Talk:Lia Thomas/Archive 1

Discussion, consensus
"An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. -"

I started the article and tried to make it neutral. It includes a sensitive topic. It is beneficial to discuss changes and try to find consensus on controversial elements of the article. Topjur01 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am confused as to why you quoted my user page, . I think the article is a good start, and pretty neutral. I added the blp ds notice above because, as you mention, it includes a sensitive topic. Hope you didn't feel it was passive-aggresive or anything ^u^ A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I read your quote earlier today, and I love it. I think every wikipedia editor should read it and keep it in mind. It guided me when I was trying to make the article neutral. Topjur01 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, it's a fantastic quote :D A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If the article was neutral at its start, it is not neutral any more. Someone removed all statements and doubts of prominent sportsmen and sports magazines, as well as scientific research. Topjur01 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The scientific research was better placed in an article about Transgender people in sports, and the statements were summarized into generalized sentences which probably brings it more in line with MOS:QUOTE than affect its neutrality, . It's not like their doubts have been erased, and if any citations were removed you can add them back without affecting the text. and  courtesy pinging you in case you'd like to expand on my explanation. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

First name
Prior to transitioning, (i.e., when born, then growing up as a kid, then swimming on the men's teams, etc.), I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included. I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * no. See MOS:DEADNAME. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know all the "in's and out's" of all these technical rules. But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever?  I assume so.  Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits?  I don't know all the Wiki rules.  Thanks.      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * She was not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article prior to her transition, therefore there is no compelling reason to include her deadname. Funcrunch (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That wasn't really my question. This article is a biography of a person.  That "life" / "biography" did not begin at the moment that Thomas transitioned.  It began at birth.  My question was:  But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever?  I assume so.  Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits?  That was my question.  And, since the entire controversy surrounds the topic of swimming on men's or women's teams ... Thomas's swimming history (on men's and women's teams) is certainly relevant.  We should pretend that "nothing happened" in Thomas's life, before the transition?  That's my question.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The short answer: yes. The long answer: there is no need to add her deadname to the article, as including it is not relevant to the rest of the article's content and would just serve to harass the subject. I recommend you read MOS:IDINFO for an in-depth history as to how not including a trans person's deadname in articles unless notable under the deadname reached community consensus. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm ... ok ... Just so I'm clear. We're publishing a biography of a person in an encyclopedia.  And we're not "allowed" to mention the person's name?  And we're not allowed to mention any history prior to the transition date of 2019?  And we call that a "biography"?  LOL.      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That is correct, we should not add their deadname unless necessary. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Says who? You don't see the "irony" in that "rule"?   LOL.  Who says it is "unnecessary" ... (in this specific case)?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * as someone with as many edits and as much experience as you have on Wikipedia I am seriously surprised at your views on a MOS guideline with very strong community consensus backing it. I won't continue interacting in this thread as I genuinely don't see the point in doing so as the discussion seems to have reached its natural end. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 00:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You said: The guideline says not to add a dead-name unless necessary. In response, I said:  Where was it determined -- and by whom -- that in this particular case (Lia Thomas), the dead-name is or is not necessary?  Seems like a valid and legitimate question, and a natural follow-up.  Not sure what the problem is.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was decided by large community WP:RFCs at the talk page of MOS:BIO. Unless Lia Thomas met the standards of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO before transition and we just had neglected to have an article - which seems very unlikely - then the community's consensus is not to include it. Crossroads -talk- 06:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It was decided as a policy in general. Nothing was decided -- by anyone -- in this particular case.  Hence, I brought it to this Talk Page.  Appropriately.  Having a policy (in general), is one thing.  Applying that policy -- or not -- (in a specific case), is another.  It's a valid and legitimate question, appropriate for this Talk Page.  Related point ... I was "told" above that this bio "cannot" contain any info prior to 2109 (transition).  Therefore, we cannot say that Thomas was born in 1999; was born in Texas; went to such-and-such high school; swam on the high school team; etc.  Everything before 2019 must be deleted ... correct?  In this, um, "biography".       Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You were not "told" that this bio cannot contain any info prior to 2019. You asked about including her deadname, and the MOS:GENDERID policy and its application to this particular article were explained to you. Asked and answered. I do not believe you are acting in good faith at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Read above. Quote:  That wasn't really my question. This article is a biography of a person. That "life" / "biography" did not begin at the moment that Thomas transitioned. It began at birth. My question was: But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever? I assume so. Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits? That was my question. And, since the entire controversy surrounds the topic of swimming on men's or women's teams ... Thomas's swimming history (on men's and women's teams) is certainly relevant. We should pretend that "nothing happened" in Thomas's life, before the transition? That's my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC).  Reply:  The short answer: yes. The long answer: there is no need to add her deadname to the article, as including it is not relevant to the rest of the article's content and would just serve to harass the subject. I recommend you read MOS:IDINFO for an in-depth history as to how not including a trans person's deadname in articles unless notable under the deadname reached community consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)  Bottom line ... Thomas's swimming bio / history (teams, schools, divisions, awards, records, etc.) is certainly relevant and germane to this article.  It's a biography of a swimmer!  Furthermore, the entire crux of the controversy -- cited an millions of reliable sources -- is whether Thomas should swim on a male team or female team.  So, no, the Thomas bio does not "begin" in 2019.  Having a Wikipedia "policy" does not trump facts, reliable sources, and ... ummm ...  common sense.  In any event, it's an appropriate topic for this Talk Page.  Regardless of your "beliefs" in my good faith.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some people get really incensed about trans people's reasonable concerns around privacy. Good thing the community has already settled this and I see no new arguments here for why this article should be any different than every other article that follows wikipedia policy on the matter. Rab V (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the whole talk page before responding to you; you don't need to quote it. was clearly referring only to Lia Thomas's deadname, not to the rest of her life before gender transition, in her responses to you. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Funcrunch (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This section was opened specifically asking about Lia Thomas's name: I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included. This has been answered. Note that this article already does discuss Thomas's early life, and does without mentioning the name Thomas was using at that time, as per guidelines. If any one of the three editors had thought that Everything before 2019 must be deleted ... correct? as you seem to think they do, they could have deleted that section. But they didn't. No one has, so it appears that your objections that information about her pre-transition life should not be deleted is a disagreement you are having with nobody. (And your disagreement with the name issue has been thoroughly addressed.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

She won 2nd place in Ivy League swimming competitions at the college level. If you look up the records, the only way to verify it is if you know her birth name. Otherwise, there is zero way of proving that those accomplishments did or did not happen. Getting a 2nd place medal at the collegiate level is "notable". Just because nobody chose to write an article about her past accomplishments is another story.

Why is a woman's maiden name published? For example, if you read the article "George Washington", Martha Washington is listed as "Martha Dandridge", but 99% of the people in the world if you say the name Martha Dandridge would not know who you are talking about, but would know who you are talking about if you say "Martha Washington". There is definitely a redirect article to "Martha Washington" from "Martha Dandridge, and the article definitely says "Born	Martha Dandridge June 2, 1731[1]" And she was definitely NOT notable BEFORE she married George Washington, and she would never have been notable if she had not married George Washington.  Why has this practice been standard and acceptable since the beginning of Wikipedia, February 2003 for Martha Washington's Article and July 2002 for George Washington's article?  That sounds "sexist" to me.  That you have one set of standards for women and another set of standards for "men who transition to women".  If they are truly "women", then they should be held to the same EXACT standards as women have been held to since the beginning of Wikipedia (and is current today), to include all histories of their names from birth to the end of their life.  Once a person is notable to have a Wikipedia article about them, then basic information, like their name on their birth certificate is standard knowledge.  Not to mention that she would not even make the front page if she had not transitioned, not to mention that she would not have won any of the swimming events she had won if she competed against men. 11:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.76.144 (talk)
 * Agreed. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * We refer to people by the name that they are notable under. We also note people's previous names except when here is a good reason not to. In most cases we do not mention trans people's former names as it provides no significant information and it can be distressing and demeaning, and sometimes even endangering, for them. This is not normally the case for cis people's maiden names. The exception is when a trans person was notable under their previous name. Then we have to mention it so that people know that we are talking about the same person when we talk about the events before they transitioned.
 * So what of maiden names? (Yeah, I don't like that term either.) We include them because almost nobody finds this objectionable and it would nearly always be possible to infer it from a subject's parents' names anyway. I'm pretty sure that we would omit the maiden name for any person who was at risk of being seriously disadvantaged by it if they were not notable under that name. Personally, I'd also be fine with us extending our policies to omit maiden names of any subject who requests us to do so, unless they are notable under that previous name.
 * People change their names for many reasons. If their reason is a need to put a former name behind them then it is reasonable to treat that name differently from a name change on marriage. For example, if a subject were known under a name different from their birth name because their parents were in a witness protection programme, and the family were given new names, then of course we wouldn't blab the birth name causing distress and putting the subject and their family in danger. This is a privacy issue. Similarly we don't generally include people's home addresses even though it is fine to say that Joe Biden lives in the White House because that is already a widely noted fact and does nobody any harm.
 * As for sexism, you are right to smell sexism but that isn't coming from us. It is coming from a society that expects women to change their surnames but not men. That's not Wikipedia's fault and its certainly not a valid excuse to have a pop at trans women. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Prior to transitioning to female, Lia Thomas competed for the men's swimming team as . It seems appropriate to mention that, since the article includes mention of this person competing on Penn's men's swim team, and it's the only way to look up Lia's swim records prior to the name change.  Of course, as noted, Lia was not very competitive as a male swimmer going against other men. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Her past swimming experience is already mentioned as much as it is notable, there is no extraordinary need to include her deadname and go against established wikipedia policy. Rab V (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is silly not to include the birth name which may still be the legal name of the person
 * It makes no sense to exclude mention of Lia's name prior to transitioning. It not like she had no life prior to transitioning, and the only way to find out and verify facts prior to transitioning are by looking them up using her previous name. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect, e.g. her records on SwimCloud, and her records while swimming for the Penn men's swim team. Beccaynr (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * is the birth name, this is factual and historic. We cannot and should not censor facts because they hurt someone's feelings. Birth names are standard throughout Wikipedia, this page should be no exception. Include as the birth name. 2604:F580:14C:8000:944F:A6A3:E9DD:5A1C (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * For privacy reasons and to fight against harassment, transgender people's birth names should not be included if they weren't notable before their transition. Plan and simple. It is not because Wikipedia wants to exclude facts about their life, it is for privacy. I'd say the same thing for cisgender people who have prior names that don't establish any useful, notable information in their articles. cookie monster   755  05:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with Joseph A Spadaro's observations.   Lia Thomas was born as  Thomas, and raced competitively as as  Thomas for several years.  That is essential information that needs to be included in an encyclopedia, and is just as relevant as other aspects of personal information that are already included in the article, despite the fact that they make statements about personal life prior to obtaining notability and meriting an article, e.g. "Thomas grew up in Austin, Texas, and has an older brother. She began swimming at the age of five, and was sixth in the state high school swimming championships, competing for Westlake High School."  Leaving out the name  Thomas entirely from this article strikes me more as politically motivated rather than pursuing an objective encyclopedia.  If that can't be included, then as a matter of consistency nor should the other personal information that predates notability. Gregorytopov (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Im pretty sure everyone knows his former name was [redacted]. Its not a secret and calling out a man depriving women from achieving goals in womenssports isnt harassment. BritishToff (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because her deadname can be found readily does not mean that it should be listed in her article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm very confused by this as well. The argument being made is that Lia's personal feelings trump objective reality - that is, factual information. That seems like a very odd position for an Encyclopedia. Quoting Wikipedia's definition of Encyclopedia "An encyclopedia (American English), encyclopædia (archaic spelling), or encyclopaedia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either general or special to a particular field or discipline.[1] Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries that are arranged alphabetically by article name[2] or by thematic categories, or else are hyperlinked and searchable by random access. Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries.[2] Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.[3][4][5][6]"

Further, Lia appears to recognize 1/1/2020 as her rebirthday. Hence, any reference prior to that time should reference factual information. This is not meant to harm,

Does Wikipedia intend to change its definition from that of an encyclopedia?

Here is a Wikipedia entry with similar factual circumstances. Lia Thomas perceives herself as female although objectively male. Yet you do not list her male name. Rachel Dolezal perceives herself as black, although objectively is white. Logically, the forms of argument are the same: Person A perceives themselves as X, different from objective observation.

Yet Wikipedia treats the two people differently:

"Nkechi Amare Diallo (/nɪˈkeɪtʃiː əˈmɑːreɪ diːˈɑːloʊ/; born Rachel Anne Dolezal, November 12, 1977), commonly known as Rachel Dolezal[fn 1] (/ˈdoʊləʒɑːl/;[9] is an American former college instructor and activist known for presenting herself as a black woman despite having been born to white parents. In addition to falsely claiming black ancestry, she also falsely claimed Native American descent.[10] She is also a former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter president."

Facts are real. Logic is real. Thus we see Wikipedia is inconsistent in its treatment of individuals and of facts.

kbachler (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All encyclopedias will have notability guidelines when deciding what they deem relevant to publish. Furthermore your understanding of how trans identity works is incredibly basic and not fit for purpose in discussing trans people or trans issues. --Pokelova (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right about one thing: facts are real. Wikipedia articles are based on the facts as reported by the most reliable sources we have. Your feelings about what the facts are, however, do not change the facts.
 * It is a fact, reported by a large number of reliable sources, that Lia Thomas has a female gender identity. It is therefore also a fact - reported by and reflected in the coverage provided by a very large number of reliable sources - that she is therefore socially female. According to Wikipedia's MOS:GENDERID guideline, we reflect the latest, reliably sourced statement of gender identity in our articles (and only include pre-transition former names when the person was notable while using their former name). In doing this, we follow the established best practices among reliable sources of factual information - Wikipedia has never been an indiscriminate collection of facts, and WP:BLP policies take the possibility of harm to BLP subjects to be a relevant privacy consideration.
 * The idea that gender identity (and social gender) is an example of personal feelings rather than being part of objective reality is a WP:FRINGE view, in the context of the reliable sources on the topic. By contrast, the idea that there is some kind of "racial identity" equivalent to gender identity, and that a person can therefore be "transracial" as a parallel to being transgender, is equally unsupported and is equally a WP:FRINGE view. You may hold the minority view that transgender identity and transracial identity are equivalent, but your view is not supported by reliable sources and is therefore not part of objective reality as we know it.
 * Wikipedia tries to treat similar situations similarly and different situations differently; because the two BLP subjects you mention are described in very different ways by RS, using different reliably sourced concepts, Wikipedia treats them differently. Those are the facts of the situation, not anyone'anyone's feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to add to the detailed explanations already given except to say that throwing around phrases like "objectively male" when discussing a woman is grossly inappropriate (and completely subjective) whether it is actually intended to be offensive or not. Any more of that nonsense could lead to future messages being removed for disruption and/or trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted on this page in a section below, the Penn Men's Swimming and Diving website lists her as Lia Thomas (e.g. select 500 Free, 2018-2019, 1000 Free, 2018-2019 or 1650 Free, 2018-2019). At the Penn Men's website, her highlighted name links to her Swimcloud page. There is no deadnaming on these websites. As also noted on this Talk page, the application of MOS:GENDERID helps avoid confusion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First, my knowledge of transidentity is irrelevant. I'm only interested in knowledge, logic, and facts, three topics in which I am very well versed. At the time that Lia learned to swim, there was no Lia. Someone learned to swim that became Lia. Irrespective of opinions, identity does not change in reverse. This is a fact. One can only change identity moving ahead, because information does not change retroactively. Identity is a form of information.
 * You seem to think it matters whether racial identity and gender identity can be supported or not. In the end this is personal information. We do not have at this time an objective independent test for gender dysphoria; it is all based on an individual's perception. Just because the Dolezal situation is more rare doesn't indicate one way or the other it's less real, all we know for a fact is its less prevalent.
 * I'm not holding a view one way or the other. What I'm pointing out is that THE ACTUAL FACTUAL INFORMATION for the two situations are the same. Yet Wikipedia, which claims to be an encyclopedia is not making decisions based on factual information - rather based on medical opinion (not medical fact) nor is it treating similar facts in similar ways.
 * If Wikipedia wants to state the actual facts of Lia Thomas, her name at birth, prizes won under that name, etc., and then recognize the FACT that on 1/1/2020 she came out as trangender and began using Lia, I have no issue with that. Wikipedia is then reporting factual information.
 * Reporting that Lia learned to swim at age 5 is a falsehood, verifiable by many people who were undoubtedly there at that time. Wikipedia does not get to change the facts retroactively. To do so is beyond Orwellian. kbachler (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your feelings political opinions are not relevant to the content of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia does not care about your all-caps ACTUAL FACTUAL INFORMATION, Wikipedia is based on the factual information as reported in independent, reliable sources. You state that One can only change identity moving ahead, but the great mass of reliable sources does not agree with your perception as an individual, whereas MOS:GENDERID represents a broad, community consensus based on the participation of hundreds of editors over many years. Since community consensus aligns with the sources, your political judgements of opinion, information, fact and falsehood are irrelevant. Your judgement that the ACTUAL FACTUAL INFORMATION concerning transgender identity and "transracial" identity is the same conflicts with all available, reliable sourcing, so Wikipedia will continue to ignore your unsourced opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I neither stated feelings, nor political opinions. My background is in mathematics and logic. I am a positivist. What I care about is factual information.
 * If one talked to any reliable source at the time that Lia learned to swim, and they were asked who was learning to swim, would anyrespond Lia Thomas or would they have responded [redacted] Thomas?
 * The answer to this is clear, since the first answer is logically impossible, and the second name was his given name and male was his sex and gender in 2005. This is factual information since there was no other answer possible at that time.
 * Those logical conclusions are not opinions. They are reality. kbachler (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are mistaking the logic internal to your opinions (which are political, whether it not you recognize that fact) for the logic of external reality, which is reflected in the reliable sources used to verify the content of Wikipedia articles. This is a category error.
 * Also, now you are misgendering and hinting at deadnamimg a WP:BLP subject. Editors are typically banned from gender and sexuality topics, if not blocked from editing Wikipedia, if they persist in those behaviour, so I would suggest that you stop here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia wants to state the actual facts of Lia Thomas, her name at birth... We don't! Thank you for your time, goodbye. --Pokelova (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since an encyclopedia contains facts, and since you state you are unwilling to publish facts, will Wikipedia be removing the claim of being an encyclopedia? kbachler (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to understand what "facts" are. On Wikipedia, they are understood to be information from reliable sources. When editors attempt to second-guess the reliable sources, that is generally understood as original research, something editors are enjoined against doing when it comes to article content. So I'm afraid you don't have a very robust conception of what facts are, or of what encyclopaedias do. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * kbachler, your argument is with our policies not with this specific article. This Talk page is about this specific article. This is not the correct place to challenge policies more generally. If you really love flogging dead horses then you can go and discuss the policies on their own Talk pages, however, based on the above, you won't be bringing anything new to the table and the best you can hope for is to be politely directed towards the archived discussions where similar strident assertions have been rejected many times previously. DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Have other arguments pointed out that Wikipedia itself defines an encyclopedia provides factual information, yet they are not doing so?
 * I have no qualms with Lia Thomas. Whatever the rules are, they are. But is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or not? kbachler (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Your attempt to deadname Thomas has been redacted, and please do not continue to misgender or deadname her. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk)
 * Kbachler, I'm not sure you understand what an encyclopaedia is, but in any event I'm pretty sure you don't understand how collaborative projects work. At this point, it seems clear that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but rather are here to right great wrongs about facts and falsehoods. This won't lead anywhere you want to go, I believe. Newimpartial (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is with this specific article and the specific facts in it. Wikipedia may need to address internal policies to address publishing non-factual information, I don't really care. kbachler (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible addition
Hi ,

