Talk:Laurel Hubbard

August 2021 edits

Sparkle1, stop edit warring. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, make a case for your changes here. Why your edits are disruptive has been explained in edit summaries. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And regarding these personal attacks by you? Which sources have I been using that are unreliable? Do tell. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sparkle1, I can't believe you are doing this yet again, after three previous attempts in less than 13 hours. You are in violation of the WP:3RR and must self-revert. This is pure disruptive tagging. Template:Who is clear: If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague. It is a fact reported in numerous reliable sources on this topic that the IOC guidelines have been criticized due to post-2015 research showing these advantages. We are not going to leave this tagged forever, or WP:CENSOR it, because you personally don't like what the sources said or how they said it. Pinging Aircorn as someone who has edited this article most recently between your reverts. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sparkle is right, something generally being considered a reliable source does not necessarily mean everything they publish is of equal value. And your particular interest in the field of trans-related articles makes me question your objectivity. --Pokelova (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So you have nothing but personal attacks. That's great. The editor who is clearly misusing templates is totally objective, presumably. And the fact is that the material is supported by a wide variety of top-shelf sources. The idea that they are all wrong about this is preposterous, and is clearly POV original research and special pleading given that no sources dispute this. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they were wrong, they're just not very good because they do not provide important details. --Pokelova (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources that specify which exact scientists don't exist as far as I know. We're not going to exclude that fact because news outlets didn't name every single scientist, and even if they did, it would be absurd for us to. This doesn't make the sources unreliable. To say that reliable sources should not be included or should be permatagged because they are not written to personal satisfaction is unsupported by any policy and is clearly special pleading. Again, Template:Who is clear that sources can be like that. As for "recently", I suppose one would say "research conducted after 2015" or the like, but it isn't necessary. And as for the exact "advantages", well, I suppose we could quote the Guardian directly, but then it could be argued that it is excessive detail and/or emphasis on one source. It's clear that this tagging is not reasonably satisfiable and hence disruptive. We are supposed to summarize reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The edit warring is wrong. However, this content is clearly disputed. I agree with the tags and would further support the removal of any content that asserts anything without naming specific research or scientists. Newspapers are not WP:MEDRS (WP:MEDPOP) or good sources for science, and the claims here are medical and scientific; when it's quoting a named scientist in a specific capacity we can trust them to accurately report what the scientist said, but when it's summarizing some unnamed sources without citation, it's just not good enough. — Bilorv (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There were some recent edits [1] ("remove tag bombing and incorporate an actual journal article), [2] ("remove Washington Post source as it does not mention criticism"), [3] (no edit summary), that I am inclined to undo based on this pending discussion about the tags (the recent edits also removed the tags) and due to the removal of an independent and reliable source that also appears to support how a BLP about Hubbard becomes WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE with such an emphasis on tangential issues. I think simply writing The decision attracted criticism due to concerns about a biological advantage., and then removing the disputed, and from my view WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, and now including a WP:PRIMARY source line, The applicable International Olympic Committee guidelines have been criticized by some scientists, with multiple papers concluding that people who undergo male puberty retain significant athletic advantages in strength and speed even after testosterone suppression.[b][30][31] and just leave the Reuters and Independent articles at the end of the revised sentence. However, due to this pending discussion, I would like to hear from participants and discuss it further. I plan to restore the Washington Post article because it is WP:IMPARTIAL and we are warned against creating WP:FALSEBALANCE, i.e. plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship, and I think these principles also apply to our consideration of how to describe the disputed content and how much of it should be included in a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And after more closely reviewing one of the additions of the recent edits, i.e. the Hilton and Lundberg review study referenced by news articles, its Discussion section includes, "further research is required in athletic transgender populations," and appears to be focused on the tangential issue of IOC and other sport guidelines, not Hubbard. The ultimate conclusion is a proposal that "each individual sports federation evaluate their own conditions for inclusivity, fairness and safety." How this evolving science is incorporated into Wikipedia seems to be a matter for discussion at Transgender people in sports, not this BLP, and the WP:BLP policy states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion., and it does not appear that we have strong sourcing to support the general statement 'multiple papers conclude' with the current general statement related to the purported conclusion, when the discussion section of studies, including the WP:PRIMARY source recently added, address limitations and needs for additional research. Beccaynr (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Beccaynr I agree that this article should not be used as a surrogate for transgender people in sports. However, if the controversy about Hubbard's participation is going to be mentioned in this article - which in my view is justified by the amount of coverage - then there does need to be a discussion about why it is controversial, i.e. why people are objecting to her participation. The Guardian source is explicit in linking these newly published papers to Hubbard's case, though I agree it's a fine line in making sure the article is purely about Hubbard. I would suggest possibly some wording like "as part of the broader controversy around transwomen at the Olympics" and then the specifics can be shifted to that article. I don't have an issue with the Washington Post source, but it was placed after a sentence which it does not actually support hence the removal. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the term "criticism" used in an edit summary is the neutral voice that should be adopted for this article, not the term "controversy." There appears to be a clear line in WP:BLP policy that is being crossed by the WP:UNDUE inclusion of WP:COATRACK tangents that are not focused on Hubbard and have another article in which the evolving science can be more clearly and accurately discussed. The wording you added also appears to be unclear based on the sources, even if it is appropriate to include. Given the disputed nature of the content, and the WP:BLP concerns, I believe it should be removed immediately per policy and until consensus exists for inclusion of a version that is within guidelines and policy. Also, from my review, The Washington Post article did support the sentence after which it was added, but I will review it again before restoring it. Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Trans women" should be written as two words as it has negative connotations when written as one. I think trying to be as concise as possible and linking to transgender people in sports#Olympics is a reasonable approach. — Bilorv (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) The reference to BRD and STATUSQUO above is intriguing since the content in question was only added last week, so those policies would in fact prescribe removal ("R") since there are issues with the content, while the issues are discussed ("D"), even though I think the better approach was to leave the content but with the issues highlighted. (This has the nature of BRD backwards, too.) (struck) Several of the issues seem simple to resolve or sidestep; for example, is it actually necessary to say "recently"? If not, then the issue of when "recently" is goes away; I see recent edits seem to have taken this approach.
Even the BBC—which would generally be considered reliable, perhaps even "top shelf", for most things—was caught in 2019 running an article about how "concerns were raised" to the British Medical Journal about a (different) trans-related matter, without the authors of that article or the BBC's editors disclosing that the "concerns" were authored by the same two journalists who were then reporting on them (who says citogenesis is only for Wikipedia?), so there's reason to be cautious when sources, even generally-reliable sources, follow one another in reporting something in such a vague, handwavy way that so many details are left anonymous. -sche (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This other incident is hardly relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After reviewing WP:STATUSQUO, and its reminder about how contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, I removed some recent additions and implemented a version of my suggested revision above, and incorporated Bilorv's suggestion about linking to the transgender people in sports#Olympics article. My expectation is discussion will continue here, but we can now focus on whether, how, and where to include disputed content, instead of having it published while WP:BLP (and WP:NPOV) concerns are raised in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV

Also, Ivar the Boneful, you have also continued to make changes to the article. For your recent restoration of content I previously removed per the edit summary that linked to policy, "rm text per WP:BLPPUBLIC and insufficient reliable sources to support inclusion," it contained a link that I hoped would be clear about what was necessary to support inclusion. I encourage you to revert your restoration and make a case for inclusion with appropriate sources here before restoring the content. Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneful, your restoration was reverted [4] by -sche before I had a chance to add diffs here to make my comment more clear about what I was referring to [5], but to clarify, now that you have again restored the disputed content [6], I encourage you to undo your restoration, review the policy and support inclusion here per policy before continuing to add the disputed material. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Beccaynr I have again reverted your removal of this content, I think you've misunderstood WP:BLPREMOVE - "contentious" refers to contention over the facts, i.e. verifiability, not "contentious" in the sense that an editor objects to its inclusion for other reasons, in which the standard rules of WP:BRD apply. In your latest edit summary you cited a series of guidelines, can you elaborate further on these? I'm struggling to see anything in WP:NOTSCANDAL that is applicable. In WP:NOTNEWS, I would not class this as "routine news reporting", would you say it falls under "celebrity gossip and diary"? I would argue that one of New Zealand's largest news outlets suing to overturn a suppression order pushes this beyond that threshold, especially when it received in-depth coverage from multiple major news outlets (see also a follow up story here which is not used in the article for relevance reasons, but does demonstrate ongoing coverage rather than a single story). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

