Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Cisgender is mainstream and germane

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Cisgender is mainstream and germane. If cisgender was a neologism it would not qualify to have its own Wikipedia article. Cisgender is also in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not a MOS:NEO violation. I am rolling back. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax is referring to this and this revert of mine. Checkingfax, cisgender is not mainstream; that it recently entered the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (in June 2015) does not make it mainstream. It is indeed a neologism. And as made clear at WP:Neologism, some neologisms can have their own Wikipedia articles. Like I stated at Talk:Gender dysphoria, "since cisgender is a neologism, I do think that we should generally avoid that word on Wikipedia; this is per MOS:Neo and WP:Neo. [...] the general public has never heard of it; when we can use clearer language, but without offending transgender people, we should. [...] The average person doesn't know what it means, and, considering that I've used it in discussions when trying to educate people on transgender issues, only to have those people even more confused upon hearing it and many of them still not wanting to use it afterward, I definitely have experience with just how underused it is. As for its offensiveness, well, if you go by the current state of the Cisgender talk page, you will see some people calling the term cisgender offensive; some of them are likely WP:Trolling. And you can see from the Cisgender article, that use of the term is criticized in addition to being accepted. I'm not against ever using the term cisgender on Wikipedia; it's rather that I am more so for clearer language (layperson language) being used when it can be reasonably used. As someone who deals with anatomy Wikipedia articles, other medical and biological Wikipedia articles, WP:Technical, WP:Jargon and MOS:Neo are guidelines that I am often aware of. As another option, a person can also WP:Pipelink cisgender with clearer language."

I reverted you not only because the general public has never heard of the word, but because you used it in places where plain English should suffice, and because you went overboard with it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet you re-added the jargon. I don't know what you mean by "compromise", but I'm certain that a WP:RfC on this matter will result in all of those cisgender additions being removed. That is, if someone else doesn't revert you first. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems that Checkingfax has nothing else to state on this matter and is determined to include that word in multiple places within the article, I've started a WP:RfC on this matter below. I see no need to wait, given how Checkingfax has responded and considering that this is a highly viewed article. It's also the weekend, so editor participation is lower. I would hope that Checkingfax is not trying to promote greater usage of that word by thoroughly advertising it in this article. Also, for hopefully wider commentary, I will alert Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to this discussion since it concerns MOS:NEO and WP:Neo. Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, or arriving here via one of the talk page alerts, see the section immediately above this one for more detail. This edit shows the disputed content. One view is that "Cisgender is mainstream and germane. If cisgender was a neologism it would not qualify to have its own Wikipedia article. Cisgender is also in the Oxford Dictionary. It is not a MOS:NEO violation." The other view is that "cisgender is not mainstream; that it recently entered the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (in June 2015) does not make it mainstream. It is indeed a neologism. And as made clear at WP:Neologism, some neologisms can have their own Wikipedia articles. [...] since cisgender is a neologism [...] the general public has never heard of [we should use clearer language when it can be reasonably used]."

