Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Imane Khelif. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Lame article

WP:NOTFORUM. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pathetic that this article is protected and virtually empty. Stop protecting every article and allow properly-sourced edits. XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to request that the article's protection be decreased or removed. If there's something specific you feel is missing from the article, you could always add it. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think in the former you are probably unlikely to succeed, because when the page wasn't protected there were people vandalising it (in ways that severely violated the BLP policy, were incredibly offensive, or in some cases both) every five minutes for a while. But if you think there is not sufficient justification for it being protected, you should go make the case; Wikipedia thrives on discussion and initiative. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusivity vs. Accuracy

WP:NOTFORUM. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia is failing on topics that touch on items of identity. This page is so empty as barely makes it worthwhile. At some point every page will have a controversial tag on, every article locked and Wikipedia articles on people just containing; name and date of birth. Sure, some will disagree but that's my point. -- [[user:Matt.whitby]] (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Only if by "empty", you mean it's not full of social media garbage. M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said above: You are welcome to request that the article's protection be decreased or removed. If there's something specific you feel is missing from the article, you could always add it...I think in the former you are probably unlikely to succeed, because when the page wasn't protected there were people vandalising it (in ways that severely violated the BLP policy, were incredibly offensive, or in some cases both) every five minutes for a while. But if you think there is not sufficient justification for it being protected, you should go make the case; Wikipedia thrives on discussion and initiative. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Testosterone

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.

Intersexe persons have higher levels of testosterone but not in the male range as this lemma suggests 143.179.155.39 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I would be unable to support this until we have a source. I do approve of removing the word "typical" from the article as the Reuters article states that "blood testosterone levels in the male range". "Typical" would imply an average while the article only suggest that the testosterone could fall in the range which could mean just hitting the low end. So, the article should state individuals with DSD "may" fall within "male testosterone ranges". Which is closer to what the Reuters article asserts. The Telegraph article only says its "akin to that of a man" which seems a bit unclear to be cited specifically. Eyeanow (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a moot point now, since the section was removed. Eyeanow (talk) 18:49, 1 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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

Someone altered the person's pronouns in an attempt to mock her for not being feminine. She is a woman and the pronouns in the article should be she/her. 47.50.121.222 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Done I caught this already, but thanks for flagging it nonetheless. --AntiDionysius (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That problem is still there. Consumeraction (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't see it - where is it? And are you sure you're looking at the most recent version of the article? AntiDionysius (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

(not OP) It keeps being changed back and forth. Could this page be fully protected for a couple of days at least? Fenneke (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

Add her recent match against italian Angela Carini and the corresponding political fallout. Carini gave up due to feeling this was not a fair fight for all the reasons already discussed. l

Also, Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Carini's bout against Khelif was not a fight among equals. "I think that athletes who have male genetic characteristics should not be admitted to women's competitions," Meloni said.

Reuters also reported that "The IOC decision caused a stir before the Games with some warning of safety concerns for the boxers' opponents." NBC reported that Carini refused to shake Imane Khelif's hand after the decision was announced, and she cried in the ring before leaving. USA Today termed it "Olympic boxer at center of gender eligibility controversy wins bizarre first bout". BBC stated "Just before Khelif's arm was raised by the referee, Carini could be heard on camera saying "it's not right"". They also reported that "...it has hurt Olympic boxing at a crucial time where its future is still being discussed. It's an absolute disaster."

Some RS talking about it are:

-Reuters https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/boxing-algerian-khelif-advances-after-italys-carini-abandons-fight-after-46-2024-08-01/

-NBC https://www.nbcnewyork.com/paris-2024-summer-olympics/boxing-olympics-gender-test-imane-khelif-angela-carini-match/5656773/

-USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2024/08/01/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-gender-eligibility-issue/74628914007/

-BBC https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/articles/cw0yvln9z00o

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Carini gave up due to feeling this was not a fair fight " is there a source for this claim? 31.124.184.56 (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald had a journalist, Michael Chammas, in the press box at the North Paris Arena to report on the bout. Chammas reports that a few seconds after raising her glove to pause the fight, the Italian competitor Angela Carina returned to her coach and "repeatedly yelled to her corner, “Non e giusto, non e giusto” (“It’s not fair, it’s not fair”)." Chammas goes on to report "Her Olympics was over. “I’ve never felt a punch like this,” she would later say." See the SMH article here, though it may be paywalled. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (2)

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

Source these 2 sentences or remove the sentneces: “From this, false rumors have emerged that Khelif is transgender or transsexual. Khelif is a biological woman.” 47.134.145.54 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Done --AntiDionysius (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Add more RS covering Khelif controversy

For example, Barron's is a RS and not included on this article even though they have a pretty extensive and NPOV report on this controversy.

From the above source: "one-sided bout", "A distraught and hurt Angela Carini shrugged off attempts by Khelif to shake her hand afterwards and the Italian collapsed to her knees and sobbed uncontrollably in the middle of the ring.", "controversy threatened to overshadow the sixth day of the Games.", "Lin was stripped of her bronze medal after undergoing "biochemical" tests mandated by the IBA.", and "At least one woman boxer at the Games has spoken out about her concerns. Australia's Caitlin Parker is in the 75kg weight class so will not face Khelif or Lin, but she made her stance on the controversy clear. "I don't agree with that being allowed, especially in combat sports as it can be incredibly dangerous," she said."

All of the above further proves this was a controversial match, overshadowing the Olympic games, and the has been public athlete outcry. None of which is referred to in the article as of now, ostensibly due to editorializing by two current WP editors. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:147A:F431:89E6:80C2 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the news is too fresh here. Wikipedia rules dictates we should be waiting for a secondary source of any importance to decide whether or not the quotations from the other contestants is of any ENCYCLOPEDIC relevance. It's unclear if any of this will belong to this article in 2030. Iluvalar (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (3)

As per many RS have reported on this issue, include Italian Prime Minister's public statements regarding the Khelif controversy. For example:

"Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, who was visiting Italy athletes in the Olympic Village on Thursday, voiced criticism that Carini had to box Khelif, saying she had since 2021 opposed allowing athletes with “genetically male” characteristics to compete against women. “We have to pay attention, in an attempt to not discriminate, that we’re actually discriminating” against women’s rights, Meloni said." 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:147A:F431:89E6:80C2 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant opinion of a politician. M.Bitton (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I don't think they're irrelevant opinions of a politician; Giorgia Meloni is a very important politician in Italy and her opinions, consequently, are important. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Since when do politicians have a say about the gender of a person (from another country to boot)? Her opinions (about politics) may or may not be important in Italy, but they are certainly not about other subjects, least of all the gender of a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's irrelevant why ALL RS used in this article and cited in the TP. If you disagree as a matter of opinion, then it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is not a random tweet but ALL the RS used here cover this. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia:Notability by being reported by practically all RS and she is Italy's Prime Minister. Lest you forget Caroni is italian herself and is representing Italy in the current Olympics. It makes absolute sense to include her countries statements.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: It is WP:NOTABLE. Just because it hurts your feelings and doesn't conform to your ideology doesn't mean it should be excluded. See WP:NOTCENSORED. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE only deals with if topic that "editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". Not if someone opinion on a situation should be included in a article on the athlete. Eyeanow (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eyeanow thank you for reminding us. Honestly the point often gets lost. The question of notability is about whether there should be an article about a subject at all. I believe that question is settled. So now it's about the level of balance that is given to different aspects of the person's life. The whole article, certainly, can't be about controversies of gender. The person's life is much bigger than that. But that material is certainly well reported and a significant part of the story. In my view it can't be good article without it being covered. Again, thanks for raising the relevant point here. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (6)

The opening sentence of Early life reads "Khelif grew up in Tiaret, a rural village in northwestern Algeria." I think this is a transcription error on the part of an editor. The original article this is sourced to states "Imane recalls how at 16 she managed to excel in football in her rural village in Tiaret in western Algeria despite football not being seen as a game fit for girls."

Given the context I think it is reasonable to say that this is not referring to Tiaret, a large city, as a rural village, but is rather referring to her coming from a rural village in Tiaret Province. Suggested change to:

"Khelif grew up in a rural village in Tiaret Province in Northwestern Algeria." Relm (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Relmcheatham:

Done JacktheBrown (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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

At the last sentence in the 2022–2023 section the 2024 IBA statement lacks the full quote. Change 'In 2024, the IBA said that Khelif and others "did not undergo a testosterone examination but were subject to a separate and recognized test, whereby the specifics remain confidential"' to 'In 2024, the IBA said that Khelif and others "did not undergo a testosterone examination but were subject to a separate and recognized test, whereby the specifics remain confidential. This test conclusively indicated that both athletes did not meet the required necessary eligibility criteria and were found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors."' Dvtkrlbs (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Partly done: I fleshed the paragraph out without using so much of a direct quotation. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Trans/DSD section needs credible sources before assumptions

This page has reverted back to the original line which is AGAIN not supported by sources.

“Khelif is not transgender,(12) but she has a disorder of sex development (DSD) which causes some females to have XY chromosomes and blood testosterone levels typical of a male.(13)”

Neither source has credibility in saying she is not transgender, nor that she has DSD, it is the author’s assumption. One source says “Khelif does not identify as transgender.” But even that article has no source on the claim of how she identifies. When did she say she was not TG? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Agree with above thread that until the athlete makes a claim themselves as to gender/intersex/DSD/Trans, the two quoted sentences above should be removed and not added back again.

This was fixed in a thread above and reverted to the original language. 47.134.145.54 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. The edit should be reverted back to original language.Under WP:BL that states "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". There is no RS that provides proof that the athlete in question has any DSD. Eyeanow (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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

Article should include a mention of the IOC statement on the controversy. The statment describes in more detail the IBA decision, including the fact that the decision was made "initially taken solely by the IBA Secretary General and CEO". ChumpusChongas (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, the IOC took down the response on your link. They have a new one. Additionally, the Board "ratified it afterwards" as per the IOC statement.2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

it didn't. M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

See here. Mellamelina (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite right @Mellamelina, and worth noting @M.Bitton, the official IOC statement reads, "...decision was initially taken solely by the IBA Secretary General and CEO. The IBA Board only ratified it afterwards and only subsequently requested that a procedure to follow in similar cases in the future be established..." MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you include it in the 2023 section or the 2024 section? Or a section on its own? Mellamelina (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably 2024, as it directly pertains to the 2024 Paris controversy. ChumpusChongas (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Done – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is how all matters of controversy should be resolved. Thank you @Macaddct1984. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

High androgen levels vs hyperandrogenism

Having high androgen level is not possible for XY women, according to XY gonadal dysgenesis, is it? Or are there other conditions to make women XY? It's not clear if these reports are true. Did she have a karyotype test? Web-julio (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There is currently no good information about the specifics of the test results or any DSD she may have. However, to answer your direct question, individuals with 5-ARD have XY chromosomes and testosterone levels in the male range, but are often (not always) raised as women due to their appearance at birth. See the case of Caster Semenya and other DSD athletes. Astaire (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

DSD

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM - regarding your recent edit, I can't immediately see anything in either of the two sources that say Khelif has disorder of sex development. Am I missing something? AntiDionysius (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"who is also DSD ... Khelif is therefore within her legal right to compete today." From the second reference. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was missing something. I was Ctrl+F ing "Khelif" but not looking hard enough. Thanks for clarifying! AntiDionysius (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I was trying to find out myself the details of this case. I'm sure there will be a lot of coverage of the subject and we'll get a clearer picture still. I see that I've used 'disorder' and the source states 'differences', I went by the Wikipedia article title which is synonymous. Should we change the link to 'differences' which would then redirect to disorder? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There are no primary sources to validate this claim

The only "evidence" of Khelif having a DSD is an unofficial statement by Umar Kremlev that the hormone tests in 2023 proved Khelif & Yu-Ting have XY chromosomes. This statement has never been corroborated. (In fact it's very dubious that this statement can even possibly be correct as the IOC have officially stated that the test in 2023 only checked testosterone levels)

As it stands, this article asserts something as true that has no rigourous evidence to support it. I strongly believe that it is in the best interests of upholding the credibility & integrity of Wikipedia to remove the statement of Khelif having a DSD Sumandark8600 (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

KEEP

I disagree with Sumandark8600 assessment. Plenty of RS cover the current controvery and Khelif and DSD. See Reuters here, for example. Not including this relevant information extensively covered by RS would be a disservice to WP.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:147A:F431:89E6:80C2 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your linked article makes no assertion that either Khalifa or Yu-Ting have DSDs, nor does it include any primary sources.

It is a gross misinterpretation of available facts to state that this is evidence that either athlete have DSDs.

Reuters is also nothing more than a news agency. It is both fallacious & a logical fallacy to claim that not including coverage of their unverified articles would "be a disservice to WP" regardless of how well regarded or trustworthy they are seen to be as an organisation in general. Sumandark8600 (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:OR and editorializing. If many RS report on something, willfully ignoring it due to your personal opinion IS a disservice to WP and violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to echo the concern here, Reuters reports this as factual but provides no basis to support this claim. I think he should be careful to assert information about a medical condition without proof. I agree with Sumandark8600 that this is WP:OR as it is "analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". It should be added only if additional proof is provided from RS or other sources. Eyeanow (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I did do another search, and there is really no firm evidence that the subject has Differences of Sexual Development (DSD) or that the subject was raised as female but has XY sex chromosomes. I think it's commonly thought, and commonly suggested, but we have no evidence of it. Mind you, it's the sort of thing that the subject would need to disclose I think. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say delete. From reading the articles, there doesn't seem to be anything that confirms she has a DSD, only that a test indicated she was XY chromosome, and these are not the same concept. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (4)

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

Neither of these sources (10,11) support the claim that Khelif has DSD and is not transgender.

“Khelif is not transgender, but has a disorder of sex development (DSD), which causes some females to have XY chromosomes and blood testosterone levels typical of a male.[10][11]”

This should be changed to say “there is speculation that Khelif may not be transgender but has a disorder of…” and then if you can find a credible source. Khelif has never said they have DSD so the above quoted sentence may be removed entirely. I can’t find sources confirming what Khelif was at birth/biologically. It is only speculation Khelif has DSD. 47.134.145.54 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: You're right that the claim is not supported by the sourcing, but this is a WP:BLP and we cannot include such weaselly language as "there is speculation" without unassailable WP:RS. I have removed the whole line. Melmann 18:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This page has reverted back to the original line which is AGAIN not supported by sources.

“Khelif is not transgender,(12) but she has a disorder of sex development (DSD) which causes some females to have XY chromosomes and blood testosterone levels typical of a male.(13)”

Neither source has credibility in saying she is not transgender, nor that she has DSD, it is the author’s assumption. If the first part wants to stay it could be said “Khelif does not identify as transgender.” You can identify as whatever you want. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 47.134.145.54 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As per the DSD topic above, it is entirely right for editors like @Melmann to say that the DSD idea is unsupported by reliable sources, at this time. Even if a news article says that the person "might", that really is scuttlebutt and nothing more. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (5)

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

She is a woman, the page is using the wrong pronouns to describe her 106.51.160.132 (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Intersex

I am not an expert but i think we should give her the "Category:Intersex women" and "Category:Intersex sportspeople" categories Braganza (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Until the athlete claims that they are intersex or first-hand testing results are produced , the article should stay the same. Eyeanow (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eyeanow: exactly! JacktheBrown (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Categorising living people should be done with utmost care, especially as being intersex may be perceived by some as a negative label, especially in the culture she comes from. Let's keep in mind WP:PEOPLECAT. Melmann 18:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No, we still know little about her (or them, in the case of transgender). JacktheBrown (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We know for a fact that she's a cis woman til proven otherwise Trade (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

IOC Statement

Regarding today's events, the IOC issued this statement, so should the sentence about the IOC not detailing their eligibility rules be modified? Also, should it be noted that there was a bunch of controversy around her participation in the Games, causing the IOC to issue the statement?

The statement also includes comments about the IBA's previous decision. Should these be noted in the section detailing her disqualification from the IBA Championships? Mellamelina (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mellamelina: I believe that is all

Done

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for someone with 30/500 access to update. This phrase should be removed from the article as it is both untrue and not detailed in the linked source: "without detailing what these eligibility rules were" The issued statement does clearly link to a detail of the eligibility rules, and to state otherwise is false. Khaveman (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

More RS reporting on Italian PM comments

See here.

"Thursday’s forfeit sparked strong reactions in Italy, where the prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, called the fight “a match that did not seem on equal footing.”“Athletes who have male genetic characteristics should not be admitted to female competitions,” she told reporters." 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The statement is irrelevant to the athlete at hand, because the athlete is not the Olympics nor does the athlete control Olympic policy. In addition, there is already a subsection covering "Bans on transgender women and DSD restrictions" in the Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics page. If this is important, it should go into that subsection or on Giorgia Meloni own page. Eyeanow (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This whole controversy erupted when an Italian athlete quit the match over the perceived sex differences in the match. When said athlete's Prime Minister made public statements about it and they were covered by ALL, let me restate it, ALL RS used in this article and talk page you still say its "irrelevant"? 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Support User Eyeanow wrote "(Meloni's) statement is irrelevant to the athlete at hand, because the athlete is not the Olympics nor does the athlete control Olympic policy."
Nonsense. When the president of a country weighs-in in public on a topic of controversy regarding one of their citizens, it automatically meets WP:N. This is proven countless times in every other issue of our day that is covered in WP articles. Where that opinion is placed in the article is up for debate, but its inclusion is not. Bricology (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It clearly is up for debate; we're debating it right now.

WP:N also isn't the metric here, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread. The very first line of WP:N says On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the relevance of certain things to an article. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. These statements are, certainly, relevant. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion. Very unclear to me why we're meant to care what Meloni thinks; her connection to this (that she is the PM of the country from which the boxer Khelif was fighting comes from) is, in my view, tenuous. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per AntiDionysius. The opinion of a politician is irrelevant to sports in general and has no place in the biography of an athlete (from another country to boot). M.Bitton (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with both @AntiDionysius & @M.Bitton that the opinion of a politician has no place in the biography of an athlete Sumandark8600 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose While this is not an identical situation, as this deals with a high-testosterone cisgender female athlete as opposed to a transgender female athlete, I will share what we did when there was a similar dispute on another page. When Lia Thomas (a trans woman) swam against Emma Weyant (a cisgender woman) and Lia got first and Emma Weyant got second, Florida politician/Governor Ron DeSantis made a statement “declaring” Weyant the winner when he had no authority to do so. We had debates on the Emma Weyant page whether DeSantis’s statement should be included or not. We ended up not mentioning his opinion on the subject. Politicians have opinions all the time and sometimes there is prejudice in them as well. It doesn’t necessarily imply notability when a politician says something, even if they are a head of state (though there are likely exceptions). So I don’t think it’s necessary to quote PM Meloni on this. -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Highly notable person--Trade (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Notable is not synonymous with reliable. We don't just collect irrelevant opinions of those of those who know absolutely nothing about the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Support I am somewhat dismayed at what I see is a touch of bias here in this content. Please if editors could look at WP:BAL. We need to include all sides of the debate, if people have critical viewpoints of her, they should be included. This is the Prime Minister of Italy, this is clearly a notable person, and as stated, there does appear to have been a test that indicated Khelif is XY chromosome.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarify that she is not transgender

There is massive misinformation on internet about that Khelif is transgender. This is more than enough reason to clarify in the article that she is not transgender. There are several reliable sources who have said that Imane Khelif is not a transgender person.[1][2][3] Please also note that there is a paragraph in this article that may lead many people to wrongly think or conclude that Khelif is a transgender person: «According to International Boxing Association (IBA) president Umar Kremlev, DNA testing of Khelif and other athletes "proved they had XY chromosomes and were thus excluded from the sports events».

There are medical conditions that can cause a woman to had XY chromosomes.