Very recently sixteen of her teammates issued a letter to various media organizations regarding how "...Biologically, Lia holds an unfair advantage over competition in the women’s category, as evidenced by her rankings that have bounced from #462 as a male to #1 as a female". This has been reported by RS media, such as with headline stating, "Sixteen Penn swimmers say transgender teammate Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete".

Just a suggestion. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added this statement. Another editor tried adding the statement too, but the change was reverted because of concerns the claim was not attributed to sources. While Deseret News, which, yes, is a reliable source considers the claim valid, I think it’s reasonable to attribute it to the anonymous swim team members who allege Lia has an unfair advantage, so I have added the statement again with proper attribution. SkylabField (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Deseret News is reliable for local news only and for issues that run afoul of LDS doctrine they need to be attributed. In this case, not being about Utah and as a LGBT-related topic, the quote would need to be attributed. I'm still concerned though that we may be including false or misleading stats since no source seems to mention what rankings the letter is referring to. Rab V (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve changed the sources from being Deseret News + Washington Post to instead being CNN + Washington Post. As per both of these sources, it’s the anonymous students claiming the 462 -> 1 ranking jump, so I’m wording it as worded by these reliable sources. “Allege” might not be the best word, as per WP:ALLEGE, but I’ll use it since they don’t go in to any detail which particular rankings they use, and no reliable secondary sources have directly researched this, and we can not research it ourselves when making a Wikipedia article. SkylabField (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim has been removed again without discussion on the talk page. I have restored it again. If the claim is inaccurate, then please link to reliable sources disputing the claim, and please discuss removing the claim here. SkylabField (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so far inclusion looks warranted. Crossroads -talk- 06:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the claim was removed again. Why are some of the editor(s) of this page willing to cite the section of the Nancy Hogshead-Makar letter that states Lia's teammates condemn the NCAA's legal action and not part that states her teammates feel she has an "unfair advantage"? Johnm54 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The misleading claim is still currently in the article, as discussed further on this Talk page below. Beccaynr (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But you may have developed a way to summarize the position of the anonymous letter without including what appears to be a misleading representation of data, and I encourage you to suggest it in the Talk discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There does not appear to be support for including this gossip, and as a WP:BLP, if all we have are reliable sources stating "this anonymous group makes an extraordinary claim about this living person no reliable source has verified", I think we have to leave it out. Per WP:NOTRS, unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion [...] are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Beccaynr (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed it, per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, e.g. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Beccaynr (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article text doesn't say that this is what her rank was, it says that this is what the letter said, and the text of the letter is sourced to CNN and The Washington Post, which are both reliable. This is not unsubstantiated rumours or unverifiable gossip, it is pretty clear that the letter did in fact say that. Endwise (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But the letter is unsubstantiated, so all we would be repeating is what amounts to rumor and gossip. WP:BLP policy appears to warn us against including this kind of information in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , you re-added the disputed content that was recently removed for WP:BLP reasons with the edit summary, Mostly revert -- It doesn't seem like anyone on the talk page agrees with you (it is not a rumour or gossip that the letter contained this statement), but for the avoidance of doubt, it may be clearer if it is left as a quotation, but this Talk page includes diffs of a previous disputes by two other editors over the inclusion of this content. I also agree that including contentious claims that reliable sources have for whatever reason failed to verify seems problematic per WP:BLP policy. So I encourage you to self-revert and let's consider taking this to the BLP noticeboard for a wider discussion instead. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Axios, The Australian, and Boston Herald quote the figure in their own voice. From a quick google, it appears the event in question is the 200-yard freestyle. Endwise (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a web search and found other figures: It's 554 -> 5 (200 freestyle), 65 -> 1 (500 freestyle), and 32 -> 8 (1650 freestyle). Those look to be reliably sourced, e.g.   I've started a section below about these figures, and there are directly quoted. SkylabField (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you go back on the archives for that article, it used to say 554 -> 1 for the 200-yard: soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle) in men’s competition to the top-ranked swimmer in women’s competition ... Thomas still holds the top time in the country in the 200-yard freestyle Did she have the top time previously but then slipped down to 5th? Swimming world also quotes a seperate petition which claims 462 -> 1 in the 200, and 65 -> 2 in the 500: Lia has gone from being ranked #462 in the country in the men’s 200 yard freestyle, to #1 in the women’s 200 yard freestyle. She has gone from being #65th in the men’s 500 yard freestyle to being #2 in the women’s 500 yard freestyle.
 * All these numbers are very similar, so possibly these numbers were accurate before (the fact that reliable sources quote them in their own voice is probably good enough), but she slipped a few rankings in the 200-yard and gained a ranking in the 500-yard. Endwise (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort to verify the letter and not just the reporting networks. However, if the letter is truly unsubstantiated, why is it even mentioned in this article to begin with? Johnm54 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion about the data presented by the letter and whether it should be included is being discussed in this section of this Talk page: Lia Thomas ranking: Men's Swim Team vs. Women's Swim Team. I think you may have a good compromise approach about how to generally include information about the letter without the potential BLP problem of repeating poorly-sourced sensationalist claims related to the data. Referring to the letter as including a concern about an unfair advantage seems like a reasonable summary of the position taken by the authors. Beccaynr (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Boston Herald piece is not written by a reporter, the Australian is subscription blocked, and Axios appears to be blogging, not reporting. If the reference is to one race, then that seems like an additional reason to remove the quote immediately, because it seems misleading in the context of the reliably-sourced information about her career that is in the article. That is the other problem with inclusion - we already appear to have reliable reporting that contradicts the letter. Beccaynr (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Axios is a high quality, reliable source (see WP:RSP), they just have a different format to other news websites; it's definitely not blogging. The article in The Australian reads The 22-year-old had previously competed for the university as [deadname] for three years and was ranked No.462 in the NCAA (it's not very hard to get around newspaper paywalls these days...). I think Wendy Murphy is an opinion columnist, so we probably shouldn't use that, though:.
 * Two sources which are listed as reliable at WP:RSP using the numbers in their own voice makes this a far cry from gossip or rumour. Endwise (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the rank jump should be discussed. Right now, I've added a blatantly WP:SYNTH violating note that the 462 -> 1 looks inaccurate, adding a reference with a different number, but WP:BLP trumps WP:SYNTH in my opinion.  Maybe it shouldn't be discussed in the context of that letter, but it has been reliably sourced and it violates WP:N to not mention the ranking jump at all.  There are WP:BLP concerns which means we need to be very accurate about the contentious claim, but the claim is reliably sourced, so we can include it, but accuracy is the goal here. SkylabField (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited for WP:SYNTH and WP:WIKIVOICE. I also think there is nothing to indicate that Axios reported the numbers, especially with the misleading nature of the number without context of which race is being discussed. Similarly, I don't think we can rely on a news outlet that prints deadnames for information contradicted by reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing of the term "female"
I changed the term "female swimmer" to the more biologically correct term "collegiate women's swimmer" According to Merrriam-Webster's Dictionary a female is "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" which a transgender woman is not. The Cambridge dictionary provides a similar definition. Bluesfan86 (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both dictionaries include definitions that explicitly show females also refer to trans women. Also per wiki policy MOS:GENDERID female is also a correct term for trans women. Rab V (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Female" can refer to sex or to gender, depending on context. In this context it is being used to refer to gender, so there is not a factual issue with the text. However, as some people prefer to keep "woman" referring exclusively to gender and "female" referring exclusively to sex, "collegiate women's swimmer" is probably clearer for readers. Endwise (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, 'female' refers exclusively to sex. The corresponding gender is 'feminine'. Thomas is not female. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , there's no need to bend our backs so much when just "female" is clear enough. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They are both fine. Endwise (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * She's on the "women's" team, so "collegiate women's swimmer" is self-consistent. That identifies her significance and context; it's unrelated to saying she "is a woman" or "is female", discussing the person as a person. DMacks (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. This even goes against the main definition of female you find in Wikipedia which reads: is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction.
 * Using females makes things more confusing because it suggests gender and sex are the same. 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:F686:FA38:54E9:F889 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022
In section "transgender status and swimming," change "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and one transgender man transitioning from female to male (without hormones), Iszac Henig" to "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man (transitioning from female to male without hormone therapy)." Tayuro (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

