Talk:Lia Thomas

RFC about the Riley Gaines accusations

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

---

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

Note: This RFC concerns the inclusion of the accusations. If and only if there is consensus to include the accusations, the exact wording will be determined during a second RFC. Editors should use this RFC to discuss the strength of sources that mention the accusation as well as policy-based reasons to include or not include said accusations.

Survey (Riley Gaines)

• No. I'd support something along the lines of "Some of Thomas' former teammates and opponents have expressed concern to media outlets at having to share locker rooms with her." This is aligned with how the best sources available are covering this aspect of Thomas' career. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC) partial striking per Beccaynr 15:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  No (and comment) I concur and if this is added, it should also mention that “though some teammates were in support.” -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Depends - I would support a mention of the concerns as existing, but absolutely would not support any mention of the nature of the concerns wrt Thomas' gender transition status (e.g. her genitals). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• No, by default as no proposed wording has been offered. Reserving the right to reconsider if an acceptable proposed wording is offered with valid sources to support it. My thinking on this pretty much follows that of Firefangledfeathers and Shibbolethink above. In particular, any mention of genitals in this context is completely unacceptable. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Just wanted to chime in here and add that this RfC is only to determine IF there is consensus to include the accusation. Only if this were to pass would there then be a second RfC to determine specific wording. Patr2016 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's right, but I don't see this as a good approach. It is overcomplicated and it makes this first round feel like writing a blank cheque. We have no way of knowing what will be offered in the second RfC. It might be that all suggestions offered are unacceptable. If we were going to have two rounds then it should be the other way round; Pick the best wording first and then decide whether that is better or worse than omitting it entirely. That said, I think we already have the best wording from the discussions above and that is what Firefangledfeathers suggested a while ago. If that was what we were having an RfC on then I'd be weakly in favour. As it stands, my !vote remains a firm no. DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• No - Based on the available sources, (i.e. tabloids, questionable at best, and The Patriot-News), only Gaines appears to allege 'opponents have expressed concern'; there appears to be no support for "opponents have expressed concern to media outlets". As noted below, 2022 sources about some anonymous teammates have been discussed, but do not support inclusion of 2023 allegations by Gaines about Thomas nor alleged concerns by opponents. The WP:BLP privacy and harm considerations are significant, and per WP:NOTSCANDAL, the available sources do not appear to meet the required especially high standard. It also does not seem workable to try to obscure the WP:BLP issues by describing Gaines' allegations as "concerns", whether attributed to "opponent" or "opponents", and then include headlines in the article reference list that include mention of Thomas' genitalia. Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• No with same reasoning and caveat as DanielRigal offered above. Funcrunch (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• No, with the same reasoning as others. The only places I found this even covered was on Fox News, NY Post, Washington Examiner, Daily Mail, Campus Reform, Daily Wire, and TMZ, none of which are reputable. Even a Toronto Sun story, along with those in ESPN only mentions that Gaines is angry at Lia Thomas because she is a trans woman, but nothing about any accusations. So, including this information in the article would not be workable or good.Historyday01 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. As far as I can tell, using WP:RS the only thing we could say neutrally is some variation on "in an interview, Gaines said that (claim here)". That would be both truthfully stated and correctly attributed, but it's an obvious violation of WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLPPUBLIC. This would have to be a much bigger scandal, an active court case being covered by multiple WP:RS, etc, before we could even seriously consider it. There are six entire paragraphs already in the article under "public debate"; it's not like the article is unclear about Thomas being a controversial figure. -- asilvering (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree @Asilvering It has been adequately covered already in the article under "public debate". Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• No. Honestly just jumping on the bandwagon at this point, but my reasoning hews closer to Historyday01's than DanielRigal's here. With the current sourcing it's hard for me to say that any wording would be acceptable. Loki (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• No since better and more sustained coverage would be necessary first. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• No per everyone above. Vaguely gesturing towards nonspecific "concerns at having to share locker rooms with her" isn't much better; that's saying the same thing but with innuendo. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. Beccaynr and Maddy from Celeste's rationales in particular resonate with me. I stand by my earlier comments as well (1, 2). Recirculating unverifiable gossip violates both the letter and spirit of BLP and brings the project into disrepute. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 01:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The New York Post is a tabloid-format newspaper, but it is a real newspaper which does real journalism and is not comparable to the Weekly World News. It is worrying that the discussion here appears to be about how to leave readers un- or misinformed.Eladynnus (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Comment - at WP:RSP, the WP:NYPOST entry includes, A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Beccaynr (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It is my reading of that entry that the Post is mainly unreliable for articles related to articles specific to New York City and the NYPD and because of a perceived reluctance to issue corrections, but their articles can be used supplementally in some circumstances. Eladynnus (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would parse WP:NYPOST as stating that the source is generally unreliable for factual reporting in all areas, and especially unreliable with regards to politics and New York politics. The August 2020 RfC has many editors pointing out their unreliability for factual reporting on non-New York topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Riley Gaines)

