Jump to content

Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Question

It seems like the most key piece of information about this controversial athlete and it is missing from the article.61.68.79.145 (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Although the following sentence isn't encyclopedic, many people claim that Imane Khelif is a female transgender.[citation needed] JacktheBrown (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
you're right, that would be extremely unencyclopaedic AntiDionysius (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
"She" was found to have XY chromosomes, it's not an allegation, it's a fact that Khelif is biologically male. 188.172.111.106 (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
A Y chromosome don't necessarily mean that someone is 'biologically male': https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome Jamougha (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Plus there is every possibility that the IBA president was flat out lying. The way the article is now is fine. It includes relevant things that have been claimed but sticks to the verifiable facts when speaking in Wikivoice. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
@AntiDionysius I feel that if we do not have confirmation that the IBA president was speaking the truth his claim should be removed.
Or at least a note could be added that XY chromosomes doesn't necessarily mean that she's a man, because that claim is ruining her life at the moment. Karim Mezghiche (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Your claim here is preposterous. 2+2=5? Jordi2023 (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
What claim? AntiDionysius (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, such an opinion is WP:UNDUE in a WP:BLP article. I have restored the 17:49, 30 July 2024 version (no objection to going back to an earlier one if a further discussion and consensus is needed). M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1) Kremlev's statement is a claim of fact, not an opinion.
2) It has been widely quoted in reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] [[4] [5] [6] [7]
3) It is important to the article because it is a statement from the president of the sporting organization in which Khelif competes, explaining why she was disqualified from the biggest match of her career thus far, which has also contributed in large part to her notability.
4) Space was given in the article not only to Kremlev's statement, but to Khelif's response.
This is not WP:UNDUE. I am undoing your revert. Please discuss further here. Astaire (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I thought the UNDUE issue was the reference to Barry McGuigan - and if that wasn't what M.Bitton meant, then I'd like to bring it up. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand what it is that you want to bring up. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's a moot point after your revert - just that I thought the line "IOC's decision was the subject of controversy and criticism, including from former boxing world champion Barry McGuigan." was giving undue weight to McGuigan. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I see. Are you happy with the way that subsection is now? To be honest, I'm not convinced it needs a title. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm also not convinced it needs a title. Other than that it looks basically fine to me. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Great. I have removed the title. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with our content policies and especially, WP:BLP and WP:ONUS. M.Bitton (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Your only objection was that Kremlev's statement was an opinion (it's not an opinion) that was undue (I explained why it's due). If you wish to dispute its inclusion, please make a new argument basing itself on WP policy or on my response. Astaire (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Whether it's an opinion or a claim in a dispute over a set of facts doesn't really matter for the application of WP:UNDUE. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Every one of those "trusted sources" is quoting from an RT or TASS article. Are those trusted sources? I suggest you actually check where each of those articles sources their information. The president of the IBA never said Khelif's name. He said certain boxers had been disqualified due to have "XY Chromosomes" yet never specified who. The IBA never released an official statement on what tests were performed. To state that she has "XY Chromosomes" or that the president of the IBA said she does is blatantly wrong. 2601:201:8C02:9120:A57C:56CB:E4F0:E307 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing to suggest they were lying. They said the tests were positive for xy chromosomes. You cant just assume they were lying because you dont like the results 98.217.161.235 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
It's also important to note that the IBA cannot share specific medical information about Khelif, it is illegal. So right now we have a legally binding ban from the IBA and this could only be overturned by a PUBLIC tribunal. At that PUBLIC tribunal, the DNA of Khelif would have been known but they didn't go. Neither did Lin. So it's a fact that the IBA cannot share medical information and it's a fact the only people who can choose not to. If you were XX it would be a simple dna test from an independent lab to be presented to the tribunal and you would win your case... so to the objective onlooker it's quite damning. Right now the IBA is legally binding... they're still recognized by the majority of the world and their decision is legally binding in line with the CAS appeal process... 2.98.71.51 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Biologically having XY chromosomes makes you a male.
https://www.britannica.com/science/sex-chromosome
“The female has two X chromosomes, and all female egg cells normally carry a single X. The eggs fertilized by X-bearing sperm become females (XX), whereas those fertilized by Y-bearing sperm become males (XY).” 98.217.161.235 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, that's the rule. But there are always exceptions to the rule. Such as Swyer syndrome.
"Pregnancy is sometimes possible in Swyer syndrome with assisted reproductive technology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis#People_with_XY_gonadal_dysgenesis 2001:14BA:A007:8100:478:768:6F14:6E34 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There's no evidence that this was 'found'. The IBA has not released any details about its alleged tests, so they should be discounted. WikiEditor0227 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
It's illegal to share the information, you know this i'm sure. Disingenuous of you i think.
The ball was in Khelifs court to overturn a legally binding ban, the tests were done in independent WADA verified labs. Khelif did not dispute the tests in due process so they are legally binding. 2.98.71.51 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Someone has gone and edited many of the pronouns of this boxer to the male pronoun, despite no evidence she is transgender (which is highly unlikely considering her extremely conservative country). This ought to be corrected. 2600:382:2B00:1C0:3CD3:A103:1781:6D8A (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
In Italy there are divisive newspaper articles: most of them claim that she's falsely accused of being a man, while others claim they're a female transgender (I use the singular they in case it's true). Has Imane Khelif changed sex? If yes, are there authoritative sources regarding Khelif's sex change? If there aren't, I doubt she's a female transgender. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe WP:BLPBALANCE comes into play here, doesn't it @JackkBrown? The principle is, if there is more than one well-reported perspective on a person, then those perspectives should be included, "so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." If there are good reliable sources that set out a different perspective on this question then yes, a good article on a person will include those perspectives.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there's nothing to indicate she is male as such, or is transgender....BUT the IBA made a determination that she is XY chromosone, and she chose not to challenge that determination, and instead decided not to compete for the competition at that time. Despite the accusation, she has not personally confirmed it or denied it. ON balance, it would appear the sources indicate she is more likely to be XY chromosome, as there are sources that say she is XY and there aren't any sources denying this. That doesn't make her a man, but it may give her a physical advantage over a more "regularly chromosomed" woman. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: your comment is PERFECT. Full support for this comment. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
See this source about the IBA. M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: the newspaper isn't free. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
This comment has some quotes from it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll add the quote here:

A person with knowledge of last year’s disqualifications from worlds but not authorized to speak publicly called Khelif and Lin’s banishments “classic IBA disinformation.” Three people familiar with the details of the women’s case pointed out that the disqualifications came three days after Khelif defeated Russian Azalia Amineva and a day after she won her semifinal bout in the 63-66-kg (139-145.5-pound) category.

M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
There's precisely one original source saying she has XY chromosomes - the IBA. Everyone else is just quoting them. The IBA also, in the same sentence said she is a "man" trying to "fool" people - so clearly we cannot take everything the IBA says at face value. And I think when Khelif said that this whole thing was a "conspiracy" against her, that pretty self-evidently counts as a denial. Unwillingness to go through the difficulty of taking a case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport doesn't weaken that; there are dozens of reasons she could've made that decision.
We have said that the IBA says she has XY chromosomes. We don't need to do anything more. We have to include the IBA's claim, because it is obviously noteworthy, but we also have to not treat that pretty clearly disputed claim as if it is fact or likely fact, especially under WP:BLP. We present what the relevant people say, and if/when we know anything for certain, we can update the article with that certainty. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Original IBA quote comes from this TASS report.
The quote translates more or less to "According to the results of DNA tests, we identified a number of athletes who tried to deceive their colleagues and pretended to be women. According to the results of the tests it was proved that they have XY-chromosomes. Such athletes were excluded from the competition". AntiDionysius (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Some of what is happening here in this discussion IMHO is editorialising/and drifting off into primary research/conjecture. We have multiple RS sources that states she is XY chromosome. We don't have any RS that states she isn't. Khelif herself hasn't stated that she isn't. There's no clear evidence that the IBA have falsified the tests (except for some anonymous claims reported in one source?), and both boxers accepted the results of the tests at the time. As editors, we need to accept the RS, that's our job. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: exactly. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
As I explained above, there aren't multiple reliable sources. There is one source, the IBA, and it is in dispute. I would say that fails the test to use Wikivoice on any article, but particularly WP:BLP. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion...Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" AntiDionysius (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that state she is XY chromosome. A quote from the IBA President does not suffice to inject that claim into a BLP article. There would have to be a reliable source that reported on the test's information directly, not what someone said about the test. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 19:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That WP policy on sourcing refers to the reporting source, not to the originating information. There are plenty of RS reporting this. The IBA has stated they conducted the tests, and they have stated the results, they aren't reporting on it, they are stating it directly. There is no RS that contradicts this, therefore it should stand until some other source says that for instance, she isn't XY chromosome. NO SOURCE has specifically said she isn't XY chromosome, and the IOC put out a media statement saying she was DSD..and then retracted it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: As at today, Monday 5 August 2024, there are only two sources with any evidence of the athlete's chromosomes - XX or XY. Two people who report they have seen an medical assessment, and they've both appeared in news reports in the last 48 hours.
One - is the specialist Olympic Games journalist Alan Abrahamson. His material is discussed below. But I don't think we have his testimony being discussed in a reliable source, with an actual supervising editor, at least at this point.
Two - is the European vice president of the World Boxing Organisation, Istvan Kovacs. His material also discussed below. He says he was aware of evidence that Khelif is XY back in 2022.
I don't think we're quite at the point where we have enough solid material from reliable sources, but I think it's just a matter of time.
MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Three now - the Advertiser has also witnessed the test results, published yesterday and discuss it here: Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that in, @Deathlibrarian. I believe the key section is:
According to a document seen by this masthead, the IBA believes Khelif’s “hormonal imbalance affords her a distinct advantage over her female counterparts”.
The Adelaide Advertiser is certainly a reliable source, however, all it's claiming is that the IBA believes something. The journalist hasn't seen the medical report and isn't reporting on the medical report, or interpreting it. I think we're still in the shadows at this point.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, yes its an IBA report they have seen, not a medical report as such, fair enough. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
More information is coming out, no question. What's been reported in Sky News is that:
• During competition in Turkey, Khelif gave a blood sample, which was collected for analysis on 17 May 2022.
• Analysis was provided by Sistem Tip Laboratory in Istanbul who issued its report on 24 May 2022.
• The conclusion of the results, according to the lab, "didn’t match the eligibility criteria for IBA women’s events."
• Nearly a year later, in New Delhi, India, in March 2023, both Khelif and Lin agreed to another blood test, with the sample taken to Dr Lal PathLabs.
• That lab reported back six days later, confirming the findings were "identical" to the results from the sample taken in Turkey.
• Khelif (and Lin) were given a copy of the results.
What I would want to see before I could encourage any editor to make changes to the article in this regard, is a good reporter, in a really solid news organisation, who has actually seen these lab results from Sistem Tip Laboratory and from Dr Lal PathLabs, and for that reliable source to say something clear.
My view, @Deathlibrarian, is we need to see a report with that kind of material, and that level of quality. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok, damn...that's more detail than I ever expected to see! I guess the other sources will pick up on it soon. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Please note, following a prompt from @Nil Einne, I have removed a section of the quote from Sky News, as I can no longer see that element in the actual news report, though that element does exist in other news reports. To see the element removed please check this edit. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
A report re the tests: "Both Khelif and Lin submitted to chromosome tests at the May 2022 Women’s World Boxing Championships in Istanbul and again at the March 2023 Women’s World Boxing Championships in New Delhi. Referring to the second tests, the IBA said in a statement issued earlier this week, “The findings were absolutely identical to the first results.”
The New Delhi test results for each say “chromosome analysis reveals Male karyotype” – with a depiction of XY chromosomes. The lab is CAP-certified and ISO-certified.
3 Wire Sports has seen these tests."
Source: https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/9/algerias-imane-khelif-wins-gold-will-this-worldwide-controversy-spark-constructive-change Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Some of what is happening here in this discussion IMHO is editorialising/and drifting off into primary research/conjecture.
Yes, every one of your comments is of that sort.
We have multiple RS sources that states she is XY chromosome.
No, we don't.
As editors, we need to accept the RS, that's our job.
Nonsense. You clearly have no understanding of Wikipedia policy and are engaging in extreme synthesis. We don't have to "accept" anything. We simply report what RS claim. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
ON balance, it would appear the sources indicate she is more likely to be XY chromosome, as there are sources that say she is XY and there aren't any sources denying this.
This nonsense is not how Wikipedia works. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
STOP! You've sent dozens of the same messages. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Just reading through this discussion, and it seems that there is consensus, but I just wanted to add my voice to the positions argued by AntiDionysius and MrScorch6200 re the IBA being the sole source used by news media. Have not yet looked at the other two sources noted by MatthewDalhousie and discussed below, but appreciate Matthew's careful approach.
How Khelif identifies is misstated, as one cannot identify as male, female, or hermaphroditic. Khelif identifies as a woman, the line should read she was born female and identifies as a woman.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to see a little more precision in our discussion. If I've understood wiki's categories, I think we can can say there are two primary documents pertaining to the topic of the subject's sex.
1. The lab report on the subject produced by Sistem Tip Laboratory in Istanbul dated 24 May 2022.
2. The lab report on the subject produced by Dr Lal PathLabs in New Delhi dated 23 March 2023.
These reports are reported, in some secondary sources, to have been seen by Imane Khelif, by the journalist Alan Abrahamson and by officials in the IBA. None of those entities have seen to fit to publish the actual reports in full. Khelif hasn't said what the results were. And there are privacy issues if either of the other entities were to release the lab reports. If I can attempt to be precise, what we have here is a known unknown. Until it's actually known, we can't make further statements on the article on this topic. And we don't yet a have secondary sources prepared to fully report on these two primary documents. Certainly not a secondary source that has the features of a reliable sources, cush as editorial oversight.
MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The article currently states: "Khelif was born female and is a cisgender woman"
However, the citation doesn't provide any evidence that Khelif is a cisgender woman. I think it should be removed and left as "identifies as female". AntonioR449 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't reflect the reliable sources to use the word "cisgender"; it isn't a word that is used much by news platforms like Reuters and the like. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

2nd lead paragraph: "public scrutiny" vs. "misinformation"

I propose the first sentences of the 2nd lead paragraph be changed to:

Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, Khelif received intense public scrutiny about her biological sex, which included online abuse and false assertions that she was transgender.[8][9] Khelif had previously been disqualified from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships, organised by the Russian-led International Boxing Association (IBA), after she allegedly failed unspecified gender eligibility tests.[10][11]

It is more accurately supported by sources. (edit: Associated Press, NBC, Forbes, Sports Illustrated and Le Monde all use "scrutiny"). It states that Khelif received scrutiny about her biological sex (which she did), it adds that she faced online abuse (which she did) and it clarifies what misinformation was (that she was transgender). Reducing the entire discussion to 'misinformation' as the lead currently does is not supported by sources nor is it neutral. I also have seen other comments concerned about the lead's neutrality and I think this would be a non-controversial way to make it more accurate. I would also support including that the IBA claimed her chromosomes were XY, though of course balanced with proper context. JSwift49 03:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue with your proposal is that while they all say she has faced scrutiny (and this seems undisputed by any RS), none of the cited sources say the scrutiny was "about her biological sex", and the one that comes closest (AP) says it in their headline (which we don't use per WP:HEADLINE). There is widespread confusion amongst sources (even the otherwise-reliable ones), with many using sex and gender interchangeably or otherwise muddling the difference. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps this would be better: "Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini at the 2024 Olympics, Khelif faced intense public scrutiny over her eligibility for the women's category, including online abuse and false claims that she was transgender". I don't understand why some editors claim that this text is not supported by reliable sources and/or that the sources are cherry-picked. It is a more balanced and comprehensive account of the "Khelif affair" than the one entirely framed in terms of "misinformation" and "false assertions". Indeed there were misinformation and false assertions (as reported by RSes) but there is also a public debate on the eligibility criteria for female boxers. I'm not particularly interested or versed in the subject, but I find that the current lead oversimplifies and takes sides, making for a less interesting reading than an encyclopedia article should be. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Please look at my proposal below too :) Fanny.doutaz (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Support as well, @Barnards.tar.gz I see your point, good catch. @Gitz6666 I agree that is a better way to put it than my original summary, since the eligibility is primarily at issue and all sources discuss that. JSwift49 10:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is an improvement. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This is not an improvement over the current text. TarnishedPathtalk 11:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose this is not an improvement over what already have.
entirely framed in terms of "misinformation" and "false assertions" how else are we supposed to frame the disinformation, misinformation and false assertions that she was subjected to?
there is also a public debate on the eligibility criteria for female boxers that's not the subject of the article (assuming that the assertion is true worldwide). M.Bitton (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Editors above have cited multiple RSes concordant with Khelif having faced intense public scrutiny over her eligibility for the women's category. Where are the RSes that contradict this? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Simple: she faced public scrutiny that included false accusations/misinformation. The fact that there was a public debate over her eligibility is supported by the prepondrance of sources. JSwift49 12:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
We're talking about the LEAD. What exactly did the public "scrutinize" and is that covered in the article's main body? M.Bitton (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi; you have not answered the above question.
The sources clearly state she received scrutiny over whether she should compete in the women's category. And for the record, 'misinformation' is only once briefly mentioned in the article body itself and only one source is used. When this discussion began, 'misinformation' also did not appear in the body of the article. JSwift49 12:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
We're talking about the LEAD. What exactly did the public "scrutinize" and is that covered in the article's main body? Misinformation (disinformation is properly covered, not just as a word). M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Added "scrutiny" to main body with five high quality sources; so your point is no longer an issue. JSwift49 12:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
My point about the lead is very valid and so is the question: what exactly did the public "scrutinize" and is that covered in the article's main body?
Why did you delete the encyclopedic content? M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I answered both of these questions and added scrutiny to the main body, and the statement that she received online abuse and misinformation remains, I only deleted the words "fueled by" which violated WP:HEADLINE. Please answer the question from @Barnards.tar.gz JSwift49 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
What you forced into the BLP is wrong on so many levels and doesn't address the POV that you keep trying to push.
I repeat: what exactly did the public "scrutinize" and is that covered in the article's main body? M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Sealioning per WP:SATISFY JSwift49 12:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
M.Bitton, I'm not sure I understand the question what exactly did the public "scrutinize". You can answer yourself by checking the quoted sources, e.g. Forbes:

A contentious fight over who should—and shouldn’t—be allowed to compete in women’s sports has materialized during the Paris Olympics [...] Boxing at the Olympics is just the latest women’s sport to become a battleground over gender identity issues, as some critics have argued participation should be limited to people whose biological sex is female at birth. The New York Times reported that intersex athletes, or those with some biologically male characteristics and some female, have also been a focal point of the debate.

I'm sure dozens of quotes like this could easily be found - indeed, "scrutiny" and "debate" imply many voices; one interesting contribution is this one [17] by Jaime Schultz [18]; another interesting one, on the opposite side of the debate (if I'm not wrong) is this one [19] by Doriane Lambelet Coleman. They both acknowledge that there's been a lot of misinformation and false allegations, but that doesn't stop them from highlighting the substantive issues on which reasonable disagreement and meaningful debate are possible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It's plain English: what exactly (about her) did the public "scrutinize"? M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Concerning the eligibility criteria for female boxers, should sporting event organizers stick to the passport, as the IOC does, or should they conduct sex verification tests? If so, what kind of tests are appropriate? Under what conditions may an intersex athlete participate in women's boxing competitions, and under what conditions may they not? How should gender-diverse athletes be treated? How can their right to participate as a woman in a competition open to women be balanced with protecting the safety of other female athletes?
All these questions were discussed in connection with the Imane Khelif affair, as evidenced by numerous sources. It's unreasonable to deny this connection and dismiss the whole affair as mere misinformation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The so-called public scrutiny that you're referring to is about the baseless allegations that were made by celebrities and the like. Describing their disinformation, misinformation and defamation as a "scrutiny" would give their slander credibility, this is not something what I would expect to see in an encyclopedia, least of all, in an article about a living person. The last edit that you restored is already giving their irrelevant views UNDUE weight in her biography. M.Bitton (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't see neutrality issues in the article. I do see, however, neutrality issues with multiple editors throughout that claim being neutral at the talk page attempting to push an agenda on a living person based exclusively on what an authority unspecifically claimed last year and "multiple reliable sources" have covered. There is a ridiculous belif that since something cannot be proven false, then we must believe it and report it as potentially true because that's "neutralilty" and we follow what the sources say, which is not how Wikipedia works when discussing living people. On top of this talk page there is a disclaimer, "Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator". If it is not clear enough, this is not optional. "Freedom of Speech" is not a valid reason to have the gross bevavior editors have had throughout the multiple redundant discussions here and maybe it is time to apply it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 13:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I generally agree with your point. However, this discussion is not about whether the IBA's claim should be included in the lead. The discussion is about whether the lead states she received "public scrutiny", which reliable sources say did occur. There's a big difference between saying "According to the IBA, Khelif is XYZ" based on one questionable source and "XYZ happened to Khelif" based on many reliable sources. JSwift49 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Please, re-read my comment instead of lecturing me on what I already explained. (CC) Tbhotch™ 14:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't intend for that to come across as a lecture; but I don't see how my proposal falls within the scope of what you oppose, there seems to me to be a significant difference. Could you please explain why stating that there was public scrutiny of her eligibility in the lead (and not the IBA's claim itself) is pushing an agenda based on one authority? JSwift49 14:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I am neither supporting or opposing your proposals. I am commenting on a discussion I was pinged. That's it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 14:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying; I had thought your comments were referring to my proposal. I pinged you as I had previously pinged other editors from the neutrality discussion, and pinged everyone there for fairness. JSwift49 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The idea that she is transgender was not part of any serious online movement. The debate is about Whether or not someone with XY chromosomes should be allowed to participate in Olympic's woman boxing. Some high profile persons, including dully elected world leaders are of that opinion. The IOC confirmed that they are not testing it; They followed what is written on the passport. That's it! It's simple to understand. I also want to point out that the IBA DID specified at a press conference that they tested Khelif's karyotype. Iluvalar (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    How about removing the transgender mention, and replacing it like so? That's a good point, researching it more the misinformation appears to have been more broad than just that she was transgender.
    "Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini at the 2024 Olympics, Khelif faced intense public scrutiny over her eligibility for the women's category, as well as online abuse and misinformation" JSwift49 15:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    The so-called public scrutiny that you're referring to is about the baseless allegations that were made by celebrities and the like. Describing their disinformation, misinformation and defamation as a "scrutiny" would give their slander credibility. This is not something what I would expect to see in an encyclopedia, least of all, in an article about a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    If you look at the links @Gitz has shared, it's clear that there was reasoned public debate spurred by this that went beyond misinformation. (Plus, while the IBA's claims are unverified and potentially suspect, sources do not call it misinformation either.) JSwift49 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I did and that doesn't change a thing about I said concerning the so-called "public scrutiny" (slander by celeberitoes and the like). M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    It very much does; because public scrutiny is distinct from slander/misinformation (what you are referring to). The sources say both public scrutiny and misinformation. JSwift49 16:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    It very much doesn't (per the explanation that I have given above). M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Consensus proposal. Having gone through all of the comments, I think this proposal for the first two sentences should address the main concerns of everyone:
Following her victory over Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, Khelif became the subject of widespread public attention and misinformation regarding her gender. Khelif had previously been disqualified from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships, organised by the Russian-led International Boxing Association (IBA), after she allegedly failed unspecified gender eligibility tests.[20][21][22]
  • Addresses @M.Bitton and @TarnishedPath concerns of the word "scrutiny", replacing it with "attention". "Attention" includes those who supported her, scrutinized her, and those who had no strong opinion, therefore not giving undue weight/legitimacy to one type of reaction. "Misinformation" also remains where it was before.
  • Addresses my own, @Gitz6666, @JackkBrown and @Fanny.doutaz concerns of the summary being limited to "misinformation". Adding "attention" provides a more general overview of what happened, and clarifies that misinformation was not the only consequence of, or reaction people had towards, Khelif's fight.
  • Addresses @Iluvalar concern about mentioning the false claim she was transgender.
  • Addresses @Barnards.tar.gz concern about the phrase "biological sex".
  • Also improves by making the two sentences more concise and readable.
Given the concerns with both the lead as-is and my original proposal, I think this could work as a good-faith compromise. JSwift49 19:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
widespread public attention whitewashes what happened. What she became the subject of is "misinformation" (disinformation to be precise) and an online lynching that has been nicely summarized Jules Boykoff and Dave Zirin:

In an invented “controversy” whipped up by an assortment of transphobes, right-wingers, and fascists (and proliferated by a coterie of useful idiots), Khelif was viciously targeted after her first-round knockout of Angela Carini of Italy.

M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
My proposal states "public attention and misinformation". "Misinformation" describes the problematic reactions toward her, and "attention" describes everything else. Keep in mind, "attention" includes the many people who supported Khelif, and who were not guilty of misinformation. Thus, how does this whitewash what happened? JSwift49 19:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I know what you proposal states (I have read it). The hate campaign is the main issue. If you want to mention those who supported her, then suggest "public support", instead of the meaningless "public attention", give it its proper weight and suggest a better location for it since it came after the hate campaign. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
"Public attention" is not meaningless, it encompasses her becoming widely known, and all of the reactions people had. It is significant and undisputed that she became widely known and discussed because of her fight, just as the misinformation and abuse she faced is significant.
When you say "the hate campaign is the main issue", what reliable sources only describe the hate campaign and not the broader attention she received? (The Nation, according to consensus in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, is a partisan source which statements should be attributed, and you linked an opinion article anyway) JSwift49 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
she became widely known and discussed because of her fight, she became widely known (outside of her country) because of the disinformation and the hate campaign.
The Nation is generally reliable and the linked article is co-written by Jules Boykoff, a professor of political science at Pacific University in Oregon and the author of six books on the Olympic Games. M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
But the Nation is a partisan source, and you have linked an opinion article; can you produce any news articles from non-partisan sources? JSwift49 20:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
You last two comments tell me one thing: you're not reading mine and I'm just wasting my time replying to yours. M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
No need to resort to such accusations. We have argued and there are disagreements between editors; the next step is building consensus and compromise. JSwift49 20:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree with M.Bitton, she was primarily the target of misinformation. We should in no way use language which promotes the idea that any of it was reasonable attention brought about by facts or evidence. TarnishedPathtalk 23:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m still not on the same page; since many reliable sources do say “scrutiny”. And if we don’t want give negative attention any specific weight in the lead by calling it “scrutiny”, “attention and misinformation” seems a good replacement. Can you provide sources that solely focus on the misinformation/abuse and don’t also describe “attention”, “scrutiny”, “accusations” et cetera? JSwift49 00:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Many reliable sources say "misinformation" or "disinformation" which is what actually occurred. Consensus should determine what wording is used where sources use different descriptions and I'm reading no consensus for change from the current wording. TarnishedPathtalk 09:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The issue here is that most of the sources I’ve seen refer to both “misinformation” and things like “scrutiny”, “debate”, “accusations”. And based on the discussion there is no consensus for the status quo. In fact, “misinformation” was added recently without a talk and was reverted/re-added twice. [23][24][25][26][27] JSwift49 10:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The real issue here is the fact that you keep repeating the same argument that has been addressed multiple times. Are you honestly expecting us to repeat what was said ad nauseam? M.Bitton (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Not at all; I have regularly asked varied questions/for evidence to try and come to a consensus, and e.g., the point I brought up about misinformation's original addition was new.
(Also worth noting you have asked the same exact questions four or five times in succession, despite receiving answers.)
JSwift49 12:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming what I said in my previous comment. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure I follow :) JSwift49 13:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. I think your Consensus Proposal of 11 August gives a more balanced summary of what happened than that which is achieved by simply using the word "misinformation". I think the article would benefit from it. Thanks for your perseverance @JSwift49. Ridiculopathy (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Harrison, Heather (2024-08-09). "AG Fitch Spreads Misinformation About Olympic Boxer's Gender". Mississippi Free Press. Retrieved 2024-08-10.
  2. ^ Beacham, Greg (2024-08-09). "Algerian boxer Imane Khelif wins gold at Olympics after enduring abuse fueled by misinformation". PBS News. Retrieved 2024-08-10.
  • Support. I think it's a substantial improvement because it specifically states what is false. As it stands it's ambiguous and begs the question to the reader of what was false about her gender? AntonioR449 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm here from the notice on the BLP noticeboard, and we go with the wording of the reliable sources, which JSwift has found quite a few of. --GRuban (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Meloni again

@JSwift49: Please see the previous discussion about the politician's irrelevant opinions about athletes. You're welcome to add them to Meloni's article (as they say more about her as a politician than anyone else). If you disagree, you can always start another discussion about it, but please, respect BRD and the previous discussion that has no consensus for the inclusion of such content. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi; this is a different matter, Meloni stating an opinion is one thing, but causing a meeting with Bach and attempting to influence Olympic policy is another. That is a significant result of this fight and worth a brief mention. I actually agree with the previous discussion Meloni just complaining isn't worth including. JSwift49 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with JSwift49. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to elaborate (this is not a vote). M.Bitton (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article? M.Bitton (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Not an opinion, but a real world consequence: the Italian government changed its actions/relationship with the IOC because of the fight, wasn't just Meloni complaining (like all the celebrities and Trump did). That's notable. Not to mention, the previous discussion took place on August 1, after Meloni had made comments but before she had actually met with Bach on August 2. JSwift49 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question: What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article? M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I cannot believe that you are arguing in good faith but the Head of a State requesting the IOC to scrutinize (read, reject) is an extremely rare event notwithstanding the unhingedness at display. Given the coverage of the episode in reliable sources, a one-line-mention is DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It's pretty clear here this isn't a good faith argument JSwift49 20:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The only thing that is clear is that I'm dealing with those who have nothing but aspersions to offer. Let me repeat the question:
What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article? M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:SATISFY "It may be taken as especially disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process with repeated unreasonable demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained, as if incapable of "getting it". This "sealioning" behavior pattern has sometimes resulted in topic-bans and even indefinite blocks." JSwift49 20:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
That's your irrelevant opinion. The reputation of the subject of the article (a living person) is way more important than what some editors who have nothing but aspersions to offer think.
the Italian government changed its actions/relationship with the IOC What's that got to do with Khelif and why should this belong in her article (and not Meloni's or the IOC'S)? M.Bitton (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Opinions of hard-right politicians don't belong here per WP:WEIGHT. I'm going to remove. TarnishedPathtalk 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Blatant misrepresentation of WP:WEIGHT: it is a description of a meeting that occurred between the leader of the country concerned and the IOC President. Your point would stand if you removed Meloni simply giving her opinion. JSwift49 23:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Please read WP:SATISFY. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I have :) JSwift49 00:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
For now I have simply written that Meloni and Bach met to "discuss the issue". This is a mention of a notable event with no opinions, so you have no grounds to remove. However, Meloni voicing concerns is also an objective fact, and given that she is the Head of State country concerned the reason for her meeting Bach is absolutely DUE like @TrangaBellam said. JSwift49 00:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
In other words, you violated the policy that you mentioned in your edit summary. Also, why didn't you ping TarnishedPath? M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Mentioning the remark of one user who is already in the same discussion does not violate WP:CANVASS xD JSwift49 00:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Your deliberate violation of the policy that you mentioned in your edit summary is beyond the pale, and so is the complete disregard that you have for WP:ONUS. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I acknowledge I should have sought consensus on rewriting the lead earlier (which I have now done). However adding non-controversial body content that has not yet had an applicable discussion (the meeting occurred after the last Meloni discussion, which centered solely on her remarks) is not a complete disregard for WP:ONUS at all.
In fact, "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless:... The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful". [37] which a description of a meeting between Meloni and Bach obviously... isn't. Yet when you reverted, you could not provide a good answer why.
Sealioning and disregard for WP:NPOV are also issues I've seen with you, I'm afraid. JSwift49 00:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
You can repeat that yourself all you want, it doesn't and will never change the fact that you deliberately violated the very policy that you mentioned in your edit summary. M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Glass houses; stones JSwift49 00:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
You are in violation of WP:ONUS and more seriously in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE which requires you to obtain positive consensus on the article's talk prior to restoring an contentious material. A good way forward would be for you to revert your last edit which put you in violation of WP:3RR and continue discussion. Edit warring to restore your preferred versions of text is not helpful. TarnishedPathtalk 02:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
See my prior argument ^ according to policy according to this essay, good-faith additions should remain in article pending consensus unless it's both BLP and potentially harmful (and other reasons that don't apply). I agree I shouldn't have made changes to the lead without consensus but I have corrected that and this is different. JSwift49 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
according to policy good-faith additions should remain in article pending consensus there is no such policy, and therefore, no valid explanation for your repeated violations of the WP:ONUS policy. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@JSwift49, with reverts at Special:Diff/1239674225, Special:Diff/1239675579, Special:Diff/1239676462 and Special:Diff/1239704165 you are in violation of WP:3RR. Self revert immediately. TarnishedPathtalk 02:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, they're not the only one to have violated the 3RR on this article, are they? Anyway, I don't understand the level of controversy this edit has caused: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni met with IOC President Thomas Bach the following day to voice her concerns about allowing Khelif to compete. It's a noteworthy information that gives some context to the "Second-round fight against Angela Carini" section. It shows that the controversy over Khelif's eligibility reached the highest levels of politics, but it doesn't add any normative (POV) elements to the article - precisely because Meloni is "an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned", as M.Bitton notes. I don't see how this sentence would unbalance the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The concerns of the far-right are immaterial. They lack weight. Per your comments on others violating 3RR, that doesn't excuse fragrant violations. JSwift in their third revert within the 24 hour period, wrote in the edit summary "One more and you'll break the three-revert rule" then proceeded to shit all over 3RR themselves 4 hours latter. If you have concerns with other editors, by all means raise it with them. TarnishedPathtalk 09:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The concerns of the far-right are immaterial — what policy suggests that? I have no sympathies for Meloni or the band of busybodies who targeted Khelif using misinformation — my agreement with JSwift49 is restricted to this narrow locus — but this is bizarre argumentation. As Jules Boykoff notes in his op-ed for The Nation, the controversy was invented and whipped up by an "assortment of transphobes, right-wingers, and fascists" — mentioning Meloni is, ofcourse, a no-brainer. I have restored the edit with an additional source and if it is indeed violating of BLP, please do ask for appropriate sanctions at WP:AN. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
concerns of the far-right are immaterial - well, per policy that also applies to the far-left, centre-right, centre-left, etc., I guess. "Political concerns are immaterial" - but can we really say that? Political concerns are important, as long as they are covered by reliable sources. Anyway, the reason RSes covered Meloni's initiatives is not because of her political views, but because of her office, which makes her lobbying more effective/worthy of scrutiny/dangerous than, say, a far-right columnist writing on Breitbart. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The concerns of the far-right are immaterial. Looking again at WP:NPOV, I still agree with keeping Meloni's meeting in. WP:NPOV does state that "inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views" should not be on the same weight, and "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.". However, that seems designed to prevent fringe views from being wrongly treated as equal to established views. Something like: "XYZ said Khelif was a woman, while XYZ said Khelif was a man".
This, by contrast, is simply reporting a meeting that occurred between a head of state concerned and the head of the Olympic movement. So I don't think weight of opinions is an issue here at all; especially since the actions of other third parties such as the COA, Khelif's family and the IOC are already accounted for. JSwift49 18:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
a meeting that occurred between a head of state concerned and the head of the Olympic movement It belongs in the relations between the concerned state and the IOC (it may even belong in the biographies of Meloni and Bach), however, there is no reason to mention it in this article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Since the meeting occurred directly in response to the subject of the article (for better or worse), if it is notable enough for other articles, why is there "no reason" to mention it here? JSwift49 19:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Because the meeting is about the relations between the two (they discussed various subjects). M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the head of state involved (Italy) attempted to intervene with the IOC on the issue, which is a significant consequence of the Khelif–Carini fight. Whether there were other subjects discussed as well, I don't see how that's relevant.
Politico implies that Meloni called the meeting because of Khelif: "Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni met with IOC President Thomas Bach on Friday morning to voice her concerns about allowing Khelif to compete “and the issue of rules to guarantee fairness,” her office said." [38]
ANSA states they talked about multiple subjects including Khelif, so less certain if Meloni called the meeting, but still significant as it confirms Meloni's requests prompted Bach to act on clarify the issue. [39] JSwift49 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
prompted Bach to act on the issue that's very misleading: Here's what Bach said.
Anyway, none of this belongs in this article (for the reasons that I already mentioned). M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Per ANSA, "President Thomas Bach told ANSA on Friday that the IOC will clarify the situation after meeting Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni". Regardless of any impact, my point remains that the discussions were notable and directly related to Khelif. JSwift49 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The trouble with cherry picking is that it ends up misleading the readers (who don't know any better). Here's what the article states:

Bach told ANSA on Friday that the IOC will clarify the situation after meeting Meloni, while also stressing that Khelif "is a woman". "It was a positive meeting, the Carini case was among the things we talked about," Bach said after the encounter with Meloni. "We agreed to stay in touch to 'welcome' the same scientific background and make the situation more understandable because she (Khelif, ed.) is a woman and she has been competing for six years at the international level. We share the same views and agree on (the need to) clarify and improve the scientific background (criteria) we talked about".

M.Bitton (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not unreasonable to gather from this that Bach intended to clarify the situation because of their conversation in a way he otherwise wouldn't have. If you take issue with "act" I can change it. Re-centering though, as I said, the result of their conversation is not the topic of debate; the fact that it happened is what's important. JSwift49 20:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not unreasonable to gather from this that Bach intended Any time you must gather/deduce/infer/interpret what a source says, or speculate about the intentions of an individual, you are tripping into original research. You cannot state or imply a causal relationship that isn't explicitly acknowledged by the source. Taking what the source states and claiming "it means x" is textbook synthesis. Grandpallama (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair point. I'll strike that section JSwift49 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Another thing of note here is that Meloni visited Carini, not just Bach.[40] JSwift49 00:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I'm Italian and live in Italy, if anyone would like to know more about Giorgia Meloni and her statements I could be very useful to them. JacktheBrown (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown Are there any sources in Italian that have significant or dedicated coverage of Meloni's talking to Bach about the issue? JSwift49 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@JSwift49: yes, read the following sources: [41] and [42]. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This phrasing could also be useful to add: [43] "Meloni has asked for clearer rules, to be aligned with those of the federations. “Fairness”, the prime minister has been demanding since yesterday." JSwift49 18:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@JSwift49: I completely agree. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

12 August 2024

@Zurkhardo: could you please self-revert this edit (which removes content that is the subject of an ongoing RfC)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The content @Zurkhardo removed actually is not properly sourced. "Fueled by misinformation" is from the headline of the PBS article [44] (clear violation of WP:HEADLINE), and the body of the article does not support it; the closest thing it states is that "hateful scrutiny" "stemmed" from the disqualification. The other two sources and body do not support the statement either. JSwift49 18:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It's being discussed in an ongoing RfC. I will ping Drmies (an admin) and see what they say about this. M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if the content is WP:UNSOURCED.
"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" JSwift49 18:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Sigh... please read WP:LEAD. Given that this is an issue that concerns a RfC (that you started and in which you want the content gone), I will also ping Rosguill (another admin who commented on this talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, "Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads."
If the body does not specifically support the content, therefore, WP:UNSOURCED. JSwift49 19:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
You're not fooling anyone with that extremely poor excuse. If you think that it should be changed to "false claims about her gender" (easily attributable to multiple RS), then please say so. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Removing WP:UNSOURCED material isn't a poor excuse :) Of course, sourced content can be added if consensus appears in the RfC. JSwift49 19:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
My input here is that the PBS source is fine--it doesn't say "misinformation" outside the title, but it does say That hasn’t stopped the international outcry tied to misconceptions around the fighters that has been amplified by Russian disinformation networks., which adequately supports the claim. The effort expended in wikilawyering here, when this material was both in the article identified by Drmies and could likely be easily verified with other RS, seems misdirected (and if my assumption about the availability of sourcing is wrong, the effort would still be better spent verifying that and demonstrating that such sourcing does not exist. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I'd appreciate clarity on: That hasn’t stopped the international outcry tied to misconceptions around the fighters that has been amplified by Russian disinformation networks Yes, this proves that there was an outcry and that Russian disinformation networks amplified it, but how does it support that false accusations were specifically fueled by the disqualification?
Regardless, if unsourced content is removed, shouldn't it only be added back per consensus? I had (sourced) content I added removed because there wasn't consensus, which is why I'm now going through RfC. JSwift49 19:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The normal procedure is to let the prior status quo stand until a consensus is reached, even if unsourced, unless it poses a serious defamation risk. Looking more closely, I'm also a bit confused by why you're portraying Zurkhardo's edit as doing anything to change the claims made in the article--to my reading, it removes a redundant repetition of False assertions about her gender were, when it already (and still) says misinformation surfaced on social media about her gender. IMV, if anything Zurkhardo's change, combining the sentences, further encourages the reading you're arguing against. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair question; to clarify, I am not stating Zurkhardo shares my opinion or justification here, and I also support removing "misinformation was fueled by" for the same reasons as removing "False claims about her gender were fueled by". JSwift49 19:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Or more precisely, per the RfC, changing just "misinformation" to "public attention and misinformation" JSwift49 19:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The normal procedure is to let the prior status quo stand until a consensus is reached, even if unsourced, unless it poses a serious defamation risk. thank you. Zurkhardo, now that you have the opinion of an admin, you know what to do. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Still confused about one thing: my previous (sourced) addition, when I added the meeting Meloni had with Bach, which posed no defamation risk, was removed immediately because consensus had not been determined. Is that a different type of case? JSwift49 19:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Zurkhardo was pinged for a specific reason, don't canvass them for something else (the talk page is here and they can choose to opine on whatever they want). M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh this is a general example: trying to learn our policies better :) Not asking for an opinion on my content. Because if I misunderstand what the policies are, clearing it up will help me in future edits. JSwift49 19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rosguill: thank you. What has been removed in this edit is being discussed in an ongoing RfC, which was started by JSwift49 (an editor that wants that specific content removed). Their excuse above doesn't hold much water given that "false claims about her gender" can easily be attributed to multiple high quality RS. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I think WP:LEAD also states contentious statements should probably maintain citations. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Is anyone genuinely disputing "false claims about her gender" (something that is easily attributable to multiple RS)? M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The ongoing RfC is precisely about this content, so, yes. JSwift49 19:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
You're not making any sense. M.Bitton (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually there is some subtilty here. If we are talking about "gender", that is her perceived self-identity, then there is really no dispute that she sees herself as a woman. On the other hand, if we are talking about her "sex" that is her biological identity then there is certainly a serious dispute about that, and there is in fact no proof that the claim that she is intersex is a false claim. Vegan416 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no proof that anyone is not a "insert whatever you want here". People (especially living ones) are defined by what they are and not by what they're not. M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
And your point is? Vegan416 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Where are reliable sourcing to suggest there is a controversy about whether she is intersex or not? Most sourcing indicates that after she beat another female athlete, internet trolls spread misinfo about her based on a discredited IBA report.
Talking about the "what if she's intersex" is moving the target without expressing the kernel of real truth that matters for the lede that she was the target of false allegations. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too careful in my wording. In a sense you may be right that there is no controversy about her being intersex, since it seems no RS definitively denies that she is some kind of intersex (aka DSD). She herself didn't deny it nor did the IOC. On the other hand, there is no published definitive proof that she is intersex either. So maybe it is still right to speak of a controversy about it.
Here are a few RS that speak about this issue:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/does-imane-khelif-belong-in-the-womens-ring-olympics-boxing-transgender-ideology-b227f2cd
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/08/olympic-boxing-gender-debate-imane-khelif/679410/
https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/
The last source in particular goes into the matter very deeply and thoroughly. Vegan416 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
there is no controversy about her being intersex there is no RS to support such a contentious label and suggesting that she is violates WP:BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That's why I qualified it by "In a sense you may be right that...". Your cutting my quote out of context is against Wikipedia:Quotations#:~:text=Quotations should be representative of,and intentions of the source. Vegan416 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
This is not correct. In this comment I provided a list of six sources from Italian news organisations usually deemed reliable (ANSA, Adnkronos, la Repubblica, Il Messaggero, La7, Radio DeeJay) that refer to her as an "intersex athlete" or use similar expressions (with a bit of time, more could be found). Because of WP:NOENG I wouldn't use these sources for our article, but the sentence no RS to support such a contentious label is wrong and the claim suggesting that she is violates WP:BLP is unacceptable: half of the debate about Khelif at the Olympics (the half that isn't fake news and hate speech) is about whether and under what conditions intersex athletes should be allowed to compete with women in boxing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Italians referring to her as "intersex" (to show support for their darling Carini)? Based on what exactly? A hunch? What makes you think that they are RS for such a claim? M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
M. Bitton, you are missing the point again. Nobody wants to write in the article that she is intersex, unless a definite proof will be published (I speak for myself but I believe this is true for Gitz as well). this is not the issue here at all. The issue is whether there is a controversy about it. And the sources that Gitz brought and the ones I brought clearly discuss this issue. As Gitz said the question of her alleged intersex status and its possible implications about her eligibility to compete in women sports is the heart of all this media circus around her. Vegan416 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
You keep missing the point: you have no point and you're just using this talk page to violate BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
They are WP:NEWSORG. Their professional standards as journalists are no higher than those of the British and American NEWSORGs, but not much lower either. Based on what exactly? - I'm not a journalist myself, I can only speculate. I suspect that the fact that Khelif has never responded to the IBA's claims that she has XY chromosomes and high levels of testosterone by circulating medical tests proving the contrary is often taken - by the press, by the public, by academics writing about ethics and regulation in sport - as a significant sign that she likely has some form of DSDs.
Anyway, all this is immaterial and beside the point. No one is suggesting that we should call her intersex. But we should not trivialise the debate about Khelif at the Olympics as "a group of internet trolls mistaking her for a man". Yes, it is that, but it is not only that. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
In other words, the Italian journalists are just speculating to defend the Italian boxer (Carini). I have just gone through a couple of them and all I can say is "crappy journalism" doesn't even come close to describing those shitty pieces. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Vegan416, this is crazy talk. Because there is no evidence of denial of DSD, she could be intersex? We are not going to build BLPs out of negatives. The BBC article you linked says, "When it comes to Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, we don’t have enough information to know if they have a DSD that would need to be regulated"--and that's the end of it. Your "controversy" is thus built on nothing but speculation. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, logically speaking if there is no proof that she is not DSD, and no denial that she is DSD, then she could be DSD. And in fact silence is often considered an admission (even in legal settings). Also look at this official tweet from the IOC which appears in the last source I brought https://twitter.com/iocmedia/status/1819667573698445793?.
In any case my point here was not about controversy or dispute or claiming that she is intersex. My point here was that if someone had written in the article "there are false claims about her being intersex" he would be wrong and unsourced, since the claims about her being intersex were not falsified. They are still undecided. Vegan416 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
if there is no proof that she is not DSD there is no proof that she is. The difference in the wording is very important. M.Bitton (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry. But I don't understand your point. Let's try to reach some agreement here or understand where is the source of disagreement between us. I'll make here several factual statements which I believe to be true. Please tell me with which one you agree and with which not:
  1. The IBA claimed she is DSD.
  2. There is no published proof that she is DSD.
  3. There is no published proof that she is not DSD.
  4. The IOC didn't deny that she is DSD.
  5. She herself didn't deny she is DSD.
  6. The question of whether she is DSD or not, is discussed in many places including by scholars.
Vegan416 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest you re-read what Drmies wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I re-read it. I still don't understand what you want. Why don't you simply tell with which of the statement s I made you disagree, so we can progress the discussion somewhere, instead of repeating ourselves? Vegan416 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't want anything and I'm certainly not going to entertain you borderline violation of WP:BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Where is there any violation of BLP in the 6 statements I made here? Vegan416 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The very first section of BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
We don't republish speculation about highly personal aspects of people's private lives. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
But all the 6 statements I made here are not speculations. They are facts. I also wonder how can you discuss all the media circus around her without mentioning the claims that were made? should we delete from the article this sentence, that appears there now, for example? "In 2023, IBA president Umar Kremlev said that the disqualifications were because DNA tests "proved they had XY chromosomes"." According to your interpretation of BLP this is "republishing speculation about highly personal aspects of people's private lives".... Vegan416 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Personally I'd be perfectly happy removing Kremlev's statement, yes. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
So why don't you try to do it? It would be interesting to see if most editors will accept your extreme interpretation of BLP. Vegan416 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Because "I would be happy to" and "I am going to" are two different things. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
You're repeating unsubstantiated claims while falsely claiming that "silence is often considered an admission" to insinuate that she is what you believe she is. This much is clear, so let's not pretend that this ridiculous discussion is about something other than an excuse to violate BLP at will. M.Bitton (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
You are the one who is making unsubstantiated claims now, which I strongly deny. And as for the issue of silence and addmission, I suggest you look here. Vegan416 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
You have an issue with silence, that's your issue. M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you read this scholarly article. And I have to go to sleep so goodnight. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=flr Vegan416 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest travelling and experiencing other cultures and their communication styles. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
silence is often considered an admission (even in legal settings)
Yeah that's not true of legal proceedings basically anywhere and it's definitely not true of WP:BLP. The idea that we must give credence to every un-evidenced claim about a public figure that they do not explicitly refute is completely untenable. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
With regard to legal settings you are clearly wrong. Look here for example. As for BLP that would have been true if I said that she is intersex. But all I said here is that the claim that she is intersex is still undecided, and therefore cannot be describes as false claim. So there is no problem with BLP here. Vegan416 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
is there any part of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives that you don't understand? M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
As I posted above, there is a huge problem with BLP: we don't repeat baseless, speculative claims about people's private lives, which is what this is, given the absence of evidence.
As for the claim that she is intersex is still undecided, and therefore cannot be describes as false claim - like sure, we could describe it as a "baseless" or "unsupported" claim instead. But the article doesn't refer to "false claims that she is intersex", so why are you focusing on that? The only claims it describes outright as false are the ones about her gender. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@GhostOfDanGurney: I just thought you ought to know about this (given your above comment). M.Bitton (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that Zurkhardo's edit is just good copy editing: it removes an unnecessary repetition: "misinformation surfaced ... about her gender. False assertions about her gender". I myself was about to make the exact same edit this morning, but I decided to pass it over because I realised how the RfC was worded and thought that editing the lead might be confusing. If the RfC were to conclude with a consensus to oppose the change (i.e., not to include any reference to "widespread public attention") I would suggest changing the lead in the way proposed by Zurkhardo. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I certainly never intended for this to raise any substantive controversy -- I simply wanted to remove redundant information and keep the introduction crisper. Zurkhardo (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zurkhardo: that was quite obvious, that's why I pinged you. The comment by the admin (The normal procedure is to let the prior status quo stand until a consensus is reached, even if unsourced, unless it poses a serious defamation risk) is quite explicit in what should be done in instances like this one. Could you please self-revert? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I will let Black Kite decide whether this edit (which removes content that is being discussed in an ongoing RfC) needs to be restored. M.Bitton (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Cisgender

This is massively undue weight for the lead. I wonder if there is any other person on Wikipedia described as cisgender in the lead section. StAnselm (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Very few sources that I've been able to find refer to Imane as "cisgender". Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Support this view @StAnselm and @Kcmastrpc. Should be removed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Assigned female at birth" rather than "born female"

The lede of the article states that Imane was "born female". This, I feel, is a term that asserts trans people are born as the gender they do not identify with even though a lot of trans people, myself included, consider ourselves always to have been the gender we identify as. I edited the article to change it to "assigned female at birth" but my edit was quickly reverted as a good faith edit. I understand I'm not the majority and not everyone understands the terminology but "born female" feels disrespectful towards trans people, similar to the term "biological woman" instead of cis woman. If it's noted in the lede that she's cisgender, is it even necessary to mention she was assigned female at birth? Wasabi OS (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"born female" feels disrespectful towards trans people, according to whom? M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I said I'm not the majority. My view isn't the only one but in my opinion it suggests a trans person hasn't always been the gender they identify as. Again, I'm not the majority, but it strikes me as odd that it's used on a cisgender woman's article but "assigned gender at birth" is fine on a trans person's. In my opinion, it's a double standard. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand: are you saying that you can be transgender even if you identify to the gender that you've been assigned at birth? M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
That is in no way what I am trying to say. At all. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
even though a lot of trans people, myself included, consider ourselves always to have been the gender we identify as this is the confusing bit. M.Bitton (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
What? Wasabi OS (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear. Wasabi means that if someone who was assigned female at birth, later transitions to male, he may feel that the transition didn't change his gender from female to male, but rather exposed his true original male gender. That is, he may feel that he was in fact always male, even from birth, and therefore he will consider the expression "born female", with reference to him, to be offensive. See for example here: '“In cases when it’s important to discuss somebody’s anatomy, the terms AFAB and AMAB are more gender-affirming than, for example, ‘born female’ or ‘biologically male,’” Kolega explains. “Those terms can be invalidating by implying that a trans person isn’t ‘actually’ a man or a woman. They also don’t include people who are intersex and have different anatomy.”'. Wasabi, correct me if I'm wrong. Vegan416 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Sex and gender are separate at your insistence and so, you're either born a man or a woman or someone intersex with a chromonal disorder. There's nothing to do with assignment, get real. 2600:1700:76F1:E8A0:CF48:292E:86A5:C21 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the OP: "born female" should be replaced with "assigned female at birth" for multiple reasons:
  1. As noted by Wasabi OS, the born female terminology is perceived by many trans people as inappropriate if not transphobic (e.g., [45]). In the BLP of a trans woman, "she was born male" would suggest that her gender "by nature" is male, which is nonsense because gender is a social and psychological construct, and no one is born gendered, but we are assigned to a gender.
  2. "Assigned female at birth" leaves room for the possibility that she was assigned female by mistake. According to RSes, the hypothesis that Khelif has some form of DSD has not been verified, but neither has it been falsified.
  3. As I've detailed in this comment, the overwhelming majority of RSes say that she was assigned female at birth (and identifies as female), not that she was "born female". I believe that this terminological choice by RSes was made for the reasons in 1 and 2 above.
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed- See post above RfC on "misinformation". Terms "assigned female at birth" and "assigned male at birth" are the current recommended/prevailing professional terms for ALL individuals under both medical care and public health. The terms are more objectively accurate to the newborn exam and birth certificate processes. NeuroBioScience (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
i think it'd just make more sense to instead replace the parts mentioning people being confused about her gender, with people being confused about her sex, as that is actually what happened. Iluvwooper (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Moved the response to the relevant RFC Melmann 16:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I would oppose on the grounds of clarity. 'Assigned at birth' is, in my experience, wording that is only really used by trans community and allies, and is not, in my experience, readily understood by people who are not close to the topic.
There's also the fact that the subject has reportedly stated: I want to tell the entire world that I am a female, and I will remain a female[1], thus it may be inadvisable to use such wording in a WP:BLP where the subject has seemingly made explicit effort to distance themselves from the claim of being trans. Melmann 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Li, David K.; Burke, Minyvonne; Abdelkader, Rima (3 August 2024). "Imane Khelif wins fight and declares, 'I want to tell the entire world that I am a female'". NBC News. Archived from the original on 6 August 2024. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
@Melmann: there is an ongoing RfC about this. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: No idea how I missed that... I'll add it there instead. Melmann 16:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first RfC for this article? --Trade (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

2024: Olympic gold medal - this seems unencyclopedic

"Khelif became the target of online abuse and misinformation, such as false claims that she was a man." Can we really call this a "false" claim with any degree of certainty? To use the word "false" in this context would surely require us to prove that Khelif is not a man, and as I'm sure everyone reading this talk page knows, that is a subject of much debate. It might make more sense to say "false claims that she was a transgender woman" or similar, because we can conclusively say that those claims were indeed "false". Adric of Alzarius (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: The claims that she's a man seems to come from transphobes who use the same language for trans women. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, correct, which means that "false claims that she was a man" is indeed what we should be saying, as they are indeed false. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
That's true. I've been arguing with someone over the language in the lede and it's giving me a headache, so I can't think straight. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
How do we know they are false? Doesn't seem to acknowledge what @Adric of Alzarius stated "To use the word "false" in this context would surely require us to prove that Khelif is not a man, and as I'm sure everyone reading this talk page knows, that is a subject of much debate"
Not sure the page is a good example of NPV when it will only accept a direct medical report for XY but it seems to readily accept "not a man" without the same medical report. AntonioR449 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. I agree with Wasabi's original point. Khelif identifies as female, so any false claim that she was biologically male would de facto be that she was a transgender woman. Couldn't saying otherwise imply that transgender women are men? JSwift49 18:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
No, She can be Assigned Female At Birth (Sex_assignment#AFAB AFAB), lived all her life as a girl, even have a vagina, not have any intention to transition and therefore firmly not transgender. And yet, discover at 21 years old that she have XY chromosomes. Everything can be true at the same time. Iluvalar (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
information Note: This is not a RfC, so no need for the !votes.
Can we really call this a "false" claim with any degree of certainty yes we can call a "false claim" a "false claim".
would surely require us to prove that Khelif is not a man we certainly don't need to do such a thing, and any editor who claims or insinuates that she is a man would violate our WP:BLP policy. M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no reasonable debate about whether Khelif is a man. They have stated that they are female and there is no reliable evidence that claim is incorrect. TarnishedPathtalk 04:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean man in the cultural/societal sense? Because there is certainly a reasonable debate about whether she has a genetically male advantage. Not to be used as a source, but read Abrahamson's article, or Imane's trainer article. There are valid concerns that are not based on malicious politics. AntonioR449 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Abrahamson's article is a blogpost and it is clear they are parroting some of IBA's claims (which they can't make their mind up on). I'm not aware of Imane's trainer's article but I'm presuming it's another primary source which would be unreliable for making medical claims about a BLP. There are no valid concerns. TarnishedPathtalk 07:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like you haven't read Abrahamson's article, he is not parroting IBA claims. Rather he is claiming to have seen the lab tests from the independent labs themselves.
"For both Khelif and Lin, the New Delhi test – from, as IBA disclosed Monday, the independent Dr Lal PathLabs – consists of three pages."
"Page three makes plain that the lab is a “national reference lab” and, as well, accredited by CAP, the Northfield, Illinois-based College of American Pathologists, and certified by the ISO, the Swiss-based International Organization for Standardization."
Abrahamson article
I only mention this because many users on this page insist there is no valid debate and that it's all coming from places of malice, transphobic, etc. This is not the case. AntonioR449 (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
That's an unsubstantiated claim by a primary source. M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The point is to demonstrate to users on this page that claims of "it's all transphobes/IBA misinformation, there is no debate" is not factually correct. There is valid debate/concern about her being genetically male, it should not be swept under the rug as being exclusively from bad actors. AntonioR449 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no debate in RS. M.Bitton (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
That is sheer lunacy, I implore you to see reason. Of course there is debate amongst reputable sources, if they're weren't this concersation wouldn't be happening. You're simply taking a very narrow view of what counts as reputable, a view which conveniently aligns with your own preconceptions. For example, today Stephen O'Rahilly (a former president of the Society for Endocrinology) has asserted that Khelif is biologically male. A recent interview with Khelif's trainer in Le Point reveals that they were aware of "problems with her chromosomes". This, from Khelif's own trainer, in conjunction with what is known about Disorders of Sexual Development cast significant doubt over whether Khelif is male or female. Indeed, the view that the aforementioned Stephen O'Rahilly has come to is that Khelif is a male with 46 XY 5-ARD (see: 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency). Adric of Alzarius (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
has asserted that based on what?
Khelif's trainer never said such a thing, so please don't falsely attribute what you read in some forum to him. M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton
Based on >35 years of experience as one of the foremost endocrinologists in the field.
Here is a link to the Le Point article, notably not "some forum":
https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/2024-olympics-imane-khelif-was-devastated-to-discover-out-of-the-blue-that-she-might-not-be-a-girl-14-08-2024-2567924_24.php Adric of Alzarius (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no mention of Stephen O'Rahilly in that source.
Khelif's trainer never said such a thing, so please don't falsely attribute what you read in some forum to him. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I did not claim O'Rahilly was mentioned in the source; his view, as an expert in endochrinology, is visible on his Twitter (now X) account. The source I supplied is an interview with one of Khelif's trainers, Georges Cazorla, who says after undertaking tests there were found to be "problems with her chromosomes". Perhaps you would deign to explain what your objection to this source is? Why don't you consider it reputable? Adric of Alzarius (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
First, you misattributed a claim to her trainer and now, you're claiming that Georges Cazorla is one of her trainers (he's not). Anyway, I suggest you read the previous discussion about the interview in question. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Confusion of X/Twitter and "Against X"

@Di (they-them): I think we might have a specific misreading of "X" in sources, as evidenced here. Specifically, it might be a confusion between the French legal term of "against X" and the X, formerly Twitter. We need to review this and figure out how to refer to this. The linked AP article has no mention of that, and Varety article says "The lawsuit was filed against X, which under French law means that it was filed against unknown persons.".

It might seem that we need to decide what to say here. We might need to completely omit the Twitter mention and just do with "against unspecified persons, but also including Rowling and Musk". I believe that the issue is based in confusion.

Anyone else can comment on this? Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood what "against X" meant. I assumed that in the context of the cyberbullying and Rowling and Musk being named specifically, it meant X as in Twitter, although I now realize that may not be the case. I guess we can blame Musk for that confusion because he chose such an ambiguous name, haha. Anyways, in light of this confusion I'm ok with removing the mention of Twitter. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll just remove the mention of Twitter but keep the AP reference. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Variety uses the format "X/Twitter" later but not there, so I'd say they didn't mean the lawsuit was filed against Twitter. CambrianCrab (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Omitting the reference is a good idea. I think Twitter is a better name to use in general because Wikipedia still names it Twitter and X is not a commonly used name even a year later, although it is used in many reliable sources. "X" is also used sometimes as a placeholder which would be very confusing. Wasabi OS (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Complete and reliable sources about the meeting between Meloni and Bach (in Italian)

Since the discussion Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 3#Meloni again is too high compared to the others, I quote here my (important) answer to the user who asked me the following question: "Are there any sources in Italian that have significant or dedicated coverage of Meloni's talking to Bach about the issue?".
yes, read the following sources: [46] and [47]. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE.
(CC) Tbhotch™ 17:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: No; these two articles are very neutral, I would advise you to read them before judging. Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: English-language sources on this topic are, unfortunately, not sufficiently complete. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The language of the sources is irrelevant so is the neutrality of the publishers. Any opinions concerning an Italian politician on a biography of an Argelian boxer falls into UNDUE. This article is named Imane Khelif and it covers the biography of the subject. It is not named Imane Khelif's controversy during the 2024 Summer Olympics. The article Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Women's boxing controversy covers Meloni accordingly and that content is sufficient there. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Second-round fight against Angela Carini

Information in the second-round fight against Angela Carini should be placed before the quarter-final so that the matches are in chronological order as opposed to being out of order. Originalcola (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the fact that Khelif didn't publish any results or medical opinion that she is not DSD

@TarnishedPath Please explain why you deleted this sentence: "Khelif did not publish the results of the tests and refused to talk about them,but she sent them to the IBA. In response the IBA informed Khelif on April 2024 that the results of these independent tests also indicate that she has an unfair competitive advantage, and the IBA still deemed it unsafe for her to fight against female opponents". The reasons that you gave in the edit note are either false and baseless. There is not a shred of OR in this sentence. Everything is based on reliable sources. Also why do you think that lack of response from Khelif implies that she has DSD? Vegan416 (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The reasons given for the removal seem entirely correct to me. There are also serious wording problems: "refused" is an incredibly loaded term, and "informed" strongly implies that the IBA's assertion was correct. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
But she did refused to talk about them when asked by a reporter. That's fact recorded on video in a reliable news site. Do you have another way to express this fact? As for the word "informed" - I have no problem replacing it with "told".
Also, since you say you agree with the reasons given, then please explain what OR is there in this sentence and why do you think that lack of response from Khelif implies that she has DSD? Vegan416 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
"Declined" is significantly less loaded; "did not comment" also works.
I don't think that the lack of response from Khelif implies anything. What TarnishedPath was saying is that your addition to the article seems to suggest that the lack of response from Khelif implies something. I agree with him in this assessment. And he also said that creating such an implication is OR. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
But I didn't create any such implication. You are just imagining implications that do not exist in the text in order to hide relevant facts from the readers. Vegan416 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say you did it deliberately, I just said that the text comes across that way. I would appreciate if you would extend me the same assumption of good faith rather than accusing me of being engaged in some kind of censorship campaign. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
So tell me how would it be OK with you to mention the fact that Khelif didn't publish the results and declined to talk about it? Vegan416 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I would stick extremely closely to what is said in the sources and not go beyond that.
I would note that what she was specifically asked was not about the results of the tests, but whether she she had undergone tests other than those for doping, and she said she didn't want to talk about it.
I would not say Khelif "sent...to the IBA" the results of her independent tests, nor would I say that the IBA said "the results of these independent tests also indicate that she has an unfair competitive advantage," because neither of those things are in the sources. The source says that she undertook self-funded independent tests; it doesn't say what happened to the results. It also says that there was a separate set of independent tests, organised by the IBA, and that after that the IBA "informed both Khelif and Lin that they did not meet the eligibility criteria". It does quote the IBA as saying that that determination was made on the basis of those independent tests. It just places the IBA's determination chronologically after the independent tests. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
OK. I'll take your suggestions and rephrase the sentences accordingly when I have more time. But here is another question. While the source doesn't say "what happened to the results, we do know in fact that they were not published by her (or anyone else). Vegan416 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
We do know that, yes. But specifically mentioning that she has not published them would, in my view, be inappropriate extrapolation unless it's being noted specifically by sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It's probably also important to note that the extent of what the source says about those tests is that it was "independent testing to try and clear her name and return to competition under the IBA banner." We have no idea what those tests were about - testosterone, chromsomes, something else entirely. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The fact that she didn't publish the results was noted by the sources I referenced when I made the edit in the article. And in the edit I didn't say anything about what was exactly tested. Vegan416 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
We simply don't need to express it. WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE apply here. The material you edited to insert should simply not be in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 23:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Khelif also did not publish results to prove she isn't a secret lizard person, nor did she publish results to prove she isn't part of the illuminati, nor did she publish results to prove she isn't secretly part of WP:CABAL.
It is WP:UNDUE to demand counter-evidence of an unsubstantiated claim or to note lack of counter-evidence. Most "evidence" of the original claim that Khelif has DSD has been debunked as misinformation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
1. Actually the claim that she has DSD was NOT debunked, and it is still an open question, since the results of the IBA tests and those of Khelif independent tests were not published (in the case of the IBA tests it was presumably by the request of the Algerian Olympic Committee) and no independent expert opinion was published regarding these results. In fact there wasn't even any denial of this claim by the IOC or Khelif (to be more accurate the IOC published a tweet that this is not a DSD case, but then retracted this claim).
2. As for the "secret lizard person" and "illuminati" this is, of course, a completely false analogy for three reasons: 1. People, and even Olympic athletes, with DSD are a real thing, whereas "secret lizard person" and "illuminati" aren't. 2. Nobody claimed that Khelif is a lizard person or illuminati, or even discussed this possibility, whereas many people claimed that she had DSD or discussed this possibility. 3. By the definition of these conspiratorial imaginary concepts, there is no way to prove that you are not a lizard person or Illuminati. But proving that Keliph doesn't have DSD (in case she really doesn't have DSD) would be very easy - just publishing the independent test results... Vegan416 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps its poor choice and I did not mean to imply that DSD athletes are lizard people, only that it is WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE to include that Khelif has failed to prove something which is outrageous to believe in the first place in the preponderous of reliable sourcing indicating otherwise.
the analogy is a fallacy of Shifting the burden of proof and has been used by conspiracy theorists to sow inappropriate doubts and goes something like this:
  • there is no evidence she is a <<Insert internet misinfo>>. but there is no evidence to prove she isn't a <<Insert internet misinfo>> tho. therefore, if someone on Twitter claims she is <<Insert internet misinfo>>, we should include that she has failed to produce evidence that she isn't a <<Insert internet misinfo>>.
  • there is no evidence she has elevated testosterone or an XY chromosome.[48] but there is no evidence to prove she isn't an athlete with DSD. therefore, we should include that she failed to produce evidence that she isn't an athlete with DSD.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Why is it outrageous to think that she may have DSD??? As I have shown it had happened several times before that Olympic athletes turned out to have DSD.
It is also not accurate to say that "there is no evidence she has elevated testosterone or an XY chromosome". The accurate thing to say is what appears in the lead of this article: "no evidence she has elevated testosterone or an XY chromosome was published". It is not at all the same thing, especially when the reason the IBA didn't publish their results seems to be that the Algerian OC asked them not to publish them (that's what the IBA said). Vegan416 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm basically with Bluethriceicecreamman here. I understand what you're saying about the IBA but the combination of repeatedly refusing to publish their results, their contradictory claims about what test was even conducted, and the suspicious timing of the original disqualification make whatever evidence they amount to very weak. Certainly the burden of proof here is not on Khelif. Loki (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd go further and state that it doesn't only make it very weak, but makes the IBA unreliable on this subject matter. TarnishedPathtalk 23:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Loki,
1. It is obvious that the burden of proof falls on those who wish to disqualify her or to assert definitively that she has DSD/High-Testosterone/some-other-male-related-unfair-advantage, and not on her to prove otherwise. BUT, having said that, her behavior and the behavior of the IOC in this matter still remains very strange and unexplained. If a person is massively falsely "accused" of a specific particular thing that she perceives as damaging to her reputation, the response that one would normally await from her is clear denial. And if it is extremely easy to present data that disproves the false claim (as would be the case here), then one would normally expect her to show such data. If she doesn't do that then it is a very unusual behavior, that is noteworthy, even if there is absolutely no burden of proof on her.
2. Also all this talk about "burden of proof" is a red herring and completely irrelevant to what I said here. I didn't ask her to be disqualified. I didn't ask to assert definitively in the article that she has DSD. I didn't even ask to write in the article that she might have DSD. All I wanted to do is mention several undisputed and relevant facts that appear in reliable sources. And with all the wish to assume good faith it is hard not to get the feeling that at least some of the pushback I get is because these facts don't fit comfortably with some politically motivated narrative about the story.
3. Anyway, as I already said I had accepted some of the constructive criticism of AntiDionysius, and I'll rephrase the edit significantly. Vegan416 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Fortunately we don't have to prove or disprove anything, just give an accurate and balanced account of what the RSes report. Here is what they say:
  • "Khelif has never disclosed her biological markers" (NBC);
  • "Khelif declined to answer when asked whether she had undergone tests other than doping tests, saying she didn’t want to talk about it" (Time);
  • "We do not know if Khelif and Lin are athletes with DSD because the full results of the tests are confidential, and the fighters are yet to declare them." (BBC)
  • "Khelif then provided her own medical documentation after sourcing independent testing to try and clear her name and return to competition under the IBA banner ... following examination from the IBA medical committee ... Khelif ... was told that the results gave her an unfair competitive advantage and deemed it unsafe for her to fight against female opponents" (Sidney Morning Herald).
Is there a way of combining these sources in a BLP-compliant text? AntiDionysius's comments are helpful. What about the following text?

Khelif chose not to share details about her biological traits and declined to comment on whether she had undergone any medical examinations beyond those related to doping.[TIME + NBC] The specific findings from any tests that could indicate DSDs were not disclosed and remain confidential. [BBC]

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I support this rephrasing. And thanks for saving me the work :-) Vegan416 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no consensus in this discussion for any revert, partial or otherwise, to restore your preferred material. TarnishedPathtalk 00:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
We'll wait for another day or two or three, and if there would still not be a consensus in this discussion, then I'll open an RFC if needed, and probably not only on this but on several other undisputed, well-sourced and relevant facts in this story, facts that you might wish to be censored as well. Vegan416 (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of "censorship". It's not conducive to a civil, productive discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, please note that TarnishedPath objects here (and in a comment above) to any mention of some undisputed facts, that are well sourced, even after they were rephrased according to your own suggestions, just because he thinks that maybe some people would deduce from these facts some conclusions that currently don't have corroborative evidence. How is this different from censorship? Vegan416 (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • WP:FORUM applies. Use wikipedia principles and rules to work through instead of claiming censorship.
  • WP:BRD applies. if the bold edit is reverted, the onus is on the editor, not the reverter, to explain their reasoning
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I already said that this is is probably going to end in a very extensive RfC, which I'll publish as widely as possible (according to the rules). Vegan416 (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
"Censorship" in colloquial usage clearly implies some kind of bad faith attempt to conceal the truth. There is nothing indicating such a desire to conceal anything, or any bad faith. TarnishedPath's reason for objecting to the inclusion of this content is, among other things, a good faith worry that it creates an implication which would be problematic in the context of WP:BLP.
You don't agree that such an implication will present itself to the average reader. That's fine. But there is zero reason to indicate that those who disagree with you, whether it's me or TarnishedPath or someone else, are acting in bad faith, unless you're suggesting that it is not possible to disagree with your position (on the implication of the sentence) in good faith, which seems self-evidently not true. So please extend a little courtesy to your fellow editors. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you that censorship necessarily implies bad faith. When I censor sex or violence in movies I show to my little kids it is done in completely good faith because I want to protect my kids from the bad influence I believe these things can have on them. When a government censors military secrets it is done in good faith to protect the security of its citizens. When some mainstream media and social networks censored reports about the Hunter Biden laptop prior to the 2020 elections, they did so in good faith because they suspected that it is a Russian operation to discredit Biden. (Turned out they were wrong.) When some media outlets censor details/statistics about the race/ethnicity of some crime perpetrators it is also done in good faith because they are afraid that publishing those details might stoke violent racism. Still, despite the good faith in all those examples they still squarely fall under the definition of censorship.
Having said all that I actually think that I can show double standards applied here by some editors regarding the issue of what to protect under BLP and what not. I'll expand about that later when I have more time. Vegan416 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Right, but we're not talking about preventing kids seeing sex or violence, so that's not really the same thing. And you accused me of just imagining implications that do not exist in the text in order to hide relevant facts from the readers which is plainly an accusation of acting in bad faith, invoking censorship in the more common, negative sense of the word - suggesting that I am trying to skew the article. Please don't do that. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree again. People can try to skew the article in good faith. I don't want to speculate further about the motives of specific other editors, but let's say that in general I can imagine editors trying to skew an article for reasons that they believe to be completely in good faith according to their political worldview, e.g. to protect what they perceive as persecuted minorities or people. Vegan416 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you explain the reasons why you oppose (if you oppose) the proposed edit as rephrased by me? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I've already provided adequate policy based reasons. I'm not here to repeat myself. TarnishedPathtalk 03:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: you said that the IBA is unreliable, but the reworded edit does not mention or rely, not even indirectly, on the IBA. You said that we should focus on the subject of the article rather than include "generalised material about controversies", but the reworded edit is about what Khelif said or declined to say about her own medical tests, which are already mentioned in article (After the appeal, Khelif organised independent tests to clear her name and return to boxing; added by Deathlibrarian on 7 August, unchallenged). Finally, in the edit summary of your revert, you said "Remove edits which insert quotes which imply a lack of response from Khelif is evidence for claims that they have DSD. Inserting quotes in such a manner is WP:BLP and WP:NOR viloation". The reworded edit does not imply that she has DSD, but that she may have it, and is based on information reported by BBC, TIME, and NBC. So your reasons are either irrelevant/off-topic or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Did I miss anything? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not here to WP:SATISFY you. I've already responded with perfectly valid reasons. Discontinue this. TarnishedPathtalk 13:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "If she doesn't do that then it is a very unusual behavior, that is noteworthy, even if there is absolutely no burden of proof on her."
That is still applying a burden of proof on Khelif, just with extra steps.
  • "Also all this talk about "burden of proof" is a red herring and completely irrelevant to what I said here"
WP:FALSEBALANCE applies. Shifting the burden of proof creates false balance when conveying information about khelif. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I adequately explained in my edit summary why I removed the material. Now a better question is why are you pushing material in a manner which is presumptive that the IBA (an unreliable source) is correct? TarnishedPathtalk 23:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The IBA aren't being used as a source; the IBA are one of the parties that are involved in this affair. Whether their claims are true or not are neither here nor there. Their claims are an integral element of this controversy. When we document disputes, we have to say what the claims being made are. And in this case the IBA's claims are not even being disputed at all! (Except maybe by the IOC claiming they were never sent said information? Doesnt matter, we aren't using either the IOC or the IBA as sources, we are reporting what independent sources have said the two organizations have said!)

So, it's like this: Reliable Source says "IOC says this, IBA says that." We do not get to say "Well we can just ignore what the RS says the IBA says because we don't them and they're unreliable, so we'll leave that part out." Or worse still, argue that a source is unreliable if it prints things that you think are "WP:UNDUE" - UNDUE is a standard for US, and is based on whats in RS. Source reliability isn't determined by whether it prints "UNDUE" information, that's total circular nonsense. (Not saying this has been argued here, but it is an position that is regularly argued by some of the participants in this thread elsewhere, so its relevancy is reasonably probable.) 73.2.106.248 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
IBA is not a reliable source and their claims must be heavily WP:ATTRIBUTED. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
And, of course, there's also the issue that this is not the article about the "affair" or the "controversy". That would be Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Women's_boxing_controversy. This is an article about Imane Khelif, the person. Not everything relevant to the controversy need to be repeated exhaustively here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. This is a BLP and the primary focus needs to be on the subject. We also need to be conservative in our wording. Obviously BLP applies everywhere but the place for generalised material about controversies is articles like the one you point to. TarnishedPathtalk 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The question of How Khelif responded to the "accusations" is clearly focused on her, i.e. on the subject of this article. So it belongs both here and in the controversies article. Vegan416 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Your question is irrelevant. It lacks WP:WEIGHT. Why do you continue to push this? You clearly don't have consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 13:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
It is mentioned by several highly reliable sources. So it had WP:WEIGHT. Anyway, do you think that this discussion has reached its end, and I can move right on to opening an RfC? I don't think so. I'll wait with the RfC till next week Vegan416 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not particularly fussed if or when you choose to go to an RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 14:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Putting that they did not respond is not evidence of anything and is merely insinuating that they have something to hide. Get consensus or drop this. TarnishedPathtalk 13:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be evidence for anything and it doesn't insinuate anything. It is just reporting on her response, which is a very common practice in such cases. In fact it is standard practice in any respectable media publication to report the response of anyone who is "accused" of something in any report about the "accusation".
BTW, I consistently put the word accusation in double quotes because it's really not an accusation at all. It's just reporting on a possible neutral medical condition. There is absolutely nothing socially or morally wrong or in having DSD. And even if she has this condition it is clearly not at all her responsibility that she was born this way. Vegan416 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
If you don't see it as evidence for anything, why are you so keen to insert that particular wording into the article? RS might say lots of things and we don't state all of them in articles. TarnishedPathtalk 14:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
As I said "it is standard practice in any respectable media publication to report the response of anyone who is "accused" of something in any report about the "accusation"." Vegan416 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Reading through sourcing of the contested edits, sourcing is unclear as well and cannot support this edit.
[49] states the IBA never disclosed the exact testing, not khelif.
[50] does not say if Khelif took other tests after the IBA, only that she declined to answer about it.
[51] states Khelif's tests were never released, but it doesn't state which test or even that Khelif took an independent test. The only time test with specific regard to Khelif is mentioned is the IBA.
None of these talk about the independent test Khelif took and is WP:SYNTH. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
"Khelif then provided her own medical documentation after sourcing independent testing to try and clear her name and return to competition under the IBA banner" Sidney Morning Herald Vegan416 (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Khelif took her own tests after the IBA Tests, to try to clear her name. Apparently the effort wasn't successful,(?) and there are no details on her tests. BUt its mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald which is A RS> ALso I agree with some of the other editors here, if Khelif was asked questions about the tests, and refused to answer (or declined to answer)... then that should be included in the article. WE dont; know why, and we can't imply, but the fact it happenned should be incl.Uded. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Khelif doesn't have to explain or justify who she is to anyone. As for the so-called test: did she ever mention such a test or is that someone repeating hearsay? M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Red herring. Khelif doesn't have to explain or justify who she is to anyone. Agreed. But the fact the she declines to do that is still noteworthy nonetheless because it would be a very unusual behavior for someone who can easily disprove the claims made against him. Vegan416 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
As editors, it isn't our position to comment or theorize on one's behavior or intent. To do otherwise lends itself to poor editing & risks WP:SYNTH. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
So, to be clear, you still maintain that your proposed addition does not imply Khelif is hiding something, and yet your reasoning for adding it is that Khelif is exhibiting very unusual behavior for someone who can easily disprove the claims made against him? AntiDionysius (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed here. It's an argument engaging in original research. TarnishedPathtalk 03:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • This is obviously WP:SYNTH based on pulling a few quotes out of context and giving them undue weight. Note that, for example, in the NBC news source, the However, the test results were never published... refers to the tests the IBA claim supports their misinformation campaign. More generally, sources, overall, are clear that this is a misinformation campaign and that the IBA's position is groundless; pulling quotes out of context indicating that Khelif has tried to give them as little attention as she could and implying that this somehow creates a cloud of uncertainty is a WP:BLP violation without sourcing specifically saying as much in as many words. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    Does your comment apply also to the reworded edit I proposed here? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. WP:SYNTH, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:ONUS still apply. You must answer our questions by arguing why each of these principles don't apply, or are incorrectly used, or if there is another principle that overrides these. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    They are all used incorrectly:
    • WP:SYNTH. The reworded edit is a faithful paraphrase of what is explicitly stated in the sources and adds nothing new.
    • WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. TIME, BBC and NBC are major news organisations. If they report that Khelif has chosen not to disclose details about her biological traits, it is likely that this is significant information. The possibility that she has DSDs has been widely discussed by RSes and experts (see sources in the collapsible box).
    • WP:ONUS. This is absurd. No one has restored the contentious material, so what are you talking about? In order to reach consensus we need to discuss freely.
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    The possibility that ... based on what? M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
    I won't reply further - please read the sources, starting from the IOC correcting its own president, who had said "this is not a DSD case" [52], her trainer saying that she was devastated to discover that she might not be biologically female [53], and the various arguments made by the journalists and experts that you find in Public debates about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions. We shouldn't damage Khelif by pushing the well-intentioned but questionable POV that she is not intersex: we just don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    Her trainer never said such a thing (we already discussed that unusable interview). Opinions that are based on nothing, are worthless opinions, especially when it comes to BLP.
    We shouldn't damage Khelif by pushing the well-intentioned but questionable POV that she is not intersex. stating that she is intersex, while pretending to care about her, is a BLP violation and an insult to our intelligence. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I raised the question in the BLP noticeboard here because it seems to deal with a more general BLP question, namely whether BLP calls for suppressing undisputed facts (such as Khelif's lack of response to the claims she might have DSD etc.) just because people might conclude from them unwarranted conclusion. I have shown other examples there that support my position that BLP doesn't forbid that. Vegan416 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Repeated mention of IBA nationality

I don't see why IBA is repeatedly referred to as "Russian." It stinks of an attempt to discredit the organization by using the nationality of its members or leaders.

  1. Though many people in the West don't like certain Russian leaders that in no way invalidates every organization originating in Russia
  1. If the organization were of any other nationality, it wouldn't be mentioned: we can see how wrong this is just by substituting "Bulgarian" or "Singaporean."

Unless there's another IBA, there is no good reason to mention "Russian." Trashbird1240 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I had similar concerns (see this edit) but several reliable sources mention that the IBA is (not Russian but) Russian-led, as the article says, e.g. BBC ("Russian-led"), PBS ("Russian-dominated"), and many more. International politics is a significant context of the Khelif controversy, so I think "Russian-led" is WP:DUE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
There are a number of reliable sources which mention that the IBA is Russian led, particularly in reference to them disqualifying Khelif right after she'd beaten a prevoiusly undefeated Russian boxer. TarnishedPathtalk 00:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's the big reason why. The suspicious timing of that event is regarded as very relevant by the sources, and the nationality of the head of the IBA and the losing boxer are relevant to that event. Loki (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
100%. Given the reliable sourcing, IBA's disqualification of Khelif can't be discussed in any other context. TarnishedPathtalk 03:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, it is actually based in Switzerland. The IBA currently has a president of Russian nationality, but its other officials, including the Board of Directors, have a range of nationalities. I think even "Russian-led" is misleading, given that it's the Board of Directors who decide on official IBA business, and none of them except for Kremlev are Russian: https://www.iba.sport/about-iba/organizational-structure/iba-board-of-directors/ 2A00:23EE:1320:C01:8CCF:7C8A:C3D1:38B2 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The sources themselves emphasize repeatedly that they are Russian and discuss, in depth, the fact that the IBA may have been motivated by a desire to protect Russian athletes from competition by using a misinformation campaign to push for Khalif's disqualification. Given the clear direction of coverage, we have to cover that aspect even if editors disagree - that is to say, we can't adjust how we cover things to make the IBA appear more or less credible; but if news media covers the fact that the IBA appears to be operating to protect Russian interests, then we have to make that clear, we can't just remove it because an editor disagrees with the fact that it appears to discredit them. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
way invalidates every organization originating in Russia
IBA didn't originated in Russia/USSR. It was created in the beginning of XX century in Europe as FIBA, than changed in name to AIBA, then to IBA. 94.253.2.129 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
"Russian-led" is supported by sources, but the article (and this talk page) does come very, very close to endorsing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the IBA. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please delete "...previously unbeaten Russian prospect" after Azalia Amineva mentioning

after Khelif defeated Azalia Amineva [ru], a previously unbeaten Russian prospect.

Please delete information that Azalia Amineva was unbeaten Russian prospekt in 2023. Buy the time fight Khelif-Amineva in 2023, Amineva had losses in box.

For examble, in All-Russian Spartakiad 2022 she lost to Saadat Dalgatova (66 kg) https://www.sport-interfax.ru/858312

In 2021 she lost to same Saadat Dalgatova (66kg) at Russian Womans boxing championship https://dagpravda.ru/sport/saadat-dalgatova-semikratnaya-chempionka 94.253.2.129 (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

+1. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
use WP:EDITREQUEST.
I have questions about when she was unbeaten as well? I think it means she was unbeaten during the championships in 2023? News sources are not very specific.
Also, this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to combine sourcing like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it means she was unbeaten during the championships
More likely when journalists from mentioned source (Beacham, Greg (3 August 2024). "Banned governing body that's fueling outcry on Olympic boxers has Russian ties and troubled history". AP News) searched about Azalia Aminova boxing history, first result was Boxrec.com where she has no losses. This is because Boxrec specializes on professional boxing events, not local spartakiads, championships etc. 94.253.2.129 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
This is, unfortunately, part of the conspiracy theorising that the disqualification wasn't about XY karyotype test results but because Khelif beat Amineva. However the timeline doesn't make sense, as the blood sample for the karyotype was taken several days before Khelif's match with Amineva. Also it doesn't explain why Lin Yu-ting, who fought no Russians in that tournament, was disqualified. 2A00:23EE:1320:C01:8CCF:7C8A:C3D1:38B2 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll add a clarification needed tag on these sentence in view of the sources brought here. Vegan416 (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
That's WP:OR. Furthermore, the IBA itself describes Azalia Amineva as "undefeated":

(July 18th, 2024 / IBA Champions Night) Azalia Amineva of Russia will feature in the only women’s match on the card, with the undefeated amateur facing the undefeated professional Rehema Abdallah of Tanzania in the 66kg weight category.

M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no OR here. Also, it is interesting to see that now you suddenly consider the IBA to be a reliable source after you described it as "shady" and unreliable :-) In any case even if we consider the IBA to be a reliable source then we have a situation of two reliable sources contradicting each other. This is precisely one of the situations for which the "clarification needed" tag is required Vegan416 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't, but the Russian-backed IBA is repeating what is found in multiple RS about a Russian athlete. As for the OR: using the sources to draw a conclusion that isn't stated in any of them is the definition of WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
what is found in multiple RS about a Russian athlete.
These sources - big news agencies - are reliable in case of boxers's statistics, even not taking in account that in most of cases news agencies don't work with original sources but copy news from other news agenices which they count reliable. They will not go into local internets (in this case, Russian) to find boxing history of particular boxers.
In all news sources with mention Azalia Aminova "unbeaten" status it was got either from Boxrec, where information about non-professional fights may be missing (as in this case, and in case of, for example, other Amineva opponent - Dalgatova ), or from abovementioned IBA website (I assume IBA did such statement about Amineva to draw more attention to their boxing event). 94.253.2.129 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
FIX - These sources - big news agencies - aren't reliable in case of boxers's statistics 94.253.2.129 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
This is the kinds of situation WP:BLUE was made for, it's a straightforward application of the definition of the word 'undefeated'. If a boxer lost a fight, they're not undefeated, you don't need a quote from NYT to know that. Hi! (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
A number of sources say this in their own voices. I don't see any case for removal. TarnishedPathtalk 05:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
A number of sources say this in their own voices. I don't see any case for removal.
Neighter of these non-Russian sources had checked boxing statistics of Amineva, but they relied either on search on Boxrec.com or reproduce materials from majoir news agencies. As for abovementioned IBA page with annouce of tournament in Ufa (Russia), I doubt it was a source for them. First search results on history of Amineva would be Boxrec, where no local championships and tournaments described for her (and may be other boxers too). Likely when someone begin to check why Amineva stated as "inbeaten", they found this IBA's announcement. In which participants boxers are decorated with loud titles to make good advertising.
Also, this event (Russia, Ufa, August 2024, unbeaten amateur Azalia Amineva vs unbeater amateur Rehema Abdallah) insnt included in Boxrec stats of Rehema Abdallah. And I'm not sure do she really had not losses in her history of official fights or not. Relying only on Boxrect isn't good, but because it always in 1st search results, everyone takes it.
Amineva had wins and losses in various local Russian championships in here boxing history, of which I put links at least on two examples. 94.253.2.129 (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
"they relied either on search on Boxrec.com or reproduce materials from majoir news agencies"
You have no evidence for that claim.
When it comes down to good number of reliable sources (I'm not including IBA in that, but it doesn't hurt that they say the same thing) vs one that plays language games (refer to https://dagpravda.ru/politika/operation-ua/ where they refer to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a Special operation rather than an invasion) I think we should go with the numerous sources that we know to be reliable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Dagpravda was found because Dalgatova is from Dagestan, so local news website posted about her victory over Amineva.
What source do you need for results of fight Amineva-Dolgatova 2022 and Amineva-Dolgatova 2021 ?
Here is report from website of Ministry of Sport of Republic of Bashkorstan (Amineva was born there) of Russian Federation about Amineva-Dalgatova fight at Russian Women Boxing championship-2021
В поединке за выход в финал спортсменка из Республики Башкортостан Аминева Азалия уступила победу более опытной сопернице – уроженке Республики Дагестан Далгатовой Саадат.
https://sport.bashkortostan.ru/presscenter/news/414309
This is report of Ministry of Sport of Russian Federation on Spartakiada-2022, in PDF, from official webste of Russian Boxing Federation. Russian Summer's Sports Spartakiad-2022, Amineva-Dalgatova fight as of 25 Aug 2022 is on page 15.
https://admin.rusboxing.ru/media/documents/%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%A7%D0%95%D0%A2_%D0%92%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%99%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%AF_%D0%A1%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%9A%D0%98%D0%90%D0%94%D0%90_%D0%91%D0%9E%D0%9A%D0%A1_KxgT9nl.pdf 94.253.2.129 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Section on Disqualification

The section on her 2023 disqualification reads, in part: “After the appeal, Khelif organised independent tests to clear her name and return to boxing.” A relatively new article in Le Point contains potentially relevant information. Georges Cazorla, whom the article states worked with and supervised her, said this:

”After the 2023 Championship, when she was disqualified, I took the initiative and contacted a renowned endocrinologist at the University Hospital Kremlin-Bicêtre in Paris, who examined her. He confirmed that Imane was indeed a woman, despite of her karyotype and her testosterone levels. He said : ‘There is a problem with her hormones, and with her chromosomes, but she's a woman.’ That was all that mattered to us. We then worked with an Algeria-based doctor to control and regulate Imane's testosterone levels, which are currently in the female range. Some tests clearly show that all her muscle qualities and others have diminished since then. Today, on a muscular and biological level, she can compare with a woman-woman-woman.”

This new and relevant information potentially warrants additions to the section on her disqualification. 68.62.246.69 (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

discussed and rejected already. [54] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
That discussion was closed “because there is an RFC on it” proposing a change to the lead. This proposes changes to the disqualification section. 2601:940:C000:8990:1146:A261:8709:11B (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to tell what we could get out of this interview. Who is this Cazorla? What does he mean when he says that Khelif can compare with a woman-woman-woman? WP:INTERVIEWS are a very bad source for a WP:BLP: they are largely unacceptable, especially when they are primary, non-independent sources, coming from someone whose reliability is unclear. They are not much different from self-published sources, which we should avoid per WP:RSSELF. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
“It's hard to tell what we could get out of this interview.” It’s a claim, published in a reliable source, secondary to and independent of the IBA, that Khelif’s testosterone and/or chromosomes are atypical for a female, by someone who claims knowledge of the facts. It tends to provide support to the validity of the IBA’s test. For that reason, it is relevant and notable. With proper care, making sure not to present the allegations as verified, information from the article could be included while maintaining a NPOV. Including it would arguably provide a more balanced view of the situation. 2601:940:C000:8990:55A3:C7FF:FC79:BE08 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Interviews are primary sources. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY. TarnishedPathtalk 04:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Usage of Gender over Sex

I have seen it stated in the article that many people were confused about her gender, when in reality this was all really just about her sex rather than her gender. Iluvwooper (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Both were being discussed, but there was misinformation about her gender specifically - she was falsely described as a "man" by a number of prominent people. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
People have been using "man" to refer to Khelif's sex. For many people (if not most), man just means "adult male human". That is the sense meant by, for example, JK Rowling when she talked of "men punching women" in reference to Khelif and Lin. 2A00:23EE:2368:5F9E:AC67:A3DA:D02:8612 (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
That's not what "man" means, though. So whether they realised/intended it or not, people saying that 100% were spreading misinformation about her gender, nonetheless. Many of them also used male pronouns as well as the word "man", which is a pretty unambiguous reference to gender. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
It is one of the meanings of "man". Please consider that there are many people (and globally, probably most people) who do not hold the belief that "man" and "woman" are identities that can be adopted by anyone regardless of their sex. Instead, they understand "man" and "woman" to mean adult humans who are, respectively, male and female. 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Leaving aside for a second the truth of that, the deliberately incorrect usage of pronouns by many of the people commenting on this issue makes it clear that Khelif was, in fact, subject to misinformation about her gender. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Same principle applies. "He" and "she" are often used as references to an individual's sex. Someone who believes that Khelif is male may well use "he" rather than "she". 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Incorrectly. And it doesn't make a difference. If these people don't recognise a distinction between gender and sex, and claim that her sex is male and that that means she should be referred to by male pronouns, they are still spreading misinformation about her gender, they're just doing it in a roundabout way. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
That entirely depends on one's beliefs regarding gender identity. Which will vary amongst readers of the article. 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure they will vary. But we don't cater our articles to the beliefs of the reader, we shape them according to what is true and verifiable in reliable sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why it's important to understand that the controversial issue is Khelif's sex, particularly in regard to competing against female opponents in the boxing ring, so that a truthful account of the controversy can be written. Someone who doesn't hold gender identity beliefs is of course going to discuss this using different words ("man", "he") to someone who does ("woman", "she"). This should be taken into consideration when assessing source material. 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I really really do not know what "holding gender identity beliefs" means. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
A belief in the concept of gender identity as applied to the definitions of "woman" and "man". 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so when you say we should cater to a hypothetical "someone who doesn't hold gender identity beliefs", you're saying we should cater to people who don't believe in...truth? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm saying that editors should be careful in their interpretation of statements describing Khelif as a "man" or with male pronouns.
For example, JK Rowling wrote "explain why you're OK with a man beating a woman in public for your entertainment. This isn’t sport." One interpretation of this statement is that it is misinformation about Khelif's gender - but only if one is reading through that lens. Knowing about JK Rowling's gender critical perspective makes it clear that she uses "man" to mean "adult male human", and this is commentary on Khelif's sex with regards to competing against female opponents.
Also, that you describe a contested belief system as "truth" really just indicates that you hold this belief very strongly. 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Kremlev

This edit request has been answered. TarnishedPathtalk 08:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

Umar Kremlev appears in the article without introduction as President of IBA, reads as confusing. Can somebody pls clarify in article? Ty. 38.73.253.217 (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

done Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
also, use WP:EDITREQUEST next time, if possible! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2024 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2024

Edit request answered. TarnishedPathtalk 09:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

Add to "See Also" section:

 Not done. The article is already linked to in the body of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 09:17, 23 August 2024 (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.

RfC: Sex Status

WP:SNOW consensus in favour of status quo. Most disagreeing !votes were discarded for not citing policy or sources with their claims. A general reminder about WP:RFCNEUTRAL may also be in order. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

There has been further coverage since the prior RfC. The article currently describes Khelif's sex as female, describes all claims otherwise as false, and states that there is no published evidence to the contrary, all in Wikivoice. Should the article be updated throughout to avoid taking an explicit stance on Khelif's sex and related claims, and include coverage of the leak of the alleged chromosome test? Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Polling (RfC: Sex Status)

--Mike_Delis (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Note: I've redacted the misgendering. Any more of this and it will be time for warning templates. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this user has previously been warned and blocked for misgendering Khelif. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
No nothing has been proven and there is no consensus on the reliability of The Telegraph for this sort of coverage. TarnishedPathtalk 10:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath Most recent consensus on the matter seems to indicate that while The Telegraph is editorially biased on transgender/transsexual topics, it is generally seen as being factually reliable, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_392#RfC:_The_Telegraph. I do not dispute that this is a hostile source, and that it needs to be handled with care, but I do not see a good reason to doubt the factuality of reporting. Can you support your claim that The Telegraph is not considered reliable on trans topics? Melmann 10:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
From WP:RSP:

In regards to transgender issues, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Telegraph. Editors consider The Telegraph biased or opinionated on the topic, and its statements should be attributed.

Given some of the coverage that has occurred about Khelif in the past, I'd say that applies. Given that lack of consensus and per WP:BLPSOURCES we shouldn't be using the source at all. TarnishedPathtalk 10:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I happen to think we shouldn't use the Telegraph as the sole source here, but for the record, I think you're overstating the conclusion of that RfC. A finding of "no consensus" doesn't mean it should be treated as unreliable for the purpose of WP:BLPSOURCES, it means there is no consensus on its general reliability, and hence its reliability for a specific purpose needs to be considered in context. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES states that material supported by no or poor sources should be removed from BLPs without discussion. If there is no consensus on the reliability of The UK Telegraph for trans issues, that makes it a poor source which we shouldn't use for this subject matter which is at the intersection of contentious topics. We need high quality sourcing for this stuff. TarnishedPathtalk 11:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
No consensus does not equal poor source. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath The editor who closed the RFC I linked to above, which is also the source for WP:RSP, wrote the following:

there is a strong consensus that any editorial bias The Telegraph might have in its coverage of transgender and transsexual topics does not impinge its reliability.

This reads to me as the opposite of what you're saying; while everyone agrees that The Telegraph is editorially biased against trans folks, there is no consensus that it is factually unreliable.
Am I missing something here? Are you referring to an additional discussion I am not considering? Melmann 12:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Melmann, I've been quoting directly from WP:RSP (the section in yellow for The Telegraph). Directly from the RFC:

I find that there is no consensus among editors as to the reliability of The Daily Telegraph on trans issues.

TarnishedPathtalk 13:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath Oh, my apologies, I was not looking at the most recent RFC. Melmann 16:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
My view is:
  • Coverage of the leaked data: not yet. This is private biomedical information acquired through uncertain means. We should wait for additional high quality secondary reliable sources to validate it.
  • Taking a neutral stance on Khelif's sex and related claims: yes, and it's kind of incredible that we don't currently do that.
  • We're not required to publish information just because it's available, and this is why we should hold back on covering the leaked information, but equally we're not required to pretend the leaked information doesn't exist. Just because the currently available sources don't clear the bar for inclusion in a BLP doesn't mean we can't use them to reason about the reliability of sources. I have only seen one source[55] that boldly asserts that "Khelif is male" is false, and their more recent article[56] prefers the word “unsubstantiated”. Sources that take an explicit "Khelif is female" viewpoint are not doing so based on any medical evidence. The only thing close to medical evidence is the leaked report, which states the opposite. The provenance of the leaked report is not ideal, but to assign it zero weight is tantamount to positing a conspiracy theory about it being faked.
  • Aside from the latest leaked report, we have sources like the BBC[57] taking a deliberately neutral stance on related matters:

Some reports took the IBA stating that Khelif has XY chromosomes to speculate she might have differences of sexual development (DSD) like runner Caster Semenya. However, the BBC has not been able to confirm whether this is or is not the case.

(my emphasis).
  • World Boxing have chosen to name Khelif in the announcement of mandatory sex-testing.[58]
  • Thus, multiple sources are recognising that there is credible uncertainty here, and it's not just those darn right-wing Russians and terfs and other demonology.
  • Thus, our article needs to avoid making stridently absolute statements that certain claims are definitely false.
Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Agreed with this. Support taking a neutral stance on Khelif's factual sex and related claims, support removing the claim that "no medical evidence...has been published," wait and see on whether other RS cover the leaked test.
On the "no medical evidence...has been published" claim, I want to point out that this is a universal claim made by an RS. A contradiction of this claim from a less reliable source may not be strong enough for inclusion under WP:BLP, but still strong enough to warrant removing the current universal claim. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
No that doesn't make sense either way. It's not standard practice to publish someone's cytogenetic test result without their consent. In either case, Khelif's own team aren't challenging it, it is not up to us to say "there is no evidence of XY or elevated testosterone". Burcet95 (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Agree. Thank you for laying it out so clearly. Glasslelia (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Agree with this too and also suggest removing "no evidence of elevated testosterone".
I mean, SZ had reported that Khelif may be preventing the publication of such evidence (as is their right).
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/olympia-geschlechterdebatte-imane-khelif-lin-yu-ting-thomas-bach-ioc-mustapha-berraf-frauen-lux.HGqinamFLdsnw5Q7Qz3mYh
The relevant part is: "Khelifs Vertreter drohen: „Jede Offenlegung von (…) insbesondere medizinischen Informationen, die Sie als Organisator von Sportwettkämpfen haben, würde eine schwerwiegende Verletzung der Privatsphäre“ darstellen.". Burcet95 (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Support changes proposed by @Barnards.tar.gz. JSwift49 22:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Support the change to Barnards position. The sex issue is clearly contested in the open mainstream media, however in reading the Wikipedia article right now, this would not be clear at all. Liger404 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Support taking a neutral stance on Khelif's factual sex and related claims, support removing the claim that "no medical evidence...has been published". Same as described above. Burcet95 (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Support also support taking a neutral stance on Khelif's factual sex and related claims, support removing the claim that "no medical evidence...has been published". Same as described above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC - The question is not clearly defined, and would benefit from more workshopping. In terms of my view on the broader dispute, a cast of editors here appear to be fighting an ideological rearguard action against swiftly mounting evidence. Relying on semantics and unrelated past RfC's, they are ignoring a steady stream of RS now outright claiming Khelif is a chromosonal/biological male. This now includes one of Australia's largest news sites and a high-circulation Canadian source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Riposte97 the circulation of tabloids does not matter due to the fact that they remain tabloids, and on contentious topics should be outright disregarded. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    The Toronto Sun is possibly the least reliable legacy tabloid in Canada. While less reliable new media outlets exist, the Toronto Sun has an extensive reputation for being a poorly run rag with little concern for accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    Is there a consensus somewhere that either of the sources I have offered above are unreliable for sport/intersex matters? Riposte97 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's literally a tabloid. Simonm223 (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    'Tabloid' is a meaningless category. In any case, news.com.au is an extremely mainstream news source. Riposte97 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    You two might be talking past each other due to WP:ENGVAR reasons. "Tabloid" is the name of a paper format. A tabloid paper is physically smaller than broadsheet. It's not necessarily a comment on the quality of the comments, but in the US, we think National Enquirer when we think of tabloids. Most people have no idea that local newspapers that are physically small are also "tabloids". In the industry, some people prefer calling these normal-but-small newspapers "compact" to avoid the word tabloid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's both senses of the word. Not quite National Enquirer bad but... It's basically Canada's Daily Mail. Simonm223 (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    WP:GUARDIAN directly says "the Y chromosome had been identified in blood samples".
    "The Y chromosome had been identified in two blood samples. Both women had been registered as female at birth but they had not met the female category eligibility criteria.
    There was much noise and little clarity but differences of sex development (DSD) describes a group of conditions that occur early in pregnancy in which sex development is not typical. Some people with DSDs are raised as female but have XY sex chromosomes and blood testosterone levels in the male range."
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/dec/28/after-the-show-what-happened-next-to-olympic-gender-row-boxers Burcet95 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    Besides WP:RSP, there is also an information page on the reliability of sources at WP:NPPSG. It lists news.com.au as a "Murdoch tabloid". Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Tabloids, they are often unsuitable for use on BLPs. I'm not familiar with the Toronto Sun. TarnishedPathtalk 11:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Status Quo There has been no presentation of actually reliable sources suggesting this is anything other than a hoax. The actually reliable sources we have either take no position or affirmatively and clearly say that the claims regarding Khelif are false. Considering this is a BLP and specifically a medical matter surrounding a BLP and especially specifically a highly politicized medical matter surrounding a BLP we need to cleave to best sources. The best sources say that these claims are false. So should Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    Do you actually think the leaked report is a hoax? As in, Alan Abrahamson Photoshopped it, or someone switched the swabs at the lab? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's most definitely unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    I don't have any specific hypothesis but I consider the provenance of the "leaked" report far too unclear to treat it as a legitimate document. As I said, the best sources we have say the claims are false. Simonm223 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    To my knowledge we don’t have any sources claiming the leaked report is illegitimate.
    If you are arguing that the provenance makes it inadequate for supporting a strong claim in our article, then I would agree with you, but you seem to be going way beyond “not a good enough source for wiki purposes” to actively disbelieving that it is real. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    All unsubstantiated claims are just that, until proven otherwise. While the news outlets are free to peddle any nonsense to their readers, we do not. M.Bitton (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    Even the Daily Mail is saying (see photo from today's print edition) "It is unclear if the report, from a lab in New Delhi, is legitimate."
    So "actively disbelieving that it is real" is, as M.Bitton pointed out, the correct default behaviour at this point. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    There is a difference between "not knowing whether it is real or not" and "believing it is fake." I think RS support "not knowing whether it is real or not" but I would not go so far as to say it is definitely fake. Glasslelia (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with what some of what Barnards.tar.gz and some of what Riposte97 have written. This is a badly written RFC, lacking in specifics.
Beyond that the RFC proposer implies that the statement that Khelif is female, in wikivoice, is not something we should be doing as if there is a lack of sourcing to this effect. This is incorrect.
If we're going to make some change we'd need a better worded RFC which proposes specific changes. Any proposed changes will need to be supported by high quality sources in any arguments for them, given this article is at the intersection of several contentious topics. Until that time the status quo should remain. TarnishedPathtalk 11:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I've never written one before, and did so here because the notion that an RfC was the better venue for the discussion that was occurring was repeatedly raised. As you are a very experienced editor and noted that discussion was butting against the prior RfC's consensus, maybe it would have been better if you had written it. In any case, thank you for your assistance in contacting the prior editors who had interest in this topic. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Woshiwaiguoren, I'm not going to write something when I don't see any current consensus or reason for change. That said, if you do think about putting forward a question in the future I would recommend specific proposals. TarnishedPathtalk 14:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Woshiwaiguoren (and anyone else), if you want help formulating RFC questions, you're always welcome to ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This IMO isn't a bad question, but I think it would have been stronger if you had named some of the sources instead of saying "further coverage since the prior RfC" without evidence. There is no requirement for RFCs to use a CHANGEXY format, but some editors find such specific, detail-focused, concrete proposals easier to understand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I support a change, since the Telegraph is considered to be generally reliable except on transgender issues, and this isn't a transgender issue. It will become a transgender issue if Khelif is found to be male but continues to identify as female, but that's not where we are. I realise I'm p*ssing into the wind, however. H Remster (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    The Telegraph is unreliable for anything related to gender. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    broadly construed, considering there is popular debate about her potentially being trans, that means this article falls in that remit for CTOP purposes. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    What are you quoting, please? H Remster (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's well past the "transgender issue" benchmark considering loud people by the likes of JK Rowling (well-known gender advocate) et al. have weaponized Khelif's gender to make some grand political statement about trans people in sports. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 12:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    This is clearly a "gender issue" in the context of The Telegraph's obsession with providing anti-trans coverage, especially given JK Rowling's pronouncements on the subject. The Telegraph is not a reliable source in this area. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    At least these responses justify the advice I gave earlier on this page, I suppose. H Remster (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    This is exactly right. Jibolba (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo. This RFC is confusingly-worded but nobody has presented any sources that would justify a change, nor has any BLP-quality reliable sourcing on Khelif changed since the last time this was discussed; and the current version seems well-sourced. As a note, this controversy is obviously related to trans issues, which means the Telegraph obviously cannot be used for BLP-sensitive statements here - Khelif has become a bête noire among anti-trans activists; and the Telegraph itself categorizes stories related to her under trans issues. Something like this depends on sources of the highest quality and the ones presented so far to argue for a change are almost comically bad. --Aquillion (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo. No sources considered reliable for BLPs or on gender issues have said anything contrary to the status quo. That Khelif's gender is contentious is a bold claim and bold claims need strong sources. There have not been any sources that could count as reliable, much less strong. This is yet another anti-trans talking point that anti-trans activists (including The Telegraph) are trying to weaponise, at the expense of (yet another) woman's own life. Sure, this RFC is poorly worded, but the topic itself is, frankly, a nonsense. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    The subject here is Khelif's sex, not Khelif's gender. H Remster (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Conduct issue, not the place for this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I support waiting.
- the World Boxing Organisation has just issued an apology for targetting Khelif directly in their public statement so it's clear things are unfolding right now behind the scenes.
- While it definitely is possible to make an edit now making things more neutral, we can probably make a better edit after the Eindhoven Cup has finished.
- Two of the journalists involved in the recent "leaked document" were both working together and now are having some kind of turf war playing out on Twitter. Another reason to wait and see since this isn't the world's most professional looking situation.
- It may satisfy some here to include a reference to an interview that aired in November in Italy on RAI where Khelif makes direct references to carefully monitoring her testosterone levels. I cannot link to YT here, but it was Lo Stato della Cosa, November 11.
- I would like to suggest we reword the references to World Boxing's (unpublished) policy, noting it remains unpublished and according to them does not come into effect until July 2025. Their own statement on their website states they are looking for SRY, not the Y chromosome, but they do (wrongly) infer that SRY proves the presence of a Y chromosome, which it does not. Some XX persons have SRY. Detachedspork (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Imane Khelif's manager (Nasser Yefsah) and physiologist Georges Cazorla have been quoted as saying she had high testosterone and was treated for it. There is a video of Yefsah saying it. That means the "no evidence of elevated testosterone" claim is challenging the boxer's own manager, own physiologist. Including the interview on Italian TV, you would have to argue that Imane Khelif's manager, Imane Khelif's physiologist, and Imane Khelif is peddling misinformation about Imane Khelif. Burcet95 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo. No reliable information has been presented yet that requires a change in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)
  • Support status quo. And I debate the nature of this rfc. We do not call someone who identifies as a woman "male" even if (and the source is unreliable) they happen to be intersex. I dislike the way this is becoming a forum. Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo until there is a reliable source, the Telegraph clearly isn't, as this is just a continuation of the anti-trans obsession. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I support a change. The article currently makes claims that cannot be substantiated and are looking increasingly likely to be untrue. Ultaigh (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo and also this is a bad, non-neutral RFC because it takes the idea that there even was a leak as given. It's an alleged leak. It might be BS. Loki (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo Anxioustoavoud (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anxioustoavoid (talk • contribs)
  • Support status quo. If we get some genuinely new and officially confirmed information then that can be added but reheated disinformation motivated by animus doesn't cut it, no matter how many times it is reheated and labels slapped on it saying "New", "Hot" and "Fresh". Even then, new information should only be added in a sober and proportionate way, i.e. absolutely no gloating or gratuitous "man" or "male" bullshit under any circumstances. Even if the haters were to get their most malicious wish, and the chromosome results were to say XY, that would still not justify gratuitous use of "male". If we ever get a confirmed result of XY then all we can say is "XY". That renders the whole question moot. Irrespective of chromosomes, we will not be hedging this in a way that pretends that her sex is in question. Sex is not merely a matter of chromosomes, as will no doubt be demonstrated within five minutes if the results come back XX and the haters have to move straight on to kvetching about some other sex characteristic, or supposed sex characteristic, which they will insist was always the important one all along. Haters always gonna hate but we don't gotta help them. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    Virtually no one here is suggesting calling her a man. We can however differentiate between sex, whether that be male, female, or intersex (the latter seems the most likely) and it is not bad or immoral to do so. —Megiddo1013 04:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, whether she has a female or male karyotype is highly relevant for the question of whether she should be eligible to participate in the female category of sports. Her gender identity is female; her sex is a physiological matter, not just one of self identification, at least insofar as sports eligibility is concerned. Glasslelia (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • support status quo these sources are no where close to reliable—blindlynx 00:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Status quo obviously, and I want to firmly remind everyone here that WP:BLP is policy (and does extend to the talk page). For those less familiar with what that means here, I suggest reviewing WP:HARM as well. Allegations about her personal medical details will need extensive mainstream reliable sourcing for inclusion. As that obviously does not exist (yes I have read through all of the sources supplied, and no, none of them meet that bar), we follow the strong sources we do have, and characterize these allegations as false. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    What is this sourcing bar you speak of? None of the sources are on the depreciated sources list? Liger404 (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Liger404 I suggest reviewing WP:BLP and WP:RS. There are a number of essays on both pages that explain things further and may help. BLPs need high quality sources, especially for controversial claims. Just because the sources aren't depreciated, does not mean they are high quality (in fact, even "generally reliable" sources are not necessarily good—see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo - Why are we using a loaded RfC to introduce obviously bad sources for a WP:BLP-violating claim in a contentious topic area? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo and support taking Toronto Sun to RSN for deprecation. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 03:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support changes proposed by Barnards.tar.gz. - "our article needs to avoid making stridently absolute statements that certain claims are definitely false." Isaidnoway (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
    I also support changes proposed by Barnards.tar.gz - article need not mention "leak" until verified by RS but should at least maintain neutrality about her actual karyotype. It is not fair to use the word "misinformation" to describe all debate about her sex/eligibility. Some claims made were misinformation (she is not transgender, she is not a "man" in the social sense of identifying as one) but she may indeed have a male karyotype (or she may not) and the article should leave both possibilities open. Glasslelia (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo per DanielRigal's and others. Nothing has changed since the last RfC, i.e., no reliable information has been put forward to warrant changing the article. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Support status quo Wikipedia does not exist to circulate rumors and false claims, especially when they stem from deeply ideological positions which are known to operate using 'facts' that are anything but, as the current anti-transgender milleau is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Do not support status quo, a phrasing like in the Caster Semenya-article would be more correct, (Assigned female at birth), Huldra (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Do not support status quo This statement about Khelif's gender is a published source, with commentary from a noted award winning sports journalist, who Wikipedia would regard as an authority. There is NO reason this shouldn't be included in the article. This published information in the Telegraph, and the Telegraph is a reliable source - it was assessed as reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    You found that random archive but didn't find WP:TELEGRAPH? Or its archive? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah, apologies, I haven't used the Reliable sources section that much.I just ran a search and that was what came up.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: Sex Status)

pings


I haven't done in-depth learning on this; with that disclaimer, based on my impressions at this point: This appears to be different than the culture wars regarding gender terminology and so I think that the whole culture war can be sidestepped at this point. It appears that by even by using mainstream / traditional use of gender terms she was considered to be a woman at birth, maybe/even with some biological stuff that would make her an edge case on which term to apply. And that she probably has some male biological male characteristics which would confer an advantage when competing as a woman. And that certain governing sports bodies are placing some conditions, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions regarding competing in women's sports. Even if the info in Telegraph article is true, that does not appear to be a basis to change article terminology (pronouns etc.) to call them anything other than a woman. Regarding source reliability, IMO reliability is based on expertise, reliability and objectivity with respect to the material which cited it.....I don't go by over-generalizations. As as sidebar, we should include all available credible relevant information, not suppressed by other considerations which appears to be the case here. I had to look outside of Wikipedia to learn some key info which is missing from the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Finally, contrary to the RFC, if the are some complex biological stuff making them an edge case regarding which biological sex term to apply, it's a question of knowing the facts and deciding which English word to apply to them.....in these rare cases it's not a matter of sourcing to discover some fundamental reality, it's just a matter of choosing which English word to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Page views have spiked at XY gonadal dysgenesis, possibly due to The Times of India writing a sympathetic explanation that mentions Swyer syndrome (the eponym). USA Today mentions 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, and page views are also up there.
I invite anyone who is willing to work within Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) standards and whose grasp of intersex biology is at least a little more sophisticated than "Y chromosome always means male" to think about how to improve those articles. For example, Swyer syndrome could be clearer about the difference between carrying a pregnancy (apparently possible, sometimes, with an egg donor) and having genetic children (not apparently possible).
I would love for both of those articles to have some information about the psychological side. Imagine being raised as a girl, especially in a culture that values women primarily as wives and mothers, and then discovering, in the most public way possible, that you will never be able to have biological children, and that your value in the marriage market has dropped dramatically, through absolutely no fault of your own. I realize that these values don't match most of the editors on this page, but this could be very painful for the individuals involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Can highly recommend Caster Semenya's autobiography Detachedspork (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
This is all off-topic for the subject of this RFC and this talk page. Original research is not pertinent to the outcome of this RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Y chromosome does actually mean male genotype. This however does not mean male phenotype (appearance/development.). The biological question is actually a very simple and long since defined one. "In placental mammals, the presence of a Y chromosome determines sex.". Anyone with a Y chromosome is male, but not everyone with a Y chromosome will LOOK male. From Nature Magazine the top dog of science journals. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mechanisms-of-sex-determination-314/ Liger404 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. For example, chromosomal sex (does this individual have a Y chromosome?) and genetic sex are not identical. Individuals can have a Y chromosome and be intersex instead of being male.
BTW, what you linked there was Nature Education, which is an online textbook and not Nature (journal). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
It's not more complicated no. There is really no complexity to it. "Occasionally, individuals are born with sex chromosome aneuploidies, and the sex of these individuals is always determined by the absence or presence of a Y chromosome. Thus, individuals with 47,XXY and 47,XYY karyotypes are males, while individuals with 45,X and 47,XXX karyotypes are females.". Intersex is not one of the available definitions, thats gets towards gene expression, phenotype. Regardless of gene expression, all placental mammals are either male or female. Are you attempting to devalue the source? I do not understand the use of this comment? Liger404 (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
There absolutely is more complexity to this, which is how XX males and XY females exist. Take care not to confuse sex determination with sex definition. This is almost off topic, but it’s relevant because none of these specific nuances have been made public about Khelif, so no source can be considered reliable to make an absolute, unqualified statement about her sex. The sources that are considered generally reliable cannot be considered specifically reliable on this matter, unless they have privately seen some very in-depth diagnostic results, and none have claimed this as the basis of their reportage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
What is your source that an XX male exits, be that is directly counter to what Nature and the National Library of Medicine articles I linked say. Liger404 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
XX male syndrome for one? Detachedspork (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah see, a quick look shows they are females with male Phenotype. I have already covered that the definition is based solely of Genotype and not that of phenotype as gene expression can vary. Adding Phenotype adds a level of confusion that is not called for in the definition. As per NAture and the NCBI is is a very clear cut case of having any genotype with a Y chromosome. I express, again, that this does not mean the person will LOOK like a male, that is phenotype and not part of sex determination. "46,XX testicular disorder of sex development (46,XX male syndrome) is found in 1:20,000 male births and is a rare genetic cause of infertility in phenotypic males.". Its "male syndrome" not a male. It happens when there is a mutation on the X chromosome. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/xx-male-syndrome Liger404 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Right, so you are insisting that chromosomal sex is deterministic, ignoring all other considerations. That doesn't have broad scientific consensus. Chromosomes determine chromosomal sex.
In XX male syndrome, they are chromosomally female (XX are chromosomes), but genetically male, because they (often) have SRY, which is the primary gene involved in virulisation. Or they may not have SRY, but another genetic mutation that activates/fails to deactivate virulisation.
They are also pheneotypically male.
I believe they are also hormonally not typical of either male or female.
Men with this syndrome can make it all the way to the point of seeking medical assistance for infertility without knowing anything is unusual about them. Declaring these men to be female is simplistic to the point of being bizarre. Detachedspork (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
If you really do need another source for this quite simple matter here you go. But sex determination, as the OP of this thread correctly pointed out, is not actually part of Gender theory. The entire point of Gender theory is that Sex and Gender are not intrinsically linked. People constantly from both sides of the debate, argue about the wrong this. Gender theory is about language, not biology. "In mammals, primary sex determination is strictly chromosomal... A person with five X chromosomes and one Y chromosome (XXXXXY) would be male." . I will re emphasizes that being male and being a women are acceptable in both the context of this article. She is legally a women after all. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/ Liger404 (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Closure

I know it's early but this is looking like a WP:SNOW for the status quo. How do other editors feel? TarnishedPathtalk 14:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO yes, as long as one doesn't interpret too much into it. It's simply deciding to use female terminology in the article. Not some fundamental determination of sex, including sex as defined in specific sports rules. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
It certainly looks like SNOW, but for legitimacy’s sake, given time zones, I think a few hours wait would be appropriate.OsFish (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
yeah this is definitely SNOW 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Definitely a WP:SNOW situation to me. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd give it a bit more time (the last thing we want is some editors complaining that they didn't have a chance to express their views). M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with M.Bitton. It certainly does look like snow but there's certainly no peril in giving people a bit more time to express their views and it's generally good practice. I'd rather not have to deal with this RfC again at AN when someone says it was closed too fast. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
From the FAQ at the top of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment:
How long should an RFC last?
As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
It is "legal" to close an RFC in less than a week, especially if the OP initiates this, but it sometimes causes avoidable drama ("You all just closed it early because you knew that if you left it open, the answer would change!"). It is good to avoid drama. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Give it a week at least. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, given the responses I propose to wait 24 hours and then if nothing has changed requesting a close at WP:CR TarnishedPathtalk 14:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
It's something that is actively developing, leave it to run. I'm not commenting on the RfC at the moment because things might change in a few days' time. I should also say that it is a badly written RfC, and would have preferred for it to be closed and a better one resubmitted. But that's not the intent here, so I'd just leave it. I expect the wording will need to be changed whatever the result should she take the test, and the whole thing will be moot. Hzh (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I should also say that it is a badly written RfC, and would have preferred for it to be closed and a better one resubmitted.
@Hzh, that's part of my thinking in stating that this should be snowed. I don't see anything meaningful coming from this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 16:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
In terms of a path forward, I wonder whether it would be useful to have editors reflect on (not necessarily to post; perhaps just to think deeply about) what sourcing/evidence would be sufficient for them to accept that this article should say that Khelif is intersex.
Do you personally need a self-disclosure? The name of a specific DSD diagnosis? A pro-LGBT website to agree that she's intersex? A "left-wing" newspaper to say it? A medical journal to publish a detailed case study with her consent? For her to be disqualified from competition? For lawsuits to be filed and spend years working their way through the courts? For her to announce a change in gender identity? What's enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
If I disentangle my personal view and look at it purely from a Wikipedia perspective I'd want something better than a "leaked" document published in notoriously bad newspapers. The source being "left" or "right" isn't so much as the question of whether the outlet has perverse incentives to court controversy in gender topics (such as the Telegraph). Frankly I'd want to see something from an official body that isn't notably corrupt or a self-ID. Short of either of those we go with the existing self-ID. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Is World Boxing an official body that isn't notably corrupt? The Court of Arbitration for Sport? I worry sometimes that we identify who is bad based on whether they give the right answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
World Boxing hasn't made any comments about her sex. They have stated that she needs to undergo testing prior to any future competitions. TarnishedPathtalk 16:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
And I believe that is already in the article and not disputed by anyone IIRC. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
correct TarnishedPathtalk 16:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I was explicitly referring to IBA as being notably corrupt. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
The IBA is worse than just corrupt. Umar Kremlev calling Thomas Bach a sodomite speaks volumes about what the IBA is and what it stands for. M.Bitton (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Corruption is irrelevant in this case because the people on the other side of the dispute (IOC) are also corrupt. Wikivoice has no problem quoting the IOC, which has numerous corruption scandals of it's own, some of them being led to investigation by prosecutors in different countries. That's like the Gambino crime family v. the Colombo crime family. Burcet95 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Why would we need to make that pronouncement without her declaration? She's an athlete - what is notable is her eligibility per a policy, not her medical history. Detachedspork (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
There is a view, which is particularly prominent in trans circles, that intersex should primarily be understood as a personal identity, rather than an objective biological situation.
I'm a long time participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, so my default view is that intersex is a medical situation diagnosed exclusively on the basis of objectively measurable, non-psychological facts (including objective measurements that happen to fall near arbitrary cutoff values), namely chromosomes, hormone levels, internal and external anatomy. Khelif (and you, and me, and every single mammal on the planet, for that matter) either meets the criteria for one or more intersex diagnoses – or doesn't. Saying you don't "identify as having an intersex condition" would be just as irrelevant as saying you don't "identify as having cancer". We can (and I do!) debate exactly where to draw the line (e.g.,) between "barely enough to get called cancer" and "technically pre-cancer even though it almost always transforms", but your psychological identity is never one of the criteria.
However, if someone's default view is that intersex is how you feel about your place in society, based on a holistic view of which factors you decide are important about how you classify your body, then self-identification as intersex would naturally and logically be the key factor for them.
I guess the WP:TLDR is: It depends on what you think the word intersex means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to be tediously postmodern and point out that the taxonomies and cutoffs that we use to define what constitutes an intersex person are socially constructed. These are impositions of human values upon an indifferent natural chaos. And so it's social definition all the way down. That, plus an expectation of medical privacy, are why I strongly prefer self-disclosure. If an official body bans her from sport on the basis of this social construction that should be handled as notable but still should not change things like what pronouns we use to describe her. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Simon, all definitions of all words are socially constructed. We can equally say that the taxonomies and cutoffs that we use to define what constitutes cancer are socially constructed. These are also impositions of human values upon an indifferent natural chaos.
And yet when I say that Basal-cell carcinoma is technically (barely) cancer and Ductal carcinoma in situ is technically (barely) not, I don't say that self-identification or self-disclosure makes any difference at all, either for "the taxonomies and cutoffs that we use" or for their application to any individual human. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Her pronouns wouldn't change because having an intersex condition doesn't affect MOS:GENDERID.
What might change is the sentence saying "Khelif was born female, and no medical evidence that she has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published". Right now, we're apparently saying that a leaked copy of a sex determination medical report, saying that she has XY chromosomes, which appears in several newspapers, is either "not medical evidence" or "not published". (Maybe we should just slap an {{As of|August 2024}} on that sentence.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I see the "leaked" document as not being medical evidence. I've mentioned it before that not every datum rises to the level of evidence. In this case this particular datum is non-evidentiary because it has no provenance. It's a picture that purports to be a lab form from a lab that purports to be legitimate but none of that information has been validated. As such, while the existence of the "leaked" document is data, it isn't evidence. It does not make anything evident. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
This is window-dressing. You cannot spew Foucault for a paragraph and then claim you're concerned about "provenance". Jibolba (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
It's not even that. Khelif is Algerian. Intersex is often used alongside LGBTQ which for most Algerians just isn't a thing.
If an Algerian woman with a medical condition doesn't call herself intersex, I don't think I get to tell her she's wrong. But more notably, to write a good article about her sports career, we only need to remark on her eligibility, not her medical diagnoses.
I'd be interested in having a look at a definitive list of "intersex" conditions - there's a lot of debate as to what constitues intersex. In the 2011 rules, World Athletics excluded women with PCOS, for instance, which is considered ridiculous now, 14 years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_regulations_in_women%27s_athletics#2011_rules
It's a bit of a moving target. Detachedspork (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
If a woman with breast cancer doesn't call herself a cancer victim, do we pretend that she doesn't have cancer? If a parent says that their kid definitely doesn't have autism, do we say that the kid is neurotypical? Outright psychological denial is not an unusual response to unwanted diagnoses, but it doesn't change the facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
That's the thing. If Khelif is intersex, then she is intersex whether she identifies that way or not. This is different than gender but there is so much culture war gasoline on this topic that people aren't separating the two.
And given how relevant this issue is with sports, it does actually behoove Wikipedia to not censor this information. —Megiddo1013 04:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
That's not the same thing. Intersex is frequently associated with LGBTQ and highly stigmatised especially (but not exclusively) in some parts of the world where LGBTQ is illegal. DSD still exists as a group of disorders and is medical in context, not identity-based. Like cancer. Detachedspork (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The changes are being debated by the minuet. Closing discussion seems to be a ruling that the topic is not to be discussed? Or is it WP rules that if consensus cannot be reached we close matters? It does indeed seem the matter is too political to reach a consensus. Liger404 (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I see SNOW on the question of whether to include new information based on the leaked report, but the RfC asked a second question about whether to avoid taking an explicit stance on her sex, on which I see less agreement and less engagement. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Editors do not seem to imagine that she could take the test and pass it? SmolBrane (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's not speculate about anyone's thoughts. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
What an interesting observation. Looking at the comments above, I don't see any editors who express a firm belief that a sex determination test would declare her to be female. This could be due to people not knowing, and therefore actually not having any opinion either way, but it could also be because editors actually do believe the leaked report, even though it's not strong enough to overcome the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requirements for contentious matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it's not being considered as an outcome. But it's clear in my opinion that most of this discussion is premature, as I have stated previously. We should wait for outcomes on this issue. SmolBrane (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I really don't know why it's not being considered. I hadn't noticed the apparent absence of that belief until you pointed it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is actually my reason. Well half of it. I don't think my projection about what might happen if Khelif did have such a test and chose to release the results matter to this discussion at all. It's stuff that hasn't happened. The other half is precisely what I said above - that my personal perspective is that "biological sex" is just another social construct - no different from gender in being a social construct. There's no essential truth to get at by that line of reasoning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
So you think it's unimportant ("no essential truth to get at") if she's intersex; therefore people shouldn't care. That argues for silence on the point rather than a positive statement that she's not intersex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Normally I would prefer silence on the point. The extenuating circumstance here is the media circus of racists and transphobes who have tried to make their arbitrary challenge of her gender into an international cause-celebre. That, unfortunately, requires us to demonstrate what the actual state of reliable sources is on the matter. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
But I'll caution you that I never use "essential" to mean important. I always use "essential" to mean having the quality of an essence. So when I say that there's no essential truth what I'm saying is that I don't believe a person's biology represents an essence of their being. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Do you believe that being intersex about a person's biology or about the "essence of their being"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Isn't this kind of thing contrary to WP:NOTFORUM? I'm always learning. H Remster (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Not really. We're not chatting for the fun of it. We're trying to understand each other's views, in the hope of (eventually) improving the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Biological sex is as much a social construct as having lung cancer is. Are there edge cases when it comes to lung cancer? Yes. Does that mean if someone doesn't identify as having lung cancer they don't? No. —Megiddo1013 08:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd say it's more like heart failure than lung cancer, because it involves the concept of a function. H Remster (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
In as far as how we define a disordered body is socially constructed you would not be wrong that cancer is socially constructed. There is a key difference here though which is that I don't believe intersex people should be treated as disordered bodies. With this, the problem is rather that the socius that sees an intersex body as disordered for being outside its categories and attempts to discipline them ends up reinforcing patriarchal hegemony built on an artificial binary.
This is why whether Khelif is actually in the category is a secondary concern for me. What matters is either her personal disclosure or a neutral report on the material impact of this situation. Absent a material impact Wikipedia can only be neutral by affirming her self-ID. And when the material impact is a bunch of tabloids spinning bullshit and her engaging in lawsuits over the same, a neutral report doesn't cast doubt on her self-disclosure. It reports that she is suing those who already have. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • How we would cover the results of any tests would depend on how reliable sources do (particularly the highest-quality ones.) Part of the reason we can't rely on leaked documents in unreliable sources for controversial BLP subjects is because of their providence; but the other, equally important part is that we need secondary sources to tell us what they mean; we can't just do WP:OR ourselves. To be 100% clear, I do not believe that any (plausible) test results are likely to change the fact that the highest-quality sources will continue to to describe her as born female. But it's impossible to know for certain until / unless it happens; the text currently in the article is a correct and accurate summary of reliable coverage as it stands. --Aquillion (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is discussing that possibility because the course of action would be very specific and clear. Detachedspork (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO the rfc question was unclear because it had too many things in it and also had a false premise (that the article declares their sex) in it. IMO the responses were clearer and the thing to look at and the close needs to be derived from those and not be considered about the many things in the rfc question. In essence simply supporting the status quo in it's terminology. Nothing more. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Imane Khelif does not use they/them pronouns. Doing so is Misgendering. Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
They/them are gender neutral single pronouns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Does that apply when the subject's gender is known? M.Bitton (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Of course. Also neutral terms to avoid stating a side in the culture war. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that.[59][60]. M.Bitton (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of whether she is intersex in some way or not, there's no disputing that Imane Khelif is a woman. That's not a "side in the culture war". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
They/them is frequently used by people who disagree with someone's gender identity because they believe they have the right to do that. It's absolutely misgendering. And also just ridiculous. Detachedspork (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
https://reductress.com/post/they-them-pronouns-suddenly-easy-for-person-misgendering-trans-woman/ comes to mind Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
There are editors whose gender I know that I still use they/them for. I tend to use gender neutral terms whenever possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
You can read North's next response and see that the context is clearly different here. Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:AGF. I can say with fair certainty that an editor wouldn't face any sanctions or censure for using they/them as a gender neutral term. We're in the weeds far from the actual RFC at this point, though, so we shouldn't continue this discussion here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
There are several editors who explicitly only use they/them or a neutral neo pronoun universally for everyone else - consistently so. The only time it should be an issue is if it is clearly a case of only using it for trans/queer people or those who are accused of being one. Relm (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I do the same and I have no doubt that North8000 didn't mean anything by it (they used she in the same paragraph). It's just that, given the circumstances, we have to be a bit more careful about what we write or endorse. M.Bitton (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
My opinion that I gave was to use the status quo which uses "she". When I spoke about using neutral pronouns to avoid taking sides in the culture war, I was giving a general response to a general question; I wasn't talking about this article. I was talking about people who use terms to refer to biological sex vs. those who use them to refer to declared gender identity. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
For my part I'm going to keep problematizing the difference between gender and "biological sex" through the powers of postmodernism and existentialism combined. I try to use self-disclosed pronouns whenever possible because "biological sex" is just gender wearing a Scientism lampshade. But, FWIW, I do think we can show good faith to people who slip into gender neutral pronouns in Wikipedia as long as they aren't advocating to misgender a person. Which I don't think you were doing. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't consider using neutral pronouns to be a problem, and don't mean anything by doing so other than seeking to be neutral. I don't want to participate in or be forced to choose or affirm a side in gender culture wars in Wikipedia, including regarding using pronouns for biological sex vs. using them based on declared gender identity. I consider complaining about gender neutral pronouns to be a problem. When I deal with people if somebody prefers to be called something I try to make them happy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2025 (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.

Post RFC

I'm assuming that "Status quo" in the close is the actual status quo of the of the article, not as (IMO incorrectly) defined in the RFC question. If folks disagree with this I'd like to reopen and ask for a (more precise) admin close. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I think most people who !voted for status quo understood that to mean the article as it exists. I don't really see any room for contention. TarnishedPathtalk 16:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
That's definitely what I meant. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Likewise. M.Bitton (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, in my close, I meant that there is consensus in favour of retaining the article as is. The RFC question was defined with confusing terms, so finding unambiguous phrasing to describe things was a bit difficult. Soni (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Cool. I wrote the above to avoid some likely problems.....otherwise some could claim that the result is a finding on every phrase in the RFC wording. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Isn't she identified as female and uses she/her pronouns? So why the confusion? Lililolol (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I think it's settled & confirmed....maybe just leave it at that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imane_Khelif/Archive_3&oldid=1300753287"