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

Can anyone update the FAQ?? Georgia guy ( talk) 15:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Three of the four Qs were related to the now-updated infobox picture. I've deleted them. The FAQ is now a frequently asked question. Barte ( talk) 17:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the one remaining question actually "frequently asked"? When was the last time it was asked? Perhaps we don't need the FAQ template anymore at all. -sche ( talk) 04:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's an infrequently asked question. I don't know how to properly remove the FAQ, but would be relieved to see it gone. This is probably not the best place, but assuming the infobox image holds up, I'd like to thank TDKR Chicago 101 for taking, freely licensing, and uploading the photo. The amount of grief saved here is incalculable. Barte ( talk) 04:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I killed it; let's see if it sticks. VQuakr ( talk) 04:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem! -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 16:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion." Checkingfax ( talk) 11:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, MOS:IDENTITY does say that (or did at one time; it now says something that implies that.) We can discuss on the guideline's talk page whether it should say that, and on this talk page whether it should apply to this article. I find some aspects of the guideline absurd or confusing. It would clearly be inappropriate not to discuss how to remove confusion.

It has been recommended that MOS:IDENTITY be reviewed and updated if necessary. If you wish to participate, go to WT:MOS. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, but per the MOS:IDENTITY wouldn't that be exactly what you would do? Pre-coming out both reliable sources, and Jenner, used masculine terms. So if you were talking about her life 20 years ago, all sources, include stuff from Jenner's own mouth would be HE, Him, etc. So per the MOS, and just general Wikipedia guidelines (we summarize the available information), would we not use masculine pronouns when talking about events when Jenner, and everyone else, called Jenner a "He"? Wisnoskij ( talk) 03:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Wisnoskij: The idea is that Jenner is and always has been a woman who lived as a man until this year. Hence the feminine pronouns throughout. Chase ( talk | contributions) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Say there's a country singer named Missy Smith who says she was born in Nashville. She believes she was born in Nashville. The RS all say she was born in Nashville. But one day she digs up her birth certificate and finds out she was really born in Jacksonville and moved to Nashville when she was six months old, and only then do the RS start to say she was not born in Nashville. We don't have to keep saying that she was born in Nashville, even though most of the RS—the ones from before the announcement of the correction—still say "Nashville." More accurate information has become available. We don't have to use those old RS because, on this one point, they've been proven wrong.

Similarly, if RS from after the announcement still said "he," and "Jenner was a man in 1976," then that argument might hold up. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 04:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not really an apt comparison unless Missy Smith was widely known in the media for being one of the top musicians born in Nashville, performed primarily in "Nashville-born musicians only" concerts, became famous after winning a "Born in Nashville" music competition that was watched live by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, held several prominent records for album sales by a Nashville-born musician, was inducted into the "Nashville-born musicians hall of fame", and was married to three different people that had publicly stated that they were only attracted to people born in Nashville. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 15:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does still hold up. Everyone thought Jenner was a man, and it was a reasonable conclusion to draw, but we've found out that we were wrong. We don't have to still call Jenner a man. Everyone thought Missy Smith was from Nashville, and now that she knows she wasn't, it would be wrong for her to claim that she was born in Nashville. She did perform in those concerts and we don't have to say she didn't. She was married to those people and we don't have to say she wasn't, but a correction is right and proper. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

it VERY clearly states "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, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." as Bruce jenner is most often referred to as a man, the proper identity here is male. it dosent matter that he thinks hes a woman, this isnt a debate on that. but as you see, the most commonly used reputable sources are the ones that MUST be used. that would be the ~30 years of refering to him as what he is, a man. and just to add this in, if i say im a dragon whos lived his life as a male human, it dosent work. because im not. the same goes for bruce jenner until he has functioning female reproductive organs. 67.247.243.48 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you read further, it more clearly states "An exception to the general guideline is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." 67.148.122.154 ( talk) 07:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• MOS:IDENTITY does not say that, so this thread is misleading. Recommend hatting it so users are not confused/misled. Softlavender ( talk) 08:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Who declared this? It's hardly possible to measure famosity, so such decribings shouldn't be on Wikipedia. -- 2.245.70.144 ( talk) 15:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

