Talk:Caster Semenya/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Timeline of tests; various inaccuracies in the current article

Currently the article does not sufficiently clarify the timeline of gender tests. If my understanding is correct, she was tested twice. Once before the competition in South Africa. (Chuene later admitted having lied about having ordered these tests.) The test in Berlin happened after the qualifiers and the semifinals, on the rest day before the finals. Our article wrongly states "The IAAF also asked Semenya to undergo a gender test after the win." The test did not occur after her win, and it is likely that Semenya did not know that she was undergoing a gender test at the time.

Our article currently says "The IAAF said it only made the test public after it had already been reported in the media". To my knowledge, IAAF never made any test results public, the leak notwithstanding.

Our article says "Following her victory, questions were raised about her gender", however those questions had been raised already before the victory by numerous parties, including South African media and a reporter interviewing her in Berlin.

My source for all of the above:

• Ariel Levy (November 30, 2009), "Sports, sex, and the case of Caster Semenya", The New Yorker

AxelBoldt (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you're waiting for comment, but I say go head with these edits. Chrisrus (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but bear in mind that it is not our job to propagate speculation about Caster's person, thus details of alleged tests or results should not be included. Remember, this is a BLP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural reception

I do not think that this sentence is appropriate in a BLP. 'She has been compared with Saartjie Baartman, the so-called "Hottentot Venus" who was exhibited as sexual freak...' Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Which bit? The comparison? That is well sourced. The "Hottentot Venus"? That is the name that Baartman is best known by, certainly outside South Africa. The sexual freak? Suggest a better wording. My reading of the New Yorker article is that several SA sources or commentators have drawn the parallel between the two individuals. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All of it. Comparing a person to a sexual freak is not acceptable in a BLP. In this case that statement is not even supported by the source. Martin Hogbin (talk)

For reference here is what the source says, South Africans have compared the worldwide fascination with Semenya’s gender to the dubious fame of another South African woman whose body captivated Europeans: Saartjie Baartman, the Hottentot Venus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I contest your assertion that the statement is not supported by the source. In the New Yorker paragraphs just before and after the sentence quoted, there also appear:

"South Africans have been appalled by the idea of a person who thinks she is one thing suddenly being told that she is something else. The classification and reclassification of human beings has a haunted history in this country. <snip> Taxonomy is an acutely sensitive subject, and its history is probably one of the reasons that South Africans—particularly black South Africans—have rallied behind their runner with such fervor. <snip> [Baartman was] exhibited in front of painters, naturalists, and oglers, who were fascinated by her unusually large buttocks and had heard rumors of her long labia. <snip> Many South Africans feel that white foreigners are yet again scrutinizing a black female body as though it did not contain a human being."

The removed sentence said, "She has been compared with Saartjie Baartman, the so-called "Hottentot Venus" who was exhibited as sexual freak in 19th century Europe, as South Africa is, after centuries of racial classification, understandably reluctant to allow outsiders to decide who belongs in one group or another." Baartman was not a freak, she was a perfectly ordinary (and extraordinary) woman, but she was exhibited as a freak, and found herself unwittingly the centre of attention.

I hadn't grasped the parallel between Semenya's gender testing and apartheid racial testing until I read that part of the NY article. I am open to any reasonable re-wording, but the comparison between the two women has been made (not by me), and it does put Semenya in a historical, cultural, and political perspective. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The source says, compared the worldwide fascination with Semenya’s gender to the dubious fame of..., in other words, the fascination with Semenya has been compared with the fame of Baartman. You said she has been compared with Saartjie, in other words the two people have been compared. This is not the same thing.

It is only my personal POV but I do not think that the statement 'Many South Africans feel that white foreigners are yet again scrutinizing a black female body as though it did not contain a human being' is at all fair. Firstly that is exactly what I am trying to avoid our doing here, and secondly Semenya was thrown into the limelight because she won a race and some of the other competitors thought she may have been competing unfairly. It is inevitable in any sort of contest that is not open to everyone that there will be disputes about eligibility, those who enter women only race must expect to face some sort of scrutiny in cases of doubt or where complaints have been made. It is the way the matter has been dealt with that is the problem.

I have always tried to stress the difference between Semenya's eligibility to compete in a women's event, which is a subject of legitimate public interest, and her own person and sexuality, which is no one's business but her own. The real villains of the piece are the various sporting bodies and agents that have used Caster a pawn in their own machinations without regard to her feelings or privacy and yet have still failed to come up with a clear ruling on her result and future. I hope that we can treat her better here.

Just to mention a name and a term like 'sexual freak' in the same sentence is, in my opinion, to make a link that is not acceptable in a BLP. I would full support something that says Caster has been badly treated, but I think the comparison of the case to that of Baartman by a magazine is not particularly notable, is unfair, and is a potential invasion of her privacy that has no place here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin Hogbin. That is an excellent review of the current concern. I agree with your conclusion, especially about the phrase "sexual freak". To give this one article too much weight would be an error. Bielle (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The NY'er article uses the case of Baartman to help explain why South Africans were so touchy about Europeans being interested in such matters; it was talking about the factors influencing the evolution of South African attitudes that came up in this case. If this article ever wants to delve into the South African reaction at the level the NY'er article does, we might want to do the same, but to say that the article "compared" the two women is simplistic and unclear, if not just plain wrong. Kudos for deleting it. Chrisrus (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally concur with Martin and Bielle's conclusions here; furthermore, terms like 'sexual freak' have absolutely no place in a BLP - Alison ^❤ 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, Martin, that the New Yorker article compares the media circuses and not the women per se, and I should have made that clearer. Of course Wikipedia should treat Semenya fairly. My point is that the interest in her case says something about how South Africa perceives classification (racial and sexual). Her case is about much more than just one individual, and one of those other things is why South Africans are so understandably angry about being classified by Europeans. The SA reaction is a story in itself. I concur with Bielle that we should not rely on only one source for this, so I have gathered national and international news sources here and will attempt to draw them into a coherent sentence or two when I am feeling more alert. (Or anyone else is welcome to in the interim.) BrainyBabe (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that terms like 'media circus' are far more appropriate here, along with terms like 'political interference', and the failure of the sports ruling bodies to reach a clear conclusion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that some people have tried to unfairly politicise and racialise this issue. Caster's case has nothing to do with classification by Europeans. Caster entered a race for women only and some female competitors in the race questioned Caster's eligibility to participate as a woman. In a race in which only one sex may compete, there have to be some rules as to exactly who qualifies; the problem was the way the issue was treated. What should have happened is that the ruling body should have discreetly taken whatever action was necessary to determine whether, under the rules in force at the time, Caster was eligible to participate as a woman and then promptly given a simple 'yes' or 'no' verdict. Unfortunately there was a testing fiasco and media circus which failed to resolve the issue and invaded Caster's privacy. Race is also a political and media diversion. There have been similar issues involving white women in the past. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed section