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

@Sativa Inflorescence, you are reading a lot into the above RfC proposal. Ixtal has not described whether any mention of "genitals" would be included, whether any mention of "inflammatory accusations" would be included, etc. Just the mere fact that accusations were made. A second discussion would cover what form that mention would take. Please don't jump to these conclusions and assume bad faith in Ixtal's proposal like this. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I meant to point to the absurdity of the need for an RfC to settle this question. I stand by my harsh criticism of both the accusations and the coverage. The RfC itself is an appropriate response to an unfortunate situation. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

• There was a previous discussion at RSN focused on two sources from The National Desk, a news outlet created by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. These sources were reprinted by local news outlets KATV/ABC7 and NBC3, which are owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group.
• Previous discussions on the article Talk page include:

• Talk:Lia Thomas#Riley Gaines accusations - includes discussion of Fox News as a source
• Talk:Lia Thomas#Riley Gaines accusations Part II - includes discussion of the tabloid Marca, The National Desk sources, and The Patriot-News (aka pennlive)
• Talk:Lia Thomas#Transition status - includes discussion of WP:BLP policy, concludes with a short list of sources, i.e. a reprint of The National Desk source previously discussed at RSN, The Patriot-News (aka pennlive) source, and the tabloid Toronto Sun, which churns allegations made about Lia Thomas by Gaines to WP:TMZ and allegations made about Thomas and Gaines' teammates by Gaines in an interview on the FOX News America Reports show

• These reprints of the Gaines allegations made to Fox News and TMZ related to Thomas's body as well as her conduct seem to make it clear that Gaines is 1) also engaged in related political advocacy, 2) making allegations of criminal conduct against Thomas, 3) and allegations about her teammates as witnesses. WP:BLP, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:NOTSCANDAL seem to be relevant policies to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Simply being engaged in political advocacy is not grounds for ignoring someone's statement or actions. Or, if it were, we would be deleting quite a few articles about quite a few politicians. As to your second point, where does Gaines allege criminal conduct? I don't agree with Gaines' position at all, I don't find her words particularly palatable and disagree with basically everything she said. But I don't recall her making any criminal allegations whatsoever. Please back that up with a direct quote, thanks. If I'm wrong, I absolutely cede that point and we would want to avoid inclusion. But if there aren't any criminal allegations, that's a pretty big hole in this argument. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The political advocacy reported along with the allegations seems relevant, including when considering sources as well as WP:BLPBALANCE; this aspect is not offered as a sole basis for exclusion of the contentious statements. As to allegations of criminal conduct, there are sources, e.g. The National Desk reprinted by ABC7/KATV recycling the Fox News interview quote from Gaines: "Not even probably a year, two years ago, this would have been considered some form of sexual assault, voyeurism", which appears to be Gaines alleging criminal conduct - the caveat at the beginning of the quote, which alleges the criminal conduct Gaines alleges is no longer subject to prosecution, does not appear to help avoid WP:BLPCRIME specifically and WP:BLP generally. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's clearly not, and to be frank: you're reaching for a content decision here which would essentially be OR.

