There have beenattempts torecruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input, such asrequest for comments,third opinions, posting to noticeboard, or other mechanisms based on neutral criteria. If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Remember that, on Wikipedia, disputes are resolved bycommunity consensus, not by majority vote.
Imane Khelif was aSports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet thegood article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide toAlgeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofBoxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofOlympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofwomen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport
Inthis RfC there was no consensus to remove the sentence in the lead which states that no medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes has been published, consensus against stating that Khelif was assigned female at birth and consensus that sources presenting evidence for the possibility of XY chromosomes are unreliable.
Inthis discussion there was consensus that a moratorium be in place until March 20, 2026 ondiscussing Imane Khelif's gender ... unless coverage in reliable sources indicates a new development having to do with the subject directly and not merely re-reporting of old developments, speculation, or social commentary.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Hi there, you removed multiple sources from the Imane Khelif article that pertained to an interview Khelif did with L'Equipe on February 4th 2026. I'm curious as to what your justification is? There's no issue with including additional citations from CNN's interview, but I struggle to see why Le Monde, L'Equipe, and France24 would be considered unreliable sources.Smokerton (talk)19:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced them because a) they're all attributing the same claom to "L'Equipe". 2) L'Equipe's article is behind a paywall, so there is no way of checking what she actually actually said. 3)the claim doesn't make any sense (how can she admit to having something that she's willing to be tested for?) 4) in the the CNN interview (which is accessible), she says the opposite of what L'Equipe is claiming (assuming L'Equipe has been quoted properly).M.Bitton (talk)20:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help out with some of the text from the L'Equipe article.
>>Q: Pour qu'on comprenne bien, vous avez un phénotype féminin mais possédez le gène SRY, indicateur de masculinité.
A: Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. Et les gens ne le savent pas, mais j'ai déjà baissé mon taux de testostérone pour des compétitions. Je suis entourée de médecins, un professeur me suit, et j'ai pris des traitements hormonaux pour faire baisser mon taux de testostérone. Pour le tournoi de qualification aux Jeux de Paris, qui se déroulait à Dakar, j'ai baissé mon taux de testostérone à zéro (le taux moyen se situe entre 0,3 et 3 nanomoles par litre de sang chez la femme). Et j'ai gagné la médaille d'or là-bas.>>
Google Translate of the question and answer: Q: Just to be clear, you have a female phenotype but possess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity.
A: Yes, and it's natural. I have female hormones. And people don't know this, but I've already lowered my testosterone levels for competitions. I'm surrounded by doctors, a professor is monitoring me, and I've taken hormone treatments to lower my testosterone. For the qualifying tournament for the Paris Games, which took place in Dakar, I lowered my testosterone level to zero (the average level is between 0.3 and 3 nanomoles per liter of blood in women). And I won the gold medal there.
I just paid for the website. Yes, the interview is in French. Here is the section in question:
Il vous faudra désormais consentir à un test génétique pour participer aux compétitions de World Boxing, notamment en vue des Jeux de 2028...
Aux médecins et aux professeurs de décider. Nous avons tous une génétique différente, tous des taux d'hormones différents. Je ne suis pas une transsexuelle. Ma différence, elle est naturelle. Je suis comme ça. Je n'ai rien fait pour changer la manière dont la nature m'a faite. C'est pour ça que je n'ai pas peur. Pour les prochains Jeux, s'il faut passer un test, je m'y soumettrai. Je n'ai aucun problème avec ça. Ce test, je l'ai déjà fait. J'ai contacté World Boxing, je leur ai envoyé mon dossier médical, mes tests hormonaux, tout. Mais je n'ai eu aucune réponse. Je ne me cache pas, je ne refuse pas les tests. Ce que je ne comprends pas, c'est pourquoi on veut autant grossir mon histoire.
Pour qu'on comprenne bien, vous avez un phénotype féminin mais possédez le gène SRY, indicateur de masculinité.
Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. Et les gens ne le savent pas, mais j'ai déjà baissé mon taux de testostérone pour des compétitions. Je suis entourée de médecins, un professeur me suit, et j'ai pris des traitements hormonaux pour faire baisser mon taux de testostérone. Pour le tournoi de qualification aux Jeux de Paris, qui se déroulait à Dakar, j'ai baissé mon taux de testostérone à zéro (le taux moyen se situe entre 0,3 et 3 nanomoles par litre de sang chez la femme). Et j'ai gagné la médaille d'or là-bas.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For those unable to read French and unwilling to rely upon a machine translation:
Now you'll have to agree to a genetic test to participate in the World Boxing competition, specifically because of the Games of 2028...
Doctors and professors make that decision. We all have different genes, we all have different hormone levels. I'm not transgender. My difference is natural. I'm just like that. I didn't do anything to change the way I naturally am. This is why I'm not scared. For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that. I already took this test. I reached out to World Boxing and sent them my medical records, my hormone levels and everything. But they didn't respond to me. I'm not hiding or refusing testing. The thing I don't understand is why they want to make such a big deal out of my story.
To be clear, you have a female phenotype but have the SRY gene, an indicator of maculinity.
Yes, and it's natural. My hormones are female. And though people aren't aware, I've already gotten my testosterone levels down for competition. I'm surrounded by doctors, there is a professor following me and I have taken hormone treatments for lowering my testosterone. In order to qualify for the tournament at the Paris Games in Dakar, I reduced my testosterone levels to zero (the typical level is between 0.3 and 3 nanomoles per liter of blood in women). And I won the gold medal there.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Below you sayI just posted a translation of the L'Equip interview above. It's a bit of a red flag that you mis-spell l'equipe. Looking at this translation, I see a few small issues. The translation is broadly correct, but Google does better, I think. Here are some issues I noticed:
You haven't captured the sense ofdésormais. The sense of that opening is more "From now on, you will be required to consent to a genetic test."
The original says"aux compétitions de World Boxing" (plural), referring to events governed by the organisation, not one single competition.
The phrase"notamment en vue des Jeux de 2028" means "with the 2028 Games in view". Perhaps, "especially looking ahead to the 2028 Games," not "because of."
"Aux médecins et aux professeurs de décider" literally means "It’s for the doctors and professors to decide."
The French"Je ne suis pas une transsexuelle" specifically usestranssexuelle, nottransgenre. In French usage, transsexuelle may refer more narrowly to a person who has transitioned (just as it may in English). There are those who will disagree, and say, instead, it's all about medicalisation. But in terns of translation, the word is correctly translated as transsexual. Whether any difference was intended in the use of one word over another is unknown.
I think "I haven’t done anything to change the way nature made me" better captures the sense here than "I didn’t do anything to change the way I naturally am".
"J’ai contacté World Boxing" is more neutral and formal than you have it. "I contacted..." not "I reached out..."
It's a bit of a red flag that you mis-spell l'equipe. It's actually "L'Équipe", so you misspelled it yourself,and you got the capitalization wrong. (Also, the word is "misspell', not "mis-spell'.)
You haven't captured the sense of désormais. If you didn't already know that "now" can be used in place of "from now on," then you just learned something new.
The original says "aux compétitions de World Boxing" (plural), referring to events governed by the organisation, not one single competition. Once again, you're substituting spellchecking for actual critique. Add an 's' onto the end of the word in your mind. I'd do it myself, but the tenor of your response has disinclined me to.
The phrase "notamment en vue des Jeux de 2028" means "with the 2028 Games in view". Perhaps, "especially looking ahead to the 2028 Games," not "because of." This is just plain bizarre. What do you think the 'view' references? What is the common meaning, in both idomatic English and French, of saying "in view of X"? You could also phrase it "in light of of the 2028 Games" or "with the 2028 Games in mind" or any of a dozen other ways. All mean the same thing as what I wrote.
"Aux médecins et aux professeurs de décider" literally means "It’s for the doctors and professors to decide." A distinction without a difference.
The French "Je ne suis pas une transsexuelle" specifically uses transsexuelle, not transgenre. In French usage, transsexuelle may refer more narrowly to a person who has transitioned (just as it may in English. In English, the word is frequently considered offensive. I am told by a Parisian that it is the same in French. I posted a translation, not a transliteration. Cope.
I think "I haven’t done anything to change the way nature made me" better captures the sense here than "I didn’t do anything to change the way I naturally am". Another distinction without a difference.
"J’ai contacté World Boxing" is more neutral and formal than you have it. "I contacted..." not "I reached out..." Yet another distinction without a difference.
All in all, if you want to whine about my prosaic choices in translating, you'd be better off taking it up on my talk page than trying to disrupt this discussion with an obviousFUD tactic. And I don't want you on my talk page, so that just leaves you to keep your silly opinions to yourself.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go through this point by point. I will ask if you speak French. Are you aware l'équipe is a French word and not just a name? The sense ofdésormais is specific, and so when translating it, you should also be specific. Further, the form "fro now" or "from now" is a specific construction in English (see the OED entry fornow, p.1.b) and you would only drop the "from" and the adverb in colloquial usage, and even that is probably locale specific (like "gotten"). You are introducing ambiguity where the original is clear. It was saying "henceforth..." Likewise getting plurals wrong is changing the meaning of the text. It's not a huge problem. I said your translation was "broadly correct" and I saw "small issues", but when you are making a big deal below about the correct reading of French text, it is a pertinent question as to whether you have the necessary expertise to speak to what the French text actually says. Do you?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)20:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing you've said here addresses anything in the comment it replies to. You're just repeating yourself and adding some snottiness in for good measure.
I misspelled L'Equipe throughout the thread (just corrected it a few minutes ago), so Mjollnir may have just followed that. Don't think it's really a red flag either way.
Thank you for checking the nuances of the language in general. I would say here that I think the prior translation was generally sufficient, but appreciate that you reviewed.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Regarding L'Equipe as a source, I would point toWP:PAYWALL - the fact that a source is behind a paywall is not grounds to reject it. It would be better then to just leave L'Equipe as a source on its own (though I think it's better to have those additional reliable sources that quote L'Equipe directly, since as you said, it is behind a paywall). Your opinion is that "the claim doesn't make sense," but I don't see how that is relevant to adding salient details to an article. It's notable, relevant to the subject of the article, and reliably sourced. Finally I would just point out theWP:V policy on contradicting sources: "If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain aneutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side itsdue weight."Smokerton (talk)21:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the relevance of the fact that the claim (about a living person) doesn't make any sense? How about the fact that it's also contradicted by the words of the living person?
I don't agree that it doesn't make sense, anyway. The claim that her statement potentially contradicts what would be in her interests (although we're not experts, I presume, on the exact testing requirements) veers close to OR and SYNTH.Riposte97 (talk)22:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's right - I think Khelif is referring there to the leaked alleged results last year, not the recent interview. Here's the specific text from CNN:
It’s the first time Khelif has publicly addressed whether she would take such a test since last year’s move by the sport’s international amateur governing body to introduce mandatory genetic testing for all boxers over the age of 18, saying it would “ensure the safety of all participants and deliver a competitive level playing field for men and women.”
The World Boxing decision came after a report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes circulated online. Khelif told CNN the report was inaccurate and “modified.”
Announcing the new rules in May, World Boxing singled out Khelif by name, saying that she would not be able to participate in the female category at any World Boxing event until she underwent so-called sex testing.
“When they published my name, they caused another crisis for me. They caused more discourse and another campaign against me,” she said of that moment.
Right, that is a fundamentally different issue. I don't agree that there's any contradiction here between sources. As far as speculating on Khelif's reasoning, who knows? Maybe she wants to get out in front of upcoming news about her test results. Maybe she simply wanted to tell L'Equipe what they claim she told them. Maybe she has bipolar type I. What's the point in speculating? I don't think it's relevant to whether or not we should include the claim in the article.Smokerton (talk)22:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that this 'doesn't make sense' is, respectfully, yours alone. No sources state it. Other editors don't see it. I think you'll need an RS to back it up.Riposte97 (talk)23:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. this is a reply tovous avez un phénotype féminin. That's all we have from L'equipe.
In the CNN interview, you can hear her talk.
Lastly, the fact that L'equipe's claim doesn't make any sense is very important. Why would she admit to having something and then say she's ready to do the test (to prove that she doesn't have it)?M.Bitton (talk)22:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's on us to do this kind of interpretation when we have a clear quote in a mainstream source, that has been quoted (and as-yet uncorrected) by multiple sources running an AFP story, with the latter being a perennial reliable source.
If wehad to speculate, I would say Khelif is pursuing a strategy of admitting to having SRY, but emphasizing that it is natural and that she has suppressed testosterone, thinking that if there is no way out of the testing requirement, then this is the best course of action. That's totally cogent.
I listened to the CNN interview and there is no mention at all of SRY, only a reference to the leaked purported chromosomal report last year. That's clearly not responsive to the information from the story inL'Equip.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Khelif is pursuing a strategy of admitting to having SRY, why would she do that and then say she's ready to do the genetic test to prove that she doesn't have it?
Where are you getting that Khelif is saying she will take a test to prove she doesn't have the SRY gene? Here is the translated block quote:
It's up to the doctors and professors to decide. We all have different genetics, different hormone levels. I am not transgender. My difference is natural. That's just how I am. I haven't done anything to change the way nature made me. That's why I'm not afraid. For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that. I've already taken this test. I contacted World Boxing, I sent them my medical file, my hormone tests, everything. But I haven't received any response. I'm not hiding anything, I'm not refusing the tests. What I don't understand is why they want to sensationalize my story so much.
This seems to be 1) admitting to a "difference," 2) emphasizing compliance, and 3) trying to spin it as natural, and hopefully therefore acceptable.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)22:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Khelif specifically state that the result of those tests will be that she does not have an SRY gene? I see no such thing in either piece.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What mandatory genetic tests is she referring to if not the ones that everyone knows? There is just one new mandatory test (which is meant to detect the SRY gene). It's also mentioned in the CNN source (the SRY gene, the marker that’s the basis ofthe test).M.Bitton (talk)23:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Being willing to take the test does not mean she is making a claim about the result. As has been explained to you, it could be that she accepts the result but hopes to frame media attention and get the policy changed. Hence stating that she has an SRY gene but emphasizing that it is natural, that she did nothing to cause it, and that she is taking remedial steps (lowering testosterone). This is perfectly cogent.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point of saying I want to do the test if the result is already known to her (as suggested by the claim)? Frankly, it doesn't make any sense regardless of how you look at it.M.Bitton (talk)23:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point of saying she'll do the test would presumably be to show compliance, as I've stated.
But this is getting into speculation and synthesis. If you have any quote of her saying that the test will show NO presence of the SRY gene, please link it. Otherwise, this line of argument really can't be credited.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will take this as an admission that you do not have any source of Khelif making the claim that a test will show no presence of the SRY gene. TheCNN piece clearly does not contain that claim.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is laudable that everyone wants to be very careful here, but... I think we're being too careful with this. I read the article directly on the website. I speak both English and French.
The interview in L'Equipe makes it clear that she is responding both in French and Arabic, and she has hermanager there with her, and she consults him on her answers. He is Algerian but also speaks French fluently. Khelif herself, like a lot of Algerians, has a high level of receptive French, even if she struggles to speak it herself. There's very little reason to believe she did not understand the question. At this stage the idea that she doesn't understand "SRY gene" would be a little infantilising. She probably knows what it sounds like in several languages.
Elle s'exprime tantôt en français, tantôt en arabe pour demander à Ahmed Delimi, son manager depuis 2021, de préciser ses mots et sa pensée.
She has also shared thisreel in her Instagram stories (I have a screenshot? But this is a trust me bro).
Reading the interview, I don't see much room to interpret it in any way other than she is confirming that she has the SRY gene. It was a very clear question. She responds, and gives her interpretation of the situation.
Notably, she also discusses Caster Semenya in this interview and doesn't attempt to distance herself from Caster's situation. She outright denies being transgender (and transexual, both words are used), but she does not in any way make a distinction when Caster Semenya comes up.
I understand that this all can seem nonsensical, but if you look at the actual arguments around sex testing right now, while many bodies use SRY as a "gold standard", the science world isn't exactly rallying behind this. It's entirely possible her team are in touch with people involved in this kind of research/policy/advocacy right now and know that while World Boxing may be putting up blockers, there's a chance the IOC will not. But even if she's doing this for some bizarre/naive reason, I don't think we have any credible barriers to saying "In an interview with L'Equipe, Khelif appears to confirm that she has an SRY gene." She has confirmed multiple times that she manages her testosterone levels under medical supervision.
@Detachedspork, re:It is laudable that everyone wants to be very careful here, but... I think we're being too careful with this, I actually don't think we're being too careful. This is a BLP involved in a controversy over an aspect of genetic makeup vs. public presentation that literally gets people not just disqualified from a competition but gets them arrested and killed. If this were "Khelif appears to confirm she has two sisters", fine, I'm willing to include that based on a single line in a single interview in a language that is not the subject's first. The greater the potential for harm from an error, the more careful we need to be.Valereee (talk)17:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP involved in a controversy over an aspect of genetic makeup vs. public presentation that literally gets people not just disqualified from a competition but gets them arrested and killed.
For what it's worth, Khelif lives in Paris (per L'Equipe), where the exchange about the SRY gene has been reported in most of the leading newspapers and across state media, as well as many newspapers of record and state media across the world. In other words, inclusion in her article here wouldn't be the difference between it being private/public or even obscure/prominent information. Obviously standard BLP considerations still apply.Clicriffhard (talk)15:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's describing her locationfrom now on, not the act of migrating. Anyway, this is tiresome; if you actually think I'm violating a BLP somehow then you're quite free to "take it to a board", as you keep telling others to do.Clicriffhard (talk)19:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Installee" translates to "installed", but that's not to say it has the same exact sense of those words in English. I would expect, if she had moved, they would say something like "Elle a immigre au nord de Paris" ("She immigrated to North of Paris") or "Elle a demenage au nord de Paris" ("She moved to North of Paris") or "Elle habite au nord de Paris" ("She lives North of Paris").
(Yes, I know I'm missing a bunch of accents. I don't care.)
It would be better to interpret that as "She set herself up North of Paris" (meaning that she's staying and training there) without reading any kind of permanence to it. She may remain there for the foreseeable future, or she may return after her training is finished. It is not clear.
"Installée" could mean many things (depending on context).
As an example:Depuis dimanche, elle est installée au village olympique doesn’t mean she "settled down" (as in permanently of for a long time) in the Olympic village.M.Bitton (talk)18:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There I would translate as "moved" but "settled" still works. One settles into accommodation in English. Moved is a common enough translation too, and I nearly added that to my comment, but I noted this:I would expect, if she had moved, they would say something like "Elle a immigre au nord de Paris" which is not correct. The above would carry that meaning well enough, except in this case, I don't think it is the right translation because of "désormais". "Settled" is better but "installed" is wrong, as is "she set herself up".Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)18:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said the meaning depends on context. Athletes move around for their training, this is a known fact, but to suggest "emigration" without multiple RS saying so is borderline, if not a clear BLP violation.M.Bitton (talk)18:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn'tsuggest "emigration". I took issue with wrong information on the translation. Specifically I objected to a comparison ofinstallée with Englishinstalled, and the suggestion that if she had moved, they would not have used that word (they very much would). The plain meaning of the text is she is nowadays settled in the north Paris periphery. I make no further judgement on her legal immigration status, as the article says nothing about that.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)10:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically you are assuming I was taking issue with one clause when it was the other.if she had moved, they would say... That is incorrect. Your translation doesn't feel natural. Even if you wanted to keep the idea of immigration from another country, I think the more natural translation would be something likeElle a immigré en France et s’est installée dans le nord de Paris.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)19:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the sheer blatancy of you cherry picking a partial sentence of mine in order to misrepresent my own words back to me is enough for me to say that I've completely lost my ability to AGF with you and will not be responding to your bullshit further.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You see, when you sayyou're going to sit here and tell me that 'immigre' doesn't translate directly to 'immigrate', as I have shown you, it is not me who is cherry picking partial sentences. I expect your error was inadvertent, but it is unfortunate that you insist on assuming bad faith on my part.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)10:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so north of Paris. I grew up in Les Yvelines - technically the suburbs to the west of Paris, but if anyone from outside the Paris area asked, we just said we lived in Paris. And it makes no difference to the point whatsoever.
@Clicriffhard, not sure why where she lives has anything to do with whether reporting incorrectly could do her harm, but you appear to be responding to that statement by me, as you quoted it? Maybe I'm reading incorrectly?Valereee (talk)00:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) I don't know where having the SRY gene (or even being perceived to have it) can get you arrested and killed, but it's obviously not a common occurrence in France. Maybe we're at cross-purposes, but I can't honestly see why that's a necessary consideration on top of standard BLP requirements.
2) Six days ago, pretty much every major news source - public and private - in the country that Khelif is based in reported that she had confirmed to L'Equipe that she has the SRY gene, along with a ton of other major news sources around the world. Realistically, Khelif can't have failed to be aware of that. The fact that she still hasn't issued the slightest correction or denial should probably be starting to tell us something, but even if she didn't actually want that claim out there, what we do here is incapable of affecting that. It is out there regardless, in state media and newspapers of record that are read the world over, so again, I don't really understand why that would need to be an additional non-standard consideration.
Where she trains is obviously irrelevant. This is discussed above. L'Équipe says she's nowadays settled north of Paris. It doesn't say it is just to train. The video she or someone put out on her behalf says"Imane Khelif [a] choisi de vivre en région parisienne."[1] She has chosen to live in the Paris region. The use ofs'installer in L'Équipe implies this is a settled move, but either way, she does not still live in Algeria. She lives in Paris. That is what the sources say.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It is put out by Punchtime TV, the digital streaming arm of PUNCHTIME, a French sports business agency specialising in combat sports, especially boxing. They are a small business, with no more than 10 employees, but they offer promotional and live streaming services. The business partners are Arnaud Romera (a French television journalist) and Tony Loumé, who calls himself a specialist in digital communications and production. The legal niceties of their company are listed here.[2] In this case, as you know, the specific reel was shared by Khelif. As it contains a finished product that states unequivocally what she stated in her TV interview, and as it is a French boxing specialist sports promotion business, it is reasonably clear that either Khelif or someone close to her commissioned the reel. Nevertheless, the alternative is that they produced it off their own initiative immediately the article in l'Équipe was published, and either showed it to Khelif or else Khelif found it and immediately shared it. Either way, she would not have shared it if it were clearly wrong, and Punchtime TV has shared previous apparently promotional work from her.Now despite all that, if (as seems likely) this is promotional, it is not independent of the page subject, and I would judge this to be a type of primary source. I am not, of course, saying that we should use it in the article. L'Équipe is a much better source. On the point in question, however, it is entirely confirmatory of the plain reading of L'Équipe. It says she lives in the Paris region. Because, you know, she does.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)14:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Punchtime TV is not RS, least of all when it comes to claims about living people.
Thanks Detachedspork. To be clear then, regarding this reel that she has apparently chosen to share: it says: "Elle révèle qu'elle a toujours été une femme, mais une femme différente. Porteuse du gène SRY." That is exactly what she confirmed in the interview. She appears to have chosen to make this information public at this time.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)18:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the France24 one is just a reproduction AFP's report. (WP:RSPAFP). In that case, it's WP:DUE IMO, AFP is a major news agency and directly says "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity."Burcet95 (talk)23:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I got the hormone part. The testing does not only cover SRY, if someone fails the first screen that's typically aQPCR they do additional tests to determine if there is a "masculinizing DSD". So they could be ready for further testing.Burcet95 (talk)23:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having seenM.Bitton's objections in this section, they seem to be:
1) a claim that the CNN piece contradicts the L'Equipe claim, but this is clearly incorrect. The CNN piece does not address the L'Equipe claims at all 2) Pure speculation that Khelif mispoke in the L'Equipe interview (and presumably somehow did not have the chance to review the text, or request a correction after it was widely re-reported).