✅ Done. Thanks for the suggestion! -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022
Under “swimming” Thomas is quoted as swimming for “Penn State” which is a different university than the “University of Pennsylvania”. 107.127.49.142 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for catching that. Funcrunch (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It says “member of the LGBTQ+”
If someone with the permissions could please change this to “member of the LGBTQ+ population” or similar, I would appreciate it. 2601:600:9A80:2360:4033:BA26:FE3F:74C6 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just took it out as her sexuality didn't seem that relevant. Maybe others would disagree though. Endwise (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I could see this being a category. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP was referring to Erica Sullivan, who we included a quote from, not Lia Thomas. Endwise (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Not correct
This article is written not reflecting the individual’s current gender identity. This needs to be rewritten. 71.121.252.121 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? X-Editor (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There had been some disruptive edits in the article at the time the IP left this message. Those have been fixed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! X-Editor (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022
Change the pronouns and do not use the dead name. It is Lia, not. And her pronouns are she/her. 92.247.187.191 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to. This article calls her Lia and uses she/her pronouns. Endwise (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The offending edits had already been reverted, and the editor who made them has been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I originally thought that's what they were talking about, but those edits had been reverted many hours before the IP left their comment. So I didn't understand. Endwise (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Height.. 6.1 or 5.7??
... 80.43.94.149 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find any sourcing for Thomas's height. So it won't be included on the article until a proper source is found. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In any case, 5.7 or 6.1cm is quite small for an athlete so I don't expect any to come up with this result, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * She's apparently 6'1, so says The Washington Post. Endwise (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've added the height parameter cited to WaPo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * can you please elaborate on your removal of the height parameter? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it could be there; I was concerned it could lead to perceptions or assumptions about her physicality TenorTwelve (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Context could be incorporated into the article as prose, in the Public debate section - for example, the source states, "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. For each researcher who presents certainty that the adolescent pulses of testosterone confer a “legacy” advantage in size and strength even after hormone therapy, there is the reasonable work of a Joanna Harper, a medical physicist who counters that it’s not that simple: There are disadvantages, too." We need to be careful with BLPs and we must get the article right. Beccaynr (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

“Misgendered”
The article states Gov. Desantis “misgendered” Lia and then provides the following quote, “…a male identifying as a woman.”

If “male” refers to Lia’s biological sex and Desantis settlement included, “identifying as a woman”, then how did Desantis “misgender” her? 136.49.95.71 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point on this, but we have to follow RS. Right now it says "misgendered," and I think that particular word is a bit loaded and should be avoided primarily because it does not appear in the reference. The Hill source says, In a statement posted to Twitter, DeSantis incorrectly said Thomas is a “male identifying as a woman,” and criticized the NCAA for failing to protect its female athletes. I think we should alter the misgendered verbiage to say: During a March 22 press conference, Florida governor Ron DeSantis incorrectly described Thomas as "a male identifying as a woman" and declared second-place finisher... This would be more consistent with the RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The source of the text states, In a statement posted to Twitter, DeSantis incorrectly said Thomas is a “male identifying as a woman,” (emphasis added). Misgendering is a paraphrase of DeSantis making this incorrect statement and links to relevant encyclopedic content. Context from earlier in the paragraph includes: In February 2022, Vicky Hartzler, a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, featured Thomas in a campaign advertisement asserting that "Women's sports are for women, not men pretending to be women", which was described by CNN as "a transphobic trope belittling trans women". (source). Beccaynr (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Misgendered is a tricky word that has some undertones. That' kind of like if an RS said "these comments were racially charged" and we wrote "these comments were racist". There some words, like misgendered and racist, you just don't use when paraphrasing. I think using incorrectly, like my proposition above, is probably the most neutral thing to do. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Media Matters refers to Fox News anchor Shannon Bream calling transgender athlete CeCe Telfer a "biological male who now identifies as a woman" as misgendering and states "The practice goes against journalistic standards, the Associated Press Stylebook, and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage". I think it is possible to rely on the sources, including the journalistic standards cited by Media Matters, and use the wikilink per WP:IMPARTIAL. There is encyclopedic context available for the DeSantis statement, both already in the article and at another article via the wikilink, so it seems helpful for readers. Given the weight of the journalistic standards, this seems like an WP:MNA situation, e.g. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This part of the section reflects my sense about including the wikilink: It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in-depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Media Matters is a partisan advocacy group that is not considered reliable at WP:RSP. I wouldn't say pulling the word out of the air is in line with the neutral point of view. Can you please explain what’s so egregiously wrong with my proposition? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not an egregious proposition, and I appreciate you discussing this complex topic with me. I see the wikilink as a "brief, unobtrusive pointer" but we don't have a consensus on its use, so removing the wikilink and using the term 'incorrect' seems like a good compromise. Beccaynr (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for this inflammatory quote at all. It is not the point of the sources being cited; DeSantis attempting to declare a new winner is. This isn't the article for picking sound bites to dunk on DeSantis, especially when they could be insulting to the BLP who is the main topic. The article using "incorrectly" could be considered WP:UNDUE or mistaken as it does get tricky describing biological sex, but anyway, there's no reason to include this and certainly WP:ONUS for it is not met. Crossroads -talk- 06:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this is a bit of late response, but is right that the quote is probably not worth mentioning. I don't see it as particularly WP:DUE or even beneficial to the article. Right now the quote is not present, and that's how it should stay. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify my view, I did not believe there was a need for the quote and had not added it to the article. I had used the wikilink to summarize content from the article and to create encyclopedic content based on the source . Another editor removed the wikilink and added the quote, and I tried to collaborate with this edit by returning the wikilink to the article . From my view, based on this discussion and the content of the Public debate section, the quote and/or the addition of encyclopedic content related to the quote may be more clearly WP:DUE if there is further media attention or commentary. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Lia Thomas ranking: Men's Swim Team vs. Women's Swim Team
I have found two reliable sources discussing Ms. Thomas's ranking in swimming, comparing her ranking when she [swam for the Men's Swim Team] to her current ranking [on the Women's Swim Team]:



Some points:


 * The number isn't 462 -> 1. It's 554 -> 5 (200 freestyle), 65 -> 1 (500 freestyle), and 32 -> 8 (1650 freestyle)
 * The numbers are reliably sourced (if not, take it to WP:RSN)