  Most English speakers would understand Gaines's statement to be remarking on the speed with which what is "acceptable" has changed without stopping to consider the real world ramifications of what we are asking women like her and her teammates to endure. 162.203.147.11 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  In that quote, Gaines is observing that others would have considered something to be a problem, but that now it is not. That is not an accusation or allegation of a crime. It is so blatantly not an allegation of a crime that it boggles the mind and (while not quite reaching) gets close to WP:IDHT.

  I could, similarly, say: Wow, Elon Musk smoked a lot of weed on Joe Rogan's podcast. Just a few years ago, that would have been a felony. I'm not alleging Elon Musk committed a crime. I'm pointing out that time flows forwards and things change. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The Patriot-News (aka pennlive) source presents the criminal conduct quote in the context of Gaines' "locker room allegation". From my view, Gaines makes allegations about Thomas' body and conduct, and Gaines states that she considers the alleged conduct to be criminal conduct, but also does not believe the alleged conduct is subject to prosecution. It seems quite contentious to allege that someone has engaged in conduct that could be considered sexual assault or voyeurism, particularly in the politicized context in which Gaines is making these statements. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  You provided the relevant quote, and the replies directly above you (including mine) assert quite clearly why what you shared isn't someone making an accusation of criminal conduct. It is Gaines expressing her discomfort with the speed at which these changes happened and the fact that they apparently occurred with the blessing of an institution not at all concerned for her (or her teammates') well-being. I would agree with the notion that continuing to bring this up as a violation of BLP is venturing quite firmly into IDHT territory. 162.203.147.11 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  From my view, responding to a request for a quote with a source, and responding to a concern about OR with another source in a discussion amongst three participants including myself about one aspect of potentially-applicable WP:BLP policy is not 'venturing quite firmly into IDHT territory' (e.g. "perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive"). Other editors can also review the sources and relevant policies. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Another previous article Talk discussion includes Talk:Lia Thomas#Are any of these sources reliable re: locker room controversy?, listing four sources from 2022 that do not mention the 2023 Gaines allegations (concerns and/or allegations are attributed to some of Thomas' anonymous teammates, which seems to raise WP:BLPGOSSIP issues) and listing one 2023 source from The National Desk reprinted at KATV/ABC7 (owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group) that was later discussed at the RSN discussion noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would note that the discussion in that section certainly doesn't rise to the level that would be needed to deprecate any of the sources listed above. We can also add Sports Illustrated, the Washington Examiner, and the Daily Mail as well as a handful of other sites where this issue was brought up and documented as part of the public discourse. 162.203.147.11 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't feel comfortable !voting on this without a proposed wording as it feels like writing a blank cheque. There are wordings that I might be prepared to very tentatively support but I can't be sure if that is where this is going. I guess my only option is to oppose by default and reserve the right to change my mind if a valid proposal is made later. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• RfCs are to get uninvolved voices, but this makes no effort to explain what it's even about. A good RfC doesn't require the uninvolved to start googling or digging through past discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I'm not entirely sure what accusations these refer to. Is it that she used the woman's restroom/changing room? That she transitioned? Linking to past discussions is fine, just make sure it's not solely for understanding the intentions, but prior consensus. SWinxy (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

List of Sources

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

1. Example source: link to example source article Date

— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

How to tackle unprofessionality?