Given that neither of these arguments appears to have merit, I will add the L'Equipe source and contents back into the article. Given BLP concerns, it is key to have the subject's own words on this important subject represented. If there is a correction or clarification, we should immediately update to reflect that.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is based mostly on what she said and the fact that the claim about her doesn't make any sense. I have yet to see a valid explanation for the nonsense that is being peddled by some newspapers.M.Bitton (talk)23:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the explanation is that they are RS, and we are not allowed to assess their claims as 'nonsense' based on our own interpretation of the facts.Riposte97 (talk)23:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An editor of your experience should know that your objections are cutting across policy. Perhaps try a different tack. If there are sources which directly support your point, we should certainly weigh them.Riposte97 (talk)00:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A few things here. Wikipedia prefers English language sources. So if something is reported in an English language source—for a publisher which is considered by the community to be generally reliable—and something else is published in a non-English lanaguage source and which conflicts with the English language source then we go with the English language source. Secondly there has been a challange to the reliablity of the L'Equip story.WP:ONUS puts the responsiblity on those proposing change to obtain consensus. Also refer to the heightened requirements ofWP:BLPUNDEL. Thirdly, why is this being edited into the lead prior to it being edited into the body? Please refer toMOS:LEAD.TarnishedPathtalk00:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These are procedural points, the relevance of which is not directly clear to the question at hand. We have a French source reporting a claim. We do not have any English language sources rejecting the claim. So, point one is satisfied. Consensus does not mean that we need to entertain objections that are not based in policy. The objections raised by M.Bitton have been assessed and dismissed by multiple editors. Point two, check. I trust that the editor who brought this proposal is content to also add the content to the body, satisfying point 3.Riposte97 (talk)00:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No these are not mere procedural points. From the CNN interview "She says it is fake". You statingobjections raised by M.Bitton have been assessed and dismissed by multiple editors does not remove the validity of what they are stating. The CNN source is cearly in conflict with the French language source (I can't actually read the French source, so I'm taking at face value what other editors state it says).WP:V is clear on this. We prefer English language sources.TarnishedPathtalk01:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The language objection is illegitimate, It's WP:RSAFP that's WP:SYNDICATED that's in English as well, not just French:
I should have included more information in the body. If we are going to include the sourcing I originally added, then I am glad to include those details.Smokerton (talk)01:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There does not actually seem to be any contradiction in the sources discussed in this section.
The L'Equipe interview (which is in French, but the key element of which has been published in English inLe Monde andFrance24 as an AFP story) quotes Khelif as saying she has the SRY gene.
TheCNN article has her disputing the purported leaked test results from last year. She does not address the SRY gene or her interview with L'Equipe in the CNN article. Thus, there does not appear to be a contradiction in sources here.
It's true that a challenge has been raised to the reliability of the L'Equipe story, but that challenge - raised by and evidently comprehensible to onlyM.Bitton - relies wholly on speculation and synthesis. The allegation is that Khelif must have misunderstood, or intended to give a different answer, or was answering only part of the question, or something similar. But we have no reason to believe any of that, and AFP as a reliable secondary source has taken Khelif's acknowledge of having an SRY gene at face value, with no source contradicting it. At this point, the L'Equipe and AFP sources evidently appear suitable to myself,Burcet95,Riposte97,Smokerton, and I suspectThisischarlesarthur; onlyM.Bitton disagrees, with an objection that appears frankly to be spurious.
In the interview it is stated "She says it is fake". Unless you are accusing Khelif of lying by admission (sourcing required) that would mean both the report and the claims that she has DSD.TarnishedPathtalk01:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I include a transcript of the relevant part of theCNN interview. It seems to me that the "it's fake" is clearly referring to the alleged leaked 2023 results, not to the L'Equipe interview. Khelif also does not state what element of the alleged leaked results was fake. There is no addressing at all of the presence of an SRY gene as the L'Equipe interview and AFP wire story have stated.
TRANSCRIPT:
[Voiceover] "It came after a 2023 report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes was circulated online. She says it's fake."
Khelif: "You see the report? You personally, you see the report?"
Christina Macfarlane: "I have not, no."
Khelif: "The report is not clear. Is just a test, a genetic test with a company, small company of tests, but it's not clear.[In Arabic] The report that was published was modified. It was posted by people opposed to me and have animosity towards me."
Voiceover: "While Khelif maintains that test was modified, she reveals she has naturally high testosterone levels, currently a key test in regulating women's sports."Woshiwaiguoren (talk)01:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Further, there is no actual mention in the CNN interview of DSDs whatsoever. Please share what specific language you think in the CNN interview contradicts the L'Equipe interview.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)01:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you keep claiming, the CNN article mentions the SRY gene test and the fact that she's ready to take it (which contradicts any claim stating that she acknowledged it having it). In fact, the very sources that you used mention this, yet for some unknown reason, basic common sense seems to have evaded some journalists.
One more thing: doesn't the fact that she also says in the clearest possible termsI have female hormones contradict what is attributed to her?M.Bitton (talk)01:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate items. The CNNinterview and thearticle. The interview does not touch on DSD and the SRY gene at all. The article mentions SRY in one instance and mentions DSDs as a concept, but does not make any claim one way or the other as to whether Khelif has a DSD or an SRY gene.
"Female hormones" is ambiguous language that in any case does not contradict having an SRY gene. The full context in L'Equipe is:
Q: Just to be clear, you have a female phenotype but possess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity.
A: Yes, and it's natural. I have female hormones. And people don't know this, but I've already lowered my testosterone levels for competitions. ...
But regardless, we do not need to interrogate the interview when we have a reliable source (AFP) recounting it for us, in English, with conclusory language: "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity."Woshiwaiguoren (talk)01:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention the SRY gene and connects directly tothe test that she's willing to take.
I have female hormones is her response to the question.
A natural interpretation of her answer is that yes she has the SRY gene and she says it's natural, and yes she also has female hormones. Both statements are not contradictory.TR (talk)02:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The transcript explicitly contradicts that. You stated "At no point did she say I have the SRY gene," but the interview text is verbatim:
Q: Just to be clear, you have a female phenotype butpossess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity.
A: Yes, and it's natural. I have female hormones...
The question specifically asks if she "possess[es] the SRY gene" and she answers with a direct "Yes". It doesn't get clearer than that.TR (talk)02:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Asked about "phenotype and the SRY gene", she said "I have female hormones". Does that strike you as an answer of someone who understood and paid attention to the question?
More important than that: why would someone who declares that they have the SRY gene say that they are ready to do the mandatory genetic test (that would disqualify anyone with the SRY gene) because they want to participate in the 2028 olympics?M.Bitton (talk)02:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine. Khelif answers the direct questioned asked, and then pivots to her main PR points. Happens in interviews all the time. It doesn't seem unbelievable at all.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)02:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a shift in argument. We moved from "she didn't say it" (a factual claim, now refuted) to "she didn't understand the question" (a speculative claim).
As editors, we cannot psychoanalyze the subject to decide if she "paid attention" or "understood." Speculating on her state of mind or analyzing her strategy for the 2028 Olympics to dismiss a verified source is textbookWP:OR. The source stands on its own. Our personal incredulity about her consistency or logic is not a valid reason to exclude it.TR (talk)02:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote her words to that effect? I read the article and listened to the interview but maybe I missed it. I didn't see any reference to SRY in her words, and the thing that came closest was raising an unspecified complaint about the leaked purported test results. Thank you.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)20:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants, sorry to ping, but could you share the quote from CNN where Khelif denies having the SRY gene? If she clearly states that she doesn't have it, then that's very significant for this discussion.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)17:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The exact quote is provided multiple times on this very page. Pretending that you're unaware while refusing to search for it here is nothing butJAQing off. Do not ping me again, I have no interest in pretending that this whole argument isn't a giant POV push.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I have seen that gets anywhere near is this section in the CNN interview, which I previously transcribed.
[Voiceover] "It came after a 2023 report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes was circulated online. She says it's fake." Khelif: "You see the report? You personally, you see the report?" Christina Macfarlane: "I have not, no." Khelif: "The report is not clear. Is just a test, a genetic test with a company, small company of tests, but it's not clear. [In Arabic] The report that was published was modified. It was posted by people opposed to me and have animosity towards me." Voiceover: "While Khelif maintains that test was modified, she reveals she has naturally high testosterone levels, currently a key test in regulating women's sports.
It's not clear what specifically she is disputing there, but even if strictly read to say that she is specifically denying having a Y chromosome, the SRY gene can still be translocated to the X chromosome.
So if you are referring to that, then I disagree that it constitutes "saying the opposite" of what was said in theL'Equipe interview. If you are referring to some other line or interpretation, I have not seen it and would appreciate your clarification. Thank you.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)17:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's no statement like that in the CNN interview; in the CNN interview Khelife is asked about a supposed leaked medical report, not whether she has the SRY gene.Smokerton (talk)01:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have no basis to ignore the first sentence of her answer. And in any case, we already have RS (AFP, appearing inLe Monde andFrance24) telling us what the interview says. Please share why you think we should ignore that RS, or provide a contradictory RS, or concede the point. Thanks.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)02:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you are familiar with the timeline, you'll recall that there was some supposedly leaked medical report of Khelif's that was going around the internet a year or so ago. That's all that she's referring to there, it has nothing to do with the L'Equipe interview. The CNN interview doesn't touch on whether she has DSD or not, but the L'Equipe interview does. The interviews in fact complement each other well.Smokerton (talk)01:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the thread and the associated sources (both French media and CNN), I agree that the objection raised above appears to rely onoriginal research, specificallyWP:SYNTH, rather than the explicit text of the citations.Verifiability requires us to report what reliable sources publish, not to conduct our own analysis of the medical plausibility. We have a direct interview where the subject affirms the presence of the SRY gene, a fact reported by multiplereliable sources. We must reflect these sources to remain neutral.TR (talk)01:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The pages of circular argument above, and resistance to adding what are now well-known facts, unfortunately reinforces narratives about ideological bias in Wikipedia - so it's important that the main text is honest in reflecting reliable sources.Fig (talk)08:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is missing a crucial fact. In the CNN interview, it's made clear: she's willing to take "a test but only if the IOC run it". This fact comes around the minus 3:00 mark. From the text of the CNN article:Speaking in Paris, Khelif said she has nothing to hide, telling CNN that she would accept genetic testing requirements – but only if conducted by the IOC. The IOC has not yet finished any rules (though they're expected not too far into the future).
This fact easily resolves the claimed contradiction between the presence (or not) of SRY and the willingess to take "a test" conducted by the IOC.Kingsindian♝♚13:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find this all very confusing but here is my take. If shereally did say, unambiguously, that she has the SRY gene, and has not subsequently walked it back as a misunderstanding, then we can include it in the article, so long as we don't go beyond what Reliable Sources report, but we must be on the lookout for subsequent statements clarifying her position. We will need to be ready to rewrite or remove that whole section if it turns out to be a misunderstanding.
We have to remember that we are talking about statements made on the spot by a boxer, who is neither a geneticist nor an endocrinologist. It is not clear if she was being interviewed in her first language. If you stopped random people on the streets of Algeria, or pretty much anywhere else, and asked them confusing questions about their genetics then you would get a wide range of incoherent or mistaken partial answers. If you translated those answers (possibly twice) into another language and published them as if they were gospel then that would be far more your fault than theirs.
We should not try to use this confusing situation in a way that implies that this is the final word on the matter or that the future genetic test results are already a done deal. --DanielRigal (talk)15:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about SRY was in the French media. She was interviewed in French. The complete text is givenabove. Here's the translation (Google Translate), assuming the text is accurate:Q: To be clear, you have a female phenotype but possess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity. A: Yes, and it's natural. ...
This is in the sources that are repeating the contradictory claims:
The boxer, who aims to compete in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, knows that she will have to agree tomandatory gender testing imposed by World Boxing, a body recognised by theInternational Olympic Committee, and says she is ready. "For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that," she said. "I've already taken this test. I contacted World Boxing, I sent them my medical records, my hormone tests, everything. But I haven't had any response. I'm not hiding, I'm not refusing the tests."
Why would she admit to having a gene that would prevent her from participating in the 2028 Olympics (a competition that she's keen on)? Why would she send them a test that will disqualify her?M.Bitton (talk)15:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, World Boxing hasprovisional recognition for the IOC. And boxing is included in 2028 Olympics. Final rules etc. have not been decided yet. The IOC is reportedly making its own global policy. Nothing fixed yet.
SRY test is a screening process. One can have SRY and have a non-androgenzinizing DSD (which is eligible for female category according to World Boxing). SeeCAIS.Kingsindian♝♚16:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here? 2.3 proves you wrong, look, it's right there. It states verbatim:
a difference of sex development where male androgenization does not occur (absolute androgen insensitivity)
means an individual is SRY positive but considered female and would definitely pass the sex screening. It says "absence of SRY or" it doesn't say SRY positive is disqualifying 100% of the time.Burcet95 (talk)16:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the "or (which is there for a reason):
The word“female” means of or denoting the sex intended to produce ova.For the purposes of sex eligibility in boxing, a boxer shall be confirmed as female by the presence of XX chromosomes,orthe absence of Y chromosome genetic material (i.e. SRY gene),or a difference of sex development where male androgenization does not occur (absolute androgen insensitivity).
This is false and bizarre; just read the text. Plainly any one of the three elements can confirm a boxer as female. You might really consider taking a break from this topic at this point.
For the purposes of sex eligibility in boxing, a boxer shall be confirmed as female by the presence of XX chromosomes, or the absence of Y chromosome genetic material (i.e. SRY gene), or a difference of sex development where male androgenization does not occur (absolute androgen insensitivity).Woshiwaiguoren (talk)17:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Plainly any one of the three elements can confirm a boxer as female that's right. Theabsence of the SRY gene would confirm that the athlete is female. The presence of the gene (which is what the claim is about) would confirm the opposite.
The presence of the gene (which is what the claim is about) would confirm the opposite. That's not how it works, I'm afraid. The presence of the SRY gene, with adifference of sex development where male androgenization does not occur, would permit a person to compete in the female category. Tewdar 18:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Says who?
The word“male” means of or denoting the sex intended to produce sperm. For the purposes of sex eligibility in boxing, boxers shall be confirmed as male bythe presence of Y chromosome genetic material (i.e. SRY gene)or with a difference of sex development where male androgenization occurs
For what it's worth, my opinion as a law-doing-guy is that the drafting is atrocious. Read literally, it would classify someone withXX male syndrome as both male (because they have "a difference of sex development where male androgenization occurs") and female (because of "the presence of XX chromosomes"). So I very much doubt that the literal meaning of the words can possibly be what they intended, but any attempt to decipher what they actually meant is peakWP:OR.
Most XX-male syndrome people do have an SRY gene, it's just on the X chromosome. Some of them are indeed lacking SRY, which is a complicated case. I agree that the phrasing is a little bad. But it's just quibbling and doesn't matter here.
The main point is having an SRY gene, by itself, does not disqualify Khelif from competing in World Boxing events. SRY is a screening test, and there can be more tests later. The idea that Khelif would not admit having an SRY gene is simply handwavy OR and doesn't deserve any response. I'm sorry I even tried to do it.Kingsindian♝♚19:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
having an SRY gene, by itself, does not disqualify Khelif from competing in World Boxing events. this is factually incorrect (see the cited source as well asthis one). 20:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)M.Bitton (talk)20:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, both sources are so badly written that it depends on which paragraph you read. According to this paragraph, everyone with the SRY gene is eligible for the male category:
Athletes that are deemed to be male at birth, as evidenced by the presence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene) or with a difference of sexual development (DSD) where male androgenization occurs, will be eligible to compete in the male category.
According to this paragraph, there are ways for someone with the SRY gene to evidence their eligibility for the female category:
Athletes that are deemed to be female at birth, as evidenced by the presence of XX chromosomes or the absence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene) or with a DSD where male androgenization does not occur, will be eligible to compete in the female category.
The only way to reconcile the two is to think that some people are eligible for both categories, but they appear to contradict that here:
World Boxing respects the dignity of all individuals and its overriding priority is to ensure safety and competitive fairness to all athletes. To do this, it is essential that strict categories, determined by sex are maintained and enforced, and means that World Boxing will only operate competitions for athletes categorised as male or female.
Your conclusion with regard to the second point is clearly wrong. The sources make it clear that anyone with an SRY gene cannot compete in the female category.M.Bitton (talk)22:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we're not doing this - I'm not going to argue with you about whether "or" really means "and". If you want to take that claim to a board then that's your prerogative.Clicriffhard (talk)22:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: There's no need to take this to any board when you are the sole person making this claim and absolutely no one supports your view which appears to reveal a problem understanding basic English. This is a clear case ofWP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Everyone who has replied, regardless of their view on adding the SRY thing to the article agrees that you're simply wrong. If you are unable to find anyone to support your view, you just need to accept consensus is against you or risk being topic banned.
If taking it to a board will help convince you that's up to you. It's nothing to do with any of us when consensus is already clear.
I'd add, why would World Boxing say[3][4] "Where test results for boxers that want to compete in the female category reveal Y chromosome genetic material and a potential Difference of Sexual Development (DSD), the initial screenings will be referred to World Boxing’s expert medical panel for genetic screening, hormonal profiles, anatomical examination or other valuation of endocrine profiles by medical specialists. The policy includes an appeals process, and support will be offered to any boxers that provide an adverse test result." if the presence of Y chromosome genetic material is an automatic exclusion?
I disagree with your interpretation of what I and others said. If you're unwilling to take it to a board (so that others can weigh in), that's your prerogative, but it also means that I won't be wasting my time entertaining your opinion about me. I'm done here, and if you still disagree, you know what to do.M.Bitton (talk)15:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Note Time which is a reliable source (WP:RSPS)[5] also supports the interpretation "If only a pair of XX chromosomes are found, or a DSD in which androgenization does not occur, the athlete will be considered eligible to compete in the female category." There are probably other RS which say the same thing but I got lazy searching because most quote one or both parts of what World Boxing said. Again I don't mean to be rude but I feel it's necessary to be honest. I can't imagine many people with a good understanding of English will make the same mistake you have made. It's simply not how English works. So most people, when reading what World Boxing has said will already understand that simply having SRY is not a complete exclusion by reading quotes of what World Boxing said. I did not find any source which supports what you're saying and I don't expect to.Nil Einne (talk)15:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude you are being rude and unwilling to substantiate your baseless claims about me in a board, which suggests that you're also not confident about what you're claiming.
I've provided an RS to support my claim. You've provided zilch other than your own OR based on a highly flawed understanding of English. The ball is in your court. I'm unwilling to waste the time of a noticeboard with this since anything I do is on my head. I wouldn't be surprised if I get topic banned for raising this in a noticeboard forWP:Pointy behaviour as noticeboards are not intended to prove someone is wrong when consensus is already against them. As you're the one who is clear in aWP:ONEAGAINSTMANY situation, it's up to you to demonstrate there is no consensus or otherwise just accept there is consensus. Whether you get topic banned for raising this in a board, that's on your head.Nil Einne (talk)16:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear consensus in this discussion that under current World Boxing guidelines the presence of SRY does not result in an automatic exclusion from the woman category since that's how "or" works in the English language. You claim the current guidelines mean there is an automatic exclusion if SRY is found based solely on a flawed reading of those guidelines. Everyone else who has read those guidelines, including a reliable source, Time, says it does not. Instead there will be further testing to decided whether the boxer can compete in the woman category.Nil Einne (talk)16:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such "consensus" (that's just your claim). If you're after one, then short of starting a RfC about it, taking it to a board (like I suggested) is the only way to know for sure. Also, contrary to what you're claiming, the sources that I cited disagree with you.M.Bitton (talk)16:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, the only source you've provided in this whole thing is the World Boxing guidelines, a primary source which as I keep saying you're misinterpreted since everyone else disagrees with how you're reading it. The only secondary sources in this discussion have been provided by me. And one of them, Time, explicitly supports the interpretation of everyone else in this thread. You say there is no consensus. Please name one person who supports your view. Because I'm counting 6 people including myself who support the opposite which is enough for consensus against one person.Nil Einne (talk)16:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Athletes that are deemed to bemale at birth, as evidenced bythe presence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene)or with a difference of sexual development (DSD) where male androgenization occurs, will be eligible to compete in the male category.
Athletes that are deemed to befemale at birth, as evidenced by the presence of XX chromosomesor theabsence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene)or with a DSD where male androgenization does not occur, will be eligible to compete in the female category.
Yes that's a primary source which you've misinterpreted as 6 people agree. Again the only secondary source which has looked at what World Boxing have said and explained what they mean is Time. You refuse to accept Time's interpretation, instead rely on your own interpretation of a primary source which 6 people agree is wrong and absolutely no one agrees is correct. And you claim there is no consensus. This is disruptive behaviour likely to lead to a topic or site ban if it continues.Nil Einne (talk)16:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that the source you linked you is the same one which says "Where test results for boxers that want to compete in the female category reveal Y chromosome genetic material and a potential DSD, the initial screenings will be referred to independent clinical specialists for genetic screening, hormonal profiles, anatomical examination or other valuation of endocrine profiles by medical specialists." I notice you've conveniently decided to ignore this part.Nil Einne (talk)16:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the relevant part (about the SRY gene). In any case, I said what I needed to say, and since your opinion doesn't mean much to me, I see no point in entertaining it any longer. Have a nice day.M.Bitton (talk)16:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the part which conflicts with your interpretation is not "citing the relevant part". In fact, it's disruptive behaviour likely to lead to a topic ban or site ban if it continues. I'd note that while the part I quoted doesn't mention SRY per se, the part you quoted makes it clear that when they say Y chromosome genetic material they mean the SRY gene. AlsoWP:PRIMARY is quite clear that we require secondary source interpretation of primary sources and that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". While that's for inclusion of content in articles which this isn't about, it reflects the fact that from wikipedia's PoV, editor interpretations of primary sources are far less important than secondary source interpretation. We have that secondary source interpretation of what World Boxing has said from Time which supports the view of the 6 of us, but you've still provided none for your view. And I've explained why am not willing to take this to a notice board i.e. because as far as I am concerned, there is already clear consensus and in doing so I risk being sanctioned myself. You disagree there is consensus. But you have not explained why you're not willing to take this to a notice board yourself. No one has said you should not do so. The only thing that has been said is it's up to you whether to do so, and you do so under your own risk. If you take this to a board and commentators agree with you, then of course the consensus assessment will change. You are not saying there is already consensus in your favour. You do not believe you're refusal to accept consensus is disruptive. So there is zero reason for you not not simply take this to a board if you still disagree with 6 other people. I've even suggested a simpler alternative. Simply ask an editor you trust. I'm confident enough that virtually everyone with a good understanding of English will agree with us 6 that I'm begging you to simply do that in lieu of taking this to a notice board, since I'm certain almost anyone you ask will tell you you're wrong. (To be clear, it's up to you whether to take this to a noticeboard or ask an editor you trust. I'm suggesting two options which I'm certain will lead to the same result in terms of what you're told about your intepretation and leave it to you to chose. I'm just asking you to chose one of them rather than continuing to insist you're right despite the absence of anything to support what you're saying.) BTW, I'd normally take this to your talk page but since you've already deleted my simple comment there, I'm leaving this here.Nil Einne (talk)16:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR. I stuck to what is said about the SRY gene (what is being discussed). If others want to make medical claims about her (even indirectly), then that's on them.M.Bitton (talk)17:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is speculation and synthesis. You cite no source for thisinterpretation and invite us to speculate on the motivations of an individual.
Even then, there is a clear possible answer: perhaps she knows she has the gene, and thinks her best chance going forward is a PR campaign to have the standard changed. Hence she acknowledges having the SRY gene, but emphasizes that her condition is natural and not deliberate, and that she is suppressing testosterone to reduce any purported advantage.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)16:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I agree with a lot of this - and yes, there are multiple apparent contradictions between her various statements and actions (another is that she now says she has "no problem" with taking World Boxing's test, and even that she's taken it, when the latest we know from other reporting that she's currently taking WB to the CAS to challenge that requirement). I don't see anything in the secondary sources that allows us to reconcile those contradictions one way or another, or to declare any given statement as true or false or a misunderstanding or anything else.
