Talk:Laurel Hubbard

Sourcing and pronouns

(In reply to a query posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies): Two things jump out:

• A complete lack of sources for anything except the competition stats, despite many readily available—e.g., this one. Some folks are prone to hissy fits when LGBT status in BLP articles isn't sourced to the nth degree, so that should be fixed in a hurry.
• A bunch of unnecessary "he" pronouns—it could be reworded to avoid that.

I'm also not so sure about the description—"is a transgender weightlifter"; if she's a notable athlete in the first place, the modifier is probably extraneous there. Her trans woman status is noteworthy, per the news article I linked above, and maybe could be mentioned in a new next sentence. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I corrected the pronouns (per MOS:GENDERID) and added a reference in the Washington Post. I will look for more... Funcrunch (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also question the usage if a former name in the article. It is highly inappropriate in this context. ALBonnell (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would that be appropriate? HandsomeFella (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It is insane to consider that mention of Hubbard’s former name “would be inappropriate”. She won competitions as a man! Hubbard is a hugely controversial weightlifter and with the Olympics coming up in a few months’ time, she is becoming more controversial by the day. As such, all relevant facts that aren’t trivial are of note. Whatever is your side of the argument, that is the case. Wikipedia is not here to lambast anyone, neither is it here to mollycoddle anyone.Boscaswell talk 07:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: The relevant guideline is MOS:GENDERID as mentioned above. Being "hugely controversial" or "becoming more controversial by the say" is not relevant. Nor is it true that "all relevant facts that aren't trivial are of note". Wikipedia not being here to "mollycoddle anyone" is also irrelevant. It's not like we're suggesting excluding all mention that she is transgender or the controversy around her participation. Nor are we discussing excluding her achievements and records prior to transitioning. This is just about whether to include her dead name. This seems potentially to be a borderline case to me. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) doesn't have anything for weighlifting in particular. But generally winning competitions is not enough to automatically make a sports person notable. It's only if they win significant enough competitions. Being the NZ junior record holder is also unlikely to be enough. Even for athletics which tends to receive more attention than weightlifting, the requirement is for a world junior record. Maybe being the Executive Officer for Olympic Weightlifting New Zealand is enough but I'm not sure. Administrative positions in organisations like that often aren't particularly significant. Possibly the most likely criteria is basic WP:GNG i.e. finding enough source on Hubbard prior to her transition to establish she was notable under her former name. If this cannot be done then her dead name should be removed per the guideline. Since it's borderline I'm not going to remove it myself. I'm also not adding it back if someone else removes until and unless someone establishes she is notable under her former name. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Umm, if controversy is the only means of acquiring notability, then it is relevant.174.0.48.147 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversy isn't the only means of demonstrating notability. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed controversy often does not mean notability per WP:ONEEVENT. But also this is a flawed argument anyway. The controversy arose because of her participation in weightlifting as a sportswoman after her transition. Therefore it cannot be used as an argument for her being notable under her DEADNAME. Note other than meeting GNG and we generally don't really care why someone meets GNG provided ONEEVENT and similar issues are properly considered Hubbard likely meets NSPORTS because of her world championship medal and probably also because of her Pacific Games win and her participation in the Olympics would also be enough, and these are independent of any controversy other than as it may have affected her wins and selection. (In other words if there was no controversy she would still meet NSPORTS provided she still won and was selected.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

cross-sex hormones is not the way to say hormone replacement therapy in fact its rather insulting fix it

Done -- Jonel (Speak to me) 12:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Page says Hubbard is the first openly trans athlete to compete in the Olympics, but Quinn (soccer) is also competing in these Games and is openly trans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:8998:ee01:f86c:86:2ecf:d5c8 (talk • contribs)

I've added a qualifier (please adjust, or let me know to adjust, if necessary). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2021

Change Laurel Hubbard (born 9 February 1978) is a New Zealand weightlifter.

to

Laurel Hubbard (born 9 February 1978) born [redacted] is a New Zealand weightlifter. Natesroomrule (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Consensus is that she was not notable under her deadname. I've redacted the deadname from your request.-gadfium 19:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Was Eminem ever famous under the name of Marshall Bruce Mathers III? Why are both names (plus all the other names he's performed under over the years) included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 (talk • contribs)

He literally named two albums after himself. --Pokelova (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What about Cary Grant (Archibald Alec Leach)? I just want to understand when it's appropriate to include the subject's birth name and when it's not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 (talk • contribs)

It's not appropriate when it's not a non-notable deadname, that's it. --Pokelova (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing Reuters and BBC does not make it a scientific claim.

