Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lame article

WP:NOTFORUM. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pathetic that this article is protected and virtually empty. Stop protecting every article and allow properly-sourced edits. XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC) You are welcome to request that the article's protection be decreased or removed. If there's something specific you feel is missing from the article, you could always add it. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC) I think in the former you are probably unlikely to succeed, because when the page wasn't protected there were people vandalising it (in ways that severely violated the BLP policy, were incredibly offensive, or in some cases both) every five minutes for a while. But if you think there is not sufficient justification for it being protected, you should go make the case; Wikipedia thrives on discussion and initiative. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusivity vs. Accuracy

WP:NOTFORUM. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is failing on topics that touch on items of identity. This page is so empty as barely makes it worthwhile. At some point every page will have a controversial tag on, every article locked and Wikipedia articles on people just containing; name and date of birth. Sure, some will disagree but that's my point. -- [[user:Matt.whitby]] (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC) Only if by "empty", you mean it's not full of social media garbage. M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC) As I said above: You are welcome to request that the article's protection be decreased or removed. If there's something specific you feel is missing from the article, you could always add it...I think in the former you are probably unlikely to succeed, because when the page wasn't protected there were people vandalising it (in ways that severely violated the BLP policy, were incredibly offensive, or in some cases both) every five minutes for a while. But if you think there is not sufficient justification for it being protected, you should go make the case; Wikipedia thrives on discussion and initiative. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Testosterone

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

---

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

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

Looks like a moot point now, since the section was removed. Eyeanow (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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

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

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

Some RS talking about it are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add more RS covering Khelif controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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

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

Trans/DSD section needs credible sources before assumptions

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

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

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

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

I agree with this statement. The edit should be reverted back to original language.Under WP:BL that states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". There is no RS that provides proof that the athlete in question has any DSD. Eyeanow (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High androgen levels vs hyperandrogenism

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

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

DSD

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

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

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

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

There are no primary sources to validate this claim

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

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

KEEP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intersex

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

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

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

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

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

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

IOC Statement

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

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

@Mellamelina: I believe that is all  Done

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

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

More RS reporting on Italian PM comments

See here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarify that she is not transgender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentioned rare case: Woman may also have XY chromosomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we also need to include

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

for WP:Readability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also reported in Reuters

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

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

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

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

Reporting XY chromosome

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

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

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

Also reported in Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of intersex Olympians

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

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

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

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

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

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

IBA's Olympic status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Already responded. They do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Victims of cyberbullying"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, good points - how is this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove parroted language that the IBA decision is legally binding

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

 Done

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

Inclusion of controversy in lede

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

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

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

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

Quote sources

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

Edit request 2 August 2024

State that

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Details from Carpenter's Washington Post story needed

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

To wit... Motive for the IBA chief (a Putin ally) to disqualify Khelif: "Three people familiar with the details of the women’s case pointed out that the disqualifications came three days after Khelif defeated Russian Azalia Amineva and a day after she won her semifinal bout in the 63-66-kg (139-145.5-pound) category."

A source (admittedly unnamed) commenting thusly: "A person with knowledge of last year’s disqualifications from worlds but not authorized to speak publicly called Khelif and Lin’s banishments 'classic IBA disinformation.'"

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

Edit request 3 August 2024

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

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

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

Sky Sports interview

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

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

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

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

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

August 2024

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

Coverage about the whole issue

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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

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

Some RS confirming the above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also Caster Semenya

Imane is dealing with many of the same issues and criticisms as Caster Semenya. I am not sure if it is the exact same condition, but those interested would benefit from a link to Caster and other DSD athletes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya 2001:19E8:F0:7601:8DF8:484D:137:78B3 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally agreed. What an appropriate time to raise the issue. On the eve of a medal. Why wasn´t this an issue when she was defeated three years ago? Lf8u2 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We have no reliable sources that establish DSD here, not yet anyway. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not only Caster Semenya, but Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui too. Those 3 females won gold, silver and bronze at the 800 metres for women, 2016 Olympics. They all have XY chromosomes.

They were all registered as females at birth, and were brought up as girls. When people are born inter-sex (or DSD), often the doctor/midwife/relatives cannot see wether the baby is a girl or a boy. In such cases they typically are registered as female, as the thinking is that it is easier being girl "tomboy", than is is growing up being a "girlie" boy. I know that has been the case "forever" in my country (in Europe), and in the US. Apparently it is the same in Africa, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No, they have not publicly identified as being LGBT. While non-LGBT persons may have the WikiProject LGBT studies banner added because of their interest to the LGBT community (Kylie Minogue for example), I think we ought to act cautiously here given the country that they have to live in. Because of the potential real-world ramifications for their life I think we have to strongly consider BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  I can respect a fear for potential real-world ramifications/common sense argument here, but IMO, any real world ramifications here will be from the article-text, which includes more than half the WP:LEAD, not from adding a Wikiproject template to a collapsed section on a page comparatively few readers [5][6] look at.