WP:NOTFORUM

The whole article misses the mention of original name of sportperson Thomas - (Redacted) which she (Redacted) had used for entire (Redacted) life until 2020 and competed under. Even if Wikipedia manual on Gender Identity explains that: "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name." [1] what covers this case as Thomas has the university successes under name (Redacted). [2] Thus, the article is currently unprofessional and denies the purpose of Wikipedia to gather unbiased encyclopedic content to the people. As a Wikipedian with 15 years of experience of writing, I consider that the ideology should never beat the access to the information, otherwise Wikipedia might become a totalitarian tool and not a Free Encyclopedia. What is your opinion on this topic? Currently I do not have 500 edits at enwiki, thus I cannot edit the article, if somebody can, I will be grateful for that. --Belisarius~skwiki (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Please review the FAQ section at the top of this Talk page. Please also note I have redacted your comment based on WP:BLP policy, which applies to article Talk pages, and MOS:GENDERID. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC) This looks a lot like trolling. It also seems to be attempting to solicit other editors to edit contrary to policy on your behalf. If Beccaynr had not already replied then I would have removed this message and issued a warning. Experienced Wikipedians should know better than to behave like this. DanielRigal (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC) your rule is true (access of information should never be beaten by ideology) but this talk page is evidence that on wikipedia this principle is long lost. I've just picked this page (right now) to show someone sitting next to me that wikipedia can't be used due to the rules themselves being infested by ideology. Usually people with a sane mind (who think the name should be included) don't want to waste their time argueing with strangers on wikipedia. 95.91.219.205 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Add original name for Lia

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

 Not done Lia Thomas was not notable prior to changing her name, please see the FAQ section at the top of this talk page and MOS:GENDERID for why we don't include the non-notable former names of trans or non-binary people. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. But we do cite birth names for people, whether the person was notable at birth or as a child, or not. Cary Grant's original name was Archibald Alec Leach, and wikipedia says so. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:GENDERID we do not add the non-notable former names of trans or non-binary people. Thomas was not notable under her former name, so we do not include it anywhere on enwiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes but "because the MOS says so" is not an answer to the previous commentors response. Their point was specifically that "non noteriaty" is not a reason to not include "Born:.... Thomas" as is done for many others. And even if that is the reason as youre citing it from the MOS then either

1.) You're not citing the correct part of the MOS

2.) There is a stylistic inconsistency that should be addressed Azeranth (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Height

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

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

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

Daily Mail is not a reliable source, per WP:RSP, and a random person's tweet is especially not a reliable source. Lastly, the actual height listed by the person in question is much more relevant and reliable than other people's guesses at her height. We don't list uncertainty just because someone claims otherwise. At the very least not unless it is actually something brought up in reliable news sources. Silverseren^C 04:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Here, Thomas' teammate Scanlan describes Thomas (under oath in Congressional testimony) as 6'4":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaN4c2hQrwg&t=1440

(statement is at 24:03)

I have read that Thomas does not reveal / make statements as to Thomas' actual height. Can you provide a source where Thomas does? I think a number of the news articles may be tautological references that sourced their info from Wikipedia. Without that, my take is that Wikipedia should list as 6'4" rather than a disputed range.Rationaledit (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• I removed the height information from the infobox, because after reviewing the source, this appears to be WP:RSOPINION ("reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact."), e.g. "Thomas’s Ivy League records this season at Penn coupled with her 6-foot-1 frame initially seem like an overwhelmingly unfair advantage — until you remember that Missy Franklin is 6-foot-2 and 165 pounds." Jenkins, Sally. "Lia Thomas's Swimming Is Getting Swamped in Others' Fears". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 19, 2022. Retrieved 24 March 2022.. As to sources related to her height, I am finding, e.g.