Really, the only way I can see to deal with this is to keep it all at arm's length with careful attribution and the most non-committal language available, i.e. we say that she "told l'Equipe [x]" and that she "told CNN [y]" - in both cases using the interpretations commonly given by secondary sources - and then we just leave it at that, and readers are free to wonder about the contradictions if they want to. I know we haven't often agreed about this article in the past, but does that sound generally reasonable as an approach?Clicriffhard (talk)18:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously anWP:EXCEPTIONAL claim; and the usual logic for exceptional claims applies. If the interview is accurate and not mistranslated, and she didn't misspeak, then there will be across-the-board coverage. Right now there very noticeablyisn't, which throws it into doubt. I also want to take particular issue withthis edit, which was a strictWP:BLP violation and unsupported by any sources; evenif she had the SRY genes, none of the existing sources suggest that she is trans, and we have numerous sources where she unambiguously states she is not; even in the interview in question she states it unequivocally, so using it to imply sheis would be misusing it as a source even before we get to the exceptional nature of the claim. Things like this are another reason to wait for broader sourcing, since editors are adding skepticism to the article unsupported by any sources based on their personal interpretations of a single interview - that's not an appropriate way to handle BLP issues. Wait for more sourcing, then we can handle it based on what those sources say. Note that the sentences that were altered in that edit weredecided in an RFC; given that it's obviously contested, another RFC would probably be needed to change them - though, again, I would suggest waiting a few days to see what further coverage emerges, since this is sufficiently exceptional that it would be bizarre for it to not get more coverage. --Aquillion (talk)15:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion please tag me when you drag me, I almost missed this! My reasoning for that edit was that the lead makes several assertions that now seem to be contestable (if ever they were not). I tried in my edit to remove material that made positive claims, without adding any positive claims. Bear in mind that BLP cuts both ways, and if we are potentially stating false/contestable information, there is not an 'out' because we are making claims that we believe the subject would approve of, or that we think are kinder. I think the safest thing to do it to make as few assertions as possible as more information emerges.Riposte97 (talk)23:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted a translation of the L'Equip interview above. The claim that she 'admits' to having the SRY gene is either a lie or wishful thinking. The interviewer claimed she had it, and she didn't even respond to that claim.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? Presumably you're reading this part differently from the secondary sources that were cited (France24, Le Monde etc.)?
To be clear, you have a female phenotype but have the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity.
Sure, but you are reading it in a way that contradicts that sentence; that's why I'm asking you to clarify what you mean. That sentence, read in the ordinary way, looks very difficult to reconcile with the idea that "she didn't even respond to that claim".
It doesn't matter what your interpretation of that is (this is a mistake that has been made several times on this talk page). WP:RS/P directly says "Khelif confirmed having the SRY gene" with zero sources that confirm otherwise. It doesn't get more direct than that. Your objection is pure OR.
I'm not the one insisting that I know exactly what Khelif meant that 'Oui' in response to, here. So who's engaging inWP:OR again?
WP:RS/P directly says "Khelif confirmed having the SRY gene" with zero sources that confirm otherwise. No, it doesn't. This doesn't even make any sense.WP:RS/P is a list of perennial sources that come up in arguments. It doesn't say anything about Khelif.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what point you are making. Of course you don't.
Any objection that you raise a statement of fact that is written clearly in RS is pure OR. LOL, that's cute. An account with 57 edits is presuming to dictate to me what our policy is and how it works.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants We don't need the sniping. Do you actually have a policy based objection to what was said? Otherwise, yes, any editor is within their rights to correct you. We're all equal here.Riposte97 (talk)23:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not rocket science, no, but it isWP:OR if it contradicts the interpretations of her words commonly given by secondary sources. Just so we're clear, you're not aware of any sources that interpreted it the way that you think we should?Clicriffhard (talk)19:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You'reinterpreting Khelif's words in this interview. As I've said multiple times now, you'd have a much easier time and experience much less pushback if you just waited a bit to let the sources come to a consensus, instead of rushing to add in your interpretation of what she said the moment y'all catch wind of it.
I know you think my problem is with claiming that Khelif has the SRY gene, but it's really not. My issue is with the logic being used to arrive at the conclusions that this represents an 'admission' and should be included post-haste. This article has been subject to massive amounts of POV pushing since Khelif came into the limelight. I'm extremely wary of letting any WP article (at least the public-facing main page) become a culture-war battleground.
So I'll make you a deal. Give it a week. Come send me a message on my talk page, restating your case and including any relevant sources in a week. I'll do my own survey of sources, and if we can establish that a reasonable proportion of sources (say 40% if they're all right-leaning, or 25% if there's a decent mix) interpret her words the same way, and that Khelif hasn't come out and denied it, and I'll switch to supporting this inclusion, so long as it's stated properly. I.E. "In February of 2026, Khelif gave an interview in which it was which was widely noted that she seemed to confirm having the SRY gene."ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well you can do that whether I message you or not.
To be clear though, I'm not "interpreting Khelif's words", or at least I'm not giving my own interpretation any value in respect of what the article should say. Currently, the reliable secondary sources say that Khelif told L'Equipe that she has the SRY gene, so that's what I think we have to include, but I will doyou a deal: if other reliable secondary sources report on that statement belatedly and that shifts the balance on how they're interpreting it, I will absolutely support any call to revisit that part of the article and adjust it accordingly. Likewise if Khelif comes out to clarify her comments.Clicriffhard (talk)03:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear though, I'm not "interpreting Khelif's words", You absolutely are, full stop. You're interpreting that "Oui" as a direct response to a single clause in the preceding statement by the interviewer. This is not up for debate, this is factually what you are doing. If I was doing the same thing in the opposite direction, I would be insisting for a fact that "Oui" was a filler word, or only in response to the clause about hormone therapy. Instead, I am telling you thatneither of us know exactly why she said that word.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just leave it. I'm sure any intelligent person reading this can reach a conclusion about whether I'm talking about my interpretation or that of the secondary sources.Clicriffhard (talk)16:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if we were interpreting the primary source ourselves, but we are not. We are citing high-quality secondary sources that have already done that interpretation for us.
Le Monde (February 5, 2026), a source of record, explicitly states that she confirmed it. In their coverage of the interview, they write:
"In an interview with a French sports daily... the 26-year-old Algerian...confirms that she has the SRY gene and took treatment to lower her testosterone levels"[1]
When a top-tier source likeLe Monde explicitly uses the phrase "confirms that she has the SRY gene", it is not "OR" for Wikipedia to report that confirmation. Conversely, arguing that shedidn't mean it - contradicting Le Monde - would be Original Research.TR (talk)19:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have that exactly backward regarding how the interviewer read it. The interviewer's intent is clearly to establish beyond doubt whether or not Khelif has the SRY gene. That is why he says "To be clear..."
I've never in my entire life read an interview where the subject admitted to anything that wasn't clear that didn't involve a followup question to confirm that's what they meant. Not once. I'm not saying that isn't the case here, I'm saying that it'sWP:TOOSOON for us to be jumping to the conclusion that it was.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She clearly answers "yes" to a yes or no question. It's possible that she misinterpreted the question or only meant to answer one part of it and not the other, but we have no indication of that, and the only RS to address the interview has interpreted it as a clear "yes" to the question of having the SRY gene.
If we want to do a careful reading of the text, I think there are a few points that militate in favor of this interpretation.
Khelif in her prior answer acknowledges "my difference" and says "we all have different genes, we all have different hormone levels." She is clearly aware that she is acknowledging something is distinct or of note about her biology in some way.
Khelif acknowledges (both in L'Equipe and in the CNN article) having high testosterone and taking steps to suppress it ahead of competing. This is an acknowledgment of some competition-relevant biological factor (and high testosterone is a likely mechanism of a DSD involving the presence of the SRY gene).
Although Khelif is a non-specialist, the specifics of genetic testing would likely be known to her given the 2023 disqualification, the 2025 changes in eligibility for World Boxing, and her own ongoing appeal in the Court for Arbitration of Sport.
This is a not off-the-cuff, but a sit-down interview, and the question specifically starts with a "to be clear..." indicating the intent to clarify a point of confusion.
I suppose it is always possible that an interview subject misunderstands a question (although, again, the only RS here to address this point does not take that stance). But the context and surrounding answers appear to make it quite plausible that Khelif is indeed acknowledging having an SRY gene.
Her answer was much longer than 'yes', and at no point was there a question. The interviewer madetwo statements, and Khelif's response was very plainly to the first statement about her hormones, which sheexplicitly mentioned in her response.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how you can read that interview and arrive at this level of special pleading. She is making the point that she is not trans-sexual. She is a woman, born this way, and she makes much of her hormones being feminine (although indicates this is, at least recently, controlled). She is asked if she has female phenotype but with an SRY gene, and she says yes, but makes the point that this is just genetic variation and she is naturally female. That is, she is saying she is naturally female despite the SRY gene. But she has clearly admitted that she has the gene. Any further special pleading on that point is silly.Did she misunderstand the question? If so, she'll correct this is short order, especially as her comments are being reported more widely. But let's not have any more nonsense about what words she spoke.As for our article: pff. The reason I have not said anything sooner is because this is the age old issue of people rushing off to update an encyclopaedic article based on news reporting. The interview inL'Equipe is a primary source. Wikipedia says we can use those when the BLP subject is talking about themself, but it's still a primary source. But this is going to find its way into a secondary source. We can wait. Wikipedia is not a news paper and we don't have to report every update instantly. If shedoes issue a retraction then our patience will have been proven wise. If she doesn't issue a retraction, then we still won't have done anything wrong. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)17:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can't see it.
But let's not have any more nonsense about what words she spoke. That's rich, coming from someone supporting an argument that requires us to ignoremost of what she and the interviewer said in order to wring a tortured 'admission' out of it.
Tell me, if she was 'admitting it' in this inteview, why didn't the interviewer confirm that? That's what interviewers do, when a subject admits to something at the heart of the very thing they're being interviewed about. It seems to me that the interviewer shares the exact same reading I and M. Bitton and at least one other editor do.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The interviewer did confirm it. The interviewer saidPour qu'on comprenne bien... That question was itself confirmatory.And, btw, if you don't know that interviewers may indeed ask "are you sure" questions, but then omit those from the published accounts as repetitive, you don't know how interviews are professionally edited. The point has been made by others too, but i think you are not hearing it because you are seeing this discussion as partisan. For instance, you sayYou and your allies in this discussion are insisting... You are assuming that people making points here are allies, on the same side of some partisan conflict. That we are all saying the same thing, and we are all failing to take into account what is clear and obvious to you. If that is how this is framed in your mind, then it is your framing that is the problem.The tenacity with which people are trying to instill doubt into a primary source that presents no doubt is amazing. But if you look at what I said or what Aquillion said, or what others have said, you will see that we have allowed that Khelif may have misunderstood the question, and argued there is no hurry. But the problem there is the tendency of Wikipedians to rush to cover every new thing without waiting for secondary sources. This page is full of that. The whole project is full of it. But here, on this point, we can wait for secondary sourcing. We are writing an articlein medias res as it were. This is not how the article will look when the story is done.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The interviewer did confirm it. That is the most ridiculous claim I've read in a while. Please explain to me how the interviewer was confirming something she hadn't said yet by making the statement she would make the statement requiring confirmation in regards to.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is the most ridiculous claim I've read in a while. And that's quite an achievement considering some of statements made in this discussion so far. But yes, let's go through the semantics here - but before we do, you say,Please explain to me how the interviewer was confirming something she hadn't said yet. The answer to that is simply this: she hadn't said that yet in public, but she almost certainly had discussed (or someone had discussed on her behalf) with the interviewer what she would be saying in the interview. This is quite common, in fact. Whenever I've been interviewed (recorded interviews), for instance, in most or all cases the interviewer actually told me what they would be asking and I indicated how I would answer. These were not political interviews, where the interviewer was trying to trip me up, and if the purpose of the interview is to put new information into the public domain, this is just normal practice. Those were interviews of a form similar to this one. There is often a relaxed pre-discussion, and sometimes the interviewer will even say "you were telling me before thatX. Is that correct?"Now here, we are not told if there was a pre-interview. However, considering Khelif, or someone on her behalf, also produced and put out this reel[6], and considering the interviewer asked a very specific question - to confirm what is also stated in that reel - it seems clear that the interviewer either had seen the reel or had a heads up that this was information that Khelif wished to put out. The interviewer did not hallucinate the question. They said quite specifically:Pour qu'on comprenne bien, vous avez un phénotype féminin mais possédez le gène SRY, indicateur de masculinité. It's a whole proposition, posed as a question so that we can understand her position clearly. The interviewer asks she confirm foreveryone else what the interviewer is clearly already aware of.Having asked her to confirm (and we are in no doubt that the interviewer is asking for confirmation by "Pour qu'on comprenne bien", she does so with a simple "oui" followed by "et c'est naturel". So she confirms the proposition put to her.Semantically, the question is a single proposition, consisting of clauses conjoined bymais (but). Lakoff is the goto authority on the semantics of that conjunction, but first we must recognise that "but", like "and" is a coordinating conjunction, and it conjoins independent clauses. What Lakoff shows is how "but" differs from "and", not in the conjunction itself but based on the semantic opposition of the clauses or (as here) denial of expectation. That is, the semantic purpose of using "but" rather than "and" here is because the expectation from the first clause (female phenotype) is that there will be no SRY gene. Thus the interviewer naturally chose to use "but".Nevertheless, given the clauseF, she has female phenotype and/but the clauseS that she has the SRY gene, the polar proposition that she is asked to assent to (for the avoidance of doubt) isF ∧S. The truth table for this conjunction is:
This tells us that an affirmative response toF ∧Snecessitates that bothF is true andS is true. Denial of either clause would necessitate a negative response.What all that guff means is this: if she didn't have the SRY gene (and on the assumption she understood the question) she would have answered that questionnon, and would probably have clarified which proposition was false (i.e. "actually I don't have female phenotype" or "no, I don't have the SRY gene"). There is no other way to read that unless you start positing that she misunderstood the question. Consider what you would understand by these:
"You have red hair, but brown eyes?" - "Yes"
"You enjoy hiking, but you hate camping?" - "Yes"
"You went to the store to buy milk, but you bought eggs?" - "Yes"
You see how these all use the coordinating conjunction to create polar questions that necessitates that both clauses be true?It is a fair question whether she misunderstood, but the lack of any correction, and the existence of the instagram reel all seem to point clearly to an intentional disclosure, and our refusal to accept the plain meaning of the words she has deliberately put out appears recalcitrant.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)15:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
she almost certainly had discussed (or someone had discussed on her behalf) with the interviewer what she would be saying in the interview please, let's not make unsubstantiated claims about her.
considering Khelif, or someone on her behalf, also produced and put out this ree again, please, let's not make unsubstantiated claims about her.
Ahem, you just made the argument that the interviewer 'confirmed' her 'admission' before she even made it. Waffling about genes and semantics doesn't address the sheer silliness of that argument of yours. It was a profoundly ignorant claim that you'd do better to just walk back than to try to obfuscate the stupidity of it with all this.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it's a interviewing prompt but not technically phrased as a question. Thank you for that.
However, I don't think we have any basis to say that "Yes..." only applies to one of the two elements in the prompt. The rest of the response makes sense either way.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)17:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The rest of the response is about hormones, not genes" - yes, but not that part of the response. On the face of that, that was a plain and simple "yes" to the whole statement, and that appears to be how secondary sources are reporting it.
yes, but not that part of the response. A tacit admissions to cherry-picking? Points for honesty.
On the face of that, that was a plain and simple "yes" to the whole statement, I've seen so many different statements that start with "yes" that I know enough to not stop reading/listening after that word. That's where that whole 'context' thing comes into play. You keep insisting that the word 'yes' was a direct response to every part of the preceding statement, but you've got absolutely no evidence that it wasn't agreement with only the first part, or even just afiller word.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every secondary source reporting on this seems to disagree with your interpretation, though. Now, it's possible that they are all wrong and you are correct, in which case I would imagine Khelif will say she has been misquoted or misinterpreted in the next few days or weeks. But for now, it just seems to be you and a couple of others claiming that her own words do not mean what they seem to mean. Tewdar 18:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me why the interviewer didn't bother to confirm that she was 'admitting' to something that lies at the very heart of the matter they were interviewing her over, then.
As I said before, it seems the interviewer (who was actually there in the moment, talking to her and has a better grasp on her meaning) shares the same interpretation that I and four other editors seem to share.
The fact that organizations who make more money when they get more clicks chose to run with a different interpretation doesn't bother me one bit.
Also, the only secondary source I've been shown which does that isNewsweek, and their story is literally about the conservative reaction to it. Additionally, when they actually quoted her, they went with the CNN source, and not this one. Nothing in that article lends any credence to the claim that she was actually admitting to anything, beyond a passing mention in a context in which it would be clunky to include a disclaimer.
Yeah, let's wait and see how this plays out then, instead of doing our own original interpretations and armchair psychology. Tewdar 19:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with waiting. I'm shocked that some editors feel that this is such a pressing issue as to need to be included right away and filling a talk page with this much argumentation in favor of doing so.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is full to bursting with stuff like this already. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a bunch of newspaper clippings stuck together with sellotape. Tewdar 19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but there's going to be no fixing it unless and until the people who are dead set on raising doubt about her sex stop doing things like rushing to the page every time she answers an interviewer in a way that might be construed as an admission of some point of theirs if you squint just right.
I have no problem with stating in Wikivoice that Khelif has the SRY gene. But given the nightmare that the poor woman has stirred up by [checks notes] being good at her job in a world where transphobic transvestigators exist and the iron-clad rules ofWP:BLP, I'm not willing to run with what some editors are interpreting from an ambiguous response she gave to an interviewer.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with stating in Wikivoice that Khelif has the SRY gene.
I actually do have a problem with that. Putting it in Wikivoice would be far too strong given the inconsistencies with her other statements. What we should be doing is saying that she "told L'Equipe [x]", using secondary sources to determine what she told them, and staying completely silent on whether what she told them was true or false. We should do the exact same thing with her (arguably contradictory) comments to CNN.Clicriffhard (talk)20:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but that isn't what happened here. We're talking about interviews given to L'Equipe and CNN within the last few days, in which she makes comments that are difficult to reconcile with one another.Clicriffhard (talk)21:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the secondary sources to say that she told L'Equipe and CNN what she told L'Equipe and CNN. The obvious answer is to include that, and not to say or imply that any of it was true or false in Wikivoice.Clicriffhard (talk)21:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually think they're especially hard to reconcile? In both cases, Khelif acknowledges lowering her testosterone. In one case, Khelif (evidently) acknowledges having an SRY gene. In the other case, Khelif says that a past leaked report was wrong in some unspecified way. Itranscribed the relevant part of that interview, and you can see that it is quite nonspecific. So there is no direct contradiction, at least.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)21:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but she's also now saying that she has no problem with taking World Boxing's sex verification test (which would usually exclude someone with SRY and high levels of androgens), and even that she's taken it. She's also filed a challenge to World Boxing's test at the CAS, and formally requested that they enable her to compete without taking that test, so the whole thing is quite difficult to make sense of.
In short, I think there are a lot of inconsistencies that should at least make us aware that some thingscould be misstatements or misunderstandings. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't include her comments (as interpreted by secondary sources) - of course we should - but it's a good enough reason to be cautious about throwing the weight of Wikivoice behind any of them.Clicriffhard (talk)21:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what are we actually waiting for? We have secondary sources interpreting Khelif's interview, and we can include those interpretations in a dry "Khelif told L'Equipe [x]" format without claiming or implying that what she said was true, false, or anything else. If there's more coverage and we adjust the article accordingly then cool, but we have a decent amount already.
Side point: there's a moratorium in place with an exception for new developments. That effectively forces people to act on new reporting as and when it happens, because you won't be allowed to come back to it later.Clicriffhard (talk)19:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This development will always post-date the beginning of the moratorium, and so I would call this a "new development" in three days, three weeks, or three months. Nobody,nobody here would say that by waiting a little while to see if Khelif responds, say "sorry, time's run out"... surely?
With the best will in the world, the fact that we're even having to have this incredibly long conversation - with bizarre digressions into things likethe meaning of the word "or" - just to include something that Khelif very obviously said herself in her article, is enough to undermine my confidence that nobody would do such a thing.
A tacit admissions to cherry-picking? Points for honesty.
Well no, obviously not; I'm saying that the only part of her response that purports to address the whole statement was a plain "yes" to that whole statement, and the fact that she expands on hormones doesn't tell us whether shemeant to agree with the whole statement.
In any case, my interpretation doesn't matter. Nor does yours. My point is that we have a bunch of sources that have interpreted it as a "yes" to the whole statement, and I'm asking you if there are other sources that explicitly contradict that interpretation (rather than just not mentioning the SRY aspect). If there are, then we should take that into account. If there aren't, then I don't know why you're bringing it up.Clicriffhard (talk)19:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out to me where she claims that she said 'Oui' in response to both? I seem to have missed it. Without her weighing in on her exact meaning, we can't possibly know it.
To reiterate:we have a bunch of secondary sources that have interpreted it as a "yes" to the whole statement. By definition, that isn'tWP:OR. I'm also completely open to the possibility that other sources might contradict that interpretation, but you don't seem overly keen to produce any.Clicriffhard (talk)19:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones fall foul of WP:HEADLINE and WP:PASSINGMENTION?
That aside, if you're quibbling over the numerical limits of a "bunch" then we can probably both find better uses for our time. Again, finding sources that interpret that same statement to mean something else would be a good use of time, but I haven't seen any.Clicriffhard (talk)22:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just said all three only do so as a passing mention. As for headline, I don't remember which one, but I searched the article for "SRY" and the claim that she admitted to having one was only in the byline.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is the extent to which those are secondary. I know that from one point of view, the article in L'Équipe is the primary source and so these reports of the reports must be secondary, right? But in terms of historiography, that's incorrect. Inasmuch as they just report the interview verbatim, these are primary reports. There is no synthesis here. They are what historians will consider to be discursive primary sources.To be clear, if anyone reading this feels strongly these are secondary sources and are fine for the article, then that is a point of view I will not be able to change. We don't need to fight about the definitions. For me, I'm concerned by the amount we want to write encyclopaedia articles from newspapers. For others, that will be pragmatically the only way to do this. But do bear in mind this caution: if there is no synthesis, it is just the account of the account. If the first is in error, so is the second.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree.WP:SECONDARY talks aboutanalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis - not only synthesis. I would have said that these are secondary sources in that they provide an interpretation of what Khelif said to L'Equipe and what it meant (e.g. "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity." per Le Monde), which is a useful interpretation because her intended meaning is evidently a bone of contention for some editors. My main doubt about the existing sources is whether we should be treating the articles that refer back to Agence France-Presse (like Le Monde and France24) as multiple sources or merely iterations of a single source.
Nevertheless, I get the point about waiting for more sources or different kinds of sources. My preference would be to put the information in now and then revisit it if and when the balance of the sources changes, but I won't be kicking and screaming if the RfC closes in favour of a delay.Clicriffhard (talk)12:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But here's the problem with that. You say Le Monde goes beyond verbatim in that it saysKhelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity. So yes, they have added (by way of explanation, I presume) "located on the Y chromosome". But where did they get that from? She didn't say that in the text of the interview for L'Équipe. The SRY gene is usually found on a Y chromosome, but, in fact, it can also be found on an X chromosome. She was not asked and did not indicate if she has a Y chromosome. So Le Monde have not analysed or synthesised information, they have simply added to it. They did so by way of explanation, and probably in ignorance of the possibility it was wrong.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)15:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but it's not the point I'm making. I'm referring toKhelif confirmed she has the SRY gene as a useful interpretation, given that some editors didn't read Khelif's "yes" as a response relating to the SRY gene.
Again, this really says nothing about what her "yes" response is to. The most natural reading is that she is saying yes to the prior statement (which had two clauses), and then discussing what she thinks is most important or most wants to message.
You and your allies in this discussion are insisting that she's saying 'yes' to the clause about the SRY gene, regardless of whether she's saying it in response to to the other clause.
I'm insisting thatwe don't know what she's saying yes to, and using the rest of her response to provide context. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she meant that word in response to the claim about the SRY gene, and we have good reason to suspect that there would be such evidence, if the interviewer agreed with you (in the form of the blatantly obvious followup confirmation that that was what she meant).ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that there should be a strong presumption that she agreed with the entire statement, since if she disagreed with a part of it - especially on an important point, and especially after cued by "Just to be clear" - she could have said so. The straightforward, natural reading is that the "yes" is agreeing with the prior statement.
