Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Butterscotch Beluga (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 16 August 2024 (→Mentioning the fact that Khelif didn't publish any results or medical opinion that she is not DSD: Apologies, I hadn't realized this page was Extended confirmed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imane Khelif article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Imane Khelif. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Imane Khelif at the Reference desk.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). Algeria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Boxing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing WikiProject Boxing "To Do": edit history watch purge → Help pick the next article for collaboration. FA Noms: Review: New: Expand: Hasim Rahman | Gabriel Elorde | Gerry Peñalosa | Ike Quartey | Joel Casamayor | Jean-Marc Mormeck | Odlanier Solís | Yuriorkis Gamboa Collaborate: Boxing Discuss: Annotate: Muhammad Ali | Sugar Ray Robinson | Oscar De La Hoya | Jack Dempsey | Rocky Marciano | Joe Louis | George Foreman | Roy Jones Jr. | Marvin Hagler | Lennox Lewis | Evander Holyfield | Manny Pacquiao | Érik Morales Assess: Create: Olympics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Women's sport: Boxing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Misplaced Pages. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Women's boxing task force.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: July 28 to August 3, 2024 (1st)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Imane Khelif did not fail a gender test, nor does she have "XY Chromosomes," but rather had an elevated testosterone level, which could be caused by any number of medical, physiological or pharmacological means.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/c4ngr93d9pgo Ericawip33 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Yeah I don't know how that got there and I'm frankly kind of annoyed it didn't get taken down sooner. Thanks for flagging it. --AntiDionysius (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A statement put out by the IBA has denied that an elevated level of testosterone was detected, but has not specified the actual criteria for the disqualification: https://www.iba.sport/news/statement-made-by-the-international-boxing-association-regarding-athletes-disqualifications-in-world-boxing-championships-2023/ 125.214.83.112 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The IBA explicitly stated that she was not disqualified due to a testosterone test but rather a separate test 188.172.111.106 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how credible it is, but the Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/29/boxers-who-failed-gender-tests-at-world-championships-cleared-to-compete-at-olympics) cited in the wikipedia entry points to a quote of Umar Kremlev (https://tass.ru/sport/17370249):

"Based on the results of DNA tests, we identified a number of athletes who tried to deceive their colleagues and pretended to be women. Based on the results of the tests, it was proven that they have XY chromosomes. Such athletes were excluded from the competition," Kremlev said. (Google translation)

The same accusation of Khelif having XY chromosomes appears in a Wired.com story which takes the view that Khelif should be allowed to compete. https://www.wired.com/story/imane-khelif-olympic-boxer-controversy/

Umar Kremlev is the International Boxing Association president. https://www.iba.sport/about-iba/organizational-structure/iba-president/ A.y.huang (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's credible insofar as Kremlev did say it (I went and tracked down the original TASS report, for some reason only available on the Russian-language version of their website and not the English). The question is whether Kremlev is correct about the chromosome thing; this remains a somewhat murky issue. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It is possible he's wrong EnbyEditor (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

He's not credible, nor is his claim. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

please refer to the wiki article on Caster Semenya, under the section "sex verification tests". with references attached, the 2nd paragraph is a single sentence: "The sex test results were never published officially, but some results were leaked in the press and were widely discussed, resulting in at the time unverified claims about Semenya having an intersex trait." nothing in the article questions that the test was performed or that the results were accurate, despite them not being published and despite the IOC being subject to many corruption controversies in the past. the entire 2nd paragraph of this khelif article is an ad hominem attack on russia, justified by the genetic tests having not been published which Umar Kremlev insisted were done in a neutral country (not russia) by a certified lab. It is not common practice for sports authorities to publish lab test results. IOC generally uses WADA labs and testing protocols. They typically specify the reason an athlete was penalized and refer to a summary of the test performed. what is the specific reason wiki editors are using here to insist that the IBA is lying about performing the test? both boxers were genetically tested and found to have xy chromasomes in a certified lab in a neutral country, and there is ZERO evidence to say otherwise. that second paragraph is just an ad hominem political smear that says nothing whatsoever about the validity of the xy testing done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christo1234 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This and similar claims are violations of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The link i provided at the end of my comment directs to the IBA clarification on the genetic XY testing, with lab license number included. it is scientific fact that the two boxers tested had xy chromosomes, verified by certified labs in 2 neutral countries (turkey and india), as required by the IOC (who the IBA was coordinating with). you are claiming scentific fact violates wikipedia policy. the IOC refuses to perform any test of their own to confirm or refute the genetic tests already performed (again, lab license numbers provided by IBA). it is defamation to accuse certified labs and licensed professionals of lying. HIPPA and other laws prohibit the specific lab results page from being published without the release of the patient tested, but both boxers signed acknowledgments of receiving the test results from independent labs in 2 neutral countries. they know they have XY chromosomes. The IOC knows they have XY chromosomes. The carefully worded (political) IOC response does not deny the authenticity or validity of the lab results or presence of XY chromosomes, which they could VERY EASILY test for themselves. --Christo1234 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but isn't she a biological man? One would assume that's what caused the elevated testosterone levels. It would be denying reality to think that it "could be caused by any number of medical, physiological, or pharmacological means". If she insists on being tested for those different causes, well, have at it. But the reason for her elevated testosterone levels is extremely likely the same as mine: being male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.61.245.75 (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not likely. Because higher T levels could be caused by any number of medical, physiological or pharmacological factors. Two seconds of googling for "elevated testosterone levels in cis women" will give you quite the list if you'd like it.

Even if it were "likely", we still wouldn't put it in the article unless it were verifiably true, which it is not. --AntiDionysius (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome could very well be as plausible. Usually "transgender-identifying males: / "transgender women" would take an antiandrogen (testosterone reducer) to drop their testosterone levels as regular treatment.

I'd also like to shoehorn mention that intersex people exist (such as women that phenotypically look female while naked but have XY chromosomes without surgery. Even visa versa) 173.219.23.154 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

She is an intersex cis woman 74.71.162.63 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are not doctors, nor biologists, nor have first hand knowledge of this matter. There isn't clear information on Khelif's specific biological details, nor is it necessarily relevant, however....the point is, the IBA have stated that Khelif is XY chromosome, and we have good RS to support that. It's Misplaced Pages policy to accept RS. There is no contradictory other RS that states she *isn't* XY chromosome, so until there is information that contradicts the IBA statement, then we should accept that. Similarly, there is no evidence that the IBA would falsify the tests nor is their any motivating reason as to why they would do that. When both boxers were last tested, and found to be XY chromosome, instead of fighting it, they both accepted it, including Khelif. ON top of that, Khelif herself has not come out and refuted the IBAs statement that she is XY chromosome. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not count the IBA as a reliable source. It's become a bit of a rogue organisation. WikiEditor0227 (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any credible source for your claim? נוף כרמל (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's in the article. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

once again, the IBA did not conduct the tests themselves. they communicated throughout the process with the IOC and adhered to IOC guidelines, and the tests on both boxers were performed by certified independent labs in 2 neutral countries (turkey and india) at different times, per IOC policy, as only one result is not considered conclusive per IOC policy. both labs definitively returned xy positive results. the iba released the lab license numbers for the tests. it is defamation to accuse these licensed labs of committing fraud with no reason to believe the labs did anything dishonest or negligent. the iba has no influence on how certified labs in neutral countries conduct genetic testing. it is also illegal (HIPPA in US and other similar laws in other countries) to publish lab results documents for a specific patient without a release. the IOC, WADA, and other governing bodies, never publishe ANY lab results documents for any patient, but there are countless wiki pages that accept the IOC, WADA, etc, conclusions and sanctions of athletes without illegally publishing patient lab documents. The IOC could VERY EASILY perform chromosome testing on these two boxers to confirm or dispel the lab results of the two certified labs in 2 different neutral countries from samples collected at different times. Christo1234 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. We should not "accept" anything ... the article states what the IBA claims are. There is no "good RS" that supports its claims. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support this. WikiEditor0227 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point: there isn't any actual evidence at the moment and most of the discussion above is pointless speculation. She was raised as a female and always recognised as such until in the 2023 World Championships she defeated a previously undefeated Russian boxer and was in the final against a boxer from (Russian ally) China! And the Russian controlled IBA disqualified her just before the final. 'Deathlibrarian' says 'there is no motivating reason why' the IBA would falsify the results - well there clearly is, and given the track record of Russian sporting bodies for falsifying test results then anything they say should be treated with caution anyway. The only information that we have about why she was disqualified is something from the very dubious head of the discredited IBA. There is no independent verification of their vague claims. Until there is something verifiable all the above talk is just - so much balls (sorry). OscarFred1952 (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

OscarFred1952 you need evidence to establish that the IBA has falsified the tests.There is no evidence, its just your opinion, so its not relevant. Also, there are witnesses independent of the IBA who have seen the IBA test results, so the test results conducted by the IBA are verifiable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: exactly. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"OscarFred1952 you need evidence to establish that the IBA has falsified the tests".

That is clearly not the case. The burden of proof is on the IBA, not on me or anyone else who states that the status quo (that she is regarded as a woman) maintains unless and until there is sufficient evidence otherwise. There is no sufficient evidence otherwise (in fact, no real evidence at all). At their "chaotic and shambolic" press conference (Sky Sports) of 6 August the IBA refused to give any concrete evidence, even that such test results actually exist, never mind are genuine.

If David Icke says that he has test results showing that King Charles is an alien lizard then we don't need proof that he has falsified the results in order to not believe this is true.

Order in the court! Case dismissed! OscarFred1952 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"OscarFred1952 you need evidence to establish that the IBA has falsified the tests".

Further to my earlier reply, I've realised just what a brilliant argument you are making: that I need evidence to "establish the IBA has falsified the tests" when the IBA has repeatedly refused to give any information about the tests, so of course it's impossible to provide evidence about something that might not even exist! Hats off to you sir! Such a clever and original line of reasoning. OscarFred1952 (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

the IBA has no influence whatsoever over test results of the two certified labs in two different neutral countries with lab license numbers published. you are taking conspiracy theories to a new level, and committing outright defamation against those licensed medical professionals at those independent labs in neutral countries, by proposing that russian influence caused genetic testing to be falsified against 2 separate boxers in 2 rounds of testing. the IOC could conduct a 3rd round of testing EASILY right now. why not? Christo1234 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Violations of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons aren't made legitimate by citing unsubstantiated claims. The anti-trans ideologues who are inundating this page need to do better than an obviously inverted burden of proof. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So anyone who disagrees with you is "anti-trans"? I hope I misunderstood. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

the people trying to push unverifiable claims speculating about the gender of an athlete in the midst of an anti-trans harassment campaign are. 2600:1700:C75:C810:ADD3:EA45:82D5:CA29 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

the lab license numbers for the genetic tests done by certified labs in two different neutral countries at two different tournaments (turkey and india) have been published. it is defamatory to suggest that these test results were falsified by these labs. there is nothing "unverified" about this. all your posts in this section are ad hominem attacks. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and other laws of other nations make it illegal to publish patient lab results documents without a signed release. sports governing bodies never do that. they explain the tests performed and the reason for sanctioning the athlete. please provide one example of a banned athlete's lab results documentation being published. both boxers signed acknowledgments of the test results with IBA, which had no role in the performance of the lab tests other than ordering them as per IOC instructions (2 tests, different samples at different times, certified labs in neutral countries, etc). it has not been established whether this person is trans or not, so harassing anyone who cites the xy lab testing by accusing them of being part of a campaign is most definitely in violation of wiki policies, as is defamation of certified lab professionals. Christo1234 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been established that Khelif is not trans. That's never been a matter of serious dispute. We don't know if she's intersex, or what her chromosomes look like, or what her testosterone levels are, but we know she was assigned female at birth, is legally considered a woman, and self-identifies as a woman. She's not trans. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

that post appears to reply to me. i never addressed the trans issue at all and said nothing to imply trans was an issue, other than to reply to the post directly above it which implied anyone bringing up the xy tests is part of an "anti-trans campaign". the tests were done by certified labs in 2 neutral countries, lab license numbers published. it is defamation against those named labs to imply that russian influence or negligence influenced their lab results, or that the tests were not performed at all because the patient lab report specifically was not published without a release from the patient. both boxers have xy chromosomes. this is fact. Christo1234 (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You said "it has not been established whether this person is trans or not" - I was addressing that claim specifically, because it is untrue. We know for sure that Khelif is not trans. Even if she had XY chromsomes, she would not be trans.

It is also, while we're here, untrue to say "both boxers have xy chromosomes. this is a fact". It is not a fact; it remains uncertain. AntiDionysius (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This and similar claims are violations of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This and similar claims are violations of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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. 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/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:

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/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/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. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

RfC lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This RfC concerns the two last sentences in the lead: "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published. Khelif was born female and identifies as female."

Should those two sentences be changed to: "Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female". Huldra (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC lead)

• I have argued the latter, as I think the sentence "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" is meaningless/misleading/controversial, while the sentence ""Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female" is objectively correct. I haven't read all written about this in the last week (who has??), but my impression is that RS ( ) more and more are using the phrase "assigned female at birth" instead of "born female".

Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong and full support for the following sentence: "I have argued the latter, as I think the sentence "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" is meaningless/misleading/controversial, while the sentence ""Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female" is objectively correct." JacktheBrown (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose changing the second sentence.

• Given what Mellamelina said below, I wouldn't object to the sentence about "testosterone and medical evidence" being reworded (as I can see how it can be misconstrued as suggesting that the evidence exists).
• "Khelif was born female and identifies as female" is supported and easily attributed to a raft of RS (way more than the proposed "assigned"), therefore, per our policies (WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE), 'born female' takes precedence. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you share your analysis that confirms “born” is used by way more sources than “assigned”? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz: I completely agree with you. M.Bitton, without concrete proof what you wrote is very doubtful. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in convincing you (I know where you both stand on this). The editors (especially the admin who will close this) are more than capable of doing the simple Google search. If they have any doubt about the more common and neutral term "born", they can ask me. M.Bitton (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources use both "born female" and "assigned female at birth" (I haven't counted which one is used more but I don't doubt that more sources use "born female" since the phrase is more accessible to readers). Per MOS:JARGON, we should avoid using the latter ("assigned female at birth"); instead, we could just wikilink it i.e. "Khelif was born female..." Some1 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly oppose. This isn't my area of expertise, but the only time I've ever heard "assigned X at birth" was in the context of a person who eventually transitioned. I know they mean the same thing, but I think "was born X" is the more common and neutral way of wording it, especially in the context of a cisgender person.

On the other hand, I don't love the chromosome sentence because, to me, it reads like the evidence exists, but it just hasn't been published. Again, I know that isn't necessarily the case, but it's my knee jerk reaction to the sentence. Mellamelina (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mellamelina: "I don't love the chromosome sentence because, to me, it reads like the evidence exists, but it just hasn't been published." Exactly, also in my opinion. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If that's the reason, then that's a different story. My understanding is that it was changed from this sentence to the current one for other reasons. M.Bitton (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown, the sentence previously read that "no evidence exists" which I think either M.Bitton or Barnads.tar.gz proposed changing to the current wording because it was a blanket statement about all of existence that we're not really in a place to make. TarnishedPath 07:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (at present), the RFC proposer makes a claim that the sentence "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" is meaningless/misleading/controversial. They have failed to provide reasoning or evidence for their statement and why the sentence is not a plain statement of fact. I think if we're going to make some change we'd need a better worded RFC (note: I have separated the RFC proposers arguments from their question for neutrality). TarnishedPath 01:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong support the "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" is awkward, and implies the tests have been conducted, are valid... but just haven't been published. Also, as the tests were apparently done, and have been witnessed, why is the fact it just hasn't been *published* so important it needs to be mentioned in the lede? In any case, I'm in favour of removing it from the lede and leaving any of that discussion in the main mody. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Whoever closes this RfC, please also review the discussion from the original talk space that started all this. When I said the RfC was a replacement for polling, I mostly meant it as sort of a technical advice (I don't think it should entirely replace the discussion, or that the discussion has no merit.). I'm still certain the discussion is happening in that talk section concurrently with this RfC and should be considered as part of whatever outcome happens. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose same reason as TarnishedPath. Also, RFC was opened probably too early, especially with news articles still coming out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Rereading some of this, more thoughts:

• AFAB is mostly done in context of trans people and people who transition their gender. Khelif never transitioned.
• Some folks are arguing that there might be proof that Khelif is intersex? or that they may have abnormal sex chromosomes? There are no reliable sourcing for that, and using an argument without reliable sourcing to remove an attributed statement seems sill
• I think the current statement "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" correctly states that no real proof has been given. (at least, proof that isn't immediately invalidated), and its from wapo, among the most reliable sources out there.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The "assigned at birth" terminology originated from people with DSDs who were (and are) sometimes not documented as the sex that they actually are. It was later adopted by the trans community to describe a gender identity that differs from sex.

As there has been evidence offered from at least one journalist confirming that Khelif's XY karyotype tests do exist (per https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/5/fa9lt6ypbwx5su3z20xxnfzgtao0gy), I would suggest there's adequate reason to use this terminology in the "suspected DSD" sense. 2A00:23EE:2380:2094:D035:DB23:FE7E:B105 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose removal of the first sentence: I have heard both that No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published constitutes WP:THESKYISBLUE and that it's "controversial", both as arguments for its removal. It can't be both, and clearly it is worth clearing up. It's also true and sourceable to the many articles about the IBA press conference that were published yesterday, which focused quite closely on the lack of evidence published by anyone. I do hear the concerns about the wording implying that there exists evidence just that that evidence hasn't been published. It doesn't read like that to me, but if it does to others, that's a wording problem, not an argument for removing the sentence; in fact, if we're concerned that some readers make think evidence is out there, that's a stronger argument for keeping the sentence. (Alternative wording may be a separate question, but an idea that springs to mind is "No medical evidence...has been presented", maybe) --AntiDionysius (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Edited the above to note that I'm strongly opposing the removal of the sentence about "no medical evidence...has been published". As for "was born female" versus "assigned female at birth" - I don't really have a strong view. --AntiDionysius (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I understand the meaning of medical evidence (not) being "published". How does medical evidence get published? I've never seen a medical test published on a news source - it would make for the most boring and iincomprehensible reading. Usually they report the findings: "they were tested and the result was ...". But we can't say that no RS has ever reported that Khelif was tested and the result was ...". So why should we chose this suggestive but obscure terminology? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• The “no medical evidence” sentence is important because it directly addresses claims that are in circulation. At the heart of this subject is a set of claims and the fact that the medical evidence for those claims is not in the public domain and therefore we don’t know if they (or their counter-claims) are true. No sources have presented a reliable case for what the sex of the subject is: the IBA have refused to publish their test results (they say they can’t), the claimed test result does not definitively determine sex (XY females exist), and a bunch of sources have made equally-unevidenced counterclaims, and despite highlighting the shortcomings of the IBA (links to Russia, possible corruption, really bad at press conferences), none of these things prove a counter-narrative involving the IBA somehow making it all up. We are dealing with uncertainty here. Especially because this is a BLP, it is inappropriate to publish speculation from both sides and our article should prefer to omit contested information rather than pick a side, even if a lot of sources have taken sides. We are talking about medical claims about a living person. None of the sources in play are WP:MEDRS. Our language must be cautious and neutral. “Assigned” is an improvement on “born” because it’s standard terminology that is compatible with a range of possible scenarios (chiefly, taking no side on whether the assignment was correct), whereas “born” is tantamount to directly stating what the sex is (a medical, factual statement), rather than what it was assigned to be (a momentary judgement, fallible). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  the fact that the medical evidence for those claims is not in the public domain the so-called medical evidence is not a fact, it's a claim by an unreliable primary source (the IBA). M.Bitton (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  The IBA may be all kinds of bad, and an insufficient source for repeating its claims in wikivoice, but it strains credulity to argue that the badness extends to conspiring to fabricate evidence. As far as I know, no RS has made a case for such a conspiracy existing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Are you sure it's just a claim by an unreliable source? Also Alan Abrahamson, who is an independent professional sport journalist, reported that they've seen the tests. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's what the secondary sources are saying about the shady IBA (a primary source). Alan Abrahamson is also a primary source whose claim a) doesn't count as far as BLP is concerned (where multiple high quality RS for such claims are necessary), and b) even if taken as face value, would prove that the IBA doesn't protect the athletes' privacy. M.Bitton (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you assuming that Abrahamson received the tests from the IBA? He may well have received them from the athlet or (more likely) from the numerous ICO officials involved in the affair.

  This last statement from the IBA provides information about their interactions with the athletes and with the ICO. Among other things, the IBA say We are not allowed to publish these documents without the agreement of the person concerned, which is undoubtedly true and shows how meaningless, purely suggestive but empty the controversial content ("no medical evidence ... has been published") is. We should say that she was assigned female at birth, that she identifies as a woman and has lived her entire life (including sports) as a woman, without speculating on who has seen the gender tests: it is possible and even probable that many people have seen them, and their content has been widely reported. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not assuming anything about the unsubstantiated claim of a primary source. M.Bitton (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is an unreliable source.

  It's obvious from the context : after she beat the Russian favourite in the Russian IBA championship competition who was previously undefeated they disqualified Imane Kelif saying she failed some unspecified biological gender test they performed.

  This "coincidentally" meant that the russian boxer could go back to being officially "undefeated".

  Boxing record of the "undefeated" boxer she beat:

  https://boxrec.com/en/box-am/1083362

  Her having an XY chromosome seems to have stemmed from an interview from the BBC with the IBA chief exec where he said "XY chromosomes were found" but there were "different strands in that" and he couldn't commit to them being "biologically male".

  https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/articles/cnk4427vvd2o

  Whether or not she does actually have XY chromosomes is an objective fact like some people are insisting. 194.154.197.119 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is a nonsensical conspiracy theory that doesn't match up with the timeline (blood samples were taken before Khelif beat Amineva) and doesn't explain Lin being deemed ineligible for failing the same test. 2A00:23EE:2380:2094:D035:DB23:FE7E:B105 (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. If we keep the controversial sentence about chromosomes, we should at least supplement it with "The IOC does not test for gender", as per quoted source WaPo. But having in the lead all this information, which is more or less suggestive and hard to interpret, is not ideal. "Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female" is preferable. First, the original sentence, there never has been evidence that either Khelif or Lin had male chromosomes, taken from WoPo, is probably false. The IBA performed two sex verification tests on Khelif and its chair Umar Kremlev told the Russian news agency Tass "it was proven they have XY chromosomes". We don't believe the Russian-led IBA? Fine, but there's also an experienced and reputable journalist, Alan Abrahamson, who writes "3 Wire Sports has seen the letter and the tests" . So it is at the very least possible (although unknown) that Khelif has differences of sex development (DSD), as explained by subject-matter expert Doriane Lambelet Coleman in Quilette. We must strictly abide by WP:BLP, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, which means that we shouldn't be suggesting that Khelif does or doesn't have XY chromosomes: we just don't know anything for sure about chromosomes. Therefore as to her gender, we write what we do know: she was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman. We don't speculate about her genetics and the lack of information about chromosomes, please, we don't make this BLP a trench in the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the West, between IBA and ICO, we don't make her the exemplar of cisgender women because we just don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do we have RSes that support born female? RSes mainly report a statement by the IOC's head of communications Mark Adams with attribution and quotation marks ("The Algerian boxer was born female, was registered female, lived her life as a female, boxed as a female, has a female passport. This is not a transgender case"). However, few RSes say that Khelif was "born female" - I managed to find four exceptions: USA Today, Atlantic Council, Variety, Politico. Indeed, the born female/born male terminology is frawned upon by LGBT organisations, which advocate for the "assigned female/male at birth" terminology. See for instance Glaad (An oversimplification like “born a man” invalidates the current, authentic gender of the person you’re speaking about and is considered disrespectful). On the other hand, many sources use "(assigned) female at birth" with regard to Khelif: New York Times, ABC News, Axios, GenderGP, PBS News, Guardian, Vox, Forbes, Sky. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• We tend to use "assigned" in case where the decision is, for some reason, viewed as either arbitrary (for an intersex person) or incorrect (for a trans person). I'd prefer "identified as female at birth" in a case like this. (It's much like the difference between "claimed" and "said".) Despite what outside commentators have said, as far as I can tell no one who has had access to her has claimed that she's anything but female -- not whoever did her birth certificate, nor the IBA which referred to her as "female" after whatever testing they did, nor the Olympics, nor the individual herself. But I fully understand if folks want to go with something more standard. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I've been having a hard time conveying this, but you worded it well. When I see "assigned female at birth", I don't associate it with a cisgender person. And to the average reader, "assigned" could carry the implication of an arbitrary decision, as if there were multiple options to be considered. I know it means the same thing as "born female", but I think a lot of readers would be unfamiliar with the phrasing. Mellamelina (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. "Identified as female" would be better. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I presume you are both talking about the passive form ""was identified as female". Call me stupid but, I spent several minutes trying to work out how anyone could identify as anything at birth!

  If so, I agree that ""was identified as female" is clearer than 'born female' and less 'jargony' than AFAB. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I know I suggested AFAB above, but that was only to see if my personal misgivings about the phrase were unjustified. Turns out they were justified, as seen by both sides of this RfC so far. To be clear, my misgivings were and are that the association of AFAB with people transitioning is a bad connotation for this article, which deals exclusively with a cisgender woman (which is true regardless of the number of X or Y chromosomes she has). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and comment. I oppose this particular change, and entirely disagree with the assessment that the first sentences is meaningless/misleading/controversial, but I do think that the word "published" is a little bit odd there (feels like a weird way to refer to personal medical records) and would suggest adjusting the sentence to something like No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been released instead (minus the emphasis). "Presented" is another option per AntiDionysius. To those arguing that the evidence has been supplied, I just want to emphasize that even if the IBA were reliable, they still haven't even said what test they did (a "chromosome test" is not a thing. They may have meant karyotyping, but that isn't the only way to look at chromosomes and they also claimed the test looked at both chromosomes and testosterone, which is not a thing.) CambrianCrab (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  What does it mean that "No medical evidence has been released"? Does it mean that it has not been published? As explained by the IBA, We are not allowed to publish these documents without the agreement of the person concerned - so this is certainly true, but it's meaningless. Does it mean that no person independent of the IBA has ever seen the medical evidence? This is probably false, since it's quite likely that the involved athlets, the ICO officials and at least one professional journalist (Abrahamson) have seen the medical evidence. We must say that the IBA tests are "unspecified", but we cannot suggest that there is any mystery or missing information about their results. The sources do not state that this is the problem. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think there's been a miscommunication somewhere. I'm not really sure what you're asking/saying, so just to clarify my own stance in case it helps:

  1. "published" makes me think scholarly journals or books, which makes it feel weird in reference to someone's personal medical records. Words like "released" or "presented" don't have the same connotation (at least in my mind), so I thought they would fit better. I don't feel strongly about this though, and obviously if the bulk of RS's are using the word "published" then we should keep it, but I didn't see that in the refs so I suggested we swap it out. Not a policy argument or anything, just personal preference.

  2. In terms of the test from the IBA, I think I was a little misleading in my phrasing. My point was mostly that even if we disregard all the other indications that the IBA might not be reliable, their failure to disclose what test they did combined with the fact that they are describing tests that do not exist (something that looks at chromosomes and testosterone at the same time), should be a red flag to us as editors that they aren't reliable enough for claims in a BLP. I definitely wasn't suggesting that we add anything new to the article.

  2a. While not my main point, I also thought it might be a helpful bit of context to explain one of the reasons that RS's have said there's no evidence despite the IBAs claims. It's not as straightforward as the IBA is saying X and journalists just don't trust them, but also that X isn't a statement that makes sense. I don't have time to go back through the sources right now but I think it was a BBC (or maybe ABC?) interview after the IBA press conference that talked about the contradictions, but didn't elaborate very much on why they were contradictions, hence why I thought the fact that a "chromosome test" could mean a lot of different things (with a lot of different levels of reliability) and are no tests that can measure both testosterone and chromosomes might be helpful context. Again, not saying we should put that in the article, just thought it would be a helpful tidbit for editors. CambrianCrab (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the lead is fine currently. Per AntiDionysius above, the fact that editors have argued against its inclusion from completely different sides of the argument means it's worth stating, just to avoid confusion. There's been so much disinformation circulating on social media about this that the lead should include a clear, sourced statement. Which it currently does. The proposed change is nonsensical. JimKaatFan (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support changing the phrasing as the original statement about no medical evidence being published could misleadengly imply the existence of unpublished evidences, and the new wording offers a clearer and neutral description of Khelif's gendre. BanishedRuler (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose to remove the chromosomes mention from the lead, because it's the root of the controversy. but rephrasing is much needed. I don't understand... Everyday I come read this article it fell even deeper in conspiracy and speculations rather than facts. So here is the facts: 1- The IBA said (and reafirmed) that Khelif have a male karyotype. 2- The IOC confirmed that no such test is necessary to participate. 3- Many people, including world leaders, would like that to change. THAT'S IT! I don't understand why we are spiraling down the rabbit-hole of gender identity. It have no influence on anything here. All the facts are clear, everyone agree to disagree, this article should be easy to make! Iluvalar (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this comment, but I don't understand why you oppose rather than support the removal of the misleading statement "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The proposition 1- remove the only mention of XY chromosome from the article (this is crucial for both, precising IBA statement and explaining the ACTUAL debate). and 2- Insist in precising Khelif's gender identity in the lead, which outside of the controversy itself doesn't belong to the lead of an AFAB woman. But then again, I also came here to say that the current version is deeply flawed. Iluvalar (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose In my growing experience on handling these topics on Misplaced Pages, I find that more information, not less, is better. Of course, the information has to be good. While the lead has quite a few problems, the two sentences in question here are not among them. Further, replacing them with a sentence that could confuse non-savvy readers (variety of concerns with AFAB mentioned by various users above), is not an improvement.
  If we want to improve the "No medical evidence..." sentence, which is the one I would consider improving, we may be better talking about the IBA and saying they have given conflicting answers when asked about the test format and results (sources including ). As that doesn't make a general statement which, again, users above have various concerns about. Kingsif (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the notion that the opening sentence is somehow implying that evidence 'secretly' exists is fairly strange, though if felt to be general, it could be fixed by minor rewording. I support the suggestion of another editor above that ""was identified as female at birth" is clearer than 'was born female' , which in the context of gender issues, is a bit meaningless. It is also clearer than the 'jargony' 'AFAB' which only tends to be used in relation to trans issues and in itself carries unhelpful implications.Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Why are editors putting their support/oppose in the discussion section? They should be placed above the discussion section. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hello GoodDay, I think you did more harm than good by adding the "survey" section. I dug to find the relevant edits: First TarnishedPath splitted the actual RfC from a following comment for clarity. . Then a single user decided to vote directly under the RfC . And that's where you found us and decided the survey must be just the little bit above: . Iluvalar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Iluvalar, I've corrected it. TarnishedPath 02:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @GoodDay, RFCs don't necessarily need survey/polling and discussion sections. I created a discussion section for this in order to introduce neutrality to the RFC question. I didn't add a survey section right off the bat because I didn't expect this RFC to be a big one which could benefit from structure. As it is all the !votes are in the discussion section and there's not been a burdensome amount of discussion outside of the !votes that any closer wouldn't be able to easily make sense of it. Even when I've started RFCs with separate discussion and survey sections from the beginning I've found editors end up having most of the discussions in the survey section anyway. At the end of the day they're just section headings. TarnishedPath 02:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Cool. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest the following rephrase: "No medical evidence was published that supports or refutes the claim that Khelif has XY chromosomes and/or elevated levels of testosterone. She was assigned female at birth and identified as female ever since". Vegan416 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with the addition of "refutes" given that it's up to the one making the claim to substantiate it (they haven't, therefore, there is nothing to refute). AFAB and AMAB are usually associated with people whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth (it isn't the case here). M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know whether the IBA can legally present the full details of their tests without Khelif's consent, because of privacy issues etc. At any rate, it does look suspicious that Khelif doesn't present the results of the independent tests she presumably made (according to the source I gave and others). I mean, if the results of those putative tests were negative on the XY and elevated testosterones issue then that would have killed the opposition to her on the spot, and she clearly doesn't have any legal limitations on publishing her own tests. Vegan416 (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, "supports or refutes" would be better. Besides, Khelif renounced her appeal against the IBA's decision, which she could have won by providing the appropriate medical tests (on karyotype and testosterone). The article says that After the appeal, Khelif organised independent tests to clear her name and return to boxing, but she did not release the results of these tests. It is not verified that she has a variation in sex traits or DSDs, but it has not been disproved either. Therefore we have many Italian sources (usually deemed reliable) talking about Khelif as an "intersex athlete" (ANSA , Adnkronos , la Repubblica , Il Messaggero , La7 , Radio DeeJay , etc.), and we also have academics and subject-matter experts debating the potential presence and nature of any DSDs in her case (e.g., Silvia Camporesi in Corriere della Sera and Doriane Lambelet Coleman in Quilette ). I'd rather avoid speculating about her chromosomes in the lead - we should just say that she was born female and identifies as woman - but if we are going to give information about the lack of release of medical tests, then "supports or refutes" is preferable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can we please avoid the speculations? Nothing has been presented, therefore, there is nothing to refute. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please look at the dictionaries here and here. The word refute doesn't mean only disproving a proven fact, but also disproving any statement that was made even if this statement is merely a theory or an opinion or a belief. Vegan416 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't have any issues with this. JSwift49 18:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I support keeping the first sentence ("No medical evidence...") per the other comments above. As for the second sentence, I prefer "was born female" (with a wikilink to Assigned female at birth) over "assigned female at birth", as it's more accessible to readers and less WP:JARGONy. And as I've stated in my edit summary, if we avoid the whole "identify as" language for transgender people (e.g. " was born male and identifies as female"), we should avoid it on cisgender people's bios too. Some1 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support changing the second sentence only to what has been proposed, or something similar to my recommendation at the end. The second sentence in the article has considerably changed since the RfC, with the inclusion of "cisgender". Only one source actually mentions the word itself, using the word from a direct quote by Bach. The proposed simply states what has happened - she was identified female and remains identification as female.

I would also support a similar sentence to this: Khelif was identified as female, a stance recognized by the IOC (obviously my wording isn't very good but you can see the point I'm trying to make) — Karnataka 17:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• "False assertions about her gender" is a very definitive statement in my opinion, and makes it seem like this is all clear and known.

"“They have high levels of testosterone, like a man,” said Dr Ioannis Filippatos, an obstetrician and gynaecologist of 30 years who also serves as the president of the European Boxing Confederation." would generally be considered 'evidence'. Setting the bar as 'published' sets the bar in an unreasonable way, and doesn't fit with wiki's general standards for evidence.

I don't know what the situation is and I don't have a strong opinion about it, but feel the current wiki entry gives a misleading impression to anyone who reads it. 58.177.133.117 (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

They are just repeating the IBA's unsubstantiated claims about a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support removing the first sentence. Given that it's talking about the absence of published information (not that the information doesn't exist) it seems an odd thing to emphasize in the lead. But I would support it going in the body somewhere. I also support "born female" instead of "assigned female at birth", perhaps some form of "is recognized as female" would be helpful too. She was born female and authorities recognize her as such, and that's what I think should be emphasized here. JSwift49 18:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Given the absence of direct medical records, the way it's written currently lacks neutrality as it assumes a default XX status & testosterone levels, when neither of those are known. Could also be changed to "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY or XX chromosomes has been published" to remain neutral. AntonioR449 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong and full support. "Born female", in my opinion, is a transphobic term in the same vein as "biological woman". Assigned female at birth is a better term - it might not even be necessary to note that because WP:UNDUE. Wasabi OS (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

AFAB and AMAB are usually associated with people whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth (this isn't the case here and there is no indication that "Born female" is transphobic). M.Bitton (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

According to whom? Wasabi OS (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"person of any age and irrespective of current gender whose sex was assigned as female at birth. Synonyms include female assigned at birth (FAAB) and designated female at birth (DFAB)."

Direct quote from the article. Nothing there signifies it's reserved for trans people. Wasabi OS (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

According to common usage and the dictionary. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That dictionary entry doesn't specify anywhere it's specifically for trans people. It is a term used more by and about trans people, yes, but that doesn't mean it's only for them. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You do realize that she's not transgender. M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

YES. I KNOW SHE'S NOT TRANS.

That is not my point. My point is "assigned female at birth" is a far better term in general because it does not suggest a trans person (which Imane is NOT) was at some point not the gender they identify as. Imane is not trans but writing that she was "born female" demeans trans women. Transness is a complicated thing and it is not the same for everyone but if articles about trans people use "assigned male/female at birth" why can't articles about cis people? Wasabi OS (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"born female" demeans trans women is just your opinion (as you rightly said).

articles about trans people use "assigned male/female at birth" because of the reasons that I stated above. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This whole ordeal is giving me a headache and it's really not worth it. I haven't received a good argument why it should be "born female" and not "assigned female at birth" that doesn't just suggest "she's a cis woman so we'll use this transphobic term instead of a cleaner and completely fitting term".

Would you say a trans woman was "born a man"? No. You'd say they were assigned male at birth. Why can't the same language extend to a cis woman? (And since you can't seem to grasp what I'm saying, I mean that Imane Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as such - i.e., she's cisgender). Wasabi OS (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose In my view, 'assigned at birth' wording is not used commonly in general speech, and thus it may be unclear or confusing for the general audience. The wording is also commonly used for individuals who have a diverse gender expression, thus such wording may imply that the subject is transgender or associate them with being transgender, which is something that the subject appears to have explicitly denied, which is a cocnern in the light of the fact that the article is a WP:BLP. Melmann 16:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like in that case other wording should be used, something not as niche as "assigned female at birth" but not as vague and conflicting as "born female". The article already notes she is cisgender which should be enough. Wasabi OS (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  To add to this, the "born female" bit in the lede links to the article for assigned gender at birth. If the term "assigned female at birth" is 1) not commonly used for cis people and 2) too confusing for cis people to understand (neither of which I agree with, but I can see the reasoning) why is this the case? Wasabi OS (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• New suggestion: I strike my previous suggestion and suggest to replace "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" with "At this stage not enough information was published to know if Khelif has DSD that would give her an unfair advantage". This follows the BBC quote "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."
• Oppose. I don't think we can reasonably remove the "no evidence" sentence; there's overwhelming sourcing and it's central to a WP:BLP-sensitive dispute, and "published" seems like the right language here. It could be reworded a little bit, but only in ways that convey the same central fact that the accusations lack evidence. Minor tweaks to the second sentence might be possible, but I wouldn't support the "assigned female at birth" language. All reputable sources seem to agree that she is cisgender; while it is technically accurate to say that a cisgender woman was by definition AFAB, it could be very easily misconstrued to imply that she is transgender, since that's the context in which that language is most often used. And in this particular case that makes it a potential WP:BLP violation, given the specifics of the dispute and the direct risk of harm to her reputation and career. In a case like this, we need to be very careful and clear with our language; and both changes being proposed here would make the wording sloppier and more unclear. --Aquillion (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead should mention the conspiracy theories surrounding Khelif, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to state what gender she identifies with or was assigned at birth in the lead of this article. Simply stating that the theories are false would seem to be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalcola (talk • contribs) 12:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:27, 15 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. 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.

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)

• Oppose, not an improvement. The current text is supported by reliable sources and we shouldn't seek to whitewash what has occurred through the usage of weasel words. TarnishedPath 03:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  AP article describes situation as "scrutiny over her sex", while NBC article describes it as "The Algerian athlete has faced intense scrutiny about her gender and online abuse". My proposal is an accurate depiction of what sources describe and not "weasel words". The misinformation (specifically that she was transgender) is still mentioned, and the nature of it is clarified. JSwift49 03:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  You're cherry picking the sources that align with your POV. This is not how Misplaced Pages works. M.Bitton (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Forbes: "Khelif’s participation at the Olympics has been a subject of intense scrutiny"

  SI: "Having put a maelstrom of scrutiny behind her, Algeria's Imane Khelif is on top of the world."

  Le Monde: "Boxer Imane Khelif wins gold despite worldwide scrutiny and disinformation over her gender"

  Not cherry picking at all. Many sources explicitly say that she received scrutiny and discuss the misinformation/false accusations. JSwift49 03:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Many sources also use the terms disinformation or misinformation. We should call things what they are especially when we have reliable sources which use the same language. To not do so would be to whitewash what occurred. TarnishedPath 03:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Reliable sources use "scrutiny" as well as "misinformation". Therefore a neutral and accurate summary is public scrutiny that includes misinformation (and abuse). Our job is to objectively report on what occurred, even if we may not like it. JSwift49 03:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Reporting on what occurred (while taking into account what the majority of RS said) is exactly what we did. M.Bitton (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not so; you are cherry picking a phrase you like and objecting to adding (not even fully replacing) a phrase which you don't like, even if multiple high quality sources also use that phrase. As @JackkBrown, @Fanny.doutaz and @Lechia have pointed out, this has led to issues with neutrality in the article. JSwift49 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @JSwift49: M.Bitton is a good user, but, unfortunately, also because of them the article isn't neutral. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Right and the issue is I do not see a widespread consensus for the lead paragraph besides a small vocal group. JSwift49 04:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  The editors that you are pinging to garner support for your changes haven't highlighted a single thing (using policy and RS). M.Bitton (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  The use of one term ('misinformation') and omission of a separate term ('scrutiny') used by many reliable sources that would provide a more complete picture seems to me a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. JSwift49 04:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @JSwift49: I agree 100% with what you wrote. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  What a surprise. M.Bitton (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  So you said many times while completely ignoring what we said. M.Bitton (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  But what you say ignores the purpose of Misplaced Pages: to report what reliable sources say. Your only argument has been "we don't like the term even though reliable sources use it". JSwift49 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Our policies don't work in isolation. M.Bitton (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like you want to disregard reliable sources because you don't like what they say, which is way off base. Policies exist for a reason. JSwift49 04:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like you don't understand that a) our policies don't work in isolation and b) this is a WP:BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's why my proposal relies on multiple high-quality sources and a neutral and comprehensive description of the situation. JSwift49 04:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @JSwift49, please don't WP:CANVASS. TarnishedPath 04:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  +1 M.Bitton (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Surely it's okay to reference what a couple of editors said in a closely related conversation. JSwift49 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @JSwift49, no it absolutely isn't okay to ping a selected number of editors, who are selected on the basis of their known positions. TarnishedPath 05:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  To avoid any doubt, pinging all other editors in the neutrality discussion @Trade @Rosguill @Tbhotch JSwift49 10:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just because some sources use specific words doesn't mean we should use the exact same words. There are reliable sources available which use the term "misinformation". E.g. TarnishedPath 03:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to change "false assertions that she was transgender" to "misinformation". However there was both public scrutiny and misinformation in this case, and many sources describe it as such. JSwift49 03:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Using the term "public scrutiny" makes it sound like the misinformation had any merit, which it did not. We should avoid loaded terms which are contentious. TarnishedPath 03:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  You may not like the term "scrutiny", but it was used by Associated Press, NBC, Forbes, Sports Illustrated and Le Monde. We should avoid thinking that our opinions outweigh what reliable sources say. JSwift49 03:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  You may not like misinformation and disinformation, but they are easily attributable to countless RS. M.Bitton (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  What you miss is I'm not objecting to the term 'misinformation'. I am objecting to the entire dialogue around Khelif being summarized as 'misinformation', when public scrutiny that includes abuse and misinformation is more accurate.

  Perfectly fine with "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 misinformation" JSwift49 04:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think we already explained why we object to "public scrutiny", so there is no need to repeat it. M.Bitton (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  You object against the consistent use of the phrase by reliable sources, while promoting the sole use of a separate phrase, that is a violation of WP:UNDUE JSwift49 04:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest you read UNDUE (that you keep mentioning) and once done, go through WP:BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm quite familiar :) JSwift49 04:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I read this article, are you are exactly violating this policy. @M.Bitton Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh and one of the sources you linked uses 'scrutiny' as well :) JSwift49 04:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, this is also covered in part by the above RFC and so any arguments regarding that topic should be put there. This is out of process. TarnishedPath 03:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's not true. The RfC does not discuss the term "misinformation". JSwift49 03:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your suggested change isn't limited to the word "misinformation" alone. It also concerns the same paragraph which the RFC is about and changes at the start of a paragraph can change the meaning of the later parts of the paragraph. This discussion should be had as part of the RFC. TarnishedPath 03:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Quoting: "This RfC concerns the two last sentences in the lead: "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published. Khelif was born female and identifies as female.""

  I agree that what you describe can happen in certain cases, but in this case altering the first two sentences (narrowly) does not have any bearing on the last two sentences in the lead. I will strike the comment about XY as that's not germane. JSwift49 03:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the cherry picked "public scrutiny" whitewashes the fact that she became the victim of misinformation and baseless allegations (a fact that is supported by the analysis of has been published in the majority of RS). The misinformation and baseless allegations were about her gender in general. We don't need to specify the nonsense that some nobodies said about her (in the lead to boot). M.Bitton (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Citing a phrase used by AP, NBC, Forbes, Sports Illustrated and Le Monde is not "cherry picking". Happy to change "false assertions she was transgender" to "numerous false assertions", to make it less specific. But the conversation is not reduced to misinformation only. JSwift49 03:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is cherry picking when one looks for what suits their POV. Like TarnishedPath said above, many sources use the terms disinformation or misinformation. We are using misinformation, but I prefer disinformation as it's more accurate. M.Bitton (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  5 high quality sources using a phrase and my supporting the use of that phrase is not "cherry picking", lol. JSwift49 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Only 5? That's nothing, and even more of the reason to use disinformation (easily sourced and more accurate than misinformation). M.Bitton (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  When you're arguing that five reliable sources aren't enough then maybe it's time to pack it in :) JSwift49 04:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Five is definitely nothing compared to the number of RS that use misinformation and disinformation. M.Bitton (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  However, I'm saying 'scrutiny' should be include alongside misinformation/false accusations. Reducing the entire debate to 'misinformation' while ignoring other sources violates WP:UNDUE JSwift49 04:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I know what you said and I explained why I disagree with you. Your claim of UNDUE is completely baseless. M.Bitton (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  You only explained that you didn't like the term. You did not explain why, according to Misplaced Pages policies, why it should be given undue weight. JSwift49 04:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did and don't intend on repeating myself just to please you. If you don't like what I said, then that's your problem, not mine. M.Bitton (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't want to repeat yourself, explain why your approach is in line with best practices, and not just 'because I don't like what reliable sources say'. JSwift49 04:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest you read WP:SATISFY. M.Bitton (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is very much a two-way conversation... not one-way badgering JSwift49 04:56, 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. TarnishedPath 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 by Jaime Schultz ; another interesting one, on the opposite side of the debate (if I'm not wrong) is this one 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

• 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 Misplaced Pages: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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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. 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)

• oppose The public scrutiny was exclusively because of patent bullshit being spread. Burying the sole cause of this whole thing by conflating it and its effects is just wrong—blindlynx 13:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• comment IBA DID specified the "XY chromosomes" in this source and later in a press conference (35:30) They specified they looked at the boxer "karyotype". Also, it's #XX that trended on 𝕏. The IOC also confirmed that they don't do such test, using only the passport. However, I do not want to oppose this change, because I feel like all these votes favor the pov pushers here. We should follow wikipedia's rule. Not have long winded votes to disrupt them. Iluvalar (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The public debate has been characterised by much more misinformation than remotely good faith "scrutiny". --AntiDionysius (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-clarifies-the-facts-the-letter-to-the-ioc-regarding-two-ineligible-boxers-was-sent-and-acknowledged/
2. Harrison, Heather (2024-08-09). "AG Fitch Spreads Misinformation About Olympic Boxer's Gender". Mississippi Free Press. Retrieved 2024-08-10.
3. 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)

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. TarnishedPath 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". 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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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."

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. 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. 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: and . JacktheBrown (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This phrasing could also be useful to add: "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)

Interview in Le Point newspaper, 9-10 Aug 2024 w/ Khelif team member

An interview with a member of Khelif's team - (job a little unclear, but physical/biological) - in LePoint has a passage in which he says that "Regardless of the results of these biological tests and, without going into details – this is a matter for biologists and doctors, this poor young girl was devastated, devastated to suddenly discover that she might not be a girl!" and later that "I took the lead by contacting a renowned endocrinologist from the Parisian University Hospital, Kremlin-Bicêtre, who examined her. He confirmed that Imane is indeed a woman, despite her karyotype and her testosterone level. He said, "There's a problem with her hormones, with her chromosomes, but she's a woman." That's all we cared about. We then worked with a doctor based in Algeria to monitor and regulate Imane's testosterone level, which is currently within the female norm."

This is information from outside the IBA which offers confirmation of non-XX chromosomes *and* elevated testosterone levels. This seems relevant.

Le Point article: (archived, in French; original paywalled): https://archive.ph/Nrnw0#selection-977.0-1693.325

Translation via Google Translate. Also available at https://x.com/i/web/status/1822436430716539391

This seems like it should lead to edits on the page because it advances what is known significantly.

The last sentence of the opening paragraph "Khelif was born female and is a cisgender woman" may need revision. The "cisgender" designation is open to question if Khelif is in fact XY male with a difference of sex development (DSD). Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It confirms neither of those things. The interviewee says that, when asked about what the IBA's test results were: From what I read at its recent press conference, the IBA did not wish to deepen or reveal the nature of the tests carried out, so it is better to remain on the position of the IOC, so he doesn't know any more than anyone else about those tests. The only test he discusses is that someone "examined" her, which does not imply a genetic test and would not be able to determine anything about whether someone has a Y chromosome. Furthermore, Interviews of this kind are not reliable sources. Last but not least, even if she does have XY chromosomes, that doesn't mean she's not a cisgender woman. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A) You are wrong. It is claimed that he has a Y chromosome AND a persistent male-typical level of testosterone, that makes him male with 100% certainty - because it means that he has testes, and that in turn means that he has a functional SRY gene. No possible DSD changes his sex then, he's simply male. But this should all be irrelevant for this wikipedia article, the article should quote resources and NOT make assumptions.

B) If you consider "interview of this kind" unreliable, why are you considering a whole set of other claims, on which the statements on this wiki page are based, reliable? The page assumes in a hundred places that Khelif is female. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to assume, it is supposed to quote. The article should say and quote "Khelif was allegedly considered female at birth" and "Khelif claims to be female", "IBA claims Khelif is male" and now also "doctor claims Khelif is XY male with male testosterone level". That is the extent of the available information and there should be NO assumptions of this person's sex. All unquoted statements referring to Khelif as female or woman should be gone from the page. 109.81.123.11 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We will be continuing to refer to her as a woman, regardless of anything about her chromosomes or hormones, because she is a woman. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What if she decides to identify as a male? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Then we would refer to her as a man and with male pronouns, as explained in the policy I just linked. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not a forum and WP:BLP is a policy. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not supposed to assume we're not assuming anything. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The definition of cisgender is:

• relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person was identified as having at birth
• noting or relating to a person whose gender identity corresponds with that person’s sex assigned at birth.
• term used in reference to persons whose gender identity corresponds with their sex assigned at birth
• Someone who is cisgender has a gender identity which fully corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth.
• If a doctor announces, “It’s a girl!” in the delivery room based on the child’s body and that baby grows up to identify as a woman, that person is cisgender
• etc. etc.

These are just a handful of the top search engine results for "cisgender definition". Now: There's no disputing that Khelif was assigned female at birth: This is our family official document, "May 2, 1999, Imane Khelif, female". It is written here you can read it, this document doesn't lie. There's also no disputing that she currently identifies herself as female: I want to tell the entire world that I am a female, and I will remain a female. Ergo, she is a cisgender woman, regardless of her genetic makeup. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that really matters, we go by what WP:RS refer to Imane, and the vast majority do not refer to her as a "cisgender woman". Wiki does not do WP:OR nor do we WP:SYNTH. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't SYNTH, this is using English words to mean what they mean. Misplaced Pages articles aren't made up of individual words cut-and-pasted from articles, ransom-letter-style. Indeed, we specifically don't do that, because that would lead to close paraphrasing; we are supposed to use our own words. This is one of them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That said, if you need a source that specifically refers to Imane Khelif as cisgender, here you go: Wasn't particularly hard to find. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Vulture when it comes to contentious topics; however, that’s not really the point. I never said no sources refer to Imane as such — I asserted the vast majority of reliable sources do not. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Facts are facts (they don't need to be stated by the majority of sources). M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus among reliable sources that she currently identifies as a woman and has been legally considered female since her birth. So yes, RS are referring to her as cisgender, just doing so in a more long-winded way. It's not SYNTH to use a word that, while not used explicitly in a source, means exactly the same thing as what the source does say. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sweet mercy. Please tell me we're not using The Vulture as a reliable source. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope it doesn't. We don't do original research, especially not when it comes to WP:BLPs. TarnishedPath 23:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This RfC concerns the first two sentences of the lead's second paragraph. (snapshot at the time of writing: )

Should "Following Khelif's victory ... misinformation surfaced on social media about her gender. False assertions about her gender were fuelled by Khelif's disqualification from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships ..."

be changed to

"Following Khelif's victory ... she 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 ..." JSwift49 13:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead)

I am arguing in support of this change. I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:

• Reuters (already in lead) "Khelif has been at the centre of a debate about gender in sport..." and "Khelif and the row she has found herself embroiled in..."
• BBC (already in lead) "The participation of Algeria's Khelif and Taiwan's Lin has proved controversial given they were disqualified..."
• Associated Press (already in lead) "at the Games where she endured intense scrutiny in the ring and online abuse from around the world over misconceptions about her womanhood."
• Washington Post (also AP) "Algerian boxer Imane Khelif won a gold medal at Paris Olympics after facing scrutiny over misconceptions about her sex."
• NBC "at the center of a global debate over gender eligibility and fairness" and "continue to face intense scrutiny and false accusations"
• Forbes "A contentious fight over who should—and shouldn’t—be allowed to compete in women’s sports has materialized ... amid criticism over the participation of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif" and "Khelif’s participation at the Olympics has been a subject of intense scrutiny after she was disqualified..."
• Sports Illustrated "Having put a maelstrom of scrutiny behind her, Algeria's Imane Khelif is on top of the world." and "Khelif, 25, also addressed the speculation surrounding her gender earlier..."
• ABC (Australia) "moving one win away from what she calls the best response to the worldwide scrutiny she has faced over misconceptions about her gender."
• New York Times "that saw her become one of the stories of the Olympics due to accusations over her gender that she described as “bullying.”"
• The Independent "Having been born a woman and lived her entire life as one, Khelif was catapulted to the centre of a rabid debate over trans women in sport because her opponent, Angela Carini..."
• ESPN "A boxing match that lasted 46 seconds has dominated the conversation around the Paris Olympics in recent days and reignited the debate about who is eligible to compete in women's sports."
• Deutsche Welle "Despite there being no proof that Khelif is a transgender boxer, heated debates on social media are still ongoing." and "Looking at the comments... also reveal the extent of hate speech and disinformation being spread".
• CNN "Khelif had been the subject of global attention after defeating Italian boxer..."

Each source here includes phrases such as "scrutiny", "accusations" or "controversy", or that she prompted "attention" or a "debate". I had originally proposed to include "public scrutiny" in the lead based on the phrasing of five reliable sources above. Some editors raised concerns that "scrutiny" would legitimize or give undue weight toward the misinformation she received. While I disagree, I believe that "attention and misinformation" is a good compromise; it covers those who supported her, opposed her, had no strong opinion of her, weighed in on the women's sports debate because of her, et cetera, while ensuring misinformation also has due weight.

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) the current text with "misinformation" only is accurate as of August 7 and was reverted/restored twice, not including by me. I did not see any Talk page consensus regarding this change, and there was no consensus in the discussion I later started , so I would not oppose removal of the sentences in question until a compromise is reached.

Please also note that a concurrent RfC is underway, though this concerns the last two sentences in lead paragraph 2. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. JSwift49 13:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support - I find the numerous sources listed to be of sufficient weight to merit a change to the proposed text. This is a contentious issue no doubt, perhaps adding a qualifier somewhere would be appropriate which acknowledges that there is indeed no consensus and can not for certain be said as a matter of fact. Swiftozis (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the cherry picked sources (presented above) are clearly used to push a meaningless term (attention) that whitewashes what happened. She has been the subject of many things that we're not mentioning in the lead, including disinformation, harassment, bullying, attacks, slander, a hate campaign, online lynching, etc. Obviously, all of these terms and expressions can easily be sourced, so if anything, "misinformation" should be replaced with "disinformation" (a more precise term). M.Bitton (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I said before in our discussion, I have no problem with "widespread public attention and misinformation regarding her gender, including online abuse". JSwift49 14:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  What you said and keep repeating ad nauseam while ignoring what everyone else said is clearly irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I will leave the conversation here as it has already been had. I will note that this editor has a history of asking the same question verbatim four or five times during the course of a discussion:

  JSwift49 14:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your repeated WP:ASPERSIONS give the true weight of your so-called argument. M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support She has been the subject of both disinformation and public scrutiny, and we should debunk the fake news without trivialising or denying the public debate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The RfC proposes to add widespread public attention alongside misinformation to the lead. Since several RSs shared by JSwift49 mention the "global debate over gender eligibility and fairness" sparked by Khelif at the Olympics, editors may wonder about the content of that debate: is it just bigotry and hate speech? In that case, "misinformation" would be enough. I believe there's been also a reasoned public debate about non-trivial, non-hateful issues: was the IOC's decision not to perform sex verification tests, that is, not to enquire about the athletes' gender as certified in their passports, a good decision? Some sports journalists and academics have questioned this decision and raised concerns about the safety of the athletes and the fairness of the competition. I don't have an opinion on the matter - I'm not particularly interested in sport or GENSEX - but I believe that NPOV dictates that we don't deny or trivialise a public debate that is reasonable and significant. So in the collapsible box I'm including some extracts from "voices" in that debate (except for the first one, which is an RS, they are all editorials and opinion commentaries, not RSs). I'm not proposing to use them as sources for the article on Khelif, but I feel that the RfC would be better informed if editors knew what this "widespread public attention" or "public debate" is about.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This seems like a reasonable and balanced description of what happened. While there was indeed a lot of misinformation (such as describing her as trans) and also abuse (such as curses and violent speech) against her, there are also legitimate concerns and public attention that do not fall into these categories. If someone wonders whether she has indeed XY chromosomes and/or elevated testosterone level that might give her unfair advantage, that is not misinformation and not abuse.

Vegan416 (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What "legitimate concerns" and by whom? M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I already mentioned an example of such a concern. Do you want me to repeat it? I thought you are against unnecessary repetitions. And this concern was voiced by many people, including for example: the developmental biologist Dr. Emma Hilton here, the evolutionary biologist Colin Wright here, and the feminist author Helen Lewis here. Vegan416 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Those were published long after the hate campaign (by the nobodies) had started. M.Bitton (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the BBC, WSJ and the Atlantic are "nobodies". And what difference does it make here if it was published a week ago or two weeks ago??? Vegan416 (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Of they're not the "nobodies" (the ones who started it) that I was referring to. Something published after the event cannot be the cause of the event. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not an "Event" that ended. It's a continuing debate. And I didn't say anything about "causes". Nor doers JSwift49 suggestion here say anything about "causes". I only said "If someone wonders whether she has indeed XY chromosomes and/or elevated testosterone level that might give her unfair advantage, that is not misinformation and not abuse." Do you disagree with this statement? Vegan416 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is about what started it and the disinformation and hate campaign that followed (still ongoing).

If someone wonders anything that is unsubstantiated and damaging to a living person is abuse and misinformation (she knows this better than most and is taking legal action against the bullies). M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You miss the point. JSwift wants to change the first sentence so it want talk only about the hate campaign but also about the legitimate concerns.

Also wondering "whether she has indeed XY chromosomes and/or elevated testosterone level that might give her unfair advantage" is definitely not misinformation, because it doesn't make any definitive assertion. The facts are the a claim was made by an international sporting organization that she has XY and/or elevated testosterone. Evidence for this claim was not made public. But contrary evidence was not made public either. In fact as far as I could see this claim was not even denied by Imane Khelif or the IOC. Correct me if I'm wrong on the last point. Can you show me a source where the IOC or Imane Khelif claim that she doesn't have XY chromosomes and elevated testosterone level? Vegan416 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me (I didn't miss anything). Unsubstantiated claims that are damaging to the reputation and well being of a living person are misinformation. Contrary to what you're claiming, she doesn't have to live up to some people's expectation of what a woman is or prove who she is to anyone, least of all the bullies. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't patronize you. If you claim to understand JSwift49 suggestion then it should be obvious to you that your statement that the current sentence is only talking about the hate campaign is irrelevant.

Again I refer you to the dictionary. For example (here and here). Misinformation is incorrect or misleading or wrong information. Unsubstantiated claims that were not refuted are undecided. Therefore they are not incorrect (nor correct). Therefore they are not misinformation. Furthermore, claims that are not even denied are sometimes regarded as correct, even in legal settings (where the bar for proof is much higher than in public debate) in many countries. I suggest you read about "Silence as admission". Anyway, this discussion became too long so I'm stopping here. If you wish to continue please do it on my talk page only. Vegan416 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If you claim to have read my comments, then it should be obvious to you that their suggestion whitewashes the misinformation. I'm not interested in WP:OR, especially when the reputation of a living person is concerned. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I responded yo you here User talk:Vegan416/DiscussionPage#Response to Bitton re Khelif. And I'll continue to respond only there. Vegan416 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 I agree, your sources are good examples of non-misinformation attention, and help to corroborate what reliable sources already say about Khelif receiving said attention. JSwift49 16:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, the above list of sources strikes me as a call to original research as by my reading they concern themselves with discussing eligibility standards in general rather than constituting reasonable fact based discussions about whether Khelif was eligible. These are not sources which support the proposal that there was anything other than misinformation in regards to Khelif. TarnishedPath 01:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have time for a detailed response. But 2 quick points: 1. I know what OR is. And this sources are definitely not OR. But I have no idea what "a call to OR" is. Can you refer me to a policy page which explain this term? 2. These sources are not discussing eligibility standards in general only, but also in reference to the possibility that Khelif has some form of DSD. 3. Do you suggest that these sources are engaging in "misinformation"? Vegan416 (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  "but also in reference to the possibility that Khelif has some form of DSD" for which there is no reliable evidence. So these sources don't assert that Khelif has DSD which I would expect because there is no reliable evidence for it. So the usage of these sources is in fact a call to original research. You want to draw connections between generalised discussion of eligibility of persons with DSD and Khelif when they have not been demonstrated to have DSD by any reliable sources. In short there are no reliable sources which assert that Khelif has DSD/XY chromosomes/high testosterone/etc. Any claim that they do is misinformation or disinformation. Reasonable concerns are always based on verifiable evidence. If there is no verifiable evidence there is no reasonableness. Therefore it is only appropriate to use the word 'misinformation' or 'disinformation' about claims concerning Khelif's gender or any other medical condition for which no reliable evidence has been presented. TarnishedPath 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  1. Since you ignored my request to explain what a "a call to original research" even means, and a google search didn't find any mention of this expression in wikipedia policy pages, I'll just ignore this part of your response, as clearly wikipedia doesn't have any policy regarding it (whatever it means).
  2. The sentence "these sources don't assert that Khelif has DSD" is a strawman, since nobody here claimed that these sources assert that, and nobody here wants to assert that either. My only claim here is that publicly discussing the possibility that Khelif has DSD and expressing concerns about the possible implications of this eventuality (as the sources I brought, and many others, do) is definitely NOT misinformation or disinformation under the circumstances of this case.
  3. I strongly disagree that "reasonable concerns" in public debate can only be based on "verifiable evidence". This claim is completely baseless. Reasonable concerns in public debate can be based also on reasonable suspicions and doubts, and in fact they are often based only on such basis in many cases. The only thing that wouldn't be reasonable in the absence of verifiable evidence is to express these concerns as assertions in a definitive language, which the sources I brought do not do even by your own admission.

  Vegan416 (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Per Google the definition of reasonable is: "having sound judgement; fair and sensible. Rumours, gossiping and innuendo which are pushed in the absence of evidence do not meet that definition. Now if these sources can't assert that Khelif has DSD, any argument that seeks insert language that implies that there is reasonable concerns about her gender using these sources as justification is making an argument based on original research because you are interpreting out of the sources that which is not spelled out explicitly in the wording. Quite frankly it strikes me as WP:POVPUSHING to be making fringe arguments on the basis of sourcing which doesn't explicitly back you up. TarnishedPath 10:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  The reasonableness of the possibility of DSD is not based on "rumors, gossiping and innuendo" as I have shown amply in other places here. Do you want me to repeat that? And the sources I brought do back me up in the claim that there is a reasonable possibility that Khelif has some form of DSD, and that if that possibility is true then it might give her unfair advantage. Here are some quotes:

  The WSJ source: "We can therefore deduce that Imane Khelif was disqualified for having XY chromosomes." "The most probable DSD for Imane Khelif is 5-alpha reductase deficiency, or 5-ARD. People with 5-ARD have XY chromosomes and testes that produce testosterone." "Many with 5-ARD are raised as girls, only discovering their condition at puberty when their internal testes trigger male puberty. This results in masculine features and a physical advantage over women in sports."

  The Atlantic source: "But both still face questions, a year after the International Boxing Association (IBA) publicly raised the issue, over whether they have XY chromosomes and a disorder of sexual development—also known as an intersex condition—which give  them an unfair advantage over other women." "Why have the IOC’s statements been so misleading and nebulous? Perhaps because it does not want to compromise the athletes’ privacy by discussing their medical details without consent. And perhaps because the IOC’s leaders are not prepared to defend their own rules, which state that even if Lin and Khelif do have XY chromosomes, they are allowed to compete in Olympic women’s boxing." "A simple cheek swab could clear this up, revealing the presence (or not) of a second X chromosome. If either athlete was XY instead, she could have further genetic testing to get a precise diagnosis and determine if it affected her ability to participate fairly. If Lin and Khelif are straightforwardly female athletes with XX chromosomes, they could have appealed their IBA bans to the Court of Arbitration for Sport". "This is why the IOC’s insistence that Lin and Khelif were “born as women”—a phrase banned by its own guidelines, but never mind—is unenlightening. With 5ARD, a child can be registered as female at birth, but later develop a significant athletic advantage during puberty from the effects of testosterone".

  Dr. Emma Hilton from the BBC source: "says Dr Emma Hilton, a developmental biologist who studies genetic disorders. She is also a trustee of the Sex Matters charity, which argues Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting shouldn’t be competing until further testing is done." "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".

  So we have 3 reputable sources discussing the possibility that Khelif has DSD quite seriously, and definitely not as if this is only based on "rumors, gossiping and innuendo". Do you suggest that these articles are "misinformation"?

  Actually this gives me a better idea how to answer the other RfC about the lead. Maybe following the BBC we should replace the sentence "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" with "At this stage it is unknown if Khelif has DSD that would give her unfair advantage" or something like that. Vegan416 (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  If there is no reliable evidence then the possibility is entirely based on "rumors, gossiping and innuendo". I'm not going to waste my time and read the rest of your WP:POVPUSH. TarnishedPath 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree with your false dichotomy here. Life is more complicated than the simplistic binary view you present here. And I totally reject your false accusation of WP:POVPUSH. Anyway if you refuse to read the sources then there is really no point in continuing this discussion. Vegan416 (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I already read enough previously to have a gist of the content. You continue to push a position which is not based on "reasonable concerns" while stating that it is. TarnishedPath 12:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  If your impression is that these articles treat the possibility that K has DSD as "rumors, gossiping and innuendo" then you clearly didn't read enough of the articles and you clearly didn't get the gist correctly. Also you are the one here who is engaging in WP:POVPUSH. You are trying to push the view that the mere discussion of the possibility that K has DSD is "misinformation", when you don't have any reliable source that asserts she doesn't have DSD. Vegan416 (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  you don't have any reliable source that asserts she doesn't have DSD. is asking editors to prove a negative, which is not a reasonable application of 'burden of proof' or request to make. I might as well assert we should be allowed to discuss the possibility that you are a group of monkeys hammering at a typewriter instead of a human editor because we don't have any reliable sources that assert you aren't. The most appropriate policy to link here is I believe WP:EXCEPTIONAL JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  No. The claim that it is possible that K has DSD is not an exceptional claim at all. As I have shown this possibility is being seriously discussed in highly reputable sources. As for your ridiculous monkey parable, I deny that I am a group of monkeys, does K or the IOC deny she has DSD? Vegan416 (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it is entirely an exception claim given there are no reliable sources which assert that they do.

  "does K or the IOC deny she has DSD?". We don't insert content into Misplaced Pages articles on the basis that it must be possible because a BLP hasn't denied it. It would be both a WP:BLP and a WP:NOR violation if we edited like that. TarnishedPath 09:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are wrong. I (and JSwift and Gitz and others) have shown in the discussions here many reliable sources that say it might be possible that K has DSD. And you are strawmaning again as I never said that we should insert an assertion that K has DSD into the article. Vegan416 (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Referring to others who are engaged in POVPUSH as backup isn't the victory you think it is. TarnishedPath 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you suggest that the articles I brought from BBC, WSJ and Atlantic are engaged in POVPUSH? Vegan416 (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also your using the language of "victory" is classic BATTLEGROUND behavior. Vegan416 (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I'm suggesting that YOU are engaged in POVPUSH by seeking to selectively use quotes from articles which don't state that Khelif has DSD as evidence that there is reasonable concerns about their eligibility to fight on the basis that they might have DSD. TarnishedPath 10:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  How can you say that if you didn't even read those articles? These article are actually saying what I said. That there is a possibility that K has DSD and if that turns out to be the case then there are reasonable concerns about their eligibility to fight, Vegan416 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, why are you misrepresenting the point of contention? As I've already said at least a couple of times, no one is arguing that we should insert content into Misplaced Pages articles about her alleged DSDs. We are suggesting that we should revove content that implies or suggests that she doesn't have DSDs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, re I'm not going to waste my time and read the rest of your WP:POVPUSH. Editors should stop accusing other editors they disagree with of POV-pushing. It is not at all clear who is disregarding sources and casting aspersions to push a POV on this article. We already have an open thread at ANI for discussing these sorts of issues - please keep them off the article talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Leaving aside the call to original research accusation, which I don't understand, I also don't understand why you complain that the sources in the collapsible box concern themselves with discussing eligibility standards in general rather than constituting reasonable fact based discussions about whether Khelif was eligible. No discussion about whether Khelif was eligible could ever be "reasonable" or "fact based" because it is obvious and undisputed that she was eligible. However, Khelif was eligible under the IOC's standards (the only ones that matter) and those standards are open to debate. They allow athletes with DSD to compete in boxing alongside other women (if I'm not mistaken, they would also allow transgender women to compete, as the athletes' gender is based on their passport). Since it is possible that Khelif has a form of DSDs and since certain forms of DSDs can have a significant impact on athletic performance, there's been a public debate as to whether the IOC standards have given due consideration to the safety of other athletes and the fairness of the competition. Some editors (myself included) believe that mentioning this debate in the lead is appropriate; others disagree. But why do those who disagree feel it necessary to deny the debate's existence, insinuate that it is transphobic and hate-driven, and call its inclusion "original research" and a "violation of the BLP"? Given the extensive coverage of this debate in RS, I truly don't get it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  They allow athletes with DSD to compete in boxing alongside other women. Without relying on original research, how is it relevant that the IOC allows athletes with DSD to complete? I've not seen any reliable sources which state that Khelif has DSD. TarnishedPath 01:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  No reliable source "states" that she has DSDs, but many relieble sources mention that possibility. E.g., The Indipendent ("This raises the question of what differences in sex development are") , BBC ("critics, including some of their opponents at Paris 2024, have speculated that perhaps the fighters have DSD"), BBC ("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"), Times of Israel ("Unconfirmed media reports have suggested the two athletes may have been born with differences in sex development"), NBC ("it's not known whether either of the boxers has these genetic variations"). Initially the IOC said that Khelif was not a DSD case, but later retracted the statement . As shown by the sources in the collapisble box, sport journalists and academics discuss the opportunity and consequences of allowing intersex athletes to compete in female boxing competitions in connection with Imane Khelif. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  If no reliable sources state it, we don't cover it and certainly not in the lead. We don't deal in pushing rumours and innuendo on WP:BLPs. TarnishedPath 09:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  No one has ever suggested mentioning the possibility that it has DSD in the lead. If I am wrong, please provide a diff. If I am not wrong, please stop arguing with a strawman and misrepresenting my arguments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I said that No discussion about whether Khelif was eligible could ever be "reasonable" or "fact based" because it is obvious and undisputed that she was eligible. I must correct myself, since on 4 August the Guardian reported The gender eligibility of the two boxers remains unclear. I think the Guardian is wrong - Khelif's eligibility under IOC's rules has never been in doubt - but my claim that no RS has ever disputed her eligibility was wrong. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as attempts to WP:WHITEWASH and normalize the discrimination faced by the subject. The sources pretty clearly state that the "debate" was spurned by the disinformation (including one of the quotes in the OP, "...after facing scrutiny over misconceptions about her sex"). The proposal to change "False assertions about her gender were fuelled by Khelif's disqualification from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships ..."" is not at all touched on in the rationale (which gives the optics of a backdoor removal/change), and changing it would remove vital needed context. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is not the case with all or even a majority of sources.

  Also, looking at the AP article, the quote "endured intense scrutiny in the ring and online abuse from around the world over misconceptions about her womanhood" leaves it uncertain whether the scrutiny is tied to misconceptions. A following line, "world leaders, major celebrities and others who have questioned her eligibility or falsely claimed she was a man", sheds some light on this: questioning eligibility is treated separately by the AP from false claims.

  Happy to touch on sentence 2: I didn't see it as a significant change given attention/misinformation was already mentioned. I will add it to the RfC for clarity. JSwift49 15:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't refactor comments after they've been replied to. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  No worries, I'll mention it here then: The "fueled by" phrasing comes from the AP article's headline, which violates WP:HEADLINE. The article said "It stems from" the disqualification, where "it" refers to "hateful scrutiny" in the previous paragraph, not false accusations.

  I had regardless thought the context was enough to make the lead more concise, but another option I'd support would be "...widespread public attention and misinformation regarding her gender. This stemmed from Khelif having previously been disqualified...", to make the connection explicit. JSwift49 15:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think Jules Boykoff and Dave Zirin summed it very well:

  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) 15:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  An opinion article from a partisan source should certainly not be given WP:UNDUE weight to determine the language in the lead. JSwift49 16:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  A partisan source, that is also agreed to be reliable as per the perennial sources link. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Adding on, in The Independent, JSwift omits the opening sentence "...after her 46-second victory sparked an international gender row amid a frenzy of misinformation."

  SI additionally contains the following which was ommitted: "Following her round of 16 win over Italy's Angela Carini, Khelif became the subject of wild speculation and falsehoods surrounding her gender; she had been disqualified from the International Boxing Association's 2023 world championships for failing an unspecified gender-eligibility test."

  This, plus Drmies' quote from PBS below should be enough to counter the select quotes used in JSwift's !vote. I'd also rather not have to provide quotes from each source. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Here's the thing: I, like you, support misinformation remaining where it is, because I agree that misinformation was consistently described in these articles. Therefore, I didn't even bother to include quotes describing "misinformation", because that's not the dispute here.

  However, we cannot ignore that reliable sources describe misinformation as only part of what happened. Even looking at The Independent, "amid" a frenzy of misinformation means that misinformation did exist, but it does not support that the discourse was only limited to misinformation. Or Sports Illustrated describes both that "scrutiny" and "wild speculation and falsehoods" occurred. JSwift49 18:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• No. Plenty of good sourcing for "misinformation"--removing it is whitewashing. I'm not going to list the plethora of sourcing, but here, from PBS, titled "Algerian boxer Imane Khelif wins gold at Olympics after enduring abuse fueled by misinformation". Drmies (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I support misinformation remaining where it is, don't want to remove it! But, I propose adding "attention" as well to more closely/completely match with reliable sources.

  (Also, citing headlines violates WP:HEADLINE.) JSwift49 18:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  There must be a misunderstanding. The RfC does not propose to replace or remove "misinformation". It proposes to add "widespread public attention", meaning that alongside fake news and hate speech there were also legitimate concerns and meaningful public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. It seems that the crux here is the "False assertions about her gender were fuelled by" statement, and the RfC actually doesn't touch on this, but cherry-picks up sources to reword the sentence to get rid of this. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This comment has some merit. I'd prefer the original text (slightly reworded per t/p discussion): "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. False assertions about her gender were fuelled by Khelif's disqualification...". However, the point of the RfC (as I understand it) is not to remove "False assertions about her gender were fuelled by", but rather to mention that there has also been (legitimate, non-trivial and non-hateful) "public scrutiny", "public attention", "public debate" (or similar expressions). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What you quoted is not the original text, it's part of what the OP is proposing (you happen to agree with it and have !voted). I prefer the stable version. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the original draft of the proposed edit. However, I don't agree that the one you linked is the "stable version". The stable version of the lead was this one. It was changed with this edit and this edit. The first one was immediately challanged by Deathlibrarian here and restored by TarnishedPath without a clear consensus on the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You didn't address what they said. Instead, you used their !vote to advertise what you want the lead to look like. If you want people to pay attention to what was said in the previous discussion, then link to it and let them read it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There has been exactly zero legitimate public scrutiny. To state that there has been legitimate public scrutiny is to state that there is any legitimacy to disinformation about Khelif's gender. TarnishedPath 08:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I should have put that rationale in the RfC originally. The crux for me is that sources describe other things besides "misinformation", and that both "misinformation" and "attention" should be included. I used the quotes solely to support "attention" since everyone already agrees "misinformation" is supported by RS.

Would something like "...widespread public attention and misinformation regarding her gender. This stemmed from Khelif having previously been disqualified..." work, do you think? JSwift49 23:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, per all the reasons that I have mentioned in my !vote and the countless discussions about this. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No. How many more editors are going to have to tell you that you're cherry-picking the sources before you WP:LISTEN? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain? As I said here I chose to not include "misinformation" in the quotes because I'm not seeking to remove it, just prove the sources say something else in addition to misinformation. Kind of like my quotes don't include that Khelif is a boxer because no one is disputing Khelif is a boxer. So I'm confused about how it's cherry picking but I'd like to know so I don't make a mistake in future. JSwift49 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Changing it to remove that the controversy was completely bunk generated by anti-trans voices is WP:WHITEWASHing what happened. Also is good to point out that false allegations of gender are what fueled her disqualification, should not separate that dependent fact. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

• Oppose, there is nothing wrong with the current version and the proposal seeks to soften the langague in what appears to be an attempt to at least partially WP:WHITEWASH what occured, using cherry picked sources as a justification. TarnishedPath 04:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, pinging @Barnards.tar.gz, @Blindlynx, @Fanny.doutaz, @Gitz6666, @Iluvalar, @JSwift49, @JackkBrown and @M.Bitton who were involved in the directly related discussion at Talk:Imane_Khelif#2nd_lead_paragraph:_"public_scrutiny"_vs._"misinformation". TarnishedPath 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• oppose how is articulating the core cause of the 'accusations', 'controversy', 'scrutiny' or whatever focusing to narrowly!? The crux of this whole thing is that disinfo fueled transphobia, there is no reason to minimize that—blindlynx 19:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Let's assume (for argument's sake) your point, that a reaction solely caused by misinformation should not be mentioned separately from misinformation.

  Six of the thirteen sources still describe the IBA's disqualification as a cause of the controversy and/or misinformation toward Khelif. Three more sources say these reactions was due to Carini's withdrawal and CNN mentions both the fight and the DQ contributed. Sources support that the IBA is shady, and Carini apologized for her actions, but neither of these is misinformation. So if this means misinformation wasn't the only cause of the reactions, or (as I originally argued) the only reaction toward her that sources describe, don't we need to account for everything else?

  Two sources only say the reactions were due to misinformation/misconceptions , though each also uses broader terms to describe the reactions to her. The NYT article doesn't really take a stance, but notes she describes accusations as "bullying".. JSwift49 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, we do not. Specifically we should not have WP:FALSEBALANCE between the core cause and other events surrounding this. Disinfo about someones gender is clearly the main cause of scrutiny or whatever you want to call it of their gender identity. Saying it was just a part of it is minimizing what's going on—blindlynx 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Will be largely stepping back here as have already weighed in a lot, though I request that whoever closes this RfC also take into account the previous Talk discussion dealing with two earlier drafts of my proposal, as votes are still being cast there as well. JSwift49 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose all changes suggested above, and in particular any use of the word "attention" or "scrutiny" or any comparable synonyms in this context, in any way, shape, or form; the previous text is ideal. "Attention" is extremely strange and stilted language in this context; because this is something highly WP:BLP-sensitive dispute, our most important responsibility is to make the unambiguous conclusion reached by sources (ie. that this is a misinformation campaign) as clear as possible. Beyond that, I'm unimpressed with the sources presented above - the quotes are pulled out of context and do not even reflect the sources listed, but even without that, initial WP:BREAKING news is often extremely cautiously worded or contains vague statements. When later and more in-depth coverage reaches a clear and precise conclusion, it is inappropriate to try and use a few of the more cautious or vague sentences in initial coverage to try and water it down. The highest-quality sources here reach an unambiguous conclusion that the overarching events are a misinformation campaign, which means we should present that clearly. --Aquillion (talk) 08:30, 15 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 (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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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., ). 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)

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)

 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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Medical opinion

Followers of this talk page will know I've only supported the idea of including medical test results, and lab reports (which are primary sources) if they have been reported by a reliable source. Up until today, I don't think I've seen a reliable source giving answers about this material. We saw a report by Alan Abrahamson, who is certainly an excellent sports reporter, but his material was only ever published on his blog, which has no editorial oversight, and therefore isn't a reliable source.

Today I notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald which is certainly a reliable source, with remarks from what seems to be a first-rate primary source, being Dr Ioannis Filippatos, an obstetrician and gynaecologist of 30 years. Dr Filippatos is president of the European Boxing Confederation.

With regards to our subject, Filippatos is quoted as saying:

“I’m trying to say the medical results from the laboratory say this boxer is man. We’re trying now to find out why it happened like that. We’re not against Khelif. Our problem is that we have two blood exams with chromosomes of a man. This is not my answer, it’s the answer from the laboratory."

Here we have a qualified medical specialist, examining the lab results that have been discussed on this talk page, and making a clear statement, that the subject has given "two blood exams with chromosomes of a man." This is reported in a reliable source, namely, the Sydney Morning Herald. I believe this material is significant to the understanding of the subject and should be included. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the unsubstantiated claim that was made by Filippatos during the IBA's shambolic press conference in which Umar Kremlev called Thomas Bach a "sodomite". M.Bitton (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To wit, earlier in this article, the very same doctor is quoted in the very same press conference as saying: "They have high levels of testosterone, like a man...They have men’s level of testosterone. We don’t know if they were born a man – we don’t have anything to confirm ." So it certainly is not a clear statement, given that Filippatos obviously thinks that having XY chromosomes is equivalent to having been "born a man". Not to mention, the article itself calls the press conference in question "farcical"; to deliberately leave out this context and present this article as lending any credibility to Filippatos or the IBA is...well, it strains AGF. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"The President of the European Boxing Confederation is unreliable because he said something I found offensive." Okay but no 2600:1700:76F1:E8A0:CF48:292E:86A5:C21 (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If we have assertions in the field of medicine we're going to need WP:MEDRS sources for that. An expert merely parroting an unreliable primary source does not cut it. TarnishedPath 04:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS has nothing to do with claims about a persons medical history, diseases, or genetic conditions. We don't cite WP:MEDRS sources to discuss Cheech Marin having been born with a cleft lip, or Michael J. Fox having Parkinsons.

This being said, I agree that this particular doctors claims are WP:UNDUE. If his claims are true, eventually, it will be verified by other sources -- and I suspect that specific sporting organizations will adjudicate their policies as they see fit. But invoking WP:MEDRS simply because one of only a few accredited institutions didn't do a proper peer-reviewed study about this individual, which is what I understand what the spirit of MEDRS as a policy requires, seems like a stretch. If I'm wrong here, can please point me to where WP:MEDRS makes requirements around reliable sources making claims of any genetic conditions on BLPs? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective on WP:MEDRS, @TarnishedPath and @Kcmastrpc. Seems clear that it's a guideline for articles dedicated to a medical topic.

@Writ Keeper and @M.Bitton, about the press conference, I guess there's a kind of tragic-comedy to its lack of order, but that really isn't relevant here.

The only things that matter are whether there's a reliable source providing information about the subject, and if the primary source being referred to by that reliable source has some kind of medical authority.

I completely concur that this doctor, being Dr Filippatos, is making no declaration about whether the subject is male or female, or even whether the subject should compete in the female category or not; only that blood samples from the subject indicate XY chromosomes.

That appears to be noteworthy and appears to come from a reliable source. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims made in the middle of a shit show in which the shady IBA was meant to provide some evidence are neither reliable nor noteworthy. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, just to be clear this: ...it's a guideline for articles dedicated to a medical topic. < is not accurate. The topic of the article isn't the important part, it's the nature of the statement that determines whether or not MEDRS is needed.

A MEDRS source isn't necessarily needed for stating if she does or doesn't have any given medical condition. What is needed is an abundance of super high quality sources and/or a statement from Imane herself, because personal medical information is the type of thing that can do a whole lot of WP:HARM. A MEDRS source would be needed for any claims about a medical condition (i.e. in a "She has X which means Y" setting, MEDRS may be needed for the Y part).

I do agree with this claim being UNDUE though, and I don't think it meets the bar for inclusion in this case. CambrianCrab (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The IBA is not a reliable source. Any mere parroting of their claims is not significant. TarnishedPath 01:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Dr Ioannis Filippatos is an IBA employee according to the EBC's website (https://eubcboxing.org/presidents/). This makes him a WP:COISOURCE. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I encourage calm.

Wiki editors don't make decisions about content depending on how serene a particular press conference was.

We decide using reliable sources.

The Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source.

The content of its article is relevant and should be taken into account. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source, therefore, we know that Dr Filippatos said that, and that the fact that he said that was covered by the media. We also know that Dr Filippatos is an IBA employee, so this information is just "doctor agrees with one of his employers". This does not merit inclusion unless more coverage of the IBA's POV is WP:DUE. Flounder fillet (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I assure you that my original reply is very calm, at least in English (warranty void if text translated). Flounder fillet (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Since the discussion Talk:Imane Khelif#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: and . 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)

IBA Meeting Cited Improperly

This article claims there is misinformation about Imane Khalif's gender because the IOC qualified this person fairly and the IBA disqualified the person unfairly. The IBA is based in Russia and currently Russia is banned from competing because of the war in Ukraine. The IBA itself was accused of taking money and fixing fights and that led to their disbandment from the IOC, not their gender testing standards. The news media organizations cited as sources in this article do not discuss the IBA process or the IOC decision truthfully. It is not fully accurate to classify questions about this person's gender as misinformation.

For those who want details about the meeting where this person was disqualified from IBA, here are the minutes from that meeting:

https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BoD-meeting-minutes_New-Delhi_FV-approved.pdf

Article supporting the real reason IBA was banned:

https://apnews.com/article/iba-boxing-olympics-a2d8ab2d05b20d81c00e2a268b9b0cdd 2600:1700:2900:D490:ADCE:347D:B4FA:D94B (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"The IBA itself was accused of taking money and fixing fights and that led to their disbandment from the IOC, not their gender testing standards"; this, in my opinion, is irrelevant. For the rest, I don't express an opinion. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The IBA is based in Switzerland.

See https://www.iba.sport/about-iba/organizational-structure/iba-head-office/ 2A00:23EE:1448:25BD:71CE:C204:DA7F:C50F (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please put your edit request in "please change x to y" format as suggested in WP:ER TarnishedPath 00:48, 16 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)

XY chromosomes

"No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published."

It's been reported upon by sports journalist Alan Abrahamson. This should be in the article. 2A00:23EE:1448:25BD:71CE:C204:DA7F:C50F (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please obtain conesnsus for your suggested change. TarnishedPath 00:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

We are currently having an RfC on the same issue on this talk page, here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the heading "2023: IBA Championships disqualification", before the final sentence please add the sentence "By not pursuing this appeal Khelif lost a bronze medal and $25,000 dollars." Reference is: https://en.wikipedia.org/2023_IBA_Women%27s_World_Boxing_Championships Allieaf (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: You can't use Misplaced Pages as a source on Misplaced Pages. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:03, 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. TarnishedPath 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. 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. TarnishedPath 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. The specific findings from any tests that could indicate DSDs were not disclosed and remain confidential.

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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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? TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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.

states the IBA never disclosed the exact testing, not khelif.

does not say if Khelif took other tests after the IBA, only that she declined to answer about it.

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)

• 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)

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. TarnishedPath 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. TarnishedPath 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)

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

after Khelif defeated Azalia Amineva , 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)

• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Algeria articles
• Low-importance Algeria articles
• WikiProject Algeria articles
• B-Class Boxing articles
• WikiProject Boxing articles
• B-Class Olympics articles
• Low-importance Olympics articles
• WikiProject Olympics articles
• B-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• B-Class Women's sport articles
• Low-importance Women's sport articles
• B-Class Women's boxing articles
• Women's boxing task force articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment