A fact from Sex verification in sports appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 July 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for
GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
I have added a disputed neutrality template to this article per
WP:NPOV.
As another editor has pointed out in a previous discussion, this article reads as a one-sided opinion piece in opposition to sex verification.
The article mentions no or minimal arguments in support of sex verification, in contrast to multitude of arguments in opposition. It uses weasel words (
MOS:WEASEL) when attributing some of these arguments: e.g. "Scholars question", "commentators question", "others opposed" and "has been regarded by many".
MOS:SCAREQUOTES are also used: e.g. considered "unfair" , not being "true" women and "unfemineinity". Expressions of
MOS:DOUBT are used when the basis of sex verification is discussed: "The protocols claimed", "perceived to give unfair advantage".
Factual assertations in the article are often sourced to commanteries, essays or other opinionated sources. While this can be acceptable, the fact that the majority of the sources seem to oppose and no sources appear to support sex verification further implies bias in the article itself.
I see no reason in the policy why my above concerns would be wrong. Could you more specifically tell what you disagree with? I think you have also misunderstood my point about the sources. I am not advocating adding more biased sources from either side. For factual assertations neutral reputable sources would be best. In any case sources are not the main problem with this article.
Further examples of bias from the article:
A scholar questions whether men with androgen levels similar to those of women will be permitted to participate in the women's category or instead be granted the opportunity to increase their androgen levels to those of other males. This is the logical and fair result how policies using functional testosterone to decide eligibility to compete as a female or a male work for women.
Gender verification impacts numerous dimensions of athletes' lives, including unfair disqualification in sporting events, identity crisis and confusion, social isolation, depression, and suicide.
I agree with 86.50 that when citing a single source/paper, we should attribute that view to the author(s). That being said, if a view is widely cited or is the predominant one among scholars, then "scholars" is perfectly fine—but it should really be backed up with multiple citations.
However, I do think that 86.50 misunderstands our NPOV policy in general. It doesn't mean that articles need to be "neutral" in presenting both sides or that sources need to be "neutral", but that we, as editors, must neutrally summarize the significant viewpoints found in reliable sources. Sources can be biased (per
WP:BIASED) and this doesn't make them unreliable or wrong. If the majority of reliable sources are opposed to sex verification, then our article should reflect that. If we're missing significant reliable sources that are in favor of sex verification, then we should include them. (This would not be "adding more biased sources", it would be making the article compliant with NPOV.) If the reliable sources in favor of sex verification are not significant, then it may be appropriate to exclude them entirely, per
WP:UNDUE.
My limited understanding of the subject is that most reliable sources are opposed to sex verification, and for all sorts of reasons. If that's the case, then this article is neutral, but could probably use some cleanup. 86.50, if you know of sources that counter those being used in the article, you'll need to bring them here for discussion. These would likely need to be
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Likewise, if you think sources are being misused in the article, you'll need to be specific and mention which ones and why.
Woodroar (
talk)
18:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think that sources discussing policy and public opinion need to be
MEDRS-compliant. Sources about efficacy or (medical) effects of sex verification methods of course would.
Speaking of MEDRS, this article has a problem with sourcing some of those claims from non-compliant sources:
"Overall, a great amount of research has been conducted proving that both hormones and chromosomes should not be held responsible for depicting characteristics of one's biological sex. While hormones can be used in correlation with biological sex, they cannot solely portray the difference between an individual being male or female sex."[1]
This claim of medical consensus is sourced from an essay in Women's Studies in Communication (not a medical journal, or even neutral).
"Moreover, the requirement to lower testosterone levels can have adverse impacts on athlete's health, as side effects may include: excessive thirst, urination and electrolyte imbalances, disruption of carbohydrate metabolism, headache, fatigue, nausea, hot flushes, and liver toxicity. ..."[2]
This is sourced from an argumentative article in Social & Legal Studies - a journal with "commitment to feminist, anti-colonial and socialist economic perspectives to the study of law". Again, not a medical journal or remotely MEDRS-compliant.
"By contradicting her sex they were violating laws by international and national genetic privacy laws."
[3]
The editor adding this seems to have copied the phrase "international and national genetic privacy laws" from the abstract, but the paper does not claim those were violated
I think this for example
[4] could be a very good source for more balanced commentary about reasons behind sex verification. Testosterone limits are described there as "complicated, highly charged question involving fair play, gender identity, biology and human rights", and it has some nice quotes from both sides of the debate.
I think this
NPOV dispute could have been avoided had you attempted to
resolve some of the issues you've
identified instead of
tagging this article and
resurrecting a three-year-old dispute. Here are some suggestions for resolving the examples of purportedly non-
MEDRS sources:
Example One: You could tag the cite with {{
unreliable source?}}, if that's your position.
Example Two: The source cited to in the article itself cites from several MEDRDS-compliant journals, including the
BMJ and the
American Journal of Bioethics. You could review those cites and add them, since they are MEDRS.
Example Three: The paragraph with that sentence begins: "A scholar questions whether men with androgen levels similar to those of women will be permitted to participate in the women's category or instead be granted the opportunity to increase their androgen levels to those of other males." The paragraph then goes on to explain the argument in the paper cited to, which is correctly described in the abstract. I agree with you that the paragraph is inartfully drafted you could likely
improve it.
Finally, as for the NY Times story, it appears to highlight some alternative arguments, as you suggested. You could add that in the appropriate place in the article to add further context.
voorts[1]03:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I've removed the disputed neutrality tag, because I don't think there's much of a real dispute here. This appears to just be 86.50's misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. It doesn't mean every article has to be written with a view from nowhere, and in fact
explicitly prohibits that. Instead, it means that articles must follow the sources, whatever they say. If the sources are very critical of a practice, as they are here, we say so.
Loki (
talk)
01:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply