Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10


Cut-and-paste

The current Caitlyn Jenner article is a cut-and-paste move (it started out as a redirect until someone pasted the contents of the old article into it). Any admin want to fix it? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

New name

Just announced that Caitlyn Jenner is her new name, time to update this article immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:6B23:CF00:7450:7A7B:C2A0:63E2 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea,and change the url 200.90.252.64 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair cover is out with accompanying article about the cover. Caitlyn is confirmed as the name. Also the article does use female pronouns and there is a CaitlynJenner verified twitter account also with female pronouns. (Lroche nf (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)). <Vanity Fair></http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-cover-annie-leibovitz?mbid=social_twitter>

We should properly change to her preferred gender pronouns, as is Wikipedia policy, but as in l'Affaire Chelsea Manning, the name of the page itself has to be based on what weight of our sources are using to identify Ms. Jenner and at this moment, that appears to still be Bruce Jenner. To aggressively do the exact same thing that led to 3 months of fighting over Ms. Manning's page, without any consensus, or even the slightest bit of discussion about the page title, is just asking for a repeat performance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Please change the main picture to http://photos.vanityfair.com/2015/06/01/556c7a224ae56e586e457d3e_vf-cover-bruce-jenner-july-2015.jpg Elliemarshmellie (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not possible - that image is copyrighted, and we require a free one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Defaultsort needs updated

Title says it all. Please and thank you. 99.114.188.208 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Need an edit notice on main page

This request needs to be handled by an admin or template editor. I request a edit notice explaining that all pronouns need to be female similar to the one on the Chelsea Manning page. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Done - Floydian τ ¢ 18:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Please change the featured photograph at the top of the page to this File:Caitlyn Jenner.jpg Jalfmar3 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note, resized image. -- Orduin Discuss 19:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Too bad about that, we do need a new image as soon as a free one can be found or taken. Skyerise (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

The image of Bruce Jenner must be changed to her most recent vanity fair cover picture since that is her new identity. Also, the caption must be changed to Caitlyn Jenner instead of Bruce Jenner. Reillymay (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done We cannot use non-free images unless they are properly licensed. Jenner is a public figure so there will surely be free photos of "Caitlyn" in time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It raises a good point, though. It's somewhat dissonant to, in one instance, correctly refer to someone as a woman, and then use a picture of someone who is ostensibly male. I would be fine with using a nonfree image as a temporary solution, or just having no picture (at least not in the lede). Harej (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
We don't do that at Chelsea Manning and we're not doing it here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It still works, as it's the same person. Even in the new pictures of Bruce Jenner in Vanity Fair, the viewer can still tell that it's a male who is transgendered, and not an actual biological woman. Walterego (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Plus an announcement of gender change does not remove the identity you have had for the years of your life up until that point. That person in the picture is the same person. The gender change is now part of their identity and life. An announcement does not erase history. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't erase history, which is why the article has a section on gender identity explaining her past: it says she has struggled with her identity since her youth. While people have perceived her as a man, her own personal identity is that of a woman and appears to have been such for some time. She has chosen to live publicly as a woman with a new name and so the article on her should reflect the most up-to-date and correct information about her life. It's a good thing that Wikipedia is editable and thus can be kept current! -- Merope 18:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
"Not an actual biological woman" thank you for that lovely bit of transmisogyny. I'm totally okay with using a non-free image here; I think it would pass the guidelines for including them. Does anyone else have an opinion on its legal propriety? Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No non-free image is acceptable for a photo of a living person. A free equivalent can be taken easily by anyone and submitted. I'm surprised someone with 20 pieces of featured content and 77 good articles under their belt isn't aware of this. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not what the policy says in any way; the policy states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Key word: equivalent. Images of Jenner pre-transition no longer accurately represent her, and the idea that "a free equivalent can be taken easily by anyone and submitted" is...well, hokum and bunkum. Please, go find some free images of Jenner post-transition, or take some; I'll be waiting. We've used non-free images of living people in the past for situations where (for example) the figure was so reclusive that, even alive, no image could be created, or situations where a particular change worthy of critically covering was so substantial that those free images available did not encompass it. There's no need to bring article contributions into this, because this isn't about article contributions; this is about being able to read. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
If they put a non-free image here, it will open the door to many things that will make the PC police head's explode! Like why aren't there pictures of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom murderers of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome! In any event, we shouldn't steal people's intellectual property. That discredits Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.218.45 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The important point of NFCC#1 relating to this matter is "or could be created". A free image could be easily created by taking a picture of Caitlyn in public at this point. Just because it is not available at the moment doesn't mean we put a copyright image in until such time. See the hundreds of actor/actress pages we have with no images. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The comment by Ironholds above needs to be indented further. 71.183.132.174 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2015

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

The result of the move request was: not moved per the snowball clause. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


Caitlyn Jenner → Bruce Jenner – Even if Jenner has decided that she would prefer to be called Caitlyn, his most common name is still "Bruce Jenner" and likely will be for a few more months. Most people still know her as "Bruce Jenner". Also, Everyone who knows her as "Caitlyn Jenner" also knows her as "Bruce Jenner", while not everyone who knows her as "Bruce Jenner" would recognize the name "Caitlyn Jenner". Therefore, this article should be called "Bruce Jenner" for at least a couple more months. The fact that someone wants to be called a new name should not affect what we call an article, see Snoop Dogg/Lion. Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Read WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. The fact that someone wants to be called a new name should absolutely affect what we call an article. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ironholds, common human decency, and empathy. --Jorm (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Her name is Caitlyn and her correct pronouns are she/her/hers. The entire fucking point of MOS:IDENTITY is that people who are transitioning get to dictate their name and pronouns. For fucks sake. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, violates MOS:IDENTITY. We do not choose WP:COMMONAME over subject's express and verifiable preference. Skyerise (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per MOS:IDENTITY (as noted a few sections up), our policy is to defer to the article subject's wishes in cases of gender identity. The policy specifically cites gender identity as distinct from other renaming cases; whereas Snoop Dogg's renaming would be subject to things like "yes but how many RSes call him that", Caitlyn Jenner's is determined, first, by her self-identification. BLP is a policy and it requires us to err (inasmuch as "calling someone who they believe themselves to be" can be said to be erring) on the side of not doing gratuitous psychological harm to article subjects. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Never mind COMMONNAME, how about some common sense? The subject of the article goes by Caitlyn, and wants to be known as Caitlyn, so the article should be titled Caitlyn. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - MOS:IDENTITY. Teammm talk
    email     22:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia's style, norms and practices about this issue are now well established. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Add new image, 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We would if we had one under a suitable (free) license. We can't use commercially licensed photos. Unfortunately it will probably take some time before some member of the public photographs her and uploads the image under such a license.-gadfium 23:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article coverage

For the "Online press" template? https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/06/01/wikipedia-editors-honor-caitlyn-jenner-identity/kMBuLrQJYZUZefLBVeVd7H/story.html ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Change the photo to anything of Caitlyn. Please. I don't think she wants to be misgendered almost completely done with her transition 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Free picture not available yet. -- haminoon (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Change main picture. Zephyr86 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Free picture not available yet. -- haminoon (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"born Bruce Jenner"

Wouldn't it be better to say "named BJ shortly after birth" or, if named at or before birth, "named BJ at birth"? also, what is the point of the word "still" in "while still identifying as a man"? Is this different from "while identifying as a man"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

fixed both. Elefuntboy (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It was already done in the usual way 'born <birthname>'. It's fine. Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't cite the relevant section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style or whatever, but I have noticed the "born <birthname>" wording in many biographical articles about cisgendered people. Elefuntboy should not have changed it. 71.183.132.174 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I assume you mean transgendered people? Because the whole point of cisgendered people is that their birth name matches their assigned gender. I don't think that it is 'fine' being written as thus, because it is the assigned name, but not who Jenner identifies as. Elefuntboy (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
All birth names are assigned names. This was the name she used until recently. We don't have enough information about when she chose the name Caitlyn - we can't say she identified as Caitlyn from birth if she didn't hear the name until 1984. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner wasn't her full name at birth so the question is moot. I'm removing it from the infobox as it is silly and misleading. The wording in the article ("formerly known as Bruce Jenner" and "Caitlyn Jenner was born William Bruce Jenner") is clear enough. -- haminoon (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

Add Drake Bell contreversy to Caitlyn's emerge 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done As discussed above, Drake's opinion may be relevant on Drake's page, but not here.--Jorm (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Proper term for medical procedure

The proper and most up-to-date term is Gender Confirmation Surgery, not Gender Reassignment Surgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.235.3 (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody move this page to Caitlyn Jenner and redirect to Bruce?