Esterau16 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the IBA (who is currently banned) has never provided evidence of the claim that Khelif has XY chromosomes, and the IOC states the IBA decision was arbitrary. DMBradbury 23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Esterau16: Someone has added that the transgender claims are false, I've appended it with some of your citations

@DMBradbury: That is already present in the article – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Esterau16, multiple people have reverted your addition of the sentence "There are medical conditions that can cause a woman to also have XY chromosomes." to the article. This is editorializing and violates WP:NPOV by inserting speculation about what medical conditions Khelif may or may not have. There is not currently strong sourcing for any such statement, and we already have sources clarifying that she is not transgender. Astaire (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The reversions that you mention were not due to disagreements with the sentence, but with the type of source. At first I put a MedinePlus source, other users said that that source was WP:OR, so I changed it to a secondary source that talks about Khelif. This important to mention, as many may mistakenly think or conclude that Khefli is a male based on Kremlev's claims that Khefli has XY chromosomes. In fact, not making this important clarification violates WP:NPOV. Esterau16 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Done – I have mirrored some key points from the body in the lead. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned rare case: Woman may also have XY chromosomes

The mention "There are medical conditions that can cause a woman to also have XY chromosomes" seems to be a misreprestation of the cited article which quotes "Given that obviously we are not aware of her clinical documentation, she could have been born with a congenital disease that caused a disorder of sexual differentiation . At the basis of this there are very rare, but pathological, pathological conditions"

Since the cited expert here, has clearly mentioned that "we are not aware of her clinical documentation", and no other WP:RS source supports such claim regarding Imane Khelif, it may be WP:UNDUE to include a very rare condition here. Untill, consensus is reached, its best to include the quote for context and WP:NPOV language. RogerYg (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have accordingly added the quote with context, as below:

An endocrinologist, Gianluca Aimaretti, who acknowledged not being aware of Khelif's clinical documentation, claimed that there are some rare pathological cases where XY chromosome may appear in a woman and hypothesized that Khelif "could have been born with a congenital disease that caused a disorder of sexual differentiation".

https://www.gazzetta.it/olimpiadi/discipline/pugilato/01-08-2024/imane-khelif-perche-ha-il-cromosoma-xy-e-quale-e-la-differenza-tra-intersex-e-transgender.shtml

RogerYg (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we also need to include

XY is the male chromosome, while XX is the female one.

for WP:Readability

https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/sport-others/paris-olympics-boxing-controversey-imane-khelif-win-9489120/

RogerYg (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I do think we need to be careful about not giving this undue weight here per WP:UNDUE .

Without any evidence outside of a claim to TASS by Kremlev, including extra information may provide a misleading bias toward making the claim appear more credible than current details indicate. DMBradbury 06:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is reported in multiple reliable WP:RS sources including The Guardian, and hence should not be deleted without consensus

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/29/boxers-who-failed-gender-tests-at-world-championships-cleared-to-compete-at-olympics

WP:INDIANEXP is also a WP:RS source. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources RogerYg (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Also reported in Reuters

Khelif and Taiwan's double world champion Lin Yu-ting were cleared to fight in Paris after the IOC last year stripped the IBA of its status as boxing's governing body over governance issues, and took charge of the Paris 2024 boxing competition.

Both had been disqualified at the 2023 World Championships after failing International Boxing Association (IBA) eligibility rules that prevent athletes with male XY chromosomes competing in women's events.

https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/boxing-algerian-khelif-advances-after-italys-carini-abandons-fight-after-46-2024-08-01/

There are enough WP:RS sources to report this. RogerYg (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Reporting XY chromosome

This is reported in multiple reliable WP:RS sources including The Guardian and Reuters and hence should be reported as per WP:RS

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/29/boxers-who-failed-gender-tests-at-world-championships-cleared-to-compete-at-olympics

WP:INDIANEXP is also a WP:RS source. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources RogerYg (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also reported in Reuters

Khelif and Taiwan's double world champion Lin Yu-ting were cleared to fight in Paris after the IOC last year stripped the IBA of its status as boxing's governing body over governance issues, and took charge of the Paris 2024 boxing competition.

Both had been disqualified at the 2023 World Championships after failing International Boxing Association (IBA) eligibility rules that prevent athletes with male XY chromosomes competing in women's events.

https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/boxing-algerian-khelif-advances-after-italys-carini-abandons-fight-after-46-2024-08-01/

Hi User:DMBradbury, Previous topic was about reporting about endocrinologist claim. I think XY chromosome has been reported in multiple reliable WP:RS sources and hence should not be deleted without consensus

There are enough WP:RS sources to report this. RogerYg (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done: none of the sources provide proof she has a Y chromosome. The Guardian specifically clarifies that this traces back to a Russian source. That Russian source cites the IBA, who are banned from running the olympic boxing tournament and did not ever state they tested chromosomes. Refer to the IOC statement on this matter. According to the IOC, her disqualification was done at the discretion of two individuals, without any clarity on their reasoning and a lack of due process. We are not going to state that she has a Y chromosome, when it remains unproven. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We have to report in Wikipedia as per WP:RS sources such as Guardian and Reuters.

See Reuters : "had been disqualified at the 2023 World Championships after failing International Boxing Association (IBA) eligibility rules that prevent athletes with male XY chromosomes competing in women's events."

https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/boxing-algerian-khelif-advances-after-italys-carini-abandons-fight-after-46-2024-08-01/

We can clarify from Washington Post that "It remains unclear what standards Khelif and Lin Yu Ting of Taiwan failed last year to lead to the disqualifications.". 08:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

RogerYg (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We need to quote the source Washington Post per WP:NPOV

IBA President Umar Kremlev told the Russian news agency Tass last year the disqualifications were because “it was proven they have XY chromosomes.” "It remains unclear what standards Khelif and Lin Yu Ting of Taiwan failed last year to lead to the disqualifications." RogerYg (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That is discussed in the body already, actually. The IOC has made it quite clear that the IBA did not use due process or provide evidence. The Russia-led IBA is the subject of corruption scandals, and one of its representatives was calling the IOC "sodomites". Very serious stuff. The IBA won't even clarify what these alleged tests were. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, its not in the body. This was deleted by someone from the body:

IBA President Umar Kremlev told the Russian news agency Tass last year the disqualifications were because “it was proven they have XY chromosomes.” "It remains unclear what standards Khelif and Lin Yu Ting of Taiwan failed last year to lead to the disqualifications. RogerYg (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I see a lot of *personal opinion* here about the IBA. The IBA have made the statement. There is no clear evidence that they falsified the tests, and as stated previously, when they did the tests and made the statement about both these boxers, both boxers accepted it. It may be the tests were wrong, but there is no evidence of that, its just people's conjecture, and it shouldn't be included in the article or used to preclude the inclusion of RS sources. In addition, the IOC may have issues with the IBA, but they haven't come out and refuted the fact that Khelif is XY chromosome, nor has Khelif herself. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Deathlibrarian (talk) that we need to report whats published in WP:RS sources about IBA statement on results, without any personal opinions, whether the results are false or true. RogerYg (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

List of intersex Olympians

If we are not allowed to call her intersex in the article then why is she listed in this Wiki article? Something doesnt add up Trade (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

She should not be included on the list. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We might wanna include it now and then have a discussion if she should be included later. This looks like a pretty blatant BLP issue Trade (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I was just coming to add a "please see" to this talkpage linking back to the list. Based on historic precedent of athletes who have effectively been victims of poor gender tests being disqualified, these athletes are included. The prose discussed this all, but given the current controversy, many people are discovering the concept of intersex and potentially also hearing a lot of untruths about intersex and Khelif. There is a discussion at the talkpage of the List of intersex Olympians on improving the list, with increased attention in mind. As much participation as possible is encouraged. Kingsif (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The unsourced label violates WP:BLP and should be removed. M.Bitton (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I direct you to the first paragraph of that list regarding inclusion criteria, and invite you to the talkpage where discussion on the use of "intersex" and other ways to prevent public misconceptions is current. Kingsif (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

IBA's Olympic status

The article makes multiple mentions about the IBA's Olympic status being revoked. This is repetition and WP:UNDUE weight, it should be mentioned just once in the body. We also could expand that the IBA didn't organise the 2020 games; the issues with the IOC and IBA are not about the Khelif case, but the article currently may mislead some readers into thinking so. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The controversy largely comes from the IBA's comments about Khelif's biology. It's important to mention that the IBA has previously been banned for issues that could affect the credibility of their statement. The removal of this context could imply a potential bias or a lack of concern for presenting all the facts from your end. Also, you're currently engaging in an edit war; it's not allowed to remove relevant sentences that are supported by reliable sources. sloth (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slothtysloth Please read WP:SYNTH. The IBA's Olympic status was not revoked due to the Khelif case, so you are attempting to imply a connection between the two. This will mislead some readers as I explained above.

You've given no reason why you restored the repetition of the same content in the body either. It's mentioned three times, it should be mentioned once to avoid repetition. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere does it state that it was revoked due to khelif's case, the article mentions exactly why it is revoked, which was due to several reasons, all independent from one another, and cites sources for the reader to read more.

The reason it's mentioned multiple times is that the IBA's decision comes up in almost every paragraph of the article. sloth (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slothtysloth Again, please read WP:SYNTH. You are combining separate pieces of information to reach a new conclusion, this will mislead the reader into thinking the revocation of Olympic status was connected to the Khelif case. This could be explained in a non-SYNTH manner in the body of the article, but doing so would be UNDUE weight for the lead.

That's a reason to consolidate/remove content from the article, not a reason to repeat the same content over and over. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slothtysloth I already brought it to the talk page, and referenced that in my edit summaries. Please don't tell other editors to bring something to a talk page if you're not going to read the talk page, this is not constructive behaviour.

As it stands, you reverted the edits without explaining why there should be repetition and UNDUE weight given. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've read the talk page, that's why I responded to you, and it's clear that the controversy primarily arises from the IBA's statements about Khelif's biology. Given that the IBA has been banned in the past for issues that could call their credibility into question, this context is relevant and should be included whenever the IBA's claims are mentioned. The fact that the repetition of the IBA's claims wasn't an issue for you, but mentioning the organization's potential unreliability is, suggests a double standard. This page is about Khelif, not the IBA, and it's important to provide a full picture, unless there's a specific reference that contradicts this information. Engaging in an edit war and selectively removing sentences backed by reliable sources is not the right approach and it will get you flagged. Add whatever information you need. Do not remove information. sloth (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slothtysloth You evidently hadn't read the talk page, because I had brought it to talk page *before* you made your edits telling me to take it to the talk page. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slothtysloth Please read WP:ONUS. The onus is on you to attain consensus for the inclusion of this content, not for other editors to remove it. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You said that this particular point should be mentioned just once within the body of the text. However, you have removed this reference from all three sections where it was originally included, and now you are attempting to eliminate the remaining two instances of it despite them being relevant. This is your final warning before I consider escalating the matter due to bias and starting an edit war. sloth (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to repeat material about the IBA. Once is plenty @Slothtysloth. Also, please see the section below about citations. They sure ain't saying what you think they say. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Already responded. They do.

It's only mentioned once by the way. @NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM is trying to remove all of them. Which is biased. sloth (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slothtysloth That is simply false. I kept the information about the IBA's Olympic status being revoked. You can see it in the edit history, it's mentioned right after the UNICEF line. I also added additional information and reference about it in the same section. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The information about their status being revoked should not be in that paragraph. It needs to be moved to follow the section about her 2023 disqualification, as it originally was, because it adds important context and nuance. The full backstory is contained in the 2023 IBA Championships disqualification section. We should remove it from the opening paragraph of the 2024 Olympics section and place it into the 2023 disqualification paragraph. sloth (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slothtysloth No, the material about the IBA belongs in the sentence about that topic. As @NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM has patiently discussed, to shove in the material about the entity being discredited, and somehow link it to the boxer having their status revised is WP:SYNTH when the two matters are in no way related.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The IOC suspended the IBA in 2019, years before this controversy with Khelif began. The IOC revoked the IBA's Olympic status in 2023 for not implementing reforms that were requested in 2019. None of these reforms were related to Khelif because they precede that case, so attempting to connect the two would be synthesis. The content is most appropriate to the 2024 Summer Olympics section as MatthewDalhousie said, because the content refers to the IBA's revoked status at the 2024 Olympics, not the 2023 World Championships. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Do not start an edit war, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM - there is a lot of personal investigation into the IBA here by editors, which has little relations to these tests and is WP:synth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"Victims of cyberbullying"

Would be nice to see a RS for this claim. Simply being controversial isn't the same thing Trade (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've looked. There's no news article about this subject experiencing cyberbullying. Will remove, thanks for alerting @Trade MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed already. As you were. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a recurring issue with this particular category. Might need a broader discussion elsewhere Trade (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to include this para as it shows the viewpoints of another competitor in the Olympic comp

"While not labelling Khelif as transgender, competing Australian boxer Marissa Williamson-Pohlman noted that Khelif may be XY-chromosome, and said that it was fair that she should declare that she was XY-chromosome if that was the case. [36] [37]"

I think the idea that Williamson didn't accuse her of being trans or a man... BUT has asked for transparency is noteworthy. While Marissa Williamson says she MAY be XY chromosome, the IBA and RS have indicated that she was, which would seem to make the claim in this case, more supported. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You may include the information, but rewrite it with proper grammar and remove any redundancy about the IBA president, as it has already been mentioned excessively. Also remove any biased tone; a competitor cannot merely 'note' someone’s XY chromosomes. They can express complaints or speculate, but not make such factual observations. That's a molecular level observation. sloth (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, good points - how is this?

"While not labelling Khelif as transgender, competing Australian boxer Marissa Williamson-Pohlman stated that Khelif may be XY-chromosome. Williamson-Pohlman said that Khelif should be transparent that she was XY-chromosome if that was the case." Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see this edit for why this was removed. M.Bitton (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - I saw that edit, that's why I am discussing it here. I think its a valid inclusion, and the fact is, the article supports the fact Khelif may be XY chromosome by the reference to what the IBA have stated. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't really have any idea what Khelif's chromosomes look like. The IBA statement on what they believe is relevant because they might have done tests, and therefore may have some authority.

But another boxer speculating about Khelif's chromosomes, or making a hypothetical comment about what it would imply if she had certain chromosomes, feels less obviously relevant to me - the former because it's speculation and the latter because it's a hypothetical hinging on a significant unknown. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hang on, as another female boxer potentially competing in an olympic match with her, in her sport, her viewpoint is IMHO *completely relevant* and worthy of inclusion, and it also mirrors others in the sport who have similiar concerns. And has already been mentioned by other editors, the IBA determination has been reported by noted RS and is mentioned in the article already, so its not merely "speculation".Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know the IBA statement is mentioned. It should be, of course. But we don't know that the IBA statement is necessarily true. The dispute over that is a large portion of the news cycle around this whole thing.

If we knew beyond doubt that Khelif had XY chromosomes, then there might be cause for inclusion of the other athlete's comment about competing against women with XY chromosomes. But that statement, for now, is not of certain relevance to Khelif specifically. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian, there is so much in this article that needs fixing. It's a long way from being anything like encyclopaedic. It certainly doesn't need any theories picked up that have been overheard from other competitors. I'm afraid that would be, to my mind, a clear case of WP:SPECULATION. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seconding this sentiment. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I can see I am up against it, so will leave it as is. Thanks all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove parroted language that the IBA decision is legally binding

The article notes that the withdrawal of Khelif’s appeal made “the IBA decision legally binding.” First, the linked source doesn’t support this. Second, this claim is solely provided by the IBA statement and is not supported by a reputable party. It may be binding per IBA rules, but it is not necessary “legally binding.” This is an important clarification and the language should be removed from the article. Khaveman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Done

AntiDionysius (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of controversy in lede

This situation is turning fairly rapidly into a media circus and culture war battleground, with US political candidates and UK government ministers feeling the need to comment—with some of them outright spreading misinformation. Given the prominence of this gender controversy, should it be given coverage in the article's lede section? I'd like to hear others' thoughts on the idea. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

They can feel the need to comment on what's well beyond their "expertise" all they want, we don't have to give "whatever they're selling to their readers" any coverage. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I put it in the lead yesterday and another user removed it. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree that the situation is notable enough that it should be included in the lead. It can just be a single sentence saying something like "she was the center of controversy after people started to falsely claim that she's a transgender woman." JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Quote sources

Right now, the article says "Carini cited an 'unfairness' of competing against Khelif" which is a strange way to describe what an athlete said during a sporting event. The MSN source listed thereafter does not support this claim. Carini's apology should also be mentioned in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivLovisa (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 2 August 2024

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

State that

Angela Carini later apologized for her reaction, stating she was angry because of her loss
IBA only disqualified Imane after she beat a Russian athlete Azalia Amineva

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/2024/08/01/imane-khelif-algerian-boxer-gender-paris-olympics/ Caralice (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC) copied from WP:RFPP/E by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The IBA disqualified Imane Khelif after her victory over Uzbekistani boxer Navbakhor Khamidova. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"IBA only disqualified Imane after she beat a Russian athlete Azalia Amineva" this is WP:synth, isn't it? It's claiming the reason Imane was disqualified was because she beat a Russian. There's no RS proving that, as far as I know so its WP:speculation - whether its the case or not is not known. Also as has been said, it was after she beat an Uzebkistani boxer. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It is stated in the AP article: Khelif was disqualified from the International Boxing Association’s world championships three days after she won an early-round bout with Azalia Amineva, a previously unbeaten Russian prospect.

The disqualification meant Amineva’s official record was perfect again. Le Loy (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

More Details from Carpenter's Washington Post story needed

Key details from Les Carpenter's Washington Post story were left out of the "2023: IBA Championships disqualification" section.

To wit... Motive for the IBA chief (a Putin ally) to disqualify Khelif: "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."

A source (admittedly unnamed) commenting thusly: "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.'"

Without this, Khelif's "big conspiracy" comment sounds overblown and hyperbolic. Given the context above, one could argue she has a point. Djmcguire1972 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 3 August 2024

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

Change the sentence "The IOC stated that Khelif was a woman according to her passport [...]" to 'The IOC stated that Khelif "was born female, was registered female, lived her life as a female, boxed as a female, has a female passport."' with the following reference: https://www.ft.com/content/a7066d5d-23fb-4abd-8ca5-03704f6ca3e2 Aliais77 (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC) copied from WP:RFPP/E by Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: Can you please provide the relevant quote from the non-accessible source? M.Bitton (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Done using this source. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sky Sports interview

In a statement to Sky Sports today, Khelif's father stated, "My child is a girl. She was raised as a girl. She's a strong girl." Does this belong in the article? If so, where? Mellamelina (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

protected edit request: August 3. Wikilink to 'football'

To a US reader, the mention of 'football' will be read as American football, whereas I strongly suspect that it means what we call 'soccer'. At the least, please put a wikilink on 'football' so that if someone hovers over it they will see that it means 'soccer'. I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy on how to clearly distinguish between American football and international football/soccer. But I think this clarification is important given the nature of the claims here (American football is strongly gendered, whereas soccer is not in the USA).

AdamChrisR (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I added a link to Association football. Mellamelina (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

@Tobby72: can you please refrain from restoring what has been deleted? If you want to have it in the article, seek consensus for it. As for the rest, it goes without saying that contentious material would need to be supported by multiple high quality WP:RS before it can be considered for inclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Coverage about the whole issue

I am starting to see the reliable sources wading into explaining into what the issue is circling around. First one is now Associated Press, https://apnews.com/article/olympics-2024-khelif-russia-boxing-b53b1edda21139d14a572bd35ca440e6 pointing out IBA untrustworthiness w/r/t disqualification. This might be useful for the article. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

Add UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, statements.

A possible addition could be: Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, tweeted about the match, writing, “Angela Carini rightly followed her instincts and prioritized her physical safety, but she and other female athletes should not have been exposed to this physical and psychological violence based on their sex."

Some RS confirming the above:

-The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/01/angela-carini-abandons-fight-after-46-seconds-against-imane-khelif

-Evening Standard https://ca.news.yahoo.com/italian-boxer-quits-olympic-bout-113506942.html

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose this addition, personally. It's a comment by one person and it does not to me seem relevant. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your personal opinion does not matter. You have been edit warring here making one-sided edits in what seems like direct editorializing from you, which goes against WP rules. When enough RS have reported on this, the article must reflect this in a NPOV.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus. I am expressing a view on whether or not this should be included. Other editors are also welcome to express their views. Then we can go with the consensus.

