Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Name and gender change paperwork filed today

{{Admin help}} If her gender and name has not been formally adjudicated yet why do we have to be so fearful about the fine points? What if it does not get approved by the authority having jurisdiction? She is only submitting the paperwork today, according to reliable news sources. Over in the Kendall Jenner there was a pending changes request to drop Bruce as her birth parent and change it to Caitlyn which I approved but somebody reverted it to say Bruce (now known as Caitlyn). I thought per the WP Arbitration Committee we are ordered to refer to her as she from the beginning of her life? In which case, Kendall was born to Kris and Caitlyn, not to Kris and Bruce. Decisions made regarding content on Caitlyn's page should apply to all the pages she is mentioned on. Oh, and that photo is hideous even for Bruce. I hope Caitlyn sends us some better ones. Checkingfax (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, why do you need admin help for this? {{Admin help}} is used only for issues that only administrators can resolve. I will put {{Help needed}} below. Epic Genius (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

_{adding the helpme tag in the middle of a discussion is not the proper use of the tag. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)}

yeah, but it's the only place where it would even make sense in my comment. Epic Genius (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to answer your question @Checkingfax, we should optimally refer to Jenner as she wants to be called; however, we should not unnecessarily confuse the reader as well. According to MOS:ID, Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in the article.

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (she fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., she became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).

So basically, if Jenner was a man when s/he fathered Kendall (and Kylie), the article should probably reflect that. So "Bruce (now Caitlyn)" is fine. Epic Genius (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bruce (now Caitlyn)" is obviously fine, and is preferable to "Caitlyn (then Bruce)", for cognitive dissonance reasons. It would be outright falsification to only use "Caitlyn" in such a context. Why was this even an argument?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Photos should face text

Is there a way to move the info box to the left so her infobox photo faces the text per MOS:IMAGES? Checkingfax (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

While it is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text, consistency between infoboxes is much more important, and there are virtually no article on the english wikipedia with infoboxes on the left. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox on the left or using image manipulation software to roate would be appropriate. Or moving the image down to the left side of the body text. This is about the harshest most glaring example on Wikipedia about how not to face an image. It is already a harsh image of Caitlyn which is exacerbated by its unpreferred orientation. Checkingfax (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:IMGLOC: "images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer" --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Car crash details

In the personal life section, the following sentence appears to be inacurrate "Kim Howe, an animal rights activist and actress, was killed when Jenner's SUV ran into Howe's car which had just run into the back of another car". Howe's car was rear-ended by Jenner. However, it seems Howe never ran into any car before that (Footage of the accident, Accident Reconstruction , picture when Jenner's SUV hit Howe's car). You might also add that Jenner's SUV ran into a second car. Could someone with the ability to edit semi-protected article take care of this ? MaccouM (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed the article, relying on the most recent LA Times report, which gives two accounts but nothing definitive on the record:

Initially, investigators said Howe rear-ended Steindorff’s Prius and then Jenner hit Howe’s Lexus. But Steindorff's attorney, Robert Simon, has said the crash unfolded differently. After hitting the Lexus, Jenner’s SUV continued traveling and slammed into Steindorff’s car, Simon said. A law enforcement source, not authorized to discuss the investigation, said the evidence supports that version of events.

My take is that until we have a definitive account of what happened, we should just say that accounts have varied. Barte (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Barte. MaccouM (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Change picture on page to Caitlyn NOT Bruce

I believe that Caitlyn has been female for long enough now for it to be easy to find a picture of her as a female. She is no longer 'Bruce' and has fully transitioned into life as a woman, Caitlyn. Therefore I think it would be fair and decent to change the picture on this page to one of Caitlyn and not Bruce. She has been a very brave individual and has been through an awful lot, let's show her the respect she deserves. 94.1.241.37 (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.
Please note that any picture you propose using must not be copyright, which excludes almost all images that you find on the internet, in magazines etc., and you will need proof that it is not copyright, just saying it is not copyright is not acceptable.
I agree a more recent picture would be useful, but AFAIK Jenner is being very careful about issuing/allowing pictures to be taken, so finding a copyright free image could be difficult. Arjayay (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I TOTALLY agree! It's clear that more and more people are trying to be heard that the profile picture is offensive and transphobic. Just ask Caitlyn for an image because this article is incredibly offensive! Caitlyn has been through too much to be insulted by Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a photo of Jenner aged 62. Adopting a new look at 65 does not make photos from three years previously, offensive. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If fans are offended, they can take their own advice and petition Jenner to release a non-copyrighted image (properly licensed for Wikipedia use) on the Commons for this article's use. This is an option for any person with a Wikipedia article, isn't it? Apparently it is the burden of those of us un-bothered by the image to ask Jenner for a new one, and not the burden of those who want it replaced? 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. There's no assignment desk on Wikipedia. If you want a more recent picture of Jenner on this much-visited Wikipedia entry, petition her to release one. Barte (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You're offended? Who cares. Many Muslims are offended by Wikipedia's use of artistic depictions of Muhammad, but Wikipedia is not censored to cater to those who take offense to things. The current image is of Jenner a few years ago, and you can't pretend that's not a fact. If you can find an appropriate recent image of Jenner, feel free to add it. Otherwise, stop whining about "being offended" because it will get you nowhere. Crumpled Fire (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it is repulsive that the Wikipedia editors are laughing off the disgust of users just because they feel they are superior because they are cisgendered straight white males. Secondly, it is clear at how transphobic the aforementioned Wikipedia editors (who believe themselves to be gods, no less!) are because they refuse to even try to find an appropriate image and rather hold on to the image of a male Jenner as they cannot accept CAITLYN MARIE as a WOMAN, something that she ALWAYS WAS - YES EVEN WHEN SHE WON THE OLYMPICS! Thirdly, was it that hard to find a beautiful image of Caitlyn? Here you go: http://cdn3.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/675x380/2015/06/caitlyn_jenner_vf.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of assumptions being made here about the gender and feelings of fellow Wikipedians here. It is not transphobic to be too lazy to find a new photo. Surely you share this trait not finding it yourself? 64.228.90.87 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, where is the proof that that image from THR has a compatible free license or meets our fair-use criteria? Finding an image is not as simple as doing a Google image search for "Caitlyn Jenner". Don't accuse other editors of suffering from pseudo-medical disorders or make assumptions about their gender and race when you are unable to find an appropriate image yourself. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Subsection or anchor for collision

Would it be okay to have this? Where My Country Gone? makes multiple references to Jenner's driving (runs over a woman at start and end and people ignore and keep cheering) and being able to link directly to where it is discussed in the article would be helpful for considering the incident at the article's talk page.

I don't recall Stunning and Brave making reference to this but its strong focus on Jenner seems worth a mention. Maybe in an "influence on culture" section or "depictions in media" perhaps? 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)]

I agree that being the subject of parody on South Park is a notable measure of cultural currency. But in these two episodes, Jenner is at the edges of the stories, not the center. I'd prefer to see the latter before adding. Barte (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Stunning and Brave has Caitlyn Jenner at the center of the plot, complete with the title. The joke continues on the second episode, where she bookends the episode with her driving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. I've added a paragraph to the Gender Transition section. Barte (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed

More bad faith discussion re: the image. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What In God's Name!? So... there was a lovely pic of sweet Cait there - that made me ever so happy... and now there's the offensive and icky Bruce pic?! There's an available pic of Cait that DOESN'T MISGENDER HER, yet you all choose to go with the offensive one? Is Wikipedia trying to insult the entire trans community in this infantile act? Please change the image back to the picture of CAITLYN! Bruce is ONE! Your straight, white, cisgender hero is GONE! He never existed! Cait is all that there is and ever was! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @100.2.244.59: Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. The picture was not properly licensed for use on Wikipedia. I understand that it is important to you that a post-transition picture be used, but this article isn't about you, nor is it about anyone else in the trans community other than Caitlyn Jenner. If it were important to Caitlyn that the image on this article reflect her post-transition state, then she or the company that manages her would've released a free image for us to use. However, editors here have contacted them and not received any response. Just because you would be offended by a pre-transition picture of you, or just because you feel that your pre-transition identity never existed, doesn't mean that Caitlyn feels that way. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @100.2.244.59: I also want to add that this is the third or fourth time that a commercial photograph of Caitlyn Jenner has been cropped and flipped to avoid detection by Google Images and then uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I would suggest that you stop doing this, as it's going to make everyone here much more resistant to allowing any post-transition images without a thorough check on the copyright status. If having a post-transition image means so much to you, I would suggest that you instead spend your energy and time trying to contact Jenner or Creative Artists Agency (her agents) to get an image released under a CC-BY-SA license. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) How DARE you all accuse me of making those edits! I came in one day and was delighted to see a post transition pic! Then it changed back to icky Bruce (who never existed!) and all I did was ask an innocent question on what happened to it. Now I get attacked for my identity and my dedication to Cait? Not only that, but the blame is put on me!? What is this, Nazi Germany!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @100.2.244.59: Please do try to remain calm. In order for a post-transition photo to be added, it must be a free image that does not violate any copyrights. Additionally, your behavior seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "There are opinions and lots of them out there. It is impossible to please everyone. But it is possible to comply with guidelines, and this will decide what is included and what not. Some people will like it, others dislike it." If there is a free photo that is not copyrighted (such as being taken from the Internet), then it may be added. Zappa24Mati 02:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Gawd. Is it possible to collapse this waste of bandwidth filled with histrionics and off-topic ranting? Not to mention insults and assumptions in regard to the article subject (has to be against BLP policy, isn't it)? If allowable, I'd appreciate someone collapsing this (my comments here make me "involved", I believe). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed

Fake rumors from spoof site. Collapsed by Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Fake rumors) Back to Bruce Well, as "she" no longer feels like a woman and wants people to call "her" Bruce, I guess that it is time for this to go back to the birth name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.63.66 (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I can't find any reliable sources saying this. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC) The source is most likely this article on the Huzler website. It's a fake. Huzler proclaims itself "the most notorious satirical entertainment website in the world." That should be the first clue that this source isn't meant to be taken seriously. Crboyer (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Also, please note something I wrote on the immediately below section of this talk page related to both this section and the section immediately above this one. Georgia guy (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by IP editor

Bad faith inflammatory comments EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should it be pointed out that Bruce Jenner is both a transgenderist and a lesbian? He's said that he still is attracted to women, even though he has become a woman. That makes him a lesbian as well as a transvestite, surely? I know that LTGB covers both, but should it not be clarified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:5D00:11:103:6190:481F:928E:2369 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) That point is already addressed in the article, which states: "She said she has never been attracted to men, had exclusively been attracted to women before her transition and now identifies as asexual.[95][96]" That covers it, I think. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Pretty much. Yep.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) IP, she's not a transvestite. As for her sexuality, she is clear in the 20/20 interview that she has always been sexually attracted to women, and that she identifies as "asexual for now" to avoid confusing people. So it doesn't seem that she's saying that she's no longer sexually attracted to women and that her asexual identity is permanent. That's why I had "asexual for now" in the article when trying to be clear on her words. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC) This source is the first source for that material in the article, and it relays: This is where Sawyer also delved into the issue of sexuality, trying to clarify for viewers: What happens when a man identifies as a woman but is still attracted to women? “Sexuality was totally different than what my issues were,” Jenner said. “And I always felt heterosexual.” He also added he had never been with a man. “I am not gay… as far as I know, I am heterosexual.” Jenner acknowledged that it can be confusing for some people to understand that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing. “Let’s go with ‘asexual’ for now,” he said. “I’m going to learn a lot in the next year.” So the wording in the Wikipedia article makes it seem like she was only sexually attracted to women before her transition and that such attraction is gone now, which is not at all what she stated or indicated. Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) And keep in mind that this interview was when Jenner was still using masculine pronouns even though she had come out as a transgender woman; this is why the interview and aforementioned source are using masculine pronouns. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC) This is THE MOST offensive thing that I've seen in this section to date, and trust me there have been a lot of offensive things here! How dare you call Cait a transvestite or a lesbian! Your usage of those words are derogatory, to say the least. So please apologize to Caitlyn and me for being extremely offensive. Don't you realize the emotional harm that you're causing? Not only that, but your clear disrespect in even attempting to get the terms right is horrifying. What the hell is a transgenderist!? That is just disgusting of you to be so offensive. Please Wikipedia owners, fix this. This page represents hope for so many young transgender people, if they come on and see THAT - just imagine how they'd feel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure that this section was started to cause trouble. People are commonly confused about sexual orientation and gender identity, and the difference between them, as made clear by Jenner in the quoted comment above. They are also commonly confused about the difference between "transvestite" and "transgender," or do not know that "transvestite" is commonly considered derogatory; and given that "transvestite" is a part of the transgender umbrella (for example, people who identify as a transvestite can validly call themselves transgender), that surely adds to the confusion. Anyway, per my comments above in this section, I tweaked the text in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Closed Discussion

The talk page is a place for specific suggestions to improve the article, not hypotheticals designed to irritate people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If he decides to turn into a man again... ...do we change it back to "he" instead of "she" in the article? Jørgen88 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Found Some Pics!

Please see the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So I did a little search (no idea why the mods here didn't do it themselves since it's SO EASY) and I found some free to use pics of Cait! Here's a gorgeous image of her in something sporty: https://flic. kr/p/xPxWr7 And here's Cait in a classy gown: https://flic. kr/p/wpF5ai Anyway, I think we should have the main profile pic as Cait in the mini-skirt because girlfriend is rocking that look! Then somewhere a little further in the article, we can put her in the classy gown. The most important thing is that we rid the article of that horrendous image of that disgusting MAN. Caitlyn is not a man and that picture is like this horrible reminder of the person that she never was! Offensive much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC) These aren't free: note the "All rights reserved" statement on both. Indeed the site itself is blacklisted on Wikipedia, which is why you couldn't put the actual external link on your comment. Barte (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Excuse me? I don't understand. If that website FLICKr is banned from Wikipedia, then why did the thing above this post say to use FLICKr to find pictures of Cait? And I didn't see that all rights reserved garbage on that page. They are new pics of Cait that I never saw before, so I just assumed they were good to go on Wikipedia! Can't you all just buy the rights? The pic of Cait in a mini-skirt is so pretty, we need to get that one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC) <click> Barte (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What about this picture?

Just plodding around the web, I found this picture of Caitlyn: https://www.flickr.com/photos/132177716@N08/18544239191. It's on Flickr, is licensed CC BY 2.0, which is an acceptable free license. And has been widely used and credited to the photographer (assuming Frank is the photographer). Any chance of our using it in the infobox? Barte (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's just an edit of the Vanity Fair image. They cropped it and flipped it on the vertical axis. Image is also used at GLADD ([1]). That Flickr user doesn't have the rights to it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured there had to be a catch. Thanks. Barte (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a lovely image that I've never seen before. Please can we use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk • contribs)

As I already explained, no we cannot use it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Kroc

Could we link Janae Marie Kroc in the see also? Beyond having in common being a transgender athlete, Kroc chose the same middle name as Cait and transitioned a few months later, which I think establishes a notable connection. Cait is linked in Janae's page already. 64.228.90.87 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is better covered in Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople, which has more than 20 entries and is already linked here. Barte (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

In pop culture section?

Several Wikipedia articles have this kind of section, maybe it would be a good place to regroup some stuff like the South Park episodes and similar events? Maybe even the Wheathies Box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I just spot-checked a couple of other biographies and didn't see "pop culture" sections. I see these in articles, but usually it is for non-biographical articles about a subject which might be known popularly but for which most of the article is less fluffy in nature. An example is Large Hadron Collider. It might be helpful if you have seen a particular biography in which a pop culture section was helpful for you to link it as an example. The Wheaties bit should be with her athletic career in any case. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for updated image of Ms. Jenner

The article would be enhanced by a current photo of Caitlyn in the infobox.

Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The main problem with an image is that there are currently no free images available of the subject yet. Use of a non-free image is likely to be deleted in this instance as a free image is likely and probable at public events etc. over time.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a bunch of pics on Disney|ABC Television Group's flickr photostream that give CC license. I'm not expert on license justification for uploaded pics that aren't mine, can someone look into this? Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not OK, just remembered there is a flickr uploader at commons, and the CC licence is not OK. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

CC is okay for Wikipedia use as long as it doesn't specify ND or NC. The "ND" (no derivatives) tag that Disney uses makes it non-compatible. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this image available as fair use: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421063/Television fan (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Bruce Jenner" in the first sentence

We've gone back and forth on this, but I think the case for it is compelling and I've restored Bruce Jenner to the lead sentence, in bold. This was the name Caitlyn went by for most of her career, from her Olympic accomplishments to (as the entry points out) her company, "Bruce Jenner Aviation". The name "Bruce Jenner" appears six times in the entry, and it appears in 51 of our references in the cited titles, alone, and presumably all of the articles themselves, prior to her transition. Moreover, per MOS:BOLD, boldface should be used to identify terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the targets of redirects to the article or section.... That's the case here: a search on "Bruce Jenner" goes to Caitlyn Jenner, and, per WP:R#PLA: We follow the "principle of least astonishment"—after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. Barte (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely correct; we always bold the exact name that the person went by for the majority of their public career. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIRTHNAME specifically addresses the first line for transgender people. Let's let Wikipedia's Manual of Style settle the issue of first mentioning the name. That's what it is there for.Television fan (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool with "formerly" instead of "born" in the first line because it is acceptable under WP:BIRTHNAMETelevision fan (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We have to give the full birth name, which is William Bruce Jenner. Since was not known as William, have to give what Jenner was known as (i.e., "Bruce Jenner") for 99% of public career. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anything in WP:BIRTHNAME (or elsewhere) stop us from doing both? formerly William Bruce Jenner or Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949 as it now stands works for me. Barte (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Jenner was never known as William, so we have to state s/he was known as Bruce, not just have it be an "or". If the title of the article were Bruce Jenner this would not be necessary, but since the title is Caitlyn Jenner it is. Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool with "(formerly Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949)". The option of "born" or "formerly" seems to allow for this. His birth name is provided in the info box.Television fan (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops...her birth name...Television fan (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm devout in believing "Bruce Jenner" should be in bold at the top. I'm agnostic as to the rest. Barte (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we've reached a consensus among us.Television fan (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with both. Have "born" in parentheses and "formerly" outside them but immediately afterward. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool with "born" in parentheses and "formerly" outside them but immediately afterward.Television fan (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Works for me too. Barte (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Formerly and former in the lead sentence?

Can't we do better than this? It is clumsy. And, why not put in the cutoff month/year? Checkingfax (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of "former", how about "retired". (See, for example, Sandy Koufax.) Barte (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Division of the coming out material, that it's in both the Personal life and Gender transition section

Since Mark Miller's division of this material (see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 8#Having the Gender transition section as part of the Personal life section....again), there have been issues with the division. That is seen with this this, this, this, this and this edit. WP:Pinging Checkingfax and Nightscream, since these edits concern them and me. I started this section for more discussion of the current division setup. If editors feel that the current division setup is fine, we'll continue with that. And for why there is a division setup, do read enough of the "Having the Gender transition section as part of the Personal life section....again" discussion I linked to in this paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner is a long article to assimilate and can be a Vulcan mind meld. Readers that parachute in to the Personal life section are cut short on the full Gender transition topic.

The Gender transition subheading should be removed because it fools the mind. Checkingfax (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is not that big, certainly not on the WP:SIZE scale or judging by the table of contents. If readers dive right into the Personal life section, they will see the Gender transition section soon after it. So one section leads nicely into the other, despite the fact that I see the division of the coming out material as unnecessary. Plus, readers can easily see the section titles from the table of contents. What I see as a problem is if readers dive right into the Gender transition section; if they do this without knowing of the coming out material covered in the Personal life section, they will have skipped the coming out material that's there. And if we remove the Gender transition heading, that would make it so that all of that content is a part of the Personal life section when it is more so a public life matter. As noted in the aforementioned discussion, my problem with having all of the gender transition material in the Personal life section is that the vast majority of it cannot simply be described as "personal life." That stated, we could validly combine all of the material into one section (with subsections remaining, of course) by putting it under the title Personal life and public image. Or something similar. Yes, Jenner's Olympic career was also a part of her public image, but that's covered higher up in the article, and her Olympic fame is not what her public image mostly concerns these days. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have suggested Personal life and media attention as the heading, but the Olympic and Post-Olympic aspects of the article are also "media attention." Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the gender transition being very much a public thing. My proposed solution is that the last two paragraphs of the "Personal life" section as it currently stands be moved into the "Gender transition" section, and then the rest of the "Personal life" section be moved down to appear after the "Gender transition" section. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I wasted your time Flyer22. My bad. Strike what I said and reverse it. What I meant to type was that if somebody parachutes in to the Gender transition section or skims down to it they will miss the Gender transition paragraph in the Personal life section. They will also miss a helpful nugget of detail about the 20/20 interview as that is in the Personal life section too. Checkingfax (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think having the gender transition material divided between two sections makes the article very confusing to read through. I don't really get the reasoning behind the split. Section headings are about making an article that is clear, has a natural flow, and can easily be scanned and navigated. Ontological debates about whether gender transition (or a portion of it) is truly a subspecies of personal life are only marginally relevant.--Trystan (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the Personal life section should have a brief, factual mention of the gender transition, and the media events surrounding it should be in a separate media section. She is most notable for 2 things: Olympic decathalon gold medalist, and a very public gender transition of a notable public figure. Those two events should have their own sections or at least subsections. Minor4th 18:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal life is generally where I place (and where I have noticed others place) things about a person's life that is generally not a part of their public life. Whereas public life sections include not only the work for which they may be known (i.e.: the parts played by an actor or albums by a musician), but also the charity work they've done and the political causes they've championed and candidates they've endorsed (since those activities are usually done to be deliberately public), I usually include things like relationships, children, hobbies, medical status and sometimes their death in Personal life.

Jenner's transition is not merely "personal", since she has made it a point to make it public.