Hello!

She's getting a lot of hate online, so I was wondering what you wonderful people had compiled about her. This bit stood out for me:

"The decision attracted controversy. The applicable International Olympic Committee guidelines have been criticized by many scientists, due to recently published papers showing that people who went through male puberty retain significant advantages even after a year of testosterone suppression.[4][27]"

Reuters mentions "scientists" but gives no source nor name. BBC does neither. So why include that? It's baseless. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

However, quick googling gives some studies to support that claim, so perhaps those should be used instead?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/782557v1 systematic review https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865 individual study

Zeymad (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

According to our WP:Reliable sources guideline, Reuters and The Guardian are highly reliable sources for reporting that something is controversial and why. The following text from the sources is what supports it:

"However, the IOC’s decision has recently come under fire after scientific papers were published which said that people who have undergone male puberty retain significant advantages, including in power and strength, even after taking medication to suppress their testosterone levels. Last year, the scientists Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg found that the male performance advantage in weightlifting was 30% when compared to women. Their research indicated that even when transgender women suppressed testosterone for 12 months, the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength was only around 5%." [1]

"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." [2]

The Hilton and Lundberg paper specified by The Guardian is a review article and located here. This paper that you linked, by Harper et al., is another review article. I suspect that this one too may have played a role in why those media sources said what they did. If other editors want to add these as sources as well, I won't fight it, but as scientific papers they don't specify anything about Hubbard; that connection is made by the media sources, so it seems best to use those. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

First

Seeing all the edits about what, exactly, Hubbard was the "first" to do, I've been meaning to suggest: this seems like the kind of thing an {{efn}} would be good for. Say whatever is concisely accurate in the prose, and let an {{efn}} explain that some sources say "first trans athlete" but there were earlier ones (citing the refes used in recent edits). This would inform readers and hopefully forestall well-intentioned edits from ones who see reporting that says "first trans athlete" and might try to 'correct' what they think is inadvertently overly-narrow language on our part. (Besides Quinn, Alana Smith (skateboarder) is also at the Olympics.) -sche (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify it a little - and used an efn but for a slightly different purpose... Tvcameraop (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request

This one is pretty straightforward.

In the "Olympic Qualification" section it states that she qualified to "compete in the women's 87-kilogram category", however she competed in the +87-kilogram category, which is one weight category up.

It's linked to the correct page in Wikipedia for the +87, so all you need to do is change the "87" to "+87" in the text and everything will be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 (talk • contribs)

Done --Pokelova (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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 [3] ("remove tag bombing and incorporate an actual journal article), [4] ("remove Washington Post source as it does not mention criticism"), [5] (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 [6] by -sche before I had a chance to add diffs here to make my comment more clear about what I was referring to [7], but to clarify, now that you have again restored the disputed content [8], 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 [9] 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 [10], 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 [11] 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 discussion continues. Beccaynr (talk) 21:47, 7 August 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. [12] 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)

Alana Smith

This article contains a footnote stating that Alana Smith is transgender, but the Alana Smith article does not say that Smith is transgender. Can this be fixed? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a different Alana Smith. --Pokelova (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A bigger problem with the footnote is that it treats AFAB competitors in a women-only event as setting a precedent for the AMAB Hubbard.96.250.80.27 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it does that. It merely notes that some sources describe Hubbard as the first "trans athlete" or similar (regardless of whether the sources were intentionally excluding AFAB NB in women's events or instead simply unaware of Quinn and/or Smith) while common usage of "trans" includes NB people such as Quinn and Smith. It's not about "precedent". Anyway, if you have better wording for the footnote, please go ahead and suggest it. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The footnote and its alleged relevance is unsourced WP:OR and should be removed. This article isn't supposed to be a hub for every trans and non-binary athlete. The sources agree on 'first trans woman', which is enough. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