I also categorically haven't been edit warring, but alright. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If you were trying to enhance the article by consensus instead of destabilizing the article via editorializing, you could easily add, using the very relevant RS, and responde to the open edit-request. Something tells me you won't, the same way you deleted edit-warring notices on your personal Talk Page.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Users have the right to remove notices from their talk pages, per Wikipedia policy. If you believe me to be edit warring, you are welcome to make a report at the edit warring noticeboard.

I am trying to work with consensus by not immediately making your suggested edit or immediately rejecting it. There is no obligation to positively respond to all edit requests just because they reference some reliable sources. It is common practice to respond that something should be discussed and consensus established before an edit request is approved or rejected. It's such common practice that we have a whole template: {{esp|c}} AntiDionysius (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

SUPPORT INCLUSION: I cannot agree with your observation that it is a comment "by one person". Does a UN special rapporteur represent the UN or not? This is an important addition to this person's article Billsmith60 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, Reem Alsalem has a very well sourced WP article conveying her bonafides that warrant inclusion. This is not a random tweet or an opinion piece, she represents, since August 2021, all women and has a global UN mandate to "...seek and receive information on violence against women, recommend ways to eliminate violence against women at national, regional and intersectionality levels, and work collaboratively with the other United Nations human rights mechanisms."

All of this showcases this is important, relevant, non-contested, and verifiable. We need to include this to maintain NPOV. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:147A:F431:89E6:80C2 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Removal: It is not clear what is Reem Alsalem's connection to amateur boxing, or the athlete in question to comment on this issue. This is as non-sequitur and factually inaccurate as a statement as the athlete in question is not trans. 2600:6C44:767F:8E58:554E:854A:6C56:56C0 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Billsmith60 UN Special Rapporteurs do not speak for the UN as a whole, no. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, from Wikipedia (is it a reliable source): "Special rapporteur (or independent expert) is the title given to independent human rights experts whose expertise is called upon by the United Nations (UN) to report or advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective"? Are you saying this is incorrect? Please can you support your terse assertion that special rapporteurs do not speak for the UN? Billsmith60 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures-human-rights-council/special-procedures-human-rights-council

Section "Special Procedures are individual experts". Flounder fillet (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's...in the text that you posted right there. They advise the UN. They are not spokespeople for the UN. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

should not have been exposed to this physical and psychological violence based on their sex what does that even mean? Does it mean that women shouldn't be involved in violent sports? Whatever it means, it certainly doesn't belong in this article as it is about Angela Carini. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove the irrelevant opinion. 16:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

SUPPORT INCLUSION:I don't necessarily agree with the statement, but given the position of the author of the quote (A UN appointed person on violence against women and girls), it would seem to be an important inclusion and should be included under WP:BAL. I'd be uncomfortable deliberately excluding it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/olympics-dsd-rules-focus-womens-boxing-2024-07-31/ "Boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting at last year's world championships in New Delhi fell foul of International Boxing Association (IBA) eligibility rules that prevent athletes with XY chromosomes from competing in women's events." Direct from Reuters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbbowlingmd (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Plenty of RS are covering this. Even the most respected ones like AP, BBC, and Reuters yet there is strong editorializing here by two users who are trying to prevent a NPOV from acurately what RS are reporting.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This is covered in the current text; it notes that the IBA say it was a chromosome issue and the IOC say it was a testosterone issue. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Another sports official has stated that tests showed Imane to be biologically male.

Note: at any point a single cheek swab could prove XX chromosomes and disgrace everyone claiming otherwise, this would be an insane lie to tell.

For now, the lines "There is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone. Khelif was born female and identifies as female." should be removed. "No evidence of" and "born female" are vague and misleading given that this is unfolding, not to mention the cited sources are simply quoting statements from representatives of the IOC. It is appalling to cite these as fact as opposed to in-line, given that the IOC is implicated in this controversy.

Here's the support from [9], : "'We have two boxers who were born as women, who have been raised as women, who have a passport as a woman, and who have competed for many years as women,' Bach said." This is "International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach," per the article. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:ParanoidAltoid: I totally agree that the sentence "Khelif was born female and identifies as female" should be removed/changed. (The first sentence is already changed, but still bad, IMO). I think it should be replaced with "Khelif was registered as female at birth and identifies as female." This Guardian-article says "Khelif[], who were registered as women at birth and held passports as females".Huldra (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS (tons of them) stating that she was born female, so there is no excuse, none whatsoever, they shouldn't be given their due weight. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Huldra's suggestion, enough RS's report that Imane was assigned female from birth, and point out that this must be the case since Algeria does not recognize transitioning.

But for "was born female", here's the currently cited source: ""People tried to disqualify Imane, for nothing, for no reason. She was born female. She will die a female," said Taha Oundrouis, a 41-year-old physician from Paris. 'If you cannot prove she’s a male, then you must shut up and leave her alone,' Oundrouis said."

Just as the IOC is not an RS, statements quoted in man-on-the-street reporting are not RS. Should we add "You must shut up and leave her alone." to the lede? This appears to be the stance of many Wiki admins, why not make it explicit?

This is contentious material about a living person. To find an article that quotes someone giving an opinion you like, inserting that opinion verbatim into a Wiki article, and hope no one notices or cares... Editors who do this should be banned, and admins who enable this should be stripped of their privileges. Seriously, this is horrible for Wikipedia's reputation and squanders the trust Wikipedia has earned over the years. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies

Would this banner be appropriate to add given the whole controversy? Trade (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not. We have no confirmation that she is transgender, nor intersex. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant because of the controversy. I wasnt trying to imply that the controversy had any truth to it. The controversy takes up 1/3 of the article so we cant really claim it's insignificant Trade (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from involving Imane in LGBT-related discussions, as she is from a country where being LGBT is criminalized. She has faced criticism in the past for dressing in a way deemed too masculine for a woman and has never officially stated that she is a lesbian or intersex; all she has confirmed is that she was born female. We cannot categorize her based on assumptions. sloth (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Did i claimed her to be lesbian or intersex? No Trade (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been discussions before about the inclusion of wikiproject categories. AFAIR the general consensus has been if Wikiproject members feel that the article is within the scope of their wikiproject, it's not for outsiders to worry about. It's accepted that Wikiprojects tags which are simply internal management stuff, don't convey anything about the article subject so it's not a BLP or other violation. As I'm not a member of any wikiproject, I don't worry much about whether any wikiproject tag is added but if members of a wikiproject like the LGBT studies one want to add this article, I see no reason to oppose it. I can see obvious reasons why this article may be of interest to the LGBT studies Wikiproject. While our article doesn't currently mention this (although has in the past), people have been attacking her based on the false claims she is a trans woman, people well known for their opposition to trans rights. Such attacks may or may not have any long term significance, I'm not convinced they belong at this time; but in any case it's still part of the background as demonstrated by the fact currently we use a source which mentions such attacks in the title. Likewise if the inclusion criteria for women's boxing is affecting even cis women athletes, it's quite likely it will affect trans athletes. Still as I said, it's ultimately up to members of that wikiproject to decide if this article is sufficiently in scope. There are plenty of examples where someone is within scope of the LGBT studes wikiproject despite the subject not themselves being part of the umbrella. Gay icons are obvious examples, e.g. Judy Garland. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I would say Khelif qualifies for the WikiProject. Anyone saying that it doesn't qualify are presenting faulty arguments, with no merit. And the discussion on the WikiProject talk page leans toward inclusion of this article. Historyday01 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Where and when did she confirmed that she was born female? May i see the source please? Kalaboomsky (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many, such as this one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The article you shared only quoted IOC President Thomas Bach. Kalaboomsky (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a reliable source and Bach unambiguously states that they were born as a woman. Please don't continue this. TarnishedPath^talk 01:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. All the recent sources state this. Kalaboomsky is being disingenuous and continuing a line of discussion which is not productive. Historyday01 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

While I'm extremely sympathetic to considering any risk a subject may face from what we do, let's be realistic here. There's a very low chance that someone in Algeria who is stupid enough to think the inclusion of the LGBT studies wikiproject means she is LGBT, will notice the wikiproject and harm her as a result. Especially considering we already have the J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk ~~falsely~~ claiming she is ~~trans~~edit: a man (when AFAIK we still don't even know if she even is DSD or has XY chromosomes and it's very unlikely they have better info than us which is that a very untrustworthy organisation made the claim in dubious circumstances)end edit and the Prime Minister of Italy also saying something similar. Along with what the IBA did. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne. I don't know about Musk, but J.K. Rowling has never (AFAIK) referred to Imane Khelif as "trans", Rowling refers to Khelif as "male" (as she refers to anyone who has (she believes) XY chromosomes). Huldra (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra: It looks like you're right so I've modified my statement accordingly. Unfortunately I misunderstood an earlier version of the article [4] and was probably also influenced by the limited stuff I'd read on this. Since it concerns living persons, I really should have checked better before making the statement, although I don't think it matters much to the point. Nil Einne (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright i have asked the Wikiproject members whether or not they feel that the article is within the scope of their wikiproject Trade (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies § Imane Khelif. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No, they have not publicly identified as being LGBT. While non-LGBT persons may have the WikiProject LGBT studies banner added because of their interest to the LGBT community (Kylie Minogue for example), I think we ought to act cautiously here given the country that they have to live in. Because of the potential real-world ramifications for their life I think we have to strongly consider BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I can respect a fear for potential real-world ramifications/common sense argument here, but IMO, any real world ramifications here will be from the article-text, which includes more than half the WP:LEAD, not from adding a Wikiproject template to a collapsed section on a page comparatively few readers [5][6] look at.

IMO, if potential real-world ramifications is a worry here, the WP:LEAD is the bit to worry most about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
If you don't think the world's media takes notice of our talk pages, you're mistaken. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
They do, but not nearly as much as about what's in the articles. And on this particular issue, I've haven't seen any media coverage on the WP-angle at all. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a media comment on the use of Wikiproject banners on talkpages. Media has of course noticed wikiprojects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I would support adding more about the controversy using reliable sources, which would be summarized in a sentence or two (since many of the articles have similar information) in the sub-section "Second-round fight against Angela Carini". Here is my proposed text, which would follow the last sentence of the first paragraph:

Online backlash included comments from individuals such as author J.K. Rowling, former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, U.S. Senator Rick Scott, First Lady of Florida Casey DeSantis, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, U.S. Senator JD Vance, and Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, stating that Khelif shouldn't have been allowed to compete and falsely claiming she was a man fighting a woman.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Others apologized for their role in spreading misinformation, including social media influencer Logan Paul and the Boston Globe, with the latter stating that their mistaken headline, which incorrectly claimed that Khelif was transgender, "regretful and unacceptable."^[5]^[6]^[7]

~~In the final paragraph, following the final sentence of the the sub-section "Second-round fight against Angela Carini" also add~~:

Previously, International Olympic Committee (IOC) spokesperson Mark Adams also stated that Khelif was “born female, was registered female, lived her life as a female, boxed as a female, has a female passport" and "this is not a transgender case."^[8] Others came to her Khelif's defense and celebrated her win, including Algeria’s minister of youth and sports Abderrahmane Hammad, soccer player Ismaël Bennacer and the National Black Justice Collective.^[9]

I would argue ~~that these articles, plus~~ the existing text in the article, would undoubtedly support adding the LGBT studies WikiProject to this page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update. I am withdrawing my proposed text from consideration. Please disregard this text.Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump decides who is and isn't LGBT? M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That question makes no sense and I find it inflammatory, so I'm not going to respond to a loaded question like that. He would ONLY be mentioned here due to the fact he spread false claims about Khelif. By not mentioning the online backlash and noting specific individuals, this article is missing an entire dimension of talk about Khelif. I'm not saying I agree with the backlash, but it happened. So, the present article minimizes it TOO much. Historyday01 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That's exactly what you're suggesting: adding LGBT to an article based solely on what a ex-president and some celebrities' irrelevant opinions (which say more about them than her) about a subject that is well beyond their expertise. Would the opinion of a carpenter be relevant in an article about Quantum chemistry? M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the text I am proposing is perfect. It surely isn't. In fact, it could probably be cut down MORE. But, I believe it should be added to the article in some form. I care little about the opinions of "a ex-president and some celebrities". Rather, I am only trying to capture recent comments about Khelif and summarize them in such a way that readers could understand what is going on. That is all. You are being very disingenuous here, to say the least, and your comments continue to be unnecessarily inflammatory. Your comments are not helpful. I've already posted about my proposed text on the LGBT studies WikiProject. I guarantee they will have much more constructive comments than your comments. Even people on Reddit make better arguments than you do, which is saying a lot.Historyday01 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion of my arguments will be ignored as utterly and completely irrelevant.

Tabloid like comments on a subject by unreliable sources (that's what they are given that it's well beyond their expertise) do not belong in any article, let alone a BLP.

Note: the sole purpose of the above proposal is to justify the advertisement of the interest of a handful of editors at the expense of the reputation of a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok. The sources I cited in my proposed text are reliable. Your "informational note" is wholly inaccurate. To act like the LGBT studies WikiProject is some niche interest, as it seems you are doing, is denigrating and dishonest. If you have that much of an issue with the text, then write your own text and propose it here! Unless you do that, I reason that your arguments don't hold much weight at all. Historyday01 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I've had it with your nonsense. Commenting on my argument is one thing, but accusing me of dishonesty is not something that I will tolerate. As far as I'm concerned, what you think of me says more about you than it doesn about me, so I suggest you comment on the subject and give the aspersions a rest. All wikiprojects are niche, that's a fact. M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
OK. I stand by what I said, as it seemed that way to me. It also seemed that your arguments were being disingenuous here. I see no point in continuing discussion about this topic with you, as it has clearly devolved to such a point that further discussion about this topic with you is seemingly impossible. Historyday01 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Persistently casting aspersions is not something that would give weight to your argument, if anything.... M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
After your recent threat toward me on the WikiProject LGBT studies talk page, please do not EVER contact me again. I never wish to engage in any discussion on any topic with you at ANY point in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement as it was unnecessarily harsh.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I have never contacted you before and have no reason to ever do so, but if you ever redact my comment again, you will take a trip to ANI (that's a promise). M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Just one final comment on here (I know I said I didn't want to engage with you about any discussion, but I just want to make one quick point here). With some reflection here, I can admit that I could have conducted this discussion better and I will do better in the future with other users. I have also withdrawn my proposed text from consideration and striken most of my comments on here. As such, I think we can consider this matter PERMANENTLY closed.Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding more article-content is not really the subject of this thread, it's about the talkpage (I know, I mentioned article-text myself). Fwiw, I think the current content on this issue has WP:PROPORTION/WP:NOTNEWS ("while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized") problems as it is, but now is probably not the time to deal with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok. When would you suggest adding article-text then? Should we wait a week or so until more news come out? Or just let it pass? Historyday01 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Waiting a week or 5 is fine with me, but I don't expect that to happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah ok. Thanks for replying. With the recent kerfuffle, I don't have any intention of adding this to the page, nor participating in any discussions about Khelif any time in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I've rethought this and I withdraw any objection to using the LGBT project banner. It's irrelevant if they are LGBT, this subject and the manufactured controversy surrounding it is of interest to the LGBT community. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
In general it seems extremely obvious to me that people can be relevant to social issues or activist movements that they were not personally a member of, or active in, or even really aware of. For example, John Birch had no affiliation with the John Birch Society; Emmett Till had no affiliation with the American civil rights movement; Phan Thi Kim Phuc had no affiliation with American anti-war activism. Obviously they were relevant to these things: Birch was killed by Communists, Till was killed by racists, and Phan was maimed by napalm in an act of war -- but they were not actively affiliated with the respective movements. Nonetheless, I think it's pretty obvious to say that any group trying to write about the John Birch Society would consider John Birch in their purview -- even if, I mean, who knows what he would think about them? jp×g 🗯️ 23:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Your source materials need to support the points you've made

@Slothtysloth, would you mind taking a look at the paragraph you've contributed that begins "During her performance..." First of all, boxers don't perform, they fight. But much more importantly, your sources don't back up much of what you've claimed. To begin, JK Rowling has criticised the IOC, according to the citation you've offered at least. Also, I don't think they've said anything about cisgender. Nor do they say jot about financial transparency. Please give it a good look or I think we remove the paragraph and start again. Hope that's okay with you. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not personally write the section referring to 'performance,' but the term is used correctly in this context, as it denotes the action or process of executing a task or function, it happened after she had won. If you have strong objections to the use of 'performance" please suggest an alternative term; however, I want to clarify that I did not author that particular section myself.

The text does indeed highlight criticism directed at the IOC for allowing Imane to compete, and the references clearly support this.

If you had thoroughly reviewed the references, you would have seen that it also addresses financial transparency issues. For instance, the article from NBC Chicago states: "The IOC is in charge of boxing in Paris because the IBA has been banned from the past two Olympics due to years of governance problems, a lack of financial transparency, and numerous perceived instances of corruption in judging and refereeing." a few other articles were removed for excessive sourcing.

Hope that answers your questions. sloth (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slothtysloth thanks for replying.

Some thoughts and observations.

1. Apologies for assuming you wrote "perform." As mentioned, the right verb for this sport is, unsurprisingly, "fight."

2. There seem to be two main articles this paragraph depends on beginning with this one in Variety which

2.1 Makes no mention of "trans"

2.2 Make it clear that J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk are criticising the IOC

2.3 Does not suggest that these figures have strong views against transgender rights (and even if it did that would be relevant to articles about those figures, this is a BLP about a boxer, not various billionaires).

2.4 Say nothing about anything being "overlooked", if they have overlooked something, that would be from your original research, which isn't what we're doing here.

2.5 Says nothing about the IBA or bans

3. The second article the paragraph leans on is (and I wish I was joking here) The Hollywood Reporter

3.1 Says nothing about any individual's view of trans people, except to say "with many seeming to believe she is a man" which, seriously, ain't the same thing.

3.2 Make it clear that J.K. Rowling is criticising the IOC

3.3 Does suggest that J.K. Rowling is critical of the trans movement, but nothing about rights, and even if she was, again, that would belong in an article about JK Rowling

3.4 Say nothing about anything being "overlooked", if they have overlooked something, that would be from your original research, which isn't what we're doing here.

3.5 Says nothing about the IBA or bans

In short, unless you, or some other editor, can fix this paragraph up, I'm inclined to remove it. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like all this problematic material mentioned above has now been removed. Matter resolved. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Why was I reverted?

In this edit. Courtesy ping to Abds97 who did not offer any explanation whatsoever. I get that their situations are different but see also links don't have to be directly comparable. I thought it was useful further context because it provides background about notable athletes who have been subjected to sex testing (which Khelif was even if there is no evidence that she has any specific intersex condition). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reverted your edit, but I have to agree with Abds97 because what you added is not in the same defining category as this topic. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SEE ALSO states that One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category.

I'd argue notable Olympic athletes that have been subjected to sex testing is related enough, even if their unique situations are very different. This article also says The minutes also say that the IBA should "establish a clear procedure on gender testing" so to me, I think it's incredibly relevant to provide background on the history of the IBA's IOC's procedures on gender testing (which this article provides extensive detail about the recent history of all that). It's not the end of the world if it's not included but I do think there's a decent reason to consider it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not add all women boxers? The relation between the them is notable and undisputed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Because if you added all women boxers then that see also section would be crazy long and unreadable. A link to List of women boxers seems relevant enough to me. But I also think that Semenya should be included given that her case is directly relevant to the current procedures the ~~IBA~~ IOC has for sex testing and when women are considered to have an "unfair advantage" (which to me is unfair because plenty of men have advantages over other men. I bring this up as an example because if there is a comparable situation where a man had higher testosterone levels or something and that got extensive coverage, we should include that guy as a link as well). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I could see Semenya's case being included as an example in the Sex verification in sports article, but I agree that it shouldn't be included here. Mellamelina (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is that it's not just a random example of an athlete whose been subject to sex testing. Her case has direct implications to which athletes are allowed to compete in the Olympics. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, but ultimately this is an article about Imane Khelif, not about the implications of sex testing in sports. It might also lead some people to presume that Khelif is intersex like Semenya. Mellamelina (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

An annotated link like what I suggested below might be the solution to that. I didn't think of the implications that it'd leave readers to assume Khelif was intersex, honestly I was thinking about it from the opposite angle, that all this random controversy has to be about something else given the current rules. ~~As I stated earlier, this article literally states The minutes also say that the IBA should "establish a clear procedure on gender testing" (even if that's a quote) and~~ I think it's useful to provide background to readers that you know there is actually a procedure for all that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I was wrong about the IBA angle because this appears to refer to the International Boxing Association. I'm not super into sports and made the incorrect assumption that it was some Olympics-related acronym. The article makes the distinction between the two organizations fairly clear so I'm not sure how I missed that and I'm sorry for providing inaccurate information above. I've struck those parts. Anyways, I've said my piece. As I've already stated, I think a link would be useful but it also would not be the end of the world if it is not included. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For examples of what I mean, read Caster Semenya#2015 testosterone rule change and Caster Semenya#2018 testosterone rule change. I genuinely believe this is useful background for readers. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, I think background information like this would be more appropriate in the Sex verification in sports article. Mellamelina (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. Anyway, I added Lin Yu-ting, who happens to be mentioned in RS alongside Khelif. Please remember that this is a WP:BLP (i.e., it must be written conservatively). M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that this is a BLP. I have no issues with your link to Yu-ting and I took your question as literal, which is why I added a wikilink to List of women boxers. We obviously disagree on the merits of Semenya and I won't reinstate that link without a consensus, but I do genuinely believe it's a useful link that provides context to readers. It might be useful as a bulleted link under sex verification in sports with an annotated link that says something about the current practice of sex testing in the Olympics. As to inclusion in the sex verification article, it already is, although I think the information there could be more detailed. I don't think that means it can't be included as a see also link here as well. I look forward to what editors have to say on the matter because I don't think we're accomplishing much in this back and forth. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I also wanted to say this there is no rush to decide this right now. I'm okay with waiting until discussion surrounding the article subject is way less heated. I understand other people's concerns on why we might want to err on the side of caution. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"Prominent anti-trans figures"

J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, and Logan Paul are listed as "prominent anti-trans figures". That seems absurd, no? The contributing editor is interjecting their own descriptors of the trio instead of actually following the source, which lists them as prominent figures only. Unless there is another source that characterizes these three as prominent anti-trans figures, it should be removed.

StalkerFishy (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Mellamelina (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I would also put into question why the article talks about "spreading misinformation". I think it is cleaner and more neutral for the article to either 1) cite the commentary of public figures (on both sides of the issue), and let the reader decide what arguments are more persuasive, or 2) remove these sentences and not even mention that someone spread misinformation. Why does it matter in a Wikipedia article if someone spreads misinformation about something? It is unnecessary clutter. I do think that if there are public figures that share their own opinions, those could be considered for inclusion. But let the opinions (of diverse perspectives) speak for themselves, and the article should not label that commentary as other than opinions.Al83tito (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd remove this sentence entirely:

"After the fight, prominent figures, including J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, and Logan Paul, spread misinformation to allege that Khelif had not been assigned female at birth."

I think the sentence following that is neutral and sufficient enough to get the point across:

"Because of this, Khelif received online backlash from those who questioned her gender." Mellamelina (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. besides, that sentence was restored after being removed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Rowling and Musk have both been embroiled in anti-trans drama repeatedly. Obviously it isn't what either of them are best known for, but they have both been very vocal about trans issues. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they would refer to themselves as anti-trans figures, would they? nor would people who empathise with their views lable them as such. They may be percieved as such by people with a certain view. I would tend to agree, calling them "anti-trans figures" I think is not NPOV and editorialising. As wikipedians, we need to be neutral about these matters.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk are considered anti-trans figures in dozens of reliable sources. I don't think Logan Paul has dozens of RSes referring to him as an anti-trans figure. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's appropriate to clarify that Musk and Rowling are anti-trans advocates and that their statements on this are in the context of their anti-trans rhetoric. Rowling hasn't complained about other olympic issues, only this, and only because it's part of her narrative. Jikybebna (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

This information was reverted, with the following edit summary: "GLAAD is in no position to make claims about her based on "unconfirmed" hearsay. Take the rest to the talk page as it has been removed before". I think it is relevant and should be included.

According to a fact check from GLAAD, there have been unconfirmed reports that she has differences of sexual development, known as DSDs.^[10]

The IOC's decision was the subject of controversy and criticism, including from former boxing world champion Barry McGuigan and Australian boxing team captain Caitlin Parker.^[11]^[12]

-- Tobby72 (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, we should be very careful with repeating unsubstantiated rumors. The phrasing here seems to imply GLAAD is promoting the unconfirmed reports rather than dismissing them. The original source is strictly saying that the claims about Khelif are unverified and based solely on the IBA. The current lead seems to communicate this well.

Because Imane Khelif was disqualified from the 2023 International Boxing Association (IBA) championship due to an unspecified gender eligibility test, which has different eligibility criteria than the IOC, there have been unconfirmed reports that she may have a variation in her sex traits, also known as differences of sexual development (DSDs). [...] It is not verified that Imane Khelif has a variation in sex traits or DSDs.

Adding List of intersex Olympians etc. in the See also section was not appropriate. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders:, thanks for your opinion. What about the second sentence? The IOC's decision was the subject of controversy and criticism, including from former boxing world champion Barry McGuigan and Australian boxing team captain Caitlin Parker. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on what and what's that got to do with her? M.Bitton (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. What makes you think the comments by aging ex-boxers have been given enough coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion? I don't see such coverage anywhere near the standard required for this article. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

References

^ Beacham, Greg (August 2, 2024). "Who is Imane Khelif? Algerian boxer facing gender outcry had modest success before Olympics". Associated Press. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ D'Angelo, Tom (August 3, 2024). "Ron DeSantis, Rick Scott appeal to base with anti-trans rhetoric on Algerian Olympic boxer". Palm Beach Post. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ Janetsky, Megan (August 3, 2024). "Vitriol about female boxer Imane Khelif fuels concern of backlash against LGBTQ+ and women athletes". Associated Press. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ Janetsky, Megan (August 4, 2024) [August 3, 2024]. "Christians Push Back Against Conservative Fury at Imane Khelif". Newsweek. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ Bechara, Diego Ramos (August 4, 2024) [August 3, 2024]. "Logan Paul Admits to 'Spreading Misinformation' After Making Controversial Remarks About Olympic Boxer Imane Khelif". Variety. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ Van Brugen, Isabel (August 4, 2024) [August 3, 2024]. "Algerian Boxer at Center of Gender Controversy Breaks Her Silence as She Secures Olympic Medal". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ "Editor's note". The Boston Globe. August 3, 2024. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ Fox, Kara (August 2, 2024). "Why Italian boxer Angela Carini apologized to Olympic fight winner Imane Khelif". CNN. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ Li, David K.; Burke, Minyvonne; Abdelkader, Rima (August 3, 2024). "Imane Khelif wins fight and declares, 'I want to tell the entire world that I am a female'". NBC News. Retrieved August 4, 2024.
^ "Fact check on Algerian fighter Imane Khelif, DSDs, biology and Olympic boxing". USA Today. 2 August 2024.
^ Brown, Oliver (31 July 2024). "Reprehensible IOC is actively exposing female boxers to extreme harm". The Telegraph.
^ "What to Know About the Gender Fight in Olympic Boxing". Time. 1 August 2024. Archived from the original on 3 August 2024. Retrieved 2 August 2024.

Hamori

@JackkBrown: regarding this edit:

what makes you that it belongs in this article? If you believe that it says something about Khelif, then you're welcome to explain what that something is and seek consensus for the material. M.Bitton (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: in my opinion the statement should be included, since it implicitly refers to Khelif. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

She is not transgender and does not identify as intersex

This information was reverted, with the following edit summary: "I think I've seen enough WP:POINTY edits on this topic. Take it to talk, and please stop using vague misleading edit summaries."

She is not transgender and does not identify as intersex.^[1]

Kremlev said the tests were carried out by medical professionals "at the request of female athletes" and after "the women's coaches complained a lot".^[2]

The IOC said the key criterion is the gender listed on the athlete's passport.^[3]

I will respect the consensus, but please explain why this content should not be included? Per WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why should she be identified in terms of what she's not when we have RS identifying her in terms of who she is (a female)? The IOC said many things (mentioned in the article).

Context you have previously added "Intersex" to the see also section (which was rightly reverted). M.Bitton (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. The media initially reported that Khelif is likely an intersex woman, based on tests that are now disputed. Still don't understand why the other text was deleted.-- Tobby72 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question (read the article and check the cited sources). As for what we do, it really depends on one's understanding of what Wikipedia is and how its rules (including the stringent BLP ones) apply. M.Bitton (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with M.Bitton. Furthermore, this dead horse has been beaten enough. Even the source (NBC Sports) that Tobby cited for that unnecessary sentence doesn't say exactly what Tobby added - they've very slightly twisted it into a similar sentence to support their own WP:POINTY edits. If Tobby wastes any more editors' time with this nonsense, I'd recommend someone else (I'd do it but I've already reverted Tobby's edits so maybe I'm too close to it) raises the issue with an admin and perhaps request that Tobby be barred from gender-related articles, broadly construed. We've done this before to minimize disruption and I can see that sanction being useful here. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

So instead of explaining your reasons and arguments for deleting the sourced text (including Kremlev's interview), all we got from you are threats and intimidation. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I was just trying to discuss the reasons why the text was removed, or how it could be reworded.

NBC Sports says: "Both boxers have always competed in women's divisions and there's no indication that they identify as transgender or intersex". The consensus is against it. I get it. What about the rest?-- Tobby72 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Thank you for your time. Kindly back away from the horse. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not a dead horse. Sky News and Deutsche Welle are good sources and these contents should be included in the article body alongside others on the opposite side of the argument to have a balanced and informative article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

References

^ "Imane Khelif wins fight and declares, 'I want to tell the entire world that I am a female'". NBC News. 3 October 2024.
^ "Imane Khelif: Boxing boss says Olympics is 'destroying women's sports' - as Algerian boxer in gender row guaranteed bronze in Paris". Sky News. 4 August 2024.
^ "Paris 2024: Who is to blame for boxing's Olympic outcry?". Deutsche Welle. 3 August 2024.

Coverage elsewhere

People who are interested in this article may also be interested in the content over at Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Women's boxing controversy. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

2 sentences in the lead:

I have a problem with 2 sentences in the lead:

First: "On 3 August 2024, she clinched at least a bronze medal in Paris after reaching the women's 66 kg semifinals"

Well, there are 4 people fighting in the semifinals, for gold, silver, bronze, and 4th place. So she could theoretically get the 4th place? Therefore I cannot see that "she clinched at least a bronze medal"? (yeah, I know RS writes that, but I cannot see how they can be right?)

Second: There is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone. But the source says "The IOC, which is overseeing the boxing competition in Paris, does not test for gender." So of course they cannot say if Khelif has XY chromosomes. And I have been trying to find out whether she has been tested for elevated levels of testosterone by the IOC, but that seems to be..not transparent. (If any source says so, I would be grateful if they gave a link). Also, the source says IBA said the women did not “undergo a testosterone examination” but “a separate and recognized test.” The statement added that the test and results are “confidential.”

My point is: if you don't test for XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone, you can always say that "There is no evidence that [...] has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone." Huldra (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Boxing is unique in that it awards two bronze medals, one for each of the losing semifinalists, i.e. there is no bronze medal fight. See here and here. (I had no prior knowledge of boxing before this, so I had the same thought as you.) Mellamelina (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks, I had no idea, either! That leaves only the other sentence, then, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That is just so interesting. Honestly. Learning more from the talk page than the actual article! MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

For 2, I don't see a reason to start another discussion about this. Please offer your feedback at #Request to Remove this sentence in the lead "There is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone.". Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Nil Einne; I missed that, Huldra (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The interview statement of István Kovács and reliable sources

I've made several comments above, in a couple of the topic sections, arguing that we simply don't have any good information, certainly up to 3 August 2024, about the chromosomes or biological status of Imane Khelif.

I need to be open to new information changing my mind as, I suppose, we all should.

This article from the Telegraph published 19 hours ago, represents new information, as it reports on statements by European Vice President of the World Boxing Organization, István Kovács, who has said:

"The problem was not with the level of Khelif’s testosterone, because that can be adjusted nowadays, but with the result of the gender test, which clearly revealed that the Algerian boxer is biologically male."

If you read the article, you can see that, in his role, Kovács has known there is an issue regarding the athlete's biological sex as far back as 2022. I recognise that the athlete is regarded as female by family and according to passport. To my mind, we now also have a hard statement, I believe the only one so far, indicating that some experts or people with a degree of authority in the sport, have a clear view of the athlete's biological status.

Certainly don't think it should change the article much. Only that there are reports from credible sources that the Athlete has been assessed as biologically male by some sports authorities.

The article in the Telegraph draws on an interview reported by the Hungarian language newspaper Magyar Nemzet. In one way, this is a primary source. We would need to decide if we're satisfied that the article constitutes a reliable source before proceeding. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so that's a big deal, and needs to be included. But we need a better source than the telegraph Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We also need to establish whether Kovács is a genuine authority here. Was he close enough to the testing process? Does he have a legitimate authority in the sport? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The supposed testing was undertaken by the IBA. The IBA was suspended from the Olympics in 2019 and banned in 2023. They have been criticised for a lack of transparency and governance. Their boss has been described as having deep ties to Russian organised crime and heroin trafficking. They are completely lacking in creditability. I don't think there's anything more to say here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Their boss has been described as having deep ties to Russian organised crime and heroin trafficking. Please mind WP:BLPTALK. You're mistaking Umar Kremlev for Gafur Rakhimov, who has been accused of drug trafficking but never charged with anything. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be very doubtful. The issue here is that the supposed "gender tests" show something, and that some functionaries take them as a gospel, but IOC and others doubt their veracity and that they exist in any way. I wouldn't use this in any way yet unless there's some more specific information that doesn't parrot IBA. Also it's Telegraph, which is not a solid RS on these topics. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Any news article parroting the IBA is not reliable (the source as a whole might be reliable, but the article wouldn't be) given the issues with the IBA. TarnishedPath^talk 02:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To be fair to Mr Kovács, in this 2024 interview, he is speaking as European Vice President of the World Boxing Organization. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sleeps-Darkly I can see there has been long discussion about The Daily Telegraph and its reliability, but am not seeing any firm conclusions by the editing community. It certainly isn't included amongst WP:DEPSOURCES. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It is irrelevant who he is speaking as. He's merely parroting the IBA claim. As discussed above the IBA is lacking in creditability. We should therefore treat any parroting of their claims in the same manner, regardless of where they come from. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

it's probably prudent to note (for this discussion, not the article), that István Kovács is a president of World Boxing Organization; while the Olympic boxing is set to be handled by World Boxing, different sports organization, established in 2023. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite right; understood.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

OK I've actually found the more specific thing: In March 2021, Kovács was appointed as a secretary general of AIBA under its new president, Umar Kremlev, then left it in 2022. Seems to be an important context here. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Right. And, at least according to this BBC report the name of the organisation used to be known as AIBA, since 1946, and then, at some point, it became known as the IBA, which was recognised as boxing's governing body by the IOC in 2019. This happened because of "governance issues and alleged corruption." MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Kovacs was in the IBA and left could mean he didn't like their standards and left in disgust for all we know, thereby making him more credible. That simple fact doesn't really mean anything here.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Female

@M.Bitton please can you explain your revert reason: “that has never been disputed”, in response to removing the wikivoice statement that the subject is female. How has this never been disputed? Is the dispute about this not the reason for the current wave of coverage? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You removed "was born female". That's a sourced statement (easily attributable to more RS if needs be). Do you have a RS that says that's not the case? M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The source says that various people make that claim. We have other sources making the claim that the subject is not female, or that it is complicated or ambiguous. It’s disputed. The dispute is the reason we are talking about it. I am not proposing adding a statement that the subject is male. I am proposing removing the assertion of something that we don’t currently know. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question:

You removed was born female. That's a sourced statement (easily attributable to more RS if needs be). Do you have a RS that says that's not the case? M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, here for example: [7]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say that she wasn't born female? M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It says …chromosomes that made them ineligible to compete in the women’s category. and this source[8] says “…male XY chromosomes were found…”. This is not enough to state in wikivoice that the subject is male, but it is enough to avoid making an unqualified assertion about something that is disputed. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have a reliable source that contradicts the sourced statement (which is easily attributable to more RS). Please remember that this is a [WP:BLP]]. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The existence of sources stating not-X are not the only reason to remove the statement X; it is also what we do when sources show that the matter is ambiguous, disputed, uncertain or controversial, especially in a BLP. The two sources I gave make it quite clear that this is a disputed matter and that medical evidence one way or the other is not in the public domain. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You do not get to contradict the reliably sourced statement with your WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not OR when sources say that the matter is controversial and that key details are unknown. Here’s one: [9]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to provide reliable sources that contradict the sourced statement (that is easily attributable to countless RS). M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Refer the first sentence of the sex assignment article: Sex assignment (also known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant's sex, typically made at birth based on an examination of the baby's external genitalia by a healthcare provider such as a midwife, nurse, or physician. Not based on her chromosomal makeup. Regardless of whether or not she has XY chromosomes (which neither of your sources state in their own voices, by the way, only in attribution to the suspect IBA), she was born female. I don't really like the phrase "assigned female at birth" phrase in this context, but would that be a reasonable substitution? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Born female is what most RS say, therefore, I see no reason to change it. M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Assigned is supported by numerous RS, and has the advantage of being undisputed. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Born is supported by more sources and has the advantage of being undisputed by RS. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Assigned female at birth is better, and can be sourced [10] and is compatible with all statements made by the involved parties. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Born female" is much better and has way more supporting RS. There is no valid reason not to give it its proper weight. M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreee that "Assigned female at birth" is better (source eg Guardian:[11]). Just out of interest: Would you say Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui were "Born female", or "assigned female at birth"? Huldra (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"better" is a personal opinion that has no basis in policy. Per WP:WEIGHT, the statement that has more support in RS (i.e., born female) takes precedence. The other athletes are not being discussed here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"more correct" would be better. I am not of the opinion that RS trumphs correctness, Huldra (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

RS and the policies (WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE) trump your opinion of what is "more correct". M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

IBA Press Conference 8/5/24

The IBA held a press conference today about their gender testing of Imane Khelif and Lin Yu Ting.

