Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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': http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome Jamougha (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus there is every possibility that the IBA president was flat out lying. The way the article is now is fine. It includes relevant things that have been claimed but sticks to the verifiable facts when speaking in Wikivoice. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@AntiDionysius I feel that if we do not have confirmation that the IBA president was speaking the truth his claim should be removed.

Or at least a note could be added that XY chromosomes doesn't necessarily mean that she's a man, because that claim is ruining her life at the moment. Karim Mezghiche (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your claim here is preposterous. 2+2=5? Jordi2023 (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What claim? AntiDionysius (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, such an opinion is WP:UNDUE in a WP:BLP article. I have restored the 17:49, 30 July 2024 version (no objection to going back to an earlier one if a further discussion and consensus is needed). M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Kremlev's statement is a claim of fact, not an opinion.

2) It has been widely quoted in reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] [[4] [5] [6] [7]

3) It is important to the article because it is a statement from the president of the sporting organization in which Khelif competes, explaining why she was disqualified from the biggest match of her career thus far, which has also contributed in large part to her notability.

4) Space was given in the article not only to Kremlev's statement, but to Khelif's response.

This is not WP:UNDUE. I am undoing your revert. Please discuss further here. Astaire (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the UNDUE issue was the reference to Barry McGuigan - and if that wasn't what M.Bitton meant, then I'd like to bring it up. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what it is that you want to bring up. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's a moot point after your revert - just that I thought the line "IOC's decision was the subject of controversy and criticism, including from former boxing world champion Barry McGuigan." was giving undue weight to McGuigan. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. Are you happy with the way that subsection is now? To be honest, I'm not convinced it needs a title. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced it needs a title. Other than that it looks basically fine to me. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Great. I have removed the title. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with our content policies and especially, WP:BLP and WP:ONUS. M.Bitton (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your only objection was that Kremlev's statement was an opinion (it's not an opinion) that was undue (I explained why it's due). If you wish to dispute its inclusion, please make a new argument basing itself on WP policy or on my response. Astaire (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether it's an opinion or a claim in a dispute over a set of facts doesn't really matter for the application of WP:UNDUE. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Every one of those "trusted sources" is quoting from an RT or TASS article. Are those trusted sources? I suggest you actually check where each of those articles sources their information. The president of the IBA never said Khelif's name. He said certain boxers had been disqualified due to have "XY Chromosomes" yet never specified who. The IBA never released an official statement on what tests were performed. To state that she has "XY Chromosomes" or that the president of the IBA said she does is blatantly wrong. 2601:201:8C02:9120:A57C:56CB:E4F0:E307 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest they were lying. They said the tests were positive for xy chromosomes. You cant just assume they were lying because you dont like the results 98.217.161.235 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It's also important to note that the IBA cannot share specific medical information about Khelif, it is illegal. So right now we have a legally binding ban from the IBA and this could only be overturned by a PUBLIC tribunal. At that PUBLIC tribunal, the DNA of Khelif would have been known but they didn't go. Neither did Lin. So it's a fact that the IBA cannot share medical information and it's a fact the only people who can choose not to. If you were XX it would be a simple dna test from an independent lab to be presented to the tribunal and you would win your case... so to the objective onlooker it's quite damning. Right now the IBA is legally binding... they're still recognized by the majority of the world and their decision is legally binding in line with the CAS appeal process... 2.98.71.51 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Biologically having XY chromosomes makes you a male.

https://www.britannica.com/science/sex-chromosome

“The female has two X chromosomes, and all female egg cells normally carry a single X. The eggs fertilized by X-bearing sperm become females (XX), whereas those fertilized by Y-bearing sperm become males (XY).” 98.217.161.235 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that's the rule. But there are always exceptions to the rule. Such as Swyer syndrome.

"Pregnancy is sometimes possible in Swyer syndrome with assisted reproductive technology."

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis#People_with_XY_gonadal_dysgenesis 2001:14BA:A007:8100:478:768:6F14:6E34 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this was 'found'. The IBA has not released any details about its alleged tests, so they should be discounted. WikiEditor0227 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's illegal to share the information, you know this i'm sure. Disingenuous of you i think.

The ball was in Khelifs court to overturn a legally binding ban, the tests were done in independent WADA verified labs. Khelif did not dispute the tests in due process so they are legally binding. 2.98.71.51 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone has gone and edited many of the pronouns of this boxer to the male pronoun, despite no evidence she is transgender (which is highly unlikely considering her extremely conservative country). This ought to be corrected. 2600:382:2B00:1C0:3CD3:A103:1781:6D8A (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In Italy there are divisive newspaper articles: most of them claim that she's falsely accused of being a man, while others claim they're a female transgender (I use the singular they in case it's true). Has Imane Khelif changed sex? If yes, are there authoritative sources regarding Khelif's sex change? If there aren't, I doubt she's a female transgender. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe WP:BLPBALANCE comes into play here, doesn't it @JackkBrown? The principle is, if there is more than one well-reported perspective on a person, then those perspectives should be included, "so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." If there are good reliable sources that set out a different perspective on this question then yes, a good article on a person will include those perspectives.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's nothing to indicate she is male as such, or is transgender....BUT the IBA made a determination that she is XY chromosone, and she chose not to challenge that determination, and instead decided not to compete for the competition at that time. Despite the accusation, she has not personally confirmed it or denied it. ON balance, it would appear the sources indicate she is more likely to be XY chromosome, as there are sources that say she is XY and there aren't any sources denying this. That doesn't make her a man, but it may give her a physical advantage over a more "regularly chromosomed" woman. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: your comment is PERFECT. Full support for this comment. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

See this source about the IBA. M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: the newspaper isn't free. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This comment has some quotes from it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll add the quote here:

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

M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There's precisely one original source saying she has XY chromosomes - the IBA. Everyone else is just quoting them. The IBA also, in the same sentence said she is a "man" trying to "fool" people - so clearly we cannot take everything the IBA says at face value. And I think when Khelif said that this whole thing was a "conspiracy" against her, that pretty self-evidently counts as a denial. Unwillingness to go through the difficulty of taking a case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport doesn't weaken that; there are dozens of reasons she could've made that decision.

We have said that the IBA says she has XY chromosomes. We don't need to do anything more. We have to include the IBA's claim, because it is obviously noteworthy, but we also have to not treat that pretty clearly disputed claim as if it is fact or likely fact, especially under WP:BLP. We present what the relevant people say, and if/when we know anything for certain, we can update the article with that certainty. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Original IBA quote comes from this TASS report.

The quote translates more or less to "According to the results of DNA tests, we identified a number of athletes who tried to deceive their colleagues and pretended to be women. According to the results of the tests it was proved that they have XY-chromosomes. Such athletes were excluded from the competition". AntiDionysius (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of what is happening here in this discussion IMHO is editorialising/and drifting off into primary research/conjecture. We have multiple RS sources that states she is XY chromosome. We don't have any RS that states she isn't. Khelif herself hasn't stated that she isn't. There's no clear evidence that the IBA have falsified the tests (except for some anonymous claims reported in one source?), and both boxers accepted the results of the tests at the time. As editors, we need to accept the RS, that's our job. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: exactly. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As I explained above, there aren't multiple reliable sources. There is one source, the IBA, and it is in dispute. I would say that fails the test to use Wikivoice on any article, but particularly WP:BLP. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion...Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" AntiDionysius (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that state she is XY chromosome. A quote from the IBA President does not suffice to inject that claim into a BLP article. There would have to be a reliable source that reported on the test's information directly, not what someone said about the test. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 19:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That WP policy on sourcing refers to the reporting source, not to the originating information. There are plenty of RS reporting this. The IBA has stated they conducted the tests, and they have stated the results, they aren't reporting on it, they are stating it directly. There is no RS that contradicts this, therefore it should stand until some other source says that for instance, she isn't XY chromosome. NO SOURCE has specifically said she isn't XY chromosome, and the IOC put out a media statement saying she was DSD..and then retracted it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: As at today, Monday 5 August 2024, there are only two sources with any evidence of the athlete's chromosomes - XX or XY. Two people who report they have seen an medical assessment, and they've both appeared in news reports in the last 48 hours.

One - is the specialist Olympic Games journalist Alan Abrahamson. His material is discussed below. But I don't think we have his testimony being discussed in a reliable source, with an actual supervising editor, at least at this point.

Two - is the European vice president of the World Boxing Organisation, Istvan Kovacs. His material also discussed below. He says he was aware of evidence that Khelif is XY back in 2022.

I don't think we're quite at the point where we have enough solid material from reliable sources, but I think it's just a matter of time.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Three now - the Advertiser has also witnessed the test results, published yesterday and discuss it here: Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that in, @Deathlibrarian. I believe the key section is:

According to a document seen by this masthead, the IBA believes Khelif’s “hormonal imbalance affords her a distinct advantage over her female counterparts”.

The Adelaide Advertiser is certainly a reliable source, however, all it's claiming is that the IBA believes something. The journalist hasn't seen the medical report and isn't reporting on the medical report, or interpreting it. I think we're still in the shadows at this point.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, yes its an IBA report they have seen, not a medical report as such, fair enough. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

More information is coming out, no question. What's been reported in Sky News is that:

• During competition in Turkey, Khelif gave a blood sample, which was collected for analysis on 17 May 2022.

• Analysis was provided by Sistem Tip Laboratory in Istanbul who issued its report on 24 May 2022.

• The conclusion of the results, according to the lab, "didn’t match the eligibility criteria for IBA women’s events."

• Nearly a year later, in New Delhi, India, in March 2023, both Khelif and Lin agreed to another blood test, with the sample taken to Dr Lal PathLabs.

