Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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)
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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
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 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
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
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
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
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
In this RfC there was no consensus to remove the sentence in the lead which states that there is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes, consensus against stating that Khelif was assigned female at birth and consensus that sources presenting evidence of possible XY chromosomes are unreliable.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a rough presumptive consensus to split. Editors raised concerns about content related to this controversy being split across three articles, and no compelling arguments that this status is acceptable were made. This necessarily means there is a consensus to merge all content somewhere: either Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics or a new page. Supporters of splitting to a new page raised concerns about the size of Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Opposers noted that the content is currently only a small portion of that page and other parts can be trimmed easily, but failed to establish an actual consensus (via either discussion or normal editing) to actually trim anything there and failed to address how consolidating information from this article and Lin Yu-ting would affect the size of that page. I therefore find a consensus to split to a new article, with the qualification that this consensus presumes the current shape of Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics, and substantial changes to that page may cause this consensus to give way to one in favor of consolidating everything there. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate72719:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
its probably notable/useful enough to consolidate this information into a broader article, and link some of the background information to such an article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton, I'd presume that such article would discuss the controversy in a slightly more generalised manner. I'd hope that would help ease the pushing of BLP violations on Imane Khelif article. TarnishedPath23:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: It seems very unlikely to me that this controversy will have any significant or lasting coverage; I would be very surprised if any in-depth coverage happens after this calendar year. The controversy is a very newsy thing; it drew a lot of a attention for a very brief period, but in ten years no one is going to think it was important outside of the context it's in here. Also it's not like this article is unmanageably long or anything. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: I can see the argument for it, but I find I JBL's reasoning convincing. It was very notable while it was being breathlessly reported on every day, and it still retains some interest for many people no doubt, but its relevance and is dropping rapidly as we speak and I don't really see the point in beginning a new article now. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support: The subject is long enough, and certainly complicated enough, to warrant its own article. I don't believe that the 2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy was some sort of 'flash in the pan' moment of fleeting relevance, but rather that it will have long-running consequences on women's sports as a whole. Plus there may be more information to come to light re: any of the factors that have made this the complicated issue it is, which would make the article even longer. Ridiculopathy (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. A split would take the recent spat out of its context, which follows on directly from the 2023 nonsense with the IBA, and recontextualise it as a thing in itself. I also worry that taking the coverage out of a BLP, and into a non-BLP article, could encourage further speculation and BLP violations. The "controversy" seems to be based on absolutely nothing substantial but giving it its own article allows people to point at the article and say "Well, it must be a thing if it has its an article on Misplaced Pages. There's no smoke without fire, you know". I see people saying that this is a complicated issue but is it really? There seems to be even less to it than meets the eye. Every element of the accusations that looks like it might possibly have some substance to it melts away into nothing when you try to work out what is really being alleged, based on what and by whom. The article isn't even that big, so size is not pushing us towards a split. Let's keep it all in the BLP so we don't forget that this isn't about a "controversy". It is about a living person who's only "crime" is that of upsetting some guys in Russia. Giving its own article reifies it as a thing, distinct from the harassment of the victim, Khelif, which is the only substantial thing here. If it becomes this generation's Gamergate then I guess we will have to split it eventually, but it probably won't, and we don't want to help it to become that, so let's not split it unless we really have to. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This discussion probably should have taken place at Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics—I was confused why we were invoking WP:SIZESPLIT for a biography article <1900 words. The unwieldy length of Concerns (~16,000 words) article seems mostly a consequence of WP:RECENTISM, and could be solved by dividing the article into its constituent sections, or simply waiting to learn which of the controversies covered actually have sustained notability, and then covering them more proportionately. The content about Khelif and Yu-ting only takes up 800 words, so splitting this particular topic out would do very little to manage its length (especially because we'd still need a summary/excerpt in its place). –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Support: Clearly this is a single topic that is otherwise split between three articles. Very few people feel one way about Lin Yu-Ting and another way about Imane Khelif, it's the same controversy. --GRuban (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose There is no need for an additional article that duplicates the content and separates context. Very simply, neither this page nor the section in the "Concerns" article is long enough to need a split. Reywas9215:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
comment Im about to do an article on the controversy with my own words, pending two things: a vote I am carrying on a boxing site I frequent, and this discussion. I appreciate any opinions on why I shoyld or should not fo the article. Jeanette La Controversial Martin (dile a la nena) 04:24, 4 September, 2024
Neutral - this controversy was quite notable, so many readers would benefit from finding the information more easily rather than keeping it buried here. Having said that, I think it's clear that the "controversy" is not really controversial and will fade from memory very quickly, barring legal consequences from the ongoing lawsuit. I think there is a case to leave it here unless there are major updates from the lawsuit. 20WattSphere (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Having reviewed the several articles containing this information, changing my vote to Support. This page should focus on Khelif's life and career. The unfounded questioning of her gender should be relegated to a separate page. 20WattSphere (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I honestly didn't think about that before: I opted not to comment further for a short time in order to avoid being too involved in the split in boxing. --Minoa (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Support - At the very least it shouldn't be split into two articles like it is. There is also little about the lawsuits here even though that is a topic that received quite a lot of coverage. Swordman9705:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The reasoning you give is an argument for splitting the content from three articles and consolidating it into one, not an argument to oppose. TarnishedPath11:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose As per DanielRigal's reasoning, it is better to keep this subject away from being a battleground page with BLP risks. Also, let time tell if this was more than a storm in a tea cup (recentism). In general, it may be a good idea to let things cool off for a bit.OsFish (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These seem to be amplification of some report from
Much of the talk section seemed to be removed due to WP:BLPREMOVE, but all seem to be sourced to a weird french paper that has been posting about algerian drug dealers, morrocan prostitutes, and various other salacious stories. None of these seem actually well corroborated and mostly repeating the same info.
Generally agreed, the sources are not reliable so this information should not be included as per WP:BLPREMOVE. It's technically not "usual" as I believe this is the first claim of a leaked medical report, but unless we see strong coverage from reliable sources, it's not a claim that should be appearing on a person's biography. --Techn0logist (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
We should stick to facts.
The Olympics reacted to rumors saying that Khelif may have XY chromosome: They don't test anything of the sort for illegibility.
It's fine because, personally, I'm not discussing Khelif's gender at all. We don't have sources for that. I mean, we know for sure that she identify as a woman. But it have nothing to do with whether or not should the Olympics have biological tests. Iluvalar (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. This is a leaked medical document. The names of the doctors and hospitals were included. This could be confirmed by asking the doctors. Likely, if it's real, they'll be required to say that they can't confirm nor deny its authenticity, while if it's fake, they'll say it's fake, because there's no confidentiality requirement when there's no patient. It seems perfectly credible and I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts it. At the very least the portion of the article which claims "there is no evidence" needs to be edited to say something along the lines of "there is no publicly available confirmed authentic evidence proving her sex either way", otherwise it's misleading and suggests a certainty we don't have. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
We have entire articles about the materials that were leaked by Julian Assange since they are verifiable. Reliable sources are putting their reputation on the line reporting on these documents and for those sources we consider reliable we are obliged to assume that they are doing so in good faith. Now, if we want to go revisit the reliability of said sources, that's fine, but this isn't the place to dispute it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
You might want to refer to this RFC close where the closer determined that there was consensus that sources (not the publication/broadcaster themselves) which merely parroted unreliable sources were themselves unreliable. Given that this "leaked medical report" is at this stage not verified that makes it unreliable. TarnishedPath00:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
"The report was drafted in June of 2023 via a collaboration between the Kremlin-Bicêtre hospital in Paris, France, and the Mohamed Lamine Debaghine hospital in Algiers, Algeria. Drafted by expert endocrinologists Soumaya Fedala and Jacques Young, the report reveals that Khelif is impacted by 5-alpha reductase deficiency, a disorder of sexual development that is only found in biological males."