That she then mentions hormones does nothing to rebut that presumption. It does not contradict having an SRY gene. It simply elaborates on her biological state.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)19:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A 'strong presumption" is stillWP:OR, no matter how you justify it. Unless she says "I have the SRY gene" or words to that effect, or spends enough time fielding questions that explicitly premise upon her having it without bothering to disagree as to make it obvious, then us stating so in wikivoice iscompletely out of the question.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've pointed out elsewhere, plenty of sources do not make that claim. And the interviewer did not appear to have taken her response as an admission, judging by the lack of a follow-up question to confirm it. Without a direct statement from Khelif, or enough additional statements talking around the subject in a way that implies that was what she meant as to leave no doubt, it's still a BLP vio.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the reliable source (AFP) have made the claim that she's said "yes" to the clause about the SRY gene. This discussion ultimately is over whether or not AFP is a reliable source, which has already been litigated and has been placed on the RSP list.Smokerton (talk)21:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of stonewalling is amazing. I suggest someone simply open an RfC. Should be pretty straightforward, because the sources are so clear.Kingsindian♝♚17:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not stonewalling when there are five editors raising multiple objections to a proposed edit, and those objections are mostly going unanswered except by a baseless insistence that they're wrong.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think go for it. I don't really understand why we need an RfC for something that looks so clear, but I can't pretend I'm surprised, given the history of this article.
If you want, you can just use a different section with a proposed text and then ask for comments. I suggest that you don't clutter it too much by doing back and forth (those arguments can be had in this section). Just look at what people suggest and open an RfC with your best judgement.Kingsindian♝♚18:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I don't want to lead this. Happy to vote if someone else starts an RfC, but the last time I tried to engage with this article, I ended up needing a long mental health break from Wikipedia, so that's about as much as I can commit to.Clicriffhard (talk)19:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need exact wording? Could the question just be something 'should the statement that Khelif has the SRY gene be included with attribution?' There seems to be enough pre-RfC if so.Riposte97 (talk)23:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lordy. I go away for half a day and come back and even the barely sufficient text that had been added to cover Khelif's clear personal admission that she has XY genes, has all been reverted and the page is even more NPOV than it was before! Editors that are doing this fighting against reality are hurting Wikipedia. Please do open an RfC, though I don't count on it helping much, given the degree of ideological activism on display here.Fig (talk)20:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This all is ridiculous and does not require an RfC. If you can't agree what the quote means, just quote her without further comment until a more unambiguous statement appears. We all agree that she made the statement in response to a certain question, such as it was. Good, bad, dumb, contradictory - doesn't matter. Just quote her. It looks a bit odd style-wise but avoids all the drama over wrong interpretation. The choice between accurate content that is not-exactly-encyclopedia-style and potentially wrong text with an authoritative tone should be obvious. Our job is, among other things, to avoid misinforming readers, to the best of our abilities. Also, in this manner, "false claims" could be potentially remade into "unsubstantiated" claims. False claims are supposed to be obviously wrong - and this discussion shows it isn'tobviously wrong. But all these statements were made without any evidence and for malicious intent. That we can write.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)01:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the phrase "False claims that she was male" is astonishingly misleading. In fact, all ongoing controversy about Khelif centers on whether such claims are true or false. Most generously towards Khelif, we do not yet know whether she is physiologically male or female. Therefore we should not pre-judge the matter by referring to such claims as "false." I agree with the alternative suggestion "unsubstantiated" or "unproven." Thank you.Glasslelia (talk)15:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Support inclusion because this is reliably sourced and does not break BLP; quote the subject so as to have their statement in their own words. Frankly, the objections I've seen appear largely seem to stem from either wanting to speculate about the subject's motives or misunderstandings about what is being discussed in the CNN citation.Smokerton (talk)03:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion and yes to quote I think the reliable source coverage threshold has been reached where this should be mentioned in the article. These are mainstream news sources, and this is something that has Khelif has stated herself rather than from a third party. I think Khelif's acutual words should be provided for specific context.Hemiauchenia (talk)00:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good-faith RfC that can be nevertheless avoided. If you can't agree what the quote means, just quote her without further comment until a more unambiguous statement appears. We all agree that she made the statement in response to a certain question, such as it was. Good, bad, dumb, contradictory - doesn't matter. Just quote her. It looks a bit odd style-wise but avoids all the drama over wrong interpretation, and the choice between accurate content that is not-exactly-encyclopedia-style and potentially wrong text with an authoritative tone should be obvious.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)01:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought,close this RfC with no result but not for the reasons you may think. It's more because this whole discussion makes us look like super creepy weirdos with an obsession of determining what Khelif has between her legs. I don't want to be part of this group. Frankly, what she has between her legs or in her genes is none of our fucking business, and is none of the readers', either. It may be relevant for sports federations for sex verification purposes but that's about the only thing we should report on - disqualifications, proceedings before theCourt of Arbitration for Sport, other regulatory actions targeted at her and, yes, the controversy. But this is bordering on gratuitously salacious. Genetic composition, sex or gender is absolutely personal information and we shoulderr on the side of not mentioning it at all.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)12:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
super creepy weirdos with an obsession of determining what Khelif has between her legs
That I will absolutely do on sight, because that's basically inciting flame wars. The point I have is that if you read anti-trans or conservative news outlets, you are going to getstuff claiming that Khelif was male all along (see also[7]), which is vile. Unfortunately, no, this whole speculationis ultimately about what she has in her trousers and whether it conforms with her identity as a woman. It is bullshit but that's the sad reality. IMHO unless the article subject explicitly stated she's fine that others discuss in detail her genetic composition, genitals or gender, we just should stop doing it. Leave her alone.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)13:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't agree that that's whatthis discussion is about, but I won't hammer the point. I think we have the same opinion of discussions that are along those lines.Clicriffhard (talk)14:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reject outright the suggestion to close down this RfC, since the suggestion is based on anger ("super creepy weirdos with an obsession of determining what Khelif has between her legs"!) more than anything ofsubstance. If a contributor believes the discussion here violates a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the rational way forward is to report the violations; not close down the RfC, when there is nothing wrong with the RfC per se. And to address one more point, the same crude was it was expressed: It fuckingis our "business" to report in Wikipedia articles anything ofnotablesubstance that'ssupported byreliable sources. The issue of Imane Khelif's gender has been making headlines in practically all media, for better or worse, and, therefore,anything that's related to that issue deserves an examination on merits already well defined in policies & guidelines here, e.g.WP:BLP. Can we all get along ingood faith? -The Gnome (talk)07:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic, her notability is based on her being an Olympic athlete. That right-wing culture warriors want to claim she is male without any reliable evidence is secondary to that. —OwenBlacker(he/him;Talk)17:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
notability was expanded by the manufactured right wing controversy, unfortunately. more than half of this article is now devoted to it and it is due in her article to include whatever is latest developments (while still respecting reliable sourcing calling this all BS and BLP guidelines).User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)18:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, agreed. we need some more time to see, but there is policy enough to include the interview attributed to le monde, and with other sourcing showing that Imane Khelif is against what was claimed to be stated in the interview.le monde is usually pretty reputable too, isn't it?User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion - reliable secondary sources support the proposition. I have not seen anything which convinces me to discount that fundamental fact.Riposte97 (talk)01:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon, oppose - I am not convinced that there is a sufficient level of media coverage at present to justify including this alleged development in the article, specifically the lead. This is because including such information would introduce a false balance on the basis of media speculation on Khelif’s sex assigned at birth or her ‘biological’ characteristics, which is totally unsuitable for a BLP; seeWP:NOTGOSSIP. However, as the person who wrote the phrasing currently included in the article, Isupport removing the sentence “No medical evidence exists to suggest that she is transgender.” as it is too strongly worded at present.Yasslaywikia (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)struckYasslaywikia (talk)18:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to add that I wouldsupport rewriting the lead in light of the new development to better reflect what secondary sources are saying, but I wouldn’t like to see any specifics mentioned there. That role should be fulfilled by the body. To clarify, I(1) weakly support mentioning the SRY gene development in the body,(2) strongly support including a quotation from Khelif in the body on the condition that (1) comes to pass, and(3) oppose mentioning any specifics outright in the lead; saying something like her gender/genetic identity has been a source of controversy within media would suffice and sum everything up quite nicely, IMHO. There’s way too much of a focus on speculation regarding her alleged sex and DSDs in the lead, anyway. It would be better done away with.Yasslaywikia (talk)12:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Istrongly support Loki's proposal based on my understanding of it, that being the claim that Khelif has the SRY gene should not be directly attributed to Wikivoice. Something like the following would do it, in my opinion (NB I have not been following the developments as closely as some, so feel free to make any amendments of your choosing if you think this is the right solution):
In an interview withL'Équipe in 2026, Khelif stated that she had theSRY gene, but affirmed that her body only producedfemale hormones. (citation)WhileHer statement was reported by other media outlets,such as (Le Monde + other sources listed)she stated that she did not have the SRY gene in an interview with CNN. (citation) Her statement from this interview was also reported by other media outlets at the time. (other sources listed in discussion)struck and amended per @Sirfurboy's comment belowYasslaywikia (talk)15:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this mentioned down thread, no? If not, then I'll find the source when I'm not busy later or strike it out if I misremembered. Thanks for the heads up!Yasslaywikia (talk)12:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the CNN and associated links throughout the talk page, specifically under TarnishedPath's comment just below and then Loki's proposal that I supported above.Yasslaywikia (talk)14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I've watched the whole interview here[8] and read the CNN article about it here[9]. I don't see where she stated that she did not have the SRY gene. I don't think we can say that she did in the article.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)15:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'only female hormones' thing is also a landmine since she confirmed her testosterone levels are being or have been medically managed.Riposte97 (talk)20:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is not discussed in the L'Équipe interview, but you are more than welcome to propose including that information separately. I'd consider supporting it, but we would also need to considerincluding the sources that @TarnishedPath and other users have posted to the discussion that contradict the information that Khelif provided in the L'Équipe interview so that we aren't giving too much undue weight to one POV in particular.
Once again, I would like to reiterate mystrong support for gutting the lead of speculation regarding Khelif's sex or genetic identity, which has been given an undue emphasis there. It should be discussed in the body, not the lead. See the discussion above regarding lead length from before this discussion, where I brought it up.Yasslaywikia (talk)09:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading my comment and glancing over the discussion again, I feel that part of what I wrote didn't really reflect what I think the article should look like based on the merit of the arguments for and against including the SRY gene development. I also feel that the arguments against inclusion are too overwhelmingly based on the notion that it's too soon, there's too little coverage, or it violates BLP. From what I've seen, the sourcing requirements are sufficient, recent publications are in agreement about the issue, and there isn't anything to suggest that including the SRY gene development would unduly compromise Khelif's reputation per WP:BLP as having a DSD does not affect one's womanhood or sex in any meaningful way whatsoever unless they so choose. Furthermore, the argument that the CNN interview and article refuted what Khelif said is not convincing at all per Sirfurboy's comment above.Yasslaywikia (talk)17:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasslaywikia Pinging you to this because shedid deny she had XY chromosomes to CNN:
The World Boxing decision came after a report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes circulated online. Khelif told CNN the report was inaccurate and “modified.”
Sirfurboy and others are claiming that technically this doesn't mean she denied she had the SRY gene. However, this is a BLP, and we need to consider which of these two options is more likely:
Khelif meant to say she has an extremely rare DSD even among DSDs, without ever explicitly saying "I have the SRY gene on an X chromosome", or indeed ever explicitly saying herself that she has the SRY gene at all.
Khelif, who is neither a native English speaker nor a native French speaker, misunderstood either L'Equipe or CNN, or both.
While we can't completely exclude the possibility of 1, I think we should not jump to assume it based on the fact that it happens to be a convenient path for resolving this contradiction. Certainly we absolutely could not use these sources to say in Wikivoice "Khelif has the SRY gene on an X chromosome".Loki (talk)21:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Loki! I feel like this topic is too confusing for me to come to a totally concrete opinion on it, but I think that the L'Équipe interview absolutely merits inclusion in the article. After reviewing the talk page and sourcesyet again, I do think there is merit to present the contradicting reports in the article, but I can't really say anything certain about it. I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough about the subject to come to a sound conclusion on the matter, but something needs to be mentioned at minimum as this is a really notable development. I'm not too sure about the merit of the language barrier argument either, but I know that Khelif speaks English and French as secondary languages. I think we need to be really strict about what we include and present as balanced a picture about the development as possible. From what I've seen, more sources have given greater precedence to the L'Équipe interview rather than what she said to CNN, so we would have to discern the degree to which the contrasting reports were covered in the media in the text. It's a shame that the debate about Khelif's eligibility to take part in sports and her credibility as a professional athlete has been relitigated so many times, though. It's really disheartening to see that we still live in an age where, if somebody does not strictly conform to gender norms, then they automatically come under scrutiny. However, as saddening as it is, I don't think we can justifiably ignore the development as it is due for inclusion per the extensive, sustained coverage it has received in the media.Yasslaywikia (talk)21:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the report was inaccurate and modified is not the same thing as denying she has XY chromosomes. So I suppose that would be a third possibility. I don't think anyone wants to say anything like "Khelif has the SRY gene" in wikivoice. More like, "Khelifsays she has the SRY gene." I don't think there is any good sourcing to talk about her chromosomes at all. We certainly shouldn't be saying stuff like "the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome..." sourced to the popular press. Tewdar 21:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On a plain reading of the interview, Khelif agreed that she has the SRY gene, an interpretation shared by multiple secondary sources and disputed by precisely zero secondary sources. Tewdar 21:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problematic interpretation by some newspapers (selling their crap of the day), but don't claim that she said anything of the sort.M.Bitton (talk)22:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton - At this point everybody knows you disagree that she confirmed she had the SRY gene (which frankly is pretty insulting that you think a grown woman doesn't know what she's saying or sharing on her social media - like somehow you know better than her). Your disagreement has been noted dozens upon dozens of times. Just drop it already.
If only you said the same thing to those who are repeating the same claims, but I guess their POV aligns too much with yours.
I said it before and I will say it again: the reputation of Khelif (a known living and breathing person) is all that matters to me. Everything else (including what some random anonymous person thinks of me) is irrelevant.
Last I checked, thinking a fully grown, intelligent woman understood a question she responded "Yes" to - and even reposted a video saying the same - is not a POV, just common sense. If you think the editors assuming Imane Khelif is intelligent enough to comprehend a question, competently answer that question, and know what she reposts, I would suggest you are the one with a POV. Regardless - There is no need to argue with every person saying she confirmed having the gene. You've made your disagreement with that assertion quite clear and all it's doing is adding needless back-and-forth, pedantic arguments to an already enormous thread.PositivelyUncertain (talk)00:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly defending a POV, and unsurprinsingly, you didn't say a word about the borderline BLP violations or the SPAs. I don't care about that, but at least, defend your POV properly without resorting to the misrepresentation of what I said or claims about what I think (by adding irrelevant nonsense to an already "enormous thread").
This may be part of the problem. Too many editors have wedded themselves for years to a maximalist position from which they cannot now back down.Riposte97 (talk)21:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "In response to a question asking if she has the SRY gene ... Khelif stated: [quote]"?
I am not convinced by the arguments that Khelif did not admit to having the SRY gene because she did not say outright that she had it, but rather in response to what has been claimed to be an ambiguous question. As a French speaker, Khelif was born and raised in a French-speaking country. The question is easy to understand, so I think that the idea that Khelif's fluency in French or the alleged complexity of the question is disingenuous for the most part.
If you're asking yourself why you're going back to square one so many times, then perhaps it is time to reflect on the quality and merit of your own argument. Personally, I don't it convincing at all.Yasslaywikia (talk)23:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Her response to amultipart question was: "Yes, and it's natural. I have female hormones".
If that's what you believe, then that's what you believe.
It's a little annoying that supporters of (uncontradicted) inclusion are saying "well there's a reading where it's not contradictory" and then jump to the conclusion that because that reading exists, it is the only reading we can consider.
This is a BLP. If the subject of the BLP is saying that a report whose major finding is a specific negative claim about her is inaccurate, we at least need to admit the possibility she could be saying that claim is not true. We can't just play a game of exact words and say "well she said thereport was inaccurate, not that any specificfinding in the report was inaccurate, therefore that means that we can report that every specific finding in the report including the headline one was accurate without including her denial".Loki (talk)22:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have no sources that contradict it, though. We can't write "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene in interview A,synthy-however in interview B she said that her alleged leaked chromosome test was inaccurate" because these are two separate and possibly unrelated things. By all means include summaries of both interviews if you like, but we can't use one to contradict the other. Tewdar 23:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we can use one to contradict the other, because the most plain reading of her claims in one source contradicts the most plain reading of the claims she made in the other source.
It would be very simple to sayKhelif appeared to agree she had the SRY gene in interview A. However in interview B, she said the report which said she had a Y chromosome, which contains the SRY gene, is inaccurate. If two equally reliable sources contradict each other, it is not SYNTH to highlight the contradiction and is in fact kinda required.Loki (talk)01:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It would besimple for sure, but a summary of that interview including...which said she had a Y chromosome, which contains the SRY gene, which is not found in the interview, is actually factually incorrect in some cases, and would require MEDRS in any case, would get you taken straight to the no OR noticeboard. Tewdar 09:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In one interview, Clinton says "I did have sex with Monica Lewinsky". In another interview, Clinton denies ever having cheated on his wife. Can we safely conclude that the Clintons are polyamorous? Or is he just contradicting himself?Loki (talk)20:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A better analogy: in one interview, Clinton says "I did have sex with Monica Lewinsky". In another interview, after an alleged transcript of an audio recording of Clinton and Lewinsky having sex circulated online, Clinton told CNN the transcript was "inaccurate and modified". Tewdar 18:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are just reinforcing my point that the most obvious explanation is that the article subject is probably contradicting themselves, and we cannot use some kind of narrow possibility to say "no they don't mean to contradict themselves and we don't need to report their denial as a denial".Loki (talk)18:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying she "didn't mean" to contradict herself. I'm saying that shedid not contradict herself, and we have no sources saying that she did, so we cannot say or imply that she contradicted herself or state or in any way imply that she denied that she has the SRY gene. I'm actually quite surprised that you think it's okay to do this, which is why I keep responding. Tewdar 19:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you think it's OK to include a claim about a BLP that they appear to have denied without including the denial.
Like, I simply think the idea that shedid not contradict herself hard stop is ridiculous. You've offered a bunch of ways shemight have meant something else but the obvious main interpretation is contradictory, and even if it was a marginal interpretation we would still have to include it.Loki (talk)21:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This andyour reply to it are good, careful comments that state the position better than many of the other participants here. (Some of whom have actually claimed that Khelif specifically refuted the SRY claim itself.) I'll need to think about this a little more.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)00:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion. We have sufficient reliable secondary sources to say that Khelif told L'Equipe she has the SRY gene, but not to say or imply that what she told them was true or false, nor to characterise her comments in any other way. Direct quoting is difficult, as the interview was in French and I'm unaware of a secondary source that translates both Khelif's response and the interviewer's statement that preceded it.Clicriffhard (talk)01:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion below, apparently we're fine to translate the quote ourselves, and a number of us are French speakers so that is an option. My marginal preference is still for A over B, but no objection if people want to translate and quote.Clicriffhard (talk)02:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion until sources beyond breaking news are located to substantiate this interpretation (often interpreted asWP:Primary sources, which are generally inappropriate perWP:BLPPRIMARY). When sources more removed temporally from this interview and outside of the context of the culture war, we can bring this up. There isWP:No deadline. Additionally, we need to considerWP:VICTIMIZE here, as these rumors have caused Khelif to be the subject of incredible harassment, not only online, but from established political figures. Adding this material to Wikipedia should only be done with the highest-quality sources with no ambiguity in light of this history.Katzrockso (talk)02:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I also oppose the inclusion of just a bare quote as well. It is unclear why this quote isWP:DUE for inclusion after only 2 reliable sources (France 24 and Le Monde) have reported on this segment of the interview, while others have excluded it (e.g.The New York Times). Remember thatWikipedia:Verifability#Verifability does not guarantee inclusion and the other concerns (WP:BLP, in particular) outweigh the fact that any quote might be sourced.Katzrockso (talk)02:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
News reports, which are typically primary sources, do not fall under the scope ofWP:BLPPRIMARY which is for public documents. So Khelif's medical records would not be allowed to be used but the policy does not forbid this source from being used. If this were a BLPPRIMARY issue this RFC wouldn't even be allowed to go ahead.Traumnovelle (talk)02:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they arepermissible to be used (as in they are not explicitly prohibited by the text which uses the bolded wordnot for public documents and the like), but the policy statesExercise extreme caution in using primary sources, not 'Exercise extreme caution in using public documents'. Breaking news is generally not reliable enough to use in a BLP, especially forWP:EXCEPTIONAL claims.Katzrockso (talk)02:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles are breaking news. Breaking news is when something is hastily published and does not undergo a full editorial process due to a presumed need to get the story out quickly.Traumnovelle (talk)05:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion and yes to quote For over a year there has been intense speculation that Khelif has a male DSD. Evidence has emerged over and over again. Instead of engaging with that claim and acknowledging the evidence, this page has straw-manned the debate by implying there has been accusations that Khelif is transgender. I have never seen anyone make that claim. Now Khelif has finally personally acknowledged the SRY question. If Wikipedia wants to have any veneer of impartiality, the bare minimum is to just put the quote on Khelif's page.Thunderbird L17 (talk)02:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of Wikipedia if you think it is editors job to "acknowledg[e] the evidence". Wikipedia does not analyze evidence and make conclusions on that basis, it summarizes whatreliable sources say about a topic.Katzrockso (talk)02:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words into my mouth. I didn't suggest Wikipedia editors should "analyze evidence and make conclusions". That should be the reader's job. I suggested that Wikipedia should acknowledge a relevant quote that Khelif made, and not exclude it from the page. And I consider Khelif to be a reliable (or at minimum relevant) source on this issue.Thunderbird L17 (talk)02:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any inclusion at present perWP:BLP andWP:V given the very potential conflict with the CNN source in which it appears that she states that previous reporting of her having the SRY gene is fake and her other previous comments which appear contradictory to what is being represented by L'Equipe.
From WP:BLP:
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not atabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[a] Theburden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.
Any exceptional claim requiresmultiple high-quality sources.[2]Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:
Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
Challenged claims that are supported purely byprimary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently deceased people. This is especially true when proponents say there is aconspiracy to silence them.
It is clear that the Khelif has previously made statements contrary to what is supposedly being reported by L'Equipe and it appears very possible that she made statements contradicting L'Equipe in CNN just the day before. If we are going to include decide to make a decision for inclusion, either in the form of A or B, we are going to require much stronger sourcing. I also haveWP:BLPPRIMARY concerns per Katzrockso.TarnishedPathtalk02:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, the sentence about there being no evidence that she is transgender should most definitely not be removed because there is exactly zero evidence that she is transgender.TarnishedPathtalk02:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is also exactly zero evidence that Khelif is albino, but there's no reason to mention it. So what is the reason for introducing the topic of transgender on this page in the first place?Thunderbird L17 (talk)02:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
what is the reason for introducing the topic of transgender on this page in the first place
ABC News Australia writes "The boxing body cited US President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender women from women's sports as validation of its stance. Trump intentionally but incorrectly called Khelif "a male boxer" in his speech after signing the order last week".
Associated Press quoting Trump "in the Olympics, they had two transitioned", "They were men. They transitioned to women, and they were in the boxing".
