# Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100-metre freestyle

@**It is a wonderful world**, I noticed from the edit history that you added the content I reverted. The sources you used appear to be opinion pieces that aim to introduce doubt without requiring proof. While media outlets may publish such speculation, Wikipedia has stricter content policies to ensure neutrality and verifiability. Wikipedia is not a platform to repeat unverified allegations simply because they have been mentioned in the news.
Per WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, contentious claims require strong investigative journalism, not opinion pieces or speculation. Unless WADA or another authoritative investigative body provides concrete evidence, these claims remain unverified conjecture and do not belong in the article. Per WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia should not give undue weight to fringe theories, conjecture, or unproven claims especially when they lack strong backing from RS such as WADA or other doping investigative bodies.
If you still believe this content meets Wikipedia’s standards, feel free to provide a policy-based rationale, and we can discuss it further. However Wikipedia is not meant to amplify unverified allegations or unprofessional speculative claims. Other media outlets and tabloids may do that for sensationalist coverage, but Wikipedia follows higher standards.IP49XX (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @IP49XX, thank you for raising this here at the talk page.
Firstly, the second "controversy" seems unrelated to all your points above. It doesn't contain anything WP:UNDUE prohibits, and it is supported by SwimSwam, which is definitely a reliable source, so I'm not sure why you removed it.
Regarding the first paragraph, I don't think it can be considered a "fringe theory", per the definition on WP:FRINGE: "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". The only way I can see to classify this as a fringe theory is to consider doping investigative bodies as the only reliable sources on the subject and then to interpret their lack of reporting as a mainstream view that he didn't dope. I disagree with the idea that doping investigative bodies are the only reliable sources on the matter, since WP:RS specifies that other sources can be reliable too.
The sources you used appear to be opinion pieces that aim to introduce doubt without requiring proof: One of the sources was an opinion piece (the Sports Illustrated (SI) source). They don't need to have definitive "proof" for their viewpoint to be due, or opposing viewpoints wouldn't even be possible. That being said, the reliability of SI has been questioned recently, so I wouldn't be opposed to removing this part on grounds that SI is not a reliable enough source. Though, I think a reliable source could easily be found for Hawke's comments.
All of the rest of the content is supported by reliable sources such as Reuters and SwimSwam and is all stated in a NPOV, so I see no reason to remove it.
Finally, you mentioned in your edit summary that the article spends too much space on events involving Zhanle, but I don't think so because this "bias" in coverage only reflects the coverage of reliable sources about the event. It's probably he broke the world record by an unprecedented amount at that event. IAWW (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
You're missing the key point: you have only cited two individuals, and neither are experts. Have they conducted any valid research on Pan Zhanle beyond personal biases? No, because they lack the expertise to make such a judgment. Aside from these two non-experts, has any qualified professional leveled a credible accusation against Pan? No. So this doesn’t even rise to the level of a serious allegation. It is speculation and scandal-mongering unsupported by professionals in the field.
WP:UNDUE – Giving Fringe Claims Undue Weight
This is indeed a fringe opinion, one that even U.S. swimming organizations and sporting bodies have not endorsed. If this were a legitimate issue, governing bodies like WADA would have taken action but they haven’t. That alone demonstrates that this does not meet the threshold for a notable controversy.
Non professional and baseless accusations exist in every sport. Even Chinese netizens have accused American swimmers of cheating simply because their faces turned dark purple during races. Would we include those claims in every race article where that happens? Of course not. Yet, despite the lack of credible evidence, you are giving undue weight to two individuals who do not represent expert consensus, and worse, placing their speculation in the lead section as though it were a major development.