How is it not possible? Which transgender person is as famous as Jenner? There is Laverne Cox, but is she as famous as Jenner? Various WP:Reliable sources state that Jenner is the most famous trans woman, or transgender person, in the world. We could amend the wording to state "one of", but, as seen here and here, that isn't quite accurate to me and is not what the sources state. Amending it to "most famous transgender person in the United States" also isn't what the sources state. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit by Bozzio should help matters; while the change might also lead someone to add a Template:Whom tag there, that template is clear about the following: "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." We could add "by the media" if people really want to know "by whom?". Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the text:

Feminist author Germaine Greer called the magazine's decision misogynistic, questioning whether a transgender woman could be better than "someone who is just born a woman". ^[1]

It's cited to the deprecated Daily Mail, which we largely try to avoid. Softlavender ( talk) 05:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the cite to similar coverage from The Guardian. Barte ( talk) 06:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. My opinion is no. That might be appropriate for the Germaine Greer article, but it has zero place in an article about Caitlyn Jenner. Softlavender ( talk) 05:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Greer commented specifically about Glamour's naming Jenner as a Woman of the Year. Her critique was widely covered (I could add several more cites) and she is certainly a notable observer of gender issues. And whether or not her comments are "transphobic" is irrelevant here. As encyclopedia editors, it is our obligation to cover the controversy-- WP:NPOV demands it--without holding judgement over some points of view. The case for Greer's argument to be heard can also be found here. Coverage of canceled college speaking engagements can be read here. (All that said, thanks for taking this to the Talk page, Softlavender. Beyond all else, your civility is appreciated.) Barte ( talk) 06:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• keep and note the non neutral phrasing of the question (now fixed). Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment An opinion like Greer's (basically "trans people are deluded and just play dress-up", conflating trans people with drag acts), which runs counter to established scientific consensus (not to mention being hateful and unreasonable, considering that transitioning, and going on to live as the gender you identify with, is not a walk in the park even for a rich privileged person like CJ – not something you do only for fun because you're bored out of your mind and crave attention), should not be allowed to remain unchallenged in the article. An opposed critical viewpoint also deserves mention. Maybe a link to one of the articles about feminism and transgender issues. TERF is comparable to other denialist movements. We should not give the impression to the reader that Greer speaks for feminists in general. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• The guiding policy is WP:WEIGHT. Just the fact that Greer made this statement is inadequate reasoning to include here opinion in this article. What is the level of acceptance of here statement? Probably not a majority opinion, but is her statement representative of a widely-held minority viewpoint? VQuakr ( talk) 20:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I would describe it as fringe. Greer may be a noted and influential feminist, but here she is simply off base. (Her trans-hostility if not outright transphobia appears to be more typical of her generation compared to younger feminists, though. As far as I understand, transmisogyny – note that trans men are far less denigrated in general – in second-wave feminism has essentially strategical reasons, as trans women are perceived as supporting and reinforcing the patriarchal structures of society by some radical feminists.) See Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people, womyn-born womyn and radical feminism. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 20:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Greer's opinion could be disputed in the article. To avoid WP:SYNTH, a responding quote should specifically reference Greer's views on Jenner, if not Glamour, as well. But while Greer may not represent mainstream feminist thinking, she's not alone. Consider this New York Times' op/ed piece by Elinor Burkett. My broader concern is that any critical view of Jenner will be banned from the article because editors disagree with it. Except for the South Park reference, we're pretty much on that sterile ground now, and it serves neither Wikipedia readers, the project, or even Jenner herself. Barte ( talk) 22:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"But while Greer may not represent mainstream feminist thinking, she's not alone." Well, yeah. Fringe opinions are not usually held by single individuals, but they are decidedly renounced or ignored by the mainstream and have next to no support among actual experts. TERFs form a small – and apparently shrinking (witness the demise of Michfest) – minority even in feminist circles. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 23:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Burkett was published in the New York Times. It doesn't get much more mainstream than that. Barte ( talk) 23:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