The Trump word salad quote you provided does not mention transgender, and he is known for being unclear in his language. So do you have an actual example of a public figure accusing Khelif of being transgender? Or is that the single closest quote you can find?Thunderbird L17 (talk)07:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So Trump, while signing a ban on transgender athletes, saying (about Khelif & one other):They were men. Theytransitioned to women, means what exactly?Nil🥝07:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to correct the record: No athlete, transgender or otherwise, is "banned" from sport on the basis of their gender identity. In the winter Olympics being held right now, there is a female athlete who identifies as a man. That athlete is happily competing in the women's division. And male athletes who identify as women are also still free to compete in men's sport. Nobody is "banned" from sport.Thunderbird L17 (talk)17:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So what other possible meaning does "They were men. They transitioned to women" have? It's crystal clear. Denying it is attempting to call black white.TarnishedPathtalk07:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The claim in the Wikipedia articles about this issue is that public figures were "often incorrectly suggesting Khelif was transgender". All I can find is asingle example of Trump making a confusing statement that does not even use the term "transgender". But more concerning is you are arguing all over this page that the Khelif quote should not be used because it is unclear, and yet here you claim Trump's quote about people who "were in the boxing" is "crystal clear".Thunderbird L17 (talk)07:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm asking for a single source quote. Not vague references to unspecified "right wing talking points". If it really is a right wing talking point then there should be at least a single clear quote from a public figure accusing Khelif of being trans.Thunderbird L17 (talk)08:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Making a claim that "people are accusing Khelif of being transgender", and then having nothing more than asingle quote from one person who doesn't even use the word "transgender" to back it up; that is a clear example of actual gaslighting.Thunderbird L17 (talk)17:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Khelif has repeatedly denied such a characterization, including in the recent CNN interview and L'Equipe interview. It has been reported by reliable sources[10] (Imane Khelif is a cisgender woman. (Cisgender means not transgender).).Katzrockso (talk)02:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally just the first page of a google news search. There's sources in the article itself. One would expect a participant in this discussion to not be so ignorant of the very reason it needs to be a discussion in the first place.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles all hinge on variations of claims that unnamed "people" are accusing Khelif of being transgender. If their claims are true, then it should be easy to find theactual source quotes that those claims are based on. So either provide specific quotes of public figures accusing Khelif of being "transgender", or else stop trying to amplify misinformation.Thunderbird L17 (talk)18:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The statement I made (that you responded to) was about "public figures". You've provided a single "halfway there" quote from a public figure who is well known for being unclear in his speech. Can you find another?Thunderbird L17 (talk)19:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. If the literal most public figure in the world is being quoted in major media as saying Khelif has transitioned -- which is what you were saying you were looking for -- I feel like I've made a good-faith effort to address your concerns. If you aren't accepting that, I'm going to accept that nothing I can find is going to convince you and I'm wasting my time.Valereee (talk)19:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First it wasa major media outlet he wanted[23], and then it wasa single source quote[24], and then it was "Trump never said that"[25][26], and then it was "Trump said it, but I'm asking for multiple public figures"[27]. Who knows where the next line in the sand will be?Nil🥝20:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, why are you assuming what my pronouns are? Secondly, I said from the very beginning that my "line in the sand" was a source quote of a public figure accusing Khelif of being "transgender". That hasnever happened. If all you can come up with is a single "kind of" quote from Trump, that is not my responsibility and does not qualify as "public figures".Thunderbird L17 (talk)20:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So your complaint is that Nil NZ used they -- very common here on WP, I refer to people with they all the time if I don't know -- and then on checking to see if you'd specified, found that you had and corrected it to he? Also very common here.Valereee (talk)21:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some guydeleted a comment I made because I used "they" as a neutral pronoun. So I felt justified in pointing out that Nil NZ used the same neutral pronoun referring to me. But we're way off topic now so let's just leave it there.Thunderbird L17 (talk)21:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your first line in the sand was this[29]. You asked for a source in which the accusation was made in a major media outlet. You've been provided with plenty of sources, from major media outlets. Stop moving the finish line.Nil🥝21:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree the original "line in the sand" was a public figure accusing Khelif of being "transgender". Still waiting for a single example of that. Trump's "kind of" quote is as unclear as Khelif's quote that this entire discussion is focused on dissecting.Thunderbird L17 (talk)21:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thisentire discussion is about parsing out what exactly Khelif's source quote means. There are plenty of headlines declaring that "Khelif admits to having the SRY gene", but here it'ssuper important to a lot of people that we go back to the source quote.
Meanwhile, those same people don't care about source quotes when it comes to claiming that "public figures accuse Khelif of being "transgender". There areno examples of JK Rowling or any other public figures accusing Khelif of being transgender (excepting possibly Trump's mangled speech about people "in the boxing" who "transitioned"). As long as you can find some headlines claiming people are saying it, that's good enough.
It's a BLP. We require higher standards for saying something that could harm that person than for not saying something/saying something that addresses potential harm. It's not hypocrisy. It's two different standards for what will will say or won't say about a living human being who can be harmed by what we do or don't say.Valereee (talk)22:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're asking, but if it's that there are things atJ. K. Rowling that shouldn't be there, you can remove them without discussing first underWP:BLP and then immediately open a discussion atTalk:J. K. Rowling. But the fact you believe other articles have BLP violations is not a reason to allow this article to have BLP violations.Valereee (talk)23:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so @Thunderbird L17, I think you may be referring to this: including the false claim that she is a man, which was promoted by figures such as J. K. Rowling, sourced tothis, which referencesthis, where Rowling saysCould any picture sum up our new men’s rights movement better? The smirk of a male who’s knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head, and whose life’s ambition he’s just shattered. Rowling is saying Khelif is a man, and we're saying about that "including the false claim that she is a man, which was promoted by figures such as J. K. Rowling." Is that what you're referring to? Are you objecting to 'is a male' vs. 'is a man'? Because I could see arguing an edit to 'is male' or whatever. But Rowling definitely does seem to be arguing that Khelif is not a woman, and that's being reported, and I am not sure why summarizing that source is a BLP vio for Rowling. But if we can improve the summarization, let's do.Valereee (talk)01:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have stated that Khelif has been accused of being secretly transgender. We don't require reliable sources to give specific examples of these accusations in order to include them in Wikipedia, particularly given that many of these accusations are from social media posts online. Seevitriol against Khelif online, where many rushed to accuse her of being secretly transgender or having intersex traits[30],Shortly after the match, reports falsely surfaced saying that Khelif is a transgender woman, however, she is not and was assigned female at birth, according to the IOC.[31],Now Imane Khelif has filed a harassment complaint over claims she's a man or transgender[32]Katzrockso (talk)02:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to disregard what 8+ reliable sources say you are going to need more than just your own personal opinion. Please provide a reliable source that questions this idea in the same way you do because if you don't have that you are never going to affect what the article says and you might as well take to twitter to argue this instead.LunaHasArrived (talk)19:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That not how things work. You're asking me to prove a negative. "Prove that no public figures (with the possible exception of Trump) have accused Khelif of being transgender".
No that is how Wikipedia works if your pov was common or notable there would be reliable sources saying "look at all these newspapers making a mistake" or there would at least be newspapers saying "Trump, Rowling (subtitue whoever you want) accused Khalif of being intersex(or having a dsd". If you are not willing to provide reliable sources disputing this you are not going to get anywhereLunaHasArrived (talk)20:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Read what you linked again. It says that direct quotations in Wikipedia articles must be cited to a reliable source. It does not say that any information in a Wikipedia article must be cited to a quotation.LunaHasArrived (talk)21:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those quotations exist, in any event. This is just the most obvious example of an editor (tbird) refusing to accept evidence that's screaming in their face which I've seen on this site in a long time.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of reading the sources, you're just going to make untrue assertions about them? Every single one mentions Trump by name (often in the title), many of them quote Trump calling her a 'gentleman' just the other day, and a couple of them document the many, many occasions on which Trump called Khelif transgender or a man.
She was assigned female at birth and has lived her life as a woman, but I don't see how that contradicts the claim that she has some DSD that causes her to possess an SRY gene.Smokerton (talk)03:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "I'm a woman like any other woman." directly contradicts the statement "I have SRY" (she didn't actually say that she has SRY, but that is what some editors are interpreting).TarnishedPathtalk03:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but one could make a coherent argument that a trans woman is also a "woman like any other woman." We don't know precisely what Imane means by "like any other woman." She's saying she's awoman but not a female, which is really what the question about the SRY gene was getting at (a femalephenotype but not genotype, due to possessing the SRY gene). The argument that there is a contradiction is just not compelling enough for me.Smokerton (talk)03:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's equally unhelpful to speculate she meant she's not female, since she never said that and just like the woman debate, while editors are entitled to their own personal PoV on what female means, their personal views are irrelevant to the discussion. But otherwise, yes this is a gensex issue and editors need to stop letting their own personal opinions over what a "woman like any other woman" (or female) is influence their editing here. If they cannot do so, then they need to stay well away from the gensex topic area.Nil Einne (talk)06:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to speculate when we have a direct quote from a reliable source: "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity"Smokerton (talk)15:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this still doesn't mean she saying she's not female. All she agreed with is that SRY is an indicator of masculinity. Whether having something that is an indicator of masculinity makes someone "not female" is PoV and not something we need to get into. Again, editors need to stop reading stuff that isn't actually said in the sources based on their own personal PoV. If they can't resist doing so, they need to stay away from the gensex subject area.Nil Einne (talk)11:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The statement lacks scientific merit and they do not justify why the two statements contradict each other. They should explain their definition of womanhood first why the examples of SRY+ women (that are unambigously women by every possiblePhenotypic trait that show up in a quickPubMed search) aren't women like any other woman. Totally nonsensical.Burcet95 (talk)05:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What statement? Are you referring to what TarnishPath said? Because my point was that there is no evidence of any contradiction & it's unhelpful for editors to claim there is based on their own PoV. No one here should be explaining their definition of womanhood. If Khelif or the interviewer had discussed their definition of womanhood, then that discussion might be relevant but not editor's personal opinions.Nil Einne (talk)11:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just editor interpretation though? RS[33] says directly:Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity.Burcet95 (talk)03:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction. The question was essentially (paraphrasing here), "You have a feminine outward appearance, but are genetically male" and she replies "Yes, it's natural", stressing that she did nottransition.Smokerton (talk)18:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not "editor interpretation", that's a mischaracterization on your part.
Those are already the English (and original French) interpretations by RS. If you think theThe Independent article andAgence France-Presse reports (both are clear in plain English , the first reads asShe confirmed that she has the sex-determining SRY gene[34][35]) and the subsequent reports inLe Monde[36],Le Figaro[37], andRadio France Internationale[38], are unreliable, you should at least obtain consensus that AFP and Independent are unreliable.
An English translation of the French source, shows the statement "She confirmed that she has the sex-determining SRY gene" to be lacking. The sources stating that fail verification.TarnishedPathtalk06:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation by reliable sources such asAgence France-Presse, andThe Independent are completely logical, and contradict your (demonstrably false) POV, which is bordering on WP:FRINGE at this point. The "English translation" thing implies you are more qualified to translate it thanAgence France-Presse, that can't be right.
Please use RS that support your interpretation of Khelif's statement inL'Équipe.
The sources do not fail verification (whose verification?)- she is asked a question with two parts that _includes_ 'possédez le gène SRY,' and she says "yes". If you directly dispute factual statements that appear in multiple RS such asShe confirmed that she has the sex-determining SRY gene, show another (at least single) RS that unambigously agrees with your theory. Basically, put up or shut up.Burcet95 (talk)07:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whose verification did it fail? If it's yours, please mind that you can't override RS claiming you are more of a French-language expert than RS (WP:EX). Please use RS that directly disprove it. This is the third time I'm asking for RS that refute it. Your POV does not.Burcet95 (talk)08:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The prior question has her talking about genetic and hormone tests, and a clarifying, more direct question is asked due to her mentioning "genetic differences". She confirmed having "female hormones" in the second sentence, but in the first she used the word "natural" as well. Since the "female hormones" were not achieved naturally*, the "yes" was obviously referring to the SRY gene. The conclusion is absolutely decisive.
The RS interpretation is logically sound, the objections are illogical after evaluating the context of the quote (prior mention of "genetic difference" by the subject, "hormone tests")
Support inclusion It appears in perennial RS with no direct contradiction, the WP:NONENG objections are patently false, other objections areclear WP:OR demonstrably false as well. It's WP:DUE.Burcet95 (talk)02:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately many editors don't make it past the first paragraph to where it statesThis policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.. Though even reading the first sentenceWikipediaarticles must not contain original research would disabuse a careful reader of this notion.Katzrockso (talk)02:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though even reading the first sentence ... would disabuse a careful reader of this notion.
Oppose 1) for a start, she never said "I have the SRY gene". The interpretation of her so-called reply to the question (in a language that she barely speaks) is tortured at best. 2) the very sources that are repeating the contentious claims also say:
The boxer, who aims to compete in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, knows that she will have to agree tomandatory gender testing imposed by World Boxing, a body recognised by theInternational Olympic Committee, and says she is ready. "For the next Games, if I have to take a test, I will. I have no problem with that," she said. "I've already taken this test. I contacted World Boxing, I sent them my medical records, my hormone tests, everything. But I haven't had any response. I'm not hiding, I'm not refusing the tests."
Why would she admit to having a gene that would prevent her from participating in the 2028 Olympics (a competition that she's keen on)? Why would she send them a test that will disqualify her?M.Bitton (talk)02:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with this kind of speculation and mental modelling. One might just as well ask, "If she does not have an SRY gene, why did she skip multiple tournaments and file an appeal in an arbitration court rather than simply take the test?"
I personally don't get why we should be second-guessing her intentions. She is a grown woman and presumably knows what she says, should say or should not say. If she blundered, it's on her. We shouldn't be rushing to correct her.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)02:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about second guessing, it's about common sense (regarding the contradictory claims that are peddled by some news outlets).M.Bitton (talk)02:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I said what I'm suggesting and at no point did I say that she contradicted herself. The contradictory claims are made by the news outlets.M.Bitton (talk)02:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This interview was a few days ago, and multiple RS have reported that she admitted to having the SRY gene. If it were a misunderstanding, she certainly would have spoken out by now to correct the record.TR (talk)11:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A English language translation from the French source, does not indicate that she admitted to having the SRY gene. Her response is ambiguous, at no point did she explicitly state that "I have the SRY gene" or words to that effect. Given the ambiguity, caution is best advised here.TarnishedPathtalk11:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Split the difference We should take a page fromWP:WSAW, approaches either 3 (footnote) or 4c (explain the contradiction) and say something along the lines ofAccording to an interview in French magazine L'Equipe, Khelif claimed to have the SRY gene. However, according to a separate interview with CNN, she denied having the SRY gene. Whether we do it inline or in a footnote I'm not too bothered about but I think I'd lean towards "footnote" considering the number of other times she's denied this.Loki (talk)02:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that if this compromise proposal doesn't gain traction I do not want this to be counted as a !vote for inclusion. Instead I think we should go to the status quo, i.e. I'doppose including this in the article outside of a context explicitly making clear she seems to have both accepted and denied it in short succession.Loki (talk)21:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, where did she deny having the SRY gene? She said she'd accede to a suite of gender eligibility testing. That is along way short of a denial.Riposte97 (talk)03:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the CNN interview, Khelif says the following (in English, interviewer prompt unknown):
Khelif: You see the report? You personally have seen the report?
Interviewer: I have not, no.
Khelif: The report is not clear. It's just a test, genetic test, with a company, small company, of [?testers]. But it's not clear.
Then, the footage is likely cut. It continues with Khelif stating (translated from what I think is Arabic, by CNN):
Khelif: [The report that was published was modified. It was posted by people opposed to me and have animosity towards me.]
So she doesnot deny having an SRY gene, instead just vaguely undermining the report's credibility. She does say the report was modified, but she does not explain how, so we cannot draw conclusions. However,CNN's analysis of the interview states:
Khelif told CNN the report was inaccurate and "modified."
Now from what they've published from the interview, the closest that Khelif comes to saying that the report is inaccurate is her saying that it was modified. However, CNN is already reporting that she claimed it was modified in quotes, so my thought process likely doesn't reflect that of CNN here. I personally don't see any other statements from Khelif that comes close to her saying the report is inaccurate, so assuming that CNN isn't making a mistake here, they are probably reporting on parts of the interview that were not published.
Now, let us assume that CNN is not making a mistake, and Khelif did in fact call the report inaccurate. Since the only notable thing the report concludes is that Khelif is karotypically male, we can conclude that Khelif said that the report is wrong to conclude that she is karotypically male.
But even then, it would be wrong to analyse this as Khelif having denied having an SRY gene. After all, that's not what "karotypically male" means. If the report is wrong, then we should conclude that Khelif does not have a Y chromosome, not that she does not have an SRY gene.
But of course, it wouldalso be wrong to analyse Khelif's statement as her having said that she does not have a Y chromosome. After all, Imane Khelif is not a subject matter expert. She could easily have made the mistake of confusing karotypy with the presence of an SRY gene.
If she doesn't have a Y chromosome, then she doesn't have an SRY gene either, since the SRY gene is only on the Y chromosome.
I'm okay with a closer paraphrase if you want, something likeAccording to an interview in French magazine L'Equipe, Khelif agreed with the interviewer that she has the SRY gene. However, according to a separate interview with CNN, she called a report saying she has a Y chromosome inaccurate.Loki (talk)21:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the fact having the SRY gene doesn't require to have the Y chromosome (as commonly understood), and I remarked this below but I think we have to be very careful in not reading too much into the CNN interview. While the voiceover does[40] mention "Boxing's ruling body provided no justification for its insistence on the disputed test. It came after a 2023 report alleging that Khelif had XY chromosomes was circulated online. She says it's fake.", we don't know what question was asked of Khelif since AFAICT, it isn't heard/shown. This makes it hard to know what she is referring to when she says "The report that was published was modified." This is significant because AFAIK there are two major alleged leaked reports widely discussed. One is the 3 Wire Sports one in 1 June 2025 which includes a picture allegedly part of a report from a Delhi lab. Note it doesn't explicitly mention XY anyway (at least not in the part leaked) but instead Male karyotype, and although it doesn't say that much more there is a tiny bit so theoretically it could be some other part of what it says that is modified. More importantly, there is also the alleged report/s leaked by Le Correspondant on 25 October 2025. This is much more detailed than simply information on her chromosomes or karyotype. It's true that her comment "The report -- it's not clear, is just the test, genetic test, with company, small company of testers. But it's not clear." doesn't really seem to apply to the Le Correspondant claimed leak (which is said to be from doctors treating her & primarily doesn't involve genetic tests nor a small company of testers) we still have to take care as it's possible she is thinking at least in part of the Le Correspondant claimed leak. We know she must be aware of Le Correspondant's piece since she's suing over it. Note that I haven't discussed the inaccurate bit since that's even more confusing as we have no idea what she said and in what context.Nil Einne (talk)14:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that it is also theoretically possible that there is some other claimed leak e.g. a more detailed version of the Delhi report that is circulated somewhere. Khelif would likely know & CNN too if they did their job properly but if for whatever reason it didn't circulate widely it might not be something widely discussed. (Especially if the additional information wasn't that interesting to most.)Nil Einne (talk)14:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to what others have said, thathowever looks questionable underMOS:EDITORIAL. That apart, I agree that we should be putting something in about that part of the CNN interview, and for much the same reasons. We'd just have to be careful that we don't link the two in a way that augments or diminishes the impression of a contradiction.Clicriffhard (talk)16:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Split the difference/possible Oppose - per Loki. We cannotWP:CRYSTALBALL that Le Monde will be proven right. But I also understand that there is a high bar of acceptance for extraordinary claims, so I might be ok with an oppose as well.Apologies to any closer for making tallying vote counts harder.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)04:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perWP:TOOSOON andWP:RECENTISM. We've spent way too much effort dealing with this already. If the supporters here had just waited a week or two longer in order to get a broader picture of things instead of rushing to include something that really doesn't help the reader understand who Imane Khelif is because it supports some narrative, this could have been a much simpler and less cantankerous process. Shit, it might still become a much simpler and less cantankerous process in a week or two.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose under the rationale put forth so eloquently byUser:TarnishedPath.WP:REDFLAG states that "Claims ... that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in ... biographies of living and recently deceased people" are exceptional claims that require multiple high-quality sources. Why would her statements in the CNN interview (which is preferred as it is an English language source) be simply disregarded for a statement in the L'Equipe interview? It is clear that there is a contradiction and that editors have objected to inclusion. As such,WP:BLPRESTORE must be met before inclusion, and I don't think it has been met at this point.I am ambivalent on the "split the difference" proposal, I originally suggested something similar and think it would be a helpful alternative if needed.aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)03:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The AFP sources (Le Monde, France24) are in English, I don't see some reason to prefer one reliable perennial source over another. They don't contradict in my opinion, but even in the case that they did it would still merit inclusion of both sources.Smokerton (talk)03:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion for now. The statements are ambiguous and we are reading them in translation. The situation is confusing. Rather than say anything now, which might be incorrect and lead to citogenesis of more incorrect coverage, we should wait for clarification. I'm sure it won't be long in coming. --DanielRigal (talk)03:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion it's reported on by secondary reliable sources and no other secondary reliable sources contradict it, end of discussion. Oppose rationale from M.Bitton and MjolnirPants specific is complete original research attempted to psychoanalize the response and mind read something no secondary sources are reporting.Ratgomery (talk)03:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion The statement is not supported in the slightest. The claim is basically making an inference from something Khelif didn't say based on what the interviewer claimed to say. That is not a clear or direct statement at all to include on a BLP, especially for controversial content. But, heytrash bigot media is covering it, so there's that.SilverserenC03:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting on what is essentially gossip without a direct statement from the subject whose claimed word is being used, particularly on a controversial BLP subject matter, is a violation of BLP policy no matter how many reliable sources cover it.SilverserenC03:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not even "without a direct statement from the subject whose claimed word is being used"... they've gone so far as toignore what the subject has actually said in other, more reliable sources because it contradicts them!aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)04:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed another direct point to the whole discussion. The subject has made an explicit statement saying the exact opposite that is then being claimed by inference here. There is no BLP backed policy stance to say "well, we should show both viewpoints, the one the subject explicitly said and the one where we infer they claimed the opposite without saying so". That is exactly the sort of thing that BLP policy is meant to prevent, particularly on controversial subjects.SilverserenC04:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you say wrt the secondary AFP articles? Those are gold standard RS that make a clear factual assertion. Frankly, I'm not sure why we're even parsing what's been said in the various interviews.Riposte97 (talk)04:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of both A and B. The proposed inclusion is straightforward, reliably sourced, and based on Khelif's own statements. Opposition here seems based on speculation. —Megiddo101304:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion is based on speculation without a direct statement from the subject. Meanwhile, Khelifhas directly stated the opposite in explicit wording. Please actually give evidence of a direct statement by the subject on the matter rather than pushing a BLP violation based on claimed inferences because of something someone else said.SilverserenC04:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with your assessment here but it's been hashed out ad nauseum above and don't feel the start from the beginning. —Megiddo101304:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that but this is a BLP so can you please provide a source for that? The only thing I've seen that comes close it her statementI'm a woman like any other woman. I was born as a woman, I live as a woman, and I am qualified. but none of this is contradicted by her saying she has SRY and it's a BLP violation for you to say it does. There is also the CNN interview where she said some report was false but it's unclear what she's referring to. She could be referring the the claimed leak of her medical records by Le Correspondant which says a lot more about her than simply that she has the SRY gene. BTW to be clear there is also a gensex issue here. While you are entitled to your views, Wikipedia is not the place for you to spread them. So if you believe a woman with SRY cannot be a "a woman like any other woman. I was born as a woman, I live as a woman", then you need to stop letting your views influence your editing here or else you can get the fuck out of the gensex topic area.Nil Einne (talk)04:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also reliablesources havediscussed the possibility of Khelif having a DSD/intersex conditions for years, so this recent development isn't as big of a shift in our understanding as some are making it out to be. —Megiddo101304:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That second link, quite prominently, says Opinion at the top. When has an opinion piece ever been an RS for a BLP?Nil🥝04:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, there's clearly some confusion and contradiction regarding her comments. As this is a BLP, best course of action is always to omit contentious material until there is certainty.Nil🥝04:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I almost didn't respond since realistically it seems unlikely we're achieving consensus in this RfC any time soon and this is a potentially rapidly developing story such that a week from now the situation might be different so we can better assess then. But still the RfC is here. I feel given the sensitivity we should wait and see how the sources develop.Nil Einne (talk)04:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support B for sure, A mostly: The text in the AFP (France24) source is extremely clear:"Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity.". It is based on the interview Khelif gave to L'Equipe, where she was interviewed in French and was asked a direction question, and she said "Yes". AFP is also French, so is Le Monde. The idea that there's a mistranslation is very unlikely, and based on no evidence whatsoever.
There are two underlying interview sources here: CNN and L'Equipe. In the CNN interview, she does not say that she had the SRY gene. The reason is simple: she was never asked about it. But there is absolutely no contradiction anywhere in the CNN interview.
When she is talking about "report not being clear", she is talking about old "reports online" which purportedly were based on some leaked tests. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with this matter. There is also no contradiction at all with the "born female" quote. That is referring to her gender in the social and legal sense; and is not relevant to the eligibility criteria. See section 2definitions.
People are trying to create confusion where it does not exist. That said, I would not be averse to using a quote rather than stating the matter in wiki-voice. Though I would prefer the latter.
Support inclusion and yes to quote This provides evidence that refutes highly disputed claims on the page, it would be misleading / biased to not include it.Hi! (talk)06:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion (Option A and B): Multiple high-quality secondary sources - includingLe Monde,France 24, andAFP - explicitly report that the subject confirmed the presence of the SRY gene. Le Monde (Feb 5) states verbatim: "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene." Arguments to exclude this based on the theory that she "misunderstood the question" or that her admission "doesn't make logical sense" rely entirely onWP:OR. We cannot reject the explicit interpretation of Tier-1 secondary sources in favor of our own personal analysis of the transcript or the subject's strategy. PerWP:V, we must reflect what reliable sources report. Given theWP:BLP context, the best approach is to include the information with clear attribution (e.g., "In an interview with L'Équipe, Khelif stated...").TR (talk)10:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion and yes to quote - I'm amazed but somehow simultaneously not even surprised that we're having an RfC on whether to quote the subject of an article on the specific issue that made them globally famous. It has been public knowledge for well over a year that Khelif has XY sex genes, since the result of her most recent genetic test was leaked to the media (information that was repeatedly removed from this page). Now Khelif has clearly admitted it in an interview. Of course both this fact and the quote should be added to this article. Opposition to this has reached the frankly embarrassing stage, and we can only hope that fixing this page now will repair the damage done by having demonstrably false text here for over a year.Fig (talk)12:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's anWP:EXCEPTIONAL claim in context, in the sense that we would expect wall-to-wall coverage; a relatively tiny handful of breaking-news sources that merely quote the interview, in that context, is not sufficient and suggests that most major sources are approaching the interpretation of the quote people are arguing for here with caution. If this is accurate, it will quickly receive extensive coverage, but it hasn't received it yet - just searching for her on Google News, the story is almost totally absent from recent coverage (over the last few days). That's enough reason to be cautious and take our time with something that is plainly both BLP sensitive and exceptional. Additionally, I'd point out that much of the weight and interpretation people arguing for inclusion are trying to give the interview goeswildly beyond what it says even under the maximalist interpretation. In particular, in the interview, she flatly and unambiguously states that she is not trans, something that is reflected in every piece of the coverage thatdoes exist; yet people above are using this to try and argue or imply that she is, which contradicts all available sources without exception. This further shows why, in situations like this where an exceptional claim is only covered by a few sources, we wait for more in-depth secondary coverage before moving forwards. --Aquillion (talk)14:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who is trying to argue or imply that Khelif is trans? Apart from the attempt to remove the line about 'No medical evidence exists to suggest that she is transgender' (which should probably be changed to something like 'she is not transgender' because you do not need medical evidence to be trans) from the actual article, which has nothing to do with this RfC? Tewdar 14:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the dozen of comments in this talk page and I can't find anyone arguing that Imane is trans. Absolutely no one. Having a SRY gene is not incompatible with being a woman. She's a woman from birth.TR (talk)16:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One editor who was heavily involved in the above discussion removed content from the article page with an edit summary that heavily implies that she is male and transgender. That is obviously false and potentially a blp violation.LunaHasArrived (talk)17:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Check the archives. There's tons of them in there. They just lost the argument, so they're trying a different tactic by crowing about her having some DSD based on their preferred reading of a single word she said in a interview.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The controversy didn’t come out of nowhere and now we have several reliable sources covering this. It’s pretty basic.Mattnad (talk)
Oppose. excellent arguments above from Aquillion and Silver seren about this being a truly exceptional claim. However I do think for going forward that the current wording about her not being transgender should be kept (she has reaffirmed this so removing it seems ridiculous) but we could probably add a small sentence about her reducing her testosterone levels for the Paris Olympics. Also notable is her reaffirmation that the previous leaks were false.LunaHasArrived (talk)14:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The wording about Khelif not being transgender is responding to a claim thatnobody is making or has ever made. You will find some media outlets claiming that "people are accusing her of being transgender", but they never specify which people. It's a straw man to distract from the actual issue, and it always has been. The only accusations media and public figures have ever made is that Khelif has a male DSD and has been concealing it because it confers a substantial advantage in women's boxing.Thunderbird L17 (talk)22:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can believe what you want, however many reliable sources and Khelif herself repeatedly report that she is not transgender so it would be a massive violation of npov to get rid of that statement.LunaHasArrived (talk)23:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I did not dispute that "they report she is not transgender". What I was pointing out isthey are not replying to any accusations by saying that. And the article as written is incredibly dishonest by raising a straw man accusation that nobody is making. The article responds to that instead of acknowledging that the accusations areactually about an undisclosed DSD conferring a male advantage.Thunderbird L17 (talk)23:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need to adresse the elephant in the room here. I'm convinced there are neutral ways to convey the facts. I hope that some of the people who oppose this change will come back and propose good addendum and nuances. But this is a decent first step.Iluvalar (talk)20:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support with attribution. The reader can make the inference "but she barely speaks French", or what she said isn't "logical". It's a quote from the subject, via a reliable source, relating to the topic which we spend two of the three lead paragraphs summarising.Jevansen (talk)21:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perWP:SYNTH, andWP:NODEADLINE. Many supporters quote reliable sources saying: "Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene.", and pretty much everybody here (I think) agrees she said that. However, she did not say, "...and as you all know, the SRY gene occurs only on the Y chromosome" (and if she did, she is not an endocrinologist and thus not a reliable source for that statement). See the last paragraph ofChromosomal translocation#Role in disease. The mere fact that there is so much disagreement among editors should be enough to make it clear we do not yet understand the situation clearly, and we should avoid rushing in. Wikipedia isnot a newspaper; nothing is lost by waiting. Something could be lost by getting it wrong nowat a biography of a living person and having to correct it in a week or two.Mathglot (talk)05:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Khelif, as a far as I can tell, has not been quoted as saying what you put in quotation marks ("and as you all know", etc). The question in this RfC is clear: "Should this article mention that Khelif has reportedly stated that she has the SRY gene?" That is all. And as you also acknowledge, shehas, as reported in numerousreliable sources, which, essentially puts to bed question #1.(It's not up to us, even if we wereallendocrinologists to assess her statement's scientific correctness. Now,that would be aserious can of worms.) As to the "wait" suggestion, it makes no sense: Even if Khelif were to fully retract her statements about SRY tomorrow, the fact remains that shehas made them and that's all there is to it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, for sure, but Wikipedia is not someRegister of Official Positions either. -The Gnome (talk)07:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The French source, the media org who actually conducted the interview which has given rise to this whole discussion, have not quoted her stating saying "I have SRY" or words to that effect.TarnishedPathtalk07:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If one wants to question the specifically invoked sources' integrity (and, mind you, they're of impeccablereliability), one is obligated to do that in an unambiguous manner. We are not here toarbitrarily question sources' text. And the pertinent text is what can and must appear; to wit, from, say, aLe Mondereportage, "Dans un entretien àL’Equipe, l’Algérienne de 26 ans, cible d’attaques récurrentes, confirme posséder le gène SRY et avoir pris un traitement afin de faire baisser son taux de testostérone pour participer à des compétitions." In English, "In an interview toL’Equipe [one of the most reliable sports media in the world, by the way], the Algerian of 26 years, the target of recurrent attacks, confirms possessing the SRY gene and having taken medication to lower her testosterone levels in order to participate in competitions." That's only my own, Sorbonne-2 interpretation, of course, so you're welcome to test it out through any tranlating engine. But if the quote reads accurately in English, then, yes, we do have a quote; we cannot only allow forverbatim quotes, a trivial fact if only we consider historical articles. She said it. That is a fact no matter what it is assessed we do with it. -The Gnome (talk)11:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A English translation of part of her response to the SRY question as quoted in L’Equipe:
"Yes, and it's natural. My hormones are female. And though people aren't aware, I've already gotten my testosterone levels down for competition".
That is not a clear confirmation. They asked about SRY and she starts talking about hormones and testosterone. A source being generally reliable /= always reliable and in this case it is not clear that their interpretation of Khelif's meaning is correct. Additionally given Khelif's past statements and her interview with CNN the day before this raisesWP:EXCEPTIONAL.TarnishedPathtalk12:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You combine and thus confuse two separate issues, i.e. the presence of the SRY gene and her testosterone levels. The latter is a simple statement of intent, demonstrating Khelif's strong belief in the righteousness of her stance. Test me out for testosterone, she says, SRY or no SRY, which is natural in any case, and you will see I'm a woman.
For the former, we have a clear confirmation. The text reads unequivocally, in her response: "Yes [I have SRY], and it's natural." End of story. The sources reporting this are reliable and, although, of course, we are supposed to always be on alert for possible misreporting or errors, there is simply no grounds for the doubt you are trying to insert here. It is up to you to demonstrate where, linguistically or otherwise, your assertion is based, to wit, "it is not clear that their [the sources'] interpretation of Khelif's meaning is correct." You see, they are not "interpreting"anything; she straight-upaffirms she has SRY. End of story. The CNN interview precedes her statement toL'Equipe, so we simply & decisively, we have her currentlyverifiable position. Much ado about very little, all this (incredible, really) battle to prevent an obviously interesting and blatantly notable development in her story. Whence, one wonders? -The Gnome (talk)13:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aclear confirmation would be her saying "I have the SRY gene", which she never said.
The CNN interview precedes her statement to L'Equipe by 24 hours, that's all.
one wonders? indeed. one wonders why the journalist didn't ask her to elaborate on the so-called important confession, especially after she said that she aims to compete in the 2028 Olympics and she's willing to take the test.M.Bitton (talk)13:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight. If I ask you, "Have you participated in an RfC in the Imane Khelif Talk page?" and you respond, "Yes," then your response is not a clear conformation... Oh, dear. This is very near the height of absurdity.
What about "predates" is false? She makes statement A one day and statement B the next. We can include both, if both are notable.
Who knows why the journalists asked some questions and not others? We will never be in a position to know. If we are to assign malicious intent to our sources that'd be blatantarbitrariness. And as far from beingneutral as one can be. -The Gnome (talk)12:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reports supporting her side and letting her fight without problems. With recent studies about trans athletes having no advantage over cis women in sports, I just hope nothing will affect her participation.Ahri Boy (talk)11:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion It is highly relevant whether Khelif has a SRY gene which points to Khelif having a male DSD. When this is confirmed by Khelif's own words then I can see no reason to exclude itDejvid (talk)12:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
and the qualification that it is "natural" (which DSDs most certainly are) is just the kind of qualification that might be expected from someone in Khelif's situation and who understood the question.Dejvid (talk)13:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion (of both A and B) and per the comment above:If you can't agree what the quote means, just quote her without further comment until a more unambiguous statement appears.Some1 (talk)15:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of A and B. There are multiple perennial reliable sources for it and, as with any source, it is definitely possible to write precisely what they say without resorting to synth or OR. Oppose voters claiming BLP have not pointed out how theWP:BLP policy actually goes against this inclusion, especially since there were multiple strong non-op-ed sources brought up, and BLP focuses on primary, or low to medium quality secondary sources. This information is necessary to give important context to the article: its notability hinges on past and present disputes around the genetic makeup of this person.Historyexpert2 (talk)17:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion. Yes to both A & B. This is simply averifiable andevidently notable development in a story that, for better or worse, attracts the world media's attention for years. The RfC isnot about Khelif's scientific knowledge nor about the veracity of her statement, derailments repeatedly taken in the discussion. It's about including an important statement she made; that is all. It's quite elementary, actually, and there is truly no need for the strong feelings (even anger) expressed in the discussion. If we want political agendas out of Wikipedia's articles, we need to remain somber and assess questions ingood faith. -The Gnome (talk)13:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No to bothfor now. There's zero urgency to include, and as it's literally based on a single word in a single sentence in an interview in a language not the subject's firstQ: "To be clear, you have a female phenotype but have the SRY gene, an indicator of maculinity." A:"Yes, and it's natural." That "Yes" is being assumed to be doing a lot of work. Yes, I have a female phenotype? Yes, I have the SRY gene? Yes, the SRY gene is an indicator of masculinity? I think it's too soon to assume her "Yes" meant "Yes to every portion of this multipart question". Let's wait and see what other RS are saying, or whether Khelif/a representative responds or clarifies. There's no deadline, and this is a BLP.Valereee (talk)18:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Khelif reponds to a simple question: "Do you have it?" She answers in the affirmative. That's all she has been asked, and her answer fully corresponds to that question. In any case, we are not asked to include any assumptions about the medical worth of the SRY itself or about Khelif's statement/response. Khelif might be scientifically wrong in adding "and it's natural [to have it]" (not that it matters, but, personally, I have no idea) but it's still a statement fully worthy of inclusion even if it is possibly denoting something false. Wikipedia editors are not assessingon their own the scientific worthiness of statements by lay persons; wecite competent & reliable sources that do that.
There is nothing of value in "waiting." Her statement was given in an interview to one single source and then reproduced round the world. The source if fully reliable and the statement is evidently significant, as the wide republishing proves. So, again: This RfC isnot about fenotypes or anything we can put our imaginbatoon on. She said it verifiably; and it's notable. -The Gnome (talk)18:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She never said "I have the SRY gene". This, we know for sure. Everything else is just an interpretation of her reply, which included "I have female hormones".M.Bitton (talk)18:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but, with all due respect, I can only characterize your assertion, shared by many here unfortunately, as disingenuous. If I ask you "Are you M.Britton?" and you respond "Yes," you have clearly and unambiguously confirmed you are M.Britton. She was asked if she has the SRY gene and she replied "Yes." Arguing for the need of a full statement "Yes, I have SRY" is extraordinarily inappropriate. -The Gnome (talk)12:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating that the question wasn't straightforward, but I reject that premise. The interviewer literally prefaced it with "Just to be clear..." (Pour qu'on comprenne bien). It was a clear "yes or no" question designed specifically to bring definitive clarity to the issue of the SRY gene. Repeating that the question wasn't clear doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it.TR (talk)13:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome, it wasn't a simple question. It was multipart. There were three things she was being asked. "To be clear, 1. you have a female phenotype 2. but have the SRY gene, 3. an indicator of maculinity" is not simple. It's just kind of astounding that anyone would argue that's a simple question.
The value in waiting is that this is a living, breathing human being who can be harmed if we get it wrong. People get arrested and killed for this stuff.The Gnome, what's the value in rushing?Valereee (talk)00:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She did not leave any question unanswered. There is onlyone question here. Khe;if does have a female phenotype and the SRY can be an indicator of masculinity. These arefacts; not "questions." They cannot even be syntactically questions. The implied question here is about the SRY gene and she answers to that "Yes", i.e. I have it. End of story. -The Gnome (talk)12:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why will she be harmed if her Wikipedia article includes a statement she made? On what grounds can she possible be in danger? If you're talking about hatred online or elsewhere, that is unfortunately going on regardless. We're not here to act as some kind of bodyguards, especially for imaginary, asserted dangers. -The Gnome (talk)12:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, for both and simplywait until the obvious confusion is sorted out. There's a lot of experienced editors on here who should know better than to base a significant change to a BLP on what is a very vague situation. There isWP:NODEADLINE. Meanwhile, there's obviously an off-wiki canvassing issue here, with a number of mostly dormant accounts suddenly activating to support.
It's not necessarily canvassing. They may simply have seen news coverage and had prior experience with this page, or visited the page and then explored the Talk page. That is how I originally got here.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)05:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Analternative explanation is that the RfC is connected to a particular issue that provokes strong sentiments, the evidence for that strength present in this very discussion, and, therefore, contributors activate their participation to register their take. This, of course, is yet another instance in Wikipedia where irrelevant agendas inflame and derail the dialogue. -The Gnome (talk)11:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This accusation is unfounded and fails toWP:AGF. I am an occasional editor who has followed and edited this specific topic previously. I returned to the discussion not because of "canvassing," but because a major development in the story occurred this week which was reported by international media. It is standard behavior for occasional editors to reactivate when a topic they are interested in makes headlines. Please focus on the content arguments rather than speculating about editor activity levels.TR (talk)11:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Just to provide a factual correction to your list: I was actively debating the sources on this Talk page on6 February at 01:59 UTC (see the history above). That is nearly 24 hoursbefore this RfC was even created. I could not have been "canvassed" to an RfC that did not exist yet. My participation here is organic, stemming from the breaking news coverage. Given this timeline, I request that you strike my name from your list.TR (talk)19:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite I came to this page because I've been following this topic since the Olympics and was curious. There's a reason I stopped editing on Wikipedia and your unfair and frankly unfounded comments are part of that. Please apologize for your accusation. It goes counter to assuming good faith.Mattnad (talk)16:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite, I already commented on this article, I've been following since. I heard that Imane commented on her SRY gene and I knew there is POV pushing on this particular page to obfuscate even the simplest facts. Facts: "Imane seemingly have genetic variations (SRY sounds higly plausible now that she said it herself and deserve mention) that could prevent her to participate to some boxing events. Proeminent figures expressed the opinion, during the 2024 summer Olympics, that the organisation should check for those genetic markers (it didn't). Imane is AFAB and express no will to transition." This is NPOV in my book. I fully understand the can of worms that is discussing about which genes sequences should or shouldn't be allowed in the Olympics. But that is not OUR can of worms to deal with. We are here to write an encyclopedia.Iluvalar (talk)21:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support full inclusion. As has been mentioned, the sources in favor areL'Equipe itself (in its plain reading), AFP (viaLe Monde, France24, The Montreal Post, and probably others), other French sources likeCNews, andThe Independent. (Also non-political sources likeSporting News, and a whole swath of right-wing sources that are clearly biased, but are notable in part because they haven't drawn refutations or fact checks from mainstream sources.
No public sources at all that I can see have disputed that Khelif confirmed she had the SRY gene (or denied that she has the gene). In the CNN interview, Khelif shared nonspecific complaints about the leaked alleged medical report last year claiming she had XY chromosomes, but did not specify what error the report contained. The alleged report in question made a variety of specific claims, and the journalist who has put it forward has written lines that in essence attacked Khelif's gender identity and expression. In other words, acknowledging possession of an SRY gene would not preclude Khelif from stating that the leaked alleged report contained errors or smears against her.
Other perennial RS have written about Khelif without mentioning theL'Equipe interview at all, but this may have party been due to timing and it being in a foreign language. TheNew York Times piece (coming out early on Feb. 5) mentions only the CNN interview, which like the L'Equipe interview came out on Feb. 4. TheBBC covered the CNN interview on Feb. 4 itself.
No major publication other thanThe Independent has run a story on Khelif after Feb. 5, and theIndependent[41] used the language "she confirmed she had the SRY gene." In other words, the absence of theL'Equipe interview from the NYT and BBC pieces is not necessarily conspicuous; they may simply have not yet been aware that it had occurred.
On that basis, I think the case for inclusion is strong. It's true that there's no deadline, but the news cycle appears to have settled, and we have only RS in favor with no RS against.
A concern has been raised that Khelif's answer has been misread, and that when she replied "Yes,..." to the interviewer's statement clarifying that she had the SRY gene, she may have been answering more broadly rather than specifically, or answering only part of the question, and that therefore this is not her own voice and we need to continue to have a heightened evidentiary standard due to BLP guidelines.
While a natural reading would suggest Khelif was responding to the entire statement, it's not quite ironclad. However, I think the context strongly supports that she did intend to confirm the SRY point.
The context is Khelif doing interviews, in French and American media, in part to acknowledge that she does have some degree of masculine expression, but emphasize that this is her natural biology. Both interviews acknowledge high testosterone levels that evidently led to her taking treatment to lower them. InL'Equipe, she further said "We all have different genetics, different hormone levels... My difference is natural." This seems to support the reading that she is intentionally acknowledging features of her biology that would be congruent with having the SRY gene.
Khelif is presumably familiar with the details of sex-testing, and to some extent, to the biology of sex genotypes and phenotypes, given her sports career, eligibility history, and active appeal with the CAS.
As the evident acknowledgement received widespread coverage, no clarification has been issued from Khelif, nor correction sought.
Another concern has been raised that this is an extraordinary claim. On its own, the claim that a given person has an extremely rare medical condition is absolutely extraordinary. But I think this specific element of the claim becomes less extraordinary in context. Khelif acknowledges beyond dispute that she has naturally high testosterone, congruent with an SRY gene (though not exlusively). She has previously refused to take an SRY test and even filed an appeal to argue she shouldn't have to. But this apparent admission of having the SRY gene comes at the same time that she announces her willingness to take an SRY test. In other words, we already know that she is making major admissions and something of an about face in these interviews. And the fact that she is expressing a willingness to submit to testing (which would establish publicly whether or not she had an SRY gene) makes it much easier to believe that she would be willing to publicly confirm her SRY status in an interview, since it would become public anyway sooner or later.
To conclude, I think we are obliged to include the material subject to this RFC. No RS has disputed it, several RS have confirmed it, and the RS pieces that did not mention the claim came out quite close in time to theL'Equipe interview itself, which makes it hard to read them as deliberately steering clear of it. The central claim made, that Khelif has an SRY gene, conforms with the other information Khelif divulged in her interviews, and the interviews are themselves clearly intended to establish a new position on points of this nature, including indisputably her naturally high testosterone and new willingness to take an SRY test. Khelif could put out a clarification or correction at any time, and if so, we should immediately update, but as of now, the information stands clear.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)05:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and wait There is clearly too much contention about the quote to be included as evidence for OR against the actual genetic difference in question on it's own. If it can not be used to properly evidentiate the claim, then it has no notability to the article. This quote absolutely should be shelved, and should there be evidence that allows for Khelif's SRY status to be well discussed in the article it can be included as evidence. The contention around Khelif's genetics is important to this article but evidence for specific individual medical claims about Khelif should be included with extremely strict requirements in deference to the sensitiveMOS:BLP concerns surrounding this article. This is because the weight given to an individiualy piece of evidence is skewed when there is not enough to be presented. The quality of a single news excerpt given the otherwise intense and specific medical scrutiny at play is low.Antisymmetricnoise (talk)10:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: The RfC isnot about the scientific correctness of what Khelif stated but about including what she stated because she stated it. It's a statement that made the newsquite widely and concerns the main aspect of the athlete's notability (unfortunately). We cannot seriously invoke rules such asMOS:BLP in order to censor something the subject of the biography herself has said! Are we trying to protect Kheilif from herself? The scientific aspect of what she stated is assessed in other, pertinent reports, which, could or should be quoted as well. -The Gnome (talk)11:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I have to draw the attention of editors opposing on irrelevant grounds the inclusion, on what this RfC is about. It'sstrictly about Khelif's statement. Nothing more than that. It is not about medical assertions or the validity of the SRY criterion, ar anything liken that. Did she say she has SRY? Well, shedid, in an interview toL'Équipe, one of the best sports publications in the world, answering "Yes, and it's natural [to have it]" to the question if she has the SRY. Answering "Yes" to the question "Do you have it" and saying "I have it" are two completely equivalent statements.
Then, the interview has been, as is customary, republished by other, a lot of other, reliable sources round the world, woth full attribution toL'Équipe. This does not constitute anything "circular"; it's elementary republishing a news item of significant public interest as reported by other media. (Your false attribution of "circularity" would forbid citing anything "exclusif" by some medium!) What is happening is actually the opposite of "circularity": it's other media adding their own credibility to the report.
Support A, less Support for B In my view it is pretty unambiguous that Khelif stated that she has the SRY gene. She clearly answered "yes" to a "yes/no" question, has not retracted her statement in the time since, and the claims that we shouldn't take her words at face value seem highly speculative. I tend to think that including the quote too is unnecessary and needlessly clunky, but I would support doing so if it brings us closer to consensus. By the same token (pertaining to discussions elsewhere), I am pretty satisfied that others (e.g., Trump) have unambiguously claimed that she is trans, so I would be happy to keep the explicit statement that she is not (even if I support editing other aspects of the lede). Basically, I think we should all try to interpret quotes in line with their most obvious and intuitive interpretation, rather than project whatever we would prefer them to say.JackStabba (talk)08:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis that there is not enough to cover at the moment to provide sufficient context. I think the only statement that could be adequately supported at the moment isIn an interview with L'Equipe, Khelif replied "Yes, and it's natural." when asked if she has a female phenotype, but the SRY gene. It is difficult to place this statement in any further context, as Khelif did not elaborate on having the SRY gene, nor make any other statements on her genetics. When and how she knew she had it, whether any testing was conducted, how she sees herself or identifies as a result of this finding, etc. is not known. We only have the short "Yes" from the L'Equipe interview. We cannot even link to or mention what specific condition she might have without speculation. In the absence of appropriate context, I'd argue readers would speculate themselves, i.e. "she is transgender" or "she is intersex" or even "she is a man", none of which we could support with the current reporting. In light of this, I think covering this single L'Equipe interview is somewhat irresponsible until Khelif makes additional statements on the subject.Semisalsa (talk)16:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis that the sources presented are inappropriate for addressing a possiblemedical condition aBLP may have. And generally I'm just very sad to see that Wikipedia still cannot leave this poor woman alone.Simonm223 (talk)19:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which are apparently not required for the several medical and quasi-medical statements currently in the second and third paragraphs of the lede? Tewdar 14:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Such aswas born female,false claims that she was male,No medical evidence exists to suggest that she is transgender, andKhelif revealed that she has high level of testosterone which she has been reducing under medical supervision. Tewdar 14:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first part: those knownfacts are there because some people keep making false claims about her (this has been discussed more times than I care to remember). The second part was recently added (in the middle of an edit war) after what she revealed to CNN. Are you suggesting we should remove it?M.Bitton (talk)14:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: Do you mean perWP:MEDRS? My understanding is that those wouldn't be required to say that Khelif told L'Equipe that she has the SRY gene - see past discussions at1,2,3 - and that standard BLP requirements would apply to that instead.
Are you going to reply to every comment I make? I think my question was clear, and you're unable to answer it because you can't read Simon's mind. Just let us have a conversation.Clicriffhard (talk)14:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to keep querying comments that conflict with my understanding, yes. For all I know, Simon could be right and might make me aware of some policy argument that I'm not aware of. You don't need to interject - it's purely disruptive.Clicriffhard (talk)14:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about Simon, you, I or anyone other than Khelif. Her reputation is all that counts (people would do well to remember that).M.Bitton (talk)15:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided my answer. I think we should, at minimum, cleave far closer toWP:MEDRS standards. I don't think a single, subsequently contradicted, statement reported in a single news publication is enough to opine about a BLP's medical history.Simonm223 (talk)15:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Main question, so I'm clear: are you saying that you thinkWP:MEDRS-compliant sources would be needed for the article to "mention that Khelif has reportedly stated that she has the SRY gene"? I don't think so, but the simplest thing is probably to ask atWT:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Just want to make sure I'm understanding you first, so I don't waste their time.
For what it's worth, Khelif's statement was notreported in a single news publication by any stretch of the imagination. At the very least, there's Le Monde/AFP (and countless other edits and syndications of the AFP story in reputable publications), The Independent, El País, Público/Lusa, Berlingske, and obviously a ton of lesser-quality sources that I won't bother mentioning. Also not sure what you mean by "subsequently contradicted"? Even the CNN interview/article (which didn't explicitly mention the SRY gene) was publishedbefore L'Equipe and its secondary sources.Clicriffhard (talk)15:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this isn't unwelcome, but I'd like to add a comment that might help editors see eye to eye here. I think Simon and others are under the reasonable impression that "Khelif reportedly stated that she has the SRY gene" will be understood by most readers as "Khelif has the SRY gene" if not accompanied by any further qualifications. While the former can be supported by the interview, one would imagine the latter would need to be supported by some sort of medical test, as Khelif is probably unable to see her own chromosomes without akaryotyping.Semisalsa (talk)16:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not unwelcome at all.
I don't think that's quite right - as pretty much any medical diagnosis will involve tests, and the discussions I linked to above seem very clear that individuals' disclosures of their own medical conditions aren't in scope forWP:MEDRS - but I'll just ask the question atWT:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and then we don't have to guess.Clicriffhard (talk)16:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, personally, I don't thinkWP:MEDRS is necessary to write either statement, but I do think at least some indication that testing was done is needed.Kanye West's case springs to mind. His lyrics stating "That's my bipolar shit" is insufficient to write "Kanye West reportedly stated he has bipolar disorder", but his later confirmation of a diagnosis by a medical professional is adequate. I.e. I would say a later statement confirming a medical diagnosis would be sufficient in Khelif's case as well.Semisalsa (talk)13:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Semisalsa, a test for theSRY gene doesn't involve karotyping (because you're looking for a small gene instead of a whole chromosome). Also, it's possible to have the gene but also have a mutation that effectively inactivates it.[42]WhatamIdoing (talk)05:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because SRY itself is also a complex and potentially contentious topic, and I disagree that it's a reliabily sourced statement based on the L'Equipe interview alone.elchupacabra (talk)07:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several publications inaccurately reported that Khelif has shared her “true biological sex.” Khelif continues to state that she is female. Some publications reported that Khelif has XY chromosomes, which Khelif did not say, and is not necessarily true even if she has the SRY gene.
and
The IBA [whose president claimed that Khelif and another athelete have XY chromosomes] has been decertified as an international governing body of boxing and is not recognized by the International Olympic Committee.
The rationale for the vote above has nothing to do with the RfC and has no reliable sources in any case. Incidentally, from the article you link:Khelif told the French sports newspaper L’Equipe that she naturally possesses the SRY gene (typically but not exclusively found on the XY chromosome). GLAAD, too, seem to have no problem interpreting the interview... Tewdar 19:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an outdated 2024 source. There are 2026 reliable secondary sources which provided further development to this story. Edit:I did not see the update earlier, I think then it would then be another RS confirmation that Khelif says she has the SRY gene.Khelif told the French sports newspaper L’Equipe that she naturally possesses the SRY gene (typically but not exclusively found on the XY chromosome). -GLAADHistoryexpert2 (talk)04:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose If I am readingthis correctly, it is possible to have the SRY gene and only X chromosomes, altho the SRY article here and those sources especially dont clearly indicate that. (please let me know if this is incorrect) This all seems to be a massive nothingburger, and I dont understand the rightwing obsession with her. I cant imagine a traditional conservative society like in Algeria would take too kindly to her if she were trans. As far as I can tell, she is either a female with some above average masculinity, or some sort of intersex that presents as female. Given the uncertainty of this in the sources and how they appear to mistakenly state that it is on the Y chromosome, I dont see any reason to include it yet. If it becomes more notable, sure maybe. I cant believe she is still being fought over. Oh wait, maybe I can... ← Metallurgist (talk)02:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support A in the body only, and minimal (one sentence on this, but in a suitable context that should also include that she is phenotypically female (or just female) or similar per the interview). Opposed for the lead. This huge discussion spends way too long casting doubt on a very clear and non contradictory statement from Khelif that she has clearly made quite deliberately because she wants this information in the public domain. I've waited this long to see if she would retract or clarify in any way. She has not, and all the evidence is that she has made this statement to get the information out there on her own terms. We should respect that.However, what really worried me was our rush to follow a news reporting cycle. The interview itself is an allowable primary source. Allowed because the BLP subject is making a statement about herself. The follow up reporting of the interview is still primary when it merely repeats her words, and from Le Monde onwards they all seem to be inserting a "found on the Y chromosome" which is not in the interview, and is a medical claim for which we cannot accept these sources perWP:MEDPOP. Although the very wide coverage of this information places it firmly in the public domain, and obviates any BLP concern raised above that Wikipedia should not be covering this out of concern for placing such information in the public domain, that coverage itself does not, in my view, constitute a suitable secondary source from which to work. We just have the interview itself. Allowable, but not secondary. This, however, is changed somewhat by the source found above by OwenBlacker.[43]WP:GLAAD lists GLAAD as generally reliable, and even though it is an advocacy organisation, and the article has advocacy lines, these do not affect the quality of that report. In it they sayKhelif told the French sports newspaper L’Equipe that she naturally possesses the SRY gene (typically but not exclusively found on the XY chromosome). The parenthetical is their synthesis, more accurate than what most sources are saying, but still inadmissible as a medical claim made by aWP:MEDPOP source. But what's important here is how they do synthesise this material into their wider fact check, alongside the CNN article, the information about managing her testosterone, and the very clear statements that she is a woman. There is also synthesis regarding intersex. Not all of this can be used in the article for the MEDPOP reasons above, butWP:MEDRS articles will be available for all of those claims. So we have a secondary source that shows us how to proceed.Now looking at their lines to take (for which we must bear in mind they are an advocacy group, but are nevertheless reasonable) we see that although they acknowledge Khelif has said these words, they don't suggest stressing the SRY information at all. Their first line seems like the best approach. They ask media to stress this:Following her win, Khelif stated: “I’m a woman like any other woman. I was born a woman, I lived a woman, I competed as a woman.” This has not changed. In the L'Équipe interview and elsewhere, she is adamant that she is a woman, and that's what needs to be clear in the lead. We do not need to, and should not express doubt about that by mention of SRY in the lead. The GLAAD lines to take do not deny that she is intersex, but make clear that intersex athletes have a long history of inclusion in competition. Without getting into the detail, we note their synthesis is clear. We should not hide the fact that she has revealed this about the SRY gene, but it is a small detail, and needs to be contextualised as such. It is not leadworthy but it would be, I think, reprehensible to fail to mention it at all.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)13:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sirfurboy. Agreed that the "found on the Y-chromosome" is inappropriate to include based on the sources available. Also agreed that GLAAD is very helpful here as a specialized source on this topic. To the extent that the lead is long and developed enough to seem comprehensive as a summary, I would say the SRY acknowledgementhas to be mentioned. But a slimmed-down lead that simple mentions controversy occurred and moves all detail to the body paragraph is probably the best route anyway.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)23:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'found on the Y-chromosome' should be omitted, but on DUE grounds. I think we should be extremely careful about deferring to a pressure group in such a lightning rod article.Riposte97 (talk)11:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion, and I'll support inclusion in the lead if we are going to have these disclaimer paragraphs about how she isn't transgender. Many people don't even understand the difference between trans and intersex, so a clarifier on chromosome is useful.Zenomonoz (talk)20:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion for both. I don't see any issue with their inclusion, the question is more how to phrase it (it should not be stated in wikivoice), and how any possible denial should be worded. To me its inclusion is fairly straightforward if it hadn't become such an ideological issue in this article.Hzh (talk)18:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
The close of the moratorium discussion said that it appliedunless coverage in reliable sources indicates a new development having to do with the subject directly[44] This is clearly new recent coverage that has new revelations based on a recent interview, so the moratorium does not apply to this discussion.Hemiauchenia (talk)00:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, quoting from above andthe articlePour qu'on comprenne bien, vous avez un phénotype féminin mais possédez le gène SRY, indicateur de masculinité. Oui, et c'est naturel. J'ai des hormones féminines. Et les gens ne le savent pas, mais j'ai déjà baissé mon taux de testostérone pour des compétitions. Je suis entourée de médecins, un professeur me suit, et j'ai pris des traitements hormonaux pour faire baisser mon taux de testostérone. Pour le tournoi de qualification aux Jeux de Paris, qui se déroulait à Dakar, j'ai baissé mon taux de testostérone à zéro (le taux moyen se situe entre 0,3 et 3 nanomoles par litre de sang chez la femme). Et j'ai gagné la médaille d'or là-bas.She says she is not "transsexuel"Je ne suis pas une transsexuelle. Ma différence, elle est naturelle. Je suis comme ça. Je n'ai rien fait pour changer la manière dont la nature m'a faite. C'est pour ça que je n'ai pas peur.The whole discussion is about whether her reply implicitly admits she has the SRY gene and so if the intersex/whatever label is appropriate. The amount of discussion is absurd, the RfC is going to be a shitshow, so I propose we just quote her and that's it. The readers will make their own decisions as to what the quote actually means.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)01:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How would we give a direct quote from an interview that was conducted in French? I don't know if there's a policy/guideline that deals with this directly, but translating it ourselves seems like clearWP:OR, and I'm not aware that a reliable source has translated both Khelif's response and what she was responding to.Clicriffhard (talk)02:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The fragment is not actually that hard to translate and generally translations are allowed so long as accurate - that's the goal, after all. My French is good enough to be able to translate this pretty well:So that we understand, you have a femalephenotype but you have the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity. Yes, and it's natural. I have female hormones. And people don't know this, but I have already lowered my levels of testosterone for competitions. I am surrounded by doctors, a professor is following me, and I have taken hormonal therapy to decrease my levels of testosterone. For the qualifier tournament for the Paris Olympics, which happened in Dakar, I have lowered my testosterone level to zero (in women, the average level is within the range of 0.3-3nmol per litre of blood). And I won the gold medal over there. WP:NONENG requires translated quotes to contain the original, so even if I messed up the translation, anyone could refer to what she actually said in French.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)02:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; in that case, no objection to quoting. As another French-speaker, I have minor quibbles with your translation (e.g. it should be "I lowered" and "I won", not "I have lowered" and "I have won"), but we can come back to that if the RfC goes that way.Clicriffhard (talk)02:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first present perfect depends on the dialect of English you use (Americans would prefer past simple, Brits would go with present perfect), but you are probably right that the second one requires past simple.Szmenderowiecki (talk ·contribs)02:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to simple past, but this translation debate is unnecessary when reliable sources in English already provide the translation, as they do; they are linked in the Rfc question. By the way, British English preferssimple past topast simple byabout 2–1 (andby 9–1 in AE). Maybe you should not be opining about what the proper English translation ought to be if you are not a native speaker.Mathglot (talk)00:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is serious confusion about sourcing in the pre-RfC discussion. There are three relevant buckets:
1. The recent CNN interview;
2. The recent L'Equipe interview; and
3. Reliable secondary reporting on those two events.
Comment - I'd like to remind everyone this is a BLP and while we allow some degree of latitude on talk pages, editors so still do their best to respect living persons and not to say unnecessary stuff which has the potential to harm them. Editors should always think carefully about what the implications of them being wrong mean for the living person. For example as a I highlighted above, it's not clear to me that Imane Khelif has said anything contradictory even if taking all three primary statements of contention at face value. She could have SRY, be "I'm a woman like any other woman. I was born as a woman, I live as a woman, and I am qualified." also the report published by Le Correspondant (or some other report) could be false. Many people perfectly accept a woman with SRY being a "woman like any other woman. I was born as a woman, I live as a woman" and while you are entitled to a differing view, ultimately none of our views are relevant here especially givenWP:GENSEX. As for the qualified bit, remember that there were no clear rules forbidding it at the time she made the statement & even the rules now don't seem to clearly forbid someone with SRY. (Although in any case, whether she may meet the current World Boxing rules isn't germane to something she said before the rules or the organisation existed.) It may turn out that the common interpretation of her comments in the interview with L'Équipe are wrong. It may be they're not. Until we know for sure, can editors please word their comment more carefully? It's fine to note a possible contradiction without saying there definitely is one. The former explains why we need to be careful. The latter has the potential be unfairly accusing Khelif of doing something she might not be doing.Nil Einne (talk)05:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd also like to add that it seems likely that statements will be made clarifying the situation so we may be much better placed to make definitive statements about this in the fairly near future. There is no good reason to jump the gun on this. --DanielRigal (talk)14:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding one more reliable secondary source, published today:
The 26-year-old told French outlet L’Equipe this week that she had undergone medically-supervised hormone treatments to lower her naturally high testosterone levels before competing at the Games, but is not transgender. She confirmed that she has the sex-determining SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome, and was prepared to undertake the compulsory sex testing in order to defend her title in LA 2028.
Comment onFrench language: I come upon questions about the exact statement Khelif made, questions invoking the fact that Khelif's mother tongue is not French and therefore she might have misspoken, and so on. Well, while French is indeed not her mother tongue (Algeria speaksModern Standard Arabic, of theMaghrebi vernacular, with a littleBerber in the national mix), the French language is the 2nd most spoken language in the country, spoken by more people than even Berber speakers (but please do visitFrench language in Algeria). That fact is due to allthe wrong reasons, of course, but that is for another discussion. It is absolutely fair, therefore, if not secure, to accept as reliable Khelif's French. The discussion should move away from this non-argument to whether her SRY quote deserves inclusion, as per the RfC's query. -The Gnome (talk)11:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone would like to inspect the primary source in its totality, the paywalledinterview with L'Equipe has been archivedhere.
A few more reliable sources in English here:
Straits Times -Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity.
The Indian Express -Khelif also confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity.
RFI -Khelif confirmed she has the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates masculinity.
And some high-qualityWP:NONENG sources with translations:
El País -With a female phenotype but possessing - "naturally", she says - the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome and indicating maleness in embryonic development, Khelif advocates for (?) the genetic variability of organisms.
ABC (Spain) -Khelif confirms in the interview that she possesses the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates maleness
Le Figaro -Confirming that she possesses the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates maleness - "yes, and it's natural" - Khelif explains that she is "surrounded by doctors, a professor follows me (...)"
Rai News -Khelif later confirmed that she carries the SRY gene, located on the short arm of the Y chromosome, which indicates masculinity. (machine-translated)
RTBF -Confirming that she possesses the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome that indicates maleness - "yes, and it's natural" - Khelif explains that she is "surrounded by doctors, a professor follows me (...)"
Público -Rejecting the claim of being a transgender athlete, Khelif confirmed that she possesses the SRY gene, a region of the Y chromosome that determines the development of male genitalia in humans, a scenario she described as "natural." (machine-translated)
O Estado de S. Paulo -Khelif confirms in the interview that she possesses the SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome, an indicator of masculinity: "Yes, and it's natural." (machine-translated)
Thank you. For what it's worth, these all seem to be simply running the AFP story. So while it tells us something that they all ran it, haven't corrected, etc., it's not at all that they're independently reporting and verifying the story. Just running the same wire service story from AFP. (Contrast with The Independent story that included the same detail as a wholly separate story.)Woshiwaiguoren (talk)06:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's true of some of them but not others. For instance, ABC is clearly running the AFP story, but the El País article looks like their own work.Clicriffhard (talk)11:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The El Pais article reads to me as certainly based on AFP. But it has clearly been expanded on, with substantial editorial decision making and reporting. You're right that it should count more than the ones that just ran the AFP story (in translation or otherwise).Woshiwaiguoren (talk)15:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The guy who has his byline on the El País article isa journalist for El País itself, not any given agency, so he may have borrowed the odd bit of phrasing from elsewhere, but it's ostensibly independent reporting. You'd have to go through the list more thoroughly than I've had time to if you wanted to figure out exactly which ones are/are not independent of one another - I'm just chucking stuff in a pile for now, to see what's out there.Clicriffhard (talk)15:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the extended list of sources. I double checked the last two translations, Público (reference newspaper in Portugal) and Estado de de São Paulo (newspaper from Brazil), and they are accurate. I'm a native speaker of Portuguese.TR (talk)10:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping a couple more here that I haven't been able to verify myself; if anyone can see behind the paywall and has the language to translate and quote (and to determine whether these are independent of AFP), that would also be helpful. Both arenewspapers of record in their respective countries, and both appear to reference the SRY aspect from what I can see:
Dropping the text of the Berlingske article here. If any Danish-speaker can verify or improve on the machine-translation, please do.
Original Danish text
[HEADLINE]
Omstridt bokser erkender: Tog hormonbehandling for at sænke sit testosteronniveau
[STANDFIRST]
Under stort virak vandt Imane Khelif OL-guld i boksning i 2024. Nu bekræfter bokseren, at hun har et gen, som initierer udviklingen af mandlige karakteristika.
[BYLINE]
Daniel Tidemann
Politisk journalist
[BODY TEXT]
Den algeriske bokser Imane Khelif fik under De Olympiske Lege i 2024 kønsdebatten til at blusse voldsomt op, da hun boksede sig til OL-guld i weltervægtkategorien.
Kritikken af algerieren tog for alvor fart, da hendes italienske modstander i den første kamp ved OL, Angela Carini, valgte at trække sig efter kun 46 sekunder, fordi hun frygtede for sit liv.
Den korte kamp mellem Khelif og Carini satte gang i en international debat om, hvorvidt algerieren var berettiget til at stille op i Paris, fordi der var blevet sået tvivl om bokserens køn.
Året forinden blev Khelif nemlig diskvalificeret af Det Internationale Bokseforbund (IBA) til VM.
Forbundet hævdede, at Khelif dumpede en test, der viste, at hun havde konkurrencemæssige fordele i forhold til andre kvinder. Hvad testen præcist målte, forblev fortroligt.
Alligevel fik Imane Khelif lov til at konkurrere ved OL, fordi Den Internationale Olympiske Komité (IOC) anerkendte, at hun er kvinde.
I et interview med L'Equipe taler bokseren nu selv ud om kritikken og siger blandt andet, at hun modtog hormonbehandling for at sænke sit testosteronniveau før OL i Paris.
Hun fortæller også avisen, at hun har SRY-genet - et gen, der findes på Y-kromosomet, som initierer udviklingen af mandlige karakteristika.
»Vi har alle sammen forskellig genetik og forskellige hormonniveauer. Jeg er ikke transkønnet. Min forskel er naturlig. Det er den, jeg er. Jeg har ikke gjort noget for at forhindre den måde, naturen skabte mig på,« siger bokseren.
Vil gerne lade sig teste
Nu går bokseren efter at forsvare sin OL-guldmedalje ved legene i Los Angeles i 2028, og hun er klar til at lade sig teste.
»Hvis jeg skal tage en test, så gør jeg det. Det vil jeg ikke have noget problem med,« siger Imane Khelif.
Tidligere har den algeriske bokser ellers afvist at ville lade sig teste.
I september 2025 appellerede hun til Den Internationale Sportsdomstol (CAS) om at få World Boxings beslutning gjort ugyldig, da bokseforbundet indførte et krav om obligatorisk kønstest for at stille op i deres konkurrencer.
World Boxing har tidligere i år fået Den Internationale Olympiske Komités (IOC) velsignelse til at stå for OL-boksekonkurrencerne, efter at IOC skar båndene til Det Internationale Bokseforbund (IBA) over.
Dermed skal Imane Khelif nu stille op til test hos World Boxing, hvis hun vil kvalificere sig til OL.
English machine-translation
[HEADLINE]
Controversial boxer admits she took hormone therapy to lower her testosterone levels
[STANDFIRST]
Amidst great fanfare, Imane Khelif won Olympic gold in boxing in 2024. Now the boxer confirms that she has a gene that initiates the development of male characteristics.
[BYLINE]
Daniel Tidemann
Political journalist
[BODY TEXT]
Algerian boxer Imane Khelif sparked a fierce gender debate at the 2024 Olympic Games when she boxed her way to Olympic gold in the welterweight category.
Criticism of the Algerian really took off when her Italian opponent in the first match at the Olympics, Angela Carini, chose to withdraw after only 46 seconds because she feared for her life.
The short fight between Khelif and Carini sparked an international debate about whether the Algerian was eligible to compete in Paris because doubts had been raised about the boxer's gender.
The year before, Khelif was disqualified by the International Boxing Association (IBA) from the World Championships.
The federation claimed that Khelif failed a test that showed she had a competitive advantage over other women. What exactly the test measured remained confidential.
Yet Imane Khelif was allowed to compete at the Olympics because the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognized that she is a woman.
In an interview with L'Equipe, the boxer now speaks out about the criticism and says, among other things, that she received hormone therapy to lower her testosterone levels before the Paris Olympics.
She also tells the newspaper that she has the SRY gene - a gene found on the Y chromosome that initiates the development of male characteristics.
"We all have different genetics and different hormone levels. I am not transgender. My difference is natural. It is who I am. I have done nothing to prevent the way nature created me," says the boxer.
Would like to be tested
Now the boxer is aiming to defend her Olympic gold medal at the 2028 Los Angeles Games, and she is ready to get tested.
"If I have to take a test, I will. I won't have a problem with that," says Imane Khelif.
Previously, the Algerian boxer has otherwise refused to be tested.
In September 2025, she appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to have World Boxing's decision overturned when the boxing federation introduced a mandatory gender test requirement to compete in their competitions.
Earlier this year, World Boxing received the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) blessing to host the Olympic boxing competitions after the IOC cut ties with the International Boxing Association (IBA).
This means that Imane Khelif must now take a test at World Boxing if she wants to qualify for the Olympics.
And this is the most relevant passage:
In an interview with L'Equipe, the boxer now speaks out about the criticism and says, among other things, that she received hormone therapy to lower her testosterone levels before the Paris Olympics. She also tells the newspaper that she has the SRY gene - a gene found on the Y chromosome that initiates the development of male characteristics. "We all have different genetics and different hormone levels. I am not transgender. My difference is natural. It is who I am. I have done nothing to prevent the way nature created me," says the boxer.
There are certainly quite a few that trace back to AFP, so they won't all be useful. There are also some that clearly don't. I haven't had a chance to sift through it all properly; it's just a first-instance look at what's out there.Clicriffhard (talk)16:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware of likely incoming links and canvassing from elsewhere
I'm aware of at least one thread linking from a Reddit page to this discussion pushing for a particular viewpoint and there's likely more from elsewhere on the internet (and several comments I've seen there discussing activating their old WP accounts for that specific purpose). Already, there's a number of accounts in the discussion above that, while not SPAs, are instead dormant accounts that haven't edited for months before suddenly joining this discussion (hence likely from linking). Just be aware of that going forward.SilverserenC04:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're confident that someone was canvassed, yes. I don't think that's doing any of us any good, irrespective of our positions on the recent reporting.Clicriffhard (talk)14:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That seems reasonable for those who express an opinion in an otherwise acceptable manner. Disruptive comments can just be removed and warnings issued. We should probably put a warning about canvassing at the top of the page.
If anybody who has been canvassed reads this then: Please think carefully before wading in. Matters are decided on the merit of the arguments and the quality of the sources not by the number of participants on each side. The people sending you here are really only wasting your time as well as ours. They are trying to use your head as a battering ram and that is as disrespectful to you as it is to everybody else here. You have no obligation to give yourself a headache on their account! --DanielRigal (talk)14:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The people being canvassed are already convinced the article has been censored for the sake of political correctness. Appealing to merits of arguments is a bit of a moot pointTrade (talk)22:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states: "Khelif became the target of online abuse and misinformation, including the false claim that she is a man, which was promoted by figures such as J. K. Rowling."
There is no neutrality in that statement. The position of the article has always been that Khelif is a biological female, and any evidence to the contrary is "false".
For what it's worth, I was not canvassed. I have been visiting this page for well over a year, waiting to see if the article will ever reflect a neutral view of the actual issue. Now that Khelif has finally made a public statement about the "XY" question, I wanted to see if it would be included, or ignored. And I wanted to share my opinion: that I want this page to provide neutral and true information, not one sided opinions about what is "true" and what is "false".Thunderbird L17 (talk)23:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much clearer I can be. Declaring something to be "false" without providing any evidence to support that declaration is not neutral. It's picking a side.Thunderbird L17 (talk)00:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read your mind and I honestly have no clue what you mean by that. I simply said I don't think the page as written is neutral, and provided the evidence for why I reached that conclusion. Nothing more, nothing less.Thunderbird L17 (talk)00:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather bizarre, now that we have a statement from Khelif confirming years of rumors that she has an intersex condition, for people to act like not only is Khelif inarguably a biological female, but that it is preposterous to suggest otherwise. Being intersex means, by definition, that you don't fit cleanly into the sex binary. This isn't like being transgender where the individual's opinion has bearing. It's more like if someone has breast cancer... whether they believe they do is irrelevant to the question of whether they have it. — Megiddo1013 09:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone accused you of being canvassed, only that this discussion has been posted to off-wiki forums, and that there may be commenters who were canvassed. But prior to this RFC, what"neutral and true information" has been excluded for well over a year?Nil🥝23:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into the weeds, but this was a big one for me: When questions first arose, IOC President Bach stated in a press conference: "But I repeat, here, this isnot a DSD case". The IOC later issued an official correction stating what was intended was: "But I repeat, here, this isnot a transgender case.
Make of that what you will, but for me it heavily implies the IOC admitted from the beginning that thisis a DSD case. That significant correction has always been excluded from this page. And the entire page is framed as being a transgender case, when that accusation has never even been made. It has always been about a male DSD.Thunderbird L17 (talk)00:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to knock off using needlessly offensive terms like "male DSD" before you wind up at one of the Administrators' Noticeboards. That's simply not acceptable when talking about a woman. You could just say "DSD" but you choose to be offensive. It's gratuitous and serves to demean nobody but yourself.DanielRigal (talk)00:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm trying to be clear. The entire point of this discussion is about whether or not to allow on to the page Khelif's statement about having XY chromosomes. Therefore the sex is entirely relevant. I don't want to say anything more on the matter.Thunderbird L17 (talk)01:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure if you understand what Khelif stated in that interview, since it does not have to do with whether or not she possesses XY chromosomes. At most it has to do with the SRY gene (an interpretation of her words that is not unambiguous), which can also have been translocated to other genes[45] and be possessed by people who have XX chromosomes ([46][47]).Katzrockso (talk)01:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why we need high-quality sources, and not breaking news based on an interview, to make these contentious claims in a biography of a living person, because editors seem to not be capable of suggesting we should introduceWP:SYNTHESIS into the articlespace.Katzrockso (talk)02:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear though, the RfC doesn't suggest that we introduce synthesis. It asks whether we should "mention that Khelif has reportedly stated that she has the SRY gene" and/or quote her - nothing about XY chromosomes or anything else.Clicriffhard (talk)03:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that. I am responding to the editor above's claims that we should rewrite the article to be abouta male DSD [sic] andwhether or not to allow on to the page Khelif's statement about having [sic] XY chromosomes.Katzrockso (talk)03:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sex-determining region Y protein (SRY), or testis-determining factor (TDF), is a DNA-binding protein (also known as gene-regulatory protein/transcription factor) encoded by the SRY gene that is responsible for the initiation of male sex determination in therian mammals (placentals and marsupials).
It also says:
In humans, the SRY gene is located on short (p) arm of the Y chromosome at position 11.2
Just talking about XY chromosomes would not be synthesis, but giving additional context on what the SRY gene is. Saying Khelif has stated having XY chromosomes would be misattribution however.Historyexpert2 (talk)03:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the sourcing atSRY gene is presumably (and certainly should be)WP:MEDRS-compliant. Publications like Le Monde and The Independent may be high-quality sources for what Khelif told L'Equipe, but they clearly aren't adequate sources for any sort of biomedical claim about what the SRY gene is or does. I don't think we could give that extra context, beyond linking toSRY gene and letting people click through if they wish.Clicriffhard (talk)03:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, going from "Imane Khelif has the SRY gene" to "Imane Khelif has XY chromosomes" would be SYNTH and any editor who doesn't understand that should not be editing BLP.Katzrockso (talk)03:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very dishonest misrepresentation of my position, and a misuse of [sic]. I said what I said, please don't try to rewrite it into something else.Thunderbird L17 (talk)03:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those should be less than 0.005%- the 46,XX SRY positive female case report is presumably due to two independent events, aTranslocation (genetics) of the entire loci happened, together with something like aNonsense mutation of SRYOpen reading frame (which shouldn't be related). As you calculate the probability of this happening it's best to multiply the numbers, you arrive in odds of 0.0000001%, I think (which is why there is a case report about it).Burcet95 (talk)05:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You only multiply the probabilities if the two events are independent. Here, they would not be independent.[48] And as has been pointed out by others, our article should be making no medical claims withoutWP:MEDRS. Neither statistical claims without a reliable statistical source. All we have is a completely unambiguous confirmation that she has female phenotype, but with the SRY gene. There is also a slightly more ambiguous admission that she has elevated testosterone that is medically controlled. That is all. She has not admitted to having a Y chromosome.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the second sentence of your comment. Point mutations that inactivate the gene have been described, such as N2* and Y98*, the gene did not translocate, that's a change in the code.[49][50]. If this is due to randomSkewed X-inactivation then it's either 1. a random independent event, 2. a different mutation in a completely different chromosome and loci (see[51]) I don't think your source supports your claim.
^For examples of arbitration cases that refer to this policy's parameters, see:Rachel Marsden case, 28 November 2006: "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry."
Manning naming dispute, 16 October 2013: "Thebiographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page."
I don't know if we've gotten this flat a statement from Khelif before, but sincethis has come up multiple times and in the current RfC, atleast one editor is arguing we don't need to state that she's not transgender because no one has called her that, I think the fact Khelif herself is saying it is further support for stating it, sohere is Al-Jazeera directly quoting Khelif.Valereee (talk)13:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone arguing that nobody has called her transgender is either not engaging in good faith or lacks the competence to edit here. Full stop. The number of right-wing commentators who have called her transgender or called her a man or used her as an example of why they want to ban transgender women from women's sports is almost mind-boggling. It's the fundamental root of all of the controversy, and thevery reason there is disagreement here. There is simply no way for a competent editor to honestly believe that nobody has ever called her transgender.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PerTewdar above (comment of 14:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)), we should just say in Wikivoice: "she is not transgender". There's no doubt about that. The article should certainly mention Trump's characterisation of her as trans (and whenever Trump spouts nonsense, there's clearly a fanbase who repeat and seek to amplify his nonsense, so clearly not Trump alone). I'm not sure if that's leadworthy. Just be clear in the lead that she is not trans, that she was born female and throughout her life has only competed in women's sports. That's all clear and uncontested and can go in wikivoice without needing denials (which curiously can be taken by some to find doubt where there is none).Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)17:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tewdar above (comment of 14:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)), we should just say in Wikivoice: "she is not transgender". There's no doubt about that. - yes, exactly. I have seen literally no reliable sourcing for the idea that she's ever transitioned, and you don't need medical evidence to prove that she still considers herself a woman when she's said so herself; that just isn't how identity works. And if we want the article to clarify that she isn't transgender, it's obviously much clearer to say "she is not transgender" than to rely on statements about "male/female", when those words are used to refer to all kinds of things including gender identity, gender recorded at birth, genotypic sex, phenotypic sex, legal sex, and so on. You can only be confident of avoiding BLP issues by being explicit.
I would personally prefer that the transgender claims were only in the article's body, as they have no consequence for Khelif's career, but that's part of a wider argument for cutting down the lead from the needlessly maximalist form that it currently takes.Clicriffhard (talk)18:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think, given that people have tried to conflate her with trans women in sports, it is important to include that statement, even if it's only as a single sentence referenced to the al-Jazeera piece. And I have to agree withᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants: anyone claiming that nobody has said that Khelif is trans is clearly acting in bad faith —OwenBlacker(he/him;Talk)17:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support including that Khelif is not transgender, either via quotation or in Wikivoice. Fine with keeping it in the lead as well. Ideally after the current RfC, we can dramatically shrink the lead and keep details in the body, where they can have appropriate nuance and hopefully will also be less of an editing lightning rod. Ideally it would be something like, "Imane Khelif is an Algerian boxer. <sports accomplishments, medals, olympics>. Starting in 2023, Khelif was involved in a series of controversies regarding sex verification in women's boxing, including false accusations that she was transgender. [if RfC passes] In 2026, Khelif acknowledged having the SRY gene, involved in triggering aspects of masculine development in humans." And then any more detail would be found in the body.Woshiwaiguoren (talk)19:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer stating that allegations that she is trans are false as you wrote, rather than stating directly that she is not. You already know my feelings about the rest of your proposal, which don't belong in this section in any event.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeany wikivoice mention of transgender perWP:DUE.There is only tangential, gossip secondary reporting about it. There is no extensive secondary reporting about the fact, but about her own statement.Support attributed statement, per RS brought up.Historyexpert2 (talk)03:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is utterly incorrect and an astounding claim. Firstly, when the president of the United States calls you trans in a press conference, this has gone way beyond tangential gossip already. That alone should settle the matter. But, in fact, this has been closely analysed. For instance, in Domeneghetti, Roger and Fielding-Lloyd, Beth (eds) (2025)Sports Journalism and Identity. Cham:Palgrave Macmillan we have an actual secondary media analysis. They say, inter alia,
In the case of Khelif and Yu-ting, an analysis of language used in 42 articles from 25 different media publications was conducted. More articles were selected for this case due to the way in which the case garnered media attention during the Olympics, leading to proportionally more stories about these two athletes than the others featured in this chapter. (page 26)
And then proceed to conduct an analysis, looking particularly at usage of terms such as transgender. They conclude their analysis with:
In the case of Khelif and Yu-ting, the use of language either directly of indirectly implied that the two boxers at the heart of the eligibility row at the 2024 Olympics were transgender. If the narratives on trans women competing in women’s sport were less problematic, it is unlikely that these two athletes would have suffered or been targeted the way they were during the Games. (page 29)
WhenWP:BESTSOURCES are analysing the narrative and publishing on it, we are well beyond gossip. And for the avoidance of doubt, this book is not alone. Several books have provided an analysis of this event. It is very much due for the article, and the lead should certainly simply state that she is not transgender. None of this silliness about no evidence that she is transgender. She is not transgender, the lead should say as much in wikivoice.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)This comment was written prior to the above comment being edited[52] to remove wording ("tangential, gossip") I objected to hereSirfurboy🏄 (talk)20:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC) Comment was restored.[reply]
@Historyexpert2, I have to agree that's pretty astonishing. A public figure who has been accused of being or not being (whatever) issues a statement saying "I am X". It's reported in multiple RS. And among the accusers are the US President, caught on tape saying it and broadcast widely, and you're categorizing it as tangential gossip that isn't worth including?Valereee (talk)11:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in BLP articles, we must heavily favor strong sourcesand also WP:DUE. "Who is transgender and who is not" is one of the lowest gossip-level topics of discussion and in my analysis of the sources, I have hardly seen a case for WP:DUE. Talk about this person participating in the 2024 olympics, being from Algeria, having the SRY gene, but transgender almost nothing to do with it (as of current coverage).
Well, two best I've found so far are Al-jazeera and CNN both quoting Khelif. Pretty much a slam dunk for 'Khelif has stated, "I am not transgender".' And I'm sorry, I'm sure you're operating in complete good faith, but when an article subject thinks it's DUEIRL to respond to malicious gossip by a world figure, I think it's kind of silly for WP editors to argue it isn't DUE in the article about that person.
I am in agreement that those can only be used to say Khelif said she was not transgender, not that she is not transgender. I updated my response to reflect that. However, extrapolating her statements would beWP:OR, in a similar vein to SRY.
Possibilities are that she might be in the closet, or she did not understand English (in a similar vein to SRY). So I am just using this as an example to show why it cannot be said in Wikivoice that she is not transgender, as it would violate OR and BLP.Historyexpert2 (talk)20:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyexpert2, please don't update your response by removing things. You canstrike what you want to remove andunderscore what you want to add. Or you can add an ETA: line to it. But simply changing it once it's been replied to makes it difficult for people to follow the conversation.Valereee (talk)21:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyexpert2 You edited your own comments much more than that. You had said something about tangential gossip, etc, and multiple people responded to it, and then you removed it. People are already starting to feel like they have to add notes saying things like ("This comment was written prior to the above comment being edited to remove wording ("tangential, gossip") I objected to here". This is why we do not edit comments that have already been replied to. Please go put back what you originally said, and please spend some time atWP:TALKPAGE and the PAG it links to.Valereee (talk)22:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why we are playing this game.WP:THREE is about finding the three best sources in an article notability discussion. What is at issue here isWP:DUE, and Domeneghetti & Fielding-Lloyd have amply made the case this is due in a comment just above that you did not address.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)20:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Khelif and Yu-ting, the use of language either directly of indirectly implied that the two boxers at the heart of the eligibility row at the 2024 Olympics were transgender.
I do not see any history that this publication is open to factual corrections, even less than Valree sources (CNN and AJ). If so, WP:ONUS is on you to point them out.
If there are no facts to correct or the idea of "factual correction" does not apply, then it is certainly subject to WP:RSOPINION and should be used in as an attributed expert opinion. But even then I do not believe "experts" exist abouttransvestigation, and by WP:DUE, opinion sourcing is discouraged for contentious BLP statements.Historyexpert2 (talk)22:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a book chapter, not a paper, although the chapter has a doi.[53] My reference above has the editors but I omitted the author, sorry. The author is Becky Thompson. The reference did, however, make clear the editors are editors. Unless you think the editors didn't do their job, there is no problem with this chapter as a reliable secondary source with editorial review.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)23:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is a chapter in a book edited by academics, published by Palgrave Macmillan, as I indicated. The chapter, if you were to read it, describes the methodology and tabulates the results. You can follow the same exercise although you presumably won't select the same 49 publications, but that shouldn't be necessary, because, in fact, this secondary source will show you what is blinking obvious if you even make half a start of analysing this matter. Your whole suggestion that this is undue is simply wrong. It is clearly due, it is perfectly clear that there was a point where the transgender issue was widely discussed (not least because Donald Trump) and this source is not alone in reporting this. But I'm not going to persist with this. There are enough people throwing smokescreens in this discussion by casting doubt where there is none, and we don't need another one. If you don't know yet that a LOT of people thought she was trans, then you have some reading to do.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)23:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyexpert2, typically WP accepts CNN, Al-jazeera, and academic publications as generally reliable. If you have questions about that,WP:RSN is the place to take them. But if you're going to come into a CT talk page and start insisting CNN, Al-jazeera, and academic publications aren't reliable, you're going to end up at a behavior noticeboard.Valereee (talk)00:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting me by saying that I think all sources are unreliable.
Expert sources (op-eds, narrative peer-reviewed articles): perWP:RSOPINION, reliable as a secondary source for statements of facts, considered as attributable primary sources for the opinion contained.
Based on that (and my vote which I updated way before your response), I believe there is enough to say that Khelif said she is not transgender, but per BLP considerations, there is not enough to say in wikivoice that she is not transgender. I further believe time will yield more secondary reliable sourcing relating this topic and it is not a good look to hastily include disputed content, especiallytransvestigations, on BLP topics.
I'm not threatening, I'm warning. And "answering negative" is not a behavioral issue. Disruptive editing at a CT talk page is. Your discussion in this section is difficult to understand. Many of your sentences are very odd. You first said the source sirfurboy was giving wasn't RS, now you're saying it is. Are you using AI?Valereee (talk)00:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I pointed to RSOPINION which says opinions must be attributed, and to the BLP policy which prevents using opinion sources as statements of facts on BLPs. Hencewhy they are unreliable fortransvestigating Khelif, but reliable for serving as an inline citation of her quote.
Maybe it would help if you'd write in complete grammatical sentences and mention exactly which source you're talking about when you say it's not good enough for whatever it is you say it's not good enough for. You're saying things like "I do not see any history that this publication is open to factual corrections, even less than Valree sources (CNN and AJ)". And "Hencewhy they are unreliable for transvestigating Khelif, but reliable for serving as an inline citation of her quote.". And "Review is loosely defined. This is why we look at the history of fact-checking when determining if a publication is a reliable secondary source." I do not know what points you are making with these statements. At any rate, if I can't understand the point you're making, it's quite likely a closer won't be able to either, and will discount them.Valereee (talk)09:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My response appears glossed over because of a similar discussion had with this editor, where he argues by virtue of the authors being 'scholars' or 'academics', primary RSOPINION claims can treated as identical to secondary sources. And not only that, but override WP:DUE and a plurality of generally reliable secondary RS.Historyexpert2 (talk)16:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to personalise the discussion, you had better supply some diffs. I am not sure if you are talking about me, and if you are, I have no idea what this refers to.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)17:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is enough to say that Khelif said she is not transgender, but per BLP considerations, there is not enough to say in wikivoice that she is not transgender. is not congruent withI further believe [...] it is not a good look to hastily include disputed content, especially transvestigations, on BLP topics. She is not transgender. We know that. She was assigned female at birth, raised female, only competed in women's sports and still identifies as female. To suggest we do not have enough evidence to say she is not transgender, despite her saying she is not, is the very definition of transvestigation.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)07:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do not rely on leaps of logic, but reporting in reliable secondary sources. Currently, all the reliable secondary sources I have seen from Valereee do attribute it to her saying. Unless this topic evolves further, my opinion on writing it in WikiVoice is unlikely to change, given that having a third party claim whether you are transgender or not based on guesses can be considered poorly sourced libel and is not a good fit for a BLP.Historyexpert2 (talk)16:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to GLAAD, Khelif does not identify as transgender or intersex.
Although,
Some of this information may be outdated by recent and upcoming coverage (such as SRY gene, upcoming sex testing)
GLAAD is a thematic source about transgender, intersex, gay. So even though it is generally reliable, I would think it is not the best source here since advocacy organizations have strong opinions about their topic of advocacy. Hencewhy I would support giving it attribution.
No, this would technically violate BLP. Hencewhy I support only:According to Khelif, she is not transgender.Khelif does not identify as transgender.orKhelif stated she is not transgender.But not,Khelif is not transgender.I would switch to the second too if I were to see quotes of multiple secondary (not primary or opinion) sources saying it (ONUS).Historyexpert2 (talk)00:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with M. Bitton. There is no other option here thanKhelif is not transgender. Any amount of qualifying a clear and unambiguous fact, a fact which if disbelieved could cause serious real world harm to the subject of the article, is a BLP violation.Loki (talk)01:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your source, I would beOK with "is not transgender". But would prefer "does not identify as transgender" because this formulation is slightly more aligned withWP:NOTADVOCACY. But I do not believe there is a sourcing issue for "is not transgender" anymore.Historyexpert2 (talk)04:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WhatM.Bitton said. There is no reason to believe she is transgender, other than an unevidenced claim by an unrecognised sporting body based in a country with extreme (and arguably genocidal) hostility towards LGBTQ+ people and an unevidenced claim by a world leader who is renowned for inventing "facts".
There are, however, plenty of reliable sources pointing to Khalifnot being trans. I would suggest it isclearly appropriate to state "Khalif is not transgender" or to refer to "false claims that Khalif were transgender", both in wikivoice.
@Historyexpert2, all three of your preferred constructions introduce doubt that it's true she's not transgender. I do not think WP should be introducing doubt about something that is not in doubt. If someone was AFAB, raised as a girl, and has always presented as female, she's not transgender, period. Why would we need to parse that?Valereee (talk)20:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is about a professional tone of writing, not about doubting. Earlier, my concerns were more about sourcing and BLP issues also, but those resolved after provided with secondary sources. I do not see any concern with either formulation now, but would favor nonetheless identifies as, for a more professional, disinterested writing style.Historyexpert2 (talk)05:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
ChangeIn a February 2026 interview with CNN, Khelif revealed that she has high level of testosterone to either "...a high level of testosterone" or "high levels of testosterone". Many thanks. Tewdar 21:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this sentence is grammatically awkward as a whole. Here's how I think it should be rephrased:
−
In a February 2026 interview with CNN, Khelif revealed that she has highlevel oftestosterone which she has been reducing under medicalsupervision,andthatsheiswilling to undergo the mandatory sex verification tests required by the IOC.
+
In a February 2026 interview with CNN, Khelif revealed that she has highlevels oftestosterone, which she has been reducing under medicalsupervision;shealsoindicatedherwillingness to undergo the mandatory sex verification tests required by the IOC.
Moved fromUser talk:M.Bitton
Done -MPGuy2824 (talk)05:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