I propose the following for a new section on cultural reception, political storm, media circus, call it what you will. Ideas? Changes? Rewording?

The issue has become politicised, with Julius Malema, head of the African National Congress Youth League, dismissing those who wrote against Semenya as "foreign-owned media". Butana Komphela, the chairman of parliament’s sports portfolio committee, tried to block Lamine Diack, the president of the International Association of Athletics Federations, from visiting President Jacob Zuma, unless he apologised for the IAAF's treatment of Semenya. Another ANC MP, Peace Mabe, Chair of the Committee on Women, Children and People wih Disabilities , the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, and other African cultural commentators compared Semenya's case to that of Saartjie Baartman. Baartman, better known as the Hottentot Venus, was an 18th century Khoisan woman who was brought to Europe and exhibited for her sexual differences and who, in the past decade, "has become an icon in South Africa of the way colonialism dehumanized black people and pathologized black sexuality".

Attention has been drawn to the comparison by South African publications and organisations such as Mahala, the The Sunday Times, and The Witness, and international ones such as the New York Times, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, The Telegraph, The Observer, and the London-based New African.

BrainyBabe (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I do not see any reason to draw attention to the detailed way in which some South African media have tried to sensationalize Caster's case. In my opinion, to make this into some kind or black vs white, rich vs poor, or male vs female case only compounds the invasion of her privacy. Caster was an athlete whose sexuality was challenged because she had entered a female-only event and some competing athletes thought she might have unfair advantage. There is nothing wrong or unfair in that. What was wrong was the way Caster was used as a pawn in the ensuing media circus. To detail the circus even further only compounds the problem.

I would prefer some bland statement, maybe supported by the sources you have diligently collected, just saying that some media continue to try to sensationalize the case. I have just noticed that one of your sources (Caster-Gate: the real Villains) makes much the same point as I do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the care and attention to pulling this together but I still feel we are waaay over the line of do no harm. We aren't a tabloid and though I think BLP is often abused in this case we are presenting an unbalanced picture. When the article grows exponentially because she has lived more than ... 19 years ... then we can see how the world's encyclopedia should discuss her gender and associated sensationalism. A good article likely would cover some of these issues but we are getting ahead of things here and seemingly with a passion. I see little reason to go into extra details here, there may be a case to imclude some of the above on a related article but likely not this one, at least for now. -- Banjeboi 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gender vs. Sex

Please revise -- What is being discussed is not Semenya's Gender - her gender is female, it is how she lives her life. What is being discussed is her SEX. (A women's studies professor.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.37.86 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We’ve been through this before, but it’s aged off this talk page and into the archives.

One well-established meaning of "gender" has been "sex" for quite a long time. This distinction you mention seems to be new and used in certain social sciences. It may be the way things will go in other fields and generally if users find the distinction important or useful, but so far our sources have either not chosen to follow suit, or aren't aware of the argument that the distinction be made. Or maybe they would like to follow along, but don't for some reason, maybe they just haven't gotten around to changing it, due to maybe institutional inertia or something; they don‘t think it‘s important enough to change for some reason. Personally, I doubt very much whether it will ever catch on, because people seem to want another, more clinical-sounding word to use instead of saying "sex" all the time. I know I do sometimes, at least. Give them another way to say “sex test” other than “gender test” and maybe that will catch on.

Maybe a footnote in the text, as suggested would be a good idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Caster Semenya's Image

Before this image is changed, it's clear this issue needs to be discussed. Until it's discussed, I recommend the image remain how it was prior to recent edits seeking to change it. The oldest image used, as far as I can tell, is the cropped image. I recommend this image remain until consensus is reached. ialsoagree (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The photo that shows her muscular body is more informative than cropped face photo. --82.202.112.250 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Informative in what way? ialsoagree (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Opportunity for readers to see her body if it really looks like male body. --82.202.112.250 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but this seems like a weak point if the status quo for athletes is to show a cropped image. The article itself will contain much better information on the sex of the athlete than an image will, so it seems inappropriate to not follow the Wikipedia standard in this case, in my opinion. ialsoagree (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is the main image of Semenya's bio-article and clearly should be handled the same way we handle other athletes. This is not a "Caster Semenya controversy" article.TMCk (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the uncropped image is better in its own right. From an artistic point of view, the focus and composition is superior. Note how the body of the athlete in the background attracts the viewer's attention much more in the cropped version than in the original, uncropped version. The framing of Semenya is obliterated once so much of her is cut out. The cropped picture is pretty run of the mill and unimpressive image, especially when compared to the original. I think the original is quite a powerful and stark portrait of her – cropping so much of this image (which is exclusively focused on Semenya anyway) has little encyclopaedic value or artistic merit in my opinion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 00:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, except with the concern of size. As presented in the links, you're right, the uncropped image is much clearer. Look at how the image fits into the article in this revision, however, and you see that much of the detail is lost because the image is so small. Any artistic benefit is quickly squelched by the extremely small size, in my opinion. ialsoagree (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just had a quick look through the pictures of other athletes and the most common picture is a fairly close up head and upper torso shot. The minority that show more of the athlete tend to be racing or victory parade shots. I see no reason to depart from this standard and thus think we should stick with the the cropped image. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Martin here. I'm also concerned over the clear BLP issues here, highlighted in particular by the use of scare quotes here by the original anon editor. Not very reassuring, sorry - Alison ^❤ 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what some silly edit summary says matters much in this issue... However, I am in agreement that in terms of size the uncropped image is not suitable as a lead image. Hopefully we'll get another image to add to the article soon and then we can consider moving the uncropped one to the body of the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 17:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I find that the cropped image is better for the introduction. It shows Semenya's face and expression and the background is a running track. It draws attention to Semenya's status as a runner in general and neither hammers in nor distracts from the controversy about her gender, which is her main claim to fame. There is no reason why we couldn't put another, larger image of Semenya elsewhere in the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find another article on an athlete with more than one image. Why do we need more than one here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How many words is a picture worth? Chrisrus (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Are there some words you think need saying? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, too cryptic. I was hoping you'd remember the phrase "A picture is worth 1,000 words". My point being that adding a picture, or the right kind of picture, would eliminate the need for many words. Chrisrus (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you think can be eliminated from the article?TMCk (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the elephant in the room here that people are hedging around, is that certain people would like to use the uncropped image because it tends to portray the athlete as somewhat masculine. This comment, amongst others, makes that perfectly clear. In its totality, it's rather unflattering anyway and, as Martin points out, we don't do this to other athletes, so why do it here? The whole matter smacks of "lolz - check out this freak!" to be honest, and in a biographical article that's simply not on. Indeed, it's not a quality image in the first place, nor is it presenting any more information to the reader - Alison ^❤ 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New Picture

Cropped or uncropped, how did we get this picture? Are there more where it came from? Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of your question (and this new section) but you get your answer by following the image and the article's history.TMCk (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevence is article improvement. We could find a new cool photo, for example: [1]. That's a nice one. Maybe if we knew how we got the picture we already have, which easily could have come from the same source as this one, we could get that photo or one like it. Chrisrus (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested picture is OK (assuming it is free use) but I do not see why it is better than the current one.

You do need to address the issue that Alison has raised. You said, 'My point being that adding a picture, or the right kind of picture, would eliminate the need for many words'. What do you mean by the 'right kind of picture', and what words do you hope to eliminate? You seem to be pushing some kind of point. Please come clean and tell us exactly what it is you are trying to say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that we maybe we could get a better picture that is both "flattering" and gives more information to the reader at the same time. Doing so would be a compromise solution to the "cropped/uncropped" debate, above, which you insist that I "need to" continue, but maybe I don't if this cooperative approach works. Have a look at the pictures in the "See Also" section of the article; some of them have pictures. Chrisrus (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the information you are trying to give to the reader? You seem rather coy about this. I suggest that the reason for your reluctance to give details is that it is 'information' that is not appropriate for inclusion in the article, as has been suggested by Alison. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah. That stuff is silly. Let's talk about getting more and better pictures instead. I don't want to get distracted with a bunch of irrelevent stuff about people's motivations. Once I remember someone rejected a picture because the artist wasn't a member of the same group as the referent! Who cares about that. What matters is article improvement. I think one where she's running would be best, don't you? How about one of her in action, running the 800? C'mon, help me, be cooperative. I don't know how to get pictures by myself. Chrisrus (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation: "I'd rather not answer your question, Martin. Let's talk about co-operation instead!" :/ - Alison ^❤ 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer to his question, Alison, is "What she looks like". Now can you please help with the picture question? Chrisrus (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, Chrisrus, your personal motives for wanting to change the picture are not important. However, anyone who wants to change the image from the consensus image (which shows what Caster looks like in exactly the same way as we show what other athletes look like) needs to give reasons for doing so. If you think you have a better free-use picture please propose it with reasons why you think it is better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First, it only occurred to me to look for a picture because there was the cropped/uncropped debate above, so how "consensus" could it be? It was an attempt at compromise. Second, don't you think that the pictures I showed/described to you would be better? Anyone would, it's not like it's a controversial suggestion. Third, have you looked at the pictures in the "See Also" section of the article, as I suggested above? Chrisrus (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not completely against your proposed image provided. Is it free use? On the other hand, we have a perfectly good image already, why change it.

Regarding other possibilities, I have looked at the 'See also' section. The pictures there are probably the only free use ones available in some cases. I also looked through the 1500 metres and 800 metres articles and there I got the impression that a head and upper torso shot was the standard for the more recent images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some of us feel it makes her look too male. The picture used on most other Wikipedias shows her lower half is obviously female. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being half one thing and half another, or going to the encyclopedia to learn about such people. Neither would such a picture invade her privacy or violate any rule or guideline. In shorthand, one could say that the contrast between her lower and upper halves, if you will, is the most notable thing about her. Chrisrus (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for WP to put up pictures of living people so that readers can compare their top and bottom halves to make sure that they match. There is nothing wrong with going to an encyclopedia to learn about any aspect of human sexuality but not by looking at images of real people who have not given their approval for their pictures to be used for such purposes. Caster has now been given approval to compete as a woman in sporting events; that is all we need to say here about her sexuality, everything else on that subject is her business only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is appropriate for WP to put up pictures of people whose physique is the primary reason for thier notablity. It is the job of this article to tell the reader what the Semenya issue is all about and the larger issues at stake. While the only permission we need is from the copyright holder, there is no reason to think that Caster would object to the pictures I showed you. Saying that, after about a year, Caster finally qualified to race with women is nowhere near doing justice to the issue and it's significance. Doing so would ignore all the notable events surrounding this topic and the significance of the issue. Besides, you are not describing the article as it stands by this post, so if you really do believe that is all the article should be, you have some deleting to do, starting with the bit about her having been a tomboy. Also, you should get out the Google translate and check out some of the other Wikpedia's articles, because they do not simply state that she has finally qualified to race with women. Chrisrus (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, this is a biography of a living person in an encyclopedia. Unlike a newspaper, which is read today and used tomorrow to wrap your fish and chips in, what is written here is there continually for all to see. The things you want to add were pure speculation, there was no proof of any of those things. Not only that, but some of the unsubstantiated claims were about very personal issues which no person would want discussed in public. It is not up to each reader of WP to make up their own mind about Caster, the decision on the only personal issue of legitimate public interest has been made by the proper authority. Caster has been cleared to compete in women's events.