OPPOSE Caitlyn's article on Wikipedia doesn't deserve such transphobic hatred! Let alone in the guise of a "feminist" writer! Utterly deplorable that anyone seriously even considered including that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 23:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved reference I've moved the Greer reference. Please see next section. Barte ( talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've combined a summary of Burkett's and Greer's remarks in a small subsection under "General media attention", with references to the New York Times and The Guardian Barte ( talk) 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The (fringe) view on transgenderness (with Jenner as a specific example) of two second-wave feminists, themselves a minority of feminists, has been given two paragraphs, which is undue. Most of the section consists of general claims of fact that are supported by only personal opinion and often only mention Jenner tangentially, e.g. the unreferenced (more precisely, referenced-only-to-personal-opinion) and off-topic claim that scholarships aren't available to women, the unsupported claim (lacking any appearance of relevance) that Jenner "never had to figure out how to walk streets safely at night", and the general-focus opinion that "a transgender woman could [not] be better than 'someone who is just born a woman'". Pared down, the opinions may belong in Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people, but are undue and out-of-place here.

(Since this thread is a spinout of the one above, on Burkett and Greer's opinions, I'm commenting only on them and not on the South Park bit at this time.)

-sche ( talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I contest the addition of a separate criticism section in general, for the reasons outlined in this essay. If compliant with WP:DUE, criticism should be integrated into the prose, not relegated to a separate section; especially for BLPs. VQuakr ( talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As the section has been reverted, I'm putting it here for reference. I've removed the cites for formatting purposes; they can be found in the article history. I do take VQuakr's point that these arguments could be woven into the narrative, but disagree that they violate WP:DUE. They are the only contrarian statements in the entire article. Moreover, except for the South Park reference, they take Jenner's admirers to task, not Jenner herself. The BLP restrictions wouldn't seem to apply.

The accolades accorded Jenner drew some criticism. In a New York Times op/ed, Elinor Burkett wrote that when Lawrence Summers suggested that men and women have different brains, he was castigated, but when Jenner said much the same thing, she was lionized for her bravery. Burkett argued that cognitive differences between the genders derive from life experience, and Jenner's "experience included a hefty dose of male privilege few women could possibly imagine." Her background included a university athletic scholarship and a salary during training, both available to few female athletes. "Tall and strong, he never had to figure out how to walk streets safely at night."

In September 2015, Jenner was depicted on the satirical American animated program South Park, which parodied her supporters' political correctness, as well as her driving record. The Jenner-related episodes were " Stunning and Brave" and " Where My Country Gone?" from the show's 19th season.

Barte ( talk) 21:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to hear we agree (or at least see somewhat eye to eye) on the dedicated section. There is extensive discussion immediately above about how much coverage of this viewpoint is due; that discussion should be resolved before any meaningful discussion about how to format the coverage can be had. VQuakr ( talk) 00:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Criticism" section. Against Wikipedia best practices, and against WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and probably against WP:BLP. Definitely no cause for mention of South Park, and the random idiosyncratic opinions of others belong in their articles, not in Jenner's. Softlavender ( talk) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Criticism" section. Why the hell should Caitlyn's page feature the criticism and comments from other people? It's unknown if Queen Cait even acknowledges these comments, so why should they be included on HER PAGE? What do those comments have to do about factual information about the Queen? Cait is young, hot, and an eligible bachelorette, why does this page require you to taint it with negativity and SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION OF CAIT!?!? Include those idiots criticisms of Cait on THEIR PAGE. Why should the haters get attention on Cait's page!? I want someone to TELL ME THAT! Come on, step to the fucking plate and answer that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 07:57, 6 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Seems to me that the consensus, at least so far, is clearly opposed. Thanks for the feedback everyone: I won't pursue it further. Barte ( talk) 14:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Inquiry: Why wouldn't you include a criticism section? Isn't a WikiPedia article supposed to be informative? I think it is wrong to exclude specific information from the article, if only for the principle that you don't alter facts. If Caitlyn has been criticized then if anything, a mention of the criticism against her would serve as a demonstration of the problems that a transgendered person faces in the everyday society. We, as Wikipedians, are here to educate. We are not here to protect. Denying that the criticism occurred by way of ignoring that it happened is not education; it's just supporting the kind of bigoted ignorance that the transgendered people have to endure. 87.248.21.189 ( talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