SkylabField (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have refactored your comment similar to the way I edited your additions to the article, per MOS:GENDERID and the contents of the article. Please stop using the term "male" to refer to Thomas when she swam on the Penn Men's Swim Team, and please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing up these concerns. I think the important thing here is this: Lia has a lower rank on the men's team than when on the women's team.  This fact has been mentioned in many many WP:RS so can be mentioned even though we have to be -- and I am -- careful about WP:BLP concerns.  The MOS:GENDERID wording concerns are important, yes, because I have seen a lot of bad faith edits being made going against those concerns, including one I reverted but I am hoping that it's understood that wording was made in good faith to describe a real concern which many have.  This is a contentious debate and a lot of bad-faith black and white thinking is going on which I am working to counteract.  While many with concerns are acting in bad faith, there are good faith concerns about the jump in rank, and it does not serve the Wikipedia to try and sweep those issues under the rug; they have been discussed in reliable sources.  SkylabField (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I had considered adding more to my comment about how I clearly recognize your contributions are made in good faith, so I appreciate the opportunity to confirm that is my understanding. I also think it is helpful to add reliably-sourced content about the rank changes and I appreciate your research and work to add this context to the article. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to caution you against refactoring people's talk comments per WP:BLPTALK as I mentioned on the BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the BLPN, including about how WP:BLP policy applies to Talk pages. Beccaynr (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The number isn't 462 -> 1. It's 554 -> 5 (200 freestyle), 65 -> 1 (500 freestyle), and 32 -> 8 (1650 freestyle) This is incorrect, they are not contradictory, and I have made it explicit why in the article. The Swimming World piece is quoting statistics for her final races in March 2022 in which she came 5th; if you look at the article as it was published in February via archive.org, the numbers were different (they quoted 554 -> 1, actually), and then updated after her races. The rankings don't contradict each other and the rankings in the letter were probably accurate at a time; she probably was 462nd in the 200-yard free at some point swimming for the men's team and we know she was 1st in the 200-yard free at some point swimming for the women's team, and other reliable sources -- e.g. Axios (see its RSP entry) and The Australian (see its RSP entry) -- were happy to quote that in their own voice. So I think it's fine as it's worded as of writing this comment. Endwise (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your good faith edits. Regarding the 462-1 statistic, can we mention that it has been disputed? Source -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Blogs like that are not reliable sources, so no. To be clear, we do have a source for 554 -> 1, though. You may agree with the editor-in-chief of Swimming World and think it makes more sense to quote a more recent ranking of 554 than a (presumably) prior ranking of 462, but 554 and 462 are not really substantively different, so I don't think there's an issue leaving the attributed quote of the letter. Endwise (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"462 to 1" appears to be misleading because it does not refer to a specific race, and two outlets uncritically parroting the claim does not make it less misleading. I think the entire quote from the letter should be removed from the article, and the reliably-sourced statistics published in sections about her career. If secondary sources were paying critical attention to the letter, I would have a different view. But here, I think WP:SCANDAL/WP:BLP applies - it is a poorly-sourced sensationalist claim, so it should not be included. Beccaynr (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand... if at least 554 -> 1 is accurate, how is 462 -> 1 scandalous and "sensationalist"? Endwise (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just writing "462 to 1" without reference to a specific race/event appears misleading, now that it is clear that rankings refer to specific races/events (e.g. via USA Swimming Top Times/Event Rank). "554 to 1" would also be misleading if it is not referring to a specific event. It's not the numbers, it's how the numbers are presented without necessary context that make it sensationalist. Beccaynr (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Necessary context" is decided by the RS reporting it. If we are presenting it as they do, then there is nothing to fix. Crossroads -talk- 04:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources that parrot "462 to 1" appear to be repeating the claim without fact-checking the necessary context that is otherwise established by actual reliable sources. A ranking of "462 to 1" does not appear to exist without reference to a specific event/race. I think it should simply be removed, as noted in the Possible addition Talk discussion above with, and replaced with their suggestion about rephrasing it as a concern over an unfair advantage. That appears to be the gist of the misleading presentation of the data. We need to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE, and need to use the WP:BESTSOURCES per WP:NPOV policy. Beccaynr (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Something's not right here. The swimmingworldmagazine article says "During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19..." But you can see clearly here that she competed on the men's team in the 2019-20 season

Are the rankings quoted in the article really from 2018-19, or are they really from 2019-20? This is a significant difference because


 * She started hormone therapy at the end of the 2018-19 season, and
 * She was the fastest swimmer on the team (in the 500) in 2018-19 and the slowest in 2019-20.

In my opinion, unless we can find a reliable and consistent source for her rankings in these particular years, this information should be removed from the article.

- Nate Biggs (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Critics
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-swimmer-trans-ncaa-b2042715.html Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Height, 5’8 not 6’1
Her height being 6’1 is not accurate, she is 5’8 86.6.92.66 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? Endwise (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * More to the point, do you have a source more reliable than the Washington Post? That's where we're currently getting her height. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with WaPo? Endwise (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think C's point is that WaPo is quite reliable and the potential that a less reliable source lists her height as 5'8" would not override the status quo. ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  19:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad for misunderstanding. Endwise (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

surgery
Marsha Blackburn mentioned Lia in the Jackson hearing as a "biological male." Presumably this means she hasn't had bottom surgery. I'm very surprised that we can't turn to her wikipedia article to verify the truth or falsity of Blackburn's claim. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC65:5329:2995:AF03:6699:1569 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Biologically male" is a transphobic codephrase/dogwhistle which means "person believed to have been assigned male at birth". It does not imply anything specific about a person beyond that, apart from the obvious implication of the speaker's contempt for them. The sort of person who would use that phrase to describe a woman is not concerned with surgery, hormones or anything else. As far as they are concerned birth sex is the only thing that matters. It is used indiscriminately to apply to trans women (and sometimes to cis women who they refuse to believe are cis) regardless of surgery. There is no reason to assume that Marsha Blackburn intended to imply anything specific about Lia Thomas's surgery and, even if she did, how would she even know? It would only be a matter of her idle supposition.
 * The broader question here is why we are not covering what surgery Lia Thomas might have had? There are two answers here: 1. We don't know. 2. We are not here to pry into people's private medical records. If she decides that she wants to talk about it, and/or if reliable sources cover it, then we can add it to the article in an appropriate manner, which is to say not lurid, overblown or sensationalised. If she doesn't want to talk about (and who could blame her) then that's her business, not ours. If other people are speculating about it then that is worth nothing to us. Speculation and innuendo are not information. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The phrase "biological male" is not "phobic". It's just what some people believe: their honest opinion. We don't call Flat-Earthers "phobic" just because they disagree with the accepted wisdom of the Earth being a sphere. 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:3C33:8A17:1A91:8985 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with calling him a biological male as he's literally a man and you cant change you gender. He still has XY chromosomes. BritishToff (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and you can't change your gender is somewhere in the dense Venn overlap of unsourced POV opinion and ideology. It's a good thing nobody is trying to have this reflected in article space. I doubt you even have a RS for Lia's chromosomes - and don't misgender her, please, even on Talk. That is UNCIVIL and violates WP:BLP principles. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Any mention of surgery in this article would need to be covered in RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Joe Rogan? Seriously?
The "Public debate" section of this article is getting unwieldy, so much so it's threatening to overwhelm what is supposed to be a biographical article. It's time to exercise some editorial discretion about which reactions to include instead of including the opinions of every single person with a WP article that chooses to weigh in. People involved in the swimming world make sense, as do the various governors, but if there's a glaringly obvious cut it's Joe Rogan. A podcaster. Really? Anyone can be a podcaster or Youtuber, it's not anything special. He has no prior connection to college swimming. He's not in any position to pass or sign legislation. He's just a guy who likes to give his opinion about stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsan Bacon (talk • contribs)


 * His take is just more cynical content being poured into the content hole and we shouldn't be looking for excuses to include it. The question is whether his take is notable and whether Marca (newspaper) is RS for demonstrating that. I think the default position should be to leave it out but a second, better, source for it might swing it the other way. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a podcaster? Seriously? If you think you can attract half the audience Rogan does, you should probably spend less time here and more on YT. JRE has >14 million subscribers.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:4F3:EC6A:E116:B286 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thomas is not primarily known for winning the NCAA championship
reverted my edit without explanation changing the known_for infobox description from First openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship to Athletic achievements as a trans woman.