Is an admin planning on moving this page to Caitlyn Jenner and redirecting Bruce Jenner, rather than the opposite (which is the current state)? Jami430 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Elefuntboy (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Elefuntboy please stop cut-paste moving, wait for an admin to properly move the page if you don't understand how to otherwise move it. But cut & paste moves aren't constructive. Azealia911 talk 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I want to add a verified source from her Twitter account since she tweeted the news herself but am unable to undo the edit to add this source! https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/605407919820013568 Thebuck093 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have been done? Caitlyn is still redirecting to Bruce; should be the other way around. —Tony Webster (talk / contribs) 17:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't moved, it was copy/pasted again to the new location, which is sub-optimal because it splits the page history. We don't need to do this quickly, we need to do it right. Move discussion, please. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
We should have a *discussion* about the title change. The inclusion of her name and the proper gendered female pronouns as used, as is Wikipedia policy, but the title of a page is based on consensus of what the weight of what our reliable sources are using, not preference of the individual in question. Given the page history of Chelsea Manning's page and the fact that Arb is likely going to closely watch this based on the discretionary sanctions, how about we have a discussion about what reliable sources are using before any page title change and not let this result in edit warring that will likely get us all in hot water and leave Ms. Jenner's page in limbo for months? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no. MOS:IDENTITY specifies that in cases relating to gender identity, we default to using the terms the person has requested ("Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification"). While all the copying and pasting made a right mess of it, the article properly belongs at Caitlyn Jenner as per the subject's wishes and our own policies; otherwise we persist in using an inappropriate name to identify the person. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
There was *no* consensus during any of the Chelsea Manning controversy -- which you should know given that you were there -- that MOS:IDENTITY referred to the title of the page itself, as opposed to the pronouns and descriptors within the article. In fact, the Chelsea Manning page was finally moved to Chelsea Manning page not on the basis of her gender identity but the fact that the reliable sources were overwhelmingly using Chelsea Manning at the time. The article should refer to her as Caitlyn Jenner and have "she" instead of "he" but the title is a different matter altogether. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, while it is not official policy, Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Common_name provides more information about why gender identity issues are handled differently than other name issues; namely, that doing otherwise misgenders the person and is thus harmful. WP:UCRN states that "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." It is clear that Ms. Jenner will be using the name Caitlyn going forward and so the article should be hosted under that name. Previous notability under the former name is resolved via redirect. I am extremely surprised that Wikipedia does not have an established policy already, but given past precedent (e.g., Chaz Bono, Chelsea Manning), the documentation of the subject's desire to use this name going forward in a reliable source, and the ability to resolve any confusion about the more well-known name with a simple redirect, I cannot see any reason why the page should remain under Jenner's previous name. -- Merope 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What's going on right now with the page moving is ridiculous -- this is what just happened to me: [1].--Milowent • hasspoken 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The move was completely inappropriate/premature and should have been discussed first. I'm sure that in time, we would have eventually settled on a decision to title the article "Caitlyn," but to move it mere hours after the announcement with little to no discussion while ignoring Bruce Jenner's long-term notability was highly inappropriate. I have asked Tom Morris to revert his move. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a clear WP:IAR exception due to Jenner's prominence. There should have been a move request and extensive discussion first. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Blind adherence to Wikipedia policy and process is counterproductive. In this reality we live in, a person announces that they are transitioning genders, and we use their preferred name and pronouns because it is the humane thing to do. The Biographies of Living Persons policy exhorts us to get it right, and in this case, it's correctly stating what someone's name is. Harej (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Adhering to BLP and using proper pronouns and listing her new name in the lead is one thing. Moving the title after 1-2 hours from a name that the subject has been very well known by for decades is another entirely. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. Harej (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No, there isn't. Just because someone is prominent doesn't mean we don't respect their gender identity. By defition, all Wikipedia BLP are of prominent people, otherwise they wouldn't be notable for inclusion in the first place. -- KTC (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) You're missing the point completely. This is not about respecting gender identity; this is about helping the reader. Respecting gender identity would be using female pronouns throughout the article. Helping the reader would be to keep the article title at "Bruce Jenner" until reliable sources have used "Caitlyn" adequately enough that the name would be recognizable. I don't know how you can reasonably think this is not a clear exception. "Bruce Jenner" is a household name. "Caitlyn Jenner," as of now, is not. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We help the reader by correctly presenting facts. The redirect from Bruce Jenner is sufficient to establish that the subject of the article has a new name. The article content explains that her name was Bruce but is now Caitlyn. Keeping the article at its old title is an arbitrary delay. Harej (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The encyclopedia is not improved by keeping the article at its wrong name. Harej (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A name that has been reported in the media since the '70s is not "wrong." Time will tell if "Caitlyn" becomes preferred in the media but as of now the move was inappropriate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME also says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Referring to her as "Bruce" is inaccurate; her name is Caitlyn. A redirect solves any confusion for someone who only knew of her as Bruce. I cannot think of any valid reason I can think of to keep it at the old name. We don't wait a few months to move a page when someone becomes Pope because we know that going forward they'll be referred to by that name. While future reliable sources will mention Jenner's previous name as a point of clarification, many media outlets will refer to her by her correct name in respect of her wishes (cf. the Associated Press standards regarding gender identity). We should use the name that reliable sources will be using going forward. -- Merope 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything in MOS:IDENTITY or WP:BLP about names in such a case. I see some discussion of pronouns, but it says that naming should follow the common usage in reliable sources. I think there is no reliable source that would discuss this person without prominently using "Bruce" somewhere, as the general public is not at all likely to be familiar with their new selected name (it is not yet WP:RECOGNIZABLE to most people). I think the WP:BOLD move that was made without following the WP:RM discussion process should be reverted. See also the example of Cat Stevens at WP:AT#People. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
"Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article). [...] An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise" (MOS:IDENTITY, emphasis mine) seems to pretty clearly include article titles among the cases in which gender identity renaming follows a different standard than other renaming. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
But you've conveniently left out this part: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns The article title is not mentioned for this. We still follow WP:COMMONNAME for article titles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, hidden in the "[...]" of that quote is "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, Wikipedia should use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources." —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what's in the [...] because the next sentence says "An exception to the above"... Sam Walton (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
And you're blatantly ignoring the fact that that bullet point refers only to pronouns and gendered terms such as "chair(wo)man"; not the name in an article title. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a valid point there. It is about "pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns". I suppose a proper name can be a gendered noun. I hadn't noticed that before. But it doesn't provide names as examples. If that's the intent, it would be helpful if that were clarified. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, the move should be undone and a discussion should take place here. The vast majority of sources use the name Bruce, it is a famous and well known name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

To quote WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Emphasis added. It is obvious that a majority of reliable sources use the name "Bruce," since she was known by that name for most of her life. We shouldn't have to wait another four decades to start using her name name simply to comply with some arbitrary calculus. It is more important that we present information that is factually correct. Reliable sources are reporting she is transitioning gender identities and that her name has changed. Wikipedia should correctly reflect what the reliable sources say. Harej (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to wait four decades, but jumping the gun at two hours is wildly inappropriate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Her new name can be used in the article, but the article itself should be located at the common name. This move should be undone and discussed, as is proper for a contentious move, which it is clearly is. People saying this is harmful are strangely confusing, as this person just announced this today. The old name doesn't suddenly become a dagger the moment they announce a new name. Once again, as with other famous transitions, what we have is the LGBT project rolling out and making hard and fast decisions and then poling up to declare that as consensus. Every person in that project will head over here, as what happened with Manning, and declare the past an insult. That's not consensus, it's stonewalling. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
This move has been 100% in line with policy, I have no idea how anyone is arguing that it isn't. To reiterate: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article). [...] An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise" Sam Walton (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
...yet you cut the selection off right before this: 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 part makes absolutely no mention of how to address the subject's name in the title of the article, and it comes after the "exception to the above" bit. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant, the subject's gender isn't being questioned. Sam Walton (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
"An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation" - this refers to pronouns and such, not article titles or the name a persona announces as their own. We have many cases of people who have self-identified by a new name where the old name is used as the article title (Cat Stevens was given above, as an example). This debate is solely a result of the gender transition, and none of this would be here if Bruce Jenner just decided they were Brian Jenner. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The comparison to Cat Stevens isn't a valid one here since referring to him by that name does not cause harm. Referring to a transgender person by the wrong gender does, and as such it is a violation of WP:BLP. If we look at other articles on transgender people, we see that the person's chosen name is the one used for the article title. -- Merope 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It causes harm for a person to ever hear reference to the name that they went by for over 50 years? Can you explain that, cause it just sounds like liberal guilt to me. No harm is done to this person by having the article title under the name they are most recognized by and indicating in the lede that they now go by a different name. Finally, referring to an islamic person by their old name certainly seems just as harmful, no? Or are transgendered people just put on a podium because it's the politically correct thing now? - Floydian τ ¢ 18:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying that all references to her previous name should be purged, just that the title of the article should reflect the most current and correct information. Anyone who knows Jenner only as her previous name will still find the article via the redirect. The essay Wikipedia:Gender_identity has some information about how to refer to transgender individuals, including links to research about how misgendering people is harmful. (Also? I'm actually of the opinion that Cat Stevens' article should be under Yusuf Islam, as that is his current name and the one that is used in reliable sources (though each one includes a reference to his previous stage name), but that's neither here nor there.) You call it political correctness; I call it being respectful of a living person's wishes. The only reasons to keep it at Bruce Jenner are 1) because of potential confusion (which is solved via redirect) and/or 2) because of a refusal to acknowledge her gender identity. Neither reason holds weight. -- Merope 19:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to provide my two cents here. I feel the page should be moved back to Bruce Jenner for now. It will be easier for readers. Jenner is most notable for athletics, and at that point, Caitlyn was Bruce. Not many readers will be looking for Caitlyn, and Bruce is more a notable name. -- Deadpool100 (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
And that is why Bruce Jenner redirects and the first line explains the changes. Pretty simple. freshacconci talk to me 18:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess if it's easier for readers we can get rid of WP:BLP entirely. I'd never thought of that! Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Either way... Looking at the comments this is disputed. We should have a formal consensus regarding the move, if it needs to be done the way Chelsea Manning was done then so be it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "formal consensus" and if you think you need one to decide whether it's appropriate to refer to a person in a way that respects their identity, you don't get how BLP policy works. Caitlyn Jenner is Caitlyn Jenner and we have a policy in place to ensure that we respect that. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Reliable sources that use the name 'Caitlyn' now include: Vanity Fair, BBC, The Guardian, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Time, USA Today, Daily Mirror, CNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, National Post, Billboard, ABC, Daily Express and CBS, Newsweek, MSNBC, The Advocate, Chicago Tribune, Pink News, Rolling Stone, Sydney Morning Herald, Seattle P-I, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, thejournal.ie, BET, Boston Globe and The Independent. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • That is nothing though compared to all of the books written, some I am sure by known authors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Except those books are now inaccurate... —Tom Morris (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a total of 29 sources. Georgia guy (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Daily Mail and Daily Mirror are not reliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know about the Daily Mirror, but the Daily Mail is a reliable source—or at least, the last time Wikipedia debated the matter at WP:RSN, the consensus was that it is reliable (I listed it as such despite my personal disagreement as to its reliability). —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to enter into a discussion about what a common name is or isn't, I'm just going to say that if someone out there has access to wikipedia (aka: has internet), they clearly are not living under a rock. Even with mainstream media only covering her name change as of today, without living under a rock, there's just no way the common public at large doesn't already know that Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner. So long as there's a Bruce Jenner re-direct linking to this Caitlyn Jenner article (which there is), I really don't understand why this conversation is even being had???Cebr1979 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Is name change legal at this point?

Redirect MAY be premature. I think Caitlyn Jenner should merely be a subhead on the Bruce Jenner page until the name change is legal. If it is legal can we have backup? - Signed, TT

It is an irrelevant question. MOS:IDENTITY states nothing about legal name changes or lack thereof having any bearing on article titles. Helpsome (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not a Wikipedia policy, tons of articles use nicknames and stage names.108.26.183.199 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Under many jurisdictions laws (not sure on Cali), a formal announcement by a person is considered more or less a legal change. Furthermore, it was pretty well established at the Chelsea Manning debate that legal names aren't the basis for article title. I feel the name a person is notable by should apply, but many feel that the self-identified name matters more in these transgendered cases. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Jenner's own declaration is usually enough to be legal in California as well as many other places. There has been reports it was even legally changed prior to her public transitioning process but that is irrelevant. Missruption (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's irrelevant if it's a 'legal' name change or not. The article title is about the most common title.--88.104.136.143 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No, with living people it's about the correct one. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity << Here it says the self expressed one for gender is the correct one.--88.104.136.143 (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; I agree with that. That's why I object to the idea that we have to wait until (or even debate) its legality. Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Legality has little to do with article naming, cf. Martin Sheen, whose official legal name has always been Ramón Estévez. Wikipedia always refers to people by their own, prefered public name without regard to legal documents. We don't stop doing this merely because the subject of the article is transgendered. That is, Martin Sheen does not have more rights to define his own public persona and name more than Caitlyn Jenner does, merely because Martin Sheen is cisgendered and Caitlyn Jenner is transgendered. We default to people's own preferred public name, without regard for legal documentation. --Jayron32 03:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Athletic Records

How will Bruce Jenner's athletic records be reflected? With the examples of Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) and Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar), it seems the most common method is to use their birth names for records and stats accumulated while they competed under that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.186.3 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

See above and also discussion at WP:VPP. We're currently working out Wikipedia policy regarding issues of transgender, gender identity, and historical names of people. Please contribute to the discussion at WP:VPP if you have something to say. --Jayron32 03:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Direct link: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#MOS:IDENTITY_clarification. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

Caitlyn's photo should be changed to an image from her vanity fair photoshoot, instead of a photo of "Bruce" Miaquesadilla (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

See the similar requests above; we need a freely licensed image. Ironholds (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanity fair photo

anyone else think that the magazine cover, if it gets the media attention its likely to get, should be useable under our fair use doctrine? or would it be no more significant than a free photo taken of her in public as a woman? we do allow clearly copyrighted images like this in articles when they win pulitzers and get their own articles. This photo may end up being THE face of the transgender movement, but since im speculating, i think its too soon for fair use. but maybe not for long.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have uploaded the cover. There is a precedent at Dalek#Magazine covers. Unfortunately I don't think there is a case for the magazine cover to be used in the infobox as it isn't the main focus of the article. -- haminoon (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if the cover/issue will become so iconic that it deserves its own article.... —МандичкаYO 😜 00:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Quite likely. Missruption (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the initial image shown on the article should perhaps be the Vanity Fair cover, as it better reflects her current gender identity. 98.125.159.153 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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." Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Also see this new note. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

caitlyn-jenner-3-607x560.jpg for Caitlyn's picture? 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not contain any image under that title. --Jayron32 05:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the Vibe photo of her copyrighted? 2601:7:A00:C89:DDE4:1062:2119:7B62 (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. --Jayron32 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Can we semi-protect this article, please?--Jorm (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article is already semi-ed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The talk-page needs to be protected, post haste.Crboyer (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean the talk page? Looks like it just was. -- haminoon (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant the talk page. --Jorm (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Has been done by Jayron32 and Bongwarrior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Whack-a-mole get tiring after a while --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please demonstrate that it is a hard rule rather than a choice to put her (misgendering) birth name in the inbox?