Misrepresenting Professional Consensus, MOS and WP:BLP
Your first mistake is implying that there is mainstream professional allegation at Pan Zhanle. There is not. This is an obvious WP:UNDUE violation in treating fringe speculation as though it carries legitimate weight while omitting all crucial legit fair context: Pan Zhanle has never failed a drug test, WADA has never accused him, and no major international body or even any U.S. media outlet aside from a single cherry-picked opinion piece has ever made this claim at Pan. (WP:NPOV)
Let’s also acknowledge the clear double standard here. If Wikipedia applied this same flimsy standard across all athlete biographies and races, countless pages would be flooded with unverified speculation, rumor-mongering, and suspicion fueled by envy. (MOS) But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some gossip forum or newspaper that notes every minor story and every non expert opinion. The only reason this claim had remained is that this article is not heavily monitored as it's last year's event. If more editors were watching, these claims would be immediately rejected as two bitter, unqualified individuals should not have their jealousy amplified as if it carries real weight.
Resolution
Either you stop inserting these fringe, non-expert conspiracy theories into the article, or we take this to dispute resolution. And let’s be crystal clear: if you want to add to Wikipedia, go to the coach's Wikipedia page and add his accusations in. Nobody will say it's against WP:BLP as he definitely did say all that. But do not add it to the event page as if it is a significant development (it's not) nor in Pan Zhanle's page as they're fringe.
So let’s be clear:
1. No credible authority has accused Pan Zhanle of anything.
2. No failed drug tests, no expert analysis, no governing body action.
3. No widespread media support - just a single non expert opinion piece and a non expert jealous coach making those claims, hardly mainstream support and rally against Pan.
Either we agree that the professional mainstream does not make accusations at Pan, or we start listing every non-expert accusation against all athletes including conspiracies claims like "purple faces" for American swimmers. Obviously, the latter is unacceptable, which only reinforces my point: this claim does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion.IP49XX (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@IP49XX thanks for your reply, I hope you can understand my intention here is not to push a POV. I am simply verifying that your arguments are in keeping with policy before dropping the issue, so I can ensure we make the correct decision and I can write better in the future. I don't feel I have the best understanding of how due viewpoints are yet, but I want to improve this aspect of my writing.
My main reason for including it was the reports by multiple reliable news outlets such as Reuters, and the fact that Hawke's comments were shared widely on Chinese social media. I think this is quite relevant and needed to reach the broadness requirements for GA. I added the summary of the viewpoint sourced to the SI source for context.
If I understand correctly, you argue that this is a fringe viewpoint because of a few reasons. I will address each one separately:
 You argue it is not supported by experts 
I think Brett Hawke has to be considered an expert. He is a swimming Olympian, World Championships medallist and head swimming coach of a top US university swim team. Other Olympians such as Dressel and Peaty also voiced their lack of trust of WADA around the Olympic time.
 It has not been commented on by sporting bodies or doping agencies 
I think this is the strongest argument for considering the argument fringe. However I think this is not enough, since mainstream reliable sources have reported on it, and a lot of the criticism is against WADA itself, which they are obviously not going to publish themselves.
 You don't evaluate their arguments as giving enough evidence 
This is not relevant to whether a viewpoint is fringe or not.
On a separate note, you are yet to mention why you removed the second paragraph, which was not related to the doping controversy.
Regarding dispute resolution, I wouldn't be against it but I think it would be a bit premature. I think we should better understand each others perspective and try and resolve the dispute ourselves before involving other Wikipedian's time. IAWW (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I get you are trying to apply policy correctly, but I have issue with you saying Brett is an expert and your reasoning is some swimmers believe him. If u want to frame him as the expert because you want to promote him despite he is not an expert, and give his opinion undue weight because it aligns with your personal views. That’s not how Wikipedia works and;
1. Brett Hawke is not an anti-doping expert. Competing in the Olympics and coaching swimmers does not make someone an authority on anti-doping science. Wikipedia considers experts in doping to be professionals in the field - scientists, WADA officials, or regulatory authorities. No credible anti-doping body has supported his claims, meaning they hold no authoritative weight.
2. Mainstream media reporting does not automatically justify inclusion. News outlets cover speculation all the time as theunder under commerical pressure perssure to sell views, but that does not make it factual or significant enough for inclusion, let alone in the lede. If no anti-doping body or governing authority has taken action or even acknowledged these claims, then Wikipedia has no reason to treat them as a serious controversy. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE require that we do not amplify fringe allegations without solid expert or institutional backing.