• That lab reported back six days later, confirming the findings were "identical" to the results from the sample taken in Turkey.

• Khelif (and Lin) were given a copy of the results.

What I would want to see before I could encourage any editor to make changes to the article in this regard, is a good reporter, in a really solid news organisation, who has actually seen these lab results from Sistem Tip Laboratory and from Dr Lal PathLabs, and for that reliable source to say something clear.

My view, @Deathlibrarian, is we need to see a report with that kind of material, and that level of quality. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, damn...that's more detail than I ever expected to see! I guess the other sources will pick up on it soon. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note, following a prompt from @Nil Einne, I have removed a section of the quote from Sky News, as I can no longer see that element in the actual news report, though that element does exist in other news reports. To see the element removed please check this edit. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A report re the tests: "Both Khelif and Lin submitted to chromosome tests at the May 2022 Women’s World Boxing Championships in Istanbul and again at the March 2023 Women’s World Boxing Championships in New Delhi. Referring to the second tests, the IBA said in a statement issued earlier this week, “The findings were absolutely identical to the first results.”

The New Delhi test results for each say “chromosome analysis reveals Male karyotype” – with a depiction of XY chromosomes. The lab is CAP-certified and ISO-certified.

3 Wire Sports has seen these tests."

Source: https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/9/algerias-imane-khelif-wins-gold-will-this-worldwide-controversy-spark-constructive-change Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of what is happening here in this discussion IMHO is editorialising/and drifting off into primary research/conjecture.

Yes, every one of your comments is of that sort.

We have multiple RS sources that states she is XY chromosome.

No, we don't.

As editors, we need to accept the RS, that's our job.

Nonsense. You clearly have no understanding of Wikipedia policy and are engaging in extreme synthesis. We don't have to "accept" anything. We simply report what RS claim. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

ON balance, it would appear the sources indicate she is more likely to be XY chromosome, as there are sources that say she is XY and there aren't any sources denying this.

This nonsense is not how Wikipedia works. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

STOP! You've sent dozens of the same messages. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Just reading through this discussion, and it seems that there is consensus, but I just wanted to add my voice to the positions argued by AntiDionysius and MrScorch6200 re the IBA being the sole source used by news media. Have not yet looked at the other two sources noted by MatthewDalhousie and discussed below, but appreciate Matthew's careful approach.

How Khelif identifies is misstated, as one cannot identify as male, female, or hermaphroditic. Khelif identifies as a woman, the line should read she was born female and identifies as a woman.

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

I just want to see a little more precision in our discussion. If I've understood wiki's categories, I think we can can say there are two primary documents pertaining to the topic of the subject's sex.

1. The lab report on the subject produced by Sistem Tip Laboratory in Istanbul dated 24 May 2022.

2. The lab report on the subject produced by Dr Lal PathLabs in New Delhi dated 23 March 2023.

These reports are reported, in some secondary sources, to have been seen by Imane Khelif, by the journalist Alan Abrahamson and by officials in the IBA. None of those entities have seen to fit to publish the actual reports in full. Khelif hasn't said what the results were. And there are privacy issues if either of the other entities were to release the lab reports. If I can attempt to be precise, what we have here is a known unknown. Until it's actually known, we can't make further statements on the article on this topic. And we don't yet a have secondary sources prepared to fully report on these two primary documents. Certainly not a secondary source that has the features of a reliable sources, cush as editorial oversight.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The article currently states: "Khelif was born female and is a cisgender woman"

However, the citation doesn't provide any evidence that Khelif is a cisgender woman. I think it should be removed and left as "identifies as female". AntonioR449 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't reflect the reliable sources to use the word "cisgender"; it isn't a word that is used much by news platforms like Reuters and the like. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• 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^talk 03:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  AP article [12] describes situation as "scrutiny over her sex", while NBC article [13] 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 Wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Forbes: [14] "Khelif’s participation at the Olympics has been a subject of intense scrutiny"

  SI: [15] "Having put a maelstrom of scrutiny behind her, Algeria's Imane Khelif is on top of the world."

  Le Monde: [16] "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^talk 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 Wikipedia: 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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.[8] Khelif was born female and identifies as female.[9]""

  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 Wikipedia 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^talk 11:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this is not an improvement over what already have.

entirely framed in terms of "misinformation" and "false assertions" how else are we supposed to frame the disinformation, misinformation and false assertions that she was subjected to?

there is also a public debate on the eligibility criteria for female boxers that's not the subject of the article (assuming that the assertion is true worldwide). M.Bitton (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors above have cited multiple RSes concordant with Khelif having faced intense public scrutiny over her eligibility for the women's category. Where are the RSes that contradict this? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Simple: she faced public scrutiny that included false accusations/misinformation. The fact that there was a public debate over her eligibility is supported by the prepondrance of sources. JSwift49 12:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about the LEAD. What exactly did the public "scrutinize" and is that covered in the article's main body? M.Bitton (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi; you have not answered the above question.

The sources clearly state she received scrutiny over whether she should compete in the women's category. And for the record, 'misinformation' is only once briefly mentioned in the article body itself and only one source is used. When this discussion began, 'misinformation' also did not appear in the body of the article. JSwift49 12:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about the LEAD. What exactly did the public "scrutinize" and is that covered in the article's main body? Misinformation (disinformation is properly covered, not just as a word). M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Added "scrutiny" to main body with five high quality sources; so your point is no longer an issue. JSwift49 12:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

My point about the lead is very valid and so is the question: what exactly did the public "scrutinize" and is that covered in the article's main body?

Why did you delete the encyclopedic content? M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I answered both of these questions and added scrutiny to the main body, and the statement that she received online abuse and misinformation remains, I only deleted the words "fueled by" which violated WP:HEADLINE. Please answer the question from @Barnards.tar.gz JSwift49 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What you forced into the BLP is wrong on so many levels and doesn't address the POV that you keep trying to push.

I repeat: what exactly did the public "scrutinize" and is that covered in the article's main body? M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sealioning per WP:SATISFY JSwift49 12:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I'm not sure I understand the question what exactly did the public "scrutinize". You can answer yourself by checking the quoted sources, e.g. Forbes:

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

I'm sure dozens of quotes like this could easily be found - indeed, "scrutiny" and "debate" imply many voices; one interesting contribution is this one [17] by Jaime Schultz [18]; another interesting one, on the opposite side of the debate (if I'm not wrong) is this one [19] by Doriane Lambelet Coleman. They both acknowledge that there's been a lot of misinformation and false allegations, but that doesn't stop them from highlighting the substantive issues on which reasonable disagreement and meaningful debate are possible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's plain English: what exactly (about her) did the public "scrutinize"? M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the eligibility criteria for female boxers, should sporting event organizers stick to the passport, as the IOC does, or should they conduct sex verification tests? If so, what kind of tests are appropriate? Under what conditions may an intersex athlete participate in women's boxing competitions, and under what conditions may they not? How should gender-diverse athletes be treated? How can their right to participate as a woman in a competition open to women be balanced with protecting the safety of other female athletes?

All these questions were discussed in connection with the Imane Khelif affair, as evidenced by numerous sources. It's unreasonable to deny this connection and dismiss the whole affair as mere misinformation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The so-called public scrutiny that you're referring to is about the baseless allegations that were made by celebrities and the like. Describing their disinformation, misinformation and defamation as a "scrutiny" would give their slander credibility, this is not something what I would expect to see in an encyclopedia, least of all, in an article about a living person. The last edit that you restored is already giving their irrelevant views UNDUE weight in her biography. M.Bitton (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see neutrality issues in the article. I do see, however, neutrality issues with multiple editors throughout that claim being neutral at the talk page attempting to push an agenda on a living person based exclusively on what an authority unspecifically claimed last year and "multiple reliable sources" have covered. There is a ridiculous belif that since something cannot be proven false, then we must believe it and report it as potentially true because that's "neutralilty" and we follow what the sources say, which is not how Wikipedia works when discussing living people. On top of this talk page there is a disclaimer, "Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator". If it is not clear enough, this is not optional. "Freedom of Speech" is not a valid reason to have the gross bevavior editors have had throughout the multiple redundant discussions here and maybe it is time to apply it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 13:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I generally agree with your point. However, this discussion is not about whether the IBA's claim should be included in the lead. The discussion is about whether the lead states she received "public scrutiny", which reliable sources say did occur. There's a big difference between saying "According to the IBA, Khelif is XYZ" based on one questionable source and "XYZ happened to Khelif" based on many reliable sources. JSwift49 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please, re-read my comment instead of lecturing me on what I already explained. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 14:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't intend for that to come across as a lecture; but I don't see how my proposal falls within the scope of what you oppose, there seems to me to be a significant difference. Could you please explain why stating that there was public scrutiny of her eligibility in the lead (and not the IBA's claim itself) is pushing an agenda based on one authority? JSwift49 14:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am neither supporting or opposing your proposals. I am commenting on a discussion I was pinged. That's it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 14:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying; I had thought your comments were referring to my proposal. I pinged you as I had previously pinged other editors from the neutrality discussion, and pinged everyone there for fairness. JSwift49 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The idea that she is transgender was not part of any serious online movement. The debate is about Whether or not someone with XY chromosomes should be allowed to participate in Olympic's woman boxing. Some high profile persons, including dully elected world leaders are of that opinion. The IOC confirmed that they are not testing it; They followed what is written on the passport. That's it! It's simple to understand. I also want to point out that the IBA DID specified at a press conference that they tested Khelif's karyotype. Iluvalar (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  How about removing the transgender mention, and replacing it like so? That's a good point, researching it more the misinformation appears to have been more broad than just that she was transgender.

  "Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini at the 2024 Olympics, Khelif faced intense public scrutiny over her eligibility for the women's category, as well as online abuse and misinformation" JSwift49 15:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  The so-called public scrutiny that you're referring to is about the baseless allegations that were made by celebrities and the like. Describing their disinformation, misinformation and defamation as a "scrutiny" would give their slander credibility. This is not something what I would expect to see in an encyclopedia, least of all, in an article about a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you look at the links @Gitz has shared, it's clear that there was reasoned public debate spurred by this that went beyond misinformation. (Plus, while the IBA's claims are unverified and potentially suspect, sources do not call it misinformation either.) JSwift49 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did and that doesn't change a thing about I said concerning the so-called "public scrutiny" (slander by celeberitoes and the like). M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  It very much does; because public scrutiny is distinct from slander/misinformation (what you are referring to). The sources say both public scrutiny and misinformation. JSwift49 16:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  It very much doesn't (per the explanation that I have given above). M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus proposal. Having gone through all of the comments, I think this proposal for the first two sentences should address the main concerns of everyone:

Following her victory over Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, Khelif became the subject of widespread public attention and misinformation regarding her gender. Khelif had previously been disqualified from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships, organised by the Russian-led International Boxing Association (IBA), after she allegedly failed unspecified gender eligibility tests.[20][21][22]

• Addresses @M.Bitton and @TarnishedPath concerns of the word "scrutiny", replacing it with "attention". "Attention" includes those who supported her, scrutinized her, and those who had no strong opinion, therefore not giving undue weight/legitimacy to one type of reaction. "Misinformation" also remains where it was before.
• Addresses my own, @Gitz6666, @JackkBrown and @Fanny.doutaz concerns of the summary being limited to "misinformation". Adding "attention" provides a more general overview of what happened, and clarifies that misinformation was not the only consequence of, or reaction people had towards, Khelif's fight.
• Addresses @Iluvalar concern about mentioning the false claim she was transgender.
• Addresses @Barnards.tar.gz concern about the phrase "biological sex".
• Also improves by making the two sentences more concise and readable.

Given the concerns with both the lead as-is and my original proposal, I think this could work as a good-faith compromise. JSwift49 19:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

widespread public attention whitewashes what happened. What she became the subject of is "misinformation" (disinformation to be precise) and an online lynching that has been nicely summarized Jules Boykoff and Dave Zirin:

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

M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

My proposal states "public attention and misinformation". "Misinformation" describes the problematic reactions toward her, and "attention" describes everything else. Keep in mind, "attention" includes the many people who supported Khelif, and who were not guilty of misinformation. Thus, how does this whitewash what happened? JSwift49 19:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I know what you proposal states (I have read it). The hate campaign is the main issue. If you want to mention those who supported her, then suggest "public support", instead of the meaningless "public attention", give it its proper weight and suggest a better location for it since it came after the hate campaign. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

"Public attention" is not meaningless, it encompasses her becoming widely known, and all of the reactions people had. It is significant and undisputed that she became widely known and discussed because of her fight, just as the misinformation and abuse she faced is significant.

When you say "the hate campaign is the main issue", what reliable sources only describe the hate campaign and not the broader attention she received? (The Nation, according to consensus in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, is a partisan source which statements should be attributed, and you linked an opinion article anyway) JSwift49 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

she became widely known and discussed because of her fight, she became widely known (outside of her country) because of the disinformation and the hate campaign.

The Nation is generally reliable and the linked article is co-written by Jules Boykoff, a professor of political science at Pacific University in Oregon and the author of six books on the Olympic Games. M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

But the Nation is a partisan source, and you have linked an opinion article; can you produce any news articles from non-partisan sources? JSwift49 20:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You last two comments tell me one thing: you're not reading mine and I'm just wasting my time replying to yours. M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No need to resort to such accusations. We have argued and there are disagreements between editors; the next step is building consensus and compromise. JSwift49 20:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with M.Bitton, she was primarily the target of misinformation. We should in no way use language which promotes the idea that any of it was reasonable attention brought about by facts or evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 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^talk 09:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that most of the sources I’ve seen refer to both “misinformation” and things like “scrutiny”, “debate”, “accusations”. And based on the discussion there is no consensus for the status quo. In fact, “misinformation” was added recently without a talk and was reverted/re-added twice. [23][24][25][26][27] JSwift49 10:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The real issue here is the fact that you keep repeating the same argument that has been addressed multiple times. Are you honestly expecting us to repeat what was said ad nauseam? M.Bitton (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all; I have regularly asked varied questions/for evidence to try and come to a consensus, and e.g., the point I brought up about misinformation's original addition was new.

(Also worth noting you have asked the same exact questions four or five times in succession, despite receiving answers.)

• [28][29][30][31][32].
• [33][34][35][36].

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

• Support. I think it's a substantial improvement because it specifically states what is false. As it stands it's ambiguous and begs the question to the reader of what was false about her gender? AntonioR449 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I'm here from the notice on the BLP noticeboard, and we go with the wording of the reliable sources, which JSwift has found quite a few of. --GRuban (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Meloni again

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

Hi; this is a different matter, Meloni stating an opinion is one thing, but causing a meeting with Bach and attempting to influence Olympic policy is another. That is a significant result of this fight and worth a brief mention. I actually agree with the previous discussion Meloni just complaining isn't worth including. JSwift49 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with JSwift49. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate (this is not a vote). M.Bitton (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article? M.Bitton (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Not an opinion, but a real world consequence: the Italian government changed its actions/relationship with the IOC because of the fight, wasn't just Meloni complaining (like all the celebrities and Trump did). That's notable. Not to mention, the previous discussion took place on August 1, after Meloni had made comments but before she had actually met with Bach on August 2. JSwift49 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question: What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article? M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you are arguing in good faith but the Head of a State requesting the IOC to scrutinize (read, reject) is an extremely rare event notwithstanding the unhingedness at display. Given the coverage of the episode in reliable sources, a one-line-mention is DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear here this isn't a good faith argument JSwift49 20:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear is that I'm dealing with those who have nothing but aspersions to offer. Let me repeat the question:

What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article? M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY "It may be taken as especially disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process with repeated unreasonable demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained, as if incapable of "getting it". This "sealioning" behavior pattern has sometimes resulted in topic-bans and even indefinite blocks." JSwift49 20:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your irrelevant opinion. The reputation of the subject of the article (a living person) is way more important than what some editors who have nothing but aspersions to offer think.

the Italian government changed its actions/relationship with the IOC What's that got to do with Khelif and why should this belong in her article (and not Meloni's or the IOC'S)? M.Bitton (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Opinions of hard-right politicians don't belong here per WP:WEIGHT. I'm going to remove. TarnishedPath^talk 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation of WP:WEIGHT: it is a description of a meeting that occurred between the leader of the country concerned and the IOC President. Your point would stand if you removed Meloni simply giving her opinion. JSwift49 23:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:SATISFY. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I have :) JSwift49 00:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For now I have simply written that Meloni and Bach met to "discuss the issue". This is a mention of a notable event with no opinions, so you have no grounds to remove. However, Meloni voicing concerns is also an objective fact, and given that she is the Head of State country concerned the reason for her meeting Bach is absolutely DUE like @TrangaBellam said. JSwift49 00:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you violated the policy that you mentioned in your edit summary. Also, why didn't you ping TarnishedPath? M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the remark of one user who is already in the same discussion does not violate WP:CANVASS xD JSwift49 00:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your deliberate violation of the policy that you mentioned in your edit summary is beyond the pale, and so is the complete disregard that you have for WP:ONUS. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I acknowledge I should have sought consensus on rewriting the lead earlier (which I have now done). However adding non-controversial body content that has not yet had an applicable discussion (the meeting occurred after the last Meloni discussion, which centered solely on her remarks) is not a complete disregard for WP:ONUS at all.

In fact, "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless:... The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful". [37] which a description of a meeting between Meloni and Bach obviously... isn't. Yet when you reverted, you could not provide a good answer why.

Sealioning and disregard for WP:NPOV are also issues I've seen with you, I'm afraid. JSwift49 00:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You can repeat that yourself all you want, it doesn't and will never change the fact that you deliberately violated the very policy that you mentioned in your edit summary. M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Glass houses; stones JSwift49 00:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You are in violation of WP:ONUS and more seriously in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE which requires you to obtain positive consensus on the article's talk prior to restoring an contentious material. A good way forward would be for you to revert your last edit which put you in violation of WP:3RR and continue discussion. Edit warring to restore your preferred versions of text is not helpful. TarnishedPath^talk 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^talk 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^talk 09:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The concerns of the far-right are immaterial — what policy suggests that? I have no sympathies for Meloni or the band of busybodies who targeted Khelif using misinformation — my agreement with JSwift49 is restricted to this narrow locus — but this is bizarre argumentation. As Jules Boykoff notes in his op-ed for The Nation, the controversy was invented and whipped up by an "assortment of transphobes, right-wingers, and fascists" — mentioning Meloni is, ofcourse, a no-brainer. I have restored the edit with an additional source and if it is indeed violating of BLP, please do ask for appropriate sanctions at WP:AN. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

concerns of the far-right are immaterial - well, per policy that also applies to the far-left, centre-right, centre-left, etc., I guess. "Political concerns are immaterial" - but can we really say that? Political concerns are important, as long as they are covered by reliable sources. Anyway, the reason RSes covered Meloni's initiatives is not because of her political views, but because of her office, which makes her lobbying more effective/worthy of scrutiny/dangerous than, say, a far-right columnist writing on Breitbart. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The concerns of the far-right are immaterial. Looking again at WP:NPOV, I still agree with keeping Meloni's meeting in. WP:NPOV does state that "inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views" should not be on the same weight, and "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.". However, that seems designed to prevent fringe views from being wrongly treated as equal to established views. Something like: "XYZ said Khelif was a woman, while XYZ said Khelif was a man".

This, by contrast, is simply reporting a meeting that occurred between a head of state concerned and the head of the Olympic movement. So I don't think weight of opinions is an issue here at all; especially since the actions of other third parties such as the COA, Khelif's family and the IOC are already accounted for. JSwift49 18:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

a meeting that occurred between a head of state concerned and the head of the Olympic movement It belongs in the relations between the concerned state and the IOC (it may even belong in the biographies of Meloni and Bach), however, there is no reason to mention it in this article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the meeting occurred directly in response to the subject of the article (for better or worse), if it is notable enough for other articles, why is there "no reason" to mention it here? JSwift49 19:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the meeting is about the relations between the two (they discussed various subjects). M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the head of state involved (Italy) attempted to intervene with the IOC on the issue, which is a significant consequence of the Khelif–Carini fight. Whether there were other subjects discussed as well, I don't see how that's relevant.

Politico implies that Meloni called the meeting because of Khelif: "Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni met with IOC President Thomas Bach on Friday morning to voice her concerns about allowing Khelif to compete “and the issue of rules to guarantee fairness,” her office said." [38]

ANSA states they talked about multiple subjects including Khelif, so less certain if Meloni called the meeting, but still significant as it confirms Meloni's requests prompted Bach to act on clarify the issue. [39] JSwift49 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

prompted Bach to act on the issue that's very misleading: Here's what Bach said.

Anyway, none of this belongs in this article (for the reasons that I already mentioned). M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Per ANSA, "President Thomas Bach told ANSA on Friday that the IOC will clarify the situation after meeting Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni". Regardless of any impact, my point remains that the discussions were notable and directly related to Khelif. JSwift49 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The trouble with cherry picking is that it ends up misleading the readers (who don't know any better). Here's what the article states:

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

M.Bitton (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to gather from this that Bach intended to clarify the situation because of their conversation in a way he otherwise wouldn't have. If you take issue with "act" I can change it. Re-centering though, as I said, the result of their conversation is not the topic of debate; the fact that it happened is what's important. JSwift49 20:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to gather from this that Bach intended Any time you must gather/deduce/infer/interpret what a source says, or speculate about the intentions of an individual, you are tripping into original research. You cannot state or imply a causal relationship that isn't explicitly acknowledged by the source. Taking what the source states and claiming "it means x" is textbook synthesis. Grandpallama (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll strike that section JSwift49 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Another thing of note here is that Meloni visited Carini, not just Bach.[40] JSwift49 00:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

@JackkBrown Are there any sources in Italian that have significant or dedicated coverage of Meloni's talking to Bach about the issue? JSwift49 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: yes, read the following sources: [41] and [42]. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This phrasing could also be useful to add: [43] "Meloni has asked for clearer rules, to be aligned with those of the federations. “Fairness”, the prime minister has been demanding since yesterday." JSwift49 18:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: I completely agree. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

12 August 2024

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

The content @Zurkhardo removed actually is not properly sourced. "Fueled by misinformation" is from the headline of the PBS article [44] (clear violation of WP:HEADLINE), and the body of the article does not support it; the closest thing it states is that "hateful scrutiny" "stemmed" from the disqualification. The other two sources and body do not support the statement either. JSwift49 18:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's being discussed in an ongoing RfC. I will ping Drmies (an admin) and see what they say about this. M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if the content is WP:UNSOURCED.

"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" JSwift49 18:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... please read WP:LEAD. Given that this is an issue that concerns a RfC (that you started and in which you want the content gone), I will also ping Rosguill (another admin who commented on this talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, "Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads."

If the body does not specifically support the content, therefore, WP:UNSOURCED. JSwift49 19:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone with that extremely poor excuse. If you think that it should be changed to "false claims about her gender" (easily attributable to multiple RS), then please say so. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing WP:UNSOURCED material isn't a poor excuse :) Of course, sourced content can be added if consensus appears in the RfC. JSwift49 19:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

My input here is that the PBS source is fine--it doesn't say "misinformation" outside the title, but it does say That hasn’t stopped the international outcry tied to misconceptions around the fighters that has been amplified by Russian disinformation networks., which adequately supports the claim. The effort expended in wikilawyering here, when this material was both in the article identified by Drmies and could likely be easily verified with other RS, seems misdirected (and if my assumption about the availability of sourcing is wrong, the effort would still be better spent verifying that and demonstrating that such sourcing does not exist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I'd appreciate clarity on: That hasn’t stopped the international outcry tied to misconceptions around the fighters that has been amplified by Russian disinformation networks Yes, this proves that there was an outcry and that Russian disinformation networks amplified it, but how does it support that false accusations were specifically fueled by the disqualification?

Regardless, if unsourced content is removed, shouldn't it only be added back per consensus? I had (sourced) content I added removed because there wasn't consensus, which is why I'm now going through RfC. JSwift49 19:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The normal procedure is to let the prior status quo stand until a consensus is reached, even if unsourced, unless it poses a serious defamation risk. Looking more closely, I'm also a bit confused by why you're portraying Zurkhardo's edit as doing anything to change the claims made in the article--to my reading, it removes a redundant repetition of False assertions about her gender were, when it already (and still) says misinformation surfaced on social media about her gender. IMV, if anything Zurkhardo's change, combining the sentences, further encourages the reading you're arguing against. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair question; to clarify, I am not stating Zurkhardo shares my opinion or justification here, and I also support removing "misinformation was fueled by" for the same reasons as removing "False claims about her gender were fueled by". JSwift49 19:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Or more precisely, per the RfC, changing just "misinformation" to "public attention and misinformation" JSwift49 19:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The normal procedure is to let the prior status quo stand until a consensus is reached, even if unsourced, unless it poses a serious defamation risk. thank you. Zurkhardo, now that you have the opinion of an admin, you know what to do. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Still confused about one thing: my previous (sourced) addition, when I added the meeting Meloni had with Bach, which posed no defamation risk, was removed immediately because consensus had not been determined. Is that a different type of case? JSwift49 19:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Zurkhardo was pinged for a specific reason, don't canvass them for something else (the talk page is here and they can choose to opine on whatever they want). M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh this is a general example: trying to learn our policies better :) Not asking for an opinion on my content. Because if I misunderstand what the policies are, clearing it up will help me in future edits. JSwift49 19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thank you. What has been removed in this edit is being discussed in an ongoing RfC, which was started by JSwift49 (an editor that wants that specific content removed). Their excuse above doesn't hold much water given that "false claims about her gender" can easily be attributed to multiple high quality RS. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:LEAD also states contentious statements should probably maintain citations. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone genuinely disputing "false claims about her gender" (something that is easily attributable to multiple RS)? M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The ongoing RfC is precisely about this content, so, yes. JSwift49 19:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. M.Bitton (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually there is some subtilty here. If we are talking about "gender", that is her perceived self-identity, then there is really no dispute that she sees herself as a woman. On the other hand, if we are talking about her "sex" that is her biological identity then there is certainly a serious dispute about that, and there is in fact no proof that the claim that she is intersex is a false claim. Vegan416 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no proof that anyone is not a "insert whatever you want here". People (especially living ones) are defined by what they are and not by what they're not. M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And your point is? Vegan416 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Where are reliable sourcing to suggest there is a controversy about whether she is intersex or not? Most sourcing indicates that after she beat another female athlete, internet trolls spread misinfo about her based on a discredited IBA report.

Talking about the "what if she's intersex" is moving the target without expressing the kernel of real truth that matters for the lede that she was the target of false allegations. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too careful in my wording. In a sense you may be right that there is no controversy about her being intersex, since it seems no RS definitively denies that she is some kind of intersex (aka DSD). She herself didn't deny it nor did the IOC. On the other hand, there is no published definitive proof that she is intersex either. So maybe it is still right to speak of a controversy about it.

Here are a few RS that speak about this issue:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/does-imane-khelif-belong-in-the-womens-ring-olympics-boxing-transgender-ideology-b227f2cd

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/08/olympic-boxing-gender-debate-imane-khelif/679410/

https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/

The last source in particular goes into the matter very deeply and thoroughly. Vegan416 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

there is no controversy about her being intersex there is no RS to support such a contentious label and suggesting that she is violates WP:BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's why I qualified it by "In a sense you may be right that...". Your cutting my quote out of context is against Wikipedia:Quotations#:~:text=Quotations should be representative of,and intentions of the source. Vegan416 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not correct. In this comment I provided a list of six sources from Italian news organisations usually deemed reliable (ANSA, Adnkronos, la Repubblica, Il Messaggero, La7, Radio DeeJay) that refer to her as an "intersex athlete" or use similar expressions (with a bit of time, more could be found). Because of WP:NOENG I wouldn't use these sources for our article, but the sentence no RS to support such a contentious label is wrong and the claim suggesting that she is violates WP:BLP is unacceptable: half of the debate about Khelif at the Olympics (the half that isn't fake news and hate speech) is about whether and under what conditions intersex athletes should be allowed to compete with women in boxing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Italians referring to her as "intersex" (to show support for their darling Carini)? Based on what exactly? A hunch? What makes you think that they are RS for such a claim? M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

M. Bitton, you are missing the point again. Nobody wants to write in the article that she is intersex, unless a definite proof will be published (I speak for myself but I believe this is true for Gitz as well). this is not the issue here at all. The issue is whether there is a controversy about it. And the sources that Gitz brought and the ones I brought clearly discuss this issue. As Gitz said the question of her alleged intersex status and its possible implications about her eligibility to compete in women sports is the heart of all this media circus around her. Vegan416 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep missing the point: you have no point and you're just using this talk page to violate BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They are WP:NEWSORG. Their professional standards as journalists are no higher than those of the British and American NEWSORGs, but not much lower either. Based on what exactly? - I'm not a journalist myself, I can only speculate. I suspect that the fact that Khelif has never responded to the IBA's claims that she has XY chromosomes and high levels of testosterone by circulating medical tests proving the contrary is often taken - by the press, by the public, by academics writing about ethics and regulation in sport - as a significant sign that she likely has some form of DSDs.

Anyway, all this is immaterial and beside the point. No one is suggesting that we should call her intersex. But we should not trivialise the debate about Khelif at the Olympics as "a group of internet trolls mistaking her for a man". Yes, it is that, but it is not only that. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words, the Italian journalists are just speculating to defend the Italian boxer (Carini). I have just gone through a couple of them and all I can say is "crappy journalism" doesn't even come close to describing those shitty pieces. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Vegan416, this is crazy talk. Because there is no evidence of denial of DSD, she could be intersex? We are not going to build BLPs out of negatives. The BBC article you linked says, "When it comes to Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, we don’t have enough information to know if they have a DSD that would need to be regulated"--and that's the end of it. Your "controversy" is thus built on nothing but speculation. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, logically speaking if there is no proof that she is not DSD, and no denial that she is DSD, then she could be DSD. And in fact silence is often considered an admission (even in legal settings). Also look at this official tweet from the IOC which appears in the last source I brought https://twitter.com/iocmedia/status/1819667573698445793?.

In any case my point here was not about controversy or dispute or claiming that she is intersex. My point here was that if someone had written in the article "there are false claims about her being intersex" he would be wrong and unsourced, since the claims about her being intersex were not falsified. They are still undecided. Vegan416 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

if there is no proof that she is not DSD there is no proof that she is. The difference in the wording is very important. M.Bitton (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. But I don't understand your point. Let's try to reach some agreement here or understand where is the source of disagreement between us. I'll make here several factual statements which I believe to be true. Please tell me with which one you agree and with which not:

1. The IBA claimed she is DSD.
2. There is no published proof that she is DSD.
3. There is no published proof that she is not DSD.
4. The IOC didn't deny that she is DSD.
5. She herself didn't deny she is DSD.
6. The question of whether she is DSD or not, is discussed in many places including by scholars.

Vegan416 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you re-read what Drmies wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I re-read it. I still don't understand what you want. Why don't you simply tell with which of the statement s I made you disagree, so we can progress the discussion somewhere, instead of repeating ourselves? Vegan416 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want anything and I'm certainly not going to entertain you borderline violation of WP:BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is there any violation of BLP in the 6 statements I made here? Vegan416 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The very first section of BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

We don't republish speculation about highly personal aspects of people's private lives. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

But all the 6 statements I made here are not speculations. They are facts. I also wonder how can you discuss all the media circus around her without mentioning the claims that were made? should we delete from the article this sentence, that appears there now, for example? "In 2023, IBA president Umar Kremlev said that the disqualifications were because DNA tests "proved they had XY chromosomes"." According to your interpretation of BLP this is "republishing speculation about highly personal aspects of people's private lives".... Vegan416 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd be perfectly happy removing Kremlev's statement, yes. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

So why don't you try to do it? It would be interesting to see if most editors will accept your extreme interpretation of BLP. Vegan416 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Because "I would be happy to" and "I am going to" are two different things. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're repeating unsubstantiated claims while falsely claiming that "silence is often considered an admission" to insinuate that she is what you believe she is. This much is clear, so let's not pretend that this ridiculous discussion is about something other than an excuse to violate BLP at will. M.Bitton (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You are the one who is making unsubstantiated claims now, which I strongly deny. And as for the issue of silence and addmission, I suggest you look here. Vegan416 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You have an issue with silence, that's your issue. M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read this scholarly article. And I have to go to sleep so goodnight. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=flr Vegan416 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest travelling and experiencing other cultures and their communication styles. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

silence is often considered an admission (even in legal settings)

Yeah that's not true of legal proceedings basically anywhere and it's definitely not true of WP:BLP. The idea that we must give credence to every un-evidenced claim about a public figure that they do not explicitly refute is completely untenable. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

With regard to legal settings you are clearly wrong. Look here for example. As for BLP that would have been true if I said that she is intersex. But all I said here is that the claim that she is intersex is still undecided, and therefore cannot be describes as false claim. So there is no problem with BLP here. Vegan416 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

is there any part of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives that you don't understand? M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As I posted above, there is a huge problem with BLP: we don't repeat baseless, speculative claims about people's private lives, which is what this is, given the absence of evidence.

As for the claim that she is intersex is still undecided, and therefore cannot be describes as false claim - like sure, we could describe it as a "baseless" or "unsupported" claim instead. But the article doesn't refer to "false claims that she is intersex", so why are you focusing on that? The only claims it describes outright as false are the ones about her gender. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney: I just thought you ought to know about this (given your above comment). M.Bitton (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that Zurkhardo's edit is just good copy editing: it removes an unnecessary repetition: "misinformation surfaced ... about her gender. False assertions about her gender". I myself was about to make the exact same edit this morning, but I decided to pass it over because I realised how the RfC was worded and thought that editing the lead might be confusing. If the RfC were to conclude with a consensus to oppose the change (i.e., not to include any reference to "widespread public attention") I would suggest changing the lead in the way proposed by Zurkhardo. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly never intended for this to raise any substantive controversy -- I simply wanted to remove redundant information and keep the introduction crisper. Zurkhardo (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zurkhardo: that was quite obvious, that's why I pinged you. The comment by the admin (The normal procedure is to let the prior status quo stand until a consensus is reached, even if unsourced, unless it poses a serious defamation risk) is quite explicit in what should be done in instances like this one. Could you please self-revert? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I will let Black Kite decide whether this edit (which removes content that is being discussed in an ongoing RfC) needs to be restored. M.Bitton (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Cisgender

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

Agreed. Very few sources that I've been able to find refer to Imane as "cisgender". Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support this view @StAnselm and @Kcmastrpc. Should be removed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

"born female" feels disrespectful towards trans people, according to whom? M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I said I'm not the majority. My view isn't the only one but in my opinion it suggests a trans person hasn't always been the gender they identify as. Again, I'm not the majority, but it strikes me as odd that it's used on a cisgender woman's article but "assigned gender at birth" is fine on a trans person's. In my opinion, it's a double standard. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand: are you saying that you can be transgender even if you identify to the gender that you've been assigned at birth? M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That is in no way what I am trying to say. At all. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

even though a lot of trans people, myself included, consider ourselves always to have been the gender we identify as this is the confusing bit. M.Bitton (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What? Wasabi OS (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear. Wasabi means that if someone who was assigned female at birth, later transitions to male, he may feel that the transition didn't change his gender from female to male, but rather exposed his true original male gender. That is, he may feel that he was in fact always male, even from birth, and therefore he will consider the expression "born female", with reference to him, to be offensive. See for example here: '“In cases when it’s important to discuss somebody’s anatomy, the terms AFAB and AMAB are more gender-affirming than, for example, ‘born female’ or ‘biologically male,’” Kolega explains. “Those terms can be invalidating by implying that a trans person isn’t ‘actually’ a man or a woman. They also don’t include people who are intersex and have different anatomy.”'. Wasabi, correct me if I'm wrong. Vegan416 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sex and gender are separate at your insistence and so, you're either born a man or a woman or someone intersex with a chromonal disorder. There's nothing to do with assignment, get real. 2600:1700:76F1:E8A0:CF48:292E:86A5:C21 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the OP: "born female" should be replaced with "assigned female at birth" for multiple reasons:

1. As noted by Wasabi OS, the born female terminology is perceived by many trans people as inappropriate if not transphobic (e.g., [45]). In the BLP of a trans woman, "she was born male" would suggest that her gender "by nature" is male, which is nonsense because gender is a social and psychological construct, and no one is born gendered, but we are assigned to a gender.
2. "Assigned female at birth" leaves room for the possibility that she was assigned female by mistake. According to RSes, the hypothesis that Khelif has some form of DSD has not been verified, but neither has it been falsified.
3. As I've detailed in this comment, the overwhelming majority of RSes say that she was assigned female at birth (and identifies as female), not that she was "born female". I believe that this terminological choice by RSes was made for the reasons in 1 and 2 above.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed- See post above RfC on "misinformation". Terms "assigned female at birth" and "assigned male at birth" are the current recommended/prevailing professional terms for ALL individuals under both medical care and public health. The terms are more objectively accurate to the newborn exam and birth certificate processes. NeuroBioScience (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

i think it'd just make more sense to instead replace the parts mentioning people being confused about her gender, with people being confused about her sex, as that is actually what happened. Iluvwooper (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved the response to the relevant RFC Melmann 16:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose on the grounds of clarity. 'Assigned at birth' is, in my experience, wording that is only really used by trans community and allies, and is not, in my experience, readily understood by people who are not close to the topic. There's also the fact that the subject has reportedly stated: I want to tell the entire world that I am a female, and I will remain a female, thus it may be inadvisable to use such wording in a WP:BLP where the subject has seemingly made explicit effort to distance themselves from the claim of being trans. Melmann 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC) References @Melmann: there is an ongoing RfC about this. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC) @M.Bitton: No idea how I missed that... I'll add it there instead. Melmann 16:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

2024: Olympic gold medal - this seems unencyclopedic

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

Support: The claims that she's a man seems to come from transphobes who use the same language for trans women. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct, which means that "false claims that she was a man" is indeed what we should be saying, as they are indeed false. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That's true. I've been arguing with someone over the language in the lede and it's giving me a headache, so I can't think straight. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

How do we know they are false? Doesn't seem to acknowledge what @Adric of Alzarius stated "To use the word "false" in this context would surely require us to prove that Khelif is not a man, and as I'm sure everyone reading this talk page knows, that is a subject of much debate"

Not sure the page is a good example of NPV when it will only accept a direct medical report for XY but it seems to readily accept "not a man" without the same medical report. AntonioR449 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Wasabi's original point. Khelif identifies as female, so any false claim that she was biologically male would de facto be that she was a transgender woman. Couldn't saying otherwise imply that transgender women are men? JSwift49 18:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, She can be Assigned Female At Birth (Sex_assignment#AFAB AFAB), lived all her life as a girl, even have a vagina, not have any intention to transition and therefore firmly not transgender. And yet, discover at 21 years old that she have XY chromosomes. Everything can be true at the same time. Iluvalar (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 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^talk 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^talk 07:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you haven't read Abrahamson's article, he is not parroting IBA claims. Rather he is claiming to have seen the lab tests from the independent labs themselves.

"For both Khelif and Lin, the New Delhi test – from, as IBA disclosed Monday, the independent Dr Lal PathLabs – consists of three pages."

"Page three makes plain that the lab is a “national reference lab” and, as well, accredited by CAP, the Northfield, Illinois-based College of American Pathologists, and certified by the ISO, the Swiss-based International Organization for Standardization."

Abrahamson article

I only mention this because many users on this page insist there is no valid debate and that it's all coming from places of malice, transphobic, etc. This is not the case. AntonioR449 (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's an unsubstantiated claim by a primary source. M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is to demonstrate to users on this page that claims of "it's all transphobes/IBA misinformation, there is no debate" is not factually correct. There is valid debate/concern about her being genetically male, it should not be swept under the rug as being exclusively from bad actors. AntonioR449 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no debate in RS. M.Bitton (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That is sheer lunacy, I implore you to see reason. Of course there is debate amongst reputable sources, if they're weren't this concersation wouldn't be happening. You're simply taking a very narrow view of what counts as reputable, a view which conveniently aligns with your own preconceptions. For example, today Stephen O'Rahilly (a former president of the Society for Endocrinology) has asserted that Khelif is biologically male. A recent interview with Khelif's trainer in Le Point reveals that they were aware of "problems with her chromosomes". This, from Khelif's own trainer, in conjunction with what is known about Disorders of Sexual Development cast significant doubt over whether Khelif is male or female. Indeed, the view that the aforementioned Stephen O'Rahilly has come to is that Khelif is a male with 46 XY 5-ARD (see: 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency). Adric of Alzarius (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

has asserted that based on what?

Khelif's trainer never said such a thing, so please don't falsely attribute what you read in some forum to him. M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton

Based on >35 years of experience as one of the foremost endocrinologists in the field.

Here is a link to the Le Point article, notably not "some forum":

https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/2024-olympics-imane-khelif-was-devastated-to-discover-out-of-the-blue-that-she-might-not-be-a-girl-14-08-2024-2567924_24.php Adric of Alzarius (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of Stephen O'Rahilly in that source.

Khelif's trainer never said such a thing, so please don't falsely attribute what you read in some forum to him. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not claim O'Rahilly was mentioned in the source; his view, as an expert in endochrinology, is visible on his Twitter (now X) account. The source I supplied is an interview with one of Khelif's trainers, Georges Cazorla, who says after undertaking tests there were found to be "problems with her chromosomes". Perhaps you would deign to explain what your objection to this source is? Why don't you consider it reputable? Adric of Alzarius (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

First, you misattributed a claim to her trainer and now, you're claiming that Georges Cazorla is one of her trainers (he's not). Anyway, I suggest you read the previous discussion about the interview in question. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Confusion of X/Twitter and "Against X"

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

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

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

Perhaps I misunderstood what "against X" meant. I assumed that in the context of the cyberbullying and Rowling and Musk being named specifically, it meant X as in Twitter, although I now realize that may not be the case. I guess we can blame Musk for that confusion because he chose such an ambiguous name, haha. Anyways, in light of this confusion I'm ok with removing the mention of Twitter. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just remove the mention of Twitter but keep the AP reference. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Variety uses the format "X/Twitter" later but not there, so I'd say they didn't mean the lawsuit was filed against Twitter. CambrianCrab (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Omitting the reference is a good idea. I think Twitter is a better name to use in general because Wikipedia still names it Twitter and X is not a commonly used name even a year later, although it is used in many reliable sources. "X" is also used sometimes as a placeholder which would be very confusing. Wasabi OS (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

WP:UNDUE.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: No; these two articles are very neutral, I would advise you to read them before judging. Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: English-language sources on this topic are, unfortunately, not sufficiently complete. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The language of the sources is irrelevant so is the neutrality of the publishers. Any opinions concerning an Italian politician on a biography of an Argelian boxer falls into UNDUE. This article is named Imane Khelif and it covers the biography of the subject. It is not named Imane Khelif's controversy during the 2024 Summer Olympics. The article Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Women's boxing controversy covers Meloni accordingly and that content is sufficient there. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Second-round fight against Angela Carini

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

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

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

The reasons given for the removal seem entirely correct to me. There are also serious wording problems: "refused" is an incredibly loaded term, and "informed" strongly implies that the IBA's assertion was correct. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

But she did refused to talk about them when asked by a reporter. That's fact recorded on video in a reliable news site. Do you have another way to express this fact? As for the word "informed" - I have no problem replacing it with "told".

Also, since you say you agree with the reasons given, then please explain what OR is there in this sentence and why do you think that lack of response from Khelif implies that she has DSD? Vegan416 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Declined" is significantly less loaded; "did not comment" also works.

I don't think that the lack of response from Khelif implies anything. What TarnishedPath was saying is that your addition to the article seems to suggest that the lack of response from Khelif implies something. I agree with him in this assessment. And he also said that creating such an implication is OR. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

But I didn't create any such implication. You are just imagining implications that do not exist in the text in order to hide relevant facts from the readers. Vegan416 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you did it deliberately, I just said that the text comes across that way. I would appreciate if you would extend me the same assumption of good faith rather than accusing me of being engaged in some kind of censorship campaign. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So tell me how would it be OK with you to mention the fact that Khelif didn't publish the results and declined to talk about it? Vegan416 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I would stick extremely closely to what is said in the sources and not go beyond that.

I would note that what she was specifically asked was not about the results of the tests, but whether she she had undergone tests other than those for doping, and she said she didn't want to talk about it.

I would not say Khelif "sent...to the IBA" the results of her independent tests, nor would I say that the IBA said "the results of these independent tests also indicate that she has an unfair competitive advantage," because neither of those things are in the sources. The source says that she undertook self-funded independent tests; it doesn't say what happened to the results. It also says that there was a separate set of independent tests, organised by the IBA, and that after that the IBA "informed both Khelif and Lin that they did not meet the eligibility criteria". It does quote the IBA as saying that that determination was made on the basis of those independent tests. It just places the IBA's determination chronologically after the independent tests. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. I'll take your suggestions and rephrase the sentences accordingly when I have more time. But here is another question. While the source doesn't say "what happened to the results, we do know in fact that they were not published by her (or anyone else). Vegan416 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

We do know that, yes. But specifically mentioning that she has not published them would, in my view, be inappropriate extrapolation unless it's being noted specifically by sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's probably also important to note that the extent of what the source says about those tests is that it was "independent testing to try and clear her name and return to competition under the IBA banner." We have no idea what those tests were about - testosterone, chromsomes, something else entirely. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that she didn't publish the results was noted by the sources I referenced when I made the edit in the article. And in the edit I didn't say anything about what was exactly tested. Vegan416 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

We simply don't need to express it. WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE apply here. The material you edited to insert should simply not be in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 23:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Khelif also did not publish results to prove she isn't a secret lizard person, nor did she publish results to prove she isn't part of the illuminati, nor did she publish results to prove she isn't secretly part of WP:CABAL.

It is WP:UNDUE to demand counter-evidence of an unsubstantiated claim or to note lack of counter-evidence. Most "evidence" of the original claim that Khelif has DSD has been debunked as misinformation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Actually the claim that she has DSD was NOT debunked, and it is still an open question, since the results of the IBA tests and those of Khelif independent tests were not published (in the case of the IBA tests it was presumably by the request of the Algerian Olympic Committee) and no independent expert opinion was published regarding these results. In fact there wasn't even any denial of this claim by the IOC or Khelif (to be more accurate the IOC published a tweet that this is not a DSD case, but then retracted this claim).

2. As for the "secret lizard person" and "illuminati" this is, of course, a completely false analogy for three reasons: 1. People, and even Olympic athletes, with DSD are a real thing, whereas "secret lizard person" and "illuminati" aren't. 2. Nobody claimed that Khelif is a lizard person or illuminati, or even discussed this possibility, whereas many people claimed that she had DSD or discussed this possibility. 3. By the definition of these conspiratorial imaginary concepts, there is no way to prove that you are not a lizard person or Illuminati. But proving that Keliph doesn't have DSD (in case she really doesn't have DSD) would be very easy - just publishing the independent test results... Vegan416 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps its poor choice and I did not mean to imply that DSD athletes are lizard people, only that it is WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE to include that Khelif has failed to prove something which is outrageous to believe in the first place in the preponderous of reliable sourcing indicating otherwise.

the analogy is a fallacy of Shifting the burden of proof and has been used by conspiracy theorists to sow inappropriate doubts and goes something like this:

• there is no evidence she is a <<Insert internet misinfo>>. but there is no evidence to prove she isn't a <<Insert internet misinfo>> tho. therefore, if someone on Twitter claims she is <<Insert internet misinfo>>, we should include that she has failed to produce evidence that she isn't a <<Insert internet misinfo>>.
• there is no evidence she has elevated testosterone or an XY chromosome.[48] but there is no evidence to prove she isn't an athlete with DSD. therefore, we should include that she failed to produce evidence that she isn't an athlete with DSD.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is it outrageous to think that she may have DSD??? As I have shown it had happened several times before that Olympic athletes turned out to have DSD.

It is also not accurate to say that "there is no evidence she has elevated testosterone or an XY chromosome". The accurate thing to say is what appears in the lead of this article: "no evidence she has elevated testosterone or an XY chromosome was published". It is not at all the same thing, especially when the reason the IBA didn't publish their results seems to be that the Algerian OC asked them not to publish them (that's what the IBA said). Vegan416 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm basically with Bluethriceicecreamman here. I understand what you're saying about the IBA but the combination of repeatedly refusing to publish their results, their contradictory claims about what test was even conducted, and the suspicious timing of the original disqualification make whatever evidence they amount to very weak. Certainly the burden of proof here is not on Khelif. Loki (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd go further and state that it doesn't only make it very weak, but makes the IBA unreliable on this subject matter. TarnishedPath^talk 23:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki,

1. It is obvious that the burden of proof falls on those who wish to disqualify her or to assert definitively that she has DSD/High-Testosterone/some-other-male-related-unfair-advantage, and not on her to prove otherwise. BUT, having said that, her behavior and the behavior of the IOC in this matter still remains very strange and unexplained. If a person is massively falsely "accused" of a specific particular thing that she perceives as damaging to her reputation, the response that one would normally await from her is clear denial. And if it is extremely easy to present data that disproves the false claim (as would be the case here), then one would normally expect her to show such data. If she doesn't do that then it is a very unusual behavior, that is noteworthy, even if there is absolutely no burden of proof on her.

2. Also all this talk about "burden of proof" is a red herring and completely irrelevant to what I said here. I didn't ask her to be disqualified. I didn't ask to assert definitively in the article that she has DSD. I didn't even ask to write in the article that she might have DSD. All I wanted to do is mention several undisputed and relevant facts that appear in reliable sources. And with all the wish to assume good faith it is hard not to get the feeling that at least some of the pushback I get is because these facts don't fit comfortably with some politically motivated narrative about the story.

3. Anyway, as I already said I had accepted some of the constructive criticism of AntiDionysius, and I'll rephrase the edit significantly. Vegan416 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately we don't have to prove or disprove anything, just give an accurate and balanced account of what the RSes report. Here is what they say:

• "Khelif has never disclosed her biological markers" (NBC);
• "Khelif declined to answer when asked whether she had undergone tests other than doping tests, saying she didn’t want to talk about it" (Time);
• "We do not know if Khelif and Lin are athletes with DSD because the full results of the tests are confidential, and the fighters are yet to declare them." (BBC)
• "Khelif then provided her own medical documentation after sourcing independent testing to try and clear her name and return to competition under the IBA banner ... following examination from the IBA medical committee ... Khelif ... was told that the results gave her an unfair competitive advantage and deemed it unsafe for her to fight against female opponents" (Sidney Morning Herald).

Is there a way of combining these sources in a BLP-compliant text? AntiDionysius's comments are helpful. What about the following text?

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

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I support this rephrasing. And thanks for saving me the work :-) Vegan416 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus in this discussion for any revert, partial or otherwise, to restore your preferred material. TarnishedPath^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 14:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said "it is standard practice in any respectable media publication to report the response of anyone who is "accused" of something in any report about the "accusation"." Vegan416 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading through sourcing of the contested edits, sourcing is unclear as well and cannot support this edit.

[49] states the IBA never disclosed the exact testing, not khelif.

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

[51] states Khelif's tests were never released, but it doesn't state which test or even that Khelif took an independent test. The only time test with specific regard to Khelif is mentioned is the IBA.

None of these talk about the independent test Khelif took and is WP:SYNTH. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Khelif then provided her own medical documentation after sourcing independent testing to try and clear her name and return to competition under the IBA banner" Sidney Morning Herald Vegan416 (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Khelif took her own tests after the IBA Tests, to try to clear her name. Apparently the effort wasn't successful,(?) and there are no details on her tests. BUt its mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald which is A RS> ALso I agree with some of the other editors here, if Khelif was asked questions about the tests, and refused to answer (or declined to answer)... then that should be included in the article. WE dont; know why, and we can't imply, but the fact it happenned should be incl.Uded. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Khelif doesn't have to explain or justify who she is to anyone. As for the so-called test: did she ever mention such a test or is that someone repeating hearsay? M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Red herring. Khelif doesn't have to explain or justify who she is to anyone. Agreed. But the fact the she declines to do that is still noteworthy nonetheless because it would be a very unusual behavior for someone who can easily disprove the claims made against him. Vegan416 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As editors, it isn't our position to comment or theorize on one's behavior or intent. To do otherwise lends itself to poor editing & risks WP:SYNTH. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you still maintain that your proposed addition does not imply Khelif is hiding something, and yet your reasoning for adding it is that Khelif is exhibiting very unusual behavior for someone who can easily disprove the claims made against him? AntiDionysius (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed here. It's an argument engaging in original research. TarnishedPath^talk 03:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is obviously WP:SYNTH based on pulling a few quotes out of context and giving them undue weight. Note that, for example, in the NBC news source, the However, the test results were never published... refers to the tests the IBA claim supports their misinformation campaign. More generally, sources, overall, are clear that this is a misinformation campaign and that the IBA's position is groundless; pulling quotes out of context indicating that Khelif has tried to give them as little attention as she could and implying that this somehow creates a cloud of uncertainty is a WP:BLP violation without sourcing specifically saying as much in as many words. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Does your comment apply also to the reworded edit I proposed here? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. WP:SYNTH, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:ONUS still apply. You must answer our questions by arguing why each of these principles don't apply, or are incorrectly used, or if there is another principle that overrides these. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  They are all used incorrectly:

  • WP:SYNTH. The reworded edit is a faithful paraphrase of what is explicitly stated in the sources and adds nothing new.
  • WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. TIME, BBC and NBC are major news organisations. If they report that Khelif has chosen not to disclose details about her biological traits, it is likely that this is significant information. The possibility that she has DSDs has been widely discussed by RSes and experts (see sources in the collapsible box).
  • WP:ONUS. This is absurd. No one has restored the contentious material, so what are you talking about? In order to reach consensus we need to discuss freely.

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  The possibility that ... based on what? M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  I won't reply further - please read the sources, starting from the IOC correcting its own president, who had said "this is not a DSD case" [52], her trainer saying that she was devastated to discover that she might not be biologically female [53], and the various arguments made by the journalists and experts that you find in Public debates about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions. We shouldn't damage Khelif by pushing the well-intentioned but questionable POV that she is not intersex: we just don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Her trainer never said such a thing (we already discussed that unusable interview). Opinions that are based on nothing, are worthless opinions, especially when it comes to BLP.

  We shouldn't damage Khelif by pushing the well-intentioned but questionable POV that she is not intersex. stating that she is intersex, while pretending to care about her, is a BLP violation and an insult to our intelligence. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• I raised the question in the BLP noticeboard here because it seems to deal with a more general BLP question, namely whether BLP calls for suppressing undisputed facts (such as Khelif's lack of response to the claims she might have DSD etc.) just because people might conclude from them unwarranted conclusion. I have shown other examples there that support my position that BLP doesn't forbid that. Vegan416 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Repeated mention of IBA nationality

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

1. Though many people in the West don't like certain Russian leaders that in no way invalidates every organization originating in Russia

1. If the organization were of any other nationality, it wouldn't be mentioned: we can see how wrong this is just by substituting "Bulgarian" or "Singaporean."

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

I had similar concerns (see this edit) but several reliable sources mention that the IBA is (not Russian but) Russian-led, as the article says, e.g. BBC ("Russian-led"), PBS ("Russian-dominated"), and many more. International politics is a significant context of the Khelif controversy, so I think "Russian-led" is WP:DUE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources which mention that the IBA is Russian led, particularly in reference to them disqualifying Khelif right after she'd beaten a prevoiusly undefeated Russian boxer. TarnishedPath^talk 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^talk 03:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it is actually based in Switzerland. The IBA currently has a president of Russian nationality, but its other officials, including the Board of Directors, have a range of nationalities. I think even "Russian-led" is misleading, given that it's the Board of Directors who decide on official IBA business, and none of them except for Kremlev are Russian: https://www.iba.sport/about-iba/organizational-structure/iba-board-of-directors/ 2A00:23EE:1320:C01:8CCF:7C8A:C3D1:38B2 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• The sources themselves emphasize repeatedly that they are Russian and discuss, in depth, the fact that the IBA may have been motivated by a desire to protect Russian athletes from competition by using a misinformation campaign to push for Khalif's disqualification. Given the clear direction of coverage, we have to cover that aspect even if editors disagree - that is to say, we can't adjust how we cover things to make the IBA appear more or less credible; but if news media covers the fact that the IBA appears to be operating to protect Russian interests, then we have to make that clear, we can't just remove it because an editor disagrees with the fact that it appears to discredit them. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

way invalidates every organization originating in Russia

IBA didn't originated in Russia/USSR. It was created in the beginning of XX century in Europe as FIBA, than changed in name to AIBA, then to IBA. 94.253.2.129 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Russian-led" is supported by sources, but the article (and this talk page) does come very, very close to endorsing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the IBA. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

+1. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

use WP:EDITREQUEST.

I have questions about when she was unbeaten as well? I think it means she was unbeaten during the championships in 2023? News sources are not very specific.

Also, this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to combine sourcing like this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it means she was unbeaten during the championships

More likely when journalists from mentioned source (Beacham, Greg (3 August 2024). "Banned governing body that's fueling outcry on Olympic boxers has Russian ties and troubled history". AP News) searched about Azalia Aminova boxing history, first result was Boxrec.com where she has no losses. This is because Boxrec specializes on professional boxing events, not local spartakiads, championships etc. 94.253.2.129 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, part of the conspiracy theorising that the disqualification wasn't about XY karyotype test results but because Khelif beat Amineva. However the timeline doesn't make sense, as the blood sample for the karyotype was taken several days before Khelif's match with Amineva. Also it doesn't explain why Lin Yu-ting, who fought no Russians in that tournament, was disqualified. 2A00:23EE:1320:C01:8CCF:7C8A:C3D1:38B2 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll add a clarification needed tag on these sentence in view of the sources brought here. Vegan416 (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. Furthermore, the IBA itself describes Azalia Amineva as "undefeated":

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

M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no OR here. Also, it is interesting to see that now you suddenly consider the IBA to be a reliable source after you described it as "shady" and unreliable :-) In any case even if we consider the IBA to be a reliable source then we have a situation of two reliable sources contradicting each other. This is precisely one of the situations for which the "clarification needed" tag is required Vegan416 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't, but the Russian-backed IBA is repeating what is found in multiple RS about a Russian athlete. As for the OR: using the sources to draw a conclusion that isn't stated in any of them is the definition of WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

what is found in multiple RS about a Russian athlete.

These sources - big news agencies - are reliable in case of boxers's statistics, even not taking in account that in most of cases news agencies don't work with original sources but copy news from other news agenices which they count reliable. They will not go into local internets (in this case, Russian) to find boxing history of particular boxers.

In all news sources with mention Azalia Aminova "unbeaten" status it was got either from Boxrec, where information about non-professional fights may be missing (as in this case, and in case of, for example, other Amineva opponent - Dalgatova ), or from abovementioned IBA website (I assume IBA did such statement about Amineva to draw more attention to their boxing event). 94.253.2.129 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

FIX - These sources - big news agencies - aren't reliable in case of boxers's statistics 94.253.2.129 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the kinds of situation WP:BLUE was made for, it's a straightforward application of the definition of the word 'undefeated'. If a boxer lost a fight, they're not undefeated, you don't need a quote from NYT to know that. Hi! (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A number of sources say this in their own voices. I don't see any case for removal. TarnishedPath^talk 05:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A number of sources say this in their own voices. I don't see any case for removal.

Neighter of these non-Russian sources had checked boxing statistics of Amineva, but they relied either on search on Boxrec.com or reproduce materials from majoir news agencies. As for abovementioned IBA page with annouce of tournament in Ufa (Russia), I doubt it was a source for them. First search results on history of Amineva would be Boxrec, where no local championships and tournaments described for her (and may be other boxers too). Likely when someone begin to check why Amineva stated as "inbeaten", they found this IBA's announcement. In which participants boxers are decorated with loud titles to make good advertising.

Also, this event (Russia, Ufa, August 2024, unbeaten amateur Azalia Amineva vs unbeater amateur Rehema Abdallah) insnt included in Boxrec stats of Rehema Abdallah. And I'm not sure do she really had not losses in her history of official fights or not. Relying only on Boxrect isn't good, but because it always in 1st search results, everyone takes it.

Amineva had wins and losses in various local Russian championships in here boxing history, of which I put links at least on two examples. 94.253.2.129 (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"they relied either on search on Boxrec.com or reproduce materials from majoir news agencies"

You have no evidence for that claim.

When it comes down to good number of reliable sources (I'm not including IBA in that, but it doesn't hurt that they say the same thing) vs one that plays language games (refer to https://dagpravda.ru/politika/operation-ua/ where they refer to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a Special operation rather than an invasion) I think we should go with the numerous sources that we know to be reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 12:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Dagpravda was found because Dalgatova is from Dagestan, so local news website posted about her victory over Amineva.

What source do you need for results of fight Amineva-Dolgatova 2022 and Amineva-Dolgatova 2021 ?

Here is report from website of Ministry of Sport of Republic of Bashkorstan (Amineva was born there) of Russian Federation about Amineva-Dalgatova fight at Russian Women Boxing championship-2021

В поединке за выход в финал спортсменка из Республики Башкортостан Аминева Азалия уступила победу более опытной сопернице – уроженке Республики Дагестан Далгатовой Саадат.

https://sport.bashkortostan.ru/presscenter/news/414309

This is report of Ministry of Sport of Russian Federation on Spartakiada-2022, in PDF, from official webste of Russian Boxing Federation. Russian Summer's Sports Spartakiad-2022, Amineva-Dalgatova fight as of 25 Aug 2022 is on page 15.

https://admin.rusboxing.ru/media/documents/%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%A7%D0%95%D0%A2_%D0%92%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%99%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%AF_%D0%A1%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%9A%D0%98%D0%90%D0%94%D0%90_%D0%91%D0%9E%D0%9A%D0%A1_KxgT9nl.pdf 94.253.2.129 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Section on Disqualification

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

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

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

discussed and rejected already. [54] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That discussion was closed “because there is an RFC on it” proposing a change to the lead. This proposes changes to the disqualification section. 2601:940:C000:8990:1146:A261:8709:11B (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what we could get out of this interview. Who is this Cazorla? What does he mean when he says that Khelif can compare with a woman-woman-woman? WP:INTERVIEWS are a very bad source for a WP:BLP: they are largely unacceptable, especially when they are primary, non-independent sources, coming from someone whose reliability is unclear. They are not much different from self-published sources, which we should avoid per WP:RSSELF. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

“It's hard to tell what we could get out of this interview.” It’s a claim, published in a reliable source, secondary to and independent of the IBA, that Khelif’s testosterone and/or chromosomes are atypical for a female, by someone who claims knowledge of the facts. It tends to provide support to the validity of the IBA’s test. For that reason, it is relevant and notable. With proper care, making sure not to present the allegations as verified, information from the article could be included while maintaining a NPOV. Including it would arguably provide a more balanced view of the situation. 2601:940:C000:8990:55A3:C7FF:FC79:BE08 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Interviews are primary sources. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY. TarnishedPath^talk 04:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Usage of Gender over Sex

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

Both were being discussed, but there was misinformation about her gender specifically - she was falsely described as a "man" by a number of prominent people. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

People have been using "man" to refer to Khelif's sex. For many people (if not most), man just means "adult male human". That is the sense meant by, for example, JK Rowling when she talked of "men punching women" in reference to Khelif and Lin. 2A00:23EE:2368:5F9E:AC67:A3DA:D02:8612 (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not what "man" means, though. So whether they realised/intended it or not, people saying that 100% were spreading misinformation about her gender, nonetheless. Many of them also used male pronouns as well as the word "man", which is a pretty unambiguous reference to gender. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It is one of the meanings of "man". Please consider that there are many people (and globally, probably most people) who do not hold the belief that "man" and "woman" are identities that can be adopted by anyone regardless of their sex. Instead, they understand "man" and "woman" to mean adult humans who are, respectively, male and female. 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside for a second the truth of that, the deliberately incorrect usage of pronouns by many of the people commenting on this issue makes it clear that Khelif was, in fact, subject to misinformation about her gender. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Same principle applies. "He" and "she" are often used as references to an individual's sex. Someone who believes that Khelif is male may well use "he" rather than "she". 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrectly. And it doesn't make a difference. If these people don't recognise a distinction between gender and sex, and claim that her sex is male and that that means she should be referred to by male pronouns, they are still spreading misinformation about her gender, they're just doing it in a roundabout way. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That entirely depends on one's beliefs regarding gender identity. Which will vary amongst readers of the article. 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure they will vary. But we don't cater our articles to the beliefs of the reader, we shape them according to what is true and verifiable in reliable sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why it's important to understand that the controversial issue is Khelif's sex, particularly in regard to competing against female opponents in the boxing ring, so that a truthful account of the controversy can be written. Someone who doesn't hold gender identity beliefs is of course going to discuss this using different words ("man", "he") to someone who does ("woman", "she"). This should be taken into consideration when assessing source material. 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I really really do not know what "holding gender identity beliefs" means. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A belief in the concept of gender identity as applied to the definitions of "woman" and "man". 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so when you say we should cater to a hypothetical "someone who doesn't hold gender identity beliefs", you're saying we should cater to people who don't believe in...truth? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that editors should be careful in their interpretation of statements describing Khelif as a "man" or with male pronouns.

For example, JK Rowling wrote "explain why you're OK with a man beating a woman in public for your entertainment. This isn’t sport." One interpretation of this statement is that it is misinformation about Khelif's gender - but only if one is reading through that lens. Knowing about JK Rowling's gender critical perspective makes it clear that she uses "man" to mean "adult male human", and this is commentary on Khelif's sex with regards to competing against female opponents.

Also, that you describe a contested belief system as "truth" really just indicates that you hold this belief very strongly. 2A00:23EE:1890:30E8:C957:67BF:FA61:F5AD (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Kremlev

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

---

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

done Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2024

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

---

Add to "See Also" section:

• Lin Yu-ting, Taiwanese featherweight boxer who faced similar scrutiny at the 2024 Paris Olympics. High Tinker (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. The article is already linked to in the body of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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