Talk:Associated Press Athlete of the Year

Caitlyn Jenner
Although the issue of the proper retroactive designation of Jenner's first name is a contentious one, I don't think her gender is disputed at this point. The fact that she is a woman who won the male athlete of the year award is clearly notable. If anyone wishes to remove this, please explain your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:808C:2100:3D74:7E2A:AC6D:C94F (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, though I see we are being reverted by editors who haven't joined this talk page discussion. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the delay weighing in here. The battery in my iPad gave out and I had to get to my desktop computer.  Skyerise, while I admire your passion for defending Caitlyn Jenner's gender identity, there are larger issues at play here, which must be considered before altering the name under which she won this award.  MOS:IDENTITY is not policy, as I believe has been pointed out to your before.  It's a set of guidelines for consistency in editing, and as such, is subject to interpretation as well as a working document, one which, at the moment, has not kept up with the events of the last few days.  Frankly, it is ludicrous, disruptive and a bit pointy to attempt to represent Caitlyn Jenner, a woman using that name, as having competed in the 1976 Montreal Olympic decathlon, or won the recognitions that stemmed from the Olympic gold medal.  We have one strongly held pillar policy, WP:VERIFY, which will always take precedence.  Can you verify that the AP, or the IOC, or the USOC recognize Caitlyn Jenner as having competed?  No.  Bruce Jenner, a physiological man who identified as a man, competed as a man and used male pronouns earned the medal and subsequent accolades, and it is a form of revisionist history, as well as not verifiable, to state otherwise here, and WP policy supports that.


 * But more importantly, in no way does using her former name demean or cheapen Caitlyn Jenner or dishonor her history in any way. Rather, I'd argue just the opposite.  By respecting who she was and the path she followed to finding her sexual identity, we honor her struggle as well as her achievements.  One of the most entrenched male worlds is that of athletics.  Look at what Michael Sam went through recently when he came out.  Imagine the struggles Caitlyn Jenner experienced -- why attempt to brush those aside?  The link to the article Caitlyn Jenner will tell the story more than amply, and is far preferable to contorting or misrepresenting the name she used when a world-class athlete.


 * Moreover, from a procedural POV, the ongoing discussion at WP:VPP pre-dates this sequence of edits, and per WP:BRD, the article stays at status quo (Bruce Jenner) until the larger issues of how we handle the historical record is resolved. Using a sub-clause of one set of guidelines does not supersede these practices. Using ArbComm warnings and a favored policy to force edits won't achieve anything.  Discussion will.  --Drmargi (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe you are mistaken. MOS:IDENTITY may be in the MoS which is a guideline, but there is established arbitration action centered around the gender-identity portion which effectively gives it the force of policy. It is backed by WP:BLP, which requires that we honor the name-changes and gender pronouns of transgender people, and BLP is policy. We must err on the side of "do no harm" - and it is widely reported that transgender people find the use of their birth name post-transition to be both offensive and emotionally harmful. This may or may not be the case with Jenner, but we have to err on the side of caution with all BLP issues. I hope this helps you understand why MOS:IDENTITY effectively has the force of policy due to WP:BLP and arbitration enforcement. Skyerise (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree entirely with your interpretation. Using Caitlyn Jenner to identify the 1976 Olympic Decathlon winner and what follows is factually inaccurate, and the ArbComm ruling does not trump that fundamental pillar.  We must write to an encyclopedic standard, and that standard begins and ends with WP:VERIFY.  Moreover, your sarcasm and patronizing of other editors will do nothing to help with the building of consensus.  Your opinion is just that, opinion.  It holds no greater weight than that of any other editor, no matter how many times you use the word policy in BF and italics.  Please at least attempt to assume good faith on the part of other editors rather than immediately adopting an adversarial posture.  We'll get a lot further a lot more harmoniously.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from offering advice. It is both condescending and patronizing. Skyerise (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Associated Press Athlete of the Year. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230030600/http://www.nbcsports.com/davis-wins-ap-female-athlete-year-honors to http://www.nbcsports.com/davis-wins-ap-female-athlete-year-honors
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930182658/http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.phtml?title=Associated_Press_Athlete_of_the_Year to http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.phtml?title=Associated_Press_Athlete_of_the_Year

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)