Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 11

How I can possibly read about Bruce Jenner when the entire article refers to him as "she"?
I'm watching Bruce Jenner documentaries because I'm interested in who he was as an athlete, and I want to learn about how he trained for these events, and how he was so successful.

But how can I possibly read the Wikipedia page about him when the ENTIRE article refers to him as "she"?

Why don't you just apply "she" to all of the biography AFTER Bruce decided to undergo whatever surgery he decided to undergo?

If this is not acceptable than why not separate Bruce Jenner into a separate article where I can read about his achievements?

EDIT: I notice that the Olympic career section has skirted around this issue by simply referring to him as "Jenner" the whole way through which at least makes it readable

What about his early life? How can you possibly talk about "she" going to school when he was a BOY going to school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.125.216 (talk • contribs)


 * Please see the note Re: MOS:IDENTITY above. That's the consensus policy; we're just following it. Barte (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * She is still the same person, even if changed. We all change. Caitlyn changed by accepting her true gender identity and letting the world know about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's easy. Substitute "Bruce" for "Caitlyn" and "he" for "she" in your mind when you're reading it. clpo13(talk) 01:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Longtime reader, finally decided to say something here. I understand Flyer's comment, but at the same time it seems a bit silly..."she" is the father (that's right, father) of about half a dozen children. Clearly the weenie she was mistakenly given worked properly. So did the male body, winning numerous athletic awards. She may always have been a woman in her mind, but a lot of people are a lot of things in their minds. I do think we ought to respect the decisions that have been made, because I'm sure they were born from long periods of reflection and discussion. So I have no problem calling this person a female today, but at the same time, all those Olympic medals were won and all those kids fathered by a male. So, I propose that we refer to Ms. Jenner as "he" pre-transition and "she" post. It may be a bit confusing, but as the IP said, so is the way the article is written now. Testy Cletus (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ^^^ blocked as a returning sockpuppeteer - A l is o n  ❤ 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This wiki page and the MOS:IDENTITY are in need of a more unbiased approach to reporting a life or even biography. For a lasting wiki to make sense it should be presented in the correct gender based on the time of events. He won an Olympic medal is more correct. She won an Olympic medal implies a woman's medal. It also incorrectly implies that she competed against women. The MOS:IDENTITY admittedly doesn't really solve issues like "she fathered a child." Keeping the gender correct by timeframe is acceptable for this article because even he asserted himself as a male during those times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicheck123abc (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * One idea I had to end these endless hassles since people probably won't stop complaining about transgender pronouns for decades, and to avoid Wikipedia having to even take a stance about anything. What if we just created Template:MTF and Template:FTM and then just used or  in places that a personal pronoun is desired? Then just have what the template displays change based on user settings. We could keep the default at transgender-accommodating use of the "after" pronoun, but if people register an account at Wikipedia and then change something in their user settings, this would trigger the template to display the "before" field instead.
 * Only thing is I guess it would need a parameter since there's more than one, it is he/she his/her so the template parameter would need an input. The interesting thing is: it wouldn't matter WHICH input so long as the template is appropriate to the person. If a vandal came along and changed to  it would still display "her" by default because of the template. This would act as a transgender-protectant anti-vandalism tool by requiring erasure of the template's use to truly vandalize a pronoun while at the same time soothing the complainers because they would have a pronoun alteration tool at their disposal so long as they signed in and changed their settings. Encouraging them to go through registration to solve their "dilemma" might get them more familiar with Wikipedia policy and procedure. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How do we go about changing the consensus on the MOS:IDENTITY issue? Can we vote or something? I ask because this is ridiculous. Wikipedia should use language as it is commonly used and not how some politically active minority uses it. I could understand the controversy if he had had sex reassignment surgery, but he is still a man by any commonly accepted definition. If people want to push for a change in the way that pronouns are used in English, they are free to do so, but Wikipedia should not serve as a propaganda tool for activists. Rectipaedia (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's been extensive discussion about IDENTITY and Jenner on the Village Pump and the Manual of Style. Using self-identified pronouns is the norm for professional style guides. Wikipedia reflects that norm.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposition?
Should anything be said about opposition to Jenner among the LGBT community, especially among the many trans people who don't feel represented by her? Some of this opposition was shown in protests in the trailer for I Am Cait Season 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.107.108 (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a Critical response section on the I Am Cait article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * IP, I intend to add some criticism of her role in the LGBT community, per what you see argued by me at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 10 about that. Right now, the LGBT community section is exclusively positive, and that is not an accurate representation of how the LGBT community feels about her; they are, as indicated by your post, divided. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a broader question that hasn't been dealt with here (or really anywhere) in a meaningful way regarding privilege. With Manning, there was no real privilege to discuss and the objective to remove deadnames and pronouns created a lot of historical rewrite.  Jenner followed with much the same zeal but we are now seeing some angst as Jenner's fame and wealth were largely accumulated while living as a straight, white, male.  That is not the typical experience in the transgender community.  The same can be said of The Wachowskis.  This is not straight forward as, on the one hand, we don't want to diminish any role that privilege played in wealth, fame or fortune so portraying their entire life as a transgender woman overstates some of the adversity they face especially when compared to other transgender women that became notable after their transition.  On the other hand, we want to portray them using their chosen name and gender.  This seems to be still a topic of debate beyond Wikipedia.  Entrenched camps exist within LGBT community that want all references to old names and gender to be replaced with no exception as this has been a media goal for quite a while. For non-notable, post-transition people, there is a historical legacy of harm when dead names have been revealed in the media.  Entrenched as another camp is a "check your privilege" principle that seeks to highlight and expose biases derived from privilege.  Normally, these two views are complimentary but in some cases they are becoming uncomfortably opposed to each other.  My view is that we need to walk a fine line in using present tense narrative voice with preferred name and gender in biographical articles.  When using past tense, historical accomplishments – especially where there may be any kind of privilege – the historical name and gender be used with a past tense narrative voice.  This seems to be MOS and follows AP style book but has been overridden.  This sets the basis for most opposition and helps clarify what is being opposed.  Without that, virtually all criticism is dismissed as transphobic even when transgender identity has nothing to do with it.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's get ahead of the curve
If recent news reports are accurate, Jenner is considering abandoning the female identity and switching back to being a man. Could we editors have a declaration in advance of what opinion we will be required to hold on this topic in order to not be considered a hateful bigot? If we will be required to hold a certain opinion until the declaration happens and then a different opinion afterwards, details on that would be especially useful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9880:6A3E:4546:56A5:ECDE:45BD (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 14:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By recent news reports, you really mean a rumor published in a single book that cited unnamed sources. It's hard for us to reach a consensus in advance on how to include an issue in a Wikipedia article when all we have is rumors, and it's really not appropriate to try to predict how things will or won't play out. Instead, we just follow the normal guidelines of WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It's possible you could include information from the book that documents the difficulties that Jenner has faced since transitioning, but the conclusion that the author reached that she will transition back in the next few years is pure speculation on his part, and not the sort of reliable source that we require on Wikipedia. Even if there are mainstream news articles about the book's revelations, since they are reporting on something that isn't a reliable source, the article can't be considered a reliable source for information about Jenner. We can revisit this issue if there is actually verifiable information to report. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

List-defined references
Hello. I feel that in nice articles like this one, source view editors could benefit from List-defined references (LDR), as in the Michael Laucke article for example, and many others. As we've seen, keeping citations in one central location avoids cluttering the article's text in source view and makes source editing so much clearer and easier. Inline lengthy Google citations in particular are at times extremely messy. As you know, this is only a source code change and the actual citation display looks the same to the reader. It would also help future editing. There are 182 references, so if you think this is a good idea, it will be my pleasure, as always, to lend a hand (91 each? ).  N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without 07:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . WP:LDR is cool, but not mainstream yet. Changing reference style requires a local consensus so we should wait for comments here for about two weeks.


 * Google book citation URLs can usually be shortened using the [//reftag.appspot.com/ Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books], and this should be done even if LDR is used. Cheers!  15:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to me also that the advantages of WP:LDR are minimal-to-none when using Visual Editor.  Indeed that's one of the advantages of VE.  Barte (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Do we have a consensus to go ahead on this? I can help next week. Cheers!  17:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No objection. Barte (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

List-defined references examples
Hi Everyone, With a view towards the possibility of converting references to 'List-defined references' technology (WP:LDR) in the Jenner article, kindly allow me to present the following viewpoint. This implementation could provide quicker, cleaner editing for future work on this article by editors who prefer working in Source view. (This discussion will not be useful for editors who prefer Visual Editor.)

Here is an example of what the Source view looks like with List-defined references and without.

In Source view, this is a random paragraph from the Jenner article without  WP:LDR:

In Source view, this is the same paragraph as above, with WP:LDR.

Both versions give the same result for the reader and render as:
 * Jenner was born William Bruce Jenner on October 28, 1949, in Mount Kisco, New York,[12] to Esther Ruth (née McGuire) and William Hugh Jenner. Her father was an arborist[13] [14] and he and her paternal grandparents were from Canada.[15]

I hope I was able to highlight the advantages of LDR when working in Source view, to provide some food for thought and to possibly get a general consensus to go ahead and implement it. Kindest regards, N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without 08:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments
I love Visual Editor and use it profitably in certain instances, though I find that both LDR and Visual Editor views each have their advantages. Some editors like visual editor, others like Source view, and others, like myself, enjoy exploiting the best that both have to offer according to the dictates of circumstance. For example, I especially like VE for automatic recognition of URLs when constructing citations. I also find that in the 'post production stage', if you wish, WP:LDR is most useful, notwithstanding my appreciation for code as someone with a diploma in computer science. ...no accounting for personal taste, as one says. When an article is solid and one wants to make article-wide changes, I often find working in Source view quicker. So using LDR, one can read with moderate ease and not be distracted with cumbersome ref tags. In Source view, one can highlight, and have access to many other commands which are useful for talk pages, such as this :

Cordially, N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without 08:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Other than the fact that future VE edits would produce non-LDR-compliant changes, I can see the advantages and have no objections if others want to convert this one. As for me, having lived through the era of non-WYSIWYG word/text processors,  I now use VE in almost every applicable circumstance.   Barte (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (just pinging the above to keep everyone in the loop; hope I'm not intruding on anyone). Hello . Many thanks for your kind input. I know what you mean about the non-WYSIWYG era—I once went through about 600 pages on DOS and it now is less useful than of my Latin language studies; not many speak it :). I like to use VE to quickly form citations inline, in the body of the text. As you noted, non-LDR-compliant changes occur and I then copy/paste the usually long reference into the reference section and manually put in the LDR tag in the body to tidy things up. It's a bit of work, but the end result is, well, pretty from a code point of view, and easy to navigate in Source view. We did this for 140 references in the Michael Laucke; ...looks very neat. Of course, there's no difference to readers, just us nerds . Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to write. I hope to have some more feedback. kind regards, N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without 18:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't create articles, only edit them. When I found unreferenced content in the Jenner article I spent some time searching for credible sources and added them using ProveIt – useful and quick – but the bare minimum required for a WP citation, I suspect. Whatever your consensus as to style is fine as far as I am concerned. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey ....I've been following your edits; nice work! Barte (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks very much! Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey ....I've been following your edits; nice work! Barte (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks very much! Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ditto! ...beautiful work indeed! I too have been studying your edits in order to improve my own. Thank you for the inspiration. N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without 19:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thank you so much. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Stepping stones to FA?
Thanks for your review,, and to and  for your hard work. I'm unclear what's needed next to obtain FA status. Is it to check the cites to make sure they indeed support the text? Barte (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all three of you for your work on this. From my experience with FAC, I can feel the prose meets the standards of an FA, and I think only nitpicks will happen at the FAC. Something you should check is consistency in citation style. This has to do well at the source review. And check if anything needs updating. Cheers, Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident the article is up to date. Not sure abut the consistency of citation style: will have to take a look. Barte (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016
Change to Bruce

173.73.28.219 (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: spurious request Cannolis (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmph
So I noticed that there is WAY more usage of "Jenner" than female pronouns. Is there any specific reason why? I have my own beliefs (ie transphobia by the wikipedia ediotrs), but I will be civil and keep that to myself. This is especially true in the Olympics section. If someone would be kind enough to explain this to me, thank you. If not, I will gladly offer my assistance to make the necessary changes to Cait's profile page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.224.210 (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your beliefs of transphobia are wrong. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. This is standard procedure for biographical articles, look at Barack Obama as an example of this. Our Manual of Style at MOS:BIO specifically states "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mx", "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms", or by a pronoun." The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There's also MOS:IDENTITY, which notes avoiding confusion when we reasonably can for gender cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I just came over from the Andrea Jenkins article (DYK 6/26/16) to check MOS:IDENTITY procedures here. Most of the confusion I think arises when describing the person's life before they transitioned, especially describing marriage. I think the balance of pronouns works well in this article - considering if you used the pronoun 'she' in this area, it would make it sound like it was a same-sex marriage that happened decades before SSM began to be legalized. And to the OP, no we don't put speculative gossip in encyclopedia articles (not "profile pages" - this isn't MySpace). I'd say try it out at Conservapedia, but they don't appear to have an article on Jenner. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article employ doublethink?
How can you possibly describe Bruce Jenner's childhood with female pronouns?

BRUCE JENNER WAS A BOY. No matter what this person is now, HE WAS BORN AS A MALE MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. HE LIVED AS A MALE MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. HE COMPETED IN THE OLYMPICS AS A MALE MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

Do you not see how INSANE it is to refer to this BOY'S childhood by saying "she"? Are you just being deliberately provocative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.125.216 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please watch what you're saying! You're saying that transgender people were cisgender before their bodies were changed with surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Censored word in the article
The article contains two censored examples of the word "fucking." The first is in a quote from Rose McGowan: "You're a woman now? Well f**king learn that we have had a VERY different experience than your life of male privilege." The second is Jenner calling Hillary Clinton a "F**king liar" in the title of a Huffington Post article. The first example is a CNN article about a Facebook post, so I am not sure whether the original article self-censored.

Per WP:NOTCENSOR the article should read "fucking," but I am not sure what to do in the event that the Facebook post or Jenner's comment (if it was written) were self-censored. It's my own opinion that Wikipedia should de-censor written examples of "f**k", "f---", etc., but I don't know where policy lies on the topic. For both quotes I feel it is wrong to censor the word, because in both cases it reflects strong opinions held by McGowan and Jenner.

I added a further quote from McGowan that I feel is relevant: "...being trans does not make one immune to criticism." It should be clear that her statement is based on being offended by Jenner's comment about fashion, rather than on transphobia. With respect, I imagine that there is an element of privilege in being able to reveal one's womanhood only after ensuring the financial independence of one's children. Roches (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Roches, WP:BOWDLERIZE, which is a part of the WP:Offensive material guideline, addresses how to handle censored words. It depends on whether the source censored the word(s). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The second example (which I only found after noticing the first) is censored in the source, so I assumed that one should remain censored. The first one was censored by CNN, but that article was quoting a Facebook post that was not censored. I found that The Advocate (RS especially for LGBT issues) quotes the same post in unbowdlerized form. So I added a reference to The Advocate's article and changed the word to the uncensored form. Roches (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Jenner uses "him" and "Bruce" when discussing pretransition events
"Most transgender people choose to leave their pretransition life—and name—far behind. Jenner, however, often talks about Bruce. “Caitlyn doesn’t mind,” says Nick Adams, director of programs, transgender media for GLAAD, and a transgender male. “She has this world of fame in her past. The fact that it doesn’t grate on her like it does most trans people is unique.” With Jenner’s approval, in this story, the historical figure who won the gold medal in 1976 is referred to as Bruce and with male pronouns. The woman who lives now as Caitlyn is referenced with female pronouns." http://olympics.si.com/olympics/2016/06/28/caitlyn-jenner-1976-olympics-gold-medal

Nillaf (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:GENDERID: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise.". So is Jenner expressing a preference, or is it that she just "doesn't mind"?  Barte (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, this may create confusion for the reader when we talk about Jenner's marriage to a woman. Was it a same-sex marriage at the time? I don't think MOS:GENDERID argues for that, no more than we should say something like "She won the Men's Decathlon." There is one feminine pronoun in the Olympic section, none in the Personal Life section, and six in the (comparatively short) Early Life section - this seems unbalanced to say the least. It has been mentioned that Jenner refers to that part of her life as "Bruce," and it has also been mentioned that we should use the person's name in the beginning, and use pronouns thereafter. In a way, we are going against both of these protocols. In Personal life we qualify the use of "she" with "Prior to her public gender transition" to make it clear to the reader these weren't same sex marriages, and the Olympic section avoids this by overusing the name "Jenner" to the exclusion of any pronouns. This is certainly a tricky issue, but perhaps we can find consensus and sourcing to refer to pre-transition Jenner with masculine pronouns? Or at the very least, use pronouns and be consistent about their use throughout the article? As it stands the overuse of "Jenner" in some sections and heavy use of "she/her" in other sections suggests to the reader that we have no idea about how consistently to address the issue. To paraphrase Game of Thrones... sometimes life can be most irregular. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary information
What is the purpose/useful information of the words in brackets in this sentence: "After intense training, Jenner won the 1976 Olympics decathlon title at the Montreal Summer Olympics (after a Soviet athlete had won the title in 1972 during the Cold War) ... In 1976 the Cold War was still on and in '72 Jenner was 10th, so he was not directly defeated by "a Soviet". I suggest to remove that part alltogether. Boesser (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the prose further down the page (the lede is only supposed to summarize what is explained in further detail later in the article). The significance is that the American public (who generally don't pay attention to detail in Olympic sports) thought they owned the decathlon title, or perhaps on a shallower level that they had the "world's greatest athlete," along with the previously undefeated basketball team and the "world's fastest man" title that goes with the Olympic 100 meters.  7 of the previous 8 Olympic decathlons were won by Americans dating back to 1932.  They (the American public) were offended in 1972 by the enemy, Soviets, winning "their" titles.  So the significance became that Jenner was a hero for winning the title back.  That "hero" status is the fame that Jenner capitalized on for the subsequent TV star/celebrity career.  That same nationalistic pride caused the 1992 "Dream Team" so USA could assert their dominance in basketball. Trackinfo (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016
I want to change a gender roles in Caitlyn jenners gender.

Jmorales0032 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. clpo13(talk) 15:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016
Daniel Proctor (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017
24.184.78.168 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

sex reassignment surgery
She got it done in January 2017 so Caitlyn Jenner should reflect this. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Blackguard101, this (followup edit here) needs to be sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I deleted for now per WP:BLP. If Jenner's forthcoming memoir confirms, we can add it then, but it's better to be accurate here than quick. Barte (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I restored what was there before Blackguard101's edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops. Thank you.  Barte (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The article as it stands now is wrong and the part stating she has not undergone the surgery should be removed so it is accurate. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above. All reports including those you've cited go back to a single claim, with no confirmation from Jenner herself. If that changes (her memoir is due out 4/25) we can make the change then. Barte (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a compromise here. I removed mention of the surgery from the article.  It no longer states she hasn't had it, but doesn't claim that she has.  Thoughts? Barte (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I asked for and set a reminder for the 25th. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caitlyn Jenner. 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/20150617090250/http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/06/_8_transgender_women_of_color_who_are_using_their_visibility_to_empower.html to http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/06/_8_transgender_women_of_color_who_are_using_their_visibility_to_empower.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0%2C%2C20078381%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Munich massacre
Did Caitlyn attend in the games while the massacre had happened? Sokuya (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the article Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon It says "The decathletes were unfortunate, as they had to re-open the Olympics, the morning after the postponement due to the tragic events of the Munich massacre."  Is there anything specific to relate to this article? Trackinfo (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Pronoun reassignment request/discussion
Hi, Wikipedians,

I found it weird to read about Bruce Jenner as a she. I would much prefer to read about Bruce as a he, and then after his/her sex reassignment gender to refer to Caitlyn as a she. Agreement? Disagreement? Thoughts? DBlomgren (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the archived discussions of this talk page as well as MOS:GENDERID.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's confusing to refer to Bruce Jenner as she. I would prefer an emphasis on clarity with respect to pronouns. That will do more to inform on transgender issues than the obfuscation that comes with trying to be politically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R5452 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with MOS:GENDERID, the place to make your case is over there. Barte (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Caitlyn Jenner. 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/20160304075218/http://brucejennerinterviews.com/bruce-jenner-javelin-record-caitlyn to http://brucejennerinterviews.com/bruce-jenner-javelin-record-caitlyn
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818080036/http://www.thedenverchannel.com/entertainment/bruce-jenner-from-sports-icon-to-reality-tv-to-life-as-woman-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been04242015 to http://www.thedenverchannel.com/entertainment/bruce-jenner-from-sports-icon-to-reality-tv-to-life-as-woman-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been04242015
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160529052015/http://spectrum.suntimes.com/culture-lifestyle/10/155/3485/caitlyn-jenner-point-foundation/ to http://spectrum.suntimes.com/culture-lifestyle/10/155/3485/caitlyn-jenner-point-foundation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Married ... with Children
Is it worth mentioning that in 1996 Married... with Children "predicted" Jenner's transition? At least, that's how it's played up in some of the tabloid press.

The Marcy D'Arcy character was frequently the subject of gender-based insults, both intentional and accidental. She was often mistaken for a boy. In episode 10.25 "Torch Song Duet", several sports stars make cameos, and in the middle of all this, several other characters mistake Marcy for Bruce Jenner. Had rumors been circulating back then, or was it just a bizarre joke at the time? 2607:F470:8:1058:7D84:F8E5:5761:4DCF (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The reference named "6 refs"
I've been working on Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, and found this article listed. After some detective work, I've tracked down this 1 May 2017 edit which removed an IMDb reference. Unfortunately it also removed the following, which (1) damaged the reference named "6 refs" and (2) hid the following reference named "ABC42415". Other editors, spotting these problems, (1) stopped using the "6 refs" reference and (2) took out the calls to the "ABC42415" reference and replaced them with a cn. This got rid of the error messages but still left the article in the error category. My edit, I hope, restores the use of "6 refs" where it was intended - though it only has five bundled reference in it now - and restores the two calls to "ABC42415" together with the HTML comment that used to be there. OK? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you John of Reading for your work on this article and on many others to fix cite errors. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2017
Replace all instances of her with his, in order to be a creditable source of information pronouns should respect biological facts instead of fiction 129.244.254.191 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Edits here follow MOS:GENDERID. If you disagree, please take it up over there. Barte (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Beast
Kind Tennis Fan, regarding this, I don't mind that edit (we should be mindful of citation overkill anyway); it's the edit summary that caught my attention. The Daily Beast does pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Sure, it's been subject to controversy, but so has The New York Times. That stated, even though The Daily Beast passes the WP:Reliable sources guideline, you might be right that it's not an ideal source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Flyer22 Reborn and thanks for your comments. I feel myself that The Daily Beast is not an ideal source, but I will keep what you've said in mind for my future edits. If there is citation overkill, then I think The Daily Beast can be removed. If The Daily Beast is the only citation to a statement in an article, then it will not be my intention in future to remove a reference from The Daily Beast unless I can provide an alternative new citation from what I would regard as a better source. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary caught my eye as well. I'm not sure you took proper notice of 's comments. The Daily Beast passes our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. That means any attempt to excise it as a source whenever/wherever possible, in favor of another source, is inappropriate. If you have a problem with that source, you're certainly free to express your concerns in the appropriate forum, per WP:ELNO. But individual editors should not be in the business of personally removing sources the community has accepted. There's already enough individual agenda pushing on this site. We really don't need to be encouraging more. X4n6 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll be pleased to know X4n6 that as far as I'm aware in the four years and over 25,000 edits I've made on Wikipedia, I don't recall that I've yet replaced a reference from The Daily Beast with another citation. A few days ago I did trim a reference from The Daily Beast as there were already other citations for the content and I didn't think The Daily Beast was an ideal source. Having read the comments on here, it would not be my intention in the near future to replace a reference from The Daily Beast with another citation. There's certainly no agenda pushing from myself on this site. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Back. Thanks for the ping. Glad we're in agreement. 23:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't yet read consensus confirmation from the community that The Daily Beast is an ideal source. If that's the case then of course I accept it, but I personally hadn't read that confirmation. I didn't actually state The Daily Beast was "unreliable", but in my view it's not ideal. Indeed, that's a view that seems to be shared by Andrew Seaman, the ethics committee chairman at the Society of Professional Journalists. Mr Seaman has described a story from The Daily Beast as being (in his words) "journalistic trash, unethical and dangerous." It may well be the case that The Daily Beast passes the reliable sources guidelines, but in my view it's not ideal, especially as it's a news and opinion website that publishes some salacious scandal-type stories which in Mr Seaman's words are "journalistic trash, unethical and dangerous". I'd be interested John to read your views on this, as I know that you're somebody who is always keen to ensure good references. There's no agenda from myself. Only a desire for good references. A citation to the words from Andrew Seaman is here: Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I will have a proper look later on; I am on my phone at the moment which makes it hard. John (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On reflection my considered view is "Meh". The Daily Beast doesn't seem a very good source for a BLP, but the factoid it was being used to support doesn't really seem like a very worthy one either, although it is backed up by more serious sources. Not everything that can be sourced needs to be included in an article, and especially on a BLP we need to be very conservative. Do we need to include this claim at all? Could we figure this out via consensus here? Is this worth taking to WP:BLPN? John (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caitlyn Jenner. 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 tag to https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2015/07/29/i-am-cait-draws-2-7-million-viewers-and-heaps-of-online-praise/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150818075858/http://www.teenchoice.com/article/winners-of-%E2%80%9Cteen-choice-2015%E2%80%9D-announced to http://www.teenchoice.com/article/winners-of-%E2%80%9Cteen-choice-2015%E2%80%9D-announced

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

His and her - a matter of english?
This wiki is quiet readable and interesting. However, as a reader, the "his" and "hers" make it thoroughly confusing.

Since Bruce(a man) became Catlyn (a woman) in 2015 (publicly), can we agree to use the form "he" upto whatever Robert did upto 2015, and "she" for whatever Caitlyn did after 2015?

Please note: This is a steatement on English language. This is not a statement about gay rights or prudes. I think these are personal matters and each person has a right to think / do what they wish with themselves. And yes, I think the same Granny's rules apply equally to men, women, transgenders, cross dressers, all - don't make a scene, be good to people, we are all human with all our attention seeking wishes, securities and insecurities, if you look / act different, it is natural for people to view you oddly (till they are convinced that there is no need - trust me, as someone who looks terribly hideous, I know this one to well and have learnt to accept it as a natural human tendency!)

Note: As an editor, I felt that the wiki reflected, at best one of the following two : At best, it looks like a badly edited wiki with pidgin English. At worst, it looks like an overzealous "gays / queers are equal and hence better" statement being made by purposely attracting attention tot eh grammatical inconsistencies. Notthebestusername (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your missive and errors aside, you incorrectly edited the lead sentence to say "born" instead of "formerly known as". Jenner was not born "Bruce Jenner". She was born "William Bruce Jenner", but was widely known "Bruce Jenner".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @Notthebestusername, The question of what name and pronoun to use for a transgender person has already undergone extensive discussion, resulting in the links you see above in the boxed material concerning MOS:GENDERID and MOS:IDENTITY. Suggest you start with those, along with the extensive archives of how they got that way. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Notthebestusername, Thanks a lot, yes - that makes it clearer. I wont make a any changes. I guess as a reader, I will have to be content to keep my mind muddled with such wiki entries :) Notthebestusername (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @ Eve rgr een Fir  Thanks a lot for correcting me on that. Notthebestusername (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Uggo Profile Pic
Hey ladies!

Why did you all change Cait's profile pic from the amazing one that was there before to that horribly ugly one??? Can you guyz change it back plz?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.163.196 (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with the IP's opinion and reverted the derogatory picture. Get a consensus here before changing the main picture.Trackinfo (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caitlyn Jenner. 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/20160401131757/http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2015/10/04/caitlyn-jenner-wears-cleavage-baring-suit/ to http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2015/10/04/caitlyn-jenner-wears-cleavage-baring-suit/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604054602/http://thepowerofdyslexia.com/tag/bruce-jenner/ to http://thepowerofdyslexia.com/tag/bruce-jenner/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Toyota Pro/Celebrity Race
Jenner won the Toyota Pro/Celebrity Race in 1979 and 1982. In the winners list in that article, should she be listed as "Bruce Jenner" (i.e. the name by which she was (well-)known at the time), or "Caitlyn Jenner"? The article has been edited backwards and forwards a couple of times, so I thought this would be the best place to come to get a definitive answer. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, by consensus, all of Jenner's athletic accomplishments from long before her transition are listed as Bruce, the name she was known as at the time of the accomplishments and the name in the official results, with a note added explaining the later transition. For consistency, it should be there too.  Your edit destroyed the formatting of that note.  I reverted the mess. Trackinfo (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not edited the article. I came to here to ask before editing the article. DH85868993 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Queer Nation support for Bruce
There should be a section for Queer Nation's support for Bruce Jenner as he was trying to decide which sex he wanted to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:a89c:cc00:ec9c:e36f:69bf:a35a (talk • contribs)

Please semi-protect this talk page indefinitely
People just keep coming to this talk page saying how much they hate the statement that she's a woman. Please semi-protect this talk page indefinitely. Georgia guy (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 3 months protection. If this persists after the expiration, please re-request. — Maile  (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of Proper Pronouns
Caitlyn Jenner is biologically a male. Therefore it is most appropriate to refer to him as a "he" rather than a she. Thus I propose someone goes in and edits the article and replaces all instances of "she" with "he". — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia respects the person's gender self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources. For more information, see MOS:GENDERID. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The gender pronoun debate should be far from over. This is from an interview where Jenner acknowledges that there was indeed a "he".
 * "Besides which, “I liked Bruce. He was a good person. He did a lot in his life. Oh, ‘he didn’t even exist’. Yes he did exist! He worked his butt off. He won the [Olympic] Games. He raised amazing kids. He did a lot of very, very good things and it’s not like I just want to throw that away.”"
 * Thedoctor98 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should be using male pronouns when referencing things before their transition, and female pronouns thereafter - as that is what will be reflected in the sources. BLDM (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

New Lead Image
I was thinking and found/created possible new images for a lead one and was considering to see a consensus or just opinions on it. I feel that the current lead image is a bit blurry but still good.


 * I prefer Option A (the current image). DH85868993 (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right that the current image is blurry at full size, but it's not blurry at thumbnail size and only a tiny proportion of users will click through to see the larger image. And even at full scale, although blurry, it's not that bad.  The other two images, though less blurry, are also not as good.  I'd stick with the current image. Mathglot (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"Jenner recounts having permission to explore her gender identity on her own travels but not when they were coupled" Who was giving the permission and why did she need it? "on her own travels", but not in the privacy of her own home? "Coupled"? As in one half of a couple, or during sexual intercourse, or just during penetration (and who was getting penetrated)? Kiltpin (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019
In the Post-Olympic career section, please change "He and wife, Chrystie," to "He [sic] and wife, Chrystie". Jabberspocky (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Unneeded; see MOS:SIC. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thompson world record 1980
Thompson did break Jenner's world record in 1980 - but not at the Olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.101.190 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism by the trans community
I’m a trans woman, and I feel that this article presents a false dichotomy between reactionary TERFs and other transphobes claiming that she’s not a woman, and ‘woke’ liberals claiming that she’s super progressive just because she’s trans. I, for one, would disagree with both these groups, and a vast number of trans people would too. Jenner has a not inconsequential level of unpopularity within the queer community, and I feel like this article unfairly represents that. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is likely true, but we need to find reliable sources to say that explicitly about the queer/trans community.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's this quote in a Guardian interview, which might be useful? "She is a source of huge irritation to parts of the transgender community, who couldn’t have wished for a more clueless spokeswoman but who, for that very reason, may be valuable in ways someone more on-message is not." PotentPotables (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Bruce vs Caitlyn
I wonder if this article would be better served by being entitled for Bruce Jenner with a re-direct for Caitlyn Jenner, given that everything he/she has done to establish celebrity status was as Bruce (during his Olympics period). Caitlyn hasn't done anything worthy of a Wikipedia page, except to be Bruce Jenner coming out as a woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolefan32 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The name of the article must correspond with the name the subject uses in their life or changes it to permanently. Hence why the article was never William Jenner. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not deadname Caitlyn in the first sentence in the introduction. Unacceptable!--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:C888:FA7A:D0C:6128 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is kinda funny how people get upset over calling Jenner by his real name, but then they hide behind and IP address....lol Suden13 (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)