Seems like it is much more of a choice and a really bad idea is to further misgender someone who has dealt with gender issues her whole life and is finally free to be herself. So do we do an editorial choice to misgender her on her her own biography which states plainly elsewhere she had a different gender identity and name at birth? Or just maybe it can be left off as no one who seeks the information will be terribly put off to read an extra paragraph or two? Missruption (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Some past discussions on the issue of birth names can be found here: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Also the usage notes on Template:Infobox person suggest including it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a rule, but this article must be encyclopedic. This was her name for 65 years, and that is an encyclopedic fact. I don't think it's too distracting to have it in the infobox, which is basically a summary of facts. The infobox title is clearly Caitlyn. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for the feedback. To me it juts out like every time someone purposely uses a trans woman's former name to sully her experience. I still don't see a need for it also in the infobox when it's already in the article. Missruption (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Bruce Jenner was this person's original name. We cannot erase that fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
That is true. While we cannot know (for certainty) what a person's perceived gender are at all given moments in their life (indeed, there's nothing wrong with noting that gender may be a fluid concept, and that a person may be different genders at different times) we should respect a person's expressed gender at the current time. Noting the past gender identity (or, more properly, the past name a person used during times in their life) is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate, however, to demand that our belief about what their gender should be in conflict with their express wishes on the matter. We should, where appropriate, note when they were known by certain names. MOS:IDENTITY is a previously negotiated guideline for dealing with issues like this; based on prior (exhaustively discussed and negotiated) consensus, in the article about a subject, we consistently use their current identity (including pronouns) throughout the article, excepting where where to note prior names for the sake of completeness. --Jayron32 03:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Jenner, like Manning a year ago, is one of those odd cases where a person is very notable for accomplishments under a specific name. I don't see how it is misgendering to note the name they are most known by when it is clearly stated that they are now known by their preferred name. Can you demonstrate how it is? - Floydian τ ¢ 03:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss the general problem of articles (outside of this one) where Caitlyn Jenner is known as Bruce for historical reasons, WP:VPP is discussing the matter, and your contributions are quite welcome as Wikipedia policy may need clarifying here. However, for articles about the subject directly, it was exhaustively discussed and decided, as reflected by the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY, that articles about a subject person, refer to said person using their preferred name and gender pronouns consistently throughout said article, regardless of what they were known as at various phases of their life. If you wish to change this policy, a new discussion at WP:VPP may be in order, but insofar as this has been discussed exhaustively in the past, and a carefully negotiated consensus was established at MOS:IDENTITY, it's not particularly useful to re-debate settled policy every time a new noteworthy case arises. It's why we have guidelines and policies to begin with; to avoid having to have the same discussions ad nauseum. --Jayron32 04:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Pronouns != name, but thanks for the misguided shpiel. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We're clearly talking past one another. Can you indicate what specific text, currently in the article (as of when we are both writing) which you object to? --Jayron32 04:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The big bit at the top that says "Caitlyn Jenner" on an article about a person famous and notable (and entirely so per our requirements for an article on a person) for forty years by the name Bruce Jenner, and not at all (except as an extension of that previous notability) by the name Caitlyn. That is all. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
See MOS:IDENTITY. Wikipedia discussed this, as a community, exhaustively over a year ago, and the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY reflects that exhaustive discussion. If you wish to change the general policy regarding these issues, a news discussion should be started at WP:VPP to change this otherwise clear guideline. Since we have a general guideline, there's no need to discuss it here, since we cannot change overall policy for a single article. You may have a point, but this venue is not the correct place to discuss settled Wikipedia-wide policy. WP:VPP is. --Jayron32 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY states that it applies to the pronouns and gender-specific text in the article, not to the title a person goes by. Regardless, individual articles are the place to discuss changes that are exceptions to precedent... though it needs to be noted that this is a high profile case, beyond the norm that the rule was created for. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Not so sure about that. This seems like exactly the sort of case the rule was created for. The rules don't exist for only those articles you aren't interested in. You've also presented no evidence that this article represents significant difference from established policy, except that it's the one in the news right now. News sources which are nearly universally using the name Caitlyn, FWIW. --Jayron32 06:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, you're also wrong that MOS:IDENTITY doesn't apply to article titles. It clearly states, and I quote "and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article". --Jayron32 06:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Wikipedians jumped on this so quickly, and in such number, is definitely an outlier due to Caitlyn's prominence as a figure. But the idea that the change is an outlier in this scenario - that we should not extend the same humanity and empathy to any transgender individual as soon as we notice - is false. Ironholds (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no reason why the birth name should not be in the infobox. We do the same for those who have a professional or stage name, why not for Jenner? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    The birth name is currently (as of when you made your comment, and I made this response) in the infobox, as it belongs. I'm not sure what your objection is. --Jayron32 04:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think I have an objection to it being there. There are those (above my response) who think it shouldn't be there. My comment is for those objecting to her birth name being in the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for both her birth name and her former common name to be in the infobox. One of them should be deleted. -- haminoon (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The full birth name should definitely remain in the infobox. At this point, I'm neutral on the removal of the common name from the infobox. It is somewhat redundant, but it does have the benefit of showing when the official name change occurred. I know people have a lot of strong feelings on this issue, but we need to keep readers in mind. Wikipedia policy is behind changing the pronouns in the article to the preference of the subject, and I fully support that. However, some readers may be confused or ignorant as to the name/gender change of Ms. Jenner. Noting her original birth name and birth gender, where appropriate, is necessary to provide readers with all relevant information they may be seeking and to aid readers in understanding the gender identity change/name change that has occurred. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What does identifying as a man have to do with winning the decathlon?