See section above ("First") for what happens when we leave off a footnote. People see sources saying "first trans athlete" and try to change it (generally meaning well), without seeing that other sources make the more precise distinction of "first trans woman." I'm ok with deleting the footnote (though I disagree that a footnote acknowledging differences in the sources we use is OR), but the text in the article should remain accurate. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The note needs to be sourced or it is OR. What about something like this. Aircorn (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the factual statements in the footnote regarding Hubbard, Quinn, Smith, and Wolfe were sourced. I understood Crossroads's argument to be that the existence of the footnote discussing why we used "first trans woman" per source B rather than "first trans athlete" per source A (that is, a footnote noting that the sources say different things and explaining why we followed one rather than the other) was OR. Again, it was mostly a measure to deal with people having seen things like source A, coming to the article, seeing something different from source A, and trying to change the article to match source A—when source B demonstrates that source A's description is inaccurate/incomplete and provides a different, more precise/accurate description. Now that the Olympics are over, there will probably be fewer people doing that, so it's not as much of an issue. The current article simply uses source B's description. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

As was stated in the version that I wrote that was reverted, Hubbard both qualified and competed as transitioned, while Smith and Quinn competed disregarding their trans identity. A source that ignores this is incomplete.96.250.80.27 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

What was her birth name?

What did Laurel Hubbard's parents name him? It seems like a glaring omission in this article. Vividuppers (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Found it myself. His name was [deleted], see here [[13]] This info should be added to the lede. Vividuppers (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverted per MOS:DEADNAME, If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Please also note in this same section, Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns [...]) that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources [...]. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. Beccaynr (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have some concerns about your conduct that I mentioned at your user talk page. As far as content goes, no, I don't think we should include Hubbard's birth name. I don't believe she was notable under that name, which is the test in MOS:DEADNAME. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Reluctance to research and publish "deadnames" is an utterly deplorable policy.96.250.80.27 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Dodgy citations

Under the career tab, it says that in 1998 Hubbard had a snatch of 135 kg and a clean and snatch of 170 kg. This would mean a total of 305 kg, alas it says a total of 300 kg. The citation accompanying it (citation 7) makes this mistake and is presumably why it’s present in the Wikipedia article. Also, this may be unimportant but the citation doesn’t even seem to be an authority on the claim it makes. It appears to be from a New Zealand School board and not a Governing body.

In addition, citation 8 doesn’t show up on my phone, but that may just be a problem on my end.

Sorry if this was formatted wrong, if I bring up unnecessary points, or is otherwise irritating. I created an account just to report this error; this is my first time using Wikipedia for something other than just to read up on something. Philtaylorfan (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue, Philtaylorfan. Citation 8 works for me on desktop, by the way. I agree that something is not adding up here, but any of the three figures could be the wrong one, so I think we need an expert or an original source for the competition (maybe a bit difficult if it's 1998, likely pre-internet reporting of results). All I can find are recent pieces in Sky News and BBC News Pidgin that report some/all of the same figures, the latter including this strange 135+170=300 error. Probably cases of citogenesis. Does anyone know where we can find a source for the 1998 competition results? — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

In weightlifting, the records for the two different lifts and for the total might be set at up to three different competitions. The source does not provide the date(s) of the records set by Hubbard. I read the source as saying that at some point, Hubbard lifted 135kg in snatch; at some other competition, Hubbard lifted 170kg in clean & jerk; at some competition, either one of those (most likely) or a third, Hubbard completed two lifts adding to 300kg. In other words, there is not necessarily any internal error in the source. For a better view of this phenomenon, see the world records at List of world records in Olympic weightlifting -- it is fairly common for the two lifts' world records not to add up to the total world record. The three records are independent. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I read our paragraph as saying that Hubbard set the record in one competition, not several. Perhaps this could be rephrased for clarity. — Bilorv (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Photo Availability