• "According to Sports Illustrated, she lost strength and an inch of her height on HRT" The Independent May 2022
• "She’d been on HRT a little more than two years by then. Thomas says she shrunk about an inch." Sports Illustrated Mar. 2022
• "Lia Thomas stood tall and smiled wide atop the championship podium, her nearly 6-foot-4 frame pushing her head past the top of the Ivy League’s green photo backdrop" CNN Mar 2022

Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• That actually is more or less consistent. CNN seems to be using Thomas' prior height before transitioning. And says "nearly 6'4"", so meaning 6'3". And losing about an inch from that would put her at 2" or 1" depending on what "about" means. If the ones mentioning the lost height don't give an actual specific number for the resulting height, then this seems to be in line with the WaPo article. And considering the WaPo article is very specifically discussing her height in relation to others and is putting it at much more of a focus and topic of the article as a whole, that's more significant than offhand mentions in the other sources you list. Silverseren^C 17:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, and I am tending to think perhaps some prose could be developed in the article to address this. The Jenkins source is labeled a 'perspective,' which is why I removed it and the height information it supported from the infobox, but the part I quoted above (with an attribution) may be appropriate to include somewhere in the article, particularly given the vagueness in the CNN source. According to BLP and other policies and guidelines, we need to avoid gossip and contentious material that is poorly-sourced, so I agree that WP:DAILYMAIL, the opinion of a teammate, and the tweeted opinion are not appropriate sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call it the "opinion" of a teammate, when it's a factual claim (i.e. able to be disproven with evidence) that was asserted before Congress under oath, carrying a penalty of perjury. I would consider it an excellent firsthand source, from someone who saw them nearly every day for months at a time and on trips to compete - about the best you can get, short of a verified measurement.

• Additionally, if rounding to the nearest whole inch, "nearly" 6'4" means 6'4", not 6'3", and subtracting "about" one inch would mean subtracting one inch, not two.

  Regardless, I agree this is better handled by surfacing conflicting available information in the article itself rather than adjudicating a single answer for the infobox. Rationaledit (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles aren't meant to use such primary source information in general unless absolutely necessary, including congressional testimonies. If there wasn't secondary news coverage of the testimony information, then there isn't weight to include it at all. I would not consider the opinion of someone else on personal information about a BLP subject, especially biological information, to be of any strength whatsoever either. Silverseren^C 22:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  There was plenty of secondary news coverage of the testimony information. A few here:

  https://epgn.com/2023/08/02/analysis-house-holds-hearing-on-the-dangers-and-due-process-violations-of-gender-affirming-care-for-children/

  https://www.foxnews.com/sports/espns-sam-ponder-shows-support-paula-scanlan-ex-swimmers-emotional-testimony-brave

  https://www.outkick.com/paula-scanlan-house-testimony-forced-share-locker-room-lia-thomas/

  You took (and continue to cite) a WaPo columnist's opinion of personal information on a BLP subject, even though they have probably never been in the same room as the subject. That article is not objective reporting, it's an essay with explicitly persuasive intent.

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

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

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

Challenged edit to lead

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

I also noted in my comment on your talk page that a claim made in your addition did not seem supported by the article and sources [3], in addition to MOS:LEAD and WP:DUE. She does not appear to have been notable for her college swimming career on the Penn men's swim team, so a focus on this in the lead, plus what appears to be an incorrect statement about when she came out, does not appear to be supported. Based on the available sources, she appears known for her swimming career on the women's team, both for her NCAA win and the public debate about her participation. And I think I fixed a grammatical error after my revert [4]. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Beccaynr, the sentence you challenged reads as follows: "After competing on the men's swim team at the University of Pennsylvania from 2017 to 2020, Thomas came out as a trans woman and competed on UPenn's women's team from 2021 to 2022". I am honestly confused about where you think the error is in that sentence.

Taking another look, perhaps there is an issue with the timetable. I suppose the sentence ought to have read, "After competing on the men's swim team at the University of Pennsylvania from 2017 to 2020, and after coming out as a trans woman, Thomas competed on UPenn's women's team from 2021 to 2022".MonMothma (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As to notability, I understand your argument. And Firefangledfeathers makes a good point below. If and when the lead is expanded, however, I believe this information should be included so that the lead reflects the article body. MonMothma (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead should be expanded, but inserting some content about the her years on the men's team so early in the lead was too much weight on a minor aspect. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, you have a point. MonMothma (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)