Talk:Imane Khelif

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imane Khelif article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Imane Khelif. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Imane Khelif at the Reference desk.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). Algeria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Boxing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing articles WikiProject Boxing "To Do": edit history watch purge → Help pick the next article for collaboration. FA Noms: Review: New: Expand: Hasim Rahman | Gabriel Elorde | Gerry Peñalosa | Ike Quartey | Joel Casamayor | Jean-Marc Mormeck | Odlanier Solís | Yuriorkis Gamboa Collaborate: Boxing Discuss: Annotate: Muhammad Ali | Sugar Ray Robinson | Oscar De La Hoya | Jack Dempsey | Rocky Marciano | Joe Louis | George Foreman | Roy Jones Jr. | Marvin Hagler | Lennox Lewis | Evander Holyfield | Manny Pacquiao | Érik Morales Assess: Create: Olympics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Women's sport: Boxing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Women's boxing task force.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 28 to August 3, 2024 (1st) August 4 to 10, 2024 (5th) August 11 to 17, 2024 (19th)

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  "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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  @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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

This RfC concerns the first two sentences of the lead's second paragraph. (snapshot at the time of writing: [19])

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

be changed to

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

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

• Reuters (already in lead) [20] "Khelif has been at the centre of a debate about gender in sport..." and "Khelif and the row she has found herself embroiled in..."
• BBC (already in lead) [21] "The participation of Algeria's Khelif and Taiwan's Lin has proved controversial given they were disqualified..."
• Associated Press (already in lead) [22][23][24] "at the Games where she endured intense scrutiny in the ring and online abuse from around the world over misconceptions about her womanhood."
• Washington Post (also AP) [25] "Algerian boxer Imane Khelif won a gold medal at Paris Olympics after facing scrutiny over misconceptions about her sex."
• NBC [26] "at the center of a global debate over gender eligibility and fairness" and "continue to face intense scrutiny and false accusations"
• Forbes [27] "A contentious fight over who should—and shouldn’t—be allowed to compete in women’s sports has materialized ... amid criticism over the participation of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif" and "Khelif’s participation at the Olympics has been a subject of intense scrutiny after she was disqualified..."
• Sports Illustrated [28] "Having put a maelstrom of scrutiny behind her, Algeria's Imane Khelif is on top of the world." and "Khelif, 25, also addressed the speculation surrounding her gender earlier..."
• ABC (Australia) [29] "moving one win away from what she calls the best response to the worldwide scrutiny she has faced over misconceptions about her gender."
• New York Times [30] "that saw her become one of the stories of the Olympics due to accusations over her gender that she described as “bullying.”"
• The Independent [31] "Having been born a woman and lived her entire life as one, Khelif was catapulted to the centre of a rabid debate over trans women in sport because her opponent, Angela Carini..."
• ESPN [32] "A boxing match that lasted 46 seconds has dominated the conversation around the Paris Olympics in recent days and reignited the debate about who is eligible to compete in women's sports."
• Deutsche Welle [33] "Despite there being no proof that Khelif is a transgender boxer, heated debates on social media are still ongoing." and "Looking at the comments... also reveal the extent of hate speech and disinformation being spread".
• CNN [34] "Khelif had been the subject of global attention after defeating Italian boxer..."

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

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) the current text with "misinformation" only is accurate as of August 7 and was reverted/restored twice, not including by me.[35][36][37][38][39] I did not see any Talk page consensus regarding this change, and there was no consensus in the discussion I later started [40], so I would not oppose removal of the sentences in question until a compromise is reached.

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

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

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

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

  I will leave the conversation here as it has already been had. [41] I will note that this editor has a history of asking the same question verbatim four or five times during the course of a discussion:

  • [42][43][44][45][46]
  • [47][48][49][50]

  JSwift49 14:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Leave "misinformation" out (invited by the bot) There has been lots of information, mis-information, questions, impressions etc. out. To cherry pick / only describe the outright misinformation is a distortion. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC proposes to add widespread public attention alongside misinformation to the lead. Since several RSs shared by JSwift49 mention the "global debate over gender eligibility and fairness" sparked by Khelif at the Olympics, editors may wonder about the content of that debate: is it just bigotry and hate speech? In that case, "misinformation" would be enough. I believe there's been also a reasoned public debate about non-trivial, non-hateful issues: was the IOC's decision not to perform sex verification tests, that is, not to enquire about the athletes' gender as certified in their passports, a good decision? Some sports journalists and academics have questioned this decision and raised concerns about the safety of the athletes and the fairness of the competition. I don't have an opinion on the matter - I'm not particularly interested in sport or GENSEX - but I believe that NPOV dictates that we don't deny or trivialise a public debate that is reasonable and significant. So in the collapsible box I'm including some extracts from "voices" in that debate (except for the first one, which is an RS, they are all editorials and opinion commentaries, not RSs). I'm not proposing to use them as sources for the article on Khelif, but I feel that the RfC would be better informed if editors knew what this "widespread public attention" or "public debate" is about.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think that the BBC, WSJ and the Atlantic are "nobodies". And what difference does it make here if it was published a week ago or two weeks ago??? Vegan416 (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of they're not the "nobodies" (the ones who started it) that I was referring to. Something published after the event cannot be the cause of the event. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "Event" that ended. It's a continuing debate. And I didn't say anything about "causes". Nor doers JSwift49 suggestion here say anything about "causes". I only said "If someone wonders whether she has indeed XY chromosomes and/or elevated testosterone level that might give her unfair advantage, that is not misinformation and not abuse." Do you disagree with this statement? Vegan416 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is about what started it and the disinformation and hate campaign that followed (still ongoing).