"Jenner came to international attention when, while identifying as a man, she won the gold medal in the decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics held in Montreal."

Why "While identifying as a man"? What does winning the decathlon have to do with his/her gender reassignment nearly 40 years later? HaniiPuppy (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I presume it's there to explain away the incongruity of a woman winning what is traditionally a men's event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: HaniiPuppy (talk · contribs), I'm sure it's there, per what has been stated on this talk page in other sections; it seems that it's there to clarify that she won the male decathlon. Then again, considering that the lead is clear about her gender transition, it should be clear that it was a male competition she was in at the time. MOS:IDENTITY regarding this matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2:An sich nothing. However, without it, the sentence reads as though she either won the women's decathlon (which would be impossible, since there was no female Olympic decathlon in '76, just the athletics pentathlon), or participated as female in the male decathlon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The current wording makes it sound like the gender transition has something to do with the race, what if it were simply changed to something like "Jenner came to international attention when she won the gold medal in the male decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics held in Montreal." HaniiPuppy (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not my preferred wording either, but then again, I'm not the one that added it. Unfortunately, your wording still suggests she participated as female in the male decathlon. I could see something like "Jenner came to international attention when she won (as Bruce Jenner) the gold medal in the male decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics held in Montreal.", but that has its own significant downsides. Might be best to simply wait and see if some sort of consensus emerges from the Village pump discussion Flyer22 linked above. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What about: "Jenner came to international attention after having won the gold medal in the male decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics held in Montreal."? ★ Nacho ★ (Talk page) ★ 10:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I like it. I prefer a minor grammar change, however: "Jenner came to international attention after winning the gold medal in the male decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal." Epic Genius (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Could work. The sentence itself suggests neither the one nor the other; within the context of the surrounding sentences, it should be clear. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What?

This quote "During that period, she spent eight hours a day at the San Jose City College track,[citation needed] along with her Lab Bertha.[26][27] " is bizarre.

NEITHER of the two citations specified state eight hours a day, neither state he was with his lab bertha, one states that he HAD a dog named Bertha at some time.... Neither states exactly that he trained AT the San Jose City College track. It's a mess.Wjhonson (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of the dog, but, um, it does mention that Jenner trained at the college's track. Epic Genius (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Birth name in parenthetical

While this may or may not be "standard" for Wikipedia biographies in general, it is not standard for the biographies of trans people. In general, the birth name of trans people is not mentioned in the lead at all, but rather in the early life section and the infobox. This is in line with MOS:IDENTITY which states that we use the preferred name and pronouns throughout the article and avoid emphasizing the gender change, covering it primarily in the personal life section. Skyerise (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything about that under MOS:IDENTITY. -R. fiend (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty much consensus on the collection of biographies of trans people, which I regularly edit. It's extremely rude to use a trans person's birth name at all, and it therefore violates WP:BLP. Leave it. Skyerise (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:BIRTHNAME is undeniably part of the MOS. Skyerise is arguing for their wording per MOS:IDENTITY, which mentions nothing about the opening sentence of an article. You don't have much ground to stand on, quit edit-warring. ¡Bozzio! 17:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's rude to call someone by their old name? We should pretend that they've never had another name? That's idiotic. Show us the "consensus" isn't just your opinion, and we can do something. ¡Bozzio! 17:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Rude is irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't the courtesy business. Wikipedia is in the accuracy business. -R. fiend (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And both of you are quite clearly ignorant of, respectively, trans issues and Wikipedia. On trans issues; Bozzio, please do yourself a favour and google "deadnaming". Read for a while and come back to this. On Wikipedia; R. fiend, Wikipedia is, around biographies of living people, absolutely in the courtesy business. WP:BLP makes clear that our mandate around BLPs is to act in a responsible and respectful fashion. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no, has Wikipedia hurt your pwecious wittle feelings? We don't decide how our articles are going to be written based on sad little articles from sad little Wordpress bloggers. ¡Bozzio! 17:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the person on the internet refusing to respect the wishes of the person they safely, anonymously write about is in a position to call anyone sad. Do some research - read the links mentioned below. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but could you link to a few examples for those of us who aren't as frequent editors on biographies of trans people? I'm guessing the difference might be between people who became notable either because of being trans, LGTB rights activism and matters related to that, or after transitioning and people who were already notable before it became known that they are trans. The articles I know of about trans people who were notable prior to coming out as trans all seem to use the name (birth name) style. On the other hand, the few articles about trans people who became notable after transitioning or who became notable due to LGTB rights activism don't make use of the birth name at all, or as little as possible. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's in all the media guides and is well-known to be offensive. A quick Google search on your part could verify this if you effing cared.
There are many more. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You're diverting from the issue at hand. No one's suggesting we use Bruce instead of Caitlyn, quit going off-topic. ¡Bozzio! 17:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And what does any of this have to do with WP policy? Until a few days ago Caitlyn Jenner was famous throughout the world as Bruce Jenner. To pretend that isn't the case, and she always been Caitlyn is both disingenuous and confusing. -R. fiend (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have no sensitivity to trans issues whatsoever. I am not saying the birth name should not be mention, just that it should be handled the same way as other trans biographies on Wikipedia, which is to omit the birthname from the lead and include it only in the infobox and early life section. Skyerise (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop prefacing every contribution to this discussion with snarky little insults to other editors. Hmm, let's see, "other trans biographies on Wikipedia", do they do what you say they do? Well, two of the most famous trans sportspeople certainly don't – Andreas Krieger and Erik Schinegger. Get your facts straight. ¡Bozzio! 17:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You need to grow a thicker skin. I'm just telling like it is. Your insistence is offensive. Skyerise (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're offended. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the sweat lodge. ¡Bozzio! 17:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
That idiom would be more valid if your activity was necessary; a heat lodge has to be hard. Your attitude is not necessary, it's just mean and denigrating to other users. We have discretionary sanctions in this area around treating subjects and fellow editors with respect, and you're not following them: I'm going to formally notify you of them and, given the penalties of not obeying the sanctions, I'd suggest you do so. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"You need to stop prefacing every contribution to this discussion with snarky little insults" from a user who responds to a suggestion that they do some research into an area where they're trying to participate with "Oh, no, has Wikipedia hurt your pwecious wittle feelings?" Right. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My biggest concern here is that the name "Bruce Jenner" appear somewhere obvious in the article, because for 99+% of her life, Caitlyn Jenner was a very famous man called Bruce, and people looking up the athlete that was called Bruce Jenner should be told right off the bat that this is the person they're looking for, without having to read between the lines. Anyone reading the article as it stands would think she previously was "William Jenner" which is a name I never even heard of until today. This isn't a case of "outing" anyone. The name is out there, has been out there for decades, and acknowledgment of it is hardly libel or a shameful. -R. fiend (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with R. fiend. Jenner is famous for things done as a man named Bruce, and so the name Bruce Jenner MUST appear in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Martnen (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you read any of the links above? Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Putting full birth name like this in the lead sentence unnecessary imho. I see that some articles do not include it (Laverne Cox, Janet Mock) while others do (Chelsea Manning, Kellie Maloney). I understand that putting something like formerly Bruce Jenner might be needed in the case given her fame, but the born William... is too much. in my opinion. This might be something we need to do a village pump policy question about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Village Pump clarification/update submitted