In addition, it I think it may be appropriate to split it into its own article, since it easily qualifies under Notability guidelines, by virtue of the sources available for it, and the fact that it represents a considerable milestone for the LGBT community that qualifies it as its own topic. This would also give some of the details of that topic room to breathe, while the parent article would summarize that material more briefly, and include a link to that split article. Nightscream (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nightscream, it had its own article, but the consensus was to merge it back into this one; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition of Caitlyn Jenner. Now it looks like this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• For what is worth, I don't think we need a "personal life" section. The entire article is about the subject and the concept of "public" verses "personal" tends to get un-encyclopedic in the manner it gets presented. I support losing the "Personal life" section and incorporating the material into the "Gender transition" and /or other relevant areas within the article. Basically we are just creating redundant content there.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I meant to state this earlier, but I that think this and this edit by Television fan (talk · contribs) acts as sort of a compromise and/or solution to the division of the content. It makes it so that it is clear that the Personal life content about the gender aspect is more so about coming out, which means that the Gender transition section is more so about the transition and aftermath of coming out. Of course, it still remains that the Gender transition section is mainly about the media attention the coming out aspect received. So the division can still be problematic in a chronological sense when updating the Personal life section with post-gender transition material. So this is part of why I suggested the change of heading aspect that I suggested above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

New Image

In good faith, ‎Alvandria added a new image of Caitlyn. The image is from the ESPYs and by Kevin Winter and available on a Flickr account named Kevin Winters Photography . It's been used on other media sources (e.g., USA Today) and gives Winters credit for image. However, the Flickr account is brand new and does not seem verified. I'm not convinced the Flickr account is legit and thus the image may not be free. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a brand new Flickr account though. And it's not rare for photographers to publish their images on their own accounts. If he is the photographer, he has full rights on the copyright of the image and is allowed to do so. Flickr doesn't work with a verification system though, so it's up for debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvandria (talk • contribs)

You are right it's not a new account (May 2011) but 2 images, zero followers... seems suspicious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the image (scroll down) credited to Kevin Winter on the Getty Images site. rights are restricted. Barte (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Photographers do not have full rights to images that were either created as a work for hire or for images where they have assigned or sold the copyright to another person or company. In this case, Getty Images requires contributors to give them exclusive licensing rights, meaning that although the photographer still owns the copyright on the image, he doesn't have the right to release it under a free license. Getty Images's contract with contributors also requires that if photographers put their own images on file sharing sites, that they be used for non-commercial use only. Either this account is not actually owned by the photographer, or the photographer is in violation of his contract with Getty Images if he is making them available under a "commercial-use-allowed" license. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a nice image. Don't know if available as fair use: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421063/Television fan (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Television fan: Images of living people don't qualify for fair use unless the image itself (not the subject of the image) is notable enough to be the subject of sourced commentary. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What if we moved her Vanity Fair image to the infobox and moved her 2012 image to the left side of the body so her face is facing the text? Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 04:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use the Vanity Fair image in the infobox, because of the titling -- this is not an article on Vanity Fair. And we can't remove the text on that image because it is a copyrighted work that cannot be altered. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the Wheaties box picture I see Jenner. When I look at the Vanity Fair cover I see Jenner saying "Call me Caitlyn." Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that someone could contact Jenner or her "people" (even her family members) via social media or IMDB Pro and request that an image be officially (either via email for OTRS, or otherwise) released to public domain for use on this article. My understanding is that she has somehow already expressed certain desires about this article, so this shouldn't be too hard I don't think. Could also ask whoever sent those messages about her personal desires for this article to provide the image. (I really don't know or recall how these messages were transmitted, if at all; I may be mistaken about that.) Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wheaties box image nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_October_18#File:Jenner_on_Wheaties_cereal_box.jpg. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No image for now?

It has been suggested that perhaps removing the image of "Bruce" prior to the gender transition is best for the article now. It has also been suggested that the vanity fair image could be moved to the infobox? Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Remove the image in the infobox - temporarily having no image is better than having an inaccurate image. The infobox image is one of the first things someone sees in an article. It should accurately represent the subject. clpo13_(talk) 04:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: You may get some "thoughts" here, but in my opinion the only way to get a binding consensus is to have an WP:RfC. Any "thoughts" acted upon here are merely going to be the subject of edit wars without a public RfC of standard duration. This article is already under Discretionary Sanctions, so the least little edit-warring or even reverting of the status quo on this will likely result in immediate blocks. For all these reasons and more, an RfC is imperative here to correctly establish actual community consensus for any change. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The talk page of the article is capable of forming the needed consensus without a formal RFC. Lets get people's thoughts on the matter.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just offering my suggestion, based on observation and the likely outcome of any discussion here. You may get a "consensus" on Friday that will change on Sunday and then a heated argument with all kinds of distraction could erupt on Tuesday, and then the whole charade could/would repeat itself every time a new bunch of viewers ended up on this controversial article. This will likely end up with: (A) people blocked, when that could have been easily avoided. (B) the page locked down, when that could have been easily avoided. We've already seen above that the simple matter of pronouns has had to go to RfC after weeks of fruitless arguments on this talk page and edit wars on the article. This Talk page and the article are too controversial and too changeable and too prominent to decide such major things about without a site-wide public RfC. This would also save everybody an enormous waste of time, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Seems that, even though we tend to be on opposite sides of many issues, we talk it out and find some compromise we both can live with that most others agree with as well. The article seems stable enough but does attract different views. We can't keep them all out and it is possible the issue glares enough to be attracting image content disputes on an almost regular basis so... stability is far from great.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Move her Vanity Fair image to infobox (remove massive caption) and move her 2012 image down in to the body of the article near the appropriate timeframe. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 05:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can't move the Vanity Fair image to the infobox, because (1) It is a copyrighted image, and this article is not about Vanity Fair, thus there is no fair-use rationale which would cover its use there; (2) The "VANITY FAIR" headline also would not make sense, again because this article is about Jenner, not Vanity Fair; (3) We cannot remove the headline and other text, because, again the image is copyrighted and cannot be altered. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can use non free content in the info box. That is not an issue. There is certainly a fair use rationale, as there is no free image for the time being. We have IAR for infobox images such as the Coat of arms of Canada that is actually a direct svg copy of copy protected art. Discussion has stated that until a Wikipedia creates something better to keep it. Having the name Vanity Fair is also not an issue. Its a trademark not a copyright.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no valid fair use rationale, as the threshold isn't whether a free image exists, it's whether it "is available or could be created". WP:NFC#UUI is very clear that "pictures of people still alive" do not qualify as fair use. Also, we do have a properly licensed 3-year-old picture of Caitlyn as she presented herself in public in 2012, and despite what many (or even most) trans people feel about pre-transition pictures of themselves, indications are that Caitlyn Jenner doesn't have a problem with this (when editors contacted Jenner's management about obtaining a free image for use in this article they didn't receive any response). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Ahecht. For one, it's disappointing that Jenner's management did not provide an image of her now. For another, however, it indicates that Jenner doesn't mind the image from 2012 in the infobox. Which is another possible argument to keep that image in the infobox, since the subject does not object to it as a primary identification. Softlavender (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. We are not discussing the fair use of adding the image, but re-using it in the infobox. NFCC#1 only states "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." That does not actually say that living people cannot have a non free image in the info box or that it is not a valid reason to state that no free image is available and unlikely to be available as the subject strictly controls her image. Specifically says: "Meeting the no free equivalent criterion Non-free content cannot be used in cases where a free content equivalent, with an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose, is available or could be created. As a quick test, before adding non-free content, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion."