In the discussion above, I first cited WP:BLPPUBLIC, which includes, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. I later removed it [7] per the discussion here, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIARY, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Per WP:NOTNEWS, e.g., Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and this is related to WP:NOTDIARY, e.g., Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are and WP:NOTSCANDAL, which includes a reminder that Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard. When -sche deleted the material [8], they raised a concern about WP:DUE, and I think this is a key consideration, including because Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and per WP:PROPORTION, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. The material that you have continued to add despite the request to discuss it here appears to be poorly-sourced per WP:BLPPUBLIC, the type of material discouraged from inclusion per WP:NOT, and disproportionate to the overall topic per WP:NPOV. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE also seems relevant, i.e. To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. I therefore request that you remove the material, which has been previously removed by two editors based on good-faith BLP objections, until consensus is obtained about its compliance with Wikipedia content policies. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneful, I refactored the Talk page discussion for this content, because it appeared [9] as if your restoration of the disputed content again was at least in part due to an objection to my reference to WP:STATUSQUO, which was actually related to a different discussion. Hopefully the refactoring will make discussion more clear going forward. Also, after thinking on this more, and WP:BLP generally, including 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, and observing the delete log revdel of an obviously fake version of this content as a serious WP:BLP violation, and with the asserted claim of significance seeming to relate more to the news outlet, not Hubbard, I am going to remove the content per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and the concerns outlined above while the discusion continues. Beccaynr (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've been directed here due to my edit RE: Hubbard being charged for her role in a car crash. I'm a bit confused by this discussion. If Stuff isn't a reliable source then why have other edits that rely upon Stuff as a source allowed to remain in the article? Lemonpip (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your addition because a variety of policies appear to be implicated, as noted in the discussion above. Please note that the verifiability policy includes: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included and The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Who is disputing the inclusion of this content other than you? It's very difficult for me to see why it shouldn't be included. It's pretty standard, where a famous person has some kind of history of being accused of criminal offences (even if not convicted) for it to be included in their article. And the fact that the news of the charges were suppressed and this was reported on in multiple notable outlets to me indicates that it's worthy of inclusion. No, Wikipedia isn't a gossip tabloid, but where a living person has attracted media coverage over criminal conduct that they've pled guilty to in court, how is that not notable? Lemonpip (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

At the very least it is WP:undue. Aircorn (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? Lemonpip (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it goes into too much detail on a relatively minor incident in her personal life. The amount of coverage we give is proportional to the coverage the subject gets in reliable sources. There could be a case made for a small mention, but given this is a BLP the onus is on those looking to add it to prove this small mention is warranted. Aircorn (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the discussion above about a previous attempt to include this content, -sche also disputed inclusion. I also think Hubbard is relatively unknown, which means we should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. She is notable for her participation in the Olympics, which appears to weigh against inclusion of something "discharged without conviction" [10]. WP:BLPCRIME discusses how for a nonpublic figure like Hubbard, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Other policies also appear to weigh against inclusion, as discussed above. Beccaynr (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. Lemonpip (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Budgett quote

