Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015
Hello, I would like to change the pronouns in relation to Bruce as she has now revealed she is transgender and the article uses male pro nouns to address her.

Lleuad glas (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You're gonna have to provide a source for that. See discussions above. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide sources – Davey 2010 Talk 18:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

TV Guide reporting upcoming Diane Sawyer interview
A story on Page 7 of the April 20, 2015 TV Guide, which generally does not repeat tabloid rumors, but restricts its reporting to the content of TV programming, reports that during Jenner's April 24 interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC:

"For months, the world has watched as 1976 Olympic decathlon champion Bruce Jenner grew his hair long, donned earrings, polished his nails, divorced his wife, and appeared to be transitioning to life as a woman. The question then became which media outlet would score the reveal with the 65-year-old father of 10.....ABC's Diane Sawyer won the honor.....Sawyer, who would not use the word transgender in advance of the airing, says she conducted several sit-downs with Jenner on both the east and west coasts, revisiting places that were meaningful to him."

Can we add to the article the fact that he will have this interview with Sawyer, and quote from the TV Guide article? Or should we wait until after the interview has aired? Nightscream (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say wait until the interview airs; we'll then have more information to work with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would go further to say we should be very specific in terms of what is quoted for this future interview. Note even the quote above does not say a conclusive statement.  Sawyer is deliberately not using the word, so how would that make it appropriate for wikipedia to use the word?  While I am on record suggesting Jenner's 45 year history of acting as a man in the public eye should be addressed throughout our reporting of that history, there are others who quote some wikipedia policy to artificially (my words) alter that history to adhere to this potential future announcement.  But that move should not be undertaken at all until we hear from Jenner. Trackinfo (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't suggesting using the word. I'm suggesting adding mention of the upcoming interview without mentioning that word. The TV Guide story quotes Sawyer as saying that her interview with Jenner is "a really compelling conversation about so many things, a broad look at life...It's about family and how we all live our lives." Can't this be added, and then any more specific contents of the interview added after it airs? Nightscream (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing pronouns from "he" to "she"
When do we live, the 50s!? Just label Caitlyn Jenner's pronouns throughout this article as she and her please! I cannot stand the fact that you all are purposely trying to hold back the truth! Caitlyn is transgender! Poor Caitlyn's page is smeared with all of this "Bruce" crap, when the truth is that Caitlyn's her own person! Just read eXTRA! READ PEOPLE READ! That's why we have encyclopedias so that lies like this whole page can be fixed with true and correct information! http://extratv.com/2015/04/15/source-reveals-bruce-jenners-female-name-is-kaitlyn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.211 (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no rush. Please see and take part in the discussions above. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So if you're famous enough to get a Wikipedia page, you want us to just go ahead and change your gender based on some tabloid bullshit instead of your own words? Calm the fuck down, he's doing an interview in like a week.... he will say what he needs to say then.24.222.1.2 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it not be more sensible to use "he" pronouns for achievements and events that occurred before Caitlyn started identifying as a woman? Jurgenskrause (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I reread policies above in the talk and it seems in line with accepted policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurgenskrause (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I wrote below, using "she" after the sex change is not a problem, but changing the pronouns from "he" to she" retroactively, including Jenner's athletics career, is not really a good idea IMHO. I think the best thing to do is to restrict "he" to a minimum before the sex change and use "Jenner" as much as we can. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to read the edit notice at the top of the page. Ironholds (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did, and I disagree with the "This applies in references to any phase of her life" part. Sorry, but in some contexts it just makes transgendered people look silly (and in the case of Jenner's sports career, that is definitely the case). I don't think anybody wants that... At least, I don't.
 * As I said, the point is not the write "he" everywhere, but to avoid using "she" as much as possible during his/her athletics career. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And the warning at the top of the edit page says specifically not to do this. Don't you read those? Skyerise (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I hadn't read it, my bad. I had not idea that MOS:Identity was so severe. Too bad, as I really think using "she" everywhere makes the article look kind of goofy, which is very unfortunate. Then again, I certainly don't want to debate the English-language wikipedia's policies. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015
In the "Personal Information" box on the right side of screen/article, Bruce Jenner's third wife is listed as "Kris Jenner". I believe the proper way to list this would be by her last name(s) prior to her marriage to Bruce, i.e. "Kris Houghton Kardashian". Please make this change.