If someone wonders anything that is unsubstantiated and damaging to a living person is abuse and misinformation (she knows this better than most and is taking legal action against the bullies). M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. JSwift wants to change the first sentence so it want talk only about the hate campaign but also about the legitimate concerns.

Also wondering "whether she has indeed XY chromosomes and/or elevated testosterone level that might give her unfair advantage" is definitely not misinformation, because it doesn't make any definitive assertion. The facts are the a claim was made by an international sporting organization that she has XY and/or elevated testosterone. Evidence for this claim was not made public. But contrary evidence was not made public either. In fact as far as I could see this claim was not even denied by Imane Khelif or the IOC. Correct me if I'm wrong on the last point. Can you show me a source where the IOC or Imane Khelif claim that she doesn't have XY chromosomes and elevated testosterone level? Vegan416 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't patronize me (I didn't miss anything). Unsubstantiated claims that are damaging to the reputation and well being of a living person are misinformation. Contrary to what you're claiming, she doesn't have to live up to some people's expectation of what a woman is or prove who she is to anyone, least of all the bullies. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't patronize you. If you claim to understand JSwift49 suggestion then it should be obvious to you that your statement that the current sentence is only talking about the hate campaign is irrelevant.

Again I refer you to the dictionary. For example (here and here). Misinformation is incorrect or misleading or wrong information. Unsubstantiated claims that were not refuted are undecided. Therefore they are not incorrect (nor correct). Therefore they are not misinformation. Furthermore, claims that are not even denied are sometimes regarded as correct, even in legal settings (where the bar for proof is much higher than in public debate) in many countries. I suggest you read about "Silence as admission". Anyway, this discussion became too long so I'm stopping here. If you wish to continue please do it on my talk page only. Vegan416 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim to have read my comments, then it should be obvious to you that their suggestion whitewashes the misinformation. I'm not interested in WP:OR, especially when the reputation of a living person is concerned. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded yo you here User talk:Vegan416/DiscussionPage#Response to Bitton re Khelif. And I'll continue to respond only there. Vegan416 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416 I agree, your sources are good examples of non-misinformation attention, and help to corroborate what reliable sources already say about Khelif receiving said attention. JSwift49 16:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the above list of sources strikes me as a call to original research as by my reading they concern themselves with discussing eligibility standards in general rather than constituting reasonable fact based discussions about whether Khelif was eligible. These are not sources which support the proposal that there was anything other than misinformation in regards to Khelif. TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have time for a detailed response. But 2 quick points: 1. I know what OR is. And this sources are definitely not OR. But I have no idea what "a call to OR" is. Can you refer me to a policy page which explain this term? 2. These sources are not discussing eligibility standards in general only, but also in reference to the possibility that Khelif has some form of DSD. 3. Do you suggest that these sources are engaging in "misinformation"? Vegan416 (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "but also in reference to the possibility that Khelif has some form of DSD" for which there is no reliable evidence. So these sources don't assert that Khelif has DSD which I would expect because there is no reliable evidence for it. So the usage of these sources is in fact a call to original research. You want to draw connections between generalised discussion of eligibility of persons with DSD and Khelif when they have not been demonstrated to have DSD by any reliable sources. In short there are no reliable sources which assert that Khelif has DSD/XY chromosomes/high testosterone/etc. Any claim that they do is misinformation or disinformation. Reasonable concerns are always based on verifiable evidence. If there is no verifiable evidence there is no reasonableness. Therefore it is only appropriate to use the word 'misinformation' or 'disinformation' about claims concerning Khelif's gender or any other medical condition for which no reliable evidence has been presented. TarnishedPath^talk 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Since you ignored my request to explain what a "a call to original research" even means, and a google search didn't find any mention of this expression in wikipedia policy pages, I'll just ignore this part of your response, as clearly wikipedia doesn't have any policy regarding it (whatever it means).
  2. The sentence "these sources don't assert that Khelif has DSD" is a strawman, since nobody here claimed that these sources assert that, and nobody here wants to assert that either. My only claim here is that publicly discussing the possibility that Khelif has DSD and expressing concerns about the possible implications of this eventuality (as the sources I brought, and many others, do) is definitely NOT misinformation or disinformation under the circumstances of this case.
  3. I strongly disagree that "reasonable concerns" in public debate can only be based on "verifiable evidence". This claim is completely baseless. Reasonable concerns in public debate can be based also on reasonable suspicions and doubts, and in fact they are often based only on such basis in many cases. The only thing that wouldn't be reasonable in the absence of verifiable evidence is to express these concerns as assertions in a definitive language, which the sources I brought do not do even by your own admission.