TV Guide lost the memo about Cait's current name. Cheers! {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 05:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it will be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDMyers ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsure why you are mentioning this here. TV Guide is not used anywhere in the article. Could you clarify? The link you provided does list her as Bruce Jenner in the cast list for Keeping Up with the Kardashians, but they do use a photo of Caitlyn and her linked page/profile is listed as Caitlyn Jenner. Melonkelon ( talk) 00:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

The number of portals listed is a complete overkill. 203.109.162.133 ( talk) 01:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Stabila711 ( talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Don't you think ten portal links on this article is about ten too many? 203.109.162.133 ( talk) 22:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Still no request made. If you want to discuss the portal links, that's fine. But please only use this template for making specific requests. FWIW, the number of links does not seem overkill. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As seen here and here (followup minor edit here), I cut somehow unnecessary detail added by Softlavender. Softlavender reverted me, stating, "if you're giving details you can't be selective -- you have to give ALL the relevant details, and these are very relevant." I disagree since I was not being selective. Unlike many at this article/this talk page, I don't try to push a POV regarding transgender issues and what I may or may not personally feel about Jenner. The unnecessary detail I removed was "in a Buzzfeed interview," accompanied by a citation (which is not needed since the BuzzFeed part is already supported by the CNN reference), and "whom he referred to as 'Bruce Jenner', 'Mr. Jenner', and 'this man'". Exactly why is it important to note that the statement was made in BuzzFeed? And exactly why is it important to include "whom he referred to as 'Bruce Jenner', 'Mr. Jenner', and 'this man'", when the section is already clear that the husband does not view Jenner as a woman, and already includes "he" when referring to Jenner? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary clutter. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to mention how pro-transgender Smith claims to be, you also have to mention the fact that he calls Jenner "Bruce Jenner", "Mr. Jenner", "this man", and "he", which clearly belies those claims. And if you are going to mention the off-hand crack Jenner made in the Buzzfeed interview, you need to mention that it was in Buzzfeed and include the link to the interview (so people can check out the context), because no one gives serious interviews on Buzzfeed anymore than they do on Perez Hilton's site. You can't have it both ways: You can include all of the relevant details, or just go with what the short Washington Post article says. Softlavender ( talk) 23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

To avoid WP:UNDUE, go short using the Post reference. Something like: James Smith returned the Glamour award given posthumously to his late wife, Moira Smith, the only female New York Police Department officer to die in 9/11. He called the award a publicity stunt; Glamour stood by its decision. Barte ( talk) 00:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, you make it sound as if I am trying to defend Smith; I am not. I took issue with the section simply making it seem like his objection is about transphobia, without giving the full story. He clearly views himself as supportive of transgender issues and supportive of Laverne Cox, but as not supportive of Caitlyn Jenner. The full story is there without the detail you added (which reads as "See? He must be quite transphobic since he used all these terms to refer to Jenner."). Mention of BuzzFeed? Absolutely not needed. And I reiterate that the reference cites BuzzFeed; people can clearly click on the article in that reference. I also hate bare URLs. Mention of "Bruce Jenner", "Mr. Jenner", "this man", and "he"? Not needed since it is already very clear that he considers Jenner a man, and since "he" is already used.

Barte, I disagree with being vague on this matter, which is why I added the context. Adding why he objected is fine; it is not a WP:Due weight violation, especially given all the publicity it's gotten. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And, really, there are a lot of people who take Laverne Cox more seriously than Caitlyn Jenner with regard to transgender issues; a lot of that has to do with their bias toward the Kardashian family and thinking that they are mainly in the spotlight for attention and that almost everything they do media-wise is a publicity stunt. Jenner addressed this "oh, it's just for publicity" aspect in the 20/20 interview. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are trying to defend Smith. I'm saying if you put in his claims of being pro-transgender, you have to give the full evidence that he is clearly not. We don't just put one side of the story; that's POV. It's also POV not giving the source of the quote he refers to -- Jenner didn't say that quote on a reputable news site; she said it on a humor site. We have to adhere to NPOV. The section was actually fine and non-vague before you edited it: [3]. The CNN interview is Smith backpedalling after the fact (after the WaPo article), trying to sound pro-transgender, but anyone who writes "I was shocked and saddened to learn that Glamour has just named Bruce Jenner 'Woman of the Year'. Was there no woman in America, or the rest of the world, more deserving than this man?" [4] is clearly not pro-transgender. Softlavender ( talk) 01:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you are suggesting that I was POV-pushing/violating the WP:Neutral policy (which, by the way, does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse), you are incorrect. Both sides (that Smith indicated that he is supportive of transgender issues, and that he considers Jenner a man) are there without the unnecessary text you added. It is also your opinion that BuzzFeed is never taken seriously, and that we must therefore mention that the comment was made in a BuzzFeed interview. It's like stating that people are not held accountable for anything they state in a BuzzFeed interview. If they state something truly offensive, for example, should we just shrug it off as "Oh, that's BuzzFeed being BuzzFeed."? Before I edited the section, it most certainly gave the impression that Smith objected solely because Jenner is transgender. Being neutral is giving his side that it was not about that. Did he publicly object when Cox won the award last year? Are we to assume that the reason he didn't object then is because he didn't know about Cox winning the award, despite how publicized she was at that time? You're projecting your own biases on this matter; for example, stating that Smith was "backpedalling" and "is clearly not pro-transgender." I await other opinions on this. Either that, or a WP:RfC will be needed. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Finally having read and watched the BuzzFeed interview, I don't see how Jenner wasn't taking the interview seriously, even if some people weren't. She seemed like her usual self. And Googling " Hardest part about being a woman is figuring out what to wear", I see that a number of people, including Rose McGowan, took that comment seriously and were offended by it; so the section should be clear about that, instead of attributing the objection to the comment solely to Smith. The paragraph also shouldn't make it seem like only these two people objected to Jenner winning the award, and should note something about the broader criticism before going into the "Feminist author Germaine Greer" material. Something should also be in the section about those who support Jenner having won the award. Again, Jenner having received the award got a lot of publicity and created a lot of debate; we should do a better job at summarizing that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In recounting Jenner's transition, how important is this debate over the award? I'm still inclined to go brief here. Because the objections are directed more at Glamour than at Jenner, I think we can mark the controversy without laying out the details. e.g:

The magazine's decision brought some dissent, with feminist author Germaine Greer and James Smith, husband of an earlier nominee, Moira Smith, both questioning whether Jenner was the best choice.

The list of dissenters could be extended, of course. Barte ( talk) 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's too brief. And like you noted in the #Should Germaine Greer's opinion be mentioned in this article? section above, criticism has been repeatedly blocked from this article as though the criticism is solely from transphobic people and as though it's all a WP:Undue weight violation. That needs to stop. It's not just Germaine Greer and James Smith who criticized Jenner winning the award, and we shouldn't make it seem that way. We should note that there was support and criticism. The Germaine Greer and Smith cases can serve as examples for the criticism aspect. We should be clear about why Smith objected, and it should be brief, but not brief to the point of excluding the fact that he indicated that his objection is not about being transphobic, and not without making it clear that he views Jenner as a man, and that this ties to the "Hardest part about being a woman is figuring out what to wear" statement she made. From what I'm seeing, Jenner received significant criticism for her the "Hardest part about being a woman is figuring out what to wear" statement, as made clear by this The Independent source, which states, in part, "Jenner has gone on to inspire countless men and women, but her comments, which were made after she was celebrated at Glamour Magazine's Women Of The Year in New York were branded 'offensive and insulting'." and "People began tweeting the other, harder things women have to deal with, such as institutionalised oppression, abuse and sexual assault." So we should summarize that matter as well -- that it wasn't only Smith who objected to that comment. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And just so we're clear that Jenner receives criticism from the LGBT community (in addition to receiving it from the straight community and from people who are not factoring sexual orientation or gender identity into certain aspects), there is this, this and this source (among others) for editors to read. These articles concern debate over her status as a transgender role model/her visibility as a transgender voice. And yet nothing but positivity about that role model status/visibility is currently in the Caitlyn Jenner Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never stated, suggested, or remotely implied that you were POV-pushing. I am saying we have to abide by NPOV; we can't cherry-pick information and block accurate information that gives a fuller, more informed and neutral picture of the situation as presented by the aggregate of RSs. Smith is backpedalling; he deleted the open letter he wrote from his Facebook account and did the CNN interview after all the bad press he got the day before. You're free to add any genuinely noteworthy RS critiques Jenner has received from other venues. Softlavender ( talk) 08:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And I've been clear that I disagree with your application of WP:NPOV; we clearly have different views on it in this case since I find your extra additions (with the exception of the needed "this proved to him 'that [Jenner] is not truly a woman.'" piece) to be clutter...when the paragraph should be addressing other things in addition to the Smith text. And I do take your "if you're giving details you can't be selective -- you have to give ALL the relevant details, and these are very relevant.", "We don't just put one side of the story; that's POV.", and "we can't cherry-pick information and block accurate information that gives a fuller, more informed and neutral picture of the situation as presented by the aggregate of RSs" commentary as suggesting that I was POV-pushing and/or that I don't know how to present such content in a neutral manner (as if I've ever been one of those editors POV-pushing at this article). I am likely to start a WP:RfC on whether your wording is needed, or I might drop the issue altogether (after all, I am taking an " I don't care" approach to certain matters these days). Beyond our disagreements (and per what I've stated above in this section), the paragraph doesn't adequately summarize the disagreements regarding Jenner having won the award, or touch on the general criticism regarding her "hardest part about being a woman" statement (which, despite your view that it isn't serious because it was made in a BuzzFeed interview, various people, especially women, took seriously). And that inadequacy is a shame/failure on the part of Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be better to quote the entire snippet where Smith refers to Jenner as "Bruce Jenner...this man", or to say "whom he referred to as...", but I agree that it's relevant information for readers to get the full picture if the other bits are included. Saying that Jenner's comment was made "in Buzzfeed" or "to Buzzfeed" takes two words, so if there's an argument that it's helpful to readers, to provide the full picture, I'm inclined to include it. -sche ( talk) 22:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In a couple or few days, I plan to add some criticism to the General media attention section, per my "04:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)," "05:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)" and "18:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)" statements above (especially the 05:08 one). And per your suggestion, -sche, I plan to replace the "Bruce Jenner", "Mr. Jenner", and "this man" text; I really don't like that overemphasizing. The wording "whom he referred to by male pronouns" or "whom he referred to as a man and by male pronouns" would make for a better, less pointy, flow, and would be more encyclopedic (and, yes, I know that terms such as "Mr." are nouns, not pronouns, but all we need to get across is that Smith views Jenner as a man). In my opinion, the BuzzFeed mention is useless, especially considering the many people who took the statement seriously and considering that BuzzFeed does serious interviews in addition to the silliness or carefree fun approach it takes, but I'll leave it in. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Frmorrison, thank you for taking care of this; it seems you had the same or a similar issue with "Bruce Jenner", "Mr. Jenner", and "this man" that I did. I haven't gotten around to doing what I stated I would do in my "17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)" post, but I eventually will. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome. I still don't like how it reads, but at least it is improved. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I see Minor Errors Reguarding the page. Thank You Darktruth06 ( talk) 22:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Stabila711 ( talk) 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a new photo, a screenshot from a video made by United States Ambassador to the United Nations who interviewed Caitlyn Jenner about LGBT rights for Human Rights Day, 10 December 2015.

Hope it survives the copyright critics. I uploaded it HERE, hope it survives the WP:copyright crew. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 03:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I added it to the article near a mention of the interview. I'm not claiming it's the best place or format, but, at least for now, it's placement. Barte ( talk) 22:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually think it would be a better image for the top of the page (provided it passes muster with copyright, which I don't really understand myself) than what we've got now, because you can see her face much better. GrecianEarn ( talk) 15:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. I retained the Chicago picture in the article, swapping the two. Barte ( talk) 15:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the copyright will stand. It was posted on Twitter by the United States Mission to the UN, which grants copyright ("public domain") to anything on their website, unless it's clearly copyrighted. This was also in Ambassador Power's twitter feed, which is on the front-page of the US Mission to the UN. Someone who has a lot of Commons edits, User:Stemoc uploaded it to Commons here, with a better copyright license (This image is a work of a United States Department of State employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties.) than the one I used and so far I don't see any challenge to it and it's not on the Commons' "Ogre" page for newly uploaded photos by inexperienced, "newbie" editors. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 16:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The licensing and source look good to me too. Nice work finding it. Barte ( talk) 19:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: this discussion - doesn't the Brian Jones example at WP:FULLNAME render the repeated "born William Bruce Jenner, formerly Bruce Jenner" reference unnecessary? Surely "Bruce Jenner" can be added as a former name in the infobox if this were to cause confusion. Chase ( talk | contributions) 17:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If anything, I say cut the full name and keep Bruce Jenner. That page redirects here and she was well-known by that name. The full name is more trivia and can be relegated to the infobox or the early life section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. And I would say the spirit of our trans-centric name policies is against overemphasizing dead names, even when they are as well known as Caitlyn's. Chase ( talk | contributions) 22:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Here was the case I made for "Bruce Jenner" in the first sentence back in October. Not that it's in stone:

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) 00:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus established last time, and with which I agree with, was for the inclusion of "Bruce Jenner". I think that's the best option; I agree with the statement above that the full name in the first sentence is unnecessary. She wasn't known by that name; she was known by "Bruce", and that's sufficient. Inks.LWC ( talk) 02:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of using "Born" and then the name that is on her birth certificate. Is is a more neutral way of introducing her identity that saying "formerly known as". If there is concern that others may know her as Bruce Jenner then we could add then in right after. Boilingorangejuice ( talk) 04:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody fix this? Olympics and 1976 are mentioned two and three times in one paragraph.

Caitlyn Marie Jenner...retired Olympic decathlon champion. In 1976, Jenner won the gold medal for decathlon at the Montreal Summer Olympics. After intense training, Jenner won the 1976 Olympic decathlon title...during the Cold War, gaining fame as "an all-American hero".

Cheers! {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 00:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It should say "September to December" since she appears in both the season opener and finale, it only says September giving a minimized sense of how long they were depicting her.

Also "the show's 19th season" should be a hyperlink to South Park (season 19) since we link the individual episodes too.

Although it mentions the show parodies her driving I think we ought to mention the catchphrase "buckle up buckaroos!", pretty much every single episode she appears in she says this before running over someone, in kind of an irony since she's telling people to fasten their safety belts while being inconsiderate of the safety of those outside the car.

Also should be worth mentioning that the show differs in that it has her running over pedestrians while the IRL thing this is parodying was actually a vehicle vs. vehicle accident.

Also not sure how to describe this but the way they parody her speaking... almost like it's a list or her tongue is hanging outside of her mouth, is that relevant? Always shown this way, not sure why, some poke at plastic facial surgery or something? 184.145.18.50 ( talk) 11:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

To be blunt: Who cares? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 12:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Search buckle+buckaroos. Aside from "Buckaroo Clothing for Women" the next result is pictures and videos of this, it's a popular meme. 184.145.18.50 ( talk) 12:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I added "Beginning in September..." and linked to the 19th season article. The other suggested changes seem to me a level of detail too deep. Barte ( talk) 15:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a citation added to the fatal car crash section that sources criminal charges were not filed? ^[1] OpenDoc3551 ( talk) 17:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It could be, but I don't see a dateline for that Variety source. If it's missing, the cite of the LA Times report on the subject still works on its own. Barte ( talk) 17:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)