CincyDude5 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article's title is Kris Jenner so I imagine the infobox should reflect that.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you are not meant to compare articles but check president obamas spouse on his infobox... or is it because the kardashians are more prestigious than the obamas? 80.1.219.140 (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's a very good question. Pointing out inconsistencies is fine. I am going to ask on Template talk:Infobox person.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Interview and Kris Jenner edits
has been removing sourced info about the upcoming interview as well as a link about Kris Jenner (link). The info was originally added by in this edit and has been restored by myself and. This is becoming a content dispute, so I am beginning discussion here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * the last edit summary said "I don't see your name anywhere on the talk page, not anything about this edit" i was referring in part to Talk:Bruce Jenner and as it stands for people that haven't heard about his rumored transition and those that have will just see a synopsis for an upcoming interview which gives no detail about said transition just the word 'appears' and diane hasn't used the word transition it states so is still speculation. so why would it be included? it is possible (yet unlikely) that it could just be an interview about his divorce as stated in the tv guide source. also if the kris jenner marriage is in the lead then why not linda thompson as they also have 'famous' children together. Naue7 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the interview or its contents should be mentioned before it has aired in full. It's like an advertisement, and too sensationalistic for an encyclopedia. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "speculative" or "sensationalistic" about it, precisely because it doesn't mention any gender transition. It mentions that he will be interviewed on his life, which is a fact. Numerous BLP articles mention major interviews that subjects have with various outlets, so this is no different. Since it mentions his divorce adn changes to his life, it is relevant. Nightscream (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It hasn't aired yet, that's the problem. There's no actual information in that section about Jenner, it's just an advertisement meant to pique interest. It hardly deserves a mention right now, and definitely not its own section. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The interview will air in like 12 hours, at which point editing of this article is going to turn chaotic anyway. No need to start early with WP:CRYSTAL info. Townlake (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that Wikipedia shouldn't include text which seems to be promoting a specific interview, but it appears to be fairly well known that the interview is going to discuss that Jenner is transitioning to a woman, and at this point, this seems reliably sourced,, , so it would seem better to include text regarding the transition specifically instead of a teaser about a soon to air interview. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sawyer interview
IT JUST GOT CONFIRMED ON HER SIT DOWN INTERVIEW WITH DIANE SAWYER!!! CHANGE ALL THE PRONOUNS NOW!!! "BRUCE" ADDRESSED HER TRUE GENDER IDENTITY AS A "HER"! I AM OFFENDED AT THIS ARTICLE REFERRING TO HER AS A "HIM"! FIX IT PLEASE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.211 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, calm down. No, Bruce Jenner did not identify as a woman for pronoun purposes. In fact, Jenner has been very ambiguous as to the use of pronouns. The article should, in my opinion, omit all gendered pronouns whenever possible until Jenner makes a descion one way or the other. --krimin_killr21(talk) 01:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just now Diane Sawyer clearly spelled out during the interview that he still wants to use male pronouns. I agree with Krimin, please calm down. Crumpled Fire (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are some (not necessarily many, but some) trans women this way?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually pretty rare for a transwoman to ask that male pronouns be used. Many will say they don't care that much to make other people less self-conscious but once someone makes such a fundamental decision their presentation and preference is usually to be female whenever possible. Missruption (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the pronouns, Bruce is quoted in the linked article below as saying that “For all intents and purposes, I’m a woman.” That should be in Jenner's Wikipedia article. Dansan99 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're "offended" that the article still used the male pronoun five minutes after Jenner came out? Really?  I think you get offended far too easily. Carlo (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Until he makes an unambivalent statement that he wants, or greatly prefers, to be referred to by the female pronoun, or until major media outlets use it anyway, he should remain a "he", in our article.(mercurywoodrose)108.94.1.44 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "I am a woman" is unambiguous. It would make no sense for Jenner to use "he" after that.  Is it actual Wikipedia policy not to change it?  Because I think it should be changed. Carlo (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jenner has stated that it would be preferred to use the male pronouns for now. Whether you find that choice "sensible" is irrelevant.--krimin_killr21(talk) 02:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that. And yes, that settles the question. Carlo (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the interview should be taken note of in the article, and the fact he has said "I am a women". Polloloco51 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Currently RS say he identifies as a trans woman but will continue to use masculine pronouns and the name Bruce for now. Source NYTimes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He is a Republican
In the interview he stated that he is a Republican. Can we add this? If so where? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Secondary source or link to interview needed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/24/bruce-jenner-said-hes-republican-only-21-percent-of-lgbt-americans-are/ 71.197.166.72 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A secondary source is not needed, we can trust Jenner when he says he's Republican. He even answered specific question about going to the leading Republicans in the GOP for support on trans issues - which would be a logical way of presenting the information. Missruption (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the factoid, along with a couple of secondary cites, including the WaPo blog noted by EvergreenFir. Barte (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, one thing to know is that I always thought Republicans generally think transgenderism is a mental disorder. Has this statement become less true in recent years?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the medical community treats gender dysphoria as a medical disorder, with hormonal and physical changes sometimes used as treatment. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) I don't think that's a "Republican" thing. But that's a medical diagnosis, and until Jenner himself discloses he has gender dysphoria, that's a rabbit hole we shouldn't go down in the article. Townlake (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As of December 2012, gender dysphoria is no longer considered a mental disorder. littlebum2002 01:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Generally on all LGBT issues Republicans are extremely far-right wing and their party represents those who continually call for hateful legislation banning trans people from all equal rights including using bathrooms and keeping their families together. Zealously sticking to their religious bent they predominantly see transgenderism as evil, and morally deficient. And just like "pray the gay away" many falsely adhere that trans issues should be cured because it is a disease. A stance that medical and science fields have long disproved. I think it's very much a Republican thing, similar to global warming denialists. And Jenner has already acknowledged gender dysphoria. Missruption (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Republicans are more diverse than you think - a consequence of America's two-party system. Republicans come in the following stripes: religious Republicans, libertarian Republicans (including Second Amendment Republicans), fiscal conservative Republicans (which overlap with the libertarian variety), and military Republicans (including supporters of the military). Also, there are business Republicans, who support businesses. It's a multi-faceted party. 69.142.222.250 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we have that FAQ now?
Can we have that FAQ now? Missruption (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you propose it say? PS check out the nytimes article about the pronouns.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I copied the Manning article FAQ and took a try. Can you link to the NY Times article? Missruption (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the current faq addresses some of the major issues quite well. good job. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

People who watch this article, I recommend you put Talk:Bruce Jenner/FAQ in your watchlist as well. Just in case. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The interview
Why are any references to the interview with Diane Sawyer deleted? The special was aired nationwide in the United States and there are various online sources for validation but every time ano info from the interview is included, someone removes the quote. The only thing that has remained is the date of broadcast which seems irrelevant if the interview cannot be used. Jrmypatt (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Came here to say this, basically. A television interview is a valid source. Particularly, this edit threw me for a loop: it is sourced as is. He said it in the interview. If you want to have a superscripted number at the end of the sentence, we can simply put the interview in there. -- Irn (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely does need to be at the end of the sentence or else it's assumed to be unsourced.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's your assumption, but that's certainly not the only acceptable form of citation. While I think the context makes it abundantly clear in this situation that it refers to the interview, all that you would really need is the phrase "in the interview" tacked on after "Jenner stated" for it to be adequately sourced with an in-line citation in the sentence itself. -- Irn (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is just a MESS
Seriously ladies, is this the best that you guys can do? You don't acknowledge that he referred to his other side as "Her", you don't mention that he's a confirmed Republican or anything that the juicy interview revealed. I think there needs to be a section dedicated to the interview. There were way too many hot scoops of FACTUAL INFORMATION revealed to not put on his page. Please fix this now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.211 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comments, including the one above under your same IP, are disruptive, not helpful and aggressive. Although in the interview he referred to his "other side" as female, he never explicitly stated that he would like to be referred to as "her", whereas Sawyer explicitly stated he wanted to be referred to as "he" during the interview. I'm sure the Republican information will be added soon, but with how popular this story is currently and lots of information being added unsourced, which is against BLP policy, it takes time. ThirdWard (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Sawyer and Jenner BOTH referred to Jenner's "her" as emerging, to be revealed soon. Missruption (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Confirmed both Sawyer and Jenner refer to Jenner as she. Missruption (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

change from he to she NOW
change from he to she NOW. Bruce is a transgender woman and it should not be "he" when she sees herself as a she. Fix it, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.42.111 (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently he currently prefers male pronouns, so no. Read the article and see discussions above. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mispelling and proper versus improper use of term "transgender"
Transgender is misspelled as "transgendar" in its first mention and Bruce is repeatedly referred to as "a transgender," which is dehumanizing. It's simply transgender. Bruce Jenner is transgender. 174.61.49.126 (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been fixed now. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Trans woman which is technically a transgender person who identifies as female, is the correct term. Missruption (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Identifies as a woman, not as a female.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Car crash info UNDUE
I pared down the section about the car crash. There was WP:UNDUE detail that is not needed in this BLP. Also WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Entire article feels disjointed
Just throwing the concept out there but does anyone feel like the entire flow is put off a bit by putting aspects of his life in separate sections rather than chronologically?

I think given everything Jenner revealed in the Sawyer interview it shows how deeply his first marriage was impacted by his sports career. And so on.

With the revelation of his ongoing coming out process over decades i think a better read would be to introduce the subject back when he was a child and first knew of it. Missruption (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Original research is discouraged. All structural formatting is set by the basic MOS and is based on years of discussion and consensus. I also feel that any attempt to introduce this particular proposal is creating a narrative that would be extremely biased, go against the spirit of Wikipedia and would violate a host of policies and guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your referring. He just stated this in a nationally televised interview about his being trans his whole life. How does that violate any policy? If it does the policy obviously needs to be updated as it's deeply flawed! Missruption (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is not his entire life. Due weight must be respected as well as the policies and procedures of the project. That's all I meant. You were suggesting that the article be re-written (from what I see above) to insert a number of things that are not within the policies of Wikipedia. For example, we only introduce content based on sources and what they are stating. Any "over arching" way to write the article must also come from a reliable source. We cannot just begin to alter the entire article to illustrate our own perceptions of his personal life.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you go over the interview it actually discussed his evolution on trans issues OVER JENNER'S Entire life, He's been physically transitioning for decades and mentally transitioning longer than that. It's pretty regular experience just like people usually are aware of their sexuality issues from an early age but come out gradually later in life. Missruption (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
The final paragraph in the personal life section has had large amounts of information removed on several occasions due to sourcing. All details concerning Jenner's transgender status have been gleaned from the same interview which has been cited at the end of the paragraph.

Do we need to cite the same reference for each detail? Seems unnecessary but would be much less counterproductive. Sardisian 21:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmypatt (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, these all need multiple sources as these are extreme claims requiring extreme sourcing. Each claim should have at least two very strong sources for accuracy.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This alarmist stance is rather bizarre actually. Did you not hear the words coming out of Jenner's mouth? I think i can accept Jenner's own words about his life and experiences. Any second source is quite likely going off the original source. Missruption (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to familiarize yourself with our policies on Biographies of living persons. It might make things much more enjoyable for you when contributing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please quote directly or cite where we cannot accept Jenner's own statement about his experiences. Missruption (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find a place in the link stating that there should be multiple sources for an isolated event; nor can I locate a requirement for stronger sources than a video interview watched by millions of people. Jenner said it all himself and I agree that any secondary source would only be repeating the primary. Sardisian 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmypatt (talk • contribs)
 * There is no harm in adding extra sources. We don't need secondary sources, but they surely don't hurt either.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We do need secondary sources. Let me explain. We summarize the facts from the sources. If you are using a primary source, there are limits to how it may be used. Some claims beyond the main fact, become interpretations, analysis and editorial and then invite abuse of sources and other issues.


 * From WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. BLPs should not have trivia sections."


 * And that includes balanace:
 * "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."


 * From WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not'' use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.


 * Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. "''


 * Now, just to be clear. I am not saying that there are no other sources and that this needs to be left out, I am saying that specific claims made should have more than a single source, but be mentioned in other sources as well.


 * From WP:WELLKNOWN: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."


 * No one questions the transgender issue, but we still have standards and obviously this is completely new information of a subject that has already led a long life with thousands of sources. This needs to b treated with both respect...but also seriously and to our guidelines and policies please.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I mean primary as in statements by the BLP about themselves, not things like court documents necessarily. When it comes to statements about self identity (e.g., sexual orientation, religion, or even political affiliation) primary sources are fine I'd imagine. WP:IDENTITY limits itself to gender identity, and WP:BLPCAT limits itself to categories, but if there's a clear self-identification and no conflicting statements, go with the self-statement. I agree with you that secondary is needed for other stuff though per the citations you give.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, WP:IDENTITY is the MOS guide. However, it is written into the BLP policy somewhere I think, that the self identification must still be referenced in the same manner, you need multiple, strong sources, The primary source is only illustrative although it can be used to source the quote with attribution, but if you are going to claim anything beyond using a quote from the primary source (and we are here) we need to reference each claim with multiple sources on top of the primary source..or at least one secondary source to accompany the primary one.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is just awful
I'm not sure I've ever seen a high-profile article in such a shabby state of disrepair. Just awful. Moncrief (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Moncrief, it would be better if you clarify what you think is so awful about the article. I've seen worse Wikipedia articles than this one with regard to people more famous than Jenner. I don't even view this article as awful as you are making it out to be. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015
There is no specific part of the article that needs editing, but the pronouns are wrong. Bruce Jenner is a woman, so all pronouns should be either she, her, or herself. Her sex is male, but her gender is female. So please change this.

174.117.127.138 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: S/he prefers male pronouns for now, according to the lead and a New York Times article, so until s/he officially prefers otherwise we'll keep it how it is.  Kharkiv07 Talk  19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By analogy, go to Esther Dyson. She is a woman, but she prefers being referred to as a chairman over a chairwoman or chairperson. Georgia guy (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Unclear on phrase
...using the "her" pronoun and referring to that emerging aspect as "she". I'm unsure what this means. Barte (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jenner is in the middle of an 8-part series about coming out as a trans woman. Commonly trans women transition in stages and then want to just blend in covertly making a break between their old bodies they were born into and their new gender identity. Jenner is widely announcing a transition in process presumably with an unveiling of his she with female pronouns in the near future. I think it makes sense if seen as part of the strategy to tie into the reality show about his transition. Because of his families huge involvement with reality shows/paparazzo it's likely he felt this was the best path forward. Missruption (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's a way to get the idea across with clearer, more encyclopedic language. Perhaps something like: Jenner indicated that he will prefer to be identified with female pronouns at a later date. Assuming, of course, that's accurate. Barte (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to convey that although he's asking for use of male pronouns now, he has referred to himself as her and his to be revealed identity as her and she. If you can find a way to make that work it would be helpful. I know it's convoluted. Missruption (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. I won't change the phrase in the article, but my (admittedly narrow) guess is that if I don't understand the sentence in its present form, other average readers won't either. Barte (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015
Really should change he/his to she/her for all entries in the article.

142.157.22.9 (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: You don't read well do you. Look above.  Quoting the previous response;  S/he prefers male pronouns for now, according to the lead and a New York Times article, so until s/he officially prefers otherwise we'll keep it how it is. Trackinfo (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

GARBAGE
Following their divorce in 2015 he identified in a television interview as a trans woman (albeit still preferring male pronouns),[1] making him the most famous American at the time to do so.[2][3][4]

That is just utter trash. How the hell do you even JUDGE him being "the most famous American at the time to do so". Also, that sentence makes it seem like he is the most famous American to announce he is a she after a divorce. It makes it seem like the divorce is key to him coming out. Seriously, is anyone even working on this!? This article is a TRAIN WRECK! WTF!!! I've never seen a worse article on here! FIX THIS NOW PLZ!

Also, can you ladies please mention somewhere in the article that his burgeoning femme side is addressed as "She" or "Her". Why is this article so afraid to even CALL HIM A HER!? This is 2015, not 1950! Stop hiding and just say it! Bruce Jenner said it, why can't this article!? HE IS A SHE! SHE IS COMING OUT OF HIM AT LAST! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My advice to you, fellow editors, is to not feed the trolls. Marteau (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you KIDDING ME! Bruce has the right to use whatever gender pronouns HE wants! DO NOT DEFINE BRUCE'S GENDER FOR HIM! This patriarchal shit needs to stop right now! You have NO RIGHT to enforce your arbitrarily socially constructed gender roles on Bruce's lived experiences as a woman who is in the process of transitioning to a woman but still uses male pronouns! Get a life. Commenceprimaryignition (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A six-sentence introduction?
Anyone else feel that this introduction is woefully inadequate? It's six sentences long. Missruption (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It covers his areas of notability well. Olympic: check. Trans: check.  Entertainer: check. It's length is appropriate IMO.  Marteau (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article misquoted him. He said "for all intensive purposes, I’m a woman."  not "intents and purposes"
The article misquoted him. He said "for all intensive purposes, I’m a woman." not "intents and purposes". A lot of the news sources corrected his grammar to "intents and purposes", but some kept it as he actually said it. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/bruce-jenner-interview-says-hes-a-woman-2015-4 http://www.hot97.com/news/funkmaster-flex/see-what-whole-kardashian-jenner-clan-has-say-about-bruces-transition-womanhood http://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/celebrity/bruce-jenner-interview-for-all-intensive-purposes-i-am-a-woman/ar-BBiEbIC etc.

Here is a video of him actually saying it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MucsFCvSOto At 10 seconds he clearly says "for all intensive purposes" not "intents and purposes". Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Learn American friend, Imma tell you, he said intents and purposes.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the official ABC news interview from their youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaqLG3myKUk&t=1m34s 1min 34sec, he said "intensive purposes".  Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We could paraphrase: He said that for all intents and purposes, "I’m a woman." Barte (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny how it's acceptable to question the grammar of a trans-woman and enforce your arbitrary standards on her. I wonder if we would be having this conversation if she were cisgender...Commenceprimaryignition (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We are under no obligation to quote anyone, and we are under full obligation to use our best judgement as to what Jenner, or any other Wikipedia subject, intended. This would also work: He said that for all intents and purposes, he is a woman. Barte (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Commenceprimaryignition" is an obvious troll and a vandal as seen on their other edits, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phat_Geez&diff=prev&oldid=659572387 where it vandalizes the subjects name). Please don't feed the trolls. Marteau (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

To the degree that this isn't a troll, perhaps this is a good use case for "[sic]" or "[intents and purposes]" although I think that Jenner's speech at that moment was somewhat mumbled, and it is quite difficult to determine which word he said, but his meaning was clear. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a troll. Here's how I came across it.  I found a parody news article on this about another celebrity claiming to say this (a female celebrity they were pretending was secretly born a man) and well I looked up the story and it annoyed me that the parody website didn't quote the bad English properly.  I mean it's a parody site so quoting the bad English would be funnier.  So I then I checked Wikipedia--surely they would have it right.  (I don't edit much but I read Wikipedia a lot.)  And so Wikipedia had the altered quote too.  It's really no more than a pet peeve.  By the way, what he said was pretty clear.  News programs generally are pretty easy to hear dialog, it's the shows of some fictional story (e.g. action, drama, fantasy, scifi) where the characters mumble their lines and then they have music and background noise making it hard to hear -- oddly enough $20 headphones clear a lot of that up better than $200 speakers.  Anyway, I pointed it out here because it annoyed me that the quote was changed, nothing else. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I listened to it and to my ear it's "for all intents and purposes". I kind of slyly agree with the one who said "learn American". 178.38.131.234 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Transition or just special documented in separate article?
Just like the The Puppy Episode, shouldn't the special have it's own article, considering how impactful it was in our society and in trans-history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.163.199 (talk • contribs)


 * I was thinking the same thing but I think it may be too quick to tell. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Diane Sawyer and ABC get awards for doing such a good job. I think Jenner's entire article has to be looked at as he's done so much before the transition was announced. I'm seeing articles everyday about how his transition is being received, support from other celebrities and even debates on being conservative and Republican. Missruption (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What evidence is there that the interview had significant impact other than more fodder for gossip rags and a one-day increase in cutting Facebook memes and comments? No, I don't think a separate article is appropriate at this time (likely not in the future, either). -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No permission or consensus is needed to create a Wikipedia article. All you need going forward is the ability to cite reliable secondary sources that establish subject notability.  Maybe the fork will gain traction; maybe it will be nominated for WP:AFD and survive...or not.  But creating the actual article is the only way to find out. Barte (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The media is pimping LGBT like crazy as a really popular fad. One person's case isn't what changes things, it's many many people's cases and it's the media always featuring it.  The media could promote some other kind of social awkwardness such as autism, otherkin, being germaphobic, being agoraphobic, etc.  But they have promoted and featured LGBT for over 20 years and that's what's changing society, not one instance.  Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jenner himself prefers to be called “Bruce,” “he” and "him.”
"Tonight, The Advocate has official word from writer, professor and Jenner consultant and confidante, Jennifer Finney Boylan, that right now, Jenner himself prefers to be called “Bruce,” “he” and "him.”

Boylan tells The Advocate, “New name and pronouns [are] coming, but not in the next week or two I don't think.”" - Bruce Jenner: Call Me "He" ...For Now http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2015/04/29/bruce-jenner-isnt-she-yet ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article currently still says he. He said in the interview he hadn't picked out a female name, like changing from Bruce Jenner to Jenna Jenner or someting.  Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015
Add Burton Jenner and Cassandra Jenner to list of children

Nicoleeb83 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. Please note that, for their own protection, we usually restrict coverage of Minors- Arjayay (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015
Add ALL SIX children of Bruce Jenner to right hand summary column, not just the four "famous" ones. Because it makes it look like he only has four children.

His first marriage was with Chrystie Crownover from 1972 to 1981. They have two children, son Burton and daughter Cassandra, known as Burt and Casey respectively.

On January 5, 1981, Jenner married his second wife, actress Linda Thompson. Jenner and Thompson have two sons together, Brandon and Sam Brody, known as Brody.

Jenner married his third wife, Kris Kardashian on April 21, 1991. They have two daughters, Kendall and Kylie.

Lauracat1217 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅I'm surprised nobody bothered to google on the previous request. I added sources. Trackinfo (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Children need to be independently notable to be included. See Template:Infobox person. To quote, Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names if notable, in which case, separate entries using Plainlist or Unbulleted list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * " or particularly relevant" when we have had multiple requests here? Granted we are not here to accede to the wishes of the public but this is a clearly visible omission of information.  Each of the two adult children I added have had newspaper articles written about them and their relationship to their famous father.  They are being sought out by the press.  It is irresponsible of wikipedia to omit information.  At the least you could have mentioned "2 others" which would look absurd but does not embarrass wikipedia by completely omitting publicly known information. Trackinfo (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "2 others" works for me. And I won't revert if someone readds them. Just don't think they're notable enough. But point that they're adults is a good one.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the edit, but it looks incredibly stupid Trackinfo (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone added the names back in. Frankly don't care enough to remove them.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)