WP:NFCI states: "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia." I don't know how reasonable it is to expect Caitlyn to stroll within a photographers view right now. It also states: "#Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."

References

Also, it is important to remember that NFCUUI does have a disclaimer: "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

All of that lengthy text you've quoted gives precisely the reasons we can't use a magazine cover: (1) A free equivalent could be created. (2) Not to be used for primary identification (i.e. infobox); only to be used for critical commentary, and even for critical commentary it has to have an overwhelmingly compelling reason. You will not find a single BLP with a non-free image in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-free paparazzi shots of Caitlyn that have been taken, so it's not unreasonable to assume that a dedicated Wikipedia editor could also obtain an image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this discussion should be confined just to this talk page as it's not a special case as the results should apply to other articles like Chelsea Manning's picture on her page. Naue7 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep for now. No image is worse than an old image. Until something else comes along that's not a copyvio, I see no harm in keeping the older pre-transition image. After all, that is what Caitlyn Jenner looked like for a long, long time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This is to date the best picture we have: hence, it should be in the infobox until we can do better. That we don't have a more recent image is, for whatever reason, intentional. This is speculative, of course, but given that this article is the first link in the Google Knowledge Graph and that it typically gets over 5,000 hits a day, I find it inconceivable that Jenner's management is unaware of how she is presented here. Of course they have no obligation to provide us with an image we can use, but surely, they understand the tradeoff. The promotion of Caitlyn Jenner's transition has been executed with textbook sophistication. Hat's off. So I assume they have considered our request and have, for whatever reason, left it unfulfilled. Until that changes or until someone snaps a candid and licenses it properly, we should run with what we have, sans apologies. Barte (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, and with the caveat that if Caitlyn makes any sort of statement about not wanting pre-transition images to be associated with her that we should IAR and remove it until we have a properly licensed recent image. I didn't revert the recent removal because I didn't want to violate 1RR, but I feel that the image shouldn't have been removed while this discussion was still ongoing. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree--the burden is on those intending to remove a legitimate 2012 image of Jenner from the infobox to make a case and seek consensus before doing so. Barte (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• No image for now - the image doesn't accurately represent Caitlyn as she looks now, nor is it very sensitive to the person that they should be identified as that image in their Wikipedia article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep somewhere in the article. This is an encyclopedia. To not have an image of how Jenner looked during the vast bulk of Jenner's life, during which she made the accomplishments for which she is notable, is completely wrong from any objective, research-oriented standpoint. We're not here to be "sensitive" to any particular person or any particular cause — we're here to provide neutral, objective, comprehensive information about a subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Moved her image down where it makes sense and so she's facing the article text. Win/win until we have a good infobox image that is current and facing front or left. Make your case here if you want to move it back or delete it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus (including from those who keep replacing the image) seems to be to keep it in the infobox until another image is forthcoming. I recommend creating an actual RfC if further clarification is desired. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep - again, when 'her' transition happened, i mentioned here that it will take us atleast a YEAR to get a "free" image of "Caitlyn".. people just assume that we should use the vanity fair image, I'd personally get that image deleted because its confusing a lot of people, its a 'non-free image' which means it CANNOT be used in the infobox.....unless Caitlyn dies tomorrow as NFC images are only for those that have died and free images are not available..regarding the Bruce image, again, as per my revert, Caitlyn has been Bruce for over 65 years (780 months) and caitlyn for barely 9 months so he is more recognised as Bruce than Caitlyn and the chances of us finding an image of Caitlyn which is free is closer to 0% than 50% so NAY image that gets uploaded to commons and enwiki will be subject to VERIFICATION first before its added to the article..We do NOT trust very flickr account and unless that image is added by a trusted user such as an admin on enwiki or trusted users like commons admins or licence reviewers or OTRS agents, it will NOT be accepted and should be reverted and a discussion brought to this talk page to decide and verify it legitimacy. The current image is High Quality and recent and thus should be kept in the infobox until an image of 'Caitlyn' is either found or added by a trusted user. It does not matter if Bruce is facing the article or looking away but what does matter is that we have a picture of what Bruce looks like, either it was taken 10 days ago or 10 years ago..People do not change so regardless of what people think, the current image is of Caitlyn (a.k.a Bruce Jenner)--Stemoc 12:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Image and IP comments

