minded in what she is doing and we can fairly present the results. In the current context it might also be pretty gender essentialist to risk reducing a definition women to people who don't have penises and I don't think that Jenner should necessarily be regarded as any more or less of a woman either way. All I am saying is that we should keep options open. When sources reveal content a decision should then be taken as to how to deal with that content in an encyclopedic and responsible way. Greg Kaye 12:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Recentism tag

I have added a recentism tag to this article as the lengthy section on gender transition is too detailed in comparison with other material, namely the events that Jenner first became notable for. The section should be trimmed and given appropriate weight in regards to the rest of Jenner's personal and professional life. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Second. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see the problem is that the rest of the article is woefully underdeveloped and the gender transition is what is recent in her life and being reported on in volume. The rest of the article needs vast improvement. The remarkable leveraging of endorsement offers into an entertainment career and then transferring that legacy to six+ children who now dominate the reality television and pop culture worlds is amazing. Very little of that is even mentioned. Then there are her other business ventures which are also shorted throughout the article. Missruption (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The gender transition section is, by my count (using Google Docs), 888 words out of 3466, or about a quarter of the entire article. I'm not sure how to evaluate that. Barte (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are items in there that will migrate out if/when the rest of the article is developed better. There is plenty to be done. Undergoing the gender transition is a pretty major development so i see no reason to skimp in some way to make up for the rest of the article being under-deveoped. There is a tremendous amount we are already leaving out of the gender transition aspect of her life. Missruption (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of reference to former name

As it stands, the article contains no reference to what name she has used for almost the entirety of her career. It says "born William Bruce Jenner" at the top, and a reference to changing her name to Caitlyn, but no way for anyone reading the article to tell that she was known as Bruce rather than William (or indeed by another name altogether). Of course by the time you read this, this may have been corrected anyway. In which case, come back in half an hour because by then it will probably have been removed again. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I reinserted it. At its core, per WP:V, Wikipedia is a summary of reliable secondary sources, and every reference we cite before June 2015 refers to "Bruce Jenner". There's no getting around that. We are here to chronicle a life, not delete it. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning the GLAAD recommendation for reporters: Since Caitlyn Jenner was known to the public by her prior name, it may be necessary initially to say "Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner…" However, once the public has learned Jenner's new name, do not continually refer to it in stories. I think that mostly applies here, except that we can never assume at any point that all our readers will have learned her new name. Wikipedia introductions are suppose to be written for people living under a rock. Barte (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner is not an Olympic Athlete

Hi, just wanted to let you know that Caitlyn Jenner is not an Olympic Athlete. I'm not sure that she has done anything significant yet. She wants to be her own person so lets not label her as something she is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.80.115.100 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

While I think this comment is off topic for this section, let's just dispense with it here. I think the majority of editors here, having read the above comments, would disagree as a factual misstatement of truth that, "Caitlyn Jenner is not an Olympic Athlete." While some of us (myself included), may not have a sophisticated understanding of what this transition entails, we're not stupid enough to agree that Bruce's and Caitlyn's history are not one biography.

We're mostly aware of how articles are constructed, and spinning this one article off into two (we're generally agreed that something about the transition is important enough for inclusion on Wikipedia (we debate more the what of what should be included, rather than the whether of should anything be included)), would be an unprecedented disservice to the function that Wikipedia serves.

To my mind, as an editor, leaving out information about the transition would rise to a policy level under WP:CENSOR.

(Sigh, I really hate getting trolled on Wikipedia.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

207.80.115.100 is simply wrong but they might believe the damning information spoon-fed by social conservatives, religious extremists and Republicans although many are rethinking their blanket condemnations. In the past these Christians have caged all LGBT issues, and now with their loss of gay marriage cling to trans issues, as simply moral. As if anyone would choose to be discriminated against and vilified by the ir church, employer, and government. No dear reader, God made trans people exactly as they are and as Caitlyn has shown, even a lifetime of trying to be the ideal man doesn't change the core identity she has of herself as a woman. Human rights will soon encompass all transgender rights as well as more and more people understand it's not special rights that trans people seek, it's equal rights rather than various forms of being second-class. Caitlyn is an Olympic hero and even online blather can't take that away from her. Missruption (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that John Patrick McEnroe, Jr. is not Wimbledon champion. However, it is fair to say that John Patrick McEnroe, Jr. is the 1979, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1992 men's singles champion. It is also fair to say that if JMc had notably changed names to something by which he was notably known then this would have been fine. For fun let's say he had changed his name to Hugh Canute B. Serious and let's say that, in an equivalent to the historical John_McEnroe#Pop-culture appearances, the name had stuck. In this case it would be fair to say that: King Canute B. Serious, is a the 1979, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1992 men's singles champion who played under the name John McEnroe.

In comparison to this far fetched example, Caitlyn Jenner has taken steps to being more fully the person that she felt inside and, with the help of medical treatments, made changes that may be judged to to have been of benefit to her general state of well being. Some athletes, in negative comparisons, turn to less self fulfilling "medications" and their lives, if anything, suffer for it. Nothing a person can do can change their history. A apart from the suggestion of an occasional joking fantacy, we are not revisionists. 19:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of men's track and field in lead

As the subject has a female name, and is referred to as she within the article's lead, clarifying men's track and field (or previously men's decathalon) is due. We can't assume the reader knows this from prior knowledge, and we shouldn't confuse them. Factual clarification that the subject competed in the men's event doesn't "Call~~ing~~ a trans woman a he". —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph references the "men's decathlon event". Are you saying you want that gender distinction in the first paragraph? Barte (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It was in the first paragraph, but has been removed. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be in the lead section, but the second paragraph works for me. Barte (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Re "assume the reader knows this from prior knowledge": if a reader isn't familiar with Jenner, they can be expected to read sentence 2, which notes the gender transition, and sentence 3, where the men's decathlon is discussed. I agree with Barte that leaving the clarification that she participated in men's events to sentence 3 is better than having it in sentence 1 and sentence 3. Sentence 1 is (as distinct from 'should be', NB) a selective summary of the next two paragraphs, which are in turn a selective summary of the whole article; the genderedness of the athletic event Jenner participated in is not so exceedingly important that it merits inclusion in the micro-summary-of-the-summary, IMO; I think it would be WP:UNDUE there under the circumstances. Indeed, I think rewriting sentence 1 to "...is an American athlete and television personality" would better reflect the fact that (as the rest of the lead summarizes and as the rest of the article describes) Jenner was an athlete both before and after 1976, and would allow sentence 2 to be folded in ("...and television personality who came out as a trans woman in 2015, having previously been known as Bruce Jenner."), so that the current sentence 3 could become sentence 2 and launch immediately into details, beginning (as it does now) with the 1976 men's decathlon. -sche (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If the specific sport or event is omitted, the genderness of the event can be omitted ("is/was an athlete") but where we mention the event and sport the gender should be clarified. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It is arguably the most notable aspect of the article that someone presents themselves as having had a gender identity as a woman, won the Decathlon men's event. I edited to this version which succinctly hits all the points. Please can we drop reference to track and field which is not what it is called in "Olympic circles", so to speak, and is not widely used outside the U.S. Greg Kaye 07:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In your mind that may be true. Caitlyn is notable for being both an Olympian and being the most famous transgender person in the world. For dignity sake, human decency even, we should not and do not need to misgender her at the first go. Just put that she is an Olympian or a track and field Olympian, but please STOP MISGENDERING her by insisting ramming down that she OMG won a men's event but gosh *shock* is not a man! It's cheap and tabloidy. Missruption (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not "misgendering" them, it is stating what event they competed in accurately. By stating they competed in the men's decathlon event isn't calling them a man, or using an inappropriate pronoun. That the event was men's is a necessary distinction, being that it's a big part of their notablity. It isn't made clear by the subject's name or the pronouns used to describe them, so stating this in the lead is due. The men's athletics distinction has currently [7] been written out and isn't stated in the lead. But I'm not going to edit war about it.

@Missruption: You stated in your edit summary "see talk", rough consenus here says the distinction should be included in the lead (which paragraph hasn't quite been decided). I'd encourage you to add it back in.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Simply stating that she won the men's decathalon is not misgendering her. There is a balance between saying, "she OMG won a men's event but gosh *shock* is not a man!" and completely removing references to her performance in the Olympics identifying as a male athlete, and that balance is to simply state the facts without commentary, as is currently done in the article. It is a part of her past, and it would be unencyclopedic to simply gloss over the facts of the past because of some (far-fetched) concern that it lacks human decency. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it had to be removed, just placed better. There's no reason to further misgender her in the first sentence. And decency is hardly a far-fetched concern. Missruption (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

But it's not misgendering her. Misgendering is referring to a person using a word, typically a pronoun, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify. The word "men" in "men's decathlon" is not referring to Jenner; it's referring to the event. I also didn't say that decency is a far-fetched concern; I said it's far-fetched to describe this as a breach of decency. This has crossed from a risk of misgendering to a violation of WP:CENSOR, in my opinion. The fact of the matter is that Jenner won the men's decathlon. That is what she is known for. Saying that she won the men's decathlon is not misgendering her, and removing the reference to "men's" is contrary to what is best for the article and Wikipedia as a whole. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"And decency is hardly a far-fetched concern.", that is a misrepresentation of what Inks.LWC wrote. (Posted earlier, then removed. Now it's appropriate)—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Really, in an ideal world, the event might be renamed as something like "Decathlon for people with xy chromosome genetics". If anything there is a mistitling of the event rather than a misgendering of a person. However we define the event it was something that Bruce, now Caitlyn, Jenner very notably won. Jenner has now expressed that she has significantly identified as a woman including during this time and, on this basis, there is nothing against a woman legitimately winning the so-called "men's event". Greg Kaye 09:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Jenner was handed a small American flag during the victory lap, a tradition that has continued with athletes, and her image was enshrined on a Wheaties cereal box and commercial making her a household name." Surely someone is trolling with that statement. This article has really gone downhill in a period of two weeks. ¡Boz zio! 19:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the the intro is trending toward hype. I've trimmed a bit. Barte (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not hype when it's true. The fact that she accidentally set a precedent for flag waving on the victory lap and because of that became a household name seems quite appropriate for an overview. The intro needs expanding to be on par with other articles of people this notable for as many decades. We're missing a lot. That her hype came knocking on her door and she made a career of it is certainly worth mentioning. Missruption (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I went through the article to gender neutralize the first few decades worth of Jenner's accomplishments. I ran out of time so I hadn't figured out a good phrasing for that problem sentence. "Her" is certainly not time appropriate. Another misrepresentation caused by MOS:IDENTITY. As far as the content, those (Wheaties related events) are significant events that need to be covered. Trackinfo (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some trimming is due (WP:LEADLENGTH). Some of that wording is just distracting.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

FAQ Q3 regarding use of a non-free image in an infobox

Because my question concerns two articles (this one and Death of Leelah Alcorn) as well as WP:NFCC, I have centralized it at WT:NFCC; please comment there. -sche (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Caitlyn her first or middle name?

Bruce was her middle name originally and William was her first name. Did Jenner change her first or middle name to Caitlyn? Alheertyour (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Her name is Caitlyn. Why would anyone know or need to know more? --DHeyward (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

One assumes it replaces both names. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We quote sources on "Caitlyn Jenner" but, while we do our best to present logical coherent content, we make no WP:OR assumptions. Greg Kaye 03:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The question is important for the article. I've known transpeople and they for instance might have a first name Scott and middle name Charles and they would then change them to say Kelly for the first name and Lynne for the second one. Since Jenner only changed one of her names, then her full name is either "William Caitlyn Jenner" or "Caitlyn Bruce Jenner." Alheertyour (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There's no reason why two names can't be replaced with just one, and so far "Caitlyn" is the only one that's been made public. Beyond that we have nothing to go on. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that Caitlyn "Her" Jenner or Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner will work just perfectly. Make the change now because that William name is just horrifying and disgusting! How dare Wikipedia continue to perpetrate this myth that was William Jenner, she's CAITLYN now! Drop that male name now and quit misgendering Caitlyn! It is offensive and wrong! I expected better from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.91.22 (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jenner's birth name is well-documented and well-sourced. To include the fact that her birth name was William Bruce Jenner does not misgender her. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The first name is Caitlyn but he was born formerly known as Bruce.--88.104.131.9 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:COMMONNAME, the article's title and the name listed in the article are correct as-is. Commonly, she is known as Caitlyn Jenner. There are currently no reliable sources that point towards any other currently used name. ~ Rob^Talk 20:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. No reason to change it to Bruce or William. We can mention however that they were they names assigned at birth.--88.104.131.9 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Slanted template

The article has had the slanted template up for some time but there is no related discussion occurring on the TP. Personally I think that the template may have had relevance while it was still being decided whether the opening sentence was to include reference to Bruce Jenner and the men's event but those issues have now been sorted. Clearly notable content is added to the article in regard to current events and I think that if editors want to add more content on sporting and other accomplishments then this can be added. It may be that coverage of sporting achievements are not presented to the same extent as the achievements of, for instance, Daley Thompson, but I do not see that this is a problem for editors who are reporting on recent events. The TOC makes all contents equally accessible. Greg Kaye 18:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I added the tag and this was discussed here; because of the fast-moving pace of this talk page in recent weeks it has already been archived. The point still stands that the sections on Jenner's pre-transition life are underdeveloped in comparison to the more fleshed-out section on the transition. Until this issue is corrected, the tag needs to stay in place. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Currently, her 40 year post-Olympic life is given the same weight as two to three months of gender transition, so I think it's fairly clear that the recentism tag still applies. ~ Rob^Talk 18:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I've written the majority of the track content of Jenner's career. Certainly I can add to it, but I have been questioned and had to fight for almost every word in those sections. The first paragraph alone has 13 sources, which is clearly out of the ordinary except for the incredible scrutiny every word gets in this article. Its not worth the trouble to add much more. I add things as I find good sources to back me up before I add a word. For one thing, there is no mention of Jenner's left-handedness in the article. Significant to Jenner's training, Jenner had to learn every technique as a mirror image to most other, right handed athletes. With the current pronoun pushing going on, I'm still trying to rewrite "Jenner contended that she likes the cereal and eats the breakfast cereal two to three times per week.". Trackinfo (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

TY, my personal preference is to drop all pronoun use as far as possible and simply make use of "Jenner". It is also I think of import in that Jenner has made a habbit of referring to herself with the male pronoun and as Bruce past time reference (which may change).

Personally I think that it is likely that any editor who objects to inputs to the sports related sections and who is (like me) not a regular editor or sports related articles, is probably editing disruptively.

However I would argue that the Jenner/Kardashian and transition connections are the aspects of the bio that make it notable. The article of a better athlete, Daley Thompson, has been viewed 7801 times in the last 30 days while Caitlyn Jenner's article has been viewed 973134 times in the last 30 days. The transition also comes in a period in which Cisgender has entered the Oxford dictionary and Jenner has, despite a long term lack of disclosure in regard to gender identity, has arguably gained a significant place in the history of gender politics. Greg Kaye 20:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The transition and her association with the Kardashians may be how Jenner is known to millennials, but that doesn't mean that should be the primary focus of the article. In the archived discussion about the recentism tag, I believe someone said that the gender transition comprised roughly a quarter of the article. That's absolutely not appropriate, especially for a subject who has been famous for over four decades. 25% of the article for less than 2% of her life?

Even if the transition trumped the Olympic achievements (which it doesn't), both are important aspects of her life/career and need to be covered equally. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reorganize the "Olympic career" section

Separate from questions of expanding it (discussed in the section right above this one), I think the "Olympic career" would benefit from being reorganized to be more chronological. Consider the bit that begins "In 1974 and 1976, Jenner..." and ends "...Sports Hall of Fame in 2010". It goes from discussing 1974/1976 to discussing 1975, to 1976, back to 1975, back to 1976, up to 1980 and 1985 and up through 2011, but then back to 1976, and then up again to 1980, 1986 and onwards to the present again. Simply discussing all of the 1975 events in one place, and then the 1976 events, and then the post-1976 events would be helpful. -sche (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, I was bold:) What do people think of this re-organization? -sche (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoever did the rewrite was not careful to use time inappropriate pronouns. I have fixed those. If you wish to reorganize the Olympic section, please feel free. I'll go back to make sure things are factually correct. Since we have the crazy MOS:IDENTITY currently in place, make every effort to not use ANY pronouns until 2015. Trackinfo (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing "factually incorrect" about using either "he" or "she" in contexts where the referent is clear. And as the edit notice at the top of the page states (when you go to edit it), "The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether." Emphasis mine. "Jenner Jenner Jenner Jenner" is poor style. -sche (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusingly-worded sentence

I had to read this sentence about four times before I understood it: 'The Daily Beast noted that, possibly because of Jenner's "honesty, his vulnerability, or his fame", she may have made "cheap jokes" about trans people—some examples of which aired during the show as part of the interview's educating the public on transphobia—"seem mean to a mainstream audience on an unprecedented scale".[89]'

The sentence is a bit 'garden path', in that "she may have made cheap jokes about trans people" reads like a whole sentence, and is set off by a LONG interruption from the remainder, "seem mean etc." I don't want to try rewording it myself because of the incredible amount of editor scrutiny the article is under. Can someone better at wordsmithing, and more familiar with the article, perhaps take a shot at it? It's additionally confusing because of the pronouns in the quote not matching the pronouns in the surrounding text... perhaps they could be replaced or excised with appropriate edit marks. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. I've tried to address both of the problems you've pointed out in these diffs. -sche (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 02:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Anachronisms in the article

Why is Bruce Jenner only "Jenner" in the chapter of his Olympic career (1976) and "she" in the chapter for his auto racing career (1986)? If he was a man when he competed in the Olympics, why not use the appropriate pronoun? If he was not a man in 1976, shouldn't he return his medal, since he participated in a wrong competition?

When exactly before 1986 did he become a woman? The article is now a mess of anachronisms, since someone has wanted to rewrite the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.146.138 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is answered in the FAQ at the top of the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2015

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

Hello, I just wanna to change the principal Picture to: Caitlyn_Jenner.png Link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Caitlyn_Jenner.png Shes a girl. So, lets change her picture to present, 2015.

Thank You. Thania92 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Copyright violation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2015

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

AT1716 (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No request made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I want to put a new picture of Caitlyn. Anyone in her place would want that. Resnickd (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload.
Please remember that the file cannot be copyright, you cannot just use a picture from a magazine or the internet, so unless you took the picture yourself, obtaining written copyright permission in the form we require will be very difficult.
Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. - Arjayay (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Photograph

Read the FAQ.

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

Seems to me that a post-transition picture of Jenner would be more suitable. I'm interested in the community's thoughts. --Lpm.mcc (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lpm.mcc: There have been many discussions about this, but so far no image has been found that is available under a free license. Keep in mind that non-free content cannot be used under fair use for a portrait of a living person, as there is a reasonable expectation that a free equivalent does or could exist (i.e. anyone can go out to an event Jenner appears at and snap a photo). If you find a photo available under a free license, which means it must explicitly include a release into the public domain or availability under a license such as GNU or certain CC licenses (i.e. not just anything on Instagram/Twitter/the internet at large), feel free to link it here and I'll take a look. If it's suitable, I'll upload it into the Commons and replace the photo in the article. ~ Rob^Talk 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, 100%, Caitlyn Jenner should have a post trans leading photo on her page. It appears disrespectful otherwise. And the page already contains a post trans photo of her (Vanity Fair cover). Just use that! You must already have the rights... Using a pre trans photo would make the author of the article appear resistant to accepting her new identity, like the way they treat her on Fox News. Thank you. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeBrock (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@LeeBrock: this has already been addressed numerous times and the answer for why we're not using the Vanity Fair picture as the main image is in the FAQ box at the top of this page. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think that the current photo for Jenner misgenders her and is disrespectful. My recommendation is that the photo be removed from her article, and no photo should be present on her article until one depicting her as her proper gender can be used is found. Better no photo at all thn one that misrepresents and disrespects her gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.191.230 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Already been discussed here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I contacted her PR firm that is managing her publicity and pointed them to Commons licensing types and our current misgendered photo and the issue of needing a properly released photo. They replied and are aware of it. Keep in mind that her transition and publicity is being actively managed and it affects her income, privacy and probably hundreds of other things. We should patiently wait until they release an image as it is her wishes we are respecting and it is really not our place to jeopardize her career or livelihood. --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the update. I'm glad to know that they're at least aware of the issue. Lpm.mcc (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone do a CU check on all those new accounts posting on this talk page?, They all seem to be the same person creating multiple accounts and its getting a bit tiring..next time someone adds a topic regarding image, just revert them as vandalism, no need to allow "trolls" to post anymore..and also, if by "luck' we do manage to get a free pic of Caitlyn, there is NO NEED to remove the previous pic, Bruce Jenner has been a dude for 60 odd years and a lady for the last 5 months, just move the picture further down to his "career" section...do we really want this article to become the next "GenderGate" ?--Ste moc 12:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I can vouch that I'm not posting from other accounts. I, personally, don't find a pre-transition photo of Caitlyn to be "disrespectful" and I'm confident that she would feel similarly. Lpm.mcc (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. It's perfectly natural for many people to visit this page and question why we have an image of Caitlyn pre-transition in the infobox. As per MOS:IDENTITY, as soon as a free and high-quality post-transition image is found, we should change it to the post-transition image. Considering every person not familiar with our policies on non-free content to be trolls is a great way to discourage new editors from contributing to the project. Instead, it's worthwhile to take some time to explain the policies to them and attempt to turn them into constructive contributors. Everyone's new once. ~ Rob^Talk 13:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A way to use a male photo that is non offensive would simply to have a photo of jenner getting the Olympic metal on the podium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:480:240::2 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 July 2015

First public appearance

In the way that broken clocks are right twice a day, a point was made in this thread which is worth discussing: the article states "Jenner's first public appearance as Caitlyn will be to receive the Arthur Ashe Courage Award during the 2015 ESPY Awards in July." But the IP says that "she appeared at the LA Gay Center to film I AM CAIT. There's also the very public appearance at the NYC Gay PRIDE parade." I'll rewrite the sentence to simply note that she will be receiving the courage award (since this is the key info that needs to be noted in order for the following sentence to make sense); if someone wants to note when her first public appearance actually was, they can add referenced language about that. -sche (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"First public appearance" is a bit of PR fluff. We should write about what we get from reliable sources, so if somebody does something that wasn't on the agenda as published a few months ago we still write about it (and what on earth were we doing publishing planned appearances in the first place?). --TS 02:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Who cares what is the first, just mention noteworthy appearances, such as the NYC Pride Parade. The part regarding I Am Cait is rather trivial and doesn't warrant inclusion IMHO. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

World's greatest athlete

@Josve05a: just added a disambiguation needed tag to the World's Greatest Athlete line near the top. They obviously missed all the discussion. The current disambiguation page shows as its second definition, the winner of the Olympic Decathlon (it actually points to the generalization of combined events) is bestowed an unofficial title of World's Greatest Athlete, much like the winner of the 100 meters is given the title of World's Fastest Man. There is no awarding body. It is a recognized term passed around newspaper headlines to sum up this person's achievement in three words, which is why it was used in the article. It was significant enough of a concept to be at the core of Jenner's marketing, according to Jenner's agent later in the article. We could kill the wikilink, we could write an article, we could add a couple of sentences to the prose which will be bulky, sideways content. The phrase deserves an explanation, the current disambiguation page is the best option for brevity. Josve05a, you don't like it, come up with a solution. Trackinfo (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I was about to add a "sez {{who}}" cleanup tag to the same phrase during one of my earlier reviews of the article, until I dug into the matter further and learned the same thing you say above. I've replaced the cleanup tag with an HTML comment, but would welcome an even better solution. Perhaps we could add an anchor to the section of Decathlon which discusses this title (currently the lead, but perhaps it would be better to repeat it somewhere in the body of the article), and then update both this article and the relevant line of the world's greatest athlete disambig page to point to that anchor. -sche (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the lead - in its current form it's confusing if you don't understand the term, and redundant if you do. A brief explanation of the title may be in order when it's mentioned later on - if, that is, it's actually important enough. The article doesn't actually say that the phrase was at the core of Jenner's marketing; if that is the case then it should be stated clearly with an explanation, otherwise just leave it out. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the sentence that was leading to the confusion. Considering the brevity of the surrounding paragraph and the fact that we are adjusting this content to avoid confusing statements, we have no need to have that in the lede. It certainly does belong below where Wallach viewed the marketing of Jenner. Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"slanted toward recent events" tag

I don't understand why this was tagged that way - the gender transition section is not bigger than the rest of the article, and it's a significant to Jenner's biography. Does anyone care if I take it down? This is a high-traffic article and it shouldn't be tagged as having an issue without good reason. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion that hasn't even been archived yet about this and why the tag was put in place. With roughly a quarter of the article devoted to the gender transition and pre-transition life lacking, this is absolutely biased towards newer information. Pre-2015 information needs to be expanded, or transition content needs to be condensed, for the article to be balanced. Removing tags from articles that clearly have issues just because said articles are high traffic is never appropriate. If it is not re-added soon, I plan to add it back myself. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015

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

There are multiple Quotes that are mis-quoted by adjusting the quote as if that is what the article or person said. I understand that this is a sensitive topic surrounding trans-gender but you should not be changing quotes unless you provide something to imply that it has been changed to meet the way that she currently refers to herself. example would he "Her and Wife" this is a quote and should not be adjusted unless it looks similar to this "[Her] and wife" this implies that there has been a change to the quote to make better reading or that there was a missing reference in the quote which I believe are both implied with this quote. Please fix as this carries a huge level of ignorance in just doing a Find and Replace of every reference to Jenner when being mentioned as "Him, His, Himself, He" with the female equivalent. I should not need to provide sources as this article references the sources but manipulates them without signifying that it has done such. 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Moosecouture (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) moosecouture Moosecouture (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The mentioned "Her and wife" is the only such quote I could see in the article, and I corrected it (having first checked the cited source). If there was a valid reason to change it, it would in any case have been to "She and wife", not "Her and wife". --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Who did this??

WP:MOS says that Jenner should be referred to with she/her throughout. But now there's one Wikipedian who still disagrees. Georgia guy (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What specifically are you referring? Missruption (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at the recent edits of the article. Georgia guy (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

At least some of the disruption has come from JLanex, who has made other inappropriate edits here, including referring to dysphoria as "not scientifically verified." S/he has been given a warning for this behavior. I strongly encourage editors to pursue a topic ban if this continues. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Ashe Courage Award, lead-worthy?

Certainly a notable award, and I think it demonstrates her widespread acceptance in the sports world traditionally known for its homophobic and transphobic attitudes. Perhaps something like, in July 2015 she received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Thoughts? Missruption (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

sports world traditionally known for its homophobic and transphobic attitudes — you would need to demonstrate this in relation to Jenner's Courage Award to even include it in the article at all per WP:NOR. Anyway, regarding whether we mention the Courage Award in the lead: I say no: this is not a major award on par with the Nobel Prize, Academy Awards, Grammys, etc. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's most important points, not a reiteration of everything in the article. A reader wanting to learn introductory information about Jenner already has it from the current lead. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I would need to present a rather easily sourced idea sources when I'm not suggesting they be included in the article? Instead of comparing the award to other careers why not compare it to equivalent sports awards? Missruption (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We have an appropriate sports award in the lead already: the Olympic gold medal. Obviously Jenner's line of work doesn't match the awards I referenced in my last post, but the Courage Award is not on par with such noteworthy honors. It's an important detail, sure, one to mention in the article body as we currently do, but a stunt by ESPN to pull in ratings for their telecast does not strike me as lead-worthy. It's not information that is so essential to an understanding of Jenner that it would need to be included in an introductory section about her. Chase (talk | contributions)

Agree with Chasewc91. The award in the lede does not help the reader get a complete, concise summary of the highlights in Jenner's life and career(s), nor does it help a reader better understand her. It only seems important now because media (news and social) have made it "important". It's simply not lede worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Vanity Fair photograph again

With this edit, Dharahara removed the Vanity Fair image, stating, "fair use picture removed because there are now many pictures of Ms. Jenner, before there weren't." I reverted (followup edit here). While I very much doubt that Dharahara is a WP:Newbie despite the newness of the Dharahara account, perhaps Dharahara will explain how such a new Wikipedia account would know what is and what is not appropriate fair use.

See Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 4#Vanity fair photo, where you can see me explaining why use of the fair use image is fine in this case; I stated, "IP, the image is WP:Non-free; Wikipedia doesn't allow a non-free image for Template:Infobox person in the case of living people (deceased people and fictional characters are a different matter). The only reason the image in question is allowed in the section it's currently in is because of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; the image passes the 'Images with iconic status or historical importance' and 'Images that are themselves subject of commentary' aspects. 'Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance.'"

That is still the case. Even if we get a free image of Jenner as Caitlyn, we can still use that Vanity Fair image of Jenner since it passes the "Images with iconic status or historical importance" and "Images that are themselves subject of commentary" aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image again

Read the FAQ.

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

What is going on in this article? It has gone DOWN HILL and straight to hell in a hand basket! The intro pic should be this: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/22/19/29DEF15C00000578-3134959-Family_time_Caitlyn_Jenner_shared_this_picture_on_Twitter_after_-m-10_1434997651432.jpg It was PUBLICLY RELEASED by Caitlyn on twitter. THAT is how CAITLYN wants to be seen by the world, not as that false shell she had to wear for 65 years! Instead of torturing Caitlyn even more with your gender bias and transphobia, do the right thing and portray Caitlyn as her true gender! Stop being such trans-Nazis and censorship hounds! It's 2015 - stop hiding away Caitlyn's truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.91.22 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

fix caitlyn jenner's photograph to her depicted as a woman. now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.22.140.4 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, particularly questions 1, 2, and 3. -sche (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because she tweeted it does not make it free use for Wikipedia. Image licensing doesn't work that day. 152.10.213.17 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the above image has not been licensed under a free license. Simply posting it on social media does not make the image free. There is still a copyright on it by default unless the copyright owner releases it or licenses the image in some way. If you can find a free image, feel free to link to it here and I'll take a look. If it's a high quality image, free, and portrays her as herself, I'll do the work to get it in the article. It MUST meet all of those criteria, though. ~ Rob^Talk 22:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a picture later on in the article depicting her more recently than the current main picture, if it is being shown further down the page surely it passes the free use rules. Therefore, that should the main photo. If not possible I think it would be preferable to not have a photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingmango (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)