Mellamelina (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Umar Kremlev calling Thomas Bach a sodomite says everything there is to know about the IBA. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, they are without a shred of creditability. TarnishedPath^talk 03:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: both Americans and Russians very often speak badly of each other; to give an example, Putin has been portrayed for over two years by the American left as a mad and unhealthy person, a murderer, a fascist, and so on; after all this hatred from the American left towards Putin, complaining about an insult from a Russian makes no sense. Having said that, I'm neutral and don't take sides. JacktheBrown (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely irrelevant here, and we do not need any kind of soapboxing here -- it's an easy way to get sanctioned. Thanks. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sleeps-Darkly: to be fair and consistent, "Umar Kremlev calling Thomas Bach a sodomite says everything there is to know about the IBA" is also absolutely irrelevant here. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's really true - the credibility of the IBA is something of a central question to this whole thing. And I agree with @M.Bitton that Kremlev's comment delegitimises him; it's not that he just "insulted" Bach, it was that he chose to make an accusation of "sodomy" as if that is an insult. Combined with Kremlev's original comment that Khelif was a "man" trying to "fool" people into thinking she's a woman, it gives us an impression of the POV from which he's operating. AntiDionysius (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That surely is a mess. Previously they stated that the tests weren't about testosterone, now in this conference Kremlev claims “They have very high level of testosterone”. At least we can note that the sources presented here directly call the conference "chaotic" and "bizarre", so we can note this in the article. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

BBC: "The IBA said the tests were sent to two different laboratories that are accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada). However, Wada has told BBC Sport it does not oversee gender tests and its work only relates to anti-doping matters." Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these sources, I have went through them and added them into the article. I've skipped the part with Boualam Roumaysa heckling the conference which ended on that, because I believe it's somewhat unimportant for the topic (it's mentioned in WaPo article), but this can be still added if desired. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sentence

In my opinion the following statement should be included, since it implicitly refers to Khelif:
Before their quarterfinal fight, Hámori wrote on social media, "In my humble opinion, I don't think it's fair that this contestant can compete in the women's category. But I cannot concern myself with that now. I cannot change it, it's life. I can promise you one thing... I will do my best to win and I will fight as long as I can!".^[1] JacktheBrown (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are you creating another section when #Hamori is already there? Anyway, I will repeat the same question here:

What makes you that it belongs in this article? If you believe that it says something about Khelif, then you're welcome to explain what that something is. M.Bitton (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: you: "... and seek consensus for the material ...". There's only you and me in that discussion... JacktheBrown (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that a reason for you to create multiple sections for the same thing? Don't you think that the talk page is already a mess as it is? M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: the solution is very simple: delete the previous discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You deliberately created a duplicate, so you take responsibility for your actions. The section that I created (long before this one) stays. M.Bitton (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: all right. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a general statement here, I have no issue with the inclusion of competing boxer's comments on the issue, may be a brief section with comments from both sides, keeping with WP:BAL.Female boxers Skye Nicolson, Tina Rahimi and Marissa Williamson Pohlman have made comments.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No, self-published claims from others on social media don't belong here. TarnishedPath^talk 03:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References

^ "Imane Khelif competing in women's boxing not fair, says Hungarian opponent". BBC Sport. 2 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.

Too subjective article

IMO an issue with the article is that it looks as if Khelif is a VICTIM of false allegations. Right now the situation is unclear and the tendency is to believe that she does have XY chromosomes. The article is too biased towards the hypothesis that the claims of her being ineligible are false, which is subjective. 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:73 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

E.G. "misinformation surfaced on social media about her gender. False assertions about her gender"

this is way too subjective. there is no evidence that the information was true, but there was also no evidence that the information was false. 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:73 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

People saying "Imane Khelif is a man" are saying something objectively false. There is a lack of publicly available evidence one way or another about her chromosomes and her hormone levels, but her gender has never been in any real question. We know she was assigned female at birth, is legally considered a woman, and self-identifies as a woman. And yet people continue to call her a man.

So yeah, there's been misinformation. Not everyone who's commented on this issue has been peddling misinformation, but a notable number have. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Then that statement should be made more clearly: for example "misinformation stating that she is a man". To me it looked like it was stating the XY issue is also misinformation, and I believe that it looks as such to many others too. 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:73 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It says "about her gender" already. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this difference is made in English speaking countries, but in Europe, at least where I am, gender is an ambiguous term which also encompasses being XX or XY. IMO at least this statement should be more clear and say that she is not a man, despite that the XX/XY case is not sure 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:73 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I have seen any evidence that would mean that even if she had XY chromosome, she would not be eligible to compete in her current category at 2024 olympics? Like separate to the question of whether her disqualification by IBA 2023, nobody has made any credible claim she doesn't mean IOC criteria, so yes on all current evidcne she is the victim of this current media furore Jonnosan (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether the IOC criteria allow it or not is something different and subject to criticism. But ask yourself seriously: should an individual with XY chromosones compete with normal females? The answer is of course NO. And biasing a Wikipedia article towards saying that these people are VICTIMS is just very subjective and misinformative. 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:59 (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, users reject all the statements made by the IBA, making the page at least partially biased as a logical consequence. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to claim the IOC is open to criticism, or argue for a change in IOC rules. But your original claim was "her claims for eligibility are false". And there has been no evidence claimed by anyone (as far as I can see?) that she is not eligible, even if the IBA claim that she has XY chromosome was true. Jonnosan (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding. the 2001 user never claimed that there is evidence for the ineligibility to be true?? he just wrote that there's also no evidence for it to he false so it's misleading to make this wiki page look as if there's evidence about the ineligibility being false 194.230.146.78 (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

also there IS evidence for the ineligibility at least for some of the 2023 events. 194.230.146.78 (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Unless you have anything to say about the reliable sources, this thread will be archived. M.Bitton (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: in my opinion it's not correct; it's right to leave the freedom of criticism, and not only what interests you, even if the user (in this case the IP) isn't very good at writing a thread. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, Wikipedia is not a forum, therefore, you don't get to exercise your so-called "freedom of speech" by making unsubstantiated claims (whether directly or through insinuations) about a living person. You should know that (you've been reminded of this countless times). M.Bitton (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: in any case, I have nothing to do with whoever created the thread; I wrote my opinion (right or wrong), now I'm leaving this discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

i feel the 2001 user is right? at first glance this wiki page seems way too supportive to this controversial person, who we don't know yet whether they deserve blaming or support 194.230.146.78 (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

since the IP continues to use the talk page like a forum, I will go ahead and archive this thread. M.Bitton (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump

Just for the record, but Trump called Imane Khelif a "male boxer" today. Might be relevant, but since there are three different articles I'm not sure which to add it to. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Trunp's uninformed opinions are not relevent to this article. He's not her treating doctor. TarnishedPath^talk 03:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. This. I believe in you. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Basically all media are now covering the leaked medical results and World Boxing new sex test requirements.

I see you guys have been hotly debating the validity of the new sources regarding the second round of leaked medical reports, some from France but some also from New Delhi. As of today basically every sports reporting magazine or newspaper is covering this, its not just some fringe tabloid item of questionable basis. Combined with World boxing being clear that a new sex test would be required to compete, I think its become biased NOT to include these recent events in the article. A Google search today of her name literally fills the entire page with this talk. I will attach Sports Illustrated, one of the more famous sources from the top of my news feed and the New York Post, but just about everyone is covering this now. Everyone but us anyway. https://www.si.com/fannation/boxing/leaked-medical-report-pours-gasoline-on-imane-khelif-boxing-controversy , https://nypost.com/2025/06/02/sports/olympic-boxer-imane-khelifs-leaked-lab-results-offer-new-evidence-about-her-biological-sex/ Liger404 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

If you wanted to prove your point then citing the New York Post was not the best start. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I cited two sources, but you can literally find as many as you want, it's everywhere. However the NYP is not listed in the unreliable sources category, so it's an acceptable source regardless of the fact that you may not like that particular newspaper. Liger404 (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

If you follow PSA's link, you'll actually find on that page that the New York Post is listed as: generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Where do I find PSAs link? The only list I am aware of is the depreciated sources list? I would say however this is neither politics, nor was the NYP the only source linked. I would need to see similar information suggesting Sport Illustrated is unreliable on sports reporting, as this is a sporting matter, to agree that this is one of the cases where NYP is incorrect. Especially as this is also reported in so many other places, like The Economic Times, Sky News, Yahoo news, Great Britain news ect ect. Liger404 (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Then start an RFC, because current consensus is clear per Special:PermanentLink/1246750486#RfC lead. TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you feel that discussion is the same topic? That seemed to be a debate over the terms "Female" and "XY chromosome". The current reporting is that she has a male karotype and won't be allowed to participate in the next Olympics unless she passes the new genetic sex testing World Boxing requires. I do not intend to guess at her exact chromosomes, which can take several variations or re open the debate on the use of the world female vs women or AFAB or other basically debated parts of the English language.it just seems obvious to cover this development in the articles 2025 section does it not? Liger404 (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

We've already had material added to the article that World Boxing won't allow her to compete at any of their competitions until such time that she undergoes testing. Se exactly what is being discussed then? TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Male karyotype. Obviously. Riposte97 (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently not obvious, as there is no willingness to add any of this to the main article and I have seen a bunch of argument over various chromosomes. Liger404 (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

What is being discussed it that World Boxing made that press release at the same time the mainstream media widely reported leaked medical reports of a male karyotype. Without knowledge of these leaks, the World Boxing news would be no news at all. This is why many articles, such as the Sport Illustrated article combine the topics. Yet we appear to be refusing to add this obvious context. Liger404 (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"False claims that Khelif is male..." is too strong for wikivoice

Rather than using wikivoice to definitively state that the claims are false, we could word it simply as "Claims that Khelif is male..." or "Unproven claims that Khelif is male...". —Megiddo1013 16:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This article is clearly written using biased language and does a disservice to the principles underlying Wikipedia's mission and, with references being made to it on Twitter/X, it clearly needs to be edited. —FrancNeary Francis Neary (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I've reverted the closing of this section by Abo Yemen since the wording I'm addressing here (specifically the use of "false" as a wikivoice conclusion) is distinct from the XY test discussion above. —Megiddo1013 17:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We need to be very careful to avoid helping those who claim that "there is no smoke without fire" while throwing smoke grenades. Obviously we do need to cover that she has been subject to false and malicious claims but we must be clear that the claims are false and malicious. If we have good sources for it then we should also add "racist" to the description. DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Except we don't have reliable sources that definitively say that the claims are false. The stance reliable sources take is that the accusations are unproven and that the facts of the matter are inconclusive. Wikipedia should reflect that stance. —Megiddo1013 18:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Here[12] is an example of a reliable source discussing the subject and taking a deliberately neutral stance:

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

(my emphasis).

This is the level of NPOV that this article should aspire to. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

They are false until proven otherwise. This is a BLP, in case you've forgotten. M.Bitton (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, a claim is undetermined until proven true or false. If there is not yet enough evidence either way, then the responsible thing to do (especially in a BLP) is to avoid declaring the claim definitively true or false. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess the question we're all ultimately asking is the extent to which Wikipedia should entertain baseless claims about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What’s the basis for the claim “Khelif is male is a false claim”? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Barnards.tar.gz, what an astonishing question. If I had my way you'd never edit a BLP again. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The only evidence presented that suggests anyone other than the corrupt Russian regulatory body has any reason to doubt Khelif is a cis woman is a "leaked" document that was posted to Reddit and then picked up by a crummy newspaper in france and a crummy newspaper in the UK. That second newspaper has a history of sensationalist reporting regarding gender related issues. There's no evidence that anyone has confirmed the provenance of the "leaked" document. Ever. In short what we have are an article about a woman who has been the target of a multi-country racist, misogynistic and (frankly) transphobic backlash against her... existing... and those of us who are supporting this inclusion are doing so on the basis that there is no evidence that this was ever anything but a racist, misogynistic, transphobic bit of culture war bait propagated by a pair of tabloids. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The document was not leaked by Reddit. Two journalists leaked it on the same day - Anderson and the French-Algerian journalist who published a French article about it last November. Anderson released to snippet, the French-Algerian leaked the full image. Andersons article came out prior to the Reddit post. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You’ve made your opinion clear, but is there a reliable source which states so boldly that “Khelif is male is a false claim”? It’s a strong claim to state so definitively when the whole basis for Khelif’s notability is the uncertainty over her sex, and this uncertainty is expressed by more sources than just Russians and tabloids. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Her notability is actually due to her winning a number of medals in boxing. Unfortunately, this made a bunch of misogynists and terfs very mad and they became obsessed with her. That does not mean that she's notable because of their obsession. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you’re correct, she would have been notable without this controversy. You’re wrong to imply that it’s only “misogynists and terfs” that have expressed uncertainty about her sex. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, as far as BLPs are concerned, baseless claims are always baseless. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This might seem like good fun but once it is legitimised for one it is legitimised for all. I'll wager that none of us has Reliable Sources to hand that could be used to explicitly refute a malicious claim that they, to steal Grace Dent's term, bummed a puffin. If that is the metric required to dismiss a spurious claim then we all exist in a permanent uncollapsible quantum superposition of states, one of which is "puffin bummer". Let's not do that. DanielRigal (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Engaging in all this dialogue preceding the impending PCR Y chromosome test by the World Boxing regulator is not very productive folks. The Telegraph source is not gold standard, the word 'false' is not great but it's been there a while. The testing leading to this upcoming Box Cup is likely to either generate a PCR result, or a response from Khelif, or more commentary from RS in the absence of those two. Highly recommend waiting just a couple days here. SmolBrane (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

“It’s been there a while” is not a good justification for leaving it and it has already undermined wikipedia’s credibility for it to be taking a stance that reliable sources don’t take. —Megiddo1013 20:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, a news article from PBS has called it misconceptions and false speculation. Variety said that she was wrongly called a man and that social media posts wrongly claimed Khelif was transgender and assigned male at birth. A fact-check by the Washington Post says that During the Olympics, false claims were fanned on right-leaning television and social media that two female Olympic boxers, Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu Ting, were actually male. and that The source of these false claims is a disgraced Russian-backed entity. --Aquillion (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So there we are: reliable sources describe these as false claims while those sources that entertain the claims are frankly garbage. Simonm223 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The BBC says the status of these claims is unknown, not false. PBS has not claimed to know her karyotype either. Glasslelia (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

PBS did call it false, and we don’t need to ignore the other sources quoted.

If you somehow know that they’re all wrong, feel free to share the source that proves it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

PBS uses the word "false" to describe the claim "that she is a man." Indeed she is not; she identifies as a woman. However it may not be false to say that she has a male karyotype and the PBS article does not settle that point at all. Here https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/algerian-boxer-imane-khelif-fights-for-olympic-gold-after-enduring-abuse-fueled-by-misinformation Glasslelia (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

“May”

if you feel strongly about this, provide the sources MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

We had an RFC about this at Special:PermanentLink/1246750486#RfC lead. If you want to start another RFC, go for it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The PBS article comes from AP. Frankly there are very few sources I would consider reliable on such issues, there is clearly an ideological divide among news sources. For example people here are criticising The Telegraph on its coverage of trans issues, but The Guardian is the paper that pushed out its gender-critical journalists like Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman. In this case I would trust more what the BBC says than AP, and that's not saying that BBC is free of bias. Hzh (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP on AP:

The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.

If you think that is incorrect you should raise it at WP:RSN. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Might be an idea to review all the major news site on their positions on various topics, for example, it doesn't say that The Guardian is hostile to gender critical views, when it clearly is (and on a wide variety of other subjects). I suspect WP:RSN would not welcome it. It does seem though WP:RSP is being misused to deny that something has been published when it has. Hzh (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

If you think that RSP not covering that The Guardian is hostile to those with fringe views is worth doing something about, by all means start a discussion at WP:RSN TarnishedPath^talk 11:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of a large scale review of many news sites covering multiple topics. Not even sure if that is feasible. Hzh (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

PBS says “man” is false, not male. Variety also talks about “man”, and “transgender” and “assigned male at birth”. These are not the terms we are discussing.

That Washington Post article from 2024 says “male” is false, but on what basis? They haven’t seen any medical report either. In their latest article from 4 days ago, they have walked back from the word “false” to the word “unsubstantiated”[13], which is essentially the change being argued for here.

Therefore I support @Megiddo1013’s change on the basis that it matches the language being used by the most up to date reliable sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

My quick comment is that the lead should be more neutral. It seems to be negating any question of Kelif's gender, where various other sources seem to indicate that it is open to question. Both the previous world boxing body, the IBA and its replacement, World Boxing, have issues with Kelif possibly being a non biological female, and now World Boxing has disallowed her from boxing until she has had a test. To date, Kelif has not had the test, and so is not boxing (I believe this is the current status?).This is the real world, current situation, and none of it is mentioned in the lead. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The World Boxing disallowing her from boxing until such time as she has a test is in the body. Until we have more than that it doesn't belong in the lead. Adding our intepretation about what that means for her gender would be original research and we don't do that. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph does go into the fact that she’s been accused of being male without any evidence presented to support it. It should stay that way until one of the accusers does so. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that "False claims that Khelif is male..." is too strong for wikivoice. However, what the article presently says in the lead: "Khelif was born female", is also, IMO, wrong. I learned, studying sociology back decades ago, that intersex and/or DSD children are usually designated the female sex at birth (the thinking is that it is easer for a child to grow up as a tomboy, than as a feminine boy). Many of these intersex/DSD children have XY chromosomes, giving them an unfair advantage in female sports, Saying that she was assigned female at birth (same as in the Caster Semenya-article) would probably be more correct. The last RfC needs updating, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Until we have some kind of reliable source that confirms this theory, it remains original research. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I hear you, but I think the concerns about that phrasing were valid. To quote the close: A significant number of participants raised concerns that this term implies transition and that the term will not be clear to many readers. Both of which have strong BLP ramifications. Unless we get strong reliable sources stating that she is intersex or has a DSD (as we do in the case of Caster Semenya), "assigned female at birth" is inappropriate (and in this context kinda MOS:WEASELy) CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I was "assigned female at birth", and I don't think it is anything MOS:WEASELy about that statement. (Though nobody, except some Wikipedia editors, have ever questioned my sex). And everybody (except Wikipedia-editors) hears it. The present state of the article makes Wikipedia look like a joke. Huldra (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:NotAForum MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Additional Sourcing - Male Karyotype

There seems to be a concerted effort to both overstate and understate the strength of the sourcing on this. This thread is intended to compile and assess sourcing only on the topic of Khelif's gender test. So far, I have found the following RS reporting on it:

- news.com.au - Nine News - 3 Wire Sports - Hindustan Times - ~~Spiked~~ - Business Standard - Forbes - North Africa Post - Time Riposte97 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of these are not reliable. Spiked, for instance, is a very bad publication. Simonm223 (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Please indicate 1) which of the eight sources listed you do not consider reliable and 2) provide evidence (preferable in the form of established consensus) that they are not reliable. Riposte97 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm on vacation and editing from my phone with very limited time so, for the full review, you will be waiting a week until I am at a computer again. In the meantime check your list against WP:RSP - several of these have listings there. Simonm223 (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

And while Spiked does not yet have a listing it probably should with how often it hits RS/N for its reliability issues. Simonm223 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a significant oversight. Spiked is pretty much a poster child for Unreliability. It would definitely help to avoid wasted time for it to be listed. DanielRigal (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy for Spiked to be struck. Riposte97 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@DanielRigal, why do you say it's a poster child for unreliability? It's clearly ideological, but I haven't seen many genuine complaints about its factual accuracy. H Remster (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, that response is of very little utility for what we're trying to do in this thread. A cursory examination of WP:RSP did not yield any entries for the sources above. Of course, being on my phone also, I may have missed something. Riposte97 (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Then please remember WP:NODEADLINE and I will endeavor to review your sources more thoroughly next Wednesday. Simonm223 (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

But one I don't need a computer for is news.com.au - that's a Newscorp rag. It isn't worth the pixels it's printed on. Simonm223 (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

news.com.au is a news aggregator rather than a publisher. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 374#News.com.au indicates that the contents for news.com.au should be evaluated on the origin of the source rather than the aggregator's website itself (i.e., the same way you would evaluate a source you found at Yahoo News). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Please also reference WP:NPPSG when considering reliablity. I've not looked up any of the outlets you've listed above but I know from memory that news.com.au is listed as having no consensus and that it is a Murdoch tabloid. As always, even if a source was considered generally reliable, that doesn't equate to always reliable. Sources should be considered on a case by case basis, especially if all they are doing is repeating claims made by documents which are of questionable origins. TarnishedPath^talk 00:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That would be a misuse of WP:NPPSG. We need to be actually offering policy-based arguments for deprecating sources. Riposte97 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Who said anything about deprecating sources? WP:RSP is an informational page, are you suggesting that any reference to it is a misuse? TarnishedPath^talk 10:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I used 'deprecating' informally instead of 'establishing a local consensus that each of the sources in question is unreliable.' Riposte97 (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