As it is reported as a "leaked medical report" its authenticity is not confirmed. Any story parroting the claims is unreliable. TarnishedPath07:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
My best attempt to be unbiased here. I don't follow the logic that a "leaked medical report" cannot have confirmed authenticity, but I agree that it does not have confirmed authenticity. I would also be against including this information if reliable sources merely discuss the unconfirmed report -- as although WP:BLP is not specific on this, it indicates we should still avoid contentious claims without authoritative evidence. However, I would still reserve the possibility that reliable sources may further investigate the alleged report and end up with authoritative evidence of its authenticity. If that becomes the case, I would argue for its inclusion, but until then I see it as a violation of WP:BLP to include it. --Techn0logist (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Imane's side doesn't need to verify anything or comment on every unsubstantiated claim, least of all, one that looks like it's been made from someone's bedroom: look at the about us section of the one man show that is pretending to be to be some important "newspaper" and enter their address into Google maps. M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I did not write "authenticity cannot be confirmed". I wrote "authenticity is not confirmed". It will stay that way until the supposed authors of the report put their hands up and confirm that they wrote said report and that is covered in reliable sources. TarnishedPath00:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
reduxx isn't the original source. The original source seems to be Djaffer Ait Aoudia, founder of the French digital news journal Le Correspondant. While many sources disagreeing with Aoudia have been published, there doesn't seem to be any evidence proving the medical report false. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
That's right, the original source is less reliable than than the unreliable Reduxx, whose contributors don't pretend to be what they're not (see my comment about the self-described "grand reporter"). M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
We seem to be more or less in agreement on that point. I don't claim they are a reliable source, merely that we can't definitively refute the evidence presented by the source. It's perfectly simple to mention the claim of the report without presenting it as fact.
In which case, rather than mentioning the evidence, the article ought to be changed so that it doesn't claim no evidence exists, when it clearly does, even if it can't be fully substantiated.
While it's a bit dodgy, and the sources are not fully reliable, I do think it's enough to remove the claim that there have been no reports, given that it is a report. Jerdle (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Quick correction, the claim is that there is no evidence, and that is some evidence, even if it's too weak to report in wikivoice. Jerdle (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
We have very strict guidelines on WP:BLP, specifically on this is the contentious and poorly sourced part - any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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.Raladic (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
And currently the thing under contention is the claim that no evidence exists. This isn't about adding a reference to the evidence to the article, it's about removing the contentious claim that no evidence exists. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The evidence is weak, so we shouldn't state that Khelif is XY, but we also shouldn't state that there is no evidence. Jerdle (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
No, but it includes the names of two real, credentialed endocrinologists, and two real hospitals, any of whom could decry it as a false report. Until they do, on its face it appears real. Furthermore, 5-alpha reductase deficiency is consistent with public statements by those who would know, such as officials in the Olympics and supporters, as well as with other facts such as her IBA disqualification for "characteristics that mean I can't box with women". If it's a lie, it's a well crafted one involving several people. That's why I consider it plausible. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Until such time that those "two real, credentialed endocrinologists" make public statements stating that it is a report that they made and those public statements are covered by reliable sources this can only be viewed with the utmost of sceptism. TarnishedPath22:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The report very much exists, and is evidence.
It might turn out to be fabricated, and we need to exercise unusual caution in BLP pages like this one, but that does not mean maintaining a false claim that there is no evidence, especially not in such a prominent position.
It is entirely possible that the report is real, and Khelif is in fact XY with 5-ARD, much like Semenya.
It is also entirely possible that the report is fake, and she is an XX boxer who has been unfairly attacked and falsely claimed to be XY.
But both of these possibilities exist. There have been multiple claims that she is XY, but those have generally been somewhat, but not entirely, unreliable (the IBA is corrupt and the leaked report could be fake).
Because of this, we should not claim that there is no evidence, but also not claim that the report is correct. If we must say anything, we should just say that the document exists, is allegedly a leaked medical report and has her as XY, in order to remain factual and neutral.
WP:BLP would only apply here if we were considering stating that she is XY, which nobody in this discussion is. The contentious claim that she is XY is not being added. Jerdle (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
As it's difficult to edit a message on a talk page, I'll clarify some awkward wording:
The sentence "It is also entirely possible that the report is fake, and she is an XX boxer who has been unfairly attacked and falsely claimed to be XY." could imply that she has claimed to be XY.
again, this all has been argued in RFCs and discussions with no real change.
WP:FALSEBALANCE and Burden of proof apply, an accusation of a rare chromosomes or hormonal difference requires high proof on the part of the accuser.
I can argue that there is no proof that the earth is flat, and you can argue that some report provides disputed evidence the earth is flat, but that changes nothing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Again, that's not the claim which is currently under discussion. The claim is whether or not there's any evidence. In your analogy, it would be akin to saying "nobody thinks the earth is flat", which is a statement proven false by the existence of flat earthers. The existence of this published medical evidence proves the statement "no medical evidence ..bhas een published" false. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
It must be published in RS. We, as editors, cannot gather fringe or minority viewpoints on our own and present them here and say they must be included (cf WP:NOR). The RS must tell us they are minority viewpoints or the viewpoints themselves need to be published in RS. EvergreenFir(talk)20:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I've made the case above for why this source is both possible to verify and tentatively credible. That said, I'm also not saying we should present the source on the page, merely that we shouldn't present information which has been shown to be dubious by the existence of this new information. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I note that you quoted "significant minority views" but then defended it with "this is a minority view" omitting "significant". And the obvious reason is that this is clearly not a significant minority view. Loki (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
But it is currently parroting the claim that no evidence exists, from three newspaper articles which were written before this new evidence surfaced. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Note that our article doesn't claim that no evidence exists, it claims that no evidence has been published, and I think a leaked unverified report does not qualify as published. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
No reporting from unreliable sources about "leaked medical report"s is not significant. Particularly not when they don't even name who leaked it and the purported authors of the supposed report haven't even made statements confirming it as covered by reliable sources. TarnishedPath00:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
In an RFC we had on teh wording in the lead, there was no concensus to remove wording that there was no evidence. If you want to revisit that you'll need to start an RFC. I'd suggest engaging in dicussion at WP:BLP/N first though. TarnishedPath22:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
We shouldn't do anything until it's reported by a better source than those. This is a BLP, we can't be going off sources that are the least bit shoddy. Loki (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
They are parroting what the unreliable source said. That's what newspapers do. Obviously, this doesn't change a thing (the source is unreliable and the claim is unsubstantiated). M.Bitton (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree, 100%. For a particular story (not talking about the publisher/broadcaster) to be reliable, they would need to do more than parrot the reporting of unreliable sources. This was covered in a recent RFC on this article where the closer found that consensus was that any sourcing which merely parrotting unreliable sourcing was itself unreliable, i.e. fruit of the poison tree. TarnishedPath00:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Should point that the source for the "leaked medical report" was a respected French-Algerian journalist called Djaffar Ait Aoudia and published at the investigative website lecorrespondant.net not reduxx which is pushing its own POV heavily. Topcardi (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
When I write "they would need to do more than parrot the reporting of unreliable sources" that includes the primary document itself which at this point in time is not verified as being legitimate. TarnishedPath09:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Looks like this has been picked up by mainstream British media, with focus on Khelif's legal action in response -- e.g. BBC, The Guardian, The Independent. These reliable sources are currently categorising the "leaked medical report" as unverified (e.g. "The BBC has been unable to verify the claims"). This will likely be a developing story worth keeping an eye on, especially with the legal action, and at some point there could be something worthy of inclusion. However, as it stands, I do not believe that a claim which reliable sources are presenting as unverified should be on the biography of a living person. Techn0logist (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree the we shouldn't cover it unless verified (although admittedly I don't know anything about the reliability of the original francophone source). However, to say in the lead that there is 'no evidence' is straight up misinformation. The article should be reworded to removed definitive denials in wikivoice. Riposte97 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
The lead doesn't say there is "no evidence". The lead says "no medical evidence ... has been published", which is factually correct and supported by sources. TarnishedPath05:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe you're right. Reporting on a leaked medical report is evidence, even if not particularly persuasive evidence. Riposte97 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
refer to the end of the bit I quoted which states PUBLISHED. "no medical evidence ... has been published" (emphasis mine). You're correct that their have been a number of unreliable stories making claims about a "leaked medical report", however no medical evidence (e.g., the supposed "leaked medical report" itself) has been published. We had an RFC on this on this question. TarnishedPath07:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