3.No sporting authority or doping agency has even acknowledged these claims, let alone supported them.' This alone should be enough to exclude them. You acknowledge this is the strongest argument, yet you dismiss it in favor of media coverage, which often includes opinion pieces and speculation. And some swimmers despite many prominent swimmers do not have doping creds, Wikipedia does not give weight to gossip or social media outrage or swimmers for technical expertise. (actually many swimmers support pan)
4. 'The 100m freestyle article is about the race', not unverified accusations. If WADA or another governing body were to take action, that would be a different matter. But right now, this is just the opinion of a coach with no anti-doping credentials. Wikipedia is not the place to elevate unproven speculation and give legitimacy to fringe views.IP49XX (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @IP49XX, I don't want to "promote" anybody, and I am not giving his opinion undue weight "because it aligns with my personal views". My personal views are irrelevant here, and I have based my arguments entirely off policy, so please could you stop assuming bad faith. If you justify my arguments as wrong, I will instantly change my mind.
1. I agree Hawke is not an anti-doping expert, but he is a swimming expert and his comments are based entirely off his expertise of swimming. That is relevant here.
2. This point hinges on whether the viewpoint is considered fringe or not, which hinges on whether Hawke can be considered and expert or not, but I agree that if the view is fringe this would be the case.
3. Academic sources lack of coverage on the viewpoint cannot be taken as opposition to it. WP:SOURCE: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications"
4. Repetition of the points above.
I think we are making progress here, since we have narrowed it down to both our arguments hinging on whether Hawke can be considered an expert for the comments he made. Please could you explain in detail why he is either not an expert in swimming, or why his expertise in swimming is not relevant to the comments he made.
You are still yet to mention why you removed the second paragraph, which was not related to the doping controversy. IAWW (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world We are not making progress if we cannot establish certain grounds. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough the first time but;
1. 'Brett Hawke is not a doping expert.' Competing in the Olympics and coaching swimmers does not make someone an authority on anti-doping science. Wikipedia recognizes experts in doping as scientists, WADA officials, or regulatory authorities, none of which apply to Hawke.
2. 'Accusations that Pan Zhanle is a cheat, are a fringe view.' In Wikipedia , a fringe view is one that lacks support from relevant experts, institutions, or mainstream consensus. No anti-doping agency (WADA, FINA, IOC) or scientific expert has accused Pan of doping. No failed drug test. No governing body action. That makes this claim fringe under WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. Example is we don't inflate claims that covid is lab made - as mainstream  and give equal weight to expert consensus just because a few thousand people believe it, when top experts don't.
3. 'Wikipedia’s policy on fringe claims (WP:FRINGE) states that fringe theories should not be given undue weight', especially when they lack institutional support and expert consensus. Just because some people believe something does not make it true or encyclopedically relevant. Wikipedia does not amplify conspiracy theories or unverified allegations. Just like covid, it matters not what certain no face people say, we look first at the expert consensus view as Wikipedia  isn't a platform to give equal weight to murky misinformation and fringe theories, with expert consensus, and let it dominate an article.
4. 'The article's focus is on the race.' Typically, outside of race stories, are only included if they are major developments such as an official doping ban or a ruling by a governing body. Since there is no institutional action against Pan, this remains fringe speculation and does not belong in the article.
5. 'MORe specifically saying - its not humanly possible for a swimmer to be this fast - (Brett has given no studies to prove that as a fact) - this is a fringe view.' If there is no expert or academic support for that statement, then per Wikipedia policy, it does not belong in the article as it's fringe and Brett is not an expert to announce this. Wikipedia does not platform fringe speculation and baseless scientific comments that is potentially disinfo. You need strong sourcing that explicitly detail studies and specific experts to allow sensationalised comments like that, but you only gave an opinion of a triggered coach with no anti-doping credentials and not much else. UNder Wikipedia’s neutrality and reliability standards, we don't give undue weight to such a baseless scientific comment masquerading as expertise. If WADA or a governing body takes action, that would be different but right now, there is no case. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE require that we do not amplify fringe allegations without solid expert or institutional backing.