After looking at past discussions on this issue and the apparent norm, I have started a discussion at the Village Pump asking for a clarification/update on WP:BIRTHNAME with respect to MOS:IDENTITY. It can be found here (link). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar correction requested

In the section "Gender transition" the following sentence appears:

"She amassed over one million Twitter followers in just over four hours, setting a new Guinness World Record and surpassing Barack Obama, who had, a month prior, did the same feat in four and a half hours."

I would suggest the latter part of the sentence be corrected by either removing "had" or replacing "did" with "accomplished".

Thank you! MichaelCaricofe (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelCaricofe: Thanks for pointing this out, I have changed it to 'accomplished.' Rubbish computer 23:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not what MOSBIO says

WP:MOSBIO reads, "An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise." Jenner made very clear in the time leading up to his gender reassignment about wanting the pronoun "he." That's the subject's announced self-designation for that time period. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is MOS:IDENTITY, and it says use latest gender-identity throughout, which is the correct and respectful way trans people want and deserve to be treated. Here's the quote: "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. 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)." Skyerise (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, yeah, we're quoting from the same source. And I think we have some general agreement in that you say, "unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." Jenner indeed made clear that during the time before the change, the preference was "he." Jenner has never said anything since to contradict this. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh, just because she wanted to use male pronouns then doesn't mean she wants them used for that period now. We'd need a post-transition statement to that effect, as the declaration of preference voided the previous preference. Skyerise (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
You need to give a source that says she explicitly says to use "he/him" for time prior to her coming out. Otherwise we assume retroactive identity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can see people feel strongly about this for whatever reason, and I'm not willing to fight about. All I'll say for the sake of any possible future discussion is I've never heard of anyone post-transition issuing a statement for the benefit of journalist, grammarians and others writing about pre-transition life, so that seems like a deliberately impossible request. One might equally say that a subject stated a pre-transition preference and never issued a statement repudiating oneself. But whatever. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Other links to this article - Bruce or Caitlyn?