  Vegan416 (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Google the definition of reasonable is: "having sound judgement; fair and sensible. Rumours, gossiping and innuendo which are pushed in the absence of evidence do not meet that definition. Now if these sources can't assert that Khelif has DSD, any argument that seeks insert language that implies that there is reasonable concerns about her gender using these sources as justification is making an argument based on original research because you are interpreting out of the sources that which is not spelled out explicitly in the wording. Quite frankly it strikes me as WP:POVPUSHING to be making fringe arguments on the basis of sourcing which doesn't explicitly back you up. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The reasonableness of the possibility of DSD is not based on "rumors, gossiping and innuendo" as I have shown amply in other places here. Do you want me to repeat that? And the sources I brought do back me up in the claim that there is a reasonable possibility that Khelif has some form of DSD, and that if that possibility is true then it might give her unfair advantage. Here are some quotes:

  The WSJ source: "We can therefore deduce that Imane Khelif was disqualified for having XY chromosomes." [...] "The most probable DSD for Imane Khelif is 5-alpha reductase deficiency, or 5-ARD. People with 5-ARD have XY chromosomes and testes that produce testosterone." [...] "Many with 5-ARD are raised as girls, only discovering their condition at puberty when their internal testes trigger male puberty. This results in masculine features and a physical advantage over women in sports."

  The Atlantic source: "But both still face questions, a year after the International Boxing Association (IBA) publicly raised the issue, over whether they have XY chromosomes and a disorder of sexual development—also known as an intersex condition—which give  them an unfair advantage over other women." [...] "Why have the IOC’s statements been so misleading and nebulous? Perhaps because it does not want to compromise the athletes’ privacy by discussing their medical details without consent. And perhaps because the IOC’s leaders are not prepared to defend their own rules, which state that even if Lin and Khelif do have XY chromosomes, they are allowed to compete in Olympic women’s boxing." [...] "A simple cheek swab could clear this up, revealing the presence (or not) of a second X chromosome. If either athlete was XY instead, she could have further genetic testing to get a precise diagnosis and determine if it affected her ability to participate fairly. If Lin and Khelif are straightforwardly female athletes with XX chromosomes, they could have appealed their IBA bans to the Court of Arbitration for Sport". [...] "This is why the IOC’s insistence that Lin and Khelif were “born as women”—a phrase banned by its own guidelines, but never mind—is unenlightening. With 5ARD, a child can be registered as female at birth, but later develop a significant athletic advantage during puberty from the effects of testosterone".

  Dr. Emma Hilton from the BBC source: "says Dr Emma Hilton, a developmental biologist who studies genetic disorders. She is also a trustee of the Sex Matters charity, which argues Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting shouldn’t be competing until further testing is done." [...] "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".

  So we have 3 reputable sources discussing the possibility that Khelif has DSD quite seriously, and definitely not as if this is only based on "rumors, gossiping and innuendo". Do you suggest that these articles are "misinformation"?

  Actually this gives me a better idea how to answer the other RfC about the lead. Maybe following the BBC we should replace the sentence "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published" with "At this stage it is unknown if Khelif has DSD that would give her unfair advantage" or something like that. Vegan416 (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is no reliable evidence then the possibility is entirely based on "rumors, gossiping and innuendo". I'm not going to waste my time and read the rest of your WP:POVPUSH. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly disagree with your false dichotomy here. Life is more complicated than the simplistic binary view you present here. And I totally reject your false accusation of WP:POVPUSH. Anyway if you refuse to read the sources then there is really no point in continuing this discussion. Vegan416 (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I already read enough previously to have a gist of the content. You continue to push a position which is not based on "reasonable concerns" while stating that it is. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If your impression is that these articles treat the possibility that K has DSD as "rumors, gossiping and innuendo" then you clearly didn't read enough of the articles and you clearly didn't get the gist correctly. Also you are the one here who is engaging in WP:POVPUSH. You are trying to push the view that the mere discussion of the possibility that K has DSD is "misinformation", when you don't have any reliable source that asserts she doesn't have DSD. Vegan416 (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  you don't have any reliable source that asserts she doesn't have DSD. is asking editors to prove a negative, which is not a reasonable application of 'burden of proof' or request to make. I might as well assert we should be allowed to discuss the possibility that you are a group of monkeys hammering at a typewriter instead of a human editor because we don't have any reliable sources that assert you aren't. The most appropriate policy to link here is I believe WP:EXCEPTIONAL JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. The claim that it is possible that K has DSD is not an exceptional claim at all. As I have shown this possibility is being seriously discussed in highly reputable sources. As for your ridiculous monkey parable, I deny that I am a group of monkeys, does K or the IOC deny she has DSD? Vegan416 (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is entirely an exception claim given there are no reliable sources which assert that they do.

  "does K or the IOC deny she has DSD?". We don't insert content into Wikipedia articles on the basis that it must be possible because a BLP hasn't denied it. It would be both a WP:BLP and a WP:NOR violation if we edited like that. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are wrong. I (and JSwift and Gitz and others) have shown in the discussions here many reliable sources that say it might be possible that K has DSD. And you are strawmaning again as I never said that we should insert an assertion that K has DSD into the article. Vegan416 (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Referring to others who are engaged in POVPUSH as backup isn't the victory you think it is. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you suggest that the articles I brought from BBC, WSJ and Atlantic are engaged in POVPUSH? Vegan416 (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also your using the language of "victory" is classic BATTLEGROUND behavior. Vegan416 (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm suggesting that YOU are engaged in POVPUSH by seeking to selectively use quotes from articles which don't state that Khelif has DSD as evidence that there is reasonable concerns about their eligibility to fight on the basis that they might have DSD. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you say that if you didn't even read those articles? These article are actually saying what I said. That there is a possibility that K has DSD and if that turns out to be the case then there are reasonable concerns about their eligibility to fight, Vegan416 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, why are you misrepresenting the point of contention? As I've already said at least a couple of times, no one is arguing that we should insert content into Wikipedia articles about her alleged DSDs. We are suggesting that we should revove content that implies or suggests that she doesn't have DSDs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath, re I'm not going to waste my time and read the rest of your WP:POVPUSH. Editors should stop accusing other editors they disagree with of POV-pushing. It is not at all clear who is disregarding sources and casting aspersions to push a POV on this article. We already have an open thread at ANI for discussing these sorts of issues - please keep them off the article talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Leaving aside the call to original research accusation, which I don't understand, I also don't understand why you complain that the sources in the collapsible box concern themselves with discussing eligibility standards in general rather than constituting reasonable fact based discussions about whether Khelif was eligible. No discussion about whether Khelif was eligible could ever be "reasonable" or "fact based" because it is obvious and undisputed that she was eligible. However, Khelif was eligible under the IOC's standards (the only ones that matter) and those standards are open to debate. They allow athletes with DSD to compete in boxing alongside other women (if I'm not mistaken, they would also allow transgender women to compete, as the athletes' gender is based on their passport). Since it is possible that Khelif has a form of DSDs and since certain forms of DSDs can have a significant impact on athletic performance, there's been a public debate as to whether the IOC standards have given due consideration to the safety of other athletes and the fairness of the competition. Some editors (myself included) believe that mentioning this debate in the lead is appropriate; others disagree. But why do those who disagree feel it necessary to deny the debate's existence, insinuate that it is transphobic and hate-driven, and call its inclusion "original research" and a "violation of the BLP"? Given the extensive coverage of this debate in RS, I truly don't get it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They allow athletes with DSD to compete in boxing alongside other women. Without relying on original research, how is it relevant that the IOC allows athletes with DSD to complete? I've not seen any reliable sources which state that Khelif has DSD. TarnishedPath^talk 01:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No reliable source "states" that she has DSDs, but many relieble sources mention that possibility. E.g., The Indipendent ("This raises the question of what differences in sex development are") , BBC ("critics, including some of their opponents at Paris 2024, have speculated that perhaps the fighters have DSD"), BBC ("We do not know if Khelif and Lin are athletes with DSD because the full results of the tests are confidential, and the fighters are yet to declare them"), Times of Israel ("Unconfirmed media reports have suggested the two athletes may have been born with differences in sex development"), NBC ("it's not known whether either of the boxers has these genetic variations"). Initially the IOC said that Khelif was not a DSD case, but later retracted the statement [51]. As shown by the sources in the collapisble box, sport journalists and academics discuss the opportunity and consequences of allowing intersex athletes to compete in female boxing competitions in connection with Imane Khelif. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If no reliable sources state it, we don't cover it and certainly not in the lead. We don't deal in pushing rumours and innuendo on WP:BLPs. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one has ever suggested mentioning the possibility that it has DSD in the lead. If I am wrong, please provide a diff. If I am not wrong, please stop arguing with a strawman and misrepresenting my arguments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I said that No discussion about whether Khelif was eligible could ever be "reasonable" or "fact based" because it is obvious and undisputed that she was eligible. I must correct myself, since on 4 August the Guardian reported The gender eligibility of the two boxers remains unclear. I think the Guardian is wrong - Khelif's eligibility under IOC's rules has never been in doubt - but my claim that no RS has ever disputed her eligibility was wrong. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  No worries, I'll mention it here then: The "fueled by" phrasing comes from the AP article's headline, which violates WP:HEADLINE. [52] The article said "It stems from" the disqualification, where "it" refers to "hateful scrutiny" in the previous paragraph, not false accusations.

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

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

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

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

  An opinion article from a partisan source should certainly not be given WP:UNDUE weight to determine the language in the lead. JSwift49 16:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A partisan source, that is also agreed to be reliable as per the perennial sources link. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding on, in The Independent, JSwift omits the opening sentence "...after her 46-second victory sparked an international gender row amid a frenzy of misinformation."[53]

  SI additionally contains the following which was ommitted: "Following her round of 16 win over Italy's Angela Carini, Khelif became the subject of wild speculation and falsehoods surrounding her gender; she had been disqualified from the International Boxing Association's 2023 world championships for failing an unspecified gender-eligibility test."

  This, plus Drmies' quote from PBS below should be enough to counter the select quotes used in JSwift's !vote. I'd also rather not have to provide quotes from each source. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the thing: I, like you, support misinformation remaining where it is, because I agree that misinformation was consistently described in these articles. Therefore, I didn't even bother to include quotes describing "misinformation", because that's not the dispute here.

  However, we cannot ignore that reliable sources describe misinformation as only part of what happened. Even looking at The Independent, "amid" a frenzy of misinformation means that misinformation did exist, but it does not support that the discourse was only limited to misinformation. Or Sports Illustrated describes both that "scrutiny" and "wild speculation and falsehoods" occurred. JSwift49 18:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Plenty of good sourcing for "misinformation"--removing it is whitewashing. I'm not going to list the plethora of sourcing, but here, from PBS, titled "Algerian boxer Imane Khelif wins gold at Olympics after enduring abuse fueled by misinformation". Drmies (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support misinformation remaining where it is, don't want to remove it! But, I propose adding "attention" as well to more closely/completely match with reliable sources.

  (Also, citing headlines violates WP:HEADLINE.) JSwift49 18:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There must be a misunderstanding. The RfC does not propose to replace or remove "misinformation". It proposes to add "widespread public attention", meaning that alongside fake news and hate speech there were also legitimate concerns and meaningful public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It seems that the crux here is the "False assertions about her gender were fuelled by" statement, and the RfC actually doesn't touch on this, but cherry-picks up sources to reword the sentence to get rid of this. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment has some merit. I'd prefer the original text (slightly reworded per t/p discussion): "Following Khelif's victory over Italy's Angela Carini at the 2024 Olympics, Khelif faced intense public scrutiny over her eligibility for the women's category, including online abuse and false claims that she was transgender. False assertions about her gender were fuelled by Khelif's disqualification...". However, the point of the RfC (as I understand it) is not to remove "False assertions about her gender were fuelled by", but rather to mention that there has also been (legitimate, non-trivial and non-hateful) "public scrutiny", "public attention", "public debate" (or similar expressions). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you quoted is not the original text, it's part of what the OP is proposing (you happen to agree with it and have !voted). I prefer the stable version. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the original draft of the proposed edit. However, I don't agree that the one you linked is the "stable version". The stable version of the lead was this one. It was changed with this edit and this edit. The first one was immediately challanged by Deathlibrarian here and restored by TarnishedPath without a clear consensus on the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address what they said. Instead, you used their !vote to advertise what you want the lead to look like. If you want people to pay attention to what was said in the previous discussion, then link to it and let them read it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been exactly zero legitimate public scrutiny. To state that there has been legitimate public scrutiny is to state that there is any legitimacy to disinformation about Khelif's gender. TarnishedPath^talk 08:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I should have put that rationale in the RfC originally. The crux for me is that sources describe other things besides "misinformation", and that both "misinformation" and "attention" should be included. I used the quotes solely to support "attention" since everyone already agrees "misinformation" is supported by RS.

Would something like "...widespread public attention and misinformation regarding her gender. This stemmed from Khelif having previously been disqualified..." work, do you think? JSwift49 23:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, per all the reasons that I have mentioned in my !vote and the countless discussions about this. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. How many more editors are going to have to tell you that you're cherry-picking the sources before you WP:LISTEN? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? As I said here [54] I chose to not include "misinformation" in the quotes because I'm not seeking to remove it, just prove the sources say something else in addition to misinformation. Kind of like my quotes don't include that Khelif is a boxer because no one is disputing Khelif is a boxer. So I'm confused about how it's cherry picking but I'd like to know so I don't make a mistake in future. JSwift49 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Changing it to remove that the controversy was completely bunk generated by anti-trans voices is WP:WHITEWASHing what happened. Also is good to point out that false allegations of gender are what fueled her disqualification, should not separate that dependent fact. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

• Oppose, there is nothing wrong with the current version and the proposal seeks to soften the langague in what appears to be an attempt to at least partially WP:WHITEWASH what occured, using cherry picked sources as a justification. TarnishedPath^talk 04:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, pinging @Barnards.tar.gz, @Blindlynx, @Fanny.doutaz, @Gitz6666, @Iluvalar, @JSwift49, @JackkBrown and @M.Bitton who were involved in the directly related discussion at Talk:Imane_Khelif#2nd_lead_paragraph:_"public_scrutiny"_vs._"misinformation". TarnishedPath^talk 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose how is articulating the core cause of the 'accusations', 'controversy', 'scrutiny' or whatever focusing to narrowly!? The crux of this whole thing is that disinfo fueled transphobia, there is no reason to minimize that—blindlynx 19:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's assume (for argument's sake) your point, that a reaction solely caused by misinformation should not be mentioned separately from misinformation.

  Six of the thirteen sources [55][56][57][58][59][60] still describe the IBA's disqualification as a cause of the controversy and/or misinformation toward Khelif. Three more sources say these reactions was due to Carini's withdrawal [61][62][63] and CNN mentions both the fight and the DQ contributed.[64] Sources support that the IBA is shady, and Carini apologized for her actions, but neither of these is misinformation. So if this means misinformation wasn't the only cause of the reactions, or (as I originally argued) the only reaction toward her that sources describe, don't we need to account for everything else?

  Two sources only say the reactions were due to misinformation/misconceptions [65][66], though each also uses broader terms to describe the reactions to her. The NYT article doesn't really take a stance, but notes she describes accusations as "bullying".[67]. JSwift49 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we do not. Specifically we should not have WP:FALSEBALANCE between the core cause and other events surrounding this. Disinfo about someones gender is clearly the main cause of scrutiny or whatever you want to call it of their gender identity. Saying it was just a part of it is minimizing what's going on—blindlynx 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Will be largely stepping back here as have already weighed in a lot, though I request that whoever closes this RfC also take into account the previous Talk discussion [68] dealing with two earlier drafts of my proposal, as votes are still being cast there as well. JSwift49 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all changes suggested above, and in particular any use of the word "attention" or "scrutiny" or any comparable synonyms in this context, in any way, shape, or form; the previous text is ideal. "Attention" is extremely strange and stilted language in this context; because this is something highly WP:BLP-sensitive dispute, our most important responsibility is to make the unambiguous conclusion reached by sources (ie. that this is a misinformation campaign) as clear as possible. Beyond that, I'm unimpressed with the sources presented above - the quotes are pulled out of context and do not even reflect the sources listed, but even without that, initial WP:BREAKING news is often extremely cautiously worded or contains vague statements. When later and more in-depth coverage reaches a clear and precise conclusion, it is inappropriate to try and use a few of the more cautious or vague sentences in initial coverage to try and water it down. The highest-quality sources here reach an unambiguous conclusion that the overarching events are a misinformation campaign, which means we should present that clearly. --Aquillion (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is actually very hard to find an RS that mentions "abuse" (fake news, misinformation, etc.) without also mentioning legitimate "debate" (controversy, scrutiny, public attention, etc.). The point of this RfC is whether we should only mention "misinformation" and "false assertions", as the current lead does, or whether we should also mention "public attention" or "public scrutiny", as the overwhelming majority / near totality of RSes do. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BS medical speculations about a living person cannot and will never ever be considered as a debate, let alone a legitimate one. We've been through this a thousand times and we all know what the so-called point of this RfC is: to legitimize the BS and further victimize Khelif. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If Khelif has DSDs, then writing a Wikipedia article suggesting that she doesn't is not only poor WP editing, but also another way to further victimise her: if one says "you were abused because they think you have DSDs, which is false", and you do have DSDs, then they are not being helpful; they are implying that having DSDs is a fault or a guilt that would justify the abuse you've suffered. Given the IOC's eligibility standards (based on gender as certified in the passport), Khelif was fully eligible to compete in the Olympics even if she has DSDs, so pushing the POV that she doesn't have DSDs is not in her interest.

  As for the content of the debate, it was not about BS medical speculations. Many journalists and experts simply assumed that it was likely that she has DSDs and that the important point to discuss was whether a woman with DSDs should be allowed to compete with other women. The RSes do not seem to despise this debate as much as you do, e.g., "she faced an extraordinary amount of scrutiny from world leaders, major celebrities and others who have questioned her eligibility or falsely claimed she was a man. It has thrust her into a larger divide over changing attitudes toward gender identity and regulations in sports" (PBS); "A contentious fight over who should—and shouldn’t—be allowed to compete in women’s sports has materialized during the Paris Olympics amid criticism over the participation of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif" (Forbes); see sources in the collapsible box. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If Khelif has DSDs please refrain from violating BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Many journalists and experts simply assumed that it was likely that she has DSDs and that the important point to discuss was whether a woman with DSDs should be allowed to compete with other women".

  If they are doing that them they are speaking in the absense of reliable evidence and their assumptions are on the basis of speculation concerning a medical diagnosis of DSD. Given the intersection of the BLP, GENSEX and Medical CTOP areas, very strong sourcing is required for any diagnosis or speculation about diagnosis. I.e. WP:MEDRS sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but journalists, experts and other public figures are not bound by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: they are free to debate the adequacy of the IOC's eligibility criteria in light of the Khelif case without our permission. This RfC proposes adding "widespread public attention" alongside "misinformation", it does not propose including any diagnosis or speculation about diagnosis. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If Khelif has DSDs is you violating the BLP policy by speculating about the medical condition of a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please point out where WP:BLP prohibits making hypotheses about the medical conditions of a living person?

  Given that multiple RSes mention or discuss the possibility that she has DSDs, prohibiting WP editors from taking it into account could hinder our ability to write an informed and balanced BLP. For example, if you had considered this possibility, you might have realised that framing this BLP to suggest or imply that Khelif does not have DSD could be harmful and damaging to her. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @M.Bitton, if you believe that medical speculations about a living person cannot and will never ever be considered as a debate, let alone a legitimate one and a BLP violation, then will you be nominating Age and health concerns about Joe Biden for deletion?

  Personally, I think that medical speculations about a living person sometimes are legitimate topics for public debate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all changes above. The quotes above are completely out of context and should never have been added. The RFC if passed is going to NPOV the article further. The whole RFC is jaundiced and should never be created in the first place. All its going to do is burden this women for the rest of her life. Why even post this when the event itself is just days old. There is no historical balance or analysis here. It is essentially a reflection of the culture wars and has no place on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 01:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for similar reasons as other Supporters. We're not here to adjudicate the political controversy or what effect it might have on the article's subject. We're here to report what reliable sources say. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The current lead is based on what the reliable sources say, while taking into account the other important policies (BLP, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is a classic case of a coordinated online harassment campaign. To point to another one, we describe Gamergate (harassment campaign) as a harassment campaign, and we say in Anita Sarkeesian's article that she was a target of harassment. We don't say she was subject to "scrutiny", "attention", or other euphemistic terms. Because underneath all the confusion and circus is a set of completely baseless claims that serve to fuel the harassment of a living person.

I do think the lead understates the severity of the harassment campaign, but this suggestion does not help. However well-intentioned, the effect of it is to unduly legitimize the disinformation and harassment. We have a responsibility to not further proliferate online harassment campaigns against living people. I strongly hope that the closer will do the right thing and prioritize the relevant policies, especially WP:BLP, in their decision. PBZE (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (here from WT:SPORTBIO): the current wording is better because it makes clear that the misinformation that has been spread about Khelif is misinformation. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I changed False assertions about her gender to False claims that Khelif is male as the former seemed too vague. If we are going to say that an assertion is false, we should tell the reader what is false about it. PBS puts it succinctly: "[Khelif] faced an extraordinary amount of scrutiny from world leaders, major celebrities and others who have questioned her eligibility or falsely claimed she was a man." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for that. From what I've seen, the concerns have nothing to do with her personal gender (gender role, gender identity, gender expression) and everything to do with her physical biology (particularly her hormones and chromosomes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What I've argued elsewhere is that it is a mischaracterisation to frame language in such a way to suggest that such concerns have any legitimacy given there is no reliable evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 01:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if it might equally be a mischaracterization to frame language in such a way as to suggest that such concerns don't have any legitimacy, given there is no reliable evidence either way. It might be difficult, but if we could find a way to describe this situation without "suggesting" anything, that would IMO be the best outcome. People are, in most legal systems, considered innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean that society must assume that everyone is binary until proven intersex. The two are not really comparable, because it's not wrong to be intersex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if any concerns aren't based on evidence, I'd say that they are entirely unreasonable. The best way to not suggest anything, would simply be not to address it, which we don't at present with the current prose simply stating that there was misinformation concerning Khelif's "gender and eligibility to compete". I don't think we should be stating anything else unless we have a medical diagnosis from her treating doctor (which isn't going to happen) or a statement from Khelif herself, as relayed by reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently material for this is split between Imane Khelif, Lin_Yu-ting, and Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Women's_boxing_controversy.

its probably notable/useful enough to consolidate this information into a broader article, and link some of the background information to such an article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics does look to be quite long and can probably do with some splitting off of content. My only suggestion at this point in time is that you leave messages on the other articles' talk pages to make editors there aware of this splitting proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 02:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd say this is a good solution Originalcola (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The proposed split, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with that is that it will create new venue for the POV pushers. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton, I'd presume that such article would discuss the controversy in a slightly more generalised manner. I'd hope that would help ease the pushing of BLP violations on Imane Khelif article. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: let's hope so. M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom seefooddiet (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is enough material for a stand-alone article. Some of the sources in the collapsible box about public debates on eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions]] could come in handy for the new article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support because it's being reported as its own topic. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a WP:SIZESPLIT. The topic is independently notable.—Alalch E. 09:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It seems very unlikely to me that this controversy will have any significant or lasting coverage; I would be very surprised if any in-depth coverage happens after this calendar year. The controversy is a very newsy thing; it drew a lot of a attention for a very brief period, but in ten years no one is going to think it was important outside of the context it's in here. Also it's not like this article is unmanageably long or anything. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I can see the argument for it, but I find I JBL's reasoning convincing. It was very notable while it was being breathlessly reported on every day, and it still retains some interest for many people no doubt, but its relevance and is dropping rapidly as we speak and I don't really see the point in beginning a new article now. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The subject is long enough, and certainly complicated enough, to warrant its own article. I don't believe that the 2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy was some sort of 'flash in the pan' moment of fleeting relevance, but rather that it will have long-running consequences on women's sports as a whole. Plus there may be more information to come to light re: any of the factors that have made this the complicated issue it is, which would make the article even longer. Ridiculopathy (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a WP:SIZESPLIT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: this isn't a lasting controversy. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as with the defamation lawsuits, this will need its own article. Should be titled 2024 Olympics boxing controversy, though, because the current proposition has unnecessary capital letters. —Mjks28 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of excess capital letters from the proposed change. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A split would take the recent spat out of its context, which follows on directly from the 2023 nonsense with the IBA, and recontextualise it as a thing in itself. I also worry that taking the coverage out of a BLP, and into a non-BLP article, could encourage further speculation and BLP violations. The "controversy" seems to be based on absolutely nothing substantial but giving it its own article allows people to point at the article and say "Well, it must be a thing if it has its an article on Wikipedia. There's no smoke without fire, you know". I see people saying that this is a complicated issue but is it really? There seems to be even less to it than meets the eye. Every element of the accusations that looks like it might possibly have some substance to it melts away into nothing when you try to work out what is really being alleged, based on what and by whom. The article isn't even that big, so size is not pushing us towards a split. Let's keep it all in the BLP so we don't forget that this isn't about a "controversy". It is about a living person who's only "crime" is that of upsetting some guys in Russia. Giving its own article reifies it as a thing, distinct from the harassment of the victim, Khelif, which is the only substantial thing here. If it becomes this generation's Gamergate then I guess we will have to split it eventually, but it probably won't, and we don't want to help it to become that, so let's not split it unless we really have to. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This discussion probably should have taken place at Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics—I was confused why we were invoking WP:SIZESPLIT for a biography article <1900 words. The unwieldy length of Concerns (~16,000 words) article seems mostly a consequence of WP:RECENTISM, and could be solved by dividing the article into its constituent sections, or simply waiting to learn which of the controversies covered actually have sustained notability, and then covering them more proportionately. The content about Khelif and Yu-ting only takes up 800 words, so splitting this particular topic out would do very little to manage its length (especially because we'd still need a summary/excerpt in its place). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RoxySaunders, I agree that Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics would have been the best place for the conversation. However it started here so I've done what I can to notify the other articles' talk pages. TarnishedPath^talk 22:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. YBSOne (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Clearly this is a single topic that is otherwise split between three articles. Very few people feel one way about Lin Yu-Ting and another way about Imane Khelif, it's the same controversy. --GRuban (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: As others above have said, it has enough merit and stuff to write about it in a single article. Sria-72 (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to WP:RECENTISM: it depends how long the controversy will last or how soon people will realise that the International Boxing Association is now a distrusted sporting organisation (i.e. the first to be expelled from the Olympic movement). I think it would be better off for now as a section in Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics, bearing in mind that that the IBA was largely responsible for the controversy. --Minoa (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as 2024 Boxing gender controversy is independenty notable per WP:NOTABILITY. Also per WP:SIZESPLIT. RogerYg (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. you and i will forget this happened ten years later. we should probably start trimming the content. ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is no need for an additional article that duplicates the content and separates context. Very simply, neither this page nor the section in the "Concerns" article is long enough to need a split. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Im about to do an article on the controversy with my own words, pending two things: a vote I am carrying on a boxing site I frequent, and this discussion. I appreciate any opinions on why I shoyld or should not fo the article. Jeanette La Controversial Martin (dile a la nena) 04:24, 4 September, 2024

@JeanetteMartin, once there hasn't been any !votes on this in a few days I'll request a close at WP:CR. TarnishedPath^talk 04:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - this controversy was quite notable, so many readers would benefit from finding the information more easily rather than keeping it buried here. Having said that, I think it's clear that the "controversy" is not really controversial and will fade from memory very quickly, barring legal consequences from the ongoing lawsuit. I think there is a case to leave it here unless there are major updates from the lawsuit. 20WattSphere (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the several articles containing this information, changing my vote to Support. This page should focus on Khelif's life and career. The unfounded questioning of her gender should be relegated to a separate page. 20WattSphere (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't think about that before: I opted not to comment here further in order to avoid being too involved in the split in boxing. --Minoa (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - At the very least it shouldn't be split into two articles like it is. There is also little about the lawsuits here even though that is a topic that received quite a lot of coverage. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - recent gender-related controversies in boxing should have their own article. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]