So should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article? If one or two of the uses are okay, then what are they? Or should those one or two uses be placed elsewhere in the article? Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Neologism or not, widely understood or not, they don't add anything, do they? It's like editing Douglas Bader's entry to say "Bader was born bipedal on 21 February 1910...". --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't even think the term is being used correctly. Cisgender isn't a verb (at least not that I've seen), so it makes no sense to say someone was "born and cisgendered". I assume assigned male at birth is what is meant, but including that is just unnecessary. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also agree. Until the term starts showing up in mainstream obituaries, I think it's a neologism for our purposes, and per above, an unnecessary stumbling block for readers. Barte (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Since "cisgender" is a term that is complementary to "transgender", and since it is an as yet uncommonly used term, it is probably better to use it only if and when "transgender" is used. If worded correctly, then "cisgender" will be more easily understood in context by readers who have not yet heard the term. Also, since "transgender" may be used as the past participle "transgendered", the usage of "cisgendered", even though verb forms are not yet common, can be expected to eventually enter the vernacular. This term is "cutting edge" much like this encyclopedia is. Painius  14:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, "transgendered" is frowned upon. (Probably for no apparent reason, but hey). Edit: and it's not just the one person saying that, I've seen that opinion quite a few times. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case the verb form of "cisgender" will probably elicit the same negativity at this time, so its use as "cisgendered" should be avoided in the same way that "transgendered" would be avoided. It's use as a noun or an adjective should be allowed in the context I described above. Painius  01:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• COMMENT/VOTE: I strongly urge that cisgendered be used frequently in this article. Caitlyn's article is mainly about education of the transgender community (her biggest claim to fame). So it is obvious that cisgender will be used in this article. It's amazing how the cisgender straight white males here that feel this is the 1950's will hide important terminology just to maintain their agenda. Wake up! It's 2015! Wikipedia is about education and research, and Cait's article is all about the trans-cause so I think it just makes sense to mention the word cisgender at least once (or is this against the Bible?) Please make this happen immediately! I am offended by how undetailed the article is without mentioning Cait's unfortunate cisgender status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I say again, I think you've dragged this hoax out long enough. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Calling me and my beliefs and who I support a "hoax" is completely offensive to me! Like, how dare you? My identity is my own and my beliefs are my own, and for you to not accept them and see them as a "hoax" are just like all the haters still calling precious and innocent Cait a man! In the words of Cait, "I can take it" but there are others on Wikipedia who can't and I will stand up for them and demand that you apologize for your hate-filled comments to me and ask that you refrain from being offensive to others on here. Wikipedia is a group effort, let's try and be helpful and respectful of each other - no matter how different we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. Cisgender should not be used to describe non-transgendered people in this article. None of the RS use it in articles about Jenner and it is not a word that has wide usage in the overall population as describing a non-transgendered person. Ordinary language and understsnding does not require an specific label (cis or cusgender) to identify a person as not transgendred -- it is assumed. Just like sources do not use the modifier "straight" to describe all peopke who are not gay. Minor4th 18:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• YES Cisgendered is a term that goes hand in hand with transgenders. Therefore it's only obvious that an article that is about a young and stunning trans-woman would include the word. It's rather offensive that some people want to hide the word from the rest of the world. One mention isn't going to kill anyone, but rather it will educate which is what Wikipedia is all about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This RfC isn't about whether to include it at all or not, it's about whether all of the uses of it need to be retained. The anon's comment does not appear to have addressed the question being asked. (Another way of putting it: Is this article over-using the term?) Jenner is not "young" by any conventional use of that word, and the age of a subject has nothing to do with whether overuse of neologisms is permissible. Nor does any opinion of the subject's looks. Finally, it's impossible for WP to "hide" anything "from the rest of the world", since WP does not control the world's search engines and other informational resources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, that discretionary sanctions template got my attention.

For "Caitlyn Marie Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949)" I would suggest "Caitlyn Marie Jenner (female; born and identified as male William Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949)" Cisgender cannot be used here because Jenner would not have a sense of her gender identity at birth.

For other references about Jenner: Even if we accept that Jenner had a sense of herself as male during most of her life as qualifying to refer to her as cisgender during that period, it would need to be referred to in the active sense. By using cisgender as a verb, that implies that others were forcing her to believe she was male. Do we have any reliable citations that she now believes that to be the case, that she would have discovered it much earlier? (Perhaps we do. If so, then it might be relevant. But it probably would belong in a separate paragraph, not slipped in via a verb.)

As a sidenote, if the {{Transgender sidebar}} template were to gain a "Spokespeople" section and Jenner were to be noted as a spokesperson, which she may or may not already be at this point, then the Transgender sidebar would belong on this page.

