Talk:Lia Thomas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

WikiProject iconWomen's sport Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconWomen in Red: Women in Sport (2022)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the Women in Sport edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project from February to March 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

RFC about the Riley Gaines accusations

At this time, there is consensus to not include the allegations made by Gaines. However, a number of editors have said that they would like to see specific wording that they can review, and that the vagueness of the question is a key part of their opposition. I do not believe that it would be disruptive if someone opened a new RfC with an actual proposal on what to include in the article. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Should the Riley Gaines accusations be included in the article?— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This RFC concerns the inclusion of the accusations. If and only if there is consensus to include the accusations, the exact wording will be determined during a second RFC. Editors should use this RFC to discuss the strength of sources that mention the accusation as well as

policy-based reasons
to include or not include said accusations.

Survey (Riley Gaines)

  • No. I'd support something along the lines of "Some of Thomas' former teammates and opponents have expressed concern to media outlets at having to share locker rooms with her." This is aligned with how the best sources available are covering this aspect of Thomas' career. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC) partial striking per Beccaynr 15:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No (and comment) I concur and if this is added, it should also mention that “though some teammates were in support.” -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends - I would support a mention of the concerns as existing, but absolutely would not support any mention of the nature of the concerns wrt Thomas' gender transition status (e.g. her genitals). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, by default as no proposed wording has been offered. Reserving the right to reconsider if an acceptable proposed wording is offered with valid sources to support it. My thinking on this pretty much follows that of Firefangledfeathers and Shibbolethink above. In particular, any mention of genitals in this context is completely unacceptable. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just wanted to chime in here and add that this RfC is only to determine IF there is consensus to include the accusation. Only if this were to pass would there then be a second RfC to determine specific wording. Patr2016 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, but I don't see this as a good approach. It is overcomplicated and it makes this first round feel like writing a blank cheque. We have no way of knowing what will be offered in the second RfC. It might be that all suggestions offered are unacceptable. If we were going to have two rounds then it should be the other way round; Pick the best wording first and then decide whether that is better or worse than omitting it entirely. That said, I think we already have the best wording from the discussions above and that is what Firefangledfeathers suggested a while ago. If that was what we were having an RfC on then I'd be weakly in favour. As it stands, my !vote remains a firm no. DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Based on the available sources, (i.e. tabloids,
    WP:BLP issues by describing Gaines' allegations as "concerns", whether attributed to "opponent" or "opponents", and then include headlines in the article reference list that include mention of Thomas' genitalia. Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No with same reasoning and caveat as DanielRigal offered above. Funcrunch (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, with the same reasoning as others. The only places I found this even covered was on Fox News, NY Post, Washington Examiner, Daily Mail, Campus Reform, Daily Wire, and TMZ, none of which are reputable. Even a Toronto Sun story, along with those in ESPN only mentions that Gaines is angry at Lia Thomas because she is a trans woman, but nothing about any accusations. So, including this information in the article would not be workable or good.Historyday01 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As far as I can tell, using
    WP:RS, etc, before we could even seriously consider it. There are six entire paragraphs already in the article under "public debate"; it's not like the article is unclear about Thomas being a controversial figure. -- asilvering (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I agree @Asilvering It has been adequately covered already in the article under "public debate". Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Honestly just jumping on the bandwagon at this point, but my reasoning hews closer to Historyday01's than DanielRigal's here. With the current sourcing it's hard for me to say that any wording would be acceptable. Loki (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No since better and more sustained coverage would be necessary first. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per everyone above. Vaguely gesturing towards nonspecific "concerns at having to share locker rooms with her" isn't much better; that's saying the same thing but with innuendo. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.
    talk · contribs · he/him] 01:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes. The New York Post is a tabloid-format newspaper, but it is a real newspaper which does real journalism and is not comparable to the Weekly World News. It is worrying that the discussion here appears to be about how to leave readers un- or misinformed.Eladynnus (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - at
    WP:NYPOST entry includes, A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Beccaynr (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It is my reading of that entry that the Post is mainly unreliable for articles related to articles specific to New York City and the
NYPD and because of a perceived reluctance to issue corrections, but their articles can be used supplementally in some circumstances. Eladynnus (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I would parse
WP:NYPOST as stating that the source is generally unreliable for factual reporting in all areas, and especially unreliable with regards to politics and New York politics. The August 2020 RfC has many editors pointing out their unreliability for factual reporting on non-New York topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion (Riley Gaines)