The Richard Budgett quote was very recently added and should also be removed then. If the news reporting on multiple scientists and studies is removed as supposedly a coatrack and too vague, then surely the quote of a single person alluding to unspecified and uncited "other disadvantages of going through transition" to counter the effects of puberty is much worse. Where are the WP:MEDRS supporting this? How could this sound bite possibly be WP:DUE while an entire review article and multiple scientists were excluded as 'too much detail'? And all the more so because Budgett himself admits that the current IOC guidelines are outdated, as the Guardian reports: In a notable shift, the IOC’s medical and science director, Dr Richard Budgett, said the science had moved on – and stressed that a new framework for sports would also focus on safety as well as fairness. It provides a misleading picture of his views by making him seem he endorses the status quo. That is WP:BLP questionable. This quote should be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Budgett is a medical expert and an Olympic official who I believe was commenting specifically on Hubbard—there is no other 2020 Olympic athlete competing in a category different to their birth sex, so far as I can tell. — Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Two scientists are named in the Guardian, plus non-specified "many scientists" were referred to by Reuters. All text about the scientists and studies has been purged from the article as a supposed coatrack, even though these articles were specifically about Hubbard and it was one sentence. These people were experts all the same. This quote is completely misleading readers about the science and makes MEDRS claims that are unsupported by MEDRS. Using this quote is POV cherry picking. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't necessarily oppose the use of The Guardian quotes from named scientists, but I've objected to the amorphous "many scientists" above. My comment above was more a description of what I researched before adding the quote that you objected to (meant more as relevant considerations than argument of a particular position). — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If the two in the Guardian were included, I probably would not bother talking about this one, but I don't think that would survive if it gets added. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps editing the quote down to the advocacy for additional research (which from my view, doesn't seem like an endorsement of the status quo) would help address the concerns raised here. Beccaynr (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That would certainly be a great improvement, though it still endorses a POV of "it's not settled" when some say it is settled. I don't see what even that meaningfully adds. Why not just stick to the short summary of 'there's a debate' right before it? Crossroads ^-talk- 16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen anything indicate the issue is settled beyond a need for further research, especially after looking at examples raised of the actual research. Overall, I am concerned about whether and how much these specific tangents belong in this BLP, and I would like to consider the term 'debate' further. I have some general concerns about the term but feel like I need some time to better articulate it. Beccaynr (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the debate is actually settled, and that certainly wouldn't go in the article. We just shouldn't imply one way or the other. If brevity and 'let's just direct readers to another article about the topic itself' is the way we're going, then just the preceding sentence is enough. Regarding the term "debate", that is a very soft term and well-supported. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My concern with the term 'debate' relates to the potential implication of WP:FALSEBALANCE, e.g. plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship and Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Also, 'debate' does not seem like the best term for clearly describing ongoing scientific study. Beccaynr (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "scientific discussion" in hopes this would be less of a sticking point, although this is watered down for my taste. Criticisms of the IOC's current policy are 'legitimate academic scholarship' and part of the mainstream. I'm not seeing any grounds for comparing this to fringe views like climate change denial, which is the sort of thing FALSEBALANCE usually refers to. Even Budgett himself recognizes that "the science has moved on" from the current IOC rules, and there is a new framework coming out soon. [11] Crossroads ^-talk- 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I revised and expanded the topic sentence of the paragraph to The decision attracted criticism related to ongoing scientific research of transgender people in sports and concerns about a biological advantage, as well as support for Hubbard's inclusion. I think this is a more clear and cautious way to frame the paragraph based on its contents and in the context of this BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Ongoing" makes it seem like scientists don't know anything yet; it's just still being researched. This is demonstrably false and creates POV text. There have already been meta-analyses and the IOC is drawing up new rules. Of course there will always be future research; that's beside the point. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

But even the cited research examples, including the meta-analysis, call for more research, as does Budgett. And as to how this relates to inclusion in Hubbard's BLP, I agree with Bilorv about trying to find a concise way to describe the context. While she competed, concerns were raised based on research that continues to develop. To describe it otherwise in this complex context seems to add a POV to scientific research that the studies themselves appear to disclaim. Beccaynr (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 edits