And yes, let's avoid attacking people. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if cisgender is used, it would be good to make the first use a Wikilink and possibly even explain it on first use. I agree with the comment that if it is used, that its first use be shortly after the word "transgender". Since it can't (since it refers to self-identification) be used to refer to Jenner at birth, that would not be difficult to arrange. Thisisnotatest (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Change focus This RfC is phrased as a referendum on the propriety of "cisgender," and that seems like asking for a fight that doesn't need to be fought. It was removed from this article because it was being used wrong. It's an adjective and it was being used as a verb, and it was applied to a person to whom it did not apply. Removing a word that is being used incorrectly, neologism or not, politically loaded or not, should not be treated as controversial. We can cross the "is cisgender standard English?" question when we actually come to it. By then, it will have at least a slightly longer pedigree. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I thought about having the WP:RfC titled "Should cisgender be included in this article?" And maybe with the addition of "If so, how?" But I went with "Should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article?" because I don't have an issue with the term cisgender being used somewhere in the article; what I had an issue with is how the term was used, and how often it was used. And it didn't seem that the other editor would budge on the matter (as you can see, that editor still has yet to continue the discussion or weigh in on this WP:RfC). So going with the title I chose seemed better, even though I perceived it as a little pointy/combative. How do you think I should have titled the WP:RfC? Or are you thinking I shouldn't have started one? I explained in the section immediately above this one why I started it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is misconduct or anything like that, but it could have been much more efficient. A few people here are responding as if the issue were whether "cisgender" should be allowed or banned entirely. If it were me, I'd have kept it to those specific edits and skipped any mention of WP:NEO, etc., or at least kept them as afterthoughts rather than the main focus: "Is 'cisgender' being used correctly? Is it the best way to express this meaning? Is it a neologism?" in that order. As for whether you should have started this RfC at all, if the other editor was reverting your correct and legitimate removal of "cisgender," then yes, taking some action, whether a third opinion or an RfC or just inviting more people to talk, is appropriate, though an RfC seems like the heaviest of these options. Basically, I think this should have been a non-issue, but if it isn't a non-issue, what are you going to do? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The neologism aspect was a part of the dispute, though, so I felt I needed to mention that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I find that "cisgender" meets the criteria stipulated in WP:NEO, that there be secondary sources that discuss and explain its meaning (in addition to RS that use it). Since WP:NEO primarily addresses whether there should be articles about a word, I'll say that I also personally feel that it's appropriate to use the word on Wikipedia. Because it's so recently gone mainstream, the case could be made that there might be a better word than "cisgender" in any given instance. However, I wouldn't support a blanket ban on a legit word. In this article, though, the word was used incorrectly and its removal was proper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:NEO, rather than WP:NEO, is more so what applies in this case. In the #Cisgender is mainstream and germane section above, I explained my reasons for why I think we should generally avoid the word cisgender. The word is gaining more attention, but I certainly wouldn't call it mainstream. For example, Thisisnotatest listed a source below that asks "Will 'Cisgender' Survive?." Similarly, MOS:NEO states, "[Neologisms] should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last." Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh. "Cisgender" also meets the criteria given in MOS:NEO. In addition to less concrete qualifications, it has appeared in multiple general-audience dictionaries, including Oxford and American Heritage.[1] There might be a better word than "cisgender" in any given case, but it's certainly among our legitimate options. A word can be new without being a neologism in the sense that is meant here. Like I said, should the issue of "is 'cisgender' appropriate for use n Wikipedia?" actually come up, its history will by then have become at least a little longer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, cisgender is a neologism. I considered starting a wide-scale discussion about that. But given your comments about it, I suppose I might, especially since I see editors adding it in places where plain English should suffice. MOS:NEO states, "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions." That is certainly what the word cisgender is. It generally appears in isolated circumstances, especially in relation to transgender topics. Does it generally appear in general-interest dictionaries? No. It has gotten more attention in recent yeas, and entered the OED in 2015. The word flexitarian was listed in the mainstream Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in 2012; that doesn't mean that flexitarian is no longer a neologism.

And like the aforementioned 2014 source I pointed you to states, "However, the politics of 'cisgender' have already proven divisive. Perhaps the most surprising protests are coming from the left—from people, that is, who might otherwise be counted on to support the transgender movement. There are feminists who balk at the idea that cisgender women are privileged in relation to transgender women, who were born male. Among other potential benefits, such as 'passing' as men in a patriarchal culture, transgender women don't have to worry about reproductive rights. The Huffington Post recently collected a grab-bag of very mixed reactions to 'cisgender' from the gay community. It's clear that some gay men and lesbians see 'cisgender' as a slur, a way of labeling them as elitists or conformists after all (i.e., as not 'queer' enough). Some think 'cisgender' validates the notion that there are two (and only two) genders, correlating with two (and only two) sexes, just as many are exploring non-binary gender identities, such as 'genderqueer.' All of which brings us back to the problem of the word 'cisgender' itself. Linguists agree that the survival of a neologism relies, above all, on whether it names a stable and coherent concept, an idea that will last. It's the uncertainty of the concept behind the word 'cisgender,' for now, that really hints at trouble." Not much has changed since then with regard to what that source states about the term. Note that the source is clear that cisgender is a neologism. It's a neologism that some people object to, as noted by that source and by other sources in its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Neologisms are not objectionable per se. Selfie, YouTuber, upvote, and cryptocurrancy are all neologisms and used on Wikipedia. The issue here is more a political one being argued with NEO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And I didn't state that neologisms are necessarily objectionable. MOS:NEO and WP:NEO do not state or imply that either. I've been clear why I generally object to using cisgender on Wikipedia. Also, what do you mean by "The issue here is more a political one being argued with NEO"? Judging by why the editor added the term in multiple places in the article, and the IP arguments in this thread (whether or not one considers that IP a WP:Troll because of various comments he or she has made under different IPs), I'd definitely state that some who are seeking to add the term are doing so for political reasons. And, anyway, sources about the term are clear that it is very much a political term; it's one the LGBT community as a whole can't even agree on. My objecting to the term is not political, but I certainly consider the political motivations of using or shunning the term, meaning why some people want to use it and why some people do not want to use it. This term is not close to being as accepted as the term transgender is, and it's nowhere close to being as popular. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to using the word "cisgender" somewhere in the article if inline-cited by major mainstream objective independent neutral WP:RSs, but the disputed usages/placements that Flyer22 highlighted [2] are truly bizarre and uncalled-for, and not supported by a single objective independent neutral WP:RS. This is just some bizarre hoax or POV gone very wrong. We should only use the word "cisgender" if and when and as it is used by major mainstream objective independent neutral WP:RS (like, say, the New York Times) regarding Jenner. This goes without saying -- it is basic Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Clearly all you cisgendered straight white males don't watch I AM CAIT (so why the hell do you all even have power on this page?) and it was clearly a major topic in the episode what cisgender meant. That was seen by at least 1 million people, so the answer is clear - the world knows what cisgender means. Caitlyn said it about herself, so how about you put it in this article to make sure that people know that she was cisgender as Bruce and she's finally free and beautiful as Cait! Kthnx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.244.59 (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• No per Softlavender. If mainstream, independent reliable sources use the term cisgender for reasons that might add encyclopedic value, a mention might occur here. However, the proposed usage is not suitable—Wikipedia follows mainstream sources, not leads. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The Kendall Jenner article handles cisgendering well but "Bruce" is only uttered once in that article. Wikipedia redirects readers from cisgendered to the cisgender article and the cisgender article goes on to define cisgendered. In a compromise edit I left "at birth" intact and appended it with cisgendered. Anybody taking umbrage or having better phrasing was welcome to edit, but instead chose to blank it within 15 minutes of being added. Caitlyn was cised as Bruce at birth. How do we properly document that? As an aside, since I posted on the Talk page about my rolling back intentions it would have been courteous to ping me and discuss with others before reverting. In fact, the first time I added cisgendered it could have been bounced around here before being reverted. Its original inclusion was non controversial. Checkingfax (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I don't see what about your edit after I reverted you was a compromise. As for discussion, you started the #Cisgender is mainstream and germane section, and declared that you would be reverting (note that WP:Rollback is different); you did so without even bothering to discuss the matter with me. I explained in that section why your "cisgender" additions did not belong. And I don't see why I need to WP:Ping you to a section that you started, or on an article that you regularly edit. Put the article on your WP:Watchlist if it's not already on it. Don't expect people to WP:Ping you for each reply. It is your job to follow up on a section you started, whether the article is on your WP:Watchlist or not. It is your job to reply. I did my part on responding. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And none of your edits on this matter, seen here, here and here, were non-controversial. Comments in this WP:RfC show that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• A strong No.  I'd never even heard the term "cisgender" before, and I very seriously doubt even one out of ten people have. If that word is not a neologism then I don't know what is. I agree with Flyer22 that "we should use clearer language when it can be reasonably used."  Also I've read saved (view history) copies of the article using the word, and to me it sounds ridiculous. I also agree with Softlavender that "We should only use the word "cisgender" if and when and as it is used by major mainstream objective independent neutral WP:RS (like, say, the New York Times)".  I believe that the article as it exists as of this writing (06:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)) meets all Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, and does so without being dragged onto the "euphemism treadmill."
  Richard27182 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes to using with appropriate edits, No to verbing. I did a Google search on cisgender (and also on cisgender jenner) and in the first three pages of the results came up with uses of cisgender in the following articles. Given that these publications are fine using it in headlines and discussing the word (and writing satire about it), it's safe to say that "cisgender" is on people's radar, including with regard to discussions of Caitlyn Jenner. Please don't derail the RfC. The question is whether it belongs as used in this article. And if not, it's better to improve rather than revert. Please drop the "hoax" business; it's insulting.

The Atlantic: Will 'Cisgender' Survive?

The Federalist: We’re Sorry For Producing Our Cisgendered Son (satire)

The Independent: Cisgender has been added to the Oxford English Dictionary

Huffington Post: If Trans People Said All The Things Cisgender People Say...

Elle: Laverne Cox on Cisgender Actors Playing Trans Roles

Time: This Is What Cisgender Means

Huffington Post: Caitlyn Jenner Isn’t Threatening Your Womanhood

Huffington Post: Laverne Cox's Reaction To Caitlyn Jenner Reveals The Impossible Expectations Trans Women Face

Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• This RFC is a mess. It seems to have been drafted as a quick reaction to a single user's insertion of several erroneous uses of cisgender into the article — it would have been better to wait a few more hours and let other users join the thread above, and they would have removed the misuses as they indeed have. This RFC was never necessary, and has predictably strayed off topic, with several of the users above giving opinions (pro and con) on the unasked question of whether cisgender should be used at all in Wikipedia. The misuses have been removed; no uses remain. Does anything remain to be done, or can the RFC be procedurally closed as moot? Given how many participants are talking past each other about two different things, I'm not sure what other resolution it could potentially reach. (As a side note, Darkfrog is correct that cisgender is not a neologism in the sense NEO is concerned with; they do a good job of explaining why.) -sche (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I will be starting that aforementioned wider discussion on the use of cisgender then, because stating that it is not a neologism makes not a bit of sense to me, and I am tired of seeing editors using it in place of plain English. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And considering the WP:Reliable sources I have calling it a neologism, in addition to the fact that, on average, people have never heard of the term, it will not be difficult to prove the case that it is a neologism. It will be difficult for those arguing that it is not a neologism to prove that it isn't one and to pinpoint with WP:Reliable sources when it suddenly became "not a neologism." Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should start that wider discussion @Flyer22:. While there are probably a few sentences on Wikipedia where "cisgender" is a better choice than some other more common term, they're probably very rare. Regardless of whether "cisgender" falls under MOS:NEO right now, most of the time, some other word will be better for reasons that have nothing to do with gender politics or privilege. Asking for a blanket community decision about "cisgender" is a fight that doesn't need to be fought, at least not yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I was considering it, but okay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a debate over whether Cisgender is a neologism or not is the issue (it has had a Wikipedia article for 13 years and is wikilinked in hundreds of other articles, so by this time it clearly isn't, and the term can be wikilinked to that article). The issue is if and how to use it in this article, if backed up by excellent independent RS. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Change focus-

Cisgendered was reverted for WP:NEO. Oxford lists it; cisgendered redirects to an article about it.

Cisgendered was reverted a 2nd time for being used as a non-existent verb. The cisgender article uses cisgendered three times, with reliable references attached to each use.

The article is now devoid of the word cisgender.

On TV Caitlyn has updated her status to cisgender.

Checkingfax (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You've made those arguments before but they have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, which is to use cited information from the best major objective reliable neutral sources that are independent of the subject. There's no reason to clutter the article with unnecessary and obviously confusing jargon when the major RSs on the subject do not. Case closed. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Per what I've stated above, I can't agree that cisgender is not a neologism. This is why I also stated that I have WP:Reliable sources citing it as one; they range from 2009 to 2015. But this discussion has served its purpose and should now be closed. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

While the article cisgender does say "cisgendered" twice, the word is used an adjective, not a verb. It is not correct to use "cisgender" as a verb, as in the cases that have been deleted from this article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Using the term, just like much of the unnecessary insertion of female pronouns, is using this very public article to promote the terminology and further general knowledge about the transgender topic. I'm fine with using that terminology in the transgender sections. There is a lot to say about what happened in 2015, during and beyond the transition. However, if we use any pronouns prior to 2015, we should use ones that refer to the person Jenner represented to be at that time. That would also mean using the name Bruce (not William by the way), easily sourceable, as it appears in athletics records, articles and show credits. As a compromise, as I go out of my way to edit, pronouns should be avoided in describing the first 65 years of Jenner's life. That still leads to a confusing article, but less confusing than the artificial forced insertion of female pronouns to prove a WP:POINT. I resent the way WP:POV PUSHING WP:ADVOCATEs have manipulated the system in order to write the WP:MOS to specifically override a host of Wikipedia policies in order to force this pointiness, particularly in the strong-arm tactics, censorship and threats toward people who express a different view. The attitudes exposed around this subject go completely against the collegial attitude we should have here on wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we should NOT use female pronouns for the first 65 years of Jenner's life. Nor should we be forced to avoid male pronouns, especially considering the consensus on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_121#MOS:IDENTITY_clarification, and especially considering he competed in and won numerous MEN'S awards. It's time either to stop that nonsense now, or to create an RfA for the pronouns in this article. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• No: Per Minor4th. The relevant question isn't whether "cisgendered" is an accurate term, but whether it's used in the sources. Wikipedia is built on sourcing. Looking through the sourcing used in this article, the term clearly isn't used in most (if any) of the sources. It's WP:OR for us to add it to certain parts of the article. Let the sources speak for themselves. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• No: It's a politically loaded advocacy neologism that is meaningless to probably 99%+ of our readers, and non-neutral soapboxing in the view of many who do know what it means. One use is sufficient, if it's actually needed. It would be better in a direct quotation, not in WP's own voice, and should be in relation to something closely tied to a gender studies issue, like public response to Jenner's coming out as TG, or Jenner's own statements about gender dysphoria; it should not be used in any kind of WP:AEIS way, making analytical assumptions or interpretations of whether something in Jenner's life raised cisgenderism issues, etc. Also agreed we should not use female pronouns for the earlier part of Jenner's life, or otherwise falsify objective history to satisfy the assumptions some of us are making about what Jenner's own preferences might be with regard to that past and how it's referred to. See MOS:IDENTITY: Avoid confusing usage of language, especially pronouns. Use alternative wording to avoid the need. There's no issue with using "she", however, to refer to Jenner in the present.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Under Early Life: She attended Sleepy Hollow High School in Sleepy Hollow, New York, during her freshman and sophomore years and Newtown High School in Newtown, Connecticut, during her junior and senior years, . . . Graceland track coach L. D. Weldon, was the first to recognize Jenner's potential and encouraged her to pursue the decathlon

I haven't corrected this because I was left a horse's head in my bed. Trackinfo (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My read of MOS:IDENTITY is that if:

• the most up-to-date sources state that Jenner's current preference is to use "she" to refer to Jenner in the present,

• even if there are more overall sources referring to Jenner as "he", and

• that we need to avoid confusing uses of the current preference,

then

we would use "Jenner" earlier in the article when referring specifically to male references, e.g., men's decathlon or Jenner's marriage,

and that we could safely use "she" when referring to references where gender is irrelevant, e.g., graduating from high school (unless Jenner went to an all-male high school), and

what we cannot do, as I read MOS:IDENTITY, is continue to use the word "he" even for Jenner's pre-transition life in violation of Jenner's current identity.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You are interpreting MOS:IDENTITY correctly. The idea of revisiting and if necessary revising MOS:IDENTITY is currently under discussion at WT:MOS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly No to the use of the term "cisgender," as it is attempted. We are not discussing the appropriate uses of the term "cisgenfer" here. We are supposed to discuss whether it is appropriate to label the subject of the entry as "cisgendered" in every mention of the subject's sex, as physically and officially determined (which is crucial in Wikipedia terms), previous to Jenner's sex-change operation. Whether or not Jenner identifies herself to be at any point in her life as "cisgendered" is also irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a battleground for sexual liberation, nor a forum for advocacy or activism. We have to abide by the facts not as we believe them to be but as they are reported by third-party, reliable sources - and, in this case, they all refer to Jenner's life before the sex-change operation as a male person's life. We cannot, at least not in Wikipedia, alter facts and History retroactively for the sake of any kind of cause, however admirable that cause might be. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• No - the term "cisgender" doesn't seem too mainstream to me if it shows up on queerdictionary.com and urbandictionary.com as the top two results for a Google search. It seems to be a term that is controversial and not mainstream, therefore I don't think it should be used. Like the above user mentioned already, we need to look solely at concrete facts, not interpret them. We have to rely on reliable sources, and from what I can see there aren't many. In addition, just because the "no-voters" don't want to include the word in the article does not mean we are trying to "hide it from the rest of the world" as an above user mentioned. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• The cisgender term is Not Applicable here. Caitlyn is transgender. While there is some fluidity in that might be considered, she would not be cisgender. The word MUST be deleted everywhere that it is not directly attributed to an outside source that describes Jenner in this manner. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure if the proposed question with regards to the disputed content (mainly if her birth name should be noted as William [cisgendered]) is an adequate one, or even whether the term is being used correctly. According to Wikipedia's article on cisgender: it is a label for "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity". Utilising this definition, stating her birth name as William (cisgendered) would be the exact opposite of what's going on - she precisely lacked this match, ergo her transition. If cisgender is the match between birth gender and identifiable gender, then clearly this isn't the case here. Keep it simple, folks. She was born as William Bruce, she is transgender, and she is now called Caitlyn. I see no need to introduce complicated gender studies terminology (applied incorrectly, if I might add) which isn't conducive towards improving the article's quality. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - On [[I am Cait]], Caitlyn currently refers to herself as "cisgender". How can we argue with that? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Got a ref? I watched a few of the shows and don't remember that. Very confused, maybe that's why it's not a very good term? Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Caitlyn Jenner refers to herself as a "cisgender" can of course be mentioned in the article as information but it does not affect the RfC, which is about where in the article should the term be used. -The Gnome (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Admin ping Can we have some kind of result, any result, for this RfC, please? It's been more than a month since it went up and we want to go home some time this year. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. If a longer closing statement is really needed, let me know :) Mdann52 (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of feminine Pronouns throughout the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most famous transgender

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

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

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

Should Germaine Greer's opinion be mentioned in this article?

Here is the text:

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV Guide lost the memo

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

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

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

Portals

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

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

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

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

Moira Smith "Woman of the Year" award material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2015

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

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

New photo of Caitlyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name in first sentence

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

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

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

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

We've gone back and forth on this, but I think the case for it is compelling and I've restored Bruce Jenner to the lead sentence, in bold. This was the name Caitlyn went by for most of her career, from her Olympic accomplishments to (as the entry points out) her company, "Bruce Jenner Aviation". The name "Bruce Jenner" appears six times in the entry, and it appears in 51 of our references in the cited titles, alone, and presumably all of the articles themselves, prior to her transition. Moreover, per MOS:BOLD, boldface should be used to identify terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the targets of redirects to the article or section.... That's the case here: a search on "Bruce Jenner" goes to Caitlyn Jenner, and, per WP:R#PLA: We follow the "principle of least astonishment"—after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

--Barte (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Redundant redundancy in the lead regarding the 1976 Olympics

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

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

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

South Park mention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fatal car crash section citations

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

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

References