If other language Wikipedias do not maintain the correct standards for a BLP that is their problem not ours. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about a picture. We're talking about what she looks like in public when she runs her races. Let's not get distracted. Are you saying that anything you've said above applies to having a picture of the physique that is at the center of all this significance? Stick to the subject. In order for a "reader of WP to make up their own mind about Caster", having a look at her as she appears when she races is very helpful, even important. And again, if you truely believe that about the only thing we should say is that she's been cleared to run in women's events, why don't you delete all the material in the article that does quite a bit more than that, starting with the fact that she was a tomboy? A picture of her running a race or some such flattering picture that she'd be proud to see in public would not violate anything that you are talking about. Chrisrus (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already said that I am not totally against your proposed picture (you have not yet confirmed the copyright situation yet) although I can see no reason for the change either. It is not up to me to decide. Why do you not propose using it and see if there is a consensus to do so? Some people might suspect your motives for wanting the change.

Regarding her being a tomboy etc. I think general comments about her character are fine but speculation about her anatomy is not.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Why do you not propose using it...", because it was much easier to simply find out by talking here that it is not the uncropped photo per se that is being rejected in the above section, but any such picture, no matter how flattering.

With regard to my motives, first of all, such argumentation is invalid. Somewhere here there is an article about a logical fallacy, I can't find it now, that as I recall is named after an argument made by a lawyer one time that the testimony of a spurned woman against her criminal husband should be discounted as she was just angry at him. I forget the name of that logical fallacy, but the point is, her reason for testifying against him may explain why she brought evidence against him, but that in itself doesn't mean it's false. I hope you get the point, but if not, I'll try harder to find the article. The point is, if Wikipedian A has some kind of agenda that motivates him/her to make some edit Wikipedian B disagrees with, it is not logically valid for B to oppose the edit on those grounds.

With regard to my motivations and related topics again, but totally separate from the above, I will tell you anyway in the hopes that people won't side against anything I do simply because I'm the one that does it, which is again wrong to do, but worth staving off. One, I'm personally interested in intermediate forms of things; that's what's interesting to me about Semenya. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If she were just another athlete, I wouldn't be here. Two, I'm sorry again about the Australian leak thing. The thing was, there were two newspapers who came out with it on the same day and I thought that the story had been broken by The Australian. I argued for a while for the inclusion on those grounds, but then, finally, someone proved to me that that newspaper had used a tabloid newspaper as the original source. So I dropped that line of argument, but it seems some people think I'm still trying to include the information from the Australian leak, so I want to make clear that I am not, so please let's move on, I'm sorry, I was wrong. The other newspaper is clearly cut into a different, table-oid shape and uses sensationalistic headlines with big font, I can see that now, so sorry, I was wrong about the source of the information way back then so please forget I ever argued for it's inclusion in the article, I'm sorry; it was an honest mistake; both newspapers came out with the same info on the same day and the source I was reading seemed to be saying that it came from The Australian, so I got confused and made a mistake. Somewhere out there is an article about a Latin-named fallacy that's something like incorectus onethingingus onetimeingus, incorectus omnibus, he was wrong once, so he's wrong about everything forever, obviously invalid argumentation.

Finally, my motivation is exactly the same as yours, or at least what yours should be. My motivation is to write as good an article as we possibly can here without violating any BLP guidelines. There is a trade-off a times with BLP guidelines and the "Wikipedia is not censored" edict. That's fine, I understand, there is a vague area there, where lines can blur and reasonable people can disagree. As you probably know, I see others as crossing the line into censorship, and others see me as crossing the line into BLP violation. That's how the thing works, hopefully a solution can be found, but the article as it stands doesn't do justice to either position, in my view, please recall my "one way or the other" position about the article, that it not try to do two contradictory things at the same time, because it's impossible to do justice certain topics without totally letting on to any astute reader that something is obviously true. Chrisrus (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think another image would be better just propose it here with the reasons why you think it will improve the article. As I have already said, I am not totally against the one you suggested but I do not see any reason to depart from what seems to be the standard for athletes. If you think your image is an improvement to the article than just tell everyone why you think that is so and wait to see what the consensus is. You have still not answered the free use question. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to get free use. I'd figure it out and look into getting another photo if I knew that I'd have consensus and support of a compromise picture such as this one, for example: [2]. Then I'll go and see what I can find. Without that, what's the point in going to all that trouble when people have already said that they don't want a photo that shows her bottom half because any such policy would violate BLP, which as you know I don't agree with. Now Martin has at least obstained from answering whether he'd support such a photo or not, but I think Alison and some of the others have been pretty clear they wouldn't, as they don't want people looking at her bottom half, that'd invade her privacy or some such, it's not right to look at her in her lower half because that'd be tantamount to turning the article into a cruel freakshow, they've been pretty clear about that, I totally disagree, but whatever. Plus, I wanted to get others involved in finding and getting permission for such a photo not only because I need help but I have the impression that if I do just about anything unilaterally to this article, it'd be opposed, so it'd have to be a group effort, not just something I went and did. Chrisrus (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, the current picture shows Caster in the same way that we generally show other athletes. If we are going to intentionally show her in a different way from that in which we show other athletes then we should have a good reason for doing so. If you want to propose anther picture and explain why it improves the article you are welcome to do so.

If you think a different style of picture would be better and want to discuss it here before looking for one that is fine but to convince anyone to that a different style is needed you will need to explain how your proposed style will improve the article. I expect that many editors would be against depicting Caster in a different way from other athletes just because of the gender controversy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The "other athletes" whose articles hers should be compared to are those in the "See Also" section at the bottom of the page. The reason is, her notability and significance is primarily in that she belongs to that category of athlete. However, many athletes not in that category have action pictures, or full body pictures. Roberto Clemente is one of the "excellent" articles, isn't it? In the picture, he's actually playing the sport. No one would that disagree a good picture of an athlete playing a sport or wearing the uniform of a sport is out of line. Therefore there is no difference between a good photo for any athlete and a good photo for an athlete in the category of the "See Also" athletes. You have dismissed photos before as being as they are based on the fact that they are all we can get. That explains the fact that most photos of athletes are taken at some book signing or public appearance, out of uniform, not in action, far from the sports field, and should not be taken as a measure of what is a good picture for an article about just any athlete. But as you know, Semenya is not just any athlete. She is an athlete in the category of those in the "See Also" section of the article (which, by the way, is one more thing about the article you'll need to change if you really want it to be as you seem to want it to be, with "no discussion of her "sexuality" sic).Chrisrus (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Is there some style of picture that you think would be better suited to this article and, if so, what is it and why is it an improvement over the current one? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. If I could get a compromise photo (the compromise between the cropped/uncropped discussion, above), a compromise photo such as this one [3]. or this one [4], would you allow a flattering photo which also shows her lower half clearly, as a new lead photo? Would everyone else? Or should I not even bother to try? Next, if you would not actively oppose it, would you actually be willing to help me do so, not only because I would probably need help doing so, but also so that it wouldn’t be something that Chrisrus went and did on his own, but something we did as a group to reach a compromise between the cropped uncropped photo discussion above? Chrisrus (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In what way would that improve the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be more flattering AND more informative; a compromise between the two postions in the debate above, which prompted me to start this section. It could also be just a better picture on aesthetic grounds, too, we'd have to see what we could get. She really looks like a man in the picture as it stands, which would tend to put the gender section below, which is most of the article, in one perspective: a perspective from which it seems more reasonable for the other racers to have asked that she be tested and for the IAAF to agree and insist that they be carried out, but a picture of the rest of her would show that she also at the same time looks like a woman, making more understandable the notable opinions expressed in the text below that the initial questions were not reasonable. The reader would then be in a better postion to understand what the big section of the article is all about, resulting in an improved article in terms of reader understaning of the events and positions in the large section of the article. But you don't have to worry about any of that. I could just say "here's a better picture" and you'd agree if they were the pictures that I showed you above or something similar. I could just say "here's a better picture" and everyone would agree that it would improve the article, unless they just think that showing the lower half of an 800 Meter racer in the standard 800 Meter racing shorts from the front is a violation of her privacy and therefor BLP. Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I appreciate that you are to some degree trying to support Caster

I am in no way a gatekeeper for this article I am just another editor like you but I think I have an idea what is likely to be acceptable to the majority here. The problem is not with showing her in a particular pose, but with showing her differently from other modern athletes. This propagates, and to some degree validates, unfounded and intrusive speculation about her. If a full length picture was the norm for these articles, I would be promoting just that kind of picture here.

Three things I personally dislike are, political correctness, censorship, and unfairness. There was a gender controversy and we should not hide that fact but the claimed details were unsubstantiated allegations. It is not our job to put up a specially revealing picture of her so that readers can 'decide for themselves'. To do this to one athlete just because some allegations were made about her is unfair, even if our motive is 'look, she really is a woman' rather than 'look at this freak'. Apart from clearly stating the facts about the gender controversy we should treat Caster just like any other athlete in this article. Doing anything else always raises the question of why she is depicted differently from other athletes. I agree that your motives for wanting a particular picture or style do not matter but perceived motives by the reader do.

I agree that the current picture may not be the best possible and I can see some advantages in your suggestion but I you want to take this further I think you will have to suggest specific pictures for consideration. If you are not willing to do this than I think you would be better dropping the subject as you are unlikely to get anywhere with an 'informative' argument. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Association Football"

How do you say "Association Football" in South African English, the language of this article? Chrisrus (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would guess 'Football' but I am not SA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Soccer" - Alison ^❤ 17:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alison, are you just guessing or do you know that is the normal SA term. In most English speaking countries that play the game it is called just 'football'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See Confederation of African Football.TMCk (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Association football is "soccer", Martin, and a South African friend of mine tells me that's the common term at least there - Alison ^❤ 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think I do not know what soccer is? 'Soccer' is quite commonly used in English speaking football playing countries but 'football' is much more common term.

Here [[5]] the term used is just 'football', also here. There are web sites that use the term 'soccer' but I think these are aimed at US audiences.

This is not really the right place for this debate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure you do know what the term is, but it's clear you're unsure about the regional term - Alison ^❤ 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So why did you say, 'Association football is "soccer", Martin?

Did your friend maybe mean "sokker" or "voetbal" in Afrikaans language [6]?TMCk (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am South African. In South Africa, the term 'soccer' is used universally. The only people I knew who used the word 'football' are Brits living in South Africa. Also, it's noteworthy that the main stadium built for the recent FIFA world cup was "Soccer City". 128.112.145.59 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We also have an article about the South African Football Association.TMCk (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin, did you have a followup to me, here? It got kinda lost in the attribution. Sorry (I think!), I wasn't trying to suggest you didn't know what Association Football referred to - Alison ^❤ 01:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was simply that the term 'football' would undoubtedly be taken to mean soccer in SA and many other English speaking countries. Although 'soccer' is very commonly used 'football' is more common in most places. A quick web search seems to confirm that this is true in SA. The advantage of 'soccer' is that it is unambiguous to US (and some other) audiences. The article did originally just say 'football'. I suggest the best solution would be a piped link football. The sentence could do with some rearranging anyway, I will try rewriting it to see what people think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to 'soccer' as suggested by 128.112.145.59 above. Martin Hogbin (talk)

See also

The curious addition of Serena Williams to this section prompted me to try to find out what the norm was for female athletes. Only three of the top ten female 800 m athletes have such a (very brief) section. What is the feeling here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this has now been resolved. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of wrongdoing

I want to remove anything in this article that seems to accuse anyone of doing anything wrong. It can't tell the reader who did what wrong because it can't tell the reader essential information. If this is an article about an athelete like any other, it has no business getting to the bottom of the entire complicated gender controversy. I blame everything on the ASA and Chuene, especially. So do the sources by now. But that might be in violation of BLP not for CS, but for Chuene.

I agree that section is too long and is rather arbitrary in what it includes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it the business of this article to tell the reader who did what wrong in this case? Chrisrus (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to show who are the villains of the piece but the problem is that this draws too much attention to what is now rather unimportant history. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Please procede. Chrisrus (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that you understood my comment. I was saying that a detailed description of the media fiasco would not be a good idea because it draws too much attention to what is now rather unimportant history. Maybe we could work on a short summary of the issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you believe that issue is unimportant, but can a short summary do justice to the issue? It's a convoluted chain of events. Have you read the New Yorker article? I encourage you to write the short summary and see what others say. Chrisrus (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you not propose something here and we can work on it together, with any interested others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ready?

Google news or some such will give you citations for the fact that Caster will be running this Friday, but her competitors are already complaining about the fairness and the lack of clarity in the IAAF's decision to let her run. Will we report if they continue to object in media interviews? Chrisrus (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it will also show you that Caster recently ran a "suspiciously" lazy qualifier and came in second place recently, is planning on winning the gold and setting a record, doesn't care what anyone thinks, and has plans to become a boxer when she retires. Chrisrus (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You make some strange points here. Tactics in qualifiers are up to the athlete concerned, no athlete is obliged to give their best performance in a qualifier. You say, Caster is 'planning on winning the gold and setting a record'. Is that not what all competitors do, the question is whether you can actually do it.

The boxing plans seem genuine, perhaps we should add something about that. What is the most reliable source on the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Semenya News from Google 9/6/2010

• According to the New York Times, Caster Semenya seemed to be "out for a jog" in her fifth race since returning to racing, and came in ninth in the 800 with a time of 2 minutes 7.16 seconds at the the Palio della Quercia meet in northern Italy.
• According to The Mail, the meeting director "blasted" her, calling her performance "incomprehesible". He said that, while he couldn't be certain that she "did it on purpose", her manager's explanation (she'd not been feeling well and had "had a bad day") was "not good enough" for him.
• Associated Press talked to her. She says she doesn't care what anyone thinks, and is focused on the Commonwealth Games in India in October; defending her title as World Champion in Daegu, Korea next year; and on the 2012 Olympics in London. She hopes to do better in Milan this week.
• AP talked to one her coach, who said "We took the view that if she tried to win all these meets, when it comes to the Commonwealth Games she wouldn't be able to run well. So we had to stick to the plan and we are still following these goals for the Commonwealth Games."Chrisrus (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Internal South African Investigation Publishes It's Findings

Sport24, a South African sports news organization, reported ([7]) that Makhenkesi Stofile, the Minister of the South African Ministry of Sport and Recreation, spoke and released the long-awaited report of their investigation into the Caster Semenya affair. Please help me sumarize it here. Again, please review this is the report from Sport24: http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Athletics/Chuene-faces-disrepute-charge-20100907, with an eye towards improving this article. Chrisrus (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the Berlin tests were required

Maybe we should not explain to the reader why the Berlin tests were ordered, but assuming we are to do so, how shall we let the sources lead, while at the same time not violate her privacy? For example, Citation two (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article6802314.ece), in the context of an article about the complaints from her fellow races, says the following:

"No one should be accusing Semenya of cheating, though. Instead, her strength and appearance have raised fears that she may have been born with a rare abnormality, where she has grown up with the genitalia of a woman but the chromosomes of a male."

We don't want to say it as graphicly in the article as in the source is. I suggest words to the effect of "...may have a rare intersex condition that would give her an unfair advantage in the race..."Chrisrus (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing fact with speculation. The quote talks of someone's fears that Caster may have a particular condition. As this is a biography of a real living person we should only state facts about them rather that some other person's opinion of what might be true, especially about a matter of such a personal nature. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Refocus. Why, according to sources, did the IAAF order the Berlin tests? Martin, do you remember writing this:

I do not like the change to the lead section, where you have replaced my wording of 'eligibility to compete as woman' with 'gender'. I think that it is most important that we make the distinction between the way a person is generally classified as a man or a woman, which is a very complicated, emotive and personal subject, and the only issue of public importance, which is whether Caster is eligible to compete in women's athletics events. Her eligibility to compete in any given event depends only on the rules of the governing body for that sport.

If a sports person is declared under the rules of a sport to be ineligible to compete as a woman in a particular event that does not mean that she is not a woman, indeed, that person may be eligible to compete in another event, governed by a different body, as a woman and may me considered a woman for many other purposes. Conversely just because a person is considered eligible to compete as a woman in an event does not make her a woman for all purposes.

I accept that my wording was a bit cumbersome, perhaps 'eligibility to compete in women's events' may be better but we must make the distinction between a person's gender, in a general sense, and their eligibility to compete in a particular sport as a woman. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

?Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Caster Wins in Milan

Caster won in Milan with a time of 1:58.16, beating the second-place finisher by about one second. She won't race again until the commonwealth games in India next month, where she will defend her championship title. Chrisrus (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not add something then? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've previously added accurate accountings of her 2010 performances. This article is not restricted from reporting factual, referenced information. There are people watching over this article, in particular, to make sure nobody places something improper. Rumors, innuendo and conjecture has been the nature of things some people have tried to sneak into this article. Until something is released in an official fashion from an official investigating agency, I doubt any such material will be allowable here. This is a BLP. Trackinfo (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment. I was suggesting that we add something about Caster's Milan result. I guess you might consider me one of those 'watching over' this article to ensure that Caster is afforded the privacy and dignity to which everyone is entitled. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the Milan result has been added now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent relevations in South Africa

How do we make sense of this for the reader? Or should we?

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/09/07/south-africas-olympic-chief-defied-docs-in-caster-semenya-cas/

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/caster-fallout-20100909-153cs.html

I do not see raking over this old stuff as being particularly relevant to this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Government released it's forensic report on the events leading up to the events in Berlin. Chrisrus (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But this is a encyclopedia article about Caster Semenya not a news report.

I suggest that the way forward is to rewrite the gender controversy section to reduce its prominence within the article but ensure that it is up to date. I am happy to work with you if you want to have a go at doing this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It no longer needs to begin in Berlin. Chrisrus (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement attributed to Semenya came from Chuene

The line about her wanting to boycott the medal ceremony is cited to this Guardian article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/aug/21/gender-row-athlete-caster-semenya. In it, we learn that this was not something she was heard directly to say, but rather words that L. Chuene attributed to her. In light of recent relevations, how can he still be considered a reliable source? Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point. As discussed above the whole section need rewriting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Other Runners

Earlier this evening, while Googling the words "Semenya" and "boycott", I stumbled upon a pattern of articles documenting atheletes speaking out to the media about the IAAF's decision. For example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article7130042.ece

http://newzimsituation.com/athletes-semenya-boycott-threat-45232.htm

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/sports-2873-Give+us+facts+about+Semenya/sports.aspx

http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/other/article458884.ece/Runners-to-boycott-Semenya

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/caster-semenya-baffles-ob_n_701845.html

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/sports-2466-Athletes+Semenya+boycott+threat/sports.aspx

Chrisrus (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be two main themes to these reports. There is some general muckraking and complaining about an alleged threat by (unnamed) athletes to boycott events is which Caster participates. This, in my opinion, does not warrant inclusion here. Maybe if an athlete actually refuses to run because of Caster it would be different. There will always be some complaining in any sport that has rules restricting who or what may participate.

The other theme is sympathy for Caster and general dissatisfaction with the sport's ruling body.

Two relevant quotes are:

The IAAF has set the parameters of gender in sport and it is for them to clarify what these are and how Semenya’s circumstances intersect.

You have to trust the IAAF to take the decision out of the athletes' hands.

My suggestion would be to add more to the Gender verification in sports article. Not specifically about Caster but about the failure of the IAAF to set clear rules. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So, those two, those are the only relevent quotes. Those two. None of the rest.

And the IAAF, their "failure" that's it. They're your favorite whipping boy. Chrisrus (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have mentioned two main themes in sources you quoted. What am I missing? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "Elite runners threaten boycott over Caster Semenya’s comeback" is a pretty fair summing up. Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Which runners were these? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ex: "...If she does, Italian runner Elisa Piccione and Russia's Mariya Savinova will likely be among the high-profile stars who refuse to line up alongside her..."

Chrisrus (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is newspaper speculation. No runner has been quoted as saying that they will not run against Semenya? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not "will not"; "threaten to"Chrisrus (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No runner has been quoted as threatening not to run against Semenya. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about words to the effect of "fellow runners not generally happy about it". Chrisrus (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is such a vague statement that it has no place in an encyclopedia. If something actually happens we might include it here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's important that we follow events closely and have a good idea about what's going on. I provide this information so that everyone know that there is good reason to believe that they other runners have expressed their feelings on having to run with her. It helps to understand events as they unfold. Also, if you recall, I clearly said "words to the effect of". Chrisrus (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Chrisrus, I do not see what you are getting at. This talk page is for discussions regarding improvement of the article on Caster Semenya. What is it you are suggesting should be done to improve the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just that we should keep this in mind, that's all. There might be a place for this fact somewhere, but that here and a tiny subsection of "Gender v.i.s." are two places that seem, at least at times to be trying to deal with this notable series of events. Chrisrus (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we should keep it in mind, but only if a runner refuses to compete or makes an official complaint do I think we should add anything to the article. What a newspaper thinks an athlete might be thinking is not encyclopedia material. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but they are reliable newspapers, so if they say that these other runners are expressing such feelings, we can safely assume that they have indeed expressed them, even if their exact words were generally off the record. Chrisrus (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How other runners feel: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/aug/23/caster-semenya-backlash-jemma-simpson

Forensic Report marks the beginning of a new stage of fallout from the Semenya debacle in S.A.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-09-17-chuene-vs-sascoc-will-run-and Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anything relevant to Caster Semenya that should be added to this article as a result of that report. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's not so much that it is relevant to Caster, but that Caster is relevent to it. Chrisrus (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but this article is about the person, Caster Semenya. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep.Chrisrus (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I still suggest that a suitably worded section should be added to Gender verification in sports on the testing debacle. By 'suitably worded' I mean that it must not be used as a means of circumventing BLP issues regarding Caster. Is anyone interested in pursuing this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Or blocking it, for that matter, if someone else does? Chrisrus (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, do you mean blocking a section on the subject in Gender verification in sports? I do not think that anyone is entitled to block such a section, provided that the section is worded in a way that avoids potential BLP issues. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant that, your question, if anyone is interested in persuing it, that I'd like to also ask if anyone were interested in opposing it. That would be good to know before thinking about whether to even try persuing it. Chrisrus (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But that was my point. No on can oppose discussing the subject if it is done in line with WP policy. No one's permission is required. If anyone feels that what we are doing is against WP policy, especially BLP, they will revert and we can discuss it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I encourage this, and will try to help. Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

During the eleven month time between the Berlin tests and the decision to let Caster compete, there were "exhaustive negotiations between medical teams of the IAAF and her own team, which were presided over by a mediator"

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/commonwealth-games/top-stories/Semenya-looks-to-bounce-back-at-Delhi/articleshow/6618530.cms#ixzz10UrqDhGx Chrisrus (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Ok this is annoying, no where on the internet is a straight cut answer about Sememnya's true gender. They say tests have been conducted but little word as to what he/she really is? Man, woman, hermaphrodite? It's wikipedia's responsibility to inform the general public in matters such as this. Even in the Gender Test section there's a bunch of mumbo jumbo that doesn't give a clear cut answer. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.229.26 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This information is a confidential medical matter. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to illegally intrude on private personal matters. The IAAF have deemed her fit to compete. That is all the public has the right to know. SFB 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As above. It's a private and personal medical matter. There has been much speculation in trashier tabloids but no concrete evidence, and certainly nothing reliable for Wikipedia to publish - Alison ^❤ 19:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Guess what? Like race, gender is complicated and socially-constructed. The controversy over Semenya did a great job in making people feel uneasy about that, which they should. 70.225.188.253 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not the reason, however, that we no not include information about Caster's gender in the article. Whether gender is socially constructed, totally biological, or a mixture of the two is irrelevant. The point, as made by Alison and SFB, is that there is no information on the subject published in reliable sources and it is not our job to propagate speculation on such a personal matter in an article about a living person. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Caster Speaks Out

http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/39/53401.html

A new article in Sports Illustrated will feature her condemning ASA, IAAF. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If a reader unfamiliar with this topic were to read the first section, s/he'd have no idea why the New Statesman did that. Please summarize their stated reasoning for doing so. Chrisrus (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sex Chromosome?

Does anyone knows Caster Semenya sex chromosome like XY, XXX or even XXY? I wonder if anyone knows this because other sources on the internet doesn't tell me.74.216.44.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

I guess it is not known then but, in any case, it is not the job of Wikipedia to give out private personal information about people without their consent unless such information is publicly known. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Contribution by Camporesi restored

It is entirely unclear why the contribution by Camporesi had been deleted on 1/31 as it is relevant and supported by published research. Furthermore, it is highly desirable that published experts examine and improve WP articles. For this reason, I restored the deleted contribution.Ekem (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• And I've removed it again as it's full of weasel-words ("Clearly!"), it's POV based on a speculative document from PubMed, and it's textbook editorialism per WP:NOTOPINION. Quote from the paper, by all means, and put it in context, but don't lecture the reader on sports ethics and throw a PubMed link on the end of it for justification. That's not the way it's done - Alison ^❤ 03:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Furthermore, it's a BLP and not a place for general discussion on gender testing of athletes. That's Gender verification in sports - Alison ^❤ 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Alison pretty much said what I was planning to, in that the text is really about a wider issue than about Semenya, and thus would be better placed in an article on the general topic. I guess my other concern is that it is couched in very strong terms, as if this was an inherently true statement rather than the findings and conclusions of the paper's authors. - Bilby (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the deleted section is not specifically about Caster and should be placed elsewhere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, I just find the process in handling such issues rather rough. The contributor added this in good faith, and the whole matter was dealt with with little concern for a person apparently new to Wikipedia. This puts people off and discourages them from becoming contributors.Ekem (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. May a note as to why a good faith was removed and that it might be useful somewhere else would have been a good idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I see a revised section on the same topic has be restored. Might this not be more appropriate for a more general article rather than a BLP. Perhaps the editor who added it could discuss the issue here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this section as it is not about the subject of the article and there has been no discussion about including it. I suggest that anyone who wishes to restore it discusses the matter here first. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained information

The lead says :"In 2010, the British magazine New Statesman included Semenya in its list "The World's 50 Most Influential Figures 2010", but doesn't say why. Looking throught the body, there is no elaboration as to why she was thusly recognized by them. This statement should either be explained or removed. Please add information from the citation where it is explained why the New Statesman so listed her, or remove the statement from the lead, as the lead is not supposed to add information not contained in the article. Chrisrus (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Added to 2010 section.TMCk (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusion with this article

Reading through this article for the first time, it seems to me that it has intentionally avoided bringing up transgender issues, instead skirting around them in a manner that I believe can cause confusion. It remarks in the introduction that "questions were raised about whether Semenya had a physical condition that might give her an unfair advantage over other female racers", but does not highlight that these questions were primarily regarding the nature of her biological sex. For those unfamiliar with transgender and related issues (I think this would probably include the majority of the world's populace), such a statement would no doubt be confusing. I do understand the sensitive nature of this topic, but feel like this issue needs to be adressed for the good of the article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

This is a biography of a living person and there are, quite rightly, strict rules on what we say here about people (see WP:BLP). In particular, we should not speculate or report speculation about Caster's sexuality, biology, or other highly personal matters. It is a well verified fact that objections were raised about Caster competing in certain events, thus we can include that here. The media furore which followed those complaints included only speculation and opinion about Caster which we must not include here. If you feel that there are important issues on this subject that need to be included in Wikipedia, they would be more appropriate for gender verification in sports where they can be discussed without reference to an individual person. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, because wiki in this case uses "her, she" throughout, and without verification, as the results of the tests have not been released. I hope webster will be able to evolve a more fluid definition of gender, but it's current definition doesn't seem to necessarily fit here. Anyway, I know there's a certain grain we need to follow and it isn't wiki's place to stand against it, I just think that technically wiki is wrong here. P.S. It's possible that this article will be receiving much more attention because of Chaz Bono's coming role in Dancing With The Stars, just a heads up.Claycrete (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the connection with Chaz Bono. What we know about Caster is that she regards herself as female and she has been cleared to enter women's races. Everything else is speculation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Transgender issues have no place in this article. Caster was identified as female as an infant and has continued to live as that gender, so any biological inconsistencies would be classified as an intersex condition NOT transgender. GamerSRC (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Name

Isn't Caster a male name - i.e. Castor and Pollox?203.184.41.226 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you were aware, but whether a name is "male" or "female" has nothing to do with the actual sex of the person with that name. For example, my cigender male husband's name is Shannon (typically a female name). In other cases, names may change over time from being "male" to "female" (or vice versa), as was the case for the names Ashley, Courtney, and Ariel. Just because a person has a name that's typically associated with one gender doesn't mean that the person with that name is that gender or sex. 50.76.104.57 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

NY Daily News source

From the the current version of the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caster_Semenya&oldid=574827790):

The "condition" was reported to be hermaphroditism. In a 2009 news article

The text links directly to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/caster-semenya-forced-gender-test-woman-man-article-1.176427 which is a sensationalistic article with no cited sources. This is uncredited, baseless speculation that the result of the test was that Semenya was hermaphroditic. I believe this does not belong in the article. Wikipedia policy is to not publish speculation or reports of speculation. Additionally, this source is sloppily edited into the body, leading me to believe it was done as a driveby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.86.41 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it for now per this comment and the discussion above on speculation. Cheers Acb314 (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)