Thomas is not primarily known for winning NCAA Division 1. She is primarily known for winning swimming competitions as a transgender athlete, not specifically winning the NCAA championship. My revision is more accurate to what RS has identified her notability to be. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I don't know why my edit summary wasn't saved.
 * There have been plenty of transgender athletes; according to RS, it is Thomas's success as a transgender athlete for which she is primarily known, and this is what the (stable) shortdesc communicates. Reverted per ONUS. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is my revision: Athletic achievements as a trans woman. How is that not translating Thomas's success as a transgender athlete? The one you reverted to is this: First openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship. The one I'm advocating for is the "(stable) shortdesc" Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Newimpartial's preferred description is too many characters to be a short description. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 00:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "known for" field. It is the stable "known for" field. And "athletic achievements as" is much more vague, and therefore less meaningful, than the NCAA Division result. Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the sources, as a swimmer, her top achievement currently is the NCAA win, and she is widely known for being the first openly transgender athlete to win. I think this "known for" summary reflects the sources and it may be relevant to consider the WP:AVOIDVICTIM section of WP:BLP policy, due to the nature of some of the material in the Public debate section. A broader summary in the infobox might also minimize the achievement she is known for and might instead amplify the actions of others involved in a larger public debate. This is her biography, so I think makes sense to emphasize what she has done and her most notable achievement in the infobox. Another option could be to simply remove the "known for" field from the infobox, and create an infobox that looks more like the one developed for Laurel Hubbard. Beccaynr (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinpointing her notability to the NCAA is to narrow to actually reflect what Thomas is known for. Frankly, she is known just as much if not more for the public debate regarding her achievements than the achievements herself. The "larger public debate" significance should not be minimized. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think WP:AVOIDVICTIM is relevant to consider because part of the Public debate section includes what CNN describes as "a transphobic trope belittling trans women" and the National Women's Law Center refers to as "nationwide misogyny and transphobia". Per WP:BLP, it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, so the larger public debate probably should be minimized, at least in the infobox, in favor of a focus on her accomplishments as an athlete. Beccaynr (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How was your proposal an improvement in that respect? It seems that you were simply obscuring her NCAA victory, rather than actually pointing to any significance beyond her achievements. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

She was already well-known in the media before her NCAA victory. She is known for her successes as a trans athlete, not one race on one day in particular; the infobox as it's written is far too narrow. I'm not sure if this field in the infobox is even needed though. Endwise (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I would say the field is needed since Thomas would not normally be considered notable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Kataluna Enriquez is known for being the first openly transgender woman to compete in Miss USA. Beccaynr (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thomas was already very well known before the NCAA final. I don't think that BLP you linked was all that notable before Miss USA. Endwise (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But as I noted above, the 'public debate' she received coverage for before her notable NCAA win appears to implicate the WP:AVOIDVICTIM section of WP:BLP policy because it includes what CNN describes as "a transphobic trope belittling trans women" and the National Women's Law Center refers to as "nationwide misogyny and transphobia". For her infobox, I think it should be similar to other infoboxes that focus on the notable accomplishments of the subject of the BLP, and not the actions of others that sensationalize and disparage her. Beccaynr (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's belittling or victimising her to say "her achievements" rather than mentioning one specific achievement of hers. I actually don't even understand where you're coming from here. Endwise (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Most of the content to the article was added before her win and her previous career is just as notable. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 05:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My perspective is based on sources that seem to support her notability before her notable accomplishment as the first transgender athlete to win an NCAA title. The sources before her notable accomplishment focus more on controversy and sensationalism, which is what WP:BLP policy warns us against. Beccaynr (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you could link the particular wording that warns us against Thomas's past notable and well-documented accomplishments. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've quoted WP:BLP policy above in this section, and I think this really is about the sources - what are her 'notable accomplishments', according to the sources, before her NCAA win? It is not an 'accomplishment' to be targeted by sensationalism and disparagement. I think the sources can help clarify that there is no prior achievement she earned that is covered similarly to how her NCAA win is covered as a first for transgender athletes. Beccaynr (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that Most of the content to the article was added before her win. Sizewise, the article is almost three times as big today than it was on March 16, the day before her championship win. (35,362 bytes vs 12,037 bytes) Here's what her article looked like then. There wasn't very much about her athletic achievements at the time. The section on her college swimming career hadn't even been written yet. Only one race is mentioned, and it was a race where she finished sixth. There's nothing weird at all at saying an athlete is best known for a single superlative performance, especially when it's also a first. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it should say Status and achievements as a transgender athlete. This would accompany all her athletic acheivements as well the public debate, which is her primary call to notability, as many editors have pointed out, she was notable prior to any achievements, including her NCAA championship. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure how true that is. The coverage I've seen prior to the NCAA looks rather WP:BLP1E, to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thomas seems to have received coverage before and after her NCAA win often due to the efforts of others to focus on her as part of a larger debate, which from my view, is sensationalism. And it was her participation and gender identity, not "achievements", that seems to have first drawn this sensationalized coverage. A lot of the content currently in the Public debate section may be better placed at National Collegiate Athletic Association and Transgender people in sports because it appears to be more about the NCAA rules than her, and seems to make this article a WP:COATRACK. Another concern about the infobox relates to how WP:BLP policy says it is not our job to be the primary vehicle of sensationalism. The infobox is prominent in search results, including the "known for" field, so this seems to be another reason for caution. Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it sensational? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be sensationalism for a few reasons:
 * 1) we have sources in the article describing some of the 'debate' as including "a transphobic trope belittling trans women" and "nationwide misogyny and transphobia". See also WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NOTSCANDAL.
 * 2) Thomas appears to be presented disproportionately in some of the public debate sources, because the public debate appears to be more about the NCAA regulations and the participation of transgender athletes in sports generally. This disproportionate focus therefore appears to be another form of sensationalism. Beccaynr (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the commentary surrounding Thomas has been described as those things, but I wouldn't say thats  all the debate is about. It's not all sensational transphobic trolling. Thomas's participation in swimming as a trans woman has been a major part of discourse regarding transgender people in sports the last months, and that discourse is not inherently sensational. Legitimate coverage of a topic presenting major viewpoints is not uplifting sensationalism. Yes some of the debate is about NCAA regulations, but a lot of that debate does in fact involve Thomas and some of is completely about Thomas. I don't think it arises to the level of WP:COATRACK. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to suggest all of the debate has been transphobia - it is described as a component, and seems relevant when we consider what to emphasize in a prominent part of the article. The WP:COATs of the larger public debate, even when coverage of the public debate talks about her swimming, also seems less notable for her infobox - she was sometimes essentially clickbait (or, sensationalized to draw attention to a larger issue), including when she was WP:LOWPROFILE. Given the policy concerns and general need for caution with BLPs, it seems best to focus her infobox on her athletic career, similar to other athlete articles. Beccaynr (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I will add my thoughts: I support "First openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship" as it currently stands. Prior to her win, I think mentioning her accomplishments as a transgender athlete may have been appropriate. She was already notable, but with her championship, that is a jump in notability and the award is notable in and of itself. That is what I support for now. That may change if Thomas ends up at the Olympics and the wording could be reassessed. -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My thoughts closely match TenorTwelve's. A subjects first claim to notability is not always their greatest, and TT's right about the "jump in notability" post-championship. I would also be fine with removing the field entirely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think removing the field might be the most encyclopedic option imo, now that you mention it. In any case, the lead should give the readers the more accurate summary. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 05:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed; remove the field from the infobox, I don't believe it is required and the lead should summarize the subject's notability. Funcrunch (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the sources in the article amply support inclusion in the infobox. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think blanking the field is better than what there is now, but I do agree that it probably is warranted because Thomas normally wouldn't be considered notable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you say this. Most swimmers with a similar level of NCAA success to Thomas appear to be Notable. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NCOLLATH notability appears supported, i.e. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team, particularly by the coverage after her NCAA win. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Joe Rogan
Should Joe Rogan's comments be mentioned under debate ? X-Editor (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is already an open discussion on this above. Per WP:TALKFORK, Opening duplicate discussions wastes editorial time, scatters editorial input, and can even lead to conflicting outcomes. Intentionally forking discussions may be interpreted as forum-shopping or canvassing. In the interests of avoiding confusion, this one should be hatted. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Lia Thomas
A quote by Supreme Court nominee Brown on this page is far from being part of Lia Thomas’ story. It seems Wikipedia is pushing their own version of history. Presenting a quote taken out of context to push trans ideals on its readers. Wiki’s are about the truth right? Then don’t add in your personal views. 2603:6081:5443:C1CA:F9D7:87DB:47A9:BBD9 (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * We follow what the reliable sources say on a person. We are not adding in our personal views but rather citing sources. In my eyes, it remains a notable part of Thomas's legacy that merits inclusion in the article, at least for now. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no quote by Supreme Court nominee Brown on this page or in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nor is there a quote from U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. Beccaynr (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Swim ranking edit war
could we stop the edit war, and discuss the issue of the swim rankings please? There does seem to be some merit for what Rab V is saying. The NY Times piece that has been the centerpiece of this edit war seems to be an opinion piece, and not factual reporting. It also The NY Times piece directly cites Swimming World as the source of rankings used. While this could be used, it would need to be done with the qualifier per WP:RSOPINION.

I've tried searching for other sources, excluding those that reference in some way the rankings of Swimming World, and came up with an article in The Independent. Unlike the NY Times piece, this does appear to be a report in which they state that Swimming World's statistics may be unfair and misleading, due to Lia's best categories changing post transition. They also go into detail averaging her times against her peers, both pre and post transition, by directly assessing the NCAA records for the last six years of competition. They make note that Lia's best competition categories changed post-transition, with her endurance levels decreasing and her best events shifting from the 1000 and 1650 yard freestyle to the 200 and 500 yard freestyle post-transition.

There may be other articles that may be of more relevant use here for factual reporting. Unfortunately my own lack of familiarity with sports reporting is hindering my search for them. Hopefully you two, or someone else here who is familiar with sports reporting can find other relevant sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Struck part about NY Times piece being an opinion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Endwise is correct. The NYT article is not an opinion piece but an ordinary article in the US section. Sources like this are far more an opinion piece than that.
 * I see no evidence whatsoever that NYT is citing Swimming World. It does not mention them at all. It simply reports the rankings as fact, rankings which, as Endwise said, are just easily accessible NCAA times. Crossroads -talk- 23:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph beginning When Ms. Thomas entered women’s meets, she rose substantially in national rankings. the word ranked is hyperlinked to Swimming World. The subsequent text is near verbatim copied from the hyperlinked Swimming World article. That is one common way that news organisations cite third party sources.
 * I fail to see the relevance of that Outsports piece to this discussion. While it is in the article, it is not been part of the current edit war.
 * I accept the point that the NY Times piece is in the US News section. I'll strike the relevant parts of my last reply now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. While they do cite it, they still state it as fact in their own voice, and the NYT employs fact-checkers. It still doesn't make sense to attribute material the NYT states as fact to Swimming World then they could easily have verified those claims with NCAA records. Crossroads -talk- 23:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you know for a fact that they did verify the claims with the NCAA records? We know that The Independent did so, as they explicitly state The Independent compiled a dataset of swim times for all top 8 NCAA women's finishers over the last six years of competition in various events. 2020 was excluded because all NCAA championships were cancelled that year due to the pandemic. and their rankings differ significantly from those reported by NY Times/Swimming World. How do you reconcile the two different statistics? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to comb through it, but if secondary sources contradict each other, as seems to be the case, then both can be reported with in-text attribution. Crossroads -talk- 17:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

For info, via the BBC
this was just announced, regarding elite swimming competition. That report also contains links to other perhaps pertinant articles that may provide useful input for this article. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

FINA coatrack material
Hi, in this edit I removed material about FINA's new ruling in the "public debate" section that was duplicated in the "swimming career" section. The material exclusively about FINA and not Lia Thomas I moved over to the article on FINA. Let's not make this article a WP:COATRACK for the broader topic of the debate about the participation of transgender women in women's sports. If it's not about Lia Thomas, can we keep it in Transgender people in sports, or in this case for FINA's ruling, extended discussion about the ruling in FINA? Endwise (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My reading in news sources about the FINA ruling always has mentioned Lia Thomas's success as one of the reasons for the change, so I consider it due mention here, . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 09:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * She is of course relevant to the ruling and the ruling relevant to her, so it should be mentioned here. But that doesn't mean that any and all discussion about the ruling, e.g. "this group said the ruling was good, this group said the ruling was bad", additional details about FINA itself, etc., make sense to go in the article about Lia Thomas the swimmer. Some discussion of the ruling, how the ruling effects her, and how she is relevant to the ruling should go here, but not any and all info about the intersection of FINA and transgender athletes. As I said above, this article shouldn't be a WP:COATRACK for any and all discussion about transgender athletes in women's sports. Endwise (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is he referred to as a she?
I would suggest using something other than she to reduce confusion. He, they, or something else especially in the first paragraph. 2603:7080:4D01:9540:8559:AE8D:4927:7062 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * MOS:GENDERID states Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. That is why we refer to her as she throughout the article, so there is no confusion about her gender identity. Beccaynr (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022
(This post is blatantly one sided. It needs significant editing to eliminate antagonistic rhetoric) Petemcl99 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be more specific. --Pokelova (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , as it says above: Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I see some inconsistencies here
1.I think, that on the beginning it should be written that Lia was born as a biological male or at least mention that she is transgender. Maybe: "Lia's assign at birth as male"? Or maybe right on the beginning :"transgender person"? Or something like that. It will help some readers to understand the next phrase: "She competed on the university's men's swim team from 2017 to 2020". ("Daddy! Why this girl was swimming in the men's team?"). Remember, this information comes before it is mentioned that this is a transgender person.

2.In any article about any other public figure who legally change the name (married, nick name etc) there is a note about previous name. Many of the movie stars change name before become famous, but we still include the previous name. Maybe: "Knows previously as..." or something like that. I understand privacy concerns, but this is Wikipedia. We collect the knowledge. I saw the comments: "everybody knows that Lia was previously known as X". I do not know that. Do I have to know? Personally? I do not. But we can not dictate what someone should think. Maybe someone in 50 years will like to know. This is the reason of having encyclopedia. You look for the facts that you do not know.

3.I think that article is inconsequent. It was said: we do not add the birth name/deadname because that person was not known in that time, but we still add information on Lia's career when Lia was 5. We address her "She" in relation to time, when even Lia did not use that pronoun to herself. And as we know gender identity" is is: "the personal sense of one's own gender".

4. You mention many times Manual of style/Gender identity. Yes, but those are guidelines. And they can be wrong in that particular case. WADR: Remember, This is Wikipedia. We need to leave the interpretation of facts to the reader. As long as you want to be neutral and not to "Mind Shape" the readers in your own way. Pnarkiew (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It says she's trans in literally the next sentence after that. We can't be responsible if readers are that lazy. --Pokelova (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Going through this point-by-point: (1) As Pokelova noted, the intro states she is a transwoman. (2) MOS:DEADNAME is very clear about what Wikipedia does and does not say about transgender people. Since Thomas was not notable under her deadname, it is not mentioned in the article. Had she won an NCAA title while swimming under her deadname, the situation might be different. The MOS on gender identity is also very strictly enforced because this is such a contentious issue, as evidenced by the Arbitration Committee allowing administrators to enforce discretionary sanctions in the topic area. In 50 years, the situation may change, and Wikipedia may change its rules. But at the current time, the deadname does not go in Wikipedia, even if linked sources use it. (3) Again, this is a matter the MOS addresses: we use the current pronouns of the subject regardless of the point in history being discussed. (4) Yes, we need to be neutral, and the best way to do that is to follow the manual of style and not carve out an exception here. Why an exception in this case and not others? The MOS on gender identity is a consensus product, and there is no compelling reason to ignore the guidelines for the article about Ms. Thomas. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd just add that people should not be using offensive dogwhistle phrases like "biological male" even on talk pages. I'd like us to be a bit more proactive about removing such comments as disruptive. If the person who used the phrase made a good faith error then they can try commenting again without using the phrase. If they are trolling then they can just go away. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Penn Men's Swimming and Diving website lists her as Lia Thomas (e.g. select 500 Free, 2018-2019, 1000 Free, 2018-2019 or 1650 Free, 2018-2019). At the Penn Men's Swimming and Diving website, her highlighted name links to her Swimcloud page. There are no explanatory notes or deadnaming on these websites. Beccaynr (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explanations. I understand. I agree to disagree. DanielRigal I am sorry but what make you think that term "biogical male" is offensive? Its not my intention to offend anybody so do not impose on me something that is not a truth. Was Lia assign as male at birth? Yes. Did Lia make a decision in highschool about her gender identity? Yes. It is written in that very article. I did not say anything that is not a historical fact. Pnarkiew (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Referring to any trans woman as a biological male is an expression of POV and comes across to many as a dog whistle, whether intended that way or not. Newimpartial (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So.. Is that offensive or POV? And why historical fact is POV? Every single opinion is POV. That is why we are sharing different POV to see better.But anyway. I do not want to be a troll. Agree to disagree. Have nice day Pnarkiew (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * By definition, if it is perceived as a dog whistle, it is offensive: even if the intent is not to directly cause offence, the (perceived) intent is to garner support from a particular group. Which group would be called to the cause by that phrase and why that is problematic—possibly to the point of intervention by an administrator—is left as an exercise to the reader. (Spoken with mop in hand.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not looking for any support from any group. Just sharing my thoughts and my POV. I am just a simple man trying to make my way through the galaxy. Pnarkiew (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Lack of pre-transition information
This article is missing information pertaining to the birth demographics of this person. The reason it is not included is because of the push for gender identity politics. The policy cites that the birth name will not be included if they do not perceive it as relevant. However, as this person did compete at the collegiate level as a male on the UPenn team, the biographical information is an incomplete history. The incomplete information is furthermore why Wiki should not be considered a reliable source for school work, academic research, or other topics. 2601:549:C100:E450:914:C95B:7708:6037 (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed ad nauseum. We have deemed her pre-transition life non-notable. End of discussion. You will find the references section at the bottom of the article if you wish to use those for academic purposes. --Pokelova (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a Catch-22 situation: the claim that the pre-transition life is not notable can only be refuted by discussing it, which you are not allowed to do, because the pre-transition life is not notable. AVM2019 (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a catch-22. If there were sources from the pre-transition period establishing Lia was notable while using a deadname (as with The Wachowskis or Elliot Page), then we would mention the pre-transition name in the article. No such sources have ever been provided here at Talk.
 * Even in the case of people like the Wachowskis or Page, though, wikipedia still discusses their careers without referring to them or gendering them based on their pre-transition gender presentation, because that is the community consensus embedded in MOS:GENDERID on the basis of WP:BLP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Had such sources been provided, they would have been very quickly redacted, because this talk page is being actively censored. The claim that such sources have never been provided is thus untrustworthy. AVM2019 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Believe what you want, but I would never do that (or stand by as it is being done). There have been no reliable, pre-transitjon sources presented to demonstrate wikipedia's standard for Notability, for biographies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If anybody wants to present a serious case that she was notable under her deadname then we will listen. That said, I think it is incredibly unlikely to be accepted given that nobody has found anything valid before. If anybody does want to do this then I'd advise caution. Only present links that are WP:RS and avoid using the deadname in the discussion. (It is sufficient to just say "her deadname". Everybody will understand what you mean.) Good faith efforts to do this will not be removed. People trolling, looking for excuses to gratuitously bandy her deadname about without a good faith argument or posting links to non-RS hate sites will have their comments removed and may be warned for disruption. DanielRigal (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The swimming record before the gender transition should be stated in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.43.28 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The article sections Lia_Thomas and Lia_Thomas describe her swimming career. Beccaynr (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Article far too long; cut 9/10s and split in two
This article is far too long for a College sportsperson whose only claim to fame (so far in a young life) is to have transitioned. All the details about each and every minor swim competition are far too much, and totally disproportionate to other similar competitors.

If there is consensus, I would gladly put the work in to delete 9/10s of the content.

As for all the comment on the social aspects, I would suggest putting this into a separate article eg 'Lia Thomas transition debate'. Either that or recommend that editors go to social media to debate the issues. Clearly Wikipedia is an attractive medium for some to vent themselves over this issue.

Wikipedia's role here is to mention the debate and cite sources. A long article only opens the opportunity for people to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to vent themselves. The very length of this Comments page shows the article has spun out of control. TGcoa (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You want to reduce coverage of someone you don't see as particularly notable by... essentially giving them a second article? Make it make sense. --Pokelova (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If we were to split it then the absolute worst, most egregiously POV, way to do it would be to call one article "Lia Thomas transition debate". That is flatly unacceptable. People are not debates! It is dehumanising and would make Wikipedia an active participant in her ongoing harassment. The only possible split would be into "Lia Thomas" and "Harassment of Lia Thomas" and, no, I don't think that would be a good idea. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SIZESPLIT has a rule of thumb table on when to consider splitting an article. At present, the article length is roughly 42kb, which puts it in the Length alone does not justify division. Based on that alone, I'm not seeing any policy or guideline reason to split this article. Additionally I agree completely with what has said, even if we were in SIZESPLIT territory, excising content into a proposed "transition debate" or "Harassment of" articles is not the right way to solve this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not agree, Daniel. "Transition debate" may not be a good title but whether she should compete in women's sports after transitioning as a female assigned male at birth is a matter of debate; the suggestion is not that the person is a matter of debate. Talking about this public discussion without calling such discussion "harassment" is not in itself harassment. It's clear that there are generally two groups of people presenting points on whether or not Thomas should compete. That's a debate or a controversy. Calling all instances of this discussion harassment would be unacceptable... I'm a little concerned about the tone of this talk page in places. We should be careful about going beyond Wikipedia standards in a desire to be supportive or morally correct. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That content already exists in a much broader context at Transgender people in sports, where it's clear that Thomas is one of several "hot button" trans athletes currently featured in the media. However the original suggestion that we have a "Lia Thomas transition debate" would very likely fall afoul of WP:Don't "teach the controversy", WP:Criticism and WP:Criticism, because as you say, it is controversial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that a separate controversy article should be made, I was disagreeing with the suggestion that it would constitute harassment. Also, TTC is about giving undue weight to discussions simply because they exist. The second essay says that covering the controversy is appropriate where there is third party coverage demonstrating that such a controversy exists. While I don't think covering Thomas' specific environment of controversy warrants its own article, it could at some point if the nature of the controversy significantly progresses or changes in some way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The use of this Talk page for off-topic venting about the subject does not appear to be a policy-based reason to delete content in the article from reliable sources, and I think if there was an attempt to split the article, this would probably result in two Talk pages where such discussion would continue to happen. In addition to my agreement with about WP:SIZESPLIT, this does not appear to be a rapidly-developing article with major expansion currently anticipated, and I am concerned that if there was an attempt to split this article at this time, we could end up at AfD with a merge result back into this article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Per colleagues above, I see no reason to support either proposal in the OP. -Roxy the English speaking dog 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that separating this article into two could create some POV issues if we make her all about a debate. I also think that deleting large sections of this could be disruptive. The article is currently pretty stable and edit warring on this article has mostly gone away. Separating or shrinking the article could lead to major disputes on what stays and goes. It’s also reliably sourced, it’s not just social media. I also don’t think this is too long. -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above voices in opposition to a SPLIT, particularly Sideswipe9th's. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 08:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't scale Wikipedia articles relative to the length of each other and their perceived importance; each one is independent. This article is only a few paragraphs long; it's already pretty short. Perhaps the controversy section could be less redundant but that's not a good reason to split the article. Although, I can see why this is not a POV fork suggestion. The swimmer's career and the controversy surrounding the swimmer because of incidental political concerns are not necessarily the same subject. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think, if Thomas' career as a swimmer continues, then at some future point splitting out content on her career similar to List of career achievements by Tiger Woods (example picked at random), sans the trans in sport controversy, would be a better approach than splitting out content as OP had suggested on the controversy surrounding her career. Though with only 4/5 years of competition, and following the point I raised earlier about SIZESPLIT, I think we're pretty far off from needing to do this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there seemed to be a few people concerned about the OP's intentions I took a look at their history. I think the confusion coming in about the length of the article might be because TGcoa tends to work on short, stub-like articles in sports which seem to have mostly been created and managed by mobile users. However, for a subject of controversy and competition with a noted career I think it's clear that the article is not long. It's just relatively long compared to other minor sports articles. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
Change “ Lia Catherine Thomas (born 1998/1999)” to “ Lia Catherine Thomas (born [deadname], 1998/1999)” for historical and factual accuracy.

Otherwise identifying events before name change as the same person becomes difficult. This is done for others who have undergone name changes, such as Ye (Kanye West). Please be objective for accuracy. 209.251.153.131 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:GENDERID and as discussed on this Talk page, Lia Thomas was not notable under her prior name, so we do not include her deadname in the article or Talk page. Also, as noted in the Talk page discussion above, the Penn Men's Swimming and Diving website lists her as Lia Thomas (e.g. select 500 Free, 2018-2019, 1000 Free, 2018-2019 or 1650 Free, 2018-2019). At the Penn Men's Swimming and Diving website, her highlighted name links to her Swimcloud page for her entire swimming career. There are no explanatory notes or deadnaming on these websites, so identifying events before her official name change does not appear to be difficult. Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Original birth name needs to be added
The original birth name should be added in the same way we use 'nee' for married women. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No. Per MOS:GENDERID, and the many past discussions on this page, Lia was not notable under her prior name. As such we do not include it in the article or on this talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but we will not be adding her birth name, because policy does not allow it. - Roxy the dog 17:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article says:"On the men's swim team in 2018–2019, Thomas finished second in the men's 500, 1,000, and 1,650-yard freestyle at the Ivy League championships as a sophomore in 2019." Is this not notable? Best Minoo (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That fact is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. It has absolutely no bearing on whether her deadname should be included which is defined by MOS:GENDERID. We can, and we do, cover this perfectly well without including it. DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Previous relevant discussions include: Talk:Lia Thomas/Archive 1#I see some inconsistencies here, Talk:Lia Thomas/Archive 1#First name and Talk:Lia Thomas/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022. It may also be helpful to note the Penn Men's Swimming and Diving website lists her as Lia Thomas (e.g. select 500 Free, 2018-2019, 1000 Free, 2018-2019 or 1650 Free, 2018-2019), and at the Penn Men's Swimming and Diving website, her highlighted name links to her Swimcloud page for her entire swimming career, and there are no explanatory notes or deadnaming on these websites. Beccaynr (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If somebody claimed to be Jesus Christ, would Wiki call him by that name, and not mention his real name?2600:4040:5D30:4800:9044:71B3:63B4:290D (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If MOS:GENDERID applied and he were not notable under his deadname, then the deadname would not be mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally yes. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the MOS:GENDERID is clearly terrible and makes no sense whatsoever, but that's the policy Skcin7 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)