User:Beccaynr I see you are edit warring and ignoring the WP:BRD cycle once again. Is Reuters no longer a reliable source? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ivar the Boneful, Rab V first made an edit to add the word "potential" to "biological advantage" [12], with an edit summary, "wikivoice shouldn't make an assumption on open questions", which you then reverted [13] with an edit summary, "not an open question and not what the source says", I then reverted your reversion [14] with the edit summary "per https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/laurel-hubbard-new-zealand-weightlifter-transgender-b1894973.html, "biological advantage" is a position of 'critics of IOC policy" and went looking for the Talk page discussion where this issue had been previously discussed. In the meantime, you reverted again, [15], with the edit summary, "The source does not use the word potential, are you seriously disputing the existence of sex differences?", and I reverted [16] with a hastily typed edit summary, "see also Talk:Laurel_Hubbard#Budgett_quote, let's please contine the discussion there before continue to revert". You then again reverted [17] with an edit summary "refer Sex differences in human physiology#Muscle mass and strength, this is not an open question", which has since been reverted by Rab V [18], with an edit summary, "RS cited do not say this in their own voice so neither should we. Also Wikipedia is not a souce, IOC policy on trans athletes is also based on research that seems to show when trans athletes lose any advantage due to HRT." You then reverted again [19], with an edit summary, "refer the Reuters source which states "Many scientists have criticised these guidelines, saying they do little to mitigate the biological advantages of those who have gone through puberty as males", which was reverted [20], with an edit summary, "many scientists also disagree; their writing on HRT removing any competitive edge is what IOC policy is based on. wikivoice should not be used to pick sides in this case. please discuss on talk page instead of continuing to edit war", which you reverted again [21]. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Reuters does not in it's own voice make the claim you want wikipedia to make in it's own voice. 'Many scientists' is not the same as scientific consensus and in this case IOC policy is based off prior research that shows trans athletes who meet certain criteria do not have a distinct advantage. Rab V (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Rab V Please read the article, you seem to be going off on a tangent. I have already quoted it, I will quote it again: "Many scientists have criticised these guidelines, saying they do little to mitigate the biological advantages of those who have gone through puberty as males, including bone and muscle density." You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia's voice is. Stating "some people believe X" does not mean Wikipedia is endorsing X. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I see. As is written, the due clause reads as if it is in wikipedia's own voice and not a direct quote. Though if we are presenting one side of a debate vs. the side that seems more commonly accepted by major sports associations we can run into other issues. Rab V (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a common problem with multi-clause attributed views. How about "...as some athletes, scientists and campaigners questioned whether she had an unfair advantage; many scientists said she had biological advantages due to having gone through male puberty." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

For balance then we should also re-add the quotes from other scientists and Olympic officials on the other side as in [[22]] Rab V (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

As a general fyi, this issue was discussed above at Talk:Laurel_Hubbard#Budgett_quote, and I plan to keep thinking about possible language, but in the meantime wanted to offer the previous discussion for consideration. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, I noticed the current version of the article [23] links to a section of a Wikipedia article that does not support the blue-linked text, i.e. says nothing about puberty, and the sources appear to support the previous version, i.e. "potential" biological advantage, by using the term "generally" to refer to strength advantages (and say nothing about gender transitions, which seems to be the more relevant consideration of ongoing research and IOC policy, and our discussion about how to address this in the article). Should this current verion be reverted for now due to an apparently poorly-sourced addition in a BLP, i.e. because the source is represented as saying something it does not, and actually appears to offer more support for the previous version? Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. The editor who made those changes is also currently blocked and should have likely self reverted anyway for violating 3RR. Rab V (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Rab V, I made the change, with the expectation that we can continue discussing the exact wording as needed. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

If the sources don’t say potential we shouldn’t either. The fine points on debating the advantages or not are for other articles. Made it clear that this is their words, not Wikipedia’s. Plus got rid of the repetition. Aircorn (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I like your version more than the 'potential' version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Aircorn, I think your edit is helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Interview 2017 - 2003 Stockholm consensus

• “what most people probably don’t realise is that I actually satisfy the requirements of the 2003 Stockholm consensus.” espresso.economist.com
• “What most people probably don’t realize is that I actually satisfy the requirements of the 2003 Stockholm consensus, which were the original rules that the IOC agreed upon to allow participation of people like myself. So I am not competing under a recent rule change. I am competing under rules which have been in place now for 14 years.” dailywire.com

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 19:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified, and both of these sources refer to a 2017 interview for the quote, so it may be better to use the original source, which is also quoted and linked in a source currently in the Personal life section of the article (Stuff). Beccaynr (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Birth name

I had to check other websites to found that the birth name (Redacted)... this is not acceptable. A "born (Redacted)" should be added, all the people with name changes have the original name mentioned too on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.229.242 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use deadnames unless the person was previously notable under that name. See MOS:DEADNAME.-gadfium 04:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Double standards lmao 188.167.251.96 (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Laugh all you want. That is the current consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)