This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
Read the FAQ and the dozen previous discussions about this. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I really think we should have a picture of Caitlyn not Bruce as she is now Caitlyn -- Theladyisgaga ( talk) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Lest anyone even begins to think this is a redux of the gender misrepresentation issue that has been chewed above, it is distinctly not. I am in fact on the other side of that issue, believing it to be mostly irrelevant ( see here – and I hope we can avoid discussing it entirely). The issue is that it is a terrible, highly unflattering picture – I think we can all see that without much analysis. That is something I think most of us have experienced – in every grouping of many photographs we will all almost always find one taken at some stroboscopic moment in time where our face is screwed up in some weird expression, the lighting is from underneath our mouth is hanging open and so on, and we go "eww", and get out the lighter fluid or delete from our phone (or ask to be deleted by someone else). I said most of what I wanted to say in my back-to-back edit summaries upon removing the photograph. In short, the idea we must include an image because a free one is available seems to be a hasty assumption many people go on. I believe a very bad picture is worse than no picture and may rise to the level of a BLP concern. (Oh, as I said in my edit summary, I expected to be reverted and did not have to wait long, though I personally think "revert because not yet discussed", as opposed to "revert because I disagree for X reason" is almost always flawed). Thoughts?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Per the article, Jenner is working with Creative Artists Agency, which, I would guess, is reasonably sophisticated in this area. The picture is there for them to see. Wikipedia's copyright constraints are clearly stated, as is the desire here for a current, copyright-free image. As CAA hasn't provided one, we should unblushingly go with what we've got. Barte ( talk) 21:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of biographical articles where there is no image because a free one has not been located.But... that's not the case here. There are free images of Jenner, they're just outdated. An outdated picture is better than none at all. A visual representation of the subject helps the reader know they came to the right article. Chase ( talk | contributions) 02:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to crop the picture in the infobox so it is just Jenner?-- Iady391 ( talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The photo that appeared briefly today in the infobox seems to have come from a Disney | ABC Television Group Flickr account, with a Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) license. How does that fit in, or not, with our requirements? Barte ( talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Why was the Wheaties pic removed? Also, I think her Wheaties deal should have a separate sub-section under the "Capitalizing on Olympic fame" section since it's one of the most recognizable events of her life-- Mimi C. ( talk) 23:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Apple's factotum app Siri has clear opinions on Caitlyn's transition.
http://time.com/3960387/siri-caitlyn-jenner-iphone-bruce/
Possibly worth a word or two in the account of public reactions to her transition. -- TS 11:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Tony Sidaway: If you look at a better source such as http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2015/7/15/8970859/siri-caitlyn-jenner-apple it explains that this isn't because of Apple.-- Iady391 ( talk) 21:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we mention stories such as this? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/woman-drops-a-truth-bomb-on-bruce-caitlyn-jenner-this-facebook-letter-is-epic/ So that Wikipedia can remain neutral.-- Iady391 ( talk) 15:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Or these? http://godfatherpolitics.com/23983/an-open-letter-to-bruce-jenner-from-a-real-woman/ https://onmogul.com/articles/you-ll-never-believe-how-this-woman-defines-what-it-takes-to-be-a-real-woman -- Iady391 ( talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Iady391, mind sharing with us which previous Wikipedia account you edited with? You are no WP:Newbie. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
This still shows Bruce Jenner in the picture. There are several pictures of Caitlyn. Just wanted to let y'all know about this. Thank You. 6BackToBack6 ( talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 6BackToBack6 ( talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Read the FAQ | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Please change the top picture of Caitlyn Jenner to a current one (perhaps the Vanity Fair magazine cover or one from her Arthur Ashe acceptance speech) because the first picture seen on her page should accurately represent her, particularly now that she has transitioned. Thank you. 71.198.170.166 ( talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
The result of the move request was: not moved per the snowball clause ( non-admin closure). I'm aware that this is an early close and I voiced an opinion in the discussion, but... come on. There's no need to waste any more time with this doomed proposal. Per NACD, any objecting administrator may reopen this, but please seriously consider if it's really worth it. Chase ( talk | contributions) 17:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Caitlyn Jenner → Cait Jenner – Looking at the new TV series I Am Cait this appears to be the more well known and chosen way to identify to the public in common. The "lyn" syllable doesn't belong in the page title any more than "William" belonged before. Ranze ( talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
What Caitlyn is best known for has arguably changed. And might not need to to be wedged into the first sentence. Perhaps the misgendering can be saved until later in the intro? We are making editorial choices so we could avoid saying men's decathlon if we we bother to accept how offensive it is to misgender trans women. Missruption ( talk) 20:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
several other equally acceptable options are available that don't insult trans women.Then either propose them, or get off your soapbox and stop making false accusations about me. Chase ( talk | contributions) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with how things have progressed. Chase, it's not a soapbox it's how we treat trans people with dignity. When trans women are no longer dead-named and brutally murdered then it will no longer likely be an issue. Until then the issues remained interlinked, dead-naming and misgendering are a precursor to trans violence and tran women face the brunt of violence even if Caitlyn is classed out of much of it. Missruption ( talk) 00:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy ... of any kindIt may be an important issue to you, but here is not the place to discuss that. The fact of the matter is that the editors of this article have been incredibly sensitive in their treatment of Jenner and her article since she transitioned, and your claims that the article in its current state misgenders her and fails to treat her with dignity are wrong and completely baseless. Chase ( talk | contributions) 03:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel as though this entire event of Caitlyn coming out to the world and causing the reactions it's had, the whole topic of Caitlyn Jenner coming out should be its own Wikipedia page. It's historic; from the Diane Sawyer interview to the Vanity Fair cover, to her transition from Bruce to Caitlyn in the spotlight, it all matters because her telling the world her story is just as good a sub-page. -- Matt723star ( talk) 06:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added a split section tag. Iady391 ( talk) 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Too soon for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.85.123 ( talk) 22:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to side with SNUGGUMS here.
WP:WHENSPLIT suggests that no less than 50kb of readable prose justifies a page split, and this page hasn't even hit 20. We've got a lot of content to add before we can justify splitting off pages from her main article.
Sock
(tock talk) 11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Done as per WP:BOLD Iady391 | Talk to me here 20:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It is now being threatened to be deleted /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transition_of_Caitlyn_Jenner Iady391 | Talk to me here 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Are there any issue with using this picture for her info box? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caitlyn_Jenner_Vanity_Fair_2015.jpg Mimi C. ( talk) 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Same IP user with same axe to grind. WP:DENY. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
After being severely repulsed and disgusted by the main pic used (yes, I will refrain from claiming it as the blatant transphobia of wikipedia), I have come to the decision that NO main pic should be used for Cait. If there are pictures in the wikipedia database of when Caitlyn presented as 'Bruce' (yuck), I'd like to see which ones are possible to use in the main pic. That main pic is flatout gross - FACT. I did some looking around and found this picture: http://img2-2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150504/bruce-jenner-4-800.jpg According to google, that came up when I searched 'free to use bruce jenner' so I think that's best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 ( talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, I have come to terms that the picture used - even if it doesn't look like Cait - is still Cait, just dressed as the hideous 'Bruce' persona. There was another picture of 'Bruce' used, why can't we use that one instead? Where are the available options in the wikipedia database? There must be a better free use image of 'Bruce' since none of Cait are available yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 ( talk) 18:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Could we make a filmography section ?
Iady391 | Talk to me here 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This has been debated as to if it is the correct phrase. See discussion here >> /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transition_of_Caitlyn_Jenner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Rapidly degrading into a
WP:FORUM violation. Gender is mentioned in the second sentence of the article.
| ||
---|---|---|
Stating that Jenner was a woman at the time they competed in the men's decathlon doesn't logically make sense. Perhaps their gender change should be the first section to improve the flow of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.239.159 ( talk) 06:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Excuse me? Caitlyn was always Caitlyn, even when she won the MEN's decathlon. It was just a secret, but she was definitely 100% female that the time she participated in The Games. The very beginning of the article says that she's a woman, so why would it be confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.188.7.11 ( talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC) This is complete nonsense Iady391 | Talk to me here 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 100% female at the time is a 100% false statement or Jenner would have either competed in a Women's event or you would have seen at least one woman that was born a woman (or a man competing in a women's event) competing in the event sometime in the history of the Olympics. Identifying as a gender different than what a person was born as doesn't change their genetics or physical characteristics which is a reason why the events are separated by an athlete's born/physical gender, not the gender they identify as. You can't change history and other people that seem to have clearer heads would agree. /info/en/?search=Athletics_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_decathlon, which tactfully noted that Bruce became Caitlyn later, and http://www.olympic.org/content/results-and-medalists/gamesandsportsummary/?sport=32588&games=1976%2F1&event=32533 honestly and rationally state that Bruce took gold in the 1972 event. It's a shame that this is the only page I've come across that would rather rewrite history than tell the story as it happened which makes whatever adversity Jenner went through seem more insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.239.159 ( talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
This is an integral part of her notability and life and drives a lot of traffic to this article. The current few sentences are very insulting. Missruption ( talk) 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The following sentence should be modified: "Jenner has six children from her marriages to Chrystie Crownover, Linda Thompson, and Kris Jenner. A few months after her divorce from Kardashian, Jenner revealed her gender identification as a trans woman in an April 2015 interview with Diane Sawyer." It's not clear that Kris Jenner, formely Kardashian, is the person Caitlyn divorced from before transitioning. Ok, it is obvious as Kris was the last person mentioned, but only writing the name Kardashian is confusing because that name was not mentioned earlier. I'm suggesting that we either write:
You bring up a good point.
I think we should do the second one.
Iady391 |
Talk to me here 21:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Hi, I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly but here it goes, could you please change the currently picture from the picture of Bruce and change it to a picture of caitlyn? I understand that this page might not have been updated in a while but I feel like it's pretty disrespectful, thank you! Holyhunty ( talk) 06:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Please read the FAQ regarding the image. -- DHeyward ( talk) 06:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
see the faq | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
PLEASE replace the image on this page of one of Caitlyn after her transition to female. It's disrespectful, as a source many people go to for information, for Wikipedia to have a photo of her before her transition as THE image on her page. Seeing as there is no "Bruce Jenner" page anymore, there also shan't be a photo of Bruce as the identifier on Caitlyn's page. 73.9.19.45 ( talk) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
As seen with this edit, I restored the Gender transition section back to what it was, per the WP:Consensus seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition of Caitlyn Jenner to merge that article back into this article, and so that editors would not have to start from scratch and rehash all the debated content that has already been debated at this talk page (such as what should be in that section and wording changes). As also seen by that edit, Mark Miller reverted, stating that there is no consensus for that "major change." And I replied, "This major change is supported by the AfD; there is no longer a Transition of Caitlyn Jenner article. Well, there won't be if following the WP:Consensus of that WP:AfD."
Mark Miller, what lack of consensus are you referring to, considering the outcome of the aforementioned WP:AfD? Should we ignore that close? I think not. If you and others don't like the outcome of that close, then that is what WP:Deletion review is for. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Iady391's edit here is also incorrect. And I see that WP:Deletion review is next then. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Flyer22: I rolledback. Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The consensus was clear. I don't understand what the problem is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Merger as a result of a deletion discussion
While mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions (also see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion), it is not uncommon for editors, in an effort to mediate and/or compromise, to suggest that the article(s) nominated for deletion instead be merged to a parent article. If there is a rough consensus for a merger at the end of a deletion discussion, the following template is placed at the top of the nominated article:
{{Afd-merge to|destination article|debate name|debate closure date}}
Similarly, the following template is placed on the destination article's talk page:
{{Afd-merge from|nominated article|debate name|debate closure date}}
This informs users involved in those pages that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merger. Proceed in the manner described above.
As this is a television documentary series about the subject of this article I feel it is well justified in having a summary section devoted to it. Missruption ( talk) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As seen with this edit, I reverted Mark Miller on making the Gender transition section a subsection of the Personal life section, per this matter already having been discussed; see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 5#Public speaker section is redundant to the Gender transition section, and the "General" heading discussion it points to. Mark Miller reverted me, stating, "That archive discussion does not contain a consensus against this content being a sub section of the Personal life section. there may well be parts that can be sectioned off but for now this should remain."
My reply? In what way should the Gender transition section, which mostly concerns public material more so than the personal life material we usually see in Personal life sections here at Wikipedia, be a part of the Personal life section for this article? I mean, other than making the Personal life section unnecessarily long. The Gender transition section is an entity in its own right that can be subsectioned, depending on how it grows, because let's face it: Jenner is mostly getting attention for her gender transition these days, and today's youths mostly know her from that and/or Keeping Up with the Kardashians, as previously discussed. Furthermore, this is not about whether or not there was a consensus against having that section as a subsection. WP:Consensus is not always about "consensus against" things. And decisions regarding this article or any Wikipedia article do not always have to be a WP:Consensus matter. But WP:Consensus can be formed with only two or three editors; it does not always involve a medium-sized or big-sized group. WP:Consensus was achieved on this matter, as far as I can see. But here we are again. So how is it better to have the Gender transition section be a part of the Personal life section instead of being its own section? Flyer22 ( talk) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There were good reasons to not have the gender transition as part of the Personal Life section. Mainly that it was hardly a personal life-only matter. It was extremely public and well advertised. It also resolved some other issues at the time which are in the history of the talk page if we really need to revisit the whole discussion. Missruption ( talk) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Mark Miller, except for you stating that you object to the change and that another editor does (that editor was likely Iady391, an editor I've disagreed with on this talk page and cited as non-new), I don't understand your arguments on this matter and how you are using Wikipedia policies. And stating that "[You] think [I] understand more than [I] let on." is another uncalled for attack. I am not a WP:Newbie, and I refuse to be treated like one. And as for stating "If you wish to discuss the contributor and not the contribution you will be on your own.", noting your hostility and condescension is perfectly valid. You focus on me, then expect me to focus on you in return. Furthermore, it's rare that I am ever completely on my own when it comes to my contributions to Wikipedia; there is usually always someone there to back me up. You and I, despite occasionally agreeing on matters, do not mesh well. And I refuse to continue this hostile/condescending discussion with you (especially since I am doing what I can to return to the Flyer22 that I used to be instead of the hothead I had become). I agree to disagree. Bye. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mark Miller, I think you're missing what is mentioned in the very beginning of the article, that Jenner is not a private person with this personal information. By these same most of her article could be one big personal section when it's certainly not. I think the personal section should be reserved for information that happens outside her public life. Her gender transition has been uniquely public. Cramming it into the personal section makes it awkward and balloons the personal life section unduly while short-serving how huge her gender transition is to her as well as it's impact on the world. Missruption ( talk) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it. |
Curious why you've chosen to redirect the page to Caitlyn Jenner, when someone is looking for Bruce Jenner, but have chosen to display a picture of BRUCE Jenner, instead of CAITLYN. 74.114.236.45 ( talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Teri
@ 74.114.236.45: Bruce is now known as Caitlyn. Caitlyns surname is still Jenner. The picture is of Caitlyn before the name transition. Iady391 | Talk to me 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A new photo post-transition Nattybee89 ( talk) 08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC) |
Would it be possible to at least clear some of the 'Jenners' in the part of her life as a woman? I get that it's to stay more gender neutral, but let's limit the repetitive use of her last name for the section that's anterior to the transition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it. |
Wouldn't it better suit the article to include a photo post-transition? Nattybee89 ( talk) 08:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Call me stupid but what are the licensing criteria? Nattybee89 ( talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Can you read like litterally almost half of what is written above? It's been explained several times. ( talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Caitlyn Jenner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the id photo at the top to post transition Cait! 😊 108.9.205.206 ( talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The world knows that Cait is a SHE now. Why is the article loaded with "Jenner" in places that SHE can easily fit in. Especially in places where the use of SHE would possibly offend the transphobes that read this article. It's disgusting and completely offensive to the entire LGBT community when something like THIS is on a wikipedia article:
"Jenner was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974 and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue."
Are the transphobes that run this page ashamed to note that a SHE (Caitlyn) was the American champion in the men's decathlon? It's time the truth be revealed. Cait stands for honesty and truth - let's not HIDE anymore. Just change all those "Jenner"s in the article to SHE so that it can be clear that a PROUD WOMAN that was ALWAYS a WOMAN won those men events! Please have a heart for the entire LGBT community. Just think of how offensive it would be for a young trans-kid to come onto this article wanting to learn more about an icon in the trans-community in Cait and see that the authors of this page are hiding the fact that a WOMAN won the men's decathlon by not using the appropriate pronoun (SHE) but rather mask it with Cait's last name... shameful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 09:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Trolling |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by IgnorantArmies. Please do not modify it. |
OK, honey, I'll play your game. Can you explain what's the difference between saying "Jenner did this, Jenner did that" to "She did this, she did that" especially when the use of "She" would come right after "Jenner" was used about 10 times. It seems extremely suspicious to me that the parts that mention Cait winning MEN's sports, "Jenner" is used when "SHE" would be more appropriate and better to avoid the repetition of "Jenner". It's almost as if *gasp* the transphobic writers are getting their way to create the ambiguity that you claim to be fighting against. It needs to be made clear that a 100% woman - since birth - won the men's decathlon. Hiding behind "Jenner" instead of saying SHE is extremely transphobic, ambiguous, and offensive. I've had to swallow the bitter pill that is the refusal to swap out Cait's profile picture with one of CAITLYN, but I will NOT succumb to this one. I demand that SHE be used when talking about Cait's win of the men's decathlon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 ( talk) 19:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Well excuse me, sugar cakes, but you better back on up with that attitude! I mighty fine know how Wikipedia works and I know for a fact that it works the way that's best for the masses. The fact is that I am declaring a VOTE on SHE being used instead of "Jenner" in the sentence that I previously posted. Take that, little girl. Oh, and by the way it is my RIGHT as an American to do whatever I want wherever I want. Go look up the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia, thank you and lose nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC) |
That IS being heartless! What is the big deal with a pure breed 100% WOMAN winning the male Olympics? How is that weird? You stating that is heartless and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community! I demand an apology right now. Where are the Wikipedia moderators to deal with this bigotry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 ( talk) 23:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
130.22.184.1 ( talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Your post justifies EXACTLY why this article needs to have it made clear that a woman won the men's Olympics. Just because you a cisgendered white male feels 'weird' about seeing the pronoun SHE linked to the person who won the men's Olympics doesn't mean we have to cater to you. GET USED TO IT. This isn't the 1950's anymore. Stoop trying to hide and regress all the advancements in the LGBTQ community just because you feel uncomfortable! Be on the RIGHT side of history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk)
I'm not going to get into the politics of the discussion here, but as an aide in answering the question of whether Caitlyn's surname is overused in this article, I conducted an analysis. In the introduction to the Wikipedia article about Niels Bohr, he is referred to as "Bohr" 10 times and with third person male pronouns 10 times. In the introduction to the article on Caitlyn Jenner, she is referred to as "Jenner" 7 times and with third person female pronouns 6 times.
While a difference does exist in the claimed direction, the results are broadly very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.118.246 ( talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.118.246 ( talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
^^ To this guy... alright, you want to wage war with the LGBTQ community then BRING IT ON SISTER! I used your own weapon against you, little girl. My whole issue was that conveniently in the OLYMPICS section there was a deliberate attempt to avoid saying "SHE" or "HER" when talking about Cait and the Olympics. Well, the results are in! "Jenner" is used 18 times in that section, while "SHE" is used ONCE and "HER" is NEVER used. That just SCREAMS a deliberate attempt by the cisgendered privileged white males that run this place to hide and disassociate Cait - WHO WAS ALWAYS A WOMAN - from winning the men's Olympics. All I ask for specifically is this sentence: "Jenner was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974, and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue." be changed to: "SHE was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974, and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue." And also sprinkle a few more "SHE"s and "HER"s in there to even it out. It's CLEAR that for the Olympics section, there was malicious intent to purposefully avoid female pronouns and use "Jenner" instead. Get with the times people, it ain't 1950 anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 06:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
^ Well Mr. Typical Cisgendered White Protestant Straight Male Response... I didn't ask to change the record books. All I asked was for the article to say that SHE was the American champion. That doesn't state that Caitlyn was fully transitioned when she won. It does the following: 1) Eliminate the repetitive use of "Jenner". A rather rude editor yelled at me about the reason "Jenner" and "she"/"her" were interchanged was to eliminate a repetitive usage of either. The Olympics section is LOADED with only "Jenner". Yes, I believe that was intentional by the editors here because they don't want to write an article about Caitlyn winning the Olympics and associating the female pronouns with the Olympic win. The other sections in the article have an about even usage of Jenner/female pronouns, so why is it ONLY the Olympics section with the usgae of Jenner/female pronouns: 18:1? Misogynistic and transphobic much? 2) The article is just stating that SHE (the subject ie Caitlyn) was the American champion in the men's decathlon. That's not changing history because SHE really WAS the American champion in the men's decathlon! I find your attitude extremely offensive to me. You can be as bigoted as you want in your personal life, but this is WIKIPEDIA. It is a public forum. That means you need to be tolerant and accepting of others, and not be hostile and offensive. So... please, Wikipedia editors, can more female pronouns be used in the Olympics sections ESPECIALLY changing the sentences I mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 03:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
^ You know, I thought you were on my side until you posted that lie. I checked the article and there are no changes. Thank you for raising my hopes that someone on here was not transphobic and not a bigot, but now it's been confirmed the otherwise. CVan another moderator deal with this situation please and make the appropriate changes that will make this article not a bigotry and hate motivated written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 07:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hoax? Honey please, all I asked for is some changes in the Olympics section. The real hoax is you as a moderator didn't help me in anyway at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 08:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I came here to look for info on the athlete Bruce Jenner - really weird to see what this page looks like. Bruce was a totally different person than Caitlyn, the two identities deserve separate, but linked pages, slamming it into one page looks seriously odd.
For example, look under Olympic career: "she ran a fast last lap" - really? That was Bruce running, not Caitlyn. He competed in the men's category. Re-writing history like that is absurd.
2601:CA:C201:74A0:F9B8:ACFA:A80A:A755 ( talk) 13:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a clear lack of differentiation in the Caitlyn/Bruce dichotomy here, that much is certain. Whilst the guidelines for identity are followed very much to a tee here, there is a clear excess of representation of the post-transition part of Jenner's life. In other words, most of the article focuses on Jenner's life as the Caitlyn identity, and very little representation of life as the Bruce identity is made.
It is understandable why people focus on this so heavily, but pre-transition Jenner is treated as if Jenner was always post-transition. Long before openly identifying, Bruce went along the strict vein of male categorization (A men's category athlete would clearly be a he at the time of participation), and the article does not reflect this. It seems as if Bruce never existed, and Wikipedia simply requires equal coverage of both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.187.0 ( talk) 06:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
most of the article focuses on Jenner's life as the Caitlyn identity, and very little representation of life as the Bruce identity is made.That's demonstrably false. Look at the article, count the column inches, and see for yourself. Barte ( talk) 15:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
To the OP... YES SHE RAN A FAST LAP! Caitlyn has ALWAYS BEEN A WOMAN! She has also ALWAYS BEEN Caitlyn! How dare you say that it was Bruce running and not Caitlyn, that is just utterly transphobic and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community! Fact: Bruce Never Existed. She was always Cait. So as much as you want cisgendered, Republican, white male Bruce Jenner to have existed - he never did. It was always Cait, honey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation.
But Drmies concludes that (per above):In articles outside of the biography itself, the timeframe of which only covers the period when the person self-identified as one gender, with a particular name, default to the historic name and gender.
My read is that the decision for this article is to revert to Jenner's historical identity, e.g. "his", "him", "Bruce", for the period when Jenner self-identified as male, which would be up to the 20/20 interview. Anyone disagree? Barte ( talk) 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)...there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
Read the FAQ and the dozen previous discussions about this. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I really think we should have a picture of Caitlyn not Bruce as she is now Caitlyn -- Theladyisgaga ( talk) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Lest anyone even begins to think this is a redux of the gender misrepresentation issue that has been chewed above, it is distinctly not. I am in fact on the other side of that issue, believing it to be mostly irrelevant ( see here – and I hope we can avoid discussing it entirely). The issue is that it is a terrible, highly unflattering picture – I think we can all see that without much analysis. That is something I think most of us have experienced – in every grouping of many photographs we will all almost always find one taken at some stroboscopic moment in time where our face is screwed up in some weird expression, the lighting is from underneath our mouth is hanging open and so on, and we go "eww", and get out the lighter fluid or delete from our phone (or ask to be deleted by someone else). I said most of what I wanted to say in my back-to-back edit summaries upon removing the photograph. In short, the idea we must include an image because a free one is available seems to be a hasty assumption many people go on. I believe a very bad picture is worse than no picture and may rise to the level of a BLP concern. (Oh, as I said in my edit summary, I expected to be reverted and did not have to wait long, though I personally think "revert because not yet discussed", as opposed to "revert because I disagree for X reason" is almost always flawed). Thoughts?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Per the article, Jenner is working with Creative Artists Agency, which, I would guess, is reasonably sophisticated in this area. The picture is there for them to see. Wikipedia's copyright constraints are clearly stated, as is the desire here for a current, copyright-free image. As CAA hasn't provided one, we should unblushingly go with what we've got. Barte ( talk) 21:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of biographical articles where there is no image because a free one has not been located.But... that's not the case here. There are free images of Jenner, they're just outdated. An outdated picture is better than none at all. A visual representation of the subject helps the reader know they came to the right article. Chase ( talk | contributions) 02:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to crop the picture in the infobox so it is just Jenner?-- Iady391 ( talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The photo that appeared briefly today in the infobox seems to have come from a Disney | ABC Television Group Flickr account, with a Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) license. How does that fit in, or not, with our requirements? Barte ( talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Why was the Wheaties pic removed? Also, I think her Wheaties deal should have a separate sub-section under the "Capitalizing on Olympic fame" section since it's one of the most recognizable events of her life-- Mimi C. ( talk) 23:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Apple's factotum app Siri has clear opinions on Caitlyn's transition.
http://time.com/3960387/siri-caitlyn-jenner-iphone-bruce/
Possibly worth a word or two in the account of public reactions to her transition. -- TS 11:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Tony Sidaway: If you look at a better source such as http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2015/7/15/8970859/siri-caitlyn-jenner-apple it explains that this isn't because of Apple.-- Iady391 ( talk) 21:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we mention stories such as this? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/woman-drops-a-truth-bomb-on-bruce-caitlyn-jenner-this-facebook-letter-is-epic/ So that Wikipedia can remain neutral.-- Iady391 ( talk) 15:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Or these? http://godfatherpolitics.com/23983/an-open-letter-to-bruce-jenner-from-a-real-woman/ https://onmogul.com/articles/you-ll-never-believe-how-this-woman-defines-what-it-takes-to-be-a-real-woman -- Iady391 ( talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Iady391, mind sharing with us which previous Wikipedia account you edited with? You are no WP:Newbie. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
This still shows Bruce Jenner in the picture. There are several pictures of Caitlyn. Just wanted to let y'all know about this. Thank You. 6BackToBack6 ( talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 6BackToBack6 ( talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Read the FAQ | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Please change the top picture of Caitlyn Jenner to a current one (perhaps the Vanity Fair magazine cover or one from her Arthur Ashe acceptance speech) because the first picture seen on her page should accurately represent her, particularly now that she has transitioned. Thank you. 71.198.170.166 ( talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
The result of the move request was: not moved per the snowball clause ( non-admin closure). I'm aware that this is an early close and I voiced an opinion in the discussion, but... come on. There's no need to waste any more time with this doomed proposal. Per NACD, any objecting administrator may reopen this, but please seriously consider if it's really worth it. Chase ( talk | contributions) 17:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Caitlyn Jenner → Cait Jenner – Looking at the new TV series I Am Cait this appears to be the more well known and chosen way to identify to the public in common. The "lyn" syllable doesn't belong in the page title any more than "William" belonged before. Ranze ( talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
What Caitlyn is best known for has arguably changed. And might not need to to be wedged into the first sentence. Perhaps the misgendering can be saved until later in the intro? We are making editorial choices so we could avoid saying men's decathlon if we we bother to accept how offensive it is to misgender trans women. Missruption ( talk) 20:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
several other equally acceptable options are available that don't insult trans women.Then either propose them, or get off your soapbox and stop making false accusations about me. Chase ( talk | contributions) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with how things have progressed. Chase, it's not a soapbox it's how we treat trans people with dignity. When trans women are no longer dead-named and brutally murdered then it will no longer likely be an issue. Until then the issues remained interlinked, dead-naming and misgendering are a precursor to trans violence and tran women face the brunt of violence even if Caitlyn is classed out of much of it. Missruption ( talk) 00:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy ... of any kindIt may be an important issue to you, but here is not the place to discuss that. The fact of the matter is that the editors of this article have been incredibly sensitive in their treatment of Jenner and her article since she transitioned, and your claims that the article in its current state misgenders her and fails to treat her with dignity are wrong and completely baseless. Chase ( talk | contributions) 03:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel as though this entire event of Caitlyn coming out to the world and causing the reactions it's had, the whole topic of Caitlyn Jenner coming out should be its own Wikipedia page. It's historic; from the Diane Sawyer interview to the Vanity Fair cover, to her transition from Bruce to Caitlyn in the spotlight, it all matters because her telling the world her story is just as good a sub-page. -- Matt723star ( talk) 06:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added a split section tag. Iady391 ( talk) 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Too soon for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.85.123 ( talk) 22:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to side with SNUGGUMS here.
WP:WHENSPLIT suggests that no less than 50kb of readable prose justifies a page split, and this page hasn't even hit 20. We've got a lot of content to add before we can justify splitting off pages from her main article.
Sock
(tock talk) 11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Done as per WP:BOLD Iady391 | Talk to me here 20:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It is now being threatened to be deleted /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transition_of_Caitlyn_Jenner Iady391 | Talk to me here 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Are there any issue with using this picture for her info box? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caitlyn_Jenner_Vanity_Fair_2015.jpg Mimi C. ( talk) 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Same IP user with same axe to grind. WP:DENY. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
After being severely repulsed and disgusted by the main pic used (yes, I will refrain from claiming it as the blatant transphobia of wikipedia), I have come to the decision that NO main pic should be used for Cait. If there are pictures in the wikipedia database of when Caitlyn presented as 'Bruce' (yuck), I'd like to see which ones are possible to use in the main pic. That main pic is flatout gross - FACT. I did some looking around and found this picture: http://img2-2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150504/bruce-jenner-4-800.jpg According to google, that came up when I searched 'free to use bruce jenner' so I think that's best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 ( talk) 04:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, I have come to terms that the picture used - even if it doesn't look like Cait - is still Cait, just dressed as the hideous 'Bruce' persona. There was another picture of 'Bruce' used, why can't we use that one instead? Where are the available options in the wikipedia database? There must be a better free use image of 'Bruce' since none of Cait are available yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 ( talk) 18:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Could we make a filmography section ?
Iady391 | Talk to me here 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This has been debated as to if it is the correct phrase. See discussion here >> /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transition_of_Caitlyn_Jenner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Rapidly degrading into a
WP:FORUM violation. Gender is mentioned in the second sentence of the article.
| ||
---|---|---|
Stating that Jenner was a woman at the time they competed in the men's decathlon doesn't logically make sense. Perhaps their gender change should be the first section to improve the flow of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.239.159 ( talk) 06:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Excuse me? Caitlyn was always Caitlyn, even when she won the MEN's decathlon. It was just a secret, but she was definitely 100% female that the time she participated in The Games. The very beginning of the article says that she's a woman, so why would it be confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.188.7.11 ( talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC) This is complete nonsense Iady391 | Talk to me here 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 100% female at the time is a 100% false statement or Jenner would have either competed in a Women's event or you would have seen at least one woman that was born a woman (or a man competing in a women's event) competing in the event sometime in the history of the Olympics. Identifying as a gender different than what a person was born as doesn't change their genetics or physical characteristics which is a reason why the events are separated by an athlete's born/physical gender, not the gender they identify as. You can't change history and other people that seem to have clearer heads would agree. /info/en/?search=Athletics_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_decathlon, which tactfully noted that Bruce became Caitlyn later, and http://www.olympic.org/content/results-and-medalists/gamesandsportsummary/?sport=32588&games=1976%2F1&event=32533 honestly and rationally state that Bruce took gold in the 1972 event. It's a shame that this is the only page I've come across that would rather rewrite history than tell the story as it happened which makes whatever adversity Jenner went through seem more insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.239.159 ( talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
This is an integral part of her notability and life and drives a lot of traffic to this article. The current few sentences are very insulting. Missruption ( talk) 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The following sentence should be modified: "Jenner has six children from her marriages to Chrystie Crownover, Linda Thompson, and Kris Jenner. A few months after her divorce from Kardashian, Jenner revealed her gender identification as a trans woman in an April 2015 interview with Diane Sawyer." It's not clear that Kris Jenner, formely Kardashian, is the person Caitlyn divorced from before transitioning. Ok, it is obvious as Kris was the last person mentioned, but only writing the name Kardashian is confusing because that name was not mentioned earlier. I'm suggesting that we either write:
You bring up a good point.
I think we should do the second one.
Iady391 |
Talk to me here 21:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Hi, I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly but here it goes, could you please change the currently picture from the picture of Bruce and change it to a picture of caitlyn? I understand that this page might not have been updated in a while but I feel like it's pretty disrespectful, thank you! Holyhunty ( talk) 06:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Please read the FAQ regarding the image. -- DHeyward ( talk) 06:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
see the faq | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
PLEASE replace the image on this page of one of Caitlyn after her transition to female. It's disrespectful, as a source many people go to for information, for Wikipedia to have a photo of her before her transition as THE image on her page. Seeing as there is no "Bruce Jenner" page anymore, there also shan't be a photo of Bruce as the identifier on Caitlyn's page. 73.9.19.45 ( talk) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
As seen with this edit, I restored the Gender transition section back to what it was, per the WP:Consensus seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition of Caitlyn Jenner to merge that article back into this article, and so that editors would not have to start from scratch and rehash all the debated content that has already been debated at this talk page (such as what should be in that section and wording changes). As also seen by that edit, Mark Miller reverted, stating that there is no consensus for that "major change." And I replied, "This major change is supported by the AfD; there is no longer a Transition of Caitlyn Jenner article. Well, there won't be if following the WP:Consensus of that WP:AfD."
Mark Miller, what lack of consensus are you referring to, considering the outcome of the aforementioned WP:AfD? Should we ignore that close? I think not. If you and others don't like the outcome of that close, then that is what WP:Deletion review is for. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Iady391's edit here is also incorrect. And I see that WP:Deletion review is next then. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Flyer22: I rolledback. Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The consensus was clear. I don't understand what the problem is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Merger as a result of a deletion discussion
While mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions (also see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion), it is not uncommon for editors, in an effort to mediate and/or compromise, to suggest that the article(s) nominated for deletion instead be merged to a parent article. If there is a rough consensus for a merger at the end of a deletion discussion, the following template is placed at the top of the nominated article:
{{Afd-merge to|destination article|debate name|debate closure date}}
Similarly, the following template is placed on the destination article's talk page:
{{Afd-merge from|nominated article|debate name|debate closure date}}
This informs users involved in those pages that content is to be merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merger. Proceed in the manner described above.
As this is a television documentary series about the subject of this article I feel it is well justified in having a summary section devoted to it. Missruption ( talk) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As seen with this edit, I reverted Mark Miller on making the Gender transition section a subsection of the Personal life section, per this matter already having been discussed; see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 5#Public speaker section is redundant to the Gender transition section, and the "General" heading discussion it points to. Mark Miller reverted me, stating, "That archive discussion does not contain a consensus against this content being a sub section of the Personal life section. there may well be parts that can be sectioned off but for now this should remain."
My reply? In what way should the Gender transition section, which mostly concerns public material more so than the personal life material we usually see in Personal life sections here at Wikipedia, be a part of the Personal life section for this article? I mean, other than making the Personal life section unnecessarily long. The Gender transition section is an entity in its own right that can be subsectioned, depending on how it grows, because let's face it: Jenner is mostly getting attention for her gender transition these days, and today's youths mostly know her from that and/or Keeping Up with the Kardashians, as previously discussed. Furthermore, this is not about whether or not there was a consensus against having that section as a subsection. WP:Consensus is not always about "consensus against" things. And decisions regarding this article or any Wikipedia article do not always have to be a WP:Consensus matter. But WP:Consensus can be formed with only two or three editors; it does not always involve a medium-sized or big-sized group. WP:Consensus was achieved on this matter, as far as I can see. But here we are again. So how is it better to have the Gender transition section be a part of the Personal life section instead of being its own section? Flyer22 ( talk) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There were good reasons to not have the gender transition as part of the Personal Life section. Mainly that it was hardly a personal life-only matter. It was extremely public and well advertised. It also resolved some other issues at the time which are in the history of the talk page if we really need to revisit the whole discussion. Missruption ( talk) 22:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Mark Miller, except for you stating that you object to the change and that another editor does (that editor was likely Iady391, an editor I've disagreed with on this talk page and cited as non-new), I don't understand your arguments on this matter and how you are using Wikipedia policies. And stating that "[You] think [I] understand more than [I] let on." is another uncalled for attack. I am not a WP:Newbie, and I refuse to be treated like one. And as for stating "If you wish to discuss the contributor and not the contribution you will be on your own.", noting your hostility and condescension is perfectly valid. You focus on me, then expect me to focus on you in return. Furthermore, it's rare that I am ever completely on my own when it comes to my contributions to Wikipedia; there is usually always someone there to back me up. You and I, despite occasionally agreeing on matters, do not mesh well. And I refuse to continue this hostile/condescending discussion with you (especially since I am doing what I can to return to the Flyer22 that I used to be instead of the hothead I had become). I agree to disagree. Bye. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mark Miller, I think you're missing what is mentioned in the very beginning of the article, that Jenner is not a private person with this personal information. By these same most of her article could be one big personal section when it's certainly not. I think the personal section should be reserved for information that happens outside her public life. Her gender transition has been uniquely public. Cramming it into the personal section makes it awkward and balloons the personal life section unduly while short-serving how huge her gender transition is to her as well as it's impact on the world. Missruption ( talk) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it. |
Curious why you've chosen to redirect the page to Caitlyn Jenner, when someone is looking for Bruce Jenner, but have chosen to display a picture of BRUCE Jenner, instead of CAITLYN. 74.114.236.45 ( talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Teri
@ 74.114.236.45: Bruce is now known as Caitlyn. Caitlyns surname is still Jenner. The picture is of Caitlyn before the name transition. Iady391 | Talk to me 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A new photo post-transition Nattybee89 ( talk) 08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC) |
Would it be possible to at least clear some of the 'Jenners' in the part of her life as a woman? I get that it's to stay more gender neutral, but let's limit the repetitive use of her last name for the section that's anterior to the transition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismegbin ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Inks.LWC. Please do not modify it. |
Wouldn't it better suit the article to include a photo post-transition? Nattybee89 ( talk) 08:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Call me stupid but what are the licensing criteria? Nattybee89 ( talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Can you read like litterally almost half of what is written above? It's been explained several times. ( talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Caitlyn Jenner has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the id photo at the top to post transition Cait! 😊 108.9.205.206 ( talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The world knows that Cait is a SHE now. Why is the article loaded with "Jenner" in places that SHE can easily fit in. Especially in places where the use of SHE would possibly offend the transphobes that read this article. It's disgusting and completely offensive to the entire LGBT community when something like THIS is on a wikipedia article:
"Jenner was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974 and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue."
Are the transphobes that run this page ashamed to note that a SHE (Caitlyn) was the American champion in the men's decathlon? It's time the truth be revealed. Cait stands for honesty and truth - let's not HIDE anymore. Just change all those "Jenner"s in the article to SHE so that it can be clear that a PROUD WOMAN that was ALWAYS a WOMAN won those men events! Please have a heart for the entire LGBT community. Just think of how offensive it would be for a young trans-kid to come onto this article wanting to learn more about an icon in the trans-community in Cait and see that the authors of this page are hiding the fact that a WOMAN won the men's decathlon by not using the appropriate pronoun (SHE) but rather mask it with Cait's last name... shameful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 09:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Trolling |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by IgnorantArmies. Please do not modify it. |
OK, honey, I'll play your game. Can you explain what's the difference between saying "Jenner did this, Jenner did that" to "She did this, she did that" especially when the use of "She" would come right after "Jenner" was used about 10 times. It seems extremely suspicious to me that the parts that mention Cait winning MEN's sports, "Jenner" is used when "SHE" would be more appropriate and better to avoid the repetition of "Jenner". It's almost as if *gasp* the transphobic writers are getting their way to create the ambiguity that you claim to be fighting against. It needs to be made clear that a 100% woman - since birth - won the men's decathlon. Hiding behind "Jenner" instead of saying SHE is extremely transphobic, ambiguous, and offensive. I've had to swallow the bitter pill that is the refusal to swap out Cait's profile picture with one of CAITLYN, but I will NOT succumb to this one. I demand that SHE be used when talking about Cait's win of the men's decathlon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 ( talk) 19:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Well excuse me, sugar cakes, but you better back on up with that attitude! I mighty fine know how Wikipedia works and I know for a fact that it works the way that's best for the masses. The fact is that I am declaring a VOTE on SHE being used instead of "Jenner" in the sentence that I previously posted. Take that, little girl. Oh, and by the way it is my RIGHT as an American to do whatever I want wherever I want. Go look up the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia, thank you and lose nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 05:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC) |
That IS being heartless! What is the big deal with a pure breed 100% WOMAN winning the male Olympics? How is that weird? You stating that is heartless and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community! I demand an apology right now. Where are the Wikipedia moderators to deal with this bigotry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 ( talk) 23:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
130.22.184.1 ( talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Your post justifies EXACTLY why this article needs to have it made clear that a woman won the men's Olympics. Just because you a cisgendered white male feels 'weird' about seeing the pronoun SHE linked to the person who won the men's Olympics doesn't mean we have to cater to you. GET USED TO IT. This isn't the 1950's anymore. Stoop trying to hide and regress all the advancements in the LGBTQ community just because you feel uncomfortable! Be on the RIGHT side of history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk)
I'm not going to get into the politics of the discussion here, but as an aide in answering the question of whether Caitlyn's surname is overused in this article, I conducted an analysis. In the introduction to the Wikipedia article about Niels Bohr, he is referred to as "Bohr" 10 times and with third person male pronouns 10 times. In the introduction to the article on Caitlyn Jenner, she is referred to as "Jenner" 7 times and with third person female pronouns 6 times.
While a difference does exist in the claimed direction, the results are broadly very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.118.246 ( talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.118.246 ( talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
^^ To this guy... alright, you want to wage war with the LGBTQ community then BRING IT ON SISTER! I used your own weapon against you, little girl. My whole issue was that conveniently in the OLYMPICS section there was a deliberate attempt to avoid saying "SHE" or "HER" when talking about Cait and the Olympics. Well, the results are in! "Jenner" is used 18 times in that section, while "SHE" is used ONCE and "HER" is NEVER used. That just SCREAMS a deliberate attempt by the cisgendered privileged white males that run this place to hide and disassociate Cait - WHO WAS ALWAYS A WOMAN - from winning the men's Olympics. All I ask for specifically is this sentence: "Jenner was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974, and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue." be changed to: "SHE was the American champion in the men's decathlon event in 1974, and was featured on the cover of Track & Field News's August 1974 issue." And also sprinkle a few more "SHE"s and "HER"s in there to even it out. It's CLEAR that for the Olympics section, there was malicious intent to purposefully avoid female pronouns and use "Jenner" instead. Get with the times people, it ain't 1950 anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 06:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
^ Well Mr. Typical Cisgendered White Protestant Straight Male Response... I didn't ask to change the record books. All I asked was for the article to say that SHE was the American champion. That doesn't state that Caitlyn was fully transitioned when she won. It does the following: 1) Eliminate the repetitive use of "Jenner". A rather rude editor yelled at me about the reason "Jenner" and "she"/"her" were interchanged was to eliminate a repetitive usage of either. The Olympics section is LOADED with only "Jenner". Yes, I believe that was intentional by the editors here because they don't want to write an article about Caitlyn winning the Olympics and associating the female pronouns with the Olympic win. The other sections in the article have an about even usage of Jenner/female pronouns, so why is it ONLY the Olympics section with the usgae of Jenner/female pronouns: 18:1? Misogynistic and transphobic much? 2) The article is just stating that SHE (the subject ie Caitlyn) was the American champion in the men's decathlon. That's not changing history because SHE really WAS the American champion in the men's decathlon! I find your attitude extremely offensive to me. You can be as bigoted as you want in your personal life, but this is WIKIPEDIA. It is a public forum. That means you need to be tolerant and accepting of others, and not be hostile and offensive. So... please, Wikipedia editors, can more female pronouns be used in the Olympics sections ESPECIALLY changing the sentences I mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 03:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
^ You know, I thought you were on my side until you posted that lie. I checked the article and there are no changes. Thank you for raising my hopes that someone on here was not transphobic and not a bigot, but now it's been confirmed the otherwise. CVan another moderator deal with this situation please and make the appropriate changes that will make this article not a bigotry and hate motivated written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 07:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hoax? Honey please, all I asked for is some changes in the Olympics section. The real hoax is you as a moderator didn't help me in anyway at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 08:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I came here to look for info on the athlete Bruce Jenner - really weird to see what this page looks like. Bruce was a totally different person than Caitlyn, the two identities deserve separate, but linked pages, slamming it into one page looks seriously odd.
For example, look under Olympic career: "she ran a fast last lap" - really? That was Bruce running, not Caitlyn. He competed in the men's category. Re-writing history like that is absurd.
2601:CA:C201:74A0:F9B8:ACFA:A80A:A755 ( talk) 13:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a clear lack of differentiation in the Caitlyn/Bruce dichotomy here, that much is certain. Whilst the guidelines for identity are followed very much to a tee here, there is a clear excess of representation of the post-transition part of Jenner's life. In other words, most of the article focuses on Jenner's life as the Caitlyn identity, and very little representation of life as the Bruce identity is made.
It is understandable why people focus on this so heavily, but pre-transition Jenner is treated as if Jenner was always post-transition. Long before openly identifying, Bruce went along the strict vein of male categorization (A men's category athlete would clearly be a he at the time of participation), and the article does not reflect this. It seems as if Bruce never existed, and Wikipedia simply requires equal coverage of both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.187.0 ( talk) 06:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
most of the article focuses on Jenner's life as the Caitlyn identity, and very little representation of life as the Bruce identity is made.That's demonstrably false. Look at the article, count the column inches, and see for yourself. Barte ( talk) 15:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
To the OP... YES SHE RAN A FAST LAP! Caitlyn has ALWAYS BEEN A WOMAN! She has also ALWAYS BEEN Caitlyn! How dare you say that it was Bruce running and not Caitlyn, that is just utterly transphobic and offensive to the entire LGBTQ community! Fact: Bruce Never Existed. She was always Cait. So as much as you want cisgendered, Republican, white male Bruce Jenner to have existed - he never did. It was always Cait, honey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 ( talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation.
But Drmies concludes that (per above):In articles outside of the biography itself, the timeframe of which only covers the period when the person self-identified as one gender, with a particular name, default to the historic name and gender.
My read is that the decision for this article is to revert to Jenner's historical identity, e.g. "his", "him", "Bruce", for the period when Jenner self-identified as male, which would be up to the 20/20 interview. Anyone disagree? Barte ( talk) 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)...there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article.