IP49XX (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And it is especially not appropriate to treat Brett Hawke's statement that it is "not humanly possible to swim this fast" as a qualified, expert opinion on Wikipedia. You say he is an expert in swimming and yes, Hawke is a swimming coach, but he lacks the necessary expertise in sports science or anti-doping to make authoritative claims about human performance. Without scientific studies or expert consensus to back up his statement, it qualifies as a fringe view via his comments on why he argues Pan cheated. a simple way to test if it's not fringe is to ask yourself if it's supported by experts in the relevant field. The answer is overwhelming no. IP49XX (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @IP49XX, I agree with you on most of this, you don't need to keep repeating it. I agree on all the fringe policy etc. As said before, I will change my mind on if you can provide me with policy that gives a reason why Hawke cannot be considered an expert about human potential in the 100 freestyle. His words do not mention doping at all. Doping is only implied because it is the only plausible explanation for the comments he made about swimming, which I think he qualifies as an expert in. I think his expertise in swimming qualifies him to have a viewpoint that nobody can swim that fast. I don't think there are any academic sources researching the human potential in the 100 metre freestyle, so his expert opinion is the best we have.
Also you still haven't given a reason for why you removed the second paragraph. IAWW (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world You know my stance. Brett is clearly implying that Pan cheated and pulling out a fact out of thin air. You wouldn't be mentioning him as part of the allegaions of doping if you didn't know what he meant. And again, you are wrong - it's a logical fallacy that if he coaches swimming then he must know every scientific fact about swimmers. That is flawed. Brett is not qualified to tell people just how fast humans can swim. He is making an emotionnal rant that Pan didn't achieve his results naturally and has done no studies or any qualifications to present that as a fact. Seeing that you believe his statement as credible, is even more reason to remove that disinformation and defamation from the article as more people can be like you and mistake it as a expert fact, when it's not. If you still think it's not fringe and baseless statement and should be presented as expert fact then we do not agree, and you will need to take it to dispute resolution to let others decide if such a comment is fact backed by an expert,  or fringe disinfo made by an angry envious coach trying to cope with Pan's win. IP49XX (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @IP49XX, unfortunately I am unable to find policy that backs up your assertion that Hawke is not considered a subject matter expert on Wikipedia. I'm sure it probably exists, but I haven't been able to find it, and you haven't provided it. Also, several times you misappropriated my arguments:
"it's a logical fallacy that if he coaches swimming then he must know every scientific fact about swimmers" – I never said this, I said that his expertise in swimming qualifies him to have a notable opinion on swimming matters.
"more people can be like you and mistake it as a expert fact" – Same as above
"He is making an emotional rant" – Our opinions do not matter here IAWW (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world mate, this is why I suggest going to the noticeboard. it's your opinion that the coach is an expert in determining speed but Wikipedia policies are not going to agree. And saying stuff like - there is no good quality studies so it's now okay to use a bad quality source like the coacch as it's the best we have - lol I assure you that now how Wikipedia works. IF you have no good quality sources, you simply cannot claim that it's now okay to use poor quality sources to back it as it's the best we have. it doesn't work like that,. IP49XX (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
"there is no good quality studies so it's now okay to use a bad quality source like the coacch as it's the best we have" – That's not what I said. What I said was at least intended to be a paraphrase of WP:SOURCE:
"If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications" IAWW (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world And please don't ever claim I never gave you policies. I have done it multiple times and even on your talkpage  but you keep ignoring, I suggest you go to dispute resolution and ask them yourself if he is a reliable source for stating it as a professional high quality fact, fyi - here are the policies again in case you again say that I didn't give it to you. -
WP:RS (Reliable Sources): Hawke is a respected coach but not an authority in sports science or anti-doping, meaning his personal speculation does not meet the standard for expert analysis.