All of these point to the unverified lab report which which is decisively not a good source—blindlynx 00:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 it also brings us dangerously close to WP:BLPGOSSIP. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. There is no reason for us to include unverified medical information about a living person. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't include 3 Wire Sports in that list for reasons I stated above. The North Africa Post is so obscure, that in trying to find sources about it as a publication, I ended up putting it up for AfD as I found pretty much nothing. OsFish (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not a policy-based argument for exclusion. Sources are presumed to be reliable absent clear consensus otherwise. We need clear reasoning here, not fudging. Otherwise, we end up with the mess above. Riposte97 (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m just giving my opinion. People giving their opinions is how consensus forms. The important policy is BLP. We need strong sources. I don’t think either of those sources is appropriate for a contentious piece of content on this BLP. It’s not true that we assume every single website is RS until consensus says otherwise. We are supposed to make judgements about sources that haven’t been the subject of a community discussion.OsFish (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There are seven sources other than Spiked above. The reason I opened this thread is precisely so we wouldn't get caught in a circular reasoning trap of 'I don't agree with the inclusion of this content, therefore the source is trash'. Riposte97 (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My problem with the North Africa Post isn’t the content. It’s that it appears to be a very obscure news website so I do not have enough confidence in it for contentious BLP material. I didn’t say it was trash or any words to that effect at all. If you have information about North Africa Post’s reliability, please feel free to contribute at WP:Articles for deletion/The North Africa Post, where you‘ll also find the searches I did trying unsuccessfully to find reliable third party sources discussing the Post. OsFish (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Are there ANY Wikipedia:GENREL sources reporting on the alleged leak? (obviously not including ones that have exceptions on adjacent/conflated subject matter such as transgender issues) Detachedspork (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, that's a misuse of RSP, if you're implying that the sources we do have are illegitimate not because they have been deprecated, but because they aren't genrel? Riposte97 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Forbes sites is also not a reliable source, it certainly comes nowhere near being able to be used for BLP content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean. WP:FORBES appears to be an excellent source. Riposte97 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

If [14] is the one under discussion, WP:RSP calls it generally reliable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That Forbes article is generally reliable as it was written by Forbes staff. The issue is that it only says that there's an 3 Wire claims to have leaked results and no one has confirmed it. At best that's WP:Fruit of the poisonous tree, which isn't good enough for a BLP (as was discussed in the RfC ) CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree it certainly isn't good enough to assert anything in wikivoice. It certainly may be sufficient to support removal of the assertion that 'no medical evidence' has been published, as we have an RS saying medical evidence has been published. Riposte97 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

We absolutely do not have an RS saying medical evidence has been published. We have a source saying that some other people are claiming this but no one has verified it at all. That's getting dangerously close to WP:BLPGOSSIP, if not outright violating it. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have now added Time above, as they published an article last night. Riposte97 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Great. Now that we know what Piers Morgan thinks, all is well. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a little flippant. The article substantively reports on what we're discussing. Is Time a sufficiently reliable source for you to update your priors? Riposte97 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You mean what we already discussed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This thread is concerned with assessing new and emerging sources on this topic. I feel like I'm not getting through to you, so will let the matter lie for now. Riposte97 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing new, and therefore, nothing to discuss. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this falls in the same boat as Forbes - both broadly reliable sources for factual claims which we can assume are operating under decent editorial scrutiny, but also both reporting it as a claim which they have not been able to verify. I think scepticism of including the claim is going to continue until or unless a similarly high quality source reports some form of corroboration. Chaste Krassley (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The references to WP:Fruit of the poisonous tree and WP:BLPGOSSIP do seem very relevant here. What bothers me is this: if the documents were genuine, why not give them to a major news outlet with the reputation and resources to confirm? OsFish (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Repeatedly, why hasn't a gold-standard news outlet taken the time to investigate whether this report is real or not? I am surprised none of them has tackled it - whether to confirm or disprove it. Glasslelia (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that we should assume any particular outlet has not attempted to confirm information just because they have not reported on it either way. Chaste Krassley (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle just did. The IOC has no comment, and the hospital and doctor that (allegedly) produced the report have no comment; interestingly, none of the three outright denied it. Only the Algerian OC criticized "baseless attacks", but apparently (DE doesn't quote the whole thing) without specifying what exactly they're referring to. Jpatokal (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

'Just did'? This is a different case of an unverified leak of a different report to a different minor outlet from seven months ago. Chaste Krassley (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

"No medical evidence"

I'm not touching the broader topic with a bargepole, or making any claims about the correctness of said evidence, but the lead's claim that "no medical evidence that she has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" is demonstrably false at this point. Jpatokal (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:TELEGRAPH: the Telegraph is not reliable for trans issues, which I think in this case can firmly be extended to intersex issues as well. Loki (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is changing what's reliable and what's not on a whim whenever they don't like what the source says is concerning and depressing. Saddaygirl (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect: WP:TELEGRAPH states that these is no consensus, not that they are unreliable.

But to get back to the point: the lead currently makes the blanket claim that "no medical evidence has been published". This claim is now false, even if the Telegraph got it wrong and the evidence in question turns out to be fabricated. Jpatokal (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna need you to read any of the other discussions on this page. Like literally any of them. Loki (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Jpatokal is correct, actually. We're doing more than just leaving out info published by an iffy source. We're taking a positive stance, for no legitimate reason that I can discern. Riposte97 (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The reason which you have difficulty discerning is that the only reason ever provided not to do so comes from sources which cannot be trusted. If a shifty stranger offers to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge, that is not evidence that the Golden Gate Bridge is for sale, and there's nothing untoward about you then stating "The Golden Gate Bridge is not for sale." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I have. I'm not relitigating the RFC or even saying we should include the Telegraph article as a source, I'm simply pointing out that the lead's claim that "no medical evidence has been published" is flatly incorrect at this point. We may well disagree with the reliability etc etc of that evidence, but it has been quite widely published. Jpatokal (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I am quite interested in this topic and there is a good point raised about this sentence removal. Is there any medical evidence proving that Imane does NOT have XY chromosomes? Otherwise, the potential inference is that Imane only has XX chromosomes and biologically female, in which case why was there even a controversy in the first place? Historically, there have been successive speculative discussions about differences of sexual development, which I believe suggests XY chromosomes. As it stands, this article, is too vague on this issue, and leaning too heavily towards how Imane was unfairly treated or discriminated against, when in fact there is an actual controversy going on. DCD331 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The rules of the Wikipedia game are stacked against you, I'm afraid. I agree with the recommendation to read the other discussions, however. H Remster (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This was discussed in the previous RFC, which found no consensus for removal of the sentence. It is again being discussed in the RFC above. If you want to address the sentence I suggest you participate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. A purported leaked document of unknown provenance does not constitute medical evidence no matter how many tabloids use it to sell ad space. It is WP:BLPGOSSIP. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The RFC above is about positive assertions: whether Khelif should be described as female and whether the leaked evidence should be included. I'm not arguing for either: I'm simply pointing out that the article's current assertion that "no evidence has been published" is objectively false at this point, and should be removed or reworded. Jpatokal (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not false. The word "evidence" doesn't have multiple meanings. M.Bitton (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The only published datum is the purported leaked report. It is not medical evidence because it is of dubious provenance. Therefore no medical evidence has been published. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Well but it is evidence. It may not be particularly strong evidence, but that's by the by. Even in legal trials, both sides present evidence, even if only one side can be correct. Riposte97 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It is only medical evidence of anything if it's real. But there's good reason to suspect it's fake. Therefore, it's not (yet) evidence.

If I said "Riposte97 is 8 feet tall", that would not be evidence that you're 8 feet tall because I have no good reason to know this and my claim is highly implausible. Same here: there's no good reason to think the test is real, and the condition it's claiming is rare and explicitly denied by the subject of of this article, who has repeatedly claimed she is a totally normal cis woman. Loki (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Not all evidence is "medical evidence". The current wording was discussed at length in the previous RFC. WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk 14:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That RFC clearly did not deal with the current circumstance, and it is not exactly best practice to imply that it should carry this discussion. Riposte97 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It did. M.Bitton (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Definitely did. It just happened, post-"leak", and the result was "status quo". Loki (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the statement given is false. The issue is ideological, nothing to do with sources, as the claim made about WP:TELEGRAPH shows (you cannot pretend that it hasn't been published simply because it was published in the Telegraph.) Hzh (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in two previous RFCs now. WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk 16:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That was barely discussed. You didn't give a clear answer either when I raised that point. I'm not really sure why people can't just make small adjustment to the text so that the statement wouldn't be false, e.g. "no medical evidence... has been officially published" - this would deal with the Telegraph source because that is not official. Hzh (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This telegraph article is not evidence. It is a claim. A claim that is utterly lacking in evidence, and for which contradicting evidence does, in fact, exist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Does it? The article currently states things like "she was born female" as undisputed fact, but the sources provided appear to be things like IOC boss Koch stating so, which hardly meets the bar of "medical evidence". Jpatokal (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
One can be born female and have XY karyotype (see CAIS EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, parsing the difference between claims and evidence isn't as easy for everyone, so I'll lay this out.

Claim: X says "I have a lab report that indicates Y is actually male!"

Evidence: Y grew up as a girl and woman in a culture that is hostile to trans people. People who know Y, people who are also from same trans-hostile culture insist that she is a cis woman.

Do you see the difference between those two things? One is an assertion. We don't know that the lab report even exists, let alone that X has it, or that it says what X says it does. Even if we presume all of that, how accurate is that report? What method was used? What were the testing conditions? You have to assume a bunch of things in order to present the claim as evidence.

Meanwhile, the second part is evidence. We know that she grew up in that culture. We know that culture is hostile to transgender people. We know that her father and others have publicly insisted that she is a cis woman. There are no assumptions needed.

To explain the claim in light of the evidence is easy: the claim is false. To explain the evidence in light of the claim, however, is not. Did Khelif just happen to be born to a family, in a neighborhood or village, where that hostility to trans-people doesn't exist, and is actively resisted (by, for example, lying about the circumstances of her birth and upbringing)? Was every trans-hostile person she encountered during her early life silenced? These are extremely unlikely events, yet one must presume them in order to make sense of both the evidence and the claim.

The only alternative, that Khelif simply has higher-than average testosterone, is a nothingburger. Congrats, you've discovered that variety exists within sexes. Why should we should consider that an unfair advantage, when we don't claim that Larry Byrd had an unfair advantage in bastekball by being 6'9" tall, is a question that really only has one logical answer: trans-misogyny. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The Forbes article should be enough to displace this wording. It stands as unequivocal RS support for the proposition that medical evidence has been published (although I agree that said evidence is not strong enough to support any positive claims in wikivoice). Riposte97 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In this edit, I challenged the closure of this discussion. I believe it would be inappropriate to extend the above RfC, which mainly dealt with challenging Khelif's stated sex, to this discrete question. Additional articles on this particularly point have anyway been published since the RfC started, and neither the !votes above nor the closer addressed these. Riposte97 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that is not allowed. You have to make a new one. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a little difficult for me to respond to you, because you haven't provided any reasoning, nor any rules. Do you believe the previous RfC addressed this point sufficiently? Riposte97 (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, and any challenge will solidify the result even further, with some editors getting topic banned along the way (which is what happened last year). M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree. It's not in the discussion or the close. It by definition could not properly have addressed the Forbes and Times articles, anyway, as those were published too recently. Implying I or others are being disruptive/merit a tban is not appropriate. Riposte97 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You should really consider letting this argument go. Simonm223 (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I concur Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Do you have any advice on how to deal with this person? They repeatedly reverted my closures of discussions and wish to reopen the discussion and RFC. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:WHENCLOSE, you should not be closing these discussions, and for at least four separate reasons: 1) the discussions are active, 2) they have multiple participants, 3) they do not require formal closure, and 4) you yourself are an active participant. Jpatokal (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Turtletennisfogwheat, there's no WP:MORATORIUM on further discussion. Don't get yourself into a situation where you are reverting the same thing over and over or things will escalate to noticeboards, which is a waste of everyone's time. TarnishedPath^talk 04:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Very well then. I'll unfollow this page and all these discussions for now. It's giving me a headache. I'll revisit this in a few weeks or months when the test results release and consensus is formed. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no point giving yourself a headache. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that Khelif has decided not to appear at the competition that would require eligibility screening, the article's assertion that she was "born female" is particularly confusing, since it is not clear whether this means "assigned female at birth" (true) or "chromosomally female and thus eligible for women's sports" (quite unclear at this point). I really think the article is misleading with that phrasing. Glasslelia (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is editing the article based on an interpretation about why she didn't enter into the contest. That would be original research. It has already been included in the article that she didn't enter the contest, which is sufficient. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No reliable sources have even doubted she was born female. Heck, the BBC reported that WBF apologized for singling her out in their communications. At this point requests to say otherwise are a clear and disruptive violation of BLP policy. Simonm223 (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The phrase "born female" is ambiguous as to whether it means "AFAB" or whether it means "born with a female karyotype." The former is true, the latter is not claimed by any RS. Glasslelia (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There are three (3) references currently provided in the article for "born female". Washington Post quotes Khelif herself saying "I was born a woman". NBC quotes IOC president Koch saying "We have two boxers who were born as women", referring to Khelif. USA Today does not mention anything about her gender at birth in the article text, but does include video of Koch making the statement above.

From these sources, we can reliably conclude that (a) Khelif claims she was born a woman, and (b) Koch agrees she was born a woman. However, none of these sources contain objective evidence (say, a birth certificate) that would confirm the claim. Why are we accepting this claim at face value and stating it in WP:WIKIVOICE as a fact? Jpatokal (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree. But also, a birth certificate could also mistake the individual's physiology. This is what happened in the case of Caster Semenya. Therefore even a birth certificate would not prove that she is "female" in the sense of being eligible to compete in women's boxing. Glasslelia (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting saying that she has a DSD. I am suggesting replacing "born female" with "assigned female at birth." Glasslelia (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we should speculate about why she did not enter that contest. I am proposing that we should replace "born female" with "AFAB."

It seems that "born female" was chosen as a purportedly more accessible, less confusing synonym for "AFAB." But it is actually a lot more confusing because to some readers it may convey that she has a female karyotype. And we do not have any RS to say that she does. We should remain neutral about that. Glasslelia (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree the last sentence is biased towards implying things concerning her gender and genotype, when it is not clear at the moment. It heavily suggests Imane is completely female. DCD331 (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no credible evidence that she isn’t.

Do you think that every person competing as a female athlete should have such cautionary detail in their Wiki article? OsFish (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No. But if there is a statement about the sex of any athlete in their Wikipedia page, then that statement should accurately characterize what is known. Glasslelia (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you think is “known” about Imane Khelif? OsFish (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That she was assigned female at birth but has encountered controversy related to her gender eligibility. Glasslelia (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That she’s encountered controversy is already in the article. OsFish (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, but we should not be asserting in Wikivoice that she is "born female" because this is not known, at least not in the sense of her karyotype. Glasslelia (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the article has successfully done this. Currently, the tone of the article implies that Imane faced unfair scrutiny over gender eligibility within competitions and has since been vindicated, which disregards entirely the ongoing issues about Imane's biological sex and gender equality in sports. The last sentence about 'born female' and 'XY chromosomes', as well as repetition of 'false' seem biased and ideally this article needs to adhere more to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think the article needs to less conclusive in its statements and leave it for future investigations to take place. DCD331 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Also more generally, I don't think Wikivoice should be used to assert, as truths, assumptions that "haven't been proven otherwise." Glasslelia (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Since it seems to also be discussed here, let me repeat what I wrote below: We already had an RFC specifically about "born female" vs. "assigned female at birth"; "born female" is the consensus, and there is no reason to revisit it, especially when there has been another RFC just now confirming the status quo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that 'born female' should be preserved per the previous rfc. However, the most recent rfc was a) extremely ambiguous b) not up for long c) opened prior to additional developments and d) not participated in my many of the editors now on the page. Riposte97 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

New source: Deutsche Welle

Deutsche Welle, a German broadcaster of sterling reputation (see WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE), has now published a piece about the controversy, stating that the "unverified leaked medical assessment allegedly showed the Paris Olympic boxing gold medalist as having internal testes and no uterus [...] Khelif allegedly underwent an MRI scan and genetic testing, which supposedly revealed that she has an XY difference of sexual development (DSD)."

Of course, this does not mean any of these allegations are actually true, much less that we should report them as such, but the lead's line that "no medical evidence that she has XY chromosomes ... has been published" is looking increasingly untenable. Jpatokal (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

So a news source of sterling reputation says no one can be sure if this is actual evidence, and the conclusion is that it IS evidence with enough certainty that we should have zero BLP worries? I don’t see how that logically follows. OsFish (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPGOSSIP. DW saying "we cannot confirm if this is evidence" is not itself evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@OsFish: Yeah, I don't see how that logically follows either, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

Medical evidence has been published, and accurate or not, it's now being repeated in reliable sources. To be very clear, I'm not saying Wikipedia should also repeat it (because BLP), I'm saying we need to stop pretending it doesn't exist. Jpatokal (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No, an unverified claim of medical evidence. You don’t know if it is actual bona fide evidence. Your view would mean that anyone could claim anything and so long as the claim is reported, the content of the claim must be treated as true. That’s obviously inappropriate for BLP. In fact, RS is stressing that it is unverified. I suggest dropping the stick until and unless there is more than RS saying someone said something that may or may not be true.OsFish (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jpatokal: I agree with you, for what it's worth. It comes down to what you understand by "evidence". You seem to be using the word in the sense that will be familiar to lawyers, i.e. information that points to a particular conclusion, but that might be unverifiable or even false information, and might therefore point to an incorrect conclusion. Others are using "evidence" in a sense that presumes a degree of reliability, which is fair enough as the word is often used that way. The problem is that we're using a word that has two subtly different meanings and not clarifying which one is intended. If it's read (quite reasonably) in one way, the sentence is broadly accurate; if it's read (quite reasonably) the other way, it's categorically untrue and acts as misinformation.

The suggestion of "no verifiable medical evidence" from Writ_Keeper (talk · contribs) below would clear up the ambiguity for me. Clicriffhard (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a very insightful analysis of the word "evidence"! Thank you! Glasslelia (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that is clarifying. The mere insertion of 'verifiable' does seem like a good way forward here. Riposte97 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not new though, WP:SNOPES and USA Today had also covered it. Snopes did a deeper dive into it if you are interested, and USA today mentions it in the recent article too.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/20/imane-khelif-medical-records/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2025/05/30/olympic-gold-medalist-boxing-imane-khelif-world-boxing/83948401007/

it may not be enough for WP:BLP though because it wasn't verified by anyone. You might need more sources. Burcet95 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's say that some claim "ABC". These are two different questions:

Should "ABC" be put into the article?
Should the article make a statement which says or implies that "ABC" does not exist?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPGOSSIP Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. This is a basic BLP standard without even bringing WP:MEDRS into it. A "leak" nobody will claim is not usable for BLP. It is not evidence by WP standards. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that my post was noting that the discussions seem to conflate my #1 and #2. Your response is about #1 and my post was really more about noting #2. There's a difference between saying that the sourcing is not strong enough to put ABC into the article and the article making a statement that ABC does not exist. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think Simon is addressing your point 2 The claim that ABC exists is openly described by RS as unverified. OsFish (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Would it help circumvent these endless discussions if we changed "no medical evidence..." to "no verifiable medical evidence..."? That feels much less susceptible to wild claims from garbage sources or reporting that has to be screened behind three layers or more of qualifying language, but at this point I'm so lost in the weeds that I can't tell if that tonally weakens the sentence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would help, as would rephrasing the sentence to say that she was "assigned female at birth" rather than "born female." Thank you! Glasslelia (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

We already had an RFC specifically about "born female" vs. "assigned female at birth"; "born female" is the consensus, and there is no reason to revisit it, especially when there has been another RFC just now confirming the status quo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors that she was "born female" but it does not necessarily appear to be factual. Which illustrates an interesting tension between social consensus and verifiable factuality. Perhaps the article will remain as it is but I think we can all reflect on what we learn from this state of affairs about the reliability of Wikipedia. Glasslelia (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hold up. Why are we saying "Khelif was born female" with sources that don't make that claim? The news reports says Thomas Bach says she was born female, and Khelif claims she was born female, but the news report is not making that claim, just reporting the statements made. I think we could easily source "Khelif states she was born female, is marked female on her birth certificate, and was raised as a girl, and identifies as a woman" or "Thomas Bach, the President of the IOC, says she was born female". "Khelif was born female" is not supported by the sources provided, it doesn't matter what people "vote" for when the sources don't support it. Denaar (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this claim is confusing, especially given that "born female" appears to conflate sex assigned at birth with the sex of one's karyotype, which may not match in all cases. Glasslelia (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I very much doubt it. It could also be construed as a victory by the bullies. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think Wikipedia articles should accurately describe the facts rather than trying to avoid giving ideological"victories to bullies" Glasslelia (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Her being a female is a fact, and WP:DENY is a thing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think that anyone who grossly violates BLPs, like you did, should stay away from this talk page, if not topic banned. M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the BBC not a reliable source anymore? This is back from 2024:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/articles/c0l8gxzw6n4o

The IBA says blood testing on the two fighters was conducted in May 2022 and March 2023, and that the results “conclusively indicated" that the pair “didn’t match the eligibility criteria for IBA women's events".

Since then they have claimed that male XY chromosomes were found in both cases. IBA President Umar Kremlev also said that the tests "show they were men".

This is the same style as the other news reports, not making the claim directly, but reporting what other people have claimed. But it makes sense to me to break it down by different groups that have made different claims.

Denaar (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to the prior RFC. This has been very thoroughly discussed.Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:CCC, WP:CONEXCEPT ... Denaar (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't changed. If anything, it is now much clearer and stronger than before. M.Bitton (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is manifestly not the case, just look at this talk page. Jpatokal (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussed ad nauseam (literally, puke level). M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Because the Kremlev stuff is already in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not about winning. Do you have any objections to the suggested wording that are based purely on the wording itself? It seems like a pretty good solution to me. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from the lede altogether, but adding "verifiable" is an improvement. The test results are being re-reported in various reliable sources. Here's Time (magazine) reporting on Khelif's karyotype test results and saying that they could not independently verify them.[15] "Not verifiable" is the approach that reliable sources are taking, and it's completely reasonable for Wikipedia to adopt it. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a practical way to hopefully put this thread to bed. RS are phrasing things in precisely this way. Riposte97 (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I can see your point about removing it, but honestly I'd be happy with any wording that isn't bound to mislead people about the current situation by making conclusive statements that are completely unverifiable, using language that can easily be read in ways that make the statements categorically untrue. Clicriffhard (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The statement should be removed from the lede. Khelif is banned from competing in IBA events because of male karyotype; that medical report has been leaked and reported by an award-winning sports reporter. World Boxing specifically mentioned this case when they announced that they would be conducting sex testing, and less than a week after they announced this policy, Khelif said she would not attend the event. That means that Khelif is no longer eligible or willing to compete in events organized by *either* of the only two major international amateur boxing associations. Any application of common sense will tell you that this statement does not belong in the lede. The lede doesn't have to conclusively say what Khelif's sex is. There's even *less* evidence that Khelif is XX than there is her being XY, but we don't have a statement in the lede that says "no medical evidence that she has XX chromosomes". Just remove the statement from the lede or alter it to make it less conclusive that the contradictory evidence (that is widely being reported on now) is false. Having that statement in the lede when there is a medical report that anyone can read is what makes people think Wikipedia is biased, and it causes the site to lose credibility. Delete it. Wikipedia doesn't have to pretend to know the answer to everything. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have to pretend to know the answer to everything. which is why editors trying to say that an unverified claim is in some way verified is wrong. OsFish (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The suggestion was to delete the statement, not to make a claim about anything being verified. Did you mean to reply to a different comment? Clicriffhard (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

XY karyotype test

Article in Daily Telegraph newspaper: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/7312083bfabec21c 148.252.147.142 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on lab report leaked by Alan Abrahamson in https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2025/6/1/xxyetyl1aewfij823hnfdrsbi1sqjm (cropped screenshot) and Djaffar Ait Aoudia in https://lecorrespondant.net/imane-khelif-egerie-puis-egorgee/ (photo of full page)

This page needs updating with the new info that Khelif is in fact male. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

None of these are reliable sources. The Telegraph is very unreliable for gender related topics and the other two are even worse. Simonm223 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You think they just fabricated this lab report? Come on. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think two unreliable sources quoting a third unreliable source equals three unreliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Alan Abrahamson is a professor of journalism and is a member of the Olympic Games press committee and has been covering the Olympics for years, he is reliable. Djaffar Ait Aoudia has been reliably covering various topics in mainstream newspapers for years too and his reporting corroborates Abrahamson's. The Telegraph wouldn't have published if they weren't sure of the veracity. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

"The test results carry the letterhead of Dr Lal PathLabs in New Delhi, accredited by the American College of Pathologists and certified by the Swiss-based International Organisation for Standardisation." Seems reliable to me? It should be updated. Madkool12 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Simonm223 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Frankly there is not an "American College of Pathologists". There is the College of American Pathologists and there is the Clinical Society for American Pathology. Which one is the purported accrediting body? Who knows? Since the source whiffed the name of the accrediting body. Simonm223 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

They are one in the same, and academic literature often refers to them interchangably. Discrediting a source due to an re-arrangement of the source name is ridiculous. Madkool12 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

But the fact that you personally think the Telegraph is "unreliable for gender-related topics" is just your opinion. It's not relevant. This article is a disgrace. As others have pointed out, the reader is left lacking information critical to understanding the situation. The fact that some might not find the evidence dispositive is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence at all. Alaska Jack (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not just an opinion; there was a big RFC that reached no consensus, WP:TELEGRAPH. Since this is a clearly WP:BLP-sensitive statement, it requires sourcing of the highest quality, which means that we can't rely on a source that has no consensus for its reliability. --Aquillion (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That RFC was a farce where editors voted along partisan lines based on their political beliefs. The Telegraph is completely unreliable on GENSEX topics. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that, while I agree that the Telegraph absolutely is completely unreliable for GENSEX topics it doesn't actually matter whether, in this case, the RfC returned "no consensus" or "GUNREL" because all reliability is contextual. And in the context of a BLP who some parties have claimed is intersex and who other parties have claimed is secretly a trans woman and who personally asserts that she is a cis woman, a newspaper with a long history of sensationalist and alarmist writing on gender topics is absolutely inappropriate to use. Regardless of whether or not there might be contexts in which the Telegraph is reliable, it is unreliable in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a reliable source in general, and its statements regarding transgender issues *can* be added with attribution: [16] Bueller 007 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Reliable for what exactly? Citing an unreliable source that has been dismissed a year ago? M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Look at WP:TELEGRAPH 148.252.147.142 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The Telegraph is quoting the wholly unreliable 3 wire sports here. That's the root source. The opinions the Telegraph has regarding this unreliable reportage would be undue even if the Telegraph were reliable for this topic (it is not). Simonm223 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

These are two competing journalists - Alan Abrahamson and Djaffer Ait Aoudia - who have each obtained a separate copy of Khelif's chromosome analysis, and reported on it. The Telegraph considers this reporting to have sufficient veracity to publish the same. How is this not reliable? 148.252.147.142 (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The obvious factual error in the claims of lab accreditation to a non-existent accrediting body to start with. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the ISO certification claim as being entirely irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

On the CAP website they refer to themselves as "College of American Pathologists" and "American College of Pathologists" interchangeably, see for example: https://newsroom.cap.org/cap-mentions/pullman-regional-hospital-receives-accreditation-from-college-of-american-pathologists/s/753cf8b3-a623-4147-8686-c29c280ba191 148.252.147.142 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Additionally we can see Dr. Lal PathLabs is accredited on the CAP accreditation lookup tool. Are we to assume the CAP is not credible as well? https://www.cap.org/laboratory-improvement/accreditation/laboratory-accreditation-program

I feel like we should be non-biased about this given its an extremely sensitive topic. Madkool12 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

No, there was no consensus on the reliability of the Telegraph for trans issues - but this particular statement is extremely WP:BLP-sensitive. Obviously a source that lacks consensus does not meet the standard necessary for BLP-sensitive material; it's not the best available sourcing. If it is accurate, we just have to wait and sources we can actually use will pick up on it. --Aquillion (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ewa Kłobukowska was tested XY, yet became pregnant eventually, which is a proof that XY karyotype doesn't necessarily mean male biologically, nor does it even say whether someone is capable of giving birth or not. Reminder that biology is a social construct - it's made up by society to classify nature. Vivb1 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, she did not test XY - it would be biologically impossible for her to have children. She tested XXY due to XX/XXY mosaicism. Shrimpboyho3 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, that was Stella Walsh. Kłobukowska was tested under a system that only looked for XX in a pass/fail and she failed, later found to have some form of XO. Of course, bringing up chromosome tests of other Olympians is just OR. Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to speculate as to whether this is misinformation or disinformation or as to which, if any, of the people publishing it are doing so in good faith. Whatever the situation, it is worthless. If the alleged information is real leaked information (Yeah, I know that this is almost too unlikely to consider) then we should not participate in the doxxing of anybody's medical records. Assuming it is not real information then, obviously, we should not participate in spreading malicious disinformation in a BLP. I see that people are getting far too excited about this (Registering an SPA? For this? Really?) but it is all nonsense and, even if it was true, which it almost certainly isn't, there would still be no justification to calling Khelif "male" in general terms. If anybody wants to roll this pointless thread up then I think now's the time. DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This is how a considerable part of investigative journalism works, by obtaining information not available publicly and reporting on it. There's no reason to exclude such reporting in any Wikipedia article. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the sources are invalid is quite a jump. I see no reason why this can’t be sourced with an accreditation as allowed. 2601:602:8200:CB60:A1AE:7B13:CB0C:1822 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works, especially when it comes to anything related to BLP and GENSEX. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

At the very least "and there is no evidence that she has XY chromosomes" should be removed from the article now that the Telegraph has reported on this evidence, which includes a reproduction of the section of the lab report describing a male karyotype. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

exactly 100%, although someone else called caster semenya is long 100% proven to be XY and male, but is an "intersex woman" through "identifying" as a woman, just like how imane also identifies as a woman, this article will always be a bit biased in calling imane an "intersex woman" (a completely nonsense idea resulting from wikipedia being ran by TRAs who reify the concept of gender identity) so producing an accurate article is simply not possible here 2.102.42.87 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Even the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling of the Semenya v IAAF case describes Semenya as female. Even though 5-alpha reductase deficiency, which Semenya is confirmed to have per that ruling, only affects the sex development of males. The misinformation perpetuates deeply. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please take your accusations against Wikipedia out of this talk page and keep it on topic. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

all i did was describe wikipedia's methods of editing pages related to trans and intersex topics and how it was used in a similar page and how that affects this one, which is relevant to the editing of this page 2.102.42.87 (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath can you please help me out on this user? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to Special:PermanentLink/1246750486#RfC lead. TarnishedPath^talk 02:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Stating there are no indications or sources showing she has XY chromosomes is inaccurate based off recent information. Gensex topic aside, it shouldn’t matter for factual reporting in the context of this thread. At the very least its highly contentious to now say no evidence exists, and is inherently biased. 2601:602:8200:CB60:A1AE:7B13:CB0C:1822 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There is still no evidence from reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we to assume the CAp lab is not an accurate source? Are you claiming the lab certification is forged and that all reporting outlets are in on this conspiracy? 2601:602:8200:CB60:A1AE:7B13:CB0C:1822 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We can not validate that the document shared at Reddit even is from that lab. Because no reliable sources have verified that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I would but I'm probably too involved. Someone should before we get any more insulting BLP violations. Simonm223 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: The telegraph is not brining anything new to the table (the unreliable source that are citing was discussed here and dismissed almost a year ago). M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
What's new is a copy of the karotype test report being made public and reproduced in the Telegraph article. It is evidence that Khelif has a male karyotype, therefore the Wikipedia article is now incorrect. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Exactly, hearsay is completely separate than a full copy of the test being leaked to news outlets. Its disingenuous to state the status of the claim is not more reliable now than it was before based off the additional information. Are we waiting on Reuters or the AP to confirm this before moving forward? Or should it be adjusted as an accreditation? That’s the real question. Madkool12 (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Nope. The source is unreliable (nowhere near good enough for a BLP), and therefore, inadmissible.

As someone already said: garbage repeated by garbage == garbage square. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Alan Abrahamson is a professor of journalism and a member of the Olympic Games press committee. He has been covering the Olympics for years, including for NBC. He is reliable. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
How exactly is an Associate Professor of Professional Practice of Journalism with a history of decades of reporting not a reliable source?

https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/alan-abrahamson#:~:text=Alan%20Abrahamson%20has%20spent%20nearly,the%20culture%20that%20surrounds%20them.%E2%80%9D Madkool12 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes and his reporting on this has been corroborated by investigative journalist Djaffar Ait Aoudia, who has published a photograph of the full page of the karyotype analysis in his report, the detail of which matches the cropped screenshot published by Abrahamson. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Do we have a link from Aoudia where they posted the full version to verify Abrahamson's claim? I can only find the full version of the document on a reddit thread. That would be useful for cross checking Abrahamson's claim. Both reports include the same lab number and information.

https://preview.redd.it/medical-report-leaked-that-proves-imane-khelif-is-v0-0ivzzkkwkd4f1.jpeg?width=886&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0b26cb7119d48b76f351c5208123e7590a31923b Madkool12 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
It's in the article published at https://lecorrespondant.net/imane-khelif-egerie-puis-egorgee/, but a subscription is necessary to access it. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What you are describing is original research which is not allowed by Wikipedia for article content. This is not reddit. Simonm223 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
This is to point out that the Telegraph article is not unreliable as you are claiming. 148.252.147.142 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
The point isn't to use Reddit in the actual article as a source, its to cross reference the two separate documents that are making the same claim with matching reference numbers - one from The Telegraph and the other from LeCorrespondant. Regardless, the reason I asked for the source of that document is so we would have a published source it was taken from and not reddit. Madkool12 (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Refer to the RFC at Special:PermanentLink/1246750486#RfC lead in which there was consensus that sources presenting evidence for the possibility of XY chromosomes are unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 02:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Unreliable based off what? From what I see for the Telegraph is generally reliable when used with accreditation as a source. Additionally the reporting entities are reliable scholars in their field with a history if reporting on Olympic sports. Madkool12 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Read the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not true. There is no consensus that the Telegraph is reliable when it comes to trans issues (which this obviously connects to.) That means we don't trust their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on that topic; more specifically, it's reasonable to doubt that they've done their due diligence in cases like this one, where something aligns with their biases. If it weren't a WP:BLP-sensitive case, we might just attribute it anyway, but BLP-sensitive stuff requires sourcing of the highest quality, which the Telegraph (on issues like these) is not. Therefore, we have to wait and see if a better source picks up on it. --Aquillion (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Imane Khelif's own physiologist (Georges Cazorla) and manager (Nasser Yefsah) have stated that she has high testosterone. Without relying on AIBA at all, this statement in the lead does not make sense.

Saying "there is no evidence of XY chromosomes or elevated testosterone" is a clear WP:NPOV violation. It is also WP:AGEMATTERS, because those sources came out earlier, which has then changed.

For Cazorla, WP:RS, particularly WP:SNOPES, had covered it.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/20/imane-khelif-medical-records/

Cazorla — an academic adviser of one of Khelif's trainers — spoke of the trauma Khelif went through after her 2023 disqualification. He said that the testing Khelif's team conducted after her disqualification confirmed that Khelif was a woman, but that she had a problem with chromosomes and high testosterone

Taking Cazorla's statements from August at face value, they make two crucial assertions: that Khelif has XY chromosomes and that she has high testosterone levels

For Yefsah, he had told French and Algerian news sources that Imane Khelif was born a girl, but has high testosterone.

https://lapatrienews.dz/exlusif-acharnement-contre-lathlete-algerienne-le-manager-dimane-khelif-denonce/ Yefsah is quoted as saying: A cette occasion, nous découvrons que sa testostéronémie était trop élevée. Suite à cette anomalie physiologique que tout le monde ignorait, nous avons immédiatement pris les mesures nécessaires. Des examens biologiques très approfondis furent réalisés par d’éminents endocrinologues dont le professeur YONG à l’hôpital Bicêtre et par la professeure Fedela en Algérie.

https://www.nicematin.com/jeux-olympiques/imane-est-nee-fille-et-a-ete-elevee-fille-le-soutien-total-du-nice-azur-boxe-a-sa-boxeuse-au-coeur-d-une-polemique-aux-jo-2024-937027

Yefsah is quoted as saying Khelif has high testosterone. The original French is: "À cette occasion, nous avons découvert pour la première fois que son taux de testostérone était supérieur à la moyenne pour les femmes. Nous avons immédiatement pris un certain nombre de mesures."

Burcet95 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Refer to Special:PermanentLink/1246750486#RfC lead. You're not presenting anything new from when that RFC discussion occured. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Not true. Burcet95 (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
If you think anything has changed then start an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

How is it original research to reference an article. Literally the entire wikipedia is based on references to articles. 2600:1702:7530:510F:59DB:1EDD:4AB3:7752 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
It is not WP:OR because WP:RS/P says XY chromosomes are possible. That is WP:STONEWALLING by certain editors. Editors are not meant to dismiss reliable sources like that, they are supposed to go by what reliable sources say.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/dec/28/after-the-show-what-happened-next-to-olympic-gender-row-boxers

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2024/11/06/imane-khelif-gender-eligibility-test-failure-iba-chief/

WP:GUARDIAN directly says "The Y chromosome had been identified in two blood samples". It does not challenge it whatsoever. It is not up to the editors to question or interpret that. That is a clear violation of WP:IMPARTIAL because he is challenging RS, Imane Khelif's own physiologist, and Imane Khelif's manager.

WP:TELEGRAPH directly says: But the IBA letter does spell out the specifics, stating: “Chromosome analysis reveals male karyotype.” Imaging is also included, for both Khelif and Lin, of an X and Y chromosome, illustrating that the tests were conducted by a Delhi laboratory certified by the Swiss-based International Organisation for Standardisation

A karyogram is unequivocally, without question, evidence of a chromosome being present.

WP:SNOPES, as I posted above, directly says: "He said that the testing Khelif's team conducted after her disqualification confirmed that Khelif was a woman, but that she had a problem with chromosomes and high testosterone" and "Taking Cazorla's statements from August at face value, they make two crucial assertions: that Khelif has XY chromosomes and that she has high testosterone levels".

The editor is trying to say "well that could mean anything", which is a violation of wikipedia policy where he is ignoring RS and POV pushing. RS says it means XY chromosomes, it is not up to him to say it doesn't.

All are RS, and WP:SNOPES, and particularly the same journalist, Kasprak, is cited in wikivoice quite a bit. All of a sudden he decides to totally ignore it which is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Burcet95 (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The phrase "there is no evidence that she has XY chromosomes" should definitely be changed in light of new evidence since it's no longer true. Tito Reinaldo (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What new evidence?

Ps, this was all discussed in the RFC at Special:PermanentLink/1246750486#RfC lead. TarnishedPath^talk 02:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This should just be closed. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Turtletennisfogwheat, if we closed it, one of these editors would start a new discussion making the same arguments. It's best just to keep it in one place until they get bored and move on. TarnishedPath^talk 02:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair then Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It won't go away because what's stated in this WP article is clearly a lie. There is evidence, while you may say the evidence is disputed, the evidence is there. Hzh (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hzh, there was a change made by another editor on 14/05/2025 at Special:Diff/1290383686 which made the wording change from:

"...and no medical evidence that she has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published."

to:

"... and there is no evidence that she has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone."

I've just reinstated the prior wording. This should resolve your contention that what is currently stated in the article is a lie. TarnishedPath^talk 07:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Chromosomal analysis is medical evidence. It looks like a dispute between IOC and World Boxing, and we should not take side in the dispute. I would recommend leaving that sentence out, instead have a section discussing that. Hzh (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This was covered in the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion of the RFC is frankly bizarre (fruit of the poisonous tree?). In any case, the evidence has now been published, therefore what's stated in the article is false. If the evidence is disputed or untrustworthy, say so, don't claim that it doesn't exist at all. Hzh (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this what you mean by published? A reddit post pertaining to show an unverified document? Even if the purported author did verify it (which I haven't seen, please enlighten me if I've missed it) we would need to question its reliability given the implicit violation of doctor patient confidentiality. TarnishedPath^talk 10:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Was this discussion started because of a reddit post? Are you agreeing with IOC that the test result comes from a Russian-led misinformation campaign? Why do you think if there is no evidence at all, there would be disagreement from IOC? We are not here to judge the validity of the evidence, we are here to simply state facts, and "no medical evidence" is an opinion, not fact. We have contradictory information given to state it as a fact, therefore we should not state it. In cases like this, we should present more detailed discussion in the article and let the readers judge themselves. Hzh (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It states "no medical evidence ... has been published" not that there is "no medical evidence". I don't see how that is an opinion.

Unless documents which been posted by randoms on social media have the original publisher putting their hands up and claiming them, that is not medical evidence. It could potentially be a forgery.

This was all discussed in the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So you are ignoring The Telegraph. It has been published whether you believed the source to be reliable or not, so the statement is false whatever the qualification is. Interesting that World Boxing would believe in evidence that is not considered "evidence" here; the very fact that this is stated as "no medical evidence" suggest editors are taking sides in the dispute. Hzh (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Refer to WP:TELEGRAPH. There is no consensus that they are reliable for trans related topics. TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you think WP:TELEGRAPH says that whatever trans-related topic published there means that it has not been published? Hzh (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The new evidence is the leaked completed document that cross matches the other document. 2601:602:8200:CB60:4C68:A05E:67A7:3BF (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What new evidence? Rehashed reporting about documents that were already discussed in the last RFC? That's not new. The news cycle recycling old material does not make the material new. TarnishedPath^talk 07:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The full first page of the document from the lab report from an entirely separate reporting entity. Madkool12 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So start an RFC if you think that really changes anything. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Is an RFC really needed for a singular sourced point that has thoroughly already been discussed here? I suppose I can make one tomorrow if needed, but it seems evident there are two camps. One says the evidence is credible the other believes its not. If its not, the Telegraph should no longer be listed as a credible source with accreditation. Madkool12 (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

for issues like these, yes, an RfC is really needed, although a visit to WP:RSN could also work 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is what WP:IGNORE is for. Saying that there is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or a history of high testosterone is completely absurd at this point. Every reader becomes less informed by visiting this page. Every reader who is aware of the evidence will lose trust in Wikipedia. I myself am flabbergasted as to why some editors are so vehemently opposed to letting sourced, clearly correct information into this article. What good do they think they are doing? Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Woshiwaiguoren, see my comment above to Hzh. TarnishedPath^talk 07:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Huldra, @JacktheBrown, @M.Bitton, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Some1, @Mellamelina, @Deathlibrarian, @Bluethricecreamman, @AntiDionysius, @Gitz6666, @NatGertler, @Pincrete, @Writ Keeper, @CambrianCrab, @JimKaatFan, @BanishedRuler, @Iluvalar, @Kingsif, @GoodDay, @Vegan416, @JSwift49, @AntonioR449, @Wasabi OS, @Melmann, @Aquillion, @NeuroBioScience, @LokiTheLiar and @BrocadeRiverPoems as editors involved in the discussion at Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 4#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead. TarnishedPath^talk 07:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Can I suggest you instead go to ANI? What seems to be happening here isn't an actual dispute, it's a flood of IPs and new SPAs that want to add a bad source to a BLP. So what you want isn't, like, backup or whyever else you tried to ping all of us. It's page protection. Loki (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Done @LokiTheLiar, thanks for the suggestion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath You should be very careful when pinging from previous discussions to include everyone lest you be accused of canvassing. Riposte97 (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
@Riposte97, I went through the whole discussion only leaving out IPs and one vanished editor. I'm fairly sure I got everyone. If I missed anyone it would be by error as can be shown by the number of editors who I've pinged who !voted differently to me in that discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. It was just an accident you left out @North8000 @JustAnotherCompanion @GhostOfDanGurney @Cdjp1 @Drmies @Sleeps-Darkly @Blindlynx @WhatamIdoing @Scope creep @Nautical Mongoose @PBZE @Hatman31 @Sangdeboeuf Riposte97 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
A lot of those voted against the last RFC proposal, as did I. If you think me missing them out is deliberate I invite you to take me to WP:ANI. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A quick check suggests that TarnishedPath selected those who actually voted, while myself and some others added by Riposte97 only added single/minor comments. That being said, now I'm here there is little I can add that TarnishedPath hasn't already greatly covered. I support TarnishedPath's position and Loki's suggestion of this being ANI. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Leaked private medical information is not a suitable source for any encyclopedic content. However, that doesn’t mean we are required to pretend we can’t read signal through noise. The available sources are not adequate to support “Khelif is male” in wikivoice, but they are enough to cast doubt on sources that state stridently that “Khelif is female”. This article should not take a position either way. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The policy in WP:TELEGRAPH is quite clear. Statements in the telegraph about trans related issues CAN be used, but with ATTRIBUTION. Vegan416 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
It's also not quite a trans issue? This is about disorders of sexual development, which I suppose have some overlap but are fundamentally distinct issues. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a good point. Jibolba (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:TELEGRAPH there is no consensus on its reliablity in relation to transgender topics. That means we shouldn't use it on a BLP under any circumstances when the claims clearly contentious. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
But we've determined it's not a transgender topic. Jibolba (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Yea, unfortunately this issue has been swept into the transgender culture wars, but it's not actually about transgenderism, it's about intersex. —Megiddo1013 03:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

There has been claims in some media that Khelif is transgender. Given that contetious topics are WP:BROADLY construed, I would take that there is no consesnsus on The Telegraph's reliablity for trans subjects to extend to Khelif. Further than that we have core policy at WP:BLPSOURCE which states:

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

We need the high quality sourcing for any of this sort of stuff if we are to include it in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 04:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath

I beg to differ. The policy stated in WP:TELEGRAPH, which says that Telegraph can be used on trans related issues with attribution, doesn't make any distinction between BLP and other types of info. Whereas in other sources mentioned in WP:RSP it does make such a distinction. Vegan416 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Whether it makes reference to any BLPs or not is irrelvent because WP:BLP is overriding policy which applies to everything regardless of what is recorded at WP:RSP. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
You say: "There has been claims in some media that Khelif is transgender".

That is not the controversy. Where are you seeing this? "Transgender" is a way someone self-identifies publicly. Khelif would only be "transgender" if they were indeed born male, in which case they would be disqualified and critics would be fully vindicated. Jibolba (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. By ignoring this people will lose trust in Wikipedia. Whoever is preventing an update is doing a bad service for humanity. Tito Reinaldo (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

If the sources are good? than add. Otherwise, don't add. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@GoodDay, this as far as I can tell is the source. A social media post. TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The source (for Wikipedia purposes, i.e. the citeable, secondary WP:RS) is the Daily Telegraph. 87.127.175.146 (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

no, WP:TELEGRAPH 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Your guide says that WP:TELEGRAPH is considered a reliable source on anything excluding transgender topics, and this isn't a transgender topic. 87.127.175.146 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It clearly is; the Telegraph has continuously associated this with trans issues. The posted article even lists "transgender" as a related topic. And since it also involves obviously WP:BLP-sensitive claims, we need a source of the highest quality, which means one with a consensus behind its reliability. --Aquillion (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That the statement ("no medical evidence...") is there is the problem, not whether the Telegraph is reliable or not on this issue. We should not state it at all if we are interested in WP:BLP given that different bodies (IOC and World Boxing) have different opinions on this. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Leaked documents of unknown provenance shared on sensationalist tabloid websites do not constitute medical evidence by Wikipedia standards. Remember that the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS is where our sourcing requirements are at their absolute most stringent. This is an extraordinary claim being made by dubious sources who do not have a strong reputation for fact checking and who made easily caught errors of fact in their reportage of the purported leak. There is no medical evidence published because what has been presented here is not medical evidence. It's hearsay. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that World Boxing is saying that boxers need to undergo chromosome test before they can participate indicates that they don't consider "no medical evidence" of XY chromosome in her case to be a statement they can accept without question. Neither should we. Hzh (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not World Boxing. We have specific standards for what would constitute "evidence" here. This "leak" of questionable provenance is not evidence by our standards. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

And we should not state "no medical evidence" in WIKIVOICE when the issue is unclear, regardless of the source. Hzh (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We certainly can say no medical evidence when none exists. M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Er, no. You don't say "There is no medical evidence that XYZ Covid vaccine works" when clinical trials have not yet completed. You can say there is "no medical evidence" if studies have been done but found no evidence (in which case you can say "medical research has found no evidence that...", but as far as I can tell, this report that shows XY status is the only one that has been done. Hzh (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You are assuming that the Reddit "leak" is, in fact, a legitimate document. We cannot. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, because it matters not a jot to my reply whether this document is real or not. The reply I made is about not saying "no medical evidence" if no studies have been done to show that this is so. Hzh (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Umm... shouldn't it matter whether or not the information is legitimate? Especially for a BLP? OsFish (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's something legitimate if there is research to support it (there don't appear to be any other than this report), otherwise it just reads like people taking sides in a dispute. It would be better to discuss this in a section in the article so people can understand the issue better. Hzh (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No it's not irrelevent. A random posting on reddit, does nto constitute a medical evidence until such time as a doctor or a pathologist org puts their hands up and clains it as theirs. Until that time it could easily be a forgery. TarnishedPath^talk 00:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You seemed hung up about Reddit, is that your OR? Other people suggest that Reddit wasn't the source of the leak. Hzh (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that this discussion should be closed and continued on WP:DRN instead as the points made here are being repeated 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been notified of any dispute at WP:DRN nor could I find one when I went to look at open disputes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the place of WP:DRN to discuss material that a consensus at a WP:RFC has arrived at. If consensus has changed, and I'm not sure about that, then the avenue to address that would be a new RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh my bad. I think my wording was bad. What I meant to say is that yall should start a discussion on DRN 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. We don't need a moderator to confirm that an unreliable source is unreliable nor to confirm that higher source standards apply to BLPs or to medical matters. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Well then this discussion is pointless at this point and I think that, unless @Hzh tells us something new, it should be closed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion should be closed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You're making an argument for changing content in the article based on your original research about why World Boxing has done something. TarnishedPath^talk 13:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hardly my OR that World Boxing needed verification of her status. What do you think the chromosome test is meant to do? Hzh (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

World Boxing requesting verification says zero about whether any medical evidence has been published. TarnishedPath^talk 02:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The World Boxing statement specifically did not point to any medical evidence, only to public opinion. They asked her to take the test: “to protect the mental and physical health of all participants in light of some of the reactions that have been expressed in relation of the boxer’s potential participation in the Eindhoven Cup.” ie. they want her to take a test due to people's reactions; they're not asserting any actual evidence. In fact, they specifically said that this is standard policy whenever a boxer is challenged, and does not imply anything else. From the Washington Post: World Boxing’s statement said that policies implemented in May say that if a boxer’s federation or World Boxing challenges a fighter’s “sex certification,” then the boxer will be ineligible “until the dispute is resolved.” “This decision is designed solely to ensure the health and safety of all participants in World Boxing competitions (including Imane Khelif) and is not deemed in any way to pre-judge the outcome of any testing that will be introduced as part of the new policy on sex, age and weight,” the statement said. The Telegraph's claim to have received leaked documents is the only thing anyone seems to be able to point to as "evidence", and that's obviously not sufficient for something WP:BLP-sensitive, since we would need a RS capable of verifying their providence. --Aquillion (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That's just simply saying that they needed concrete evidence of her status in "sex certification" (i.e medical evidence). They certainly don't presumed "no medical evidence", which is what the article asserted. Why this article goes out of the way to assert something that is unresolved that is the problem. Hzh (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course they are presuming "no medical evidence" (until proven otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

If the issue is unresolved then why is Wiki-Voice used to label as "false" the claim that she may have a male karyotype? Glasslelia (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Because, based on all the reliable sources, this information is false. The unreliable sources that claim a leaked report suggests otherwise are entirely discounted because unreliable sources talking about a reddit photo of a document that purports to be from a specific source don't rise to the level of evidence by Wikipedia evidentiary standards. Not every datum is a piece of evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, reliable sources don't conclude that the claims are false. It seems that the reality is that Khelif is intersex, and so reliable sources addressing claims will often cast doubt on the claim, without concluding that the opposing stance is correct.

Inconclusiveness on the facts of the matter are the stance that reliable sources take. —Megiddo1013 18:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That is untrue. PBS has called it misconceptions and false speculation. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, this article seems to be an op-ed. —Megiddo1013 20:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything remotely suggesting that, no. --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see PBS definitively saying there that she's chromosomally female. Just that she was raised as a woman and has always competed as one. They imply that it's "misinformation" to question her sex but they don't actually definitively claim to know her sex themselves. Glasslelia (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

"Khelif became the target of online abuse and misinformation, including the false claim that she is a man"

False is too strong a term, when the only "proof" provided that Imane Khelif is female if from a birth certificate, which has also been questioned. There exists no proof of sex that is released by Imane Khelif.

Misinformation seems out of place as well, unless it clarified that some misinformation was spread that Imane is transgender. If it refers to claims that Imane is male, it has not yet been determined that it is misinformation.

Unsubstantiated would be a better term for now, rather than false.

This will only be resolved either way if Imane takes a DNA test, and agrees to release the results.

I agree with many earlier posters who note the bias of this article, being read widely right now in this news cycle, does no good for Wikipedia's reputation as a source for credible information. KoKoCorvid (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not unresolved. There was a WP:RFC on it and the current wording is a conssequence of that RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFC is not the world, and there are different opinions on the issue. You seem to think that news sources that say something different from you must logically not exist. Hzh (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Trust me, it's not worth the fight. ~~Everyone knows~~ Most people think Wikipedia is unreliable on sex/gender issues. H Remster (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I was suggesting to the poster who I was replying to that it's not worth fighting for the edit in question, because readers ~~know to~~ take any statements on sex/gender issues in Wikipedia articles with a pinch of salt. H Remster (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

All you have done is be a blatant bigoted against trans people and openly misgendering Khelif in previous edits. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Kindly suggesting that editors wait a couple days on this. Eindhoven is only a few days from now so developments are likely to emerge in the next few days. SmolBrane (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how Eindhoven will change anything. World Boxing has already stated that she can't compete there. The only thing that would be of further significance was if she actually showed up and was allowed to compete.

Ps, the article has already been updated for the World Boxing announcement. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the update is somewhat inaccurate. While WB still haven't published an actual policy, they appear to be testing for presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome.

Their own description is slightly off too - it is possible for SRY to exist in XX persons. XX male syndrome, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11555487/

> The PCR test is a laboratory technique used to detect specific genetic material, in this case the SRY gene, that reveals the presence of the Y chromosome, which is an indicator of biological sex. The test can be a be conducted by nasal/mouth swab, saliva or blood. Detachedspork (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

World Boxing has already stated that she can't compete there. That's not what they said, please ensure you are familiar with their statement. And there is WP:NORUSH. This conversation would benefit from 7 days elapsed. A lot of premature heat here. SmolBrane (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The competition is from the 5th to 10th of this month. Them making a statement that she can't compete if she hasn't done a test prior to the competition is pretty much them stating that she can't compete. TarnishedPath^talk 13:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. All boxers will have to comply with the test, clearly [17] SmolBrane (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Within 2 days of the competition starting? TarnishedPath^talk 02:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is dated 3 days ago. I would assume the organisers know what is feasible or not, I would trust them more than a random editor here. (The article says PCR test, and PCR can be done quite quickly in hours, but I would also assume there would be other checks that may take longer.) Hzh (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

For this article to make the conclusion "there is no evidence that she has XY chromosomes" is innacurate, and doesn't take into account the telegraph article, and its reporting by a recognised sports journalist, who counts as an authority. This article needs to include this information and I believe until its done, this article is not WP:Neutral. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

[1] Beacham, Greg (August 2, 2024). "Who is Imane Khelif? Algerian boxer facing gender outcry had modest success before Olympics". Associated Press. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[2] D'Angelo, Tom (August 3, 2024). "Ron DeSantis, Rick Scott appeal to base with anti-trans rhetoric on Algerian Olympic boxer". Palm Beach Post. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[3] Janetsky, Megan (August 3, 2024). "Vitriol about female boxer Imane Khelif fuels concern of backlash against LGBTQ+ and women athletes". Associated Press. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[4] Janetsky, Megan (August 4, 2024) [August 3, 2024]. "Christians Push Back Against Conservative Fury at Imane Khelif". Newsweek. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[5] Bechara, Diego Ramos (August 4, 2024) [August 3, 2024]. "Logan Paul Admits to 'Spreading Misinformation' After Making Controversial Remarks About Olympic Boxer Imane Khelif". Variety. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[6] Van Brugen, Isabel (August 4, 2024) [August 3, 2024]. "Algerian Boxer at Center of Gender Controversy Breaks Her Silence as She Secures Olympic Medal". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[7] "Editor's note". The Boston Globe. August 3, 2024. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[8] Fox, Kara (August 2, 2024). "Why Italian boxer Angela Carini apologized to Olympic fight winner Imane Khelif". CNN. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[9] Li, David K.; Burke, Minyvonne; Abdelkader, Rima (August 3, 2024). "Imane Khelif wins fight and declares, 'I want to tell the entire world that I am a female'". NBC News. Retrieved August 4, 2024.

[10] "Fact check on Algerian fighter Imane Khelif, DSDs, biology and Olympic boxing". USA Today. 2 August 2024.

[11] Brown, Oliver (31 July 2024). "Reprehensible IOC is actively exposing female boxers to extreme harm". The Telegraph.

[time-boxing-12] "What to Know About the Gender Fight in Olympic Boxing". Time. 1 August 2024. Archived from the original on 3 August 2024. Retrieved 2 August 2024.

[13] "Imane Khelif wins fight and declares, 'I want to tell the entire world that I am a female'". NBC News. 3 October 2024.

[14] "Imane Khelif: Boxing boss says Olympics is 'destroying women's sports' - as Algerian boxer in gender row guaranteed bronze in Paris". Sky News. 4 August 2024.

[15] "Paris 2024: Who is to blame for boxing's Olympic outcry?". Deutsche Welle. 3 August 2024.

[16] "Imane Khelif competing in women's boxing not fair, says Hungarian opponent". BBC Sport. 2 August 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

Lame article

Inclusivity vs. Accuracy

Testosterone

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (2)

Add more RS covering Khelif controversy

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (3)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (6)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

Trans/DSD section needs credible sources before assumptions

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

High androgen levels vs hyperandrogenism

DSD

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (4)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 (5)

Intersex

IOC Statement

More RS reporting on Italian PM comments

Clarify that she is not transgender

Mentioned rare case: Woman may also have XY chromosomes

Reporting XY chromosome

List of intersex Olympians

IBA's Olympic status

"Victims of cyberbullying"

I'd like to include this para as it shows the viewpoints of another competitor in the Olympic comp

Remove parroted language that the IBA decision is legally binding

Inclusion of controversy in lede

Quote sources

Edit request 2 August 2024

More Details from Carpenter's Washington Post story needed

Edit request 3 August 2024

Sky Sports interview

protected edit request: August 3. Wikilink to 'football'

August 2024

Coverage about the whole issue

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

Reuters

See also Caster Semenya

WikiProject LGBT studies

Your source materials need to support the points you've made

Why was I reverted?

"Prominent anti-trans figures"

Controversy and criticism

Hamori

She is not transgender and does not identify as intersex

Coverage elsewhere

2 sentences in the lead:

The interview statement of István Kovács and reliable sources

Female

IBA Press Conference 8/5/24

Sentence

Too subjective article

Trump

Basically all media are now covering the leaked medical results and World Boxing new sex test requirements.

"False claims that Khelif is male..." is too strong for wikivoice

Additional Sourcing - Male Karyotype

"No medical evidence"

New source: Deutsche Welle

XY karyotype test