  IMO, if potential real-world ramifications is a worry here, the WP:LEAD is the bit to worry most about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't think the world's media takes notice of our talk pages, you're mistaken. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  They do, but not nearly as much as about what's in the articles. And on this particular issue, I've haven't seen any media coverage on the WP-angle at all. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a media comment on the use of Wikiproject banners on talkpages. Media has of course noticed wikiprojects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would support adding more about the controversy using reliable sources, which would be summarized in a sentence or two (since many of the articles have similar information) in the sub-section "Second-round fight against Angela Carini". Here is my proposed text, which would follow the last sentence of the first paragraph:

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

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

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

  I would argue that these articles, plus the existing text in the article, would undoubtedly support adding the LGBT studies WikiProject to this page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update. I am withdrawing my proposed text from consideration. Please disregard this text.Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Donald Trump decides who is and isn't LGBT? M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  That question makes no sense and I find it inflammatory, so I'm not going to respond to a loaded question like that. He would ONLY be mentioned here due to the fact he spread false claims about Khelif. By not mentioning the online backlash and noting specific individuals, this article is missing an entire dimension of talk about Khelif. I'm not saying I agree with the backlash, but it happened. So, the present article minimizes it TOO much. Historyday01 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's exactly what you're suggesting: adding LGBT to an article based solely on what a ex-president and some celebrities' irrelevant opinions (which say more about them than her) about a subject that is well beyond their expertise. Would the opinion of a carpenter be relevant in an article about Quantum chemistry? M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that the text I am proposing is perfect. It surely isn't. In fact, it could probably be cut down MORE. But, I believe it should be added to the article in some form. I care little about the opinions of "a ex-president and some celebrities". Rather, I am only trying to capture recent comments about Khelif and summarize them in such a way that readers could understand what is going on. That is all. You are being very disingenuous here, to say the least, and your comments continue to be unnecessarily inflammatory. Your comments are not helpful. I've already posted about my proposed text on the LGBT studies WikiProject. I guarantee they will have much more constructive comments than your comments. Even people on Reddit make better arguments than you do, which is saying a lot.Historyday01 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your opinion of my arguments will be ignored as utterly and completely irrelevant.

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

   Note: the sole purpose of the above proposal is to justify the advertisement of the interest of a handful of editors at the expense of the reputation of a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. The sources I cited in my proposed text are reliable. Your "informational note" is wholly inaccurate. To act like the LGBT studies WikiProject is some niche interest, as it seems you are doing, is denigrating and dishonest. If you have that much of an issue with the text, then write your own text and propose it here! Unless you do that, I reason that your arguments don't hold much weight at all. Historyday01 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've had it with your nonsense. Commenting on my argument is one thing, but accusing me of dishonesty is not something that I will tolerate. As far as I'm concerned, what you think of me says more about you than it doesn about me, so I suggest you comment on the subject and give the aspersions a rest. All wikiprojects are niche, that's a fact. M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  OK. I stand by what I said, as it seemed that way to me. It also seemed that your arguments were being disingenuous here. I see no point in continuing discussion about this topic with you, as it has clearly devolved to such a point that further discussion about this topic with you is seemingly impossible. Historyday01 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Persistently casting aspersions is not something that would give weight to your argument, if anything.... M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  After your recent threat toward me on the WikiProject LGBT studies talk page, please do not EVER contact me again. I never wish to engage in any discussion on any topic with you at ANY point in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement as it was unnecessarily harsh.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have never contacted you before and have no reason to ever do so, but if you ever redact my comment again, you will take a trip to ANI (that's a promise). M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just one final comment on here (I know I said I didn't want to engage with you about any discussion, but I just want to make one quick point here). With some reflection here, I can admit that I could have conducted this discussion better and I will do better in the future with other users. I have also withdrawn my proposed text from consideration and striken most of my comments on here. As such, I think we can consider this matter PERMANENTLY closed.Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Adding more article-content is not really the subject of this thread, it's about the talkpage (I know, I mentioned article-text myself). Fwiw, I think the current content on this issue has WP:PROPORTION/WP:NOTNEWS ("while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized") problems as it is, but now is probably not the time to deal with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. When would you suggest adding article-text then? Should we wait a week or so until more news come out? Or just let it pass? Historyday01 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Waiting a week or 5 is fine with me, but I don't expect that to happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah ok. Thanks for replying. With the recent kerfuffle, I don't have any intention of adding this to the page, nor participating in any discussions about Khelif any time in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I've rethought this and I withdraw any objection to using the LGBT project banner. It's irrelevant if they are LGBT, this subject and the manufactured controversy surrounding it is of interest to the LGBT community. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Slothtysloth thanks for replying.

Some thoughts and observations.

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

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

2.1 Makes no mention of "trans"

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

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

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

2.5 Says nothing about the IBA or bans

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 Says nothing about the IBA or bans

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

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

Why was I reverted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Prominent anti-trans figures"

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

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

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

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

I'd remove this sentence entirely:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversy and criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Hamori

@JackkBrown: regarding this edit:

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

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

She is not transgender and does not identify as intersex

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

She is not transgender and does not identify as intersex.

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

The IOC said the key criterion is the gender listed on the athlete's passport.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Coverage elsewhere

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

2 sentences in the lead:

I have a problem with 2 sentences in the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The interview statement of István Kovács and reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Female

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

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

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

You didn't answer my question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IBA Press Conference 8/5/24

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

• The Washington Post
• Time Magazine
• The Independent
• The Telegraph
• Sky Sports
• BBC Sport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Too subjective article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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