IMO, this an RfC for establishing whether or not wikipedia should publish a tabloid-style, libelous, transphobic rumor. So it could go really go either way /s. In seriousness, this is an intentionally inflammatory accusation, reported by organizations with either malice (fox) or incompetence (local news totally unfamiliar with the topic area, repeating the former's reporting). 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 11:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sativa Inflorescence, you are reading a lot into the above RfC proposal. Ixtal has not described whether any mention of "genitals" would be included, whether any mention of "inflammatory accusations" would be included, etc. Just the mere fact that accusations were made. A second discussion would cover what form that mention would take. Please don't jump to these conclusions and assume bad faith in Ixtal's proposal like this. Thanks — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to point to the absurdity of the need for an RfC to settle this question. I stand by my harsh criticism of both the accusations and the coverage. The RfC itself is an appropriate response to an unfortunate situation. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be included. It garnered significant media coverage, and is one of many concerns about pre-op trans-athletes (or pre-op trans women in general) sharing these spaces. This hardly rises to the level of libel (which is a pretty hyperbolic claim to leave in print here), and is certainly not transphobic. It is, however, a meaningful part of the record of public discourse around Thomas's participation in women's sport. 162.203.147.11 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sources

Please add sources to the list here, using the following format

  1. Example source: link to example source article Date

— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to tackle unprofessionality?

WP:NOTFORUM

The whole article misses the mention of original name of sportperson Thomas - (Redacted) which she (Redacted) had used for entire (Redacted) life until 2020 and competed under. Even if Wikipedia manual on Gender Identity explains that: "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name." [1] what covers this case as Thomas has the university successes under name (Redacted). [2] Thus, the article is currently unprofessional and denies the purpose of Wikipedia to gather unbiased encyclopedic content to the people. As a Wikipedian with 15 years of experience of writing, I consider that the ideology should never beat the access to the information, otherwise Wikipedia might become a totalitarian tool and not a Free Encyclopedia. What is your opinion on this topic? Currently I do not have 500 edits at enwiki, thus I cannot edit the article, if somebody can, I will be grateful for that. --Belisarius~skwiki (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please review the
    MOS:GENDERID. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This looks a lot like trolling. It also seems to be attempting to solicit other editors to edit contrary to policy on your behalf. If Beccaynr had not already replied then I would have removed this message and issued a warning. Experienced Wikipedians should know better than to behave like this. DanielRigal (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your rule is true (access of information should never be beaten by ideology) but this talk page is evidence that on wikipedia this principle is long lost. I've just picked this page (right now) to show someone sitting next to me that wikipedia can't be used due to the rules themselves being infested by ideology. Usually people with a sane mind (who think the name should be included) don't want to waste their time argueing with strangers on wikipedia. 95.91.219.205 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add original name for Lia

Please add original name for Lia. (Redacted) Thomas Disclaimer777cc (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Lia Thomas was not notable prior to changing her name, please see the
MOS:GENDERID for why we don't include the non-notable former names of trans or non-binary people. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmmm. But we do cite birth names for people, whether the person was notable at birth or as a child, or not. Cary Grant's original name was Archibald Alec Leach, and wikipedia says so. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per
MOS:GENDERID we do not add the non-notable former names of trans or non-binary people. Thomas was not notable under her former name, so we do not include it anywhere on enwiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Height

Although Lia Thomas is listed in some places as 6'1", Thomas' teammate Scanlan describes Thomas as 6'4", as does the mother of another 6'0" swimmer who completed against Thomas. The Wikipedia info box should at least indicate this uncertainty, e.g. by listing height as somewhere in the range between 6'1" and 6'4"