WP:UNDUE (Undue Weight): His opinion is not supported by peer-reviewed research or governing bodies (e.g., WADA, World Aquatics), so giving it prominence would mislead readers into thinking it represents an expert consensus.
WP:V (Verifiability): While Hawke made the statement, Wikipedia requires claims to be based on verifiable, reliable sources—not just opinions, especially when they imply accusations of cheating. saying it's not humanely possible to swim that fast but not citing any professional studies or has the qualifications to make that statement. IP49XX (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
"And please don't ever claim I never gave you policies" – I never said this. I said "I am unable to find policy that backs up your assertion that Hawke is not considered a subject matter expert on Wikipedia". IAWW (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
lol kmow the difference brah -
an expert in one field doesn't mean he is deemed an expert in everything, He is an expert on coaching swimming but he is not an expert in everything.
we are not going to quote him on stuff like brain surgery or chemicals and when it comes to really advanced science like determining the fastest human potential speed for swimming. that's something only sports scientists can determine.
if a sport scientist already determined that pan exceeded the natural human speed limit for swimming, Wada and the scientific community would have already disqualified him. they didn't because Brett's claim is not a fact. and he is  not qualified to make his lies into a scientifically accepted fact. IP49XX (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world and lets not waste our time, we do not agree but don't claim that my policy is wrong. instead let the noticeboard determine whether he is qualified to make that comment. insead of dragging arguments back and forth here., IP49XX (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Also let's be clear - Brett isn't making a statement about coaching. He is making a statement that only sports scientists can be qualified to make. IF you can find a sports science article saying the same thing, then that would be ok. But Brett isn't a sport scientist or a genius who knkws things without studies, and so don't simple mindedly mistake him as such. His statement is NOT broadly supported by scholarship in its field, which makes it fringe. The real isue is that you are trying to make the allegations seen credible. Generally when allegations are mentioned on Wikipedia, there's at least some doping violation and from official sources like Wada (which isn't fringe). Because we don't mention such serious things unless it has serious basis. But if allegations merely come from soccial media, non experts and gossip,(all Fringe) then it's not okay to make allegations be more credible than it really is, as it's fringe, and shouldn't be in the article. And even if you must include fringe doping statements, you need to properly counter balance it with the actual authority and experts, who have tested pan many times, never had a failed drugs test and they do not support the smearing, ALl fringe theories must be countered with real authority stances to emphasize it's fringe.IP49XX (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
And I already mentioned this - only the details directly related to the race should be included. Personal conflicts or social media drama that are wholly unrelated to actual the race itself don't enhance the article's focus or relevance. Some past incident before the race and drama coming from that unrelated incident, has nothing to do with the actual race and it's frowned upon to deviate from the article's main focus. (Wp: Coatrack)
If someone wants to include allegations about the winner of the race, Pan Zhanle, those claims must come from reliable, authoritative sources — such as anti-doping agencies (e.g., WADA), sports governing bodies (e.g., FINA/World Aquatics), or credible, fact-checked media outlets.
If the allegations are vague, based on opinions, or come from non-experts, they fall under undue weight according to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. This means they aren't significant enough to include in the race's article — Wikipedia is not a platform for amplifying unverified claims.
Allegations like this are typically included only after an athlete fails a drug test or faces an official investigation. Adding such claims before that point misleads readers and implies credibility where none has been established.
Unless the allegations are supported by reliable, authoritative sources, they should not be included in the article.
I’ve already made my point clearly and consistently, yet you continue to misunderstand. SO this will be my final explanation and reply on talk: The coach and the other individual you referenced are not experts in doping NOR ARE QUALIFIED TO INFORM on the fastest speed possible for a human to swim. as they're not sport scientists either. Therefore, their statements cannot be treated as some authoritative expert opinion in regards to unoffical doping allegations OR on matters of professional sport science. If you continue to disagree, there’s no need to continue this discussion, as I will just repeat the same thing and we clearly have different interpretations of what an expert on fastest speed a human can swim is, but I have no interest in repeating myself further. You do not have my support in fringe theories and drana that's unrelated to the actual race nor to an incident beyond the race, nor in treating Brett's comments as if they're reliable objective scientific statements backed by proper studies, when they're not even scientists. and especially If you can't even understand that major scientific statements can only be made by actual scientists and not (coaches that don't have science degrees) then I am tired of having to explain that and encourage you to please talk to others on whether Brett is qualified to make such a scientific statements as I have done enough explanations here and done my fair part in explaining it as best as I could.'
And this is my last comment in this thread - if you want to add in an extraodinary scientific claim that humans can only swim so fast and Pan exceeded that. First research and cite actual sports scientists and studies that confirm this as a fact. But if you are only relying on a hot head coach who is just making up trash talk, then it's irresponsible to mislead reader into thinking this is a statement backed by expertise. Brett's experience in swimming allows him to coach and analyze technique, but statements about what is "humanly possible" in terms of speed require expertise in sports science, physiology, biomechanics, and anti-doping research.
For an authoritative claim about the limits of human swimming speed to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, it should come from peer-reviewed studies, sports scientists, or institutions specializing in human performance (e.g., sports science departments, WADA, or biomechanics researchers). Without such backing, Hawke’s claim is simply personal opinion, not a scientific fact and should not be masqueraded as a professional fact.IP49XX (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Manuductive, thank you for answering the third opinion. I think maybe breaking it down to discuss the separate parts will make this more manageable. To determine whether something is due, I will refer to the policy at WP:BLP: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone"
"Zhanle faced doping allegations": Happy to cut this. Though it can be source to reliable secondary sources, most of the sources use the specific example of Hawke's comments, so you can argue including this statement at all is giving it too much weight.
Inclusion of Pat Ford's comments: I agree that Pat Ford's comments are not worth including, since there is no reason for them to be considered due. Also, browsing the reliable sources noticeboard demonstrates that the reliability of Sports Illustrated has come under question recently.
Inclusion of Hawke's comments: I think this should be included because it can be sourced to many "reliable secondary sources" like Reuters and The Guardian.
"Hawke's comments were spread widely on Chinese social media": I think this should be included because it has also been reported in many "reliable secondary sources".
Non-doping drama: Although we probably all agree this is "petty", that is our opinion and is not relevant here. This should be included because it has been reported in multiple reliable sources.
Hopefully breaking it down like this we can reach consensus on everything. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world As I told you before, Hawke's claim is disinformation. He is not an expert who can tell people that Pan exceeded the fastest speed limit for humans. I would only agree in allowing it if there can be added context to tell readers that Hawke's claim is not supported by quality science. BUT as that is hard to do as many media is too biased to give minimal scrutiny on such claims as facts, I suggested to remove it as it's disinfo. As I repeated multiple times - Wikipedia's core policies - Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No Original Research (NOR) - exist to prevent misinformation and fringe ideas. Brett Hawke’s claim is unverified, lacks scientific backing, and amounts to fringe speculation. Including it without context, would violate these policies, making removal the correct course of action. IP49XX (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
This is one of those ones where you ask if the guy has expert knowledge of the topic, which is in this case the natural upper physical limit of an athlete. So the source has a PhD in what field?  A swimming coach is just that, a person who coaches swimmers.  They are authoritative as a source for how to swim. Manuductive (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it matters whether he is an expert or not, because that is not the reason his words are considered due in this situation. As was written on my talk page after the discussion unintentionally migrated there, "it is considered WP:DUE not because of his expertise, but because it has been reported widely in reliable sources. Therefore, your concerns are, for Wikipedia's purposes uncontroversially overridden". IAWW (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
If you are really feeling the need to pursue this further, you should narrow down on the particular sources that you propose keeping, along with the language of the claim that you are proposing. Manuductive (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Here is my proposed wording and sourcing:
Two time Olympian and coach Brett Hawke said he was "angry" at the swim, and that it was "not humanly possible". Hawke's comments were spread widely on Chinese social media. When questioned about the integrity of the swim in the post-race interview, Chalmers said that he "trusts" Zhanle's swim, while Popovici said "everyone is innocent until proven guilty". Ben Proud, the 50 metre freestyle silver medallist said it was "a great swim by a good athlete". IAWW (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Actually, if any of this bullshit mattered in an actual encyclopedia, you could give more weight to the Chinese social media, since that is the only reason why this is weighty.  China's public were giddy at seeing two isolated comments that could be interpreted as Westerners butthurt over their swimmer's fabulous victory. Manuductive (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
These sources boil down to: people are still not getting over past scandals and reporters in post-race courtside interviews are asking the athletes if they think it's fair.  If country A's athlete literally alleged that they saw with their own eyes their competitor downed a steroid right in plain view of the other team, then you're in business. Manuductive (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Manuductive, our opinions on what the sources boil down to do not matter here. Do you agree the above proposed wording is acceptable? IAWW (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
No, what you need is a good quality secondary source that weaves these all together with some actual brain power. Manuductive (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
The Reuters and Guardian sources are good quality secondary sources. Regarding "actual brain power", that is not up to us to decide. Our opinions on the controversy do not matter. IAWW (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
But those sources just talk about some reactions by random people. Manuductive (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
So? IAWW (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
It outlines that there are rumors and gossip in the swimming world, but how does that have weight for this article? Manuductive (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
It outlines reactions to Pan's performance in this specific race. IAWW (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I think at best you could have a section for "reactions" and say that Chinese social media went viral making fun of a Western swimming coach's baseless and apparently jealous Instagram post that insinuated about the Chinese swimmer's fast performance, with media outlets recalling a handful of old, unrelated doping allegations involving Chinese athletes. Manuductive (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
If you think that meets NPOV standards, I don't think we are going to make any more progress here. I'm going to setup a discussion at dispute resolution. IAWW (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world You should actually first go to fringe theories noticeboard and ask if the coaches claim is valid. I see you still haven't done that. The issue still remains that if you include the coach’s claims in the article, you cannot simply present him making claims without also addressing the disinformation they are based on. Citing himself as a source does not make the coach a reliable authority for making advanced scientific statements about Pan's performance. To include his claims without also clarifying their baseless nature would mislead readers into thinking that such allegations have professional merit. If they are fringe ideas, then if you include these claims, it's your responsibility to inform readers that they are false. Without the minimum corrective context, these claims should not be part of the article. IP49XX (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @IP49XX, I haven't done that because I disagree that the dueness of the inclusion of Hawke's words are dependent on whether his view is fringe or not. I think they are due because they have been discussed in several reliable sources. IAWW (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
It's like a compendium of quotes you got there. Manuductive (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is relevant if you want to include what's inherently disinfo and not merely just allegations. I oppose disinfo and why I removed it. As in if a person is spouting disinfo, the readers should EITHER be told why it's disinfo or just remove it entirely if it's hard to add corrective context. Wikipedia's core policies are there to prevent misinformation and fringe ideas. A coach is not some expert who can tell others what the fastest natural human speed for swimming is. But others may mistakingly assume it's general knowledge within the coaching and expert community except it's not. As Wada would have automatically disqualified Pan if such a claim was credible - but it's not. IP49XX (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
What sources?  I was reading an article in Metro[1] and this is all just primary source material.  Brett Hawke's statement which is re-published starts out by vouching for his own expertise.  So not only is he totally an expert in the limits of the human form, but he is also qualified to say who is and who is not an expert.  This guy is basically giving out diplomas, starting with himself. Manuductive (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Manuductive, I linked the sourced and wording above. The article in Metro is a secondary source. I don't know if Metro is reliable though. IAWW (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world Understand the allegations made by the coach have no credible foundation. Pan Zhanle has undergone consistent testing, including on the day of his events, and has passed every test with no evidence of doping. To speculate without proof is not only baseless but also reflects internal biases. If such claims are included in the article, they must be accompanied by corrective context to clