Talk:Imane Khelif

Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

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) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Currently material for this is split between Imane Khelif, Lin_Yu-ting, and Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Women's_boxing_controversy.

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)

Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics does look to be quite long and can probably do with some splitting off of content. My only suggestion at this point in time is that you leave messages on the other articles' talk pages to make editors there aware of this splitting proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 02:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Support I'd say this is a good solution Originalcola (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Support - The proposed split, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

My concern with that is that it will create new venue for the POV pushers. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 17 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. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: let's hope so. M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom seefooddiet (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Support There is enough material for a stand-alone article. Some of the sources in the collapsible box about public debates on eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions]] could come in handy for the new article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Support because it's being reported as its own topic. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a WP:SIZESPLIT. The topic is independently notable.—Alalch E. 09:40, 19 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)

Support as a WP:SIZESPLIT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: this isn't a lasting controversy. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Support, as with the defamation lawsuits, this will need its own article. Should be titled 2024 Olympics boxing controversy, though, because the current proposition has unnecessary capital letters. —Mjks28 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of excess capital letters from the proposed change. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 22 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 Wikipedia. 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)

  @RoxySaunders, I agree that Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics would have been the best place for the conversation. However it started here so I've done what I can to notify the other articles' talk pages. TarnishedPath^talk 22:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. YBSOne (talk) 20:28, 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)
• Support: As others above have said, it has enough merit and stuff to write about it in a single article. Sria-72 (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose due to WP:RECENTISM: it depends how long the controversy will last or how soon people will realise that the International Boxing Association is now a distrusted sporting organisation (i.e. the first to be expelled from the Olympic movement). I think it would be better off for now as a section in Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics, bearing in mind that that the IBA was largely responsible for the controversy. --Minoa (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support as 2024 Boxing gender controversy is independenty notable per WP:NOTABILITY. Also per WP:SIZESPLIT. RogerYg (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• oppose. you and i will forget this happened ten years later. we should probably start trimming the content. ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:28, 2 September 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. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 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

@JeanetteMartin, once there hasn't been any !votes on this in a few days I'll request a close at WP:CR. TarnishedPath^talk 04:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - recent gender-related controversies in boxing should have their own article. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I support creating a new article, but if we don't, then content should be mostly removed from this article and consolidated into Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics. There is no sense in duplicating such content, and it is largely not relevant to Imane Khelif since the controversy stems from the IBA rather than Imane's career as a boxer. 20WattSphere (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. The new article has a lot of potential to be expanded. Karol739 (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose No need to split the content on a ton of different repeating articles, while it can be contained on a single cohesive one.Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 11:15, 23 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. TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 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)

  This topic had cooled off compared to mid-August though 213.230.87.181 (talk) 08:17, 25 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.

New reports

Suggest Khelif has XY chromosomes... https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/huge-row-after-imane-khelif-paris-olympics-gold-medalist-confirmed-as-man-in-leaked-medical-report-101730741337891.html https://reduxx.info/algerian-boxer-imane-khelif-has-xy-chromosomes-and-testicles-french-algerian-medical-report-admits/ https://weltwoche.de/daily/also-doch-laut-medizinischem-gutachten-handelt-es-sich-bei-imane-khelif-um-einen-mann/ https://www.freepressjournal.in/sports/olympic-gold-medalist-boxer-imane-khelif-has-xy-chromosomes-and-testicles-says-algerian-athletes-medical-report https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/massive-outrage-over-imane-khelifes-leaked-medical-report-democrats-hate-women/articleshow/114954830.cms https://tribune.com.pk/story/2507413/algerian-boxer-imane-khelifs-leaked-medical-report-reveals-xy-male-chromosomes

what to make of it? ---FMSky (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

These seem to be amplification of some report from [1]

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.

Honestly, need a much more reliable source for this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Not certain about the rest but at the very least reduxx should not be considered rs LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The usual unsubstantiated crappy claims, by the usual crappy sources. There's nothing to see here. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

1. The Olympics reacted to rumors saying that Khelif may have XY chromosome: They don't test anything of the sort for illegibility.
2. Some people disagree and think they should.

We do not have to justify if the rumors are true of false to cover the situation. Iluvalar (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE and the stringent guidelines of WP:BLP disagree. and no RFC or discussion has ever gotten community consensus for putting any doubts on imane khelifs gender in the article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

"leaked medical report" are not things that make up a reliable source. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 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."

https://reduxx.info/algerian-boxer-imane-khelif-has-xy-chromosomes-and-testicles-french-algerian-medical-report-admits/ Christo1234 (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As it is reported as a "leaked medical report" its authenticity is not confirmed. Any story parroting the claims is unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 07:52, 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)

Let's wait for Imane's side to verify the authenticity of the leaks. WP:INDYUK report on the leaks doesn't mean that the leaks are reliable. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Was that the correct WP? I can't see the independent being used here as a source. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:12, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

reduxx is an anti-trans hate site. It is not a reliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:36, 5 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.

BlackEyedGhost (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't spread unsubtantiated claims about living people. I suggest you read WP:BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

BlackEyedGhost (talk) BlackEyedGhost (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

There is no evidence and therefore, no reason to remove what has been discussed and agreed upon. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A leaked medical report is a form of evidence. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 17:06, 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)

There is no evidence, and therefore, no reason to remove what has been discussed and agreed upon by the community. M.Bitton (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

So you know for a fact that the medical report is a fake? How? BlackEyedGhost (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

All I need to know is that it's unsubstantiated and made by a unreliable source to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 22:23, 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.

She has not.

People have claimed her to be XY, and in this possible world, that claim was false. Jerdle (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Do WP:RS say there is evidence? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"all majority and significant minority views"

This is a minority view, and it's not being accounted for. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 20:37, 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)

From our standpoint as editors, the report doesn't "exist" (or matter) unless RS say it does. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 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)

It is significant. I just cut out words for brevity. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not even reliable for it to quality as a single irrelevant view. M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Insulting a different perspective doesn't make it wrong. This is being widely reported as we speak. It's pretty relevant. BlackEyedGhost (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone some crappy tabloid. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 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)

Exactly, if the supposed leaked report was published then we could go and verify it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:07, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 22:21, 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)

German mainstream media has picked up the news, from yellow press to usually reliable high quality news outlets: https://www.fr.de/sport/sport-mix/mann-oder-frau-brisantes-gutachten-zu-olympia-boxerin-khelif-aufgetaucht-zr-93394785.html https://www.bild.de/sport/olympia/imane-khelif-jetzt-reagiert-das-ioc-auf-brisantes-gutachten-672a5c8febdb8724738e98b4 https://www.mopo.de/sport/sportmix/innenliegender-hoden-brisantes-gutachten-belastet-box-olympiasiegerin/ https://www.welt.de/sport/olympia/article254357674/Olympiasiegerin-Imane-Khelif-Zwei-Gutachten-im-Fall-der-umstrittenen-Boxerin-aufgetaucht.html https://www.focus.de/sport/boxen/penisaehnliche-klitoris-akte-soll-zeigen-wie-maennlich-boxerin-imane-khelif-wirklich-ist_id_260453178.html Just FYI. Rka001 (talk) 21:46, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:11, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 09:58, 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)

Agree. We certainly shouldn't cover it in the lead asserting facts about the subject in wikivoice. TarnishedPath^talk 23:35, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 05:23, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I’m not saying that the supposed report has been published. I’m saying that the articles making medical claims constitute 'medical evidence' - making our lead misinformation. Before you say that the articles are unverified, I agree with you, but that's not the standard. The RfC took place before the latest developments. I’m happy to start a new RfC if you believe it's required. Riposte97 (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No I didn't misunderstand. Documents and statements made by medical professionals constitutes 'medical evidence'. Reporting about purported "leaked medical reports" only constitutes evidence about the reporting, unless there is something more. TarnishedPath^talk 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC it is. Riposte97 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

We already had one not long ago, so we're not going to waste more time just because you don't agree with its result. M.Bitton (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it was the wrong result at the time. It has clearly been overtaken by events. Riposte97 (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. There still has been no medical evidence published. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Again I would ask the participants to read WP:MEDRS which says, Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources. A leaked medical report is not reliable, not third party and, frankly, not published per the definition of published meant for WP:MEDRS. The instructions continute Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable. A leaked medical report is a primary source.

WP:BLP reinforces this saying Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. I would say a medical report talking about hormonal and organ irregularities constitutes personal details. WP:BLP also instructs us Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; and, frankly, it's quite obvious a French tabloid is not reliable for biomedical information. They are effectively repeating gossip. WP:BLPPRIVACY notes, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. I would suggest that the statement that Khelif is considering pursuing a libel claim against this tabloid indicate that she doesn't want this personal information, in the highly unlikely event that it's even correct, to be made public.

So, as I said below, there are clear and explicit policy reasons why Wikipedia should ignore this so-called evidence. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's evidentiary standard for biomedical information and it is inappropirate for the biography of a living person. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't quibble with any of that, however:

1. We are discussing whether to remove positive assertions from the lead, not whether to add information sourced to Le Correspondant.

2. Khelif has now made the news by a) disclosing that she will sue, and b) going on Italian radio to deny the claims made by LC. That means the claims themselves must inevitably be mentioned. Riposte97 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

1) "assertions" have been part of RFCs before. See archives, if you think result would change, start a new RFC.

2) Claims are already mentioned, in that most reputable sourcing suggests they are misinfo and false. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I will have to start a new RfC, noting that most RS (BBC, ABC, even NPR) appear to have backed away from alleging the claims are false. Riposte97 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you're going to waste our time with yet another RfC about something that we already had a RfC about (with literally zero chance of it achieving what you're after). unbelievable! M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ping me if/when it happens, otherwise I see no point in going around in circles. TarnishedPath^talk 23:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think a lot of people here would be wise to read both WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS because, trying not to be too blunt, but this whole conversation is completely worthless. A leaked medical report of unclear provenance making controversial claims about a BLP is the farthest it is possible to get from a reliable source for multiple reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly a lot of this conversation should be deleted, and likelt revdel'd. Simonm223 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are correct on both counts @Simonm223. I don't feel up to asking for a revdel in mid discussion. But instead of archiving, this discussion should be nuked. I'm all out of admin-seeking energy right now. But you can see who to ping at the BLPN thread I just closed. Thank you for making the issue plain. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Most mainstream news is now reporting on this. So they all consider this source news worthy. Us not adding this new informatioin to the wiki makes the article look biased and/or dated. It needs to be included but phrased accurately. Unauthenticated leaked medical documents. We won't get confirmation unless Khalif actually take the matter to court, at which point the medical reports will become part of public record. No adding the reports makes wiki the odd one out here, it borders on head in the sand. Liger404 (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because of the lawsuit it is now covered in the last paragraph at Imane Khelif#Second-round fight against Angela Carini. That's about the right balance. Anything more would be undue given that no medical evidence has been published. TarnishedPath^talk 10:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is largely fair and keeps wiki on the leading edge of the news, however the formatting needs a tweak. Right now it appears to be linked to her second Olympic fight, so probably needs a new sub heading. I would also recommend reformatting to fit the chronology of events. For people not familiar jumping straight to the lawsuit would be confusing. I would recommend something that read more like this. "French magazine Le Correspondant,published claims about the boxer's eligibility, the information was claimed to be based on leaked medical reports. The IOC said that the Le Correspondant story, references "unverified documents whose origin cannot be confirmed", and that Khelif was preparing a lawsuit against Le Correspondant. Liger404 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that I found the formatting to be a bit odd but at the same time we can't give two whole sentences a subsection. If you have any suggestions about where it would better fit I'm all ears, but I don't know about complete reformatting. As per your suggested wording I'm not with you there as it would result in an expansion of wording which I don't think is warranted at this point. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, a new heading with one entry is bad I agree. Unless more develops it possibly just has to stay where it is. I do think you should reconsider what I said with the wording. I get that you are rather opposed to this leak, but the way you have written it will make it look like she launched the legal attack first. You should start with the the event, then the response of the IOC and Khalif. I think I only added less than 10 words, and it really does make it clearer what has happened. We have the one claim, followed by two counters. This is logical, this is the correct coverage. I get you don't like this topic, but it was headline news across the world the last week, covered in all the newspapers. We have to cover this. All what I wrote says is that someone has made a claim, that its unverified, and that its might be going to court. That is accurate, and accuracy is what matters. Liger404 (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  The supposed "leaked medical report" is only of any significance (given that it is at this point unverified) because Khelif has seemingly initiated legal action. That's my thinking at this point in time. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Mainstream news is reporting it, like Sky News. The left wing reports the pending court case and the right the medical reports. Trying to say it doesn't matter is to ignore reality. Yes it's all unproven, so write it as such. I think you are being a bit biased here, but anyway, we can just wait and see. Most likely Khelif will not actually pursue legal action (She didn't last time, and isn't rich.) and so this will probably remain unconfirmed. The current addition you have made is enough to keep wiki updated, though people will say it is biased. And it is, you know the way you have written it is a bit backwards and is because of how you feel about the source and the topic. Liger404 (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  We don't go with arguments about "ignore reality" around here. We go with what reliable sources say. TarnishedPath^talk 11:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Mainsteme news is considered a reliable source on wiki. And the fact that this event has happened isn't in question. The alleged medical reports would even be in line with Caster Semenya, who is mentioned at the bottom of the article, it would ultimately not be surprising. Anyway the changes are fine for now, they keep the article current. If more information comes out I will message you again with any references. Liger404 (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  The supposed "leaked medical report" is at this point in time unverified. That is the only thing that matters. If that supposed leak is unverified then it follows that everything reporting on it is unreliable regardless of whether those outlets are generally unreliable or not. We had an RFC that arrived at the consensus that reporting on unreliable sources was itself unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 12:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Imane Khelif. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've closed the current BLPN discussion for now because the massive violations on this talkpage have been WP:REVDELed, and the worst offender has been indeffed. Please let's everyone see it as a bright line example of how not to do things here. Please continue with civil talkpage discussion, which appears to be ongoing. Please re-post at WP:BLPN as necessary if/when consensus fails here (or at RFC, etc.). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Also no published medical evidence that Imane Khelif has XX chromosome.

no actionable request here
I am new to this. I read the entire talk page. This fact is missing from the article. Since the other chromosome topic was not removed, I think this would add balance. 107.190.69.245 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove typo: italics from "references" in the last section

In the last section word ", references" is marked by italic after The Correspondent by typo. 94.253.2.129 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. JFHJr (㊟) 01:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)