I have semiprotected this talk page for 2 weeks due to the IP comments, which were unambiguously inappropriate. Separately, I am not alone in feeling that an image of Jenner in her former gender should not serve as the primary identifying image - this is at risk of being perceived as a deliberate snub, and I know that the Wikipedia community in general is very accepting of LGBT people and would not, I am sure, want to be seen as engaging in a photographic form of deadnaming. Guy (Help!) 05:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, There are two more strikes for putting that image of her in the infobox:

1. As you said it's not current
2. She's facing away from the text
3. It's not a flattering or "normal" shot. It looks like she's taking a.... well nevermind

Move her 2012 image down to the body where it fits and where it can be left aligned to face the text. Kill two birds with one stone. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 21:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Checkingfax, the "Bruce-photo" (for lack of a better term) just shouldn't be there as it is. Move it down and, when a "Caitlyn-photo" becomes available, we can add it that time.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we use the image she posed for in the Vanity Fair thing? ThatJosh (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's copyrighted; there's no fair-use rationale that would justify it.. Softlavender (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Car Crash section a bit unduly large?

First off why do we sensationalize it as a fatal car crash when no one tied to Caitlyn was even involved. I think just "2015 driving collision" would do. Then this auto accident is just as big as both her marriages and gender transition section. There is no way this incident should be on equal par with either of those sections. Missruption (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I reduced the section way down. Let's see if anyone objects. (I didn't cut the cites, so there are still a lot of them.) Barte (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pretty classic recentism. Three cites per sentence would still be plenty. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Kim Howe had a separate page providing the details that this section contained. It was deleted and redirected to Jenner's page. The details of the crash and lawsuit specifics should be preserved because of the deletion and redirection.Television fan (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to WP:Articles for deletion/Kim Howe. That isn't an argument for keeping any particular content in the article, just for keeping the redirect from Kim Howe in existence. VQuakr (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I received this from an IP editor on my talk page: why no mention of the victims that died due to Caitlyn Jenner's driving? Manslaughter charges are a big issue, no? Just noting it here, but I'm not clear about the comment, as Kim Howe is mentioned and no manslaughter charges were filed. Am I missing something? Barte (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Random meaningless drive-by comments from non-editing IPs should usually be ignored. If they want to ask the question here, they are free to. Softlavender (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

CALM and FURIOUS

More trolling
The following discussion has been closed by IgnorantArmies. Please do not modify it.
After the forum was shut down due to an overload of transphobic hate, one of Cait's biggest fans is back and ready to fight for what's right. Unlike those hooligans who caused this page to be frozen, I will remain calm, yet furious. 1) This article is crammed full of "Jenner" instead of female pronouns. WTF? I was scolded by a rather rude person about using the same repeatedly to start sentences. That person insisted that doing so (as the article currently is) is repetitive and "boring" and should not be done in the article. So, why is it being done right now? Some paragraphs only have "Jenner" and very rarely use female pronouns. This is especially true in the sports sections. It's clear that SOMEONE wants to refrain from using FEMALE pronouns when it comes to Cait's success in the Olympics. Honeys, listen up, girls can excel at sports. Cait WAS A GIRL and ALWAYS WAS A GIRL during the Olympics. So go on and sprinkle some female pronouns in those sections please so that this article doesn't come across as transphobic and triggering to those who may read it. 2) The picture situation. Last time I checked, that icky picture of gross Bruce was gone. Why is it back? I thought it was agreed that NO PICTURE was better than a picture of someone who doesn't exist? Please, fix this. It's offensive to the entire LGBTQ community and is very triggering. 3) I stated this before, but alas it was IGNORED by several Wikipedia personnel (probably due to their transphobic attitudes). However, I have returned with PROOF that Caitlyn is indeed The GLAMOUR WOMAN OF THE YEAR: http://www.glamour.com/inspired/women-of-the-year So please include that in the article and stop trying to hide facts. Please and thank you, hon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've hatted the above per WP:DENY. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween costume controversy?

Worth mentioning in passing? Seems to be gaining traction in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me????

So another concerned Cait fan had to deal with being silenced by some transphobes. All that person was trying to do was tell you all to add Cait as GLAMOUR WOMAN OF THE YEAR WHICH SHE IS!!!!!! Since when did Wikipedia ignore facts????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.169.163 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"Career" in header titles?