Do we have a policy about how other pages refer to Jenner? There are of course a million links to this article, and I foresee edit wars on numerous articles. Do we change the 1976 Olympic Games results to say Caitlyn Jenner won, or keep as Bruce Jenner? —МандичкаYO 😜 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be based on what was accomplished at the time. Bruce won the medals not Caitlyn.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. WP:MOSIDENTITY clearly indicates that we default to a person's current preferred identity, regardless of what historic reliable sources state. The issue is clear for articles about the subject directly, but for things like lists of Olympic Medals, it is far less clear in my mind. We should probably discuss somewhere (not here, probably at WP:VPP) what the general policy should be for issues such as this, and arrive at a Wikipedia wide consensus before proceeding. That is, I agree current policy makes it clear how THIS article should be handled, but we may need more guidance on how situations noted above should be handled. --Jayron32 02:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've gone and started the discussion at WP:VPP. Anyone with an opinion can feel free to contribute there. --Jayron32 02:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No I don't think so at all, for instance in most articles (every one that I can think of) where someone legally changes their name (and in at least 1 circumstance changed it back), during the time where they where their former name they are referred to as their former name. I can also tell you that referring to Jenner as a "she" during the time Jenner was a male makes no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:101:8610:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I responded as IP on the vpp page..it was a few clicks away, but jftr, in this case, whatever has been decided via MOS essay, does not make sense to me either. I get how using non gender pronouns could cause angst to the subject of a blp who has stated a preference, but why are we given an edit warning at the top of this page that says NOT to delete gender references? I have a problem with that statement as it relates to how this whole article is being used as propaganda with an agenda.ChangalangaIP (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@ChangalangaIP: If you think that a notice informing people they should be consistently using female pronouns, in line with her wishes, makes the article "propoganda with an agenda", you absolutely do not understand how using the wrong pronouncs could cause angst - or do, but don't understand the BLP policy. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The propaganda slash agenda...I should have clarified that I am referring to media reports and articles about how quickly WP reversed the pronouns. I am worried about WP being used as a platform for any one sides political views here.I did not say that I think that editors should use incorrect pronouns or even nuteral in this case because feminine is clearly the subject's current preferred pronoun but rewording edits in some places to leave out what in my reading is an overkill of she and her...I am referring to the yellow box instructions at the top of the page that says not to delete pronoun use. That is going too far imo . The wholesale find and replace job that was done on the article looks weird to me and I think that some off the gender pronouns should be eliminated altogether.ChangalangaIP (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@ChangalangaIP: Please see MOS:IDENTITY and WP:Gender identity. The yellow box at the top is to inform users that the subject of this article is a trans woman and they should use she/her when referring to that person. This is Wikipedia's policy and the box is there to inform people of it. Too often on articles of trans people, users feel it necessary to misgender them. You can see in the edit history of this article that someone tried to revert to "Bruce Jenner" and use he/him articles already EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Quite. You're complaining about a long-standing policy. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
OK now that I am logged-in on my PC-I was hoping to cut & paste what I was talking-about, I cannot find it. The reason that I jumped-in here was because the article could use a little tweaking, but I AM (re)reading all of the MOS as it applies to gender and WP MOS, and what I really was trying to say was confusing me--(and again-I cannot find it now darn)---was an apparent contradiction that said something like-"don't delete reference to gender" (paraphrase)--as a way of fixing a pronoun-changed subject of a BLP. I completely agree that switching someone in this particular case to gender neutered pronouns would not be right per BLP. Maybe I read it wrong? Because, retroactively changing every pronoun to another bianary gender could be better edited imo by deleting some of the unnecessary references to Catilyn's gender altogether by re-wording/editing boldly. WP is not ever obligated to use gendered pronouns AFAIK , (meaning that we still do have a choice to NOT edit with gender in mind)---and I must have misunderstood or mis-read where we can not just delete what looks to me like too many feminine pronouns in the pre-Caitlyn part of the article.ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
FOUND IT! From edit-mode on the article page, (copied) "The article currently uses female pronouns throughout, as per applicable policy. Please do not change female to male pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion."----that. (bold is mine)"attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether"....UGH! I don't know if they added this BEFORE or AFTER ALL of the pronouns were changed? And i guess i am seeing that the word "all" is used, so common-sense and TP/discuss is still an option.ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)edited to boldChangalangaIP (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
As there's a clear policy on the matter, MOS:IDENTITY, your speculations and opinions about it are pointless. We use the subject's preferred pronouns, period. Skyerise (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
NO-you misunderstand me here I guess. We have a choice NOT to use any gender pronouns. We do NOT have to use a pronoun just because someone wants one-and in any event the 400 she her etc. in this article is OVERKILL.ChangalangaIP (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't misunderstand you at all. You are proposing to edit the article based on bigotry. We use she/her pronouns just like in any other article. The warning is clear, we do not try to eliminate gender pronouns simply because we are uncomfortable with transgender people or unaccepting of the use of their preferred pronouns. Go do something useful somewhere else. Policy is clearly established here, and your proposal is to violate it. The policy is not open to article-by-article variation. Skyerise (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We DO eliminate gender pronouns when they make for a crappy encyclopedia article. How dare you get personal with my motivations. (you are wrong btw) I have requested clarification on the template in question.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/Caitlyn_Jenner And how DARE you tell me where to go.ChangalangaIP (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What you fail to understand is that the type of argument you are making has been made every time a notable person has come out as transgender and the policy has not been changed. Since it is policy, it cannot be changed by making arguments on this talk page. Such discussion must be made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, not here, not on the template page. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

to try and clarify what I think ChangalangaIP is trying to say; ChangalangaIP is objecting to the idea that we are unable to rewrite any sentences to remove pronouns, not necessarily out of any discomfort with Caitlyn's gender identity but because we have a tradition of alternation, right? To avoid writing too repetitive articles we tend to alternate; sentence 1 "Jenner did X". Sentence 2 "She then did Y." The policy rejects rewrites for the purpose of eliminating pronoun usage as a solution to controversies or issues around pronouns to use. Because of this, it potentially impacts what we can do in situations where we have "She did X. She did Y." ChangalangaIP, is that a correct reflection of what you're trying to say here? So it's not about "avoiding all pronouns", it's about not having an article that reads like it was written sentence by sentence in isolation.

For reference if the goal is to avoid pronouns because pronouns, that's a problem. If the goal is to avoid endless repetition...that's less of a problem but I'd suggest being very careful about how and where it's done. I have no issue with say, the alternating rule of thumb; it's the one I use regardless of the subject's gender. If there are stylistic issues, though, we should discuss them as they arise on the talkpage and make sure they're justified, and that we are applying whatever the rule of thumb is reasonably. If you wouldn't change it for a non-transgender individual, don't change it.Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes! ironholds thank you. I actually misread the template to mean " any" not "all" as in don't change any pronouns to delete reference to gender. I think the template needs clarifying. I am confused but trying to fully understand the retroactive pronoun gender changes as well and I think that should be respectful of blp but also not make the article unreadable.ChangalangaIP (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Switching male to female pronouns should only impact readability if the article was unreadable before - in which case, let's tease out examples and resolve them on the talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
At this point, I am not interested in switching any pronouns from male to female, or female to male, or making a non-bianary pronoun. It is tricky though because the options are further limited by also not trying to use the name Bruce, or Caitlyn--(for the retroactive parts), and realizing that certain options like Bruce/Caitlyn for example have probably already been ruled-out for good reasons. I like the idea of applying the test of "would you edit-out gender for someone who is not transgendered?" Because it is awkward and repetitive, yes. And I frequently edit in a non-bianary style for all topics, but never for a BLP where a preference has been stated. I like the MOS of keeping certain styles the same way through an entire article-like using American English spelling or British but I don't know if WP is so rigid that it would apply the same standards to people who can be messier than grammar. I'm probably going to torture myself and lurk-through some of the Chelsea Manning discussions, to try and save repeating old FAQ. Would making slight changes affect the uniformity is probably another test, so any edits to make the article less awkward and repetitive that I make would probably delete gender altogether, and I'd be happy to discuss themChangalangaIP (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner/Archive_4&oldid=1136587368"