Talk:Imane Khelif

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does he/she have ovaries? 68.0.101.20 (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think any of us are in a position to know whether or not she has ovaries. It's also not super clear why that would be important. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

It seems like the most key piece of information about this controversial athlete and it is missing from the article.61.68.79.145 (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Although the following sentence isn't encyclopedic, many people claim that Imane Khelif is a female transgender. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

you're right, that would be extremely unencyclopaedic AntiDionysius (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"She" was found to have XY chromosomes, it's not an allegation, it's a fact that Khelif is biologically male. 188.172.111.106 (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A Y chromosome don't necessarily mean that someone is 'biologically male': https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome Jamougha (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biologically having XY chromosomes makes you a male.

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll add the quote here:

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

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

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

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

Original IBA quote comes from this TASS report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, we don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Not relevant to this article. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion, notable individual who has a connection to the debate. JSwift49 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic personalised content

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)

It has nothing to do with the subject of this article. It's clearly only being included in order to reinforce an ideology. It carries with it implications that are a violation of BLP. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:49, 10 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)

Of course you would. But it is clearly both irrelevant and makes an implication that is a violation of BLP. 2600:8802:5913:1700:1DB3:EB97:F15D:CAD6 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, inclusion of the quote would be leading readers to engage in WP:SYNTH by suggesting that during the fight that Angela Carini had been the target of violence on the basis of their sex. TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to Remove this sentence in the lead "There is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone."

"There is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone." - the current situation is that the IBA have stated they did a test and that she is XY chromosome. This would be evidence. Khelif herself has not denied this, nor challenged the findings.

This sentence is spin, and IMHO goes beyond reporting the facts as they are reported in RS.

The IBA may normally conduct tests and not supply evidence as part of its normal procedure. Adding a sentence like the above seem to be stating that the IBA test was made up and is without basis. IMHO - We don't know that, and we shouldn't be stating it in the article. I would ask wikipedians here to be NPOV and not add in their own theories. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The IBA never specified what the test was that was undertaken. If we're going to accept medical statements then we need WP:MEDRS sources. TarnishedPath^talk 06:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I interpret WP:MEDRS to be referring to RS biomedical journals being needed to support controversial statements about biology. Not the results of a straightforward medical test. For example, if Trump's press secretary said that Melania Trump had a baby, and it was a boy, we wouldn't ask for proof from a science journal, would we? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed, this is a controversial topic at the moment. Given that the IBA hasn't even specified what the test was I think that we should require a higher level of sourcing than some vague claim from the IBA. TarnishedPath^talk 08:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

this is absolutely ridiculous - why do the need to specify what test was undertaken? they said they did a test and the person was xy. if they said the name of the test, you'll just say "oh they didn't release the entire report and provide video evidence of the test being taken" 72.76.139.13 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't use derogatory and/or offensive words ("ridiculous"). JacktheBrown (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

"they" aren't very credible or coherent in their statements. If we're going to accept their claims we'd need a level of sourcing which overcame their credibility gap and reconciled their contradictory statements. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Locking in behind on you on your point here @TarnishedPath. If there's evidence, such as a primary source document, it would need to be reported and discussed in a secondary source for us to use it in the article. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They won't give any details or let anyone else see said results, so I'd say quoting them uncritically is what would really be "spin". They want us to take their word for it, and have provided no proof to anyone else. Note that this so-called "test" came three days after Khelif broke a Russian boxer's undefeated streak, and the IBA is sponsored by the Russian government through Gazprom. That, and their chairman is the kind of person I wouldn't even trust to wash my car. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 08:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As has already been said, has the IBA ever before rigged gender tests? Is there any evidence that that did? If not, discussing unrelated issues about their practice and tying that to this gender test would appear to be WP:synth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The IBA is banned from the Olympics. They've been described as lacking transparency and having poor governance. Further US officials have described its boss as having deep ties to Russian organized crime and heroin trafficking. To be short they are severely lacking in creditability. TarnishedPath^talk 10:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no evidence they even conducted any tests, at least on her. All we have is their word that she failed an unspecified "gender test" at an extremely convenient time. There's no published results, they won't even say what kind of "gender test", it's all just "trust us". - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 08:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

AP reported "Kremlev also has made additional allegations about the gender of both fighters without providing proof, and people across the world have accepted his word." and "The International Olympic Committee has decades of mostly bad history with the beleaguered governing body previously known for decades as AIBA, and it has exasperatedly begged non-boxing people to pay attention to the sole source of the allegations against Khelif and Lin." Le Loy (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

So if the IBA carried out sound medical tests, there's evidence, if they didn't and lied, there isn't. Do we trust IBA? Of course we don't. Do we have good reasons (preponderance of reliable sources) to conclude that they lied? No, we don't. RSes raise doubts but make no allegation and provude no evidence. So what we should do per NPOV is clear: to describe debates instead of taking sides; no wikivoice, every statement must be attributed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest to have a "clean" lead and to keep the "POV stuff" (on every side of the argument) in the article body (e.g., IBA is Russian-led, ICO doesn't test for gender, etc.). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we give UNDUE weight to a banned governing body? M.Bitton (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on this article [8] by Adam Abrahamson, I don't think we should state with wikivoice that "There is no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes". I think the existence of such evidence is disputed. And this source is also noteworthy [9], by Doriane Lambelet Coleman, who is another subject-matter expert. She literally says others sell their misleading or uninformed political wares (“There’s no evidence these fighters are not cis women!”). Also taking into account WP:RECENT and WP:BNS, we'd better be cautious and present undisputed facts as facts and controversial opinions as opinions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you don't trust the IBA (and no one does) then there's no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes. Full stop.

I can't believe there's even a small debate about this sentence. It's completely accurate and it's completely necessary. If you don't think it's necessary, check the protection level conferred on this article. The very existence of editors wishing to give credence to horrible rumors and conspiracy theories is the very reason that this sentence should be in the article. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What a wp:pointy comment! Editors saying things that you don't like is not a reason for publishing anything on this website. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

JimKaatFanThe fact you are writing like this is exactly what I am talking about. You are taking sides. As wikipedians, we are supposed to be neutral, and stick strickly to what the sources say. I SUPPORT Gitz comment on having a clean lead, and also that the evidence is disputed, but we can't categorically say "there is no evidence"... because we just don't know. We should move the POV material into the article where it can be read in context.At the moment, this is a WP:BIAS issue.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is based on IBA claims and the IBA is severely lacking in creditability. You're not going to overcome that the sole origin of the XY claim is the IBA. TarnishedPath^talk 01:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: remember that the truth is never just one, and even what the CIO claims may not be completely reliable (I'm not saying that the CIO isn't reliable (it's reliable), I'm saying that it's not correct to rely only on one type of source while ignoring all others; if we do, people are right to complain). JacktheBrown (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There's just not one source reporting on the issues with the IBA. There are multiple sources. Given that they were suspended from the Olympics in 2019 and banned in 2023 for governance and transparency issues, we would have issues of WP:UNDUE if we covered what they claim as facts. TarnishedPath^talk 04:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"There's just not one source reporting on the issues with the IBA"; are these sources American? The United States doesn't have good relations with Russia, so it's very unlikely that American sources are in favour of the IBA. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the organization that condemned the IBA, the IOC has just as, if not more controversy and scandal surrounding it. If we're going to dismiss the IBA's word simply because they've been labeled as corrupt, then we'd have to do the same with the IOC. Fair is fair. Ozone742 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ozone742: as you can see, in this case fairness isn't fairness; it's a great pity, because one of the main goals of Wikipedia is to be neutral. This criticism comes from a user who really likes the English Wikipedia. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Both these sources are being flagged as unreliable for me. Quillette is listed as such in RSP. This is a controversial topic and a BLP so best sources only should be used. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The sentence should not be removed but it should be rewritten as No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published., because the current sentence is a blanket assertion of non-existence, which is tantamount to saying the whole affair has been made up, which seems implausible given the various statements and actions of the involved parties. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's implausible to think the whole affiar has been made up given the severe lack of creditiblity of the IBA. However, I do agree with you that we shouldn't be making blanket statements and as such support your suggested change. TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz, your suggestion seems to have got lost, but let me affirm that this sentence you've proposed is sound: No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published.. The current situation is that there are no medical reports on this matter that have been published up to this point.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How abt 'IBA provided no medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published'. This will make a point for people who believe that IBA's claim = medical evidence Cherry567 (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I also have big problems with this sentence. The IOC didn't test for XY chromosomes, so of course they could say that there is "no evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes"; they could have said exactly the same about every boxer in the male categories, too. The question is: did the IOC test for elevated levels of testosterone? Does anyone know? If so: link, please? Huldra (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed.I don't think the IOC tested for anything - from what I understand, they base their criteria on the gender of what is on someone's passport, and largely ignored the previous IBA issues.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think the IOC tested for anything" is conjecture, but somewhat true: IOC hangs out management of doping control at the Olympics to the International Testing Agency. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus the situation is still ongoing, now: AP: IOC calls tests that sparked vitriol targeting boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting impossibly flawed - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Deutsche Welle, "The IOC says that the boxing competition in Paris is being conducted under exactly the same rules as the ones in Rio and Tokyo, where the sex listed on an athlete's passport is the key criteria.", "Meanwhile, critics of Kelif's and Lin's participation in the female category have called for boxers to be sex tested, a practice that was stopped at the Olympics before the Sydney Games in 2000."[10] -- Tobby72 (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can't be used in the article, but that is absolutely fascinating, and really helps me understand the current situation. Thank you. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it can't be used. Using it would be an invitation for readers to read between the lines (e.g. WP:SYNTH or WP:OR). TarnishedPath^talk 06:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

They don't.

They rely on the federation when it comes to eligibility. E.g. in imane's case the Algerian federation would need to confirm whether or not she is a woman. It is 3.1 from the PBU guideline (BBC link I am too lazy to paste) 216.128.23.32 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Poll

I suggest a poll. Please vote Keep/Remove the above sentence:

• Remove -Huldra (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The above sentence no longer exists in the article (it has been amended). M.Bitton (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: To anyone wanting to vote, please do not vote here, vote at Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC_lead Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:RFC. Polls aren't usable, RFC (which is a poll, just in the correct format) is. Also, please review WP:CONSENSUS. Decisions on wikipedia are made based on the reasoning, not the election counts. If you do the RFC, you need to also include your reasoning or the person who reviews it will not count your vote. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The sentence "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" is unnecessary/misleading, IMO, I would like to see it gone. Of course we can/should add our reasoning, but to me it seems as if the majority of editors who have voiced their opinion on this page, has a problem with that sentence? If I have to make a formal WP:RFC request, I will. But is that really necessary? Huldra (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's statement of facts, so what makes it misleading? On the other hand, the poll that you started is definitely misleading and wouldn't achieve anything as a result. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Huldra, in this respect, @M.Bitton is right, the sentence is a statement of fact which, in my view favours no particular argument, and is absolutely pertinent to anyone who wants to understand the subject before us. There are plenty of other parts to this article that can be improved. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a competely meaningless sentence. We could write "No medical evidence that Mike Tyson/User:Huldra/whoever has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published", and that would be a statement of fact, too. (At least for me, and I assume for Mike Tyson, too). We don't write WP:THESKYISBLUE, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The yardstick for "the sky is blue" rule is something as undisputed as the blueness of the sky. This clearly isn't that undisputed; that's kind of the point. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The "statement of fact" argument is not convincing. Also "There is no evidence that Khelif has XX chromosomes" would be a true statement of fact, but the implications would be opposite. Note that the cited source WaPo supplements the contested sentence with the info about IOC not testing athlets for gender. What about having in the lead "since IOC doesn't test for gender, there is no evidence that she has XY chromosomes"? I don't think it's ideal, but still better than the proposed text, because it is closer to the source and less suggestive/POV/misleading. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

'Statement of fact' argument is not convincing, as saying 'no evidence that Khelif has XX chromosomes' could misleadengly imply the opposite, so noting IOC doesn't test athlets for gender is more accurate and the sugested phrasing about XY chromosomes better aligns with the source. BanishedRuler (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done a proper tally but my impression isn't that of a clear majority one way or the other. This is the point of the RfC process, I think. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Tally can only be done by an editor who is WP:UNINVOLVED if WP:RFC is opened. It's not like RfC applies either rn, as this isn't an RfC.
• The current poll cannot be used to justify anything is my point, and can neither support the inclusion or removal of the sentence. The discussion above is probably more impactful than polling rn, in that you're more likely to change the article by editting above.
• Even if Huldra had opened an RfC correctly, (which they still can if they want to), you still need to provide reasoning for your vote. A single "remove" or "keep" without reasoning in an RfC is usually discarded.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

they also need to specify which sentence they are referring to (as simply stating "the above" is misleading). M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC lead

This RfC concerns the two last sentences in the lead: "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published.[8] Khelif was born female and identifies as female.[9]"

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

Discussion

• I have argued the latter, as I think the sentence "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" is meaningless/misleading/controversial, while the sentence ""Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female" is objectively correct. I haven't read all written about this in the last week (who has??), but my impression is that RS ([11] [12]) more and more are using the phrase "assigned female at birth" instead of "born female".

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

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

Strong oppose changing the second sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Whoever closes this RfC, please also review the discussion from the original talk space that started all this. [13] When I said the RfC was a replacement for polling, I mostly meant it as sort of a technical advice (I don't think it should entirely replace the discussion, or that the discussion has no merit.). I'm still certain the discussion is happening in that talk section concurrently with this RfC and should be considered as part of whatever outcome happens. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It is an unreliable source.

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

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

  Boxing record of the "undefeated" boxer she beat:

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

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

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

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

• Support. If we keep the controversial sentence about chromosomes, we should at least supplement it with "The IOC does not test for gender", as per quoted source WaPo. But having in the lead all this information, which is more or less suggestive and hard to interpret, is not ideal. "Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female" is preferable. First, the original sentence, there never has been evidence that either Khelif or Lin had male chromosomes, taken from WoPo, is probably false. The IBA performed two sex verification tests on Khelif and its chair Umar Kremlev told the Russian news agency Tass "it was proven they have XY chromosomes". We don't believe the Russian-led IBA? Fine, but there's also an experienced and reputable journalist, Alan Abrahamson, who writes "3 Wire Sports has seen the letter and the tests" [14]. So it is at the very least possible (although unknown) that Khelif has differences of sex development (DSD), as explained by subject-matter expert Doriane Lambelet Coleman in Quilette. We must strictly abide by WP:BLP, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, which means that we shouldn't be suggesting that Khelif does or doesn't have XY chromosomes: we just don't know anything for sure about chromosomes. Therefore as to her gender, we write what we do know: she was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman. We don't speculate about her genetics and the lack of information about chromosomes, please, we don't make this BLP a trench in the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the West, between IBA and ICO, we don't make her the exemplar of cisgender women because we just don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• We tend to use "assigned" in case where the decision is, for some reason, viewed as either arbitrary (for an intersex person) or incorrect (for a trans person). I'd prefer "identified as female at birth" in a case like this. (It's much like the difference between "claimed" and "said".) Despite what outside commentators have said, as far as I can tell no one who has had access to her has claimed that she's anything but female -- not whoever did her birth certificate, nor the IBA which referred to her as "female" after whatever testing they did, nor the Olympics, nor the individual herself. But I fully understand if folks want to go with something more standard. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  What does it mean that "No medical evidence [...] has been released"? Does it mean that it has not been published? As explained by the IBA, We are not allowed to publish these documents without the agreement of the person concerned [15] - so this is certainly true, but it's meaningless. Does it mean that no person independent of the IBA has ever seen the medical evidence? This is probably false, since it's quite likely that the involved athlets, the ICO officials and at least one professional journalist (Abrahamson) have seen the medical evidence. We must say that the IBA tests are "unspecified", but we cannot suggest that there is any mystery or missing information about their results. The sources do not state that this is the problem. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose In my growing experience on handling these topics on Wikipedia, I find that more information, not less, is better. Of course, the information has to be good. While the lead has quite a few problems, the two sentences in question here are not among them. Further, replacing them with a sentence that could confuse non-savvy readers (variety of concerns with AFAB mentioned by various users above), is not an improvement.
  If we want to improve the "No medical evidence..." sentence, which is the one I would consider improving, we may be better talking about the IBA and saying they have given conflicting answers when asked about the test format and results (sources including [16]). As that doesn't make a general statement which, again, users above have various concerns about. Kingsif (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the notion that the opening sentence is somehow implying that evidence 'secretly' exists is fairly strange, though if felt to be general, it could be fixed by minor rewording. I support the suggestion of another editor above that ""was identified as female at birth" is clearer than 'was born female' , which in the context of gender issues, is a bit meaningless. It is also clearer than the 'jargony' 'AFAB' which only tends to be used in relation to trans issues and in itself carries unhelpful implications.Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Why are editors putting their support/oppose in the discussion section? They should be placed above the discussion section. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hello GoodDay, I think you did more harm than good by adding the "survey" section. I dug to find the relevant edits: First TarnishedPath splitted the actual RfC from a following comment for clarity. [17]. Then a single user decided to vote directly under the RfC [18]. And that's where you found us and decided the survey must be just the little bit above: [19]. Iluvalar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I suggest the following rephrase: "No medical evidence was published that supports or refutes the claim that Khelif has XY chromosomes and/or elevated levels of testosterone. She was assigned female at birth and identified as female ever since". [1] Vegan416 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  I agree, "supports or refutes" would be better. Besides, Khelif renounced her appeal against the IBA's decision, which she could have won by providing the appropriate medical tests (on karyotype and testosterone). The article says that After the appeal, Khelif organised independent tests to clear her name and return to boxing, but she did not release the results of these tests. It is not verified that she has a variation in sex traits or DSDs, but it has not been disproved either. Therefore we have many Italian sources (usually deemed reliable) talking about Khelif as an "intersex athlete" (ANSA [20], Adnkronos [21], la Repubblica [22], Il Messaggero [23], La7 [24], Radio DeeJay [25], etc.), and we also have academics and subject-matter experts debating the potential presence and nature of any DSDs in her case (e.g., Silvia Camporesi in Corriere della Sera [26] and Doriane Lambelet Coleman in Quilette [27]). I'd rather avoid speculating about her chromosomes in the lead - we should just say that she was born female and identifies as woman - but if we are going to give information about the lack of release of medical tests, then "supports or refutes" is preferable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too subjective article

The introductory paragraph should be made more neutral and objective. See the thread archived by a mod. This mod archived my thread after another non-registered user entered the chat and that mod said / thought that other user was me, I am reactivating this thread because that is a confusion and the other user is not me. 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:105 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The whole introductory paragraph is made to seem like it is certain that the allegations are false. Furthermore, it insists on the fact of the IBA being Russian-led to let people think its allegations are fake. This way of saying things is against the objectivity standard of Wikipedia. 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:105 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not using this as a forum. Please refer to the objectivity standards of Wikipedia. This article is not objective, and the reason why I did not edit it is only that I do not have an account. 2001:67C:10EC:574F:8000:0:0:105 (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It is neutral (per Wikipedia's definition of the word) and you violated the WP:BLP policy by persistently making "barely veiled" unsubstantiated claims about a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: no, the article has improved, but it's still not neutral. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That's something that you need to substantiate using the policies and what the RS say. Also, please refrain from needlessly pinging me (the article is in my watchlist and I will answer what I choose to answer). M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What claims? Could we others get some context? Trade (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The entire intro paragraph, it is making people think Khelif is a victim although it is not confirmed yet. It could have been phrased better. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The idea of the boxing organization being shady or corrupt have been a running theme long before Khelif became famous Trade (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the organization is shady or corrupt is simply your opinion and it is not at all clear why they would want to suspend an innocent athlete simply because they are shady. As this Forbes article states, Khalif's testosterone levels were too high and that is why she was suspended: https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/08/09/what-to-know-about-olympics-gender-debate-as-imane-khelif-faces-off-in-womens-boxing-final/ Lechia (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The article mentions the unsubstantiated claims by the IBA. The fact that the Russian-led IBA is shady and corrupt is supported by multiple RS. M.Bitton (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Fanny.doutaz and @JackkBrown. The lead should be more neutral. I think the first sentence should be that she "Received public scrutiny about her biological sex", and that it included online abuse and misinformation, instead of just calling everything misinformation, which sources do not support. JSwift49 02:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: unfortunately, a user (you already know who I'm referring to) is too convinced of their (very questionable) ideas. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You made multiple personal attacks in this chat and I have taken the screenshots. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I fail to understand why you do personal attacks persistently then blames Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Off topic

@M.Bitton: with that message on your talk page you were very disrespectful, but I forgive you. Here, however, I'm free to respond, if necessary, to your comments, as well as to those of other users. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "Forgive me"? you must be having a laugh. Consider yourself lucky that I didn't report you for violating [[[WP:BLP]] multiple times. Also, is there any part of "please refrain from needlessly pinging me (the article is in my watchlist and I will answer what I choose to answer)" that you don't understand? M.Bitton (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Report for what? I never wrote anything in the article that violates Wikipedia rules. I don't want to argue, let's go our separate ways. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Really? Are you sure that you never violated BLP on the article's talk page? M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC) I mean on the article. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC) I meant on the article's talk page (WP:BLP violations apply to the article's talk page too). M.Bitton (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

can you prove why it is neutral? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think that it's not, then the ONUS to prove it (using our policies and what the RS say) is on you. M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

sorry I am new to wikipedia and do not understand abbreviations here. is ONUS a specific wikipedia term or do you mean the ONU? in general please use the full wording Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS. It is common courtesy for editors to link their shortcuts to make it easier for other users to know what they are referrong. Not sure why that didn't happened here? Trade (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. @M.Bitton could and should have explained that. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Onus is an English word. If you don't know what it means, you look it up in a dictionary. M.Bitton (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I study in the US and never heard about that word. So it is not a common word at least. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton also, you claimed that it is neutral. I am asking you why you claim it to be neutral. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

also, you claimed that it is neutral. I am asking you why you claim it to be neutral. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

He didn't called it neutral. He explicitly stated it was neutral as described by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Two different things Trade (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I am new here, it should not be expected from me to know if this word has different meanings in real life and on wikipedia. Instead, they should state what they mean with words that non-experienced wikipedia users should understand. In this case, can you summarize what is meant by "neutral" on wikipedia? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Try and give Wikipedia:Neutral point of view a read. The page exists for this exact reason Trade (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton you just claimed that I have violated the policy, however, I did not claim anything but objectively stating that there has been controversy. it seems that your stance is not neutral and that you are biased towards that person. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. I said what I needed to say. Please refrain from needlessly pinging me (for the same reasons that I stated above). M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Off topic

Ok so this means you admit you are biaised. I will not ping you, but then refrain from stepping in this discussion without bringing anything constructive (since you neither explain why you pretend this article is objective, nor clarify the meaning of your ambiguous claims) Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC) You're "new", so you get a pass, but further personal attacks will earn you a trip to WP:ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• This request is overly vague, and lacks any references to WP:RS that would support its assertions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well I guess eventually i will make an edit suggestion and let others see if that is more neutral and objective Fanny.doutaz (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you used your IP adress to create this talk page section in the first place if i may ask? Trade (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  because i was too lazy to create an account just for this, but then this talk continued so i decided to create an account. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Is there an actual request under this argument from ignorance discussion? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

@JSwift49: not only you haven't participated in any of the discussions, you're also ignoring what I said about the ongoing RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to specific objections? The changes I made were rather non-controversial and I did not see objection besides some to the inclusion of Kremlev's claim. But to sum everything up is 'misinformation' is not accurate. Khelif received public scrutiny about her biological sex, which has come with online abuse and false claims that she is transgender. JSwift49 02:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not see objection you ignored the RfC.

to sum everything up is 'misinformation' is not accurate that's an opinion that others clearly disagree with (see the article's history).

public scrutiny about her biological sex you need to seek consensus for this and the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you link me to the specific RfC you are referring to JSwift49 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There is only one ongoing RfC on this talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That RfC concerns two sentences that I did not significantly change; happy to leave them alone. However this is not a basis for reversion of the entire edit. JSwift49 02:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You changed the sentence, that's a fact. The entire edit consists of you changing the lead (i.e., reverting the work of multiple editors) according to what you think is better. That said you're more than welcome to seek consensus for the various sentences that you want to change. M.Bitton (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: Like I said, "misinformation" has been restored multiple times (including by an admin), so please refrain from changing it according to what you believe is better. M.Bitton (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi; you did not reference the 'misinformation' sentence before, can you point to this discussion please? JSwift49 03:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

not sure what WP:ONUS has to do with this that means you haven't read the policy. Please read it and seek consensus for your changes. M.Bitton (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, please explain how I violated WP:ONUS JSwift49 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Did you seek consensus for your changes? M.Bitton (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see the existing consensus on 'misinformation' before determining if my addition qualifies as 'disputed content'. JSwift49 03:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: if I'm not mistaken, this was added without consensus. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead is the result of various editors working on it. What we have has implicit consensus. Your major changes on the other hand are clearly disputed. M.Bitton (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion on neutrality clearly shows that there is not implicit consensus. JSwift49 03:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is based solely on an editor's opinion and devoid of RS. See the last comments. M.Bitton (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, three now :) why don't you look at my post below, which is based on RS, and highlight your issues with my proposal? JSwift49 03:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, you need to obtain consensus for your changes per both WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. Multiple editors, including Black Kite, M.Bitton and myself have reverted back to the term "misinformation". TarnishedPath^talk 03:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I needed to see that there was consensus from multiple editors here; thank you. I have submitted my proposed changes below. JSwift49 03:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49 per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE other editors don't need to establish consensus for removal, you need to establish consensus for re-inclusion. Please bear that in mind. TarnishedPath^talk 03:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Right; and I wanted to see that consensus had originally been established for the inclusion of that term. JSwift49 03:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, Khelif received intense public scrutiny about her biological sex, which included online abuse and false assertions that she was transgender.[28][29] Khelif had previously been disqualified from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships, organised by the Russian-led International Boxing Association (IBA), after she allegedly failed unspecified gender eligibility tests.[30][31]

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

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

  AP article [32] describes situation as "scrutiny over her sex", while NBC article [33] describes it as "The Algerian athlete has faced intense scrutiny about her gender and online abuse". My proposal is an accurate depiction of what sources describe and not "weasel words". The misinformation (specifically that she was transgender) is still mentioned, and the nature of it is clarified. JSwift49 03:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

  Forbes: [34] "Khelif’s participation at the Olympics has been a subject of intense scrutiny"

  SI: [35] "Having put a maelstrom of scrutiny behind her, Algeria's Imane Khelif is on top of the world."

  Le Monde: [36] "Boxer Imane Khelif wins gold despite worldwide scrutiny and disinformation over her gender"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Perfectly fine with "Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, Khelif received intense public scrutiny about her biological sex, which included online abuse and misinformation" JSwift49 04:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Quoting: "This RfC concerns the two last sentences in the lead: "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published.[8] Khelif was born female and identifies as female.[9]""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  This is very much a two-way conversation... not one-way badgering JSwift49 04:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue with your proposal is that while they all say she has faced scrutiny (and this seems undisputed by any RS), none of the cited sources say the scrutiny was "about her biological sex", and the one that comes closest (AP) says it in their headline (which we don't use per WP:HEADLINE). There is widespread confusion amongst sources (even the otherwise-reliable ones), with many using sex and gender interchangeably or otherwise muddling the difference. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps this would be better: "Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini at the 2024 Olympics, Khelif faced intense public scrutiny over her eligibility for the women's category, including online abuse and false claims that she was transgender". I don't understand why some editors claim that this text is not supported by reliable sources and/or that the sources are cherry-picked. It is a more balanced and comprehensive account of the "Khelif affair" than the one entirely framed in terms of "misinformation" and "false assertions". Indeed there were misinformation and false assertions (as reported by RSes) but there is also a public debate on the eligibility criteria for female boxers. I'm not particularly interested or versed in the subject, but I find that the current lead oversimplifies and takes sides, making for a less interesting reading than an encyclopedia article should be. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please look at my proposal below too :) Fanny.doutaz (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support as well, @Barnards.tar.gz I see your point, good catch. @Gitz6666 I agree that is a better way to put it than my original summary, since the eligibility is primarily at issue and all sources discuss that. JSwift49 10:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is an improvement. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not an improvement over the current text. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this is not an improvement over what already have.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi; you have not answered the above question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure dozens of quotes like this could easily be found - indeed, "scrutiny" and "debate" imply many voices; one interesting contribution is this one [37] by Jaime Schultz [38]; another interesting one, on the opposite side of the debate (if I'm not wrong) is this one [39] by Doriane Lambelet Coleman. They both acknowledge that there's been a lot of misinformation and false allegations, but that doesn't stop them from highlighting the substantive issues on which reasonable disagreement and meaningful debate are possible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following her victory over Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, Khelif became the subject of widespread public attention and misinformation regarding her gender. Khelif had previously been disqualified from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships, organised by the Russian-led International Boxing Association (IBA), after she allegedly failed unspecified gender eligibility tests.[40][41][42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with M.Bitton, she was primarily the target of misinformation. We should in no way use language which promotes the idea that any of it was reasonable attention brought about by facts or evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m still not on the same page; since many reliable sources do say “scrutiny”. And if we don’t want give negative attention any specific weight in the lead by calling it “scrutiny”, “attention and misinformation” seems a good replacement. Can you provide sources that solely focus on the misinformation/abuse and don’t also describe “attention”, “scrutiny”, “accusations” et cetera? JSwift49 00:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Many reliable sources say "misinformation" or "disinformation" which is what actually occurred. Consensus should determine what wording is used where sources use different descriptions and I'm reading no consensus for change from the current wording. TarnishedPath^talk 09:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that most of the sources I’ve seen refer to both “misinformation” and things like “scrutiny”, “debate”, “accusations”. And based on the discussion there is no consensus for the status quo. In fact, “misinformation” was added recently without a talk and was reverted/re-added twice. [43][44][45][46][47] JSwift49 10:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• [48][49][50][51][52].
• [53][54][55][56].

JSwift49 12:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming what I said in my previous comment. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I follow :) JSwift49 13:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Lead paragraph proposal

Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini during the 2024 Olympic Games, controversies surfaced on social media about her gender. Following Khelif's disqualification from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships, organised by the Russian-led International Boxing Association (IBA), who claims that she has "XY chromosomes and elevated testosterone levels", false assertions about her being male or transgender have been made. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its Paris Boxing Unit stated Khelif was eligible to compete in the Olympics, and criticized the IBA's previous disqualification as "sudden and arbitrary" and taken "without any due process". No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published. Khelif was born female and identifies as female, and is therefore not a transgender case. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: everything looks fine to me. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: you're welcome. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

) Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d be OK with this as well, though I prefer using the word “scrutiny” as it is used in sources, and I think the scrutiny and misinformation should be mentioned together in the same sentence, as they occurred simultaneously. JSwift49 10:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with either. Could maybe an user who can edit the main article use this version (with either "scrutiny" or "controversies")? @JSwift49@JackkBrown Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Once there is more discussion and relative consensus achieved, then action will be determined. Assuming your suggestion also concerns the 2nd lead paragraph, and you are not proposing replacing the first lead paragraph, you and anyone else can weigh in on the existing ”2nd lead paragraph proposal” discussion. JSwift49 11:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In case you’re new, how I understand it works is if you are talking about the same topic, it goes in the same discussion. So that’s where you suggest changes to the initial proposal. Often people start a reply to a proposal with Support or Oppose and explain reasoning. JSwift49 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It make sense, thank you Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This does not follow MOS:OPENPARABIO. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate if people actually state what does not respect what parts of a guideline instead of just saying it does not and giving a huge paragraph to read. If you think it is wrong, then state what is wrong. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And in case you thought I meant to replace the opening paragraph completely by this text, this is not what I meant; I meant to keep the first paragraph as it is and replace the second with this one. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"in case you thought I meant to replace the opening paragraph completely by this text, this is not what I meant". Then you need to be clear on that when making proposals. Otherwise if you put a paragraph under a heading Lead paragraph proposal common sense would suggest that you are proposing to replace the lead paragraph with text provided. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose not an improvement (that's a very generous way of describing it) over what we have. M.Bitton (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That is just a more neutral way of describing it. And I believe that there should be some pool otherwise this discussion will not end. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Take this discussion to WP:ANI or cut it out. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC) I am also not interested in yours, however you were the one replying to me. @M.Bitton Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC) The fact is that the allegations of her being male or transgender are wrong. The fact is also that XY or not is undetermined. So explain me how this way is not more neutral if you are not biased. @M.Bitton Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC) I am also not interested in yours, however you were the one who replied to me. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Since you persist on needlessly pinging me from an article that is is already in my watchlist (despite being asked not to), you leave me with no choice but to mute all notifications from you. M.Bitton (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Do it, I do absolutely not care. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Done. Happy days. M.Bitton (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC) This aside, I left you a message on your homepage to have a real chat. I do not understand this fight in the first place. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Don't do that again. M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC) I saw your edit along with your irritating comment that you are "wasting your valuable (LOL) time" talking to me. Just to let you know that this behaviour is absolutely not welcoming for new users, in addition to the fact that you have been replying offensively multiple times without explanation. But you reminded me that as a teenager at MIT my time is actually valuable and I will go studying instead of wasting time fighting with strangers online. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC) @Fanny.doutaz: the strange thing is that Bitton has accused several other users of unfair behaviour (see this report: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fanny.doutaz&diff=prev&oldid=1239472311, etc.), when in fact this user contributes in attacking (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1239463772). Wikipedia is a collaborative project. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Agree. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC) If indeed that's what you believe, then WP:ANI is thatway, otherwise this is just another personal attack. The question is: do you have the courage of your so-called convictions or are you ...? M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Personal attack"? By reporting the links of your attacks? I refuse to argue with you if you think this. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC) @JackkBrown +1 Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Not only personal attacks, but also a clear lack of courage of conviction. Like I said, ANI is thataway. M.Bitton (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC) I am not reporting you just because as a MIT student I am wasting my time fighting with strangers online. I do not see any use in reporting you, despite you being abusive. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Enough, people. (CC) Tbhotch™ 13:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC) I'm not going to let an editor cast aspersions and get away with it. Their clear lack of courage of conviction (to take it to ANI) speaks for itself (everything else is just more aspersions that say more about them than anyone else). M.Bitton (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Looking at the past chats, it should be clear who started to be offensive first. I tried to resolve the problem, bitton refused. Reporting or not is my choice (and that of the other users), but who is right and who is wrong can be judged by looking into all the past chats. Bitton had multiple messages targeted at me and other users like: "The opinion of all those editors are irrelevant" "If I need utterly advice I'd ask you" "I don't care about your opinion" "you're not welcome here" Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC) edit: the second message by bitton was "if I need utterly useless advice I'd ask you", made a typo in my original message Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC) The clear lack of courage of conviction to take it to ANI speaks for itself. Aspersions, empty barrels, loud noises and all that. M.Bitton (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC) This will be the last message addressed to you. I will not waste further time. Again, reporting an issue wastes time. In the same logic as you said I lack courage, I can also say that you lack courage of replying to me while I tried to solve an issue. Now you are the one to who empty barrels make the most noise apply. The lack of courage speaks for itself. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC) I stand by everything I said and I will make sure that this harassment will stop one way or the other. M.Bitton (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Didn't I say enough? (CC) Tbhotch™ 14:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is not an improvement and seeks to whitewash that there was misinformation campaign from the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 03:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Pro versus amateur boxer

Regarding the edits to Khelif's status as a pro boxer in the lead section, professional boxers can compete at the Olympics (which is the amateur format) provided they qualify.

• "Although professionals are allowed to compete at the Olympics, the competition remains an amateur format, meaning contests will be 3 x 3 minute rounds."
• "A rule change passed before the 2016 Games allows professional boxers to compete in the Olympics."
• "Although professional boxers were first allowed into the Olympics eight years ago, they haven’t come close to dominating in the way many coaches and fighters feared they would."

Mellamelina (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Meloni again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless:... The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful". [57] which a description of a meeting between Meloni and Bach obviously... isn't. Yet when you reverted, you could not provide a good answer why.

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

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

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

You are in violation of WP:ONUS and more seriously in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE which requires you to obtain positive consensus on the article's talk prior to restoring an contentious material. A good way forward would be for you to revert your last edit which put you in violation of WP:3RR and continue discussion. Edit warring to restore your preferred versions of text is not helpful. TarnishedPath^talk 02:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

See my prior argument ^ according to policy according to this essay, good-faith additions should remain in article pending consensus unless it's both BLP and potentially harmful (and other reasons that don't apply). I agree I shouldn't have made changes to the lead without consensus but I have corrected that and this is different. JSwift49 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

according to policy good-faith additions should remain in article pending consensus there is no such policy, and therefore, no valid explanation for your repeated violations of the WP:ONUS policy. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, with reverts at Special:Diff/1239674225, Special:Diff/1239675579, Special:Diff/1239676462 and Special:Diff/1239704165 you are in violation of WP:3RR. Self revert immediately. TarnishedPath^talk 02:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, they're not the only one to have violated the 3RR on this article, are they? Anyway, I don't understand the level of controversy this edit has caused: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni met with IOC President Thomas Bach the following day to voice her concerns about allowing Khelif to compete. It's a noteworthy information that gives some context to the "Second-round fight against Angela Carini" section. It shows that the controversy over Khelif's eligibility reached the highest levels of politics, but it doesn't add any normative (POV) elements to the article - precisely because Meloni is "an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned", as M.Bitton notes. I don't see how this sentence would unbalance the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The concerns of the far-right are immaterial. They lack weight. Per your comments on others violating 3RR, that doesn't excuse fragrant violations. JSwift in their third revert within the 24 hour period, wrote in the edit summary "One more and you'll break the three-revert rule" then proceeded to shit all over 3RR themselves 4 hours latter. If you have concerns with other editors, by all means raise it with them. TarnishedPath^talk 09:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politico implies that Meloni called the meeting because of Khelif: "Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni met with IOC President Thomas Bach on Friday morning to voice her concerns about allowing Khelif to compete “and the issue of rules to guarantee fairness,” her office said." [58]

ANSA states they talked about multiple subjects including Khelif, so less certain if Meloni called the meeting, but still significant as it confirms Meloni's requests prompted Bach to act on clarify the issue. [59] JSwift49 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another thing of note here is that Meloni visited Carini, not just Bach.[60] JSwift49 00:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name pronunciation

According to this, she pronounces it with /k/ and /e/ sounds. Ranching (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

This RfC concerns the first two sentences of the lead's second paragraph. (snapshot at the time of writing: [61])

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

be changed to

"Following Khelif's victory ... she became the subject of widespread public attention and misinformation regarding her gender. Khelif had previously been disqualified from the 2023 Women's World Boxing Championships ..." JSwift49 13:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

• Reuters (already in lead) [62] "Khelif has been at the centre of a debate about gender in sport..." and "Khelif and the row she has found herself embroiled in..."
• BBC (already in lead) [63] "The participation of Algeria's Khelif and Taiwan's Lin has proved controversial given they were disqualified..."
• Associated Press (already in lead) [64][65][66] "at the Games where she endured intense scrutiny in the ring and online abuse from around the world over misconceptions about her womanhood."
• Washington Post (also AP) [67] "Algerian boxer Imane Khelif won a gold medal at Paris Olympics after facing scrutiny over misconceptions about her sex."
• NBC [68] "at the center of a global debate over gender eligibility and fairness" and "continue to face intense scrutiny and false accusations"
• Forbes [69] "A contentious fight over who should—and shouldn’t—be allowed to compete in women’s sports has materialized ... amid criticism over the participation of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif" and "Khelif’s participation at the Olympics has been a subject of intense scrutiny after she was disqualified..."
• Sports Illustrated [70] "Having put a maelstrom of scrutiny behind her, Algeria's Imane Khelif is on top of the world." and "Khelif, 25, also addressed the speculation surrounding her gender earlier..."
• ABC (Australia) [71] "moving one win away from what she calls the best response to the worldwide scrutiny she has faced over misconceptions about her gender."
• New York Times [72] "that saw her become one of the stories of the Olympics due to accusations over her gender that she described as “bullying.”"
• The Independent [73] "Having been born a woman and lived her entire life as one, Khelif was catapulted to the centre of a rabid debate over trans women in sport because her opponent, Angela Carini..."
• ESPN [74] "A boxing match that lasted 46 seconds has dominated the conversation around the Paris Olympics in recent days and reignited the debate about who is eligible to compete in women's sports."
• Deutsche Welle [75] "Despite there being no proof that Khelif is a transgender boxer, heated debates on social media are still ongoing." and "Looking at the comments... also reveal the extent of hate speech and disinformation being spread".
• CNN [76] "Khelif had been the subject of global attention after defeating Italian boxer..."

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

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) the current text with "misinformation" only is accurate as of August 7 and was reverted/restored twice, not including by me.[77][78][79][80][81] I did not see any Talk page consensus regarding this change, and there was no consensus in the discussion I later started [82], so I would not oppose removal of the sentences in question until a compromise is reached.

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

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

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

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

  I will leave the conversation here as it has already been had. [83] I will note that this editor has a history of asking the same question verbatim four or five times during the course of a discussion:

  • [84][85][86][87][88]
  • [89][90][91][92]

  JSwift49 14:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  No worries, I'll mention it here then: The "fueled by" phrasing comes from the AP article's headline, which violates WP:HEADLINE. [93] The article said "It stems from" the disqualification, where "it" refers to "hateful scrutiny" in the previous paragraph, not false accusations.

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

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

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

  M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)