Is that really needed? Do those timelines and sections have to really be about the career subjects? Is that true of those sections now? Would it be better to broaden the scope of those sections by title?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Relatedly, I think the "Olympic career" section should be titled something like "Decathlon career" as it's not just about the Olympics. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How about "athletic career" or "sports career"? Sounds like the most obvious solution. Or am I missing something? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just overlooked the obvious! --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, we're talking about replacing the word "Olympics" from titles referring to Jenner's sports career??? It's fine to mention the specific event, but I don't think such an important word as "Olympics" should be removed!
Richard27182 (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If these titles refer to sections treating not only Olympic but also non-Olympic sports events and related issues, why use the specific term rather than a more general one? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ping:  @Mark Miller:  @Walnuts go kapow:  @Florian Blaschke:

I'm sorry if my remarks were misleading.  I didn't mean that the specific terms should be omitted in favor of mentioning the Olympics.  But the Olympics are a petty big thing, especially when you're talking about winning the gold medal!  There should be some way to include referencing the specific event(s) while still including mention of the Olympics in the title.  Having won an Olympic gold medal is arguably Jenner's greatest accomplishment; and I think it would be remiss to completely omit the word "Olympics" from the title of the section describing Jenner's sports career.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. What do you think about a combined title like "Sports career and Olympic victory"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Cait's Scored Again! WOMAN OF THE YEAR

Yup, Queen Cait's going to be the GLAMOUR Mag WOMAN OF THE YEAR! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3264919/Another-award-shelf-Caitlyn-Jenner-set-honored-Glamour-magazine-s-Woman-Year-taking-secret-photoshoot-December-issue.html

So can we please have this added to the article, kthnx bai! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be added if and when Glamour confirms. Barte (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this person is in reality NOT a woman (i.e., has not undergone sex reassignment surgery, retains male genitalia, and so on), and at any rate, even if this person IS to be regarded as a female, has not (to this point, Nov 2015) been a woman for an ENTIRE year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.114.93 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Caitlyn Jenner family articles in harmony re: formerly/then Bruce

The rest of the family articles (I believe there are seven of them) were pretty well in harmony and stable regarding the formerly/then-Bruce aspect (i.e.- Brandon was born to Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce) and Linda Thompson).

An IP editor is stirring the pot here. We're going to have to work hard to keep the peace and maintain article harmony.

What is the status of the WP:VPP amendment to MOS:IDENTITY? Checkingfax (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The VPP thread was judged to show (I quote) "broad support for the application of" amended treatment to [[1976 Summer Olympics]], and a "need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY". Articles other than [[1976 Summer Olympics]] are still governed by the current text of MOS:IDENTITY. However, because editors [including me] are preparing a new VPP thread which will fulfil the call to revisit MOS:IDENTITY, I think it would be unwise to spend too much energy debating whether the handful of articles you and the IP mention conform to the existing text of MOS:ID or not, since that text may change soon. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Seventh_draft.2C_proposals_1_and_2, the latest proposed wording, if you have feedback on it. -sche (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I recently made an edit removing "formerly Bruce Jenner" in the first sentence. I thought it was redundant, given the "born" phrase right before it. It was reverted by Naue7. I admit, I should have looked at the talk page before making that edit, and I'm sympathetic to the concern of keeping pages consistent. However, I still think the redundancy is undesirable. Could we get rid of the "born" phrase instead? I feel like it's needlessly emphasizing her former identity, and is just cumbersome to read. It might also be relevant to note that the intro sentence for Chelsea Manning lists her old name just once. Maybe consistency among articles about trans people should be valued as highly as consistency among articles about the Jenner family. But I could be off-base here. What do you think? Montgolfière (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that some editors want to clarify that Jenner wasn't formerly usually called "William Jenner" or by both first names, but the redundancy is clumsy. She is now more commonly known as "Caitlyn Jenner" than as "Caitlyn Marie Jenner", should we be saying "Caitlyn Marie Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949), formerly Bruce Jenner and now generally Caitlyn Jenner,..." in order to clarify that? -sche (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Montgolfière: Seems talk was recently archived see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 9#.22Bruce Jenner.22 in the first sentence Naue7 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Naue7: Ah, thanks. I didn't think to check the archive. It seems this issue has already been discussed quite a bit. I am still not quite happy with the current consensus, but I don't want to make a big deal about it. Being transgender myself, I guess I'm more sensitive to this kind of thing than other people. Montgolfière (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Please see the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it.
Out of respect to her transition, it would best to change the main photo of Caitlyn to a recent (not male) one. For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caitlyn_Jenner.jpg Mcsquirley (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Not done: See the FAQ and dozens of conversations on this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC) PLEASE DO That pic is GORGEOUS! Please use it for lovely Cait's profile pick instead of the icky picture of Bruce - WHO DOESN'T EXIST AND NEVER DID! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

New Pic for Cait!

Please see the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it.
http://s3.gossipcop.com/up/2015/11/Caitlyn-Jenner-Pay-Cut-I-Am-Cait-201x300.jpg That image is courtesy Getty Images. I believe that should suffice for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Who holds the copyright, and where is evidence that they have released the image under a Wikipedia-usable license? VQuakr (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) @100.2.244.59:, please do not propose any more images unless the image SPECIFICALLY states that it is licensed under a free license that allows any reuse of the image, including commercial use (for example, a CC-BY-SA license). "Courtest Getty Images" is not a free license that allows commercial use. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Alright... so you seem to have an issue with me (yes I remember you for defacing my talk page). Regardless of that, since I'm a big girl, I will tolerate you for the sake of her highness, Cait. So, I will explain so that maybe you can UNDERSTAND: http://static.celebuzz.com/uploads/2015/11/caitlyn-kris-kendall-jenner-victorias-secret-fashion-show-111015-4-375x560.jpg That image is being used commercially on several pages, with the label "Courtesy Getty Images". That means Wikipedia can use it too. Is it that hard to comprehend, sweetheart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Ah, no. See WP:IMAGEUSE. Presumably, the photo is still copyrighted by Getty and it's simply being provided as a PR image to various sites. Wikipedia needs something a little free-er (as in speech), considering that Getty could retract their permission for use at any time. Maybe you could contact Getty and ask them for permission? clpo13(talk) 19:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC) You work for Wikipedia, you should call them and ask for permission. I did the hard work finding the picture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC) I get paid as much as you for my work here. clpo13(talk) 19:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)