I was curious if there was a photo available for usage on Laurel's infobox? Is there any content which can be feasibly used or is it all technically in violation of copyright? Gongfong2021 (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gongfong2021: to be used freely, images have to be compatibly licensed with Wikipedia's CC BY-SA 3.0 licensing. We can use images under fair use but choose to heavily restrict this to satisfy our purpose of being reusable by others (with attribution) so we have rigid non-free content criteria, the first of which ("No free equivalent") is failed in the case of most living people. Indeed, often the solution is making a free equivalent, either by somebody meeting Hubbard and taking a photo which they freely license, or by contacting Hubbard or her agent and getting a photographer to go through our release generator. — Bilorv (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Career

The problematic phrases in question in that section are: “before she transitioned to female” and “Hubbard transitioned to female”.

But the specific problem there is that “female” has a quite specific and entirely circumscribed definition as a sex, a definition that is foundational to much of biology. As both the Wikipedia female disambiguation and article pages put it – based on entirely credible “reliable sources” – female is the sex of an organism that produces ova. If an organism doesn’t produce ova then, ipso facto, it is not a female; produces ova is an essential property of the category “female” as opposed to the “accidental properties” associated with the category that an organism may not have while still qualifying as a female. That property – “produces ova” – is the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a referent of the term – as the Wikipedia article on extensional and intensional definitions puts it.

It is certainly possible to use “female” as a colloquial reference to a gender. It’s even possible to use “female” as a reference to concave mating surfaces, which the disambiguation page noted, as in plumbing and electrical connectors. But referring to a female electrical connector hardly asserts that it is producing ova. As Abraham Lincoln put it, calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t make it one: the quality has to go in before the name goes on.

But that use of “female” as a gender is more a case of associations, of connotations associated with the term – as with the concave mating surface. In contradistinction to those associations, the quite common definition stipulates that the denotation is “produces ova”. But the resulting ambiguity in the Hubbard article – there are probably thousands of connotations to “female” – is misleading at best and suggests a questionable bias.

WP:NPOV clearly and unambiguously states that “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”

But it seems rather clear that the article in question is coming down solidly on the connotations side, on the quite ambiguously or obscurely defined concept of gender, while not even genuflecting or alluding to the more common and credible side based on a denotation of "female" as a biological sex. And clearly, many social issues hinge on membership in the sex categories, not in the supposed gender ones. Which Justice Antonin Scalia, in the context of a sex discrimination case well before he became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, emphasized in his analogy that “gender is to sex as feminine is to female and as masculine is to male”. Similarly, one might argue that “gender is to sex as connotations are to denotations, as accidental properties are to essential ones”.

Consequently, by taking the NPOV article, the standard definitions for the sexes, and Scalia’s analogy as points of departure and as justifications, I would potentially suggest that the phrases in question might more reasonably and accurately state, “Hubbard transitioned to a feminine gender, and to a legal sex inconsistent with her actual biological sex”.

There are a great many problems associated with conflating the categories of sex and gender as suggested in several other sections of this article, and as a recent editorial at the British Medical Journal cogently argued. It therefore seems unwise for Wikipedia articles to contribute to those problems by manifesting a problematic bias, and a clear absence of a credible NPOV. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why editors keep removing this from the talk page. What at WP:TPG justifies that? You should just respond to the editor for all to see, rather than arguing over edit summaries. Plus, it can be useful for future reference.

That said, I don't think your rejection of the phrase "transitioned to female" has much merit. Female can refer to gender in certain contexts, and in this case it is part of a wikilink going to Gender transition, so confusion is unlikely. Still, it could maybe be reworded to something like "underwent gender transition" or "transitioned to female gender". Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Extensive discussion has already occured at TillermanJimW's Talk page about this poorly sourced attempt to contradict MOS:GENDERID and the potential violation of WP:BLPTALK. This discussion also appears to be contrary to WP:NOTFORUM, because it seems to be a dispute with MOS:GENDERID, not the article, and should therefore be removed from this article's Talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Such discussion would have been better here so other editors can see it and weigh in. His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)