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12345937/U-Penn-women-swimmers-undress-6-foot-4-biological-male-Lia-Thomas-18-times-week-told-reeducated-complained-Congress-hears-bombshell-testimony.html


https://twitter.com/KimJonesICONS/status/1687612891107610624?s=20 Rationaledit (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is not a reliable source, per
WP:RSP, and a random person's tweet is especially not a reliable source. Lastly, the actual height listed by the person in question is much more relevant and reliable than other people's guesses at her height. We don't list uncertainty just because someone claims otherwise. At the very least not unless it is actually something brought up in reliable news sources. SilverserenC 04:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Here, Thomas' teammate Scanlan describes Thomas (under oath in Congressional testimony) as 6'4":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaN4c2hQrwg&t=1440
(statement is at 24:03)
I have read that Thomas does not reveal / make statements as to Thomas' actual height. Can you provide a source where Thomas does? I think a number of the news articles may be tautological references that sourced their info from Wikipedia. Without that, my take is that Wikipedia should list as 6'4" rather than a disputed range.Rationaledit (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the height information from the infobox, because after reviewing the source, this appears to be
    WP:RSOPINION ("reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact."), e.g. "Thomas’s Ivy League records this season at Penn coupled with her 6-foot-1 frame initially seem like an overwhelmingly unfair advantage — until you remember that Missy Franklin is 6-foot-2 and 165 pounds." Jenkins, Sally. "Lia Thomas's Swimming Is Getting Swamped in Others' Fears". The Washington Post. Archived
    from the original on March 19, 2022. Retrieved 24 March 2022.. As to sources related to her height, I am finding, e.g.
Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rationaledit (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR does not describe primary source information as to be avoided unless absolutely necessary; it simply says they should be used with care and only for a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts. Testimony about a person's height falls in that category IMO. Rationaledit (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a dumb question but how important is this really? Sure, an athlete’s height is information that we should include if we have Reliable Sources for it, but is it really worth agonising over if we have conflicting or confusing sources? Are articles about swimmers considered seriously deficient if they do not include the subject's height? Is this comparable to, say, an article about a politician which fails to mention their political party? I assume not because, when I click on the articles about other swimmers linked from this article, several of them also do not have height in their infoboxes and nobody seems to be overly concerned about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged edit to lead

User:Beccaynr has reverted my recent edit to the lead. The revert, which resulted in a grammatical error, can be viewed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lia_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1181686174. The issue is whether Thomas's participation on the men's swim team at UPenn belongs in the lead. Five paragraphs in the article body mention Thomas's participation on the men's team, and there is an entire section on Thomas's statistics as a member of the men's team. I suppose it's a judgment call, but I think it belongs in the lead. What do others think? MonMothma (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted in my comment on your talk page that a claim made in your addition did not seem supported by the article and sources [3], in addition to
WP:DUE. She does not appear to have been notable for her college swimming career on the Penn men's swim team, so a focus on this in the lead, plus what appears to be an incorrect statement about when she came out, does not appear to be supported. Based on the available sources, she appears known for her swimming career on the women's team, both for her NCAA win and the public debate about her participation. And I think I fixed a grammatical error after my revert [4]. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
came out as a trans woman
and competed on UPenn's women's team from 2021 to 2022". I am honestly confused about where you think the error is in that sentence.
Taking another look, perhaps there is an issue with the timetable. I suppose the sentence ought to have read, "After competing on the men's swim team at the
coming out as a trans woman, Thomas competed on UPenn's women's team from 2021 to 2022".MonMothma (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As to notability, I understand your argument. And Firefangledfeathers makes a good point below. If and when the lead is expanded, however, I believe this information should be included so that the lead reflects the article body. MonMothma (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be expanded, but inserting some content about the her years on the men's team so early in the lead was too much weight on a minor aspect. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, you have a point. MonMothma (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lia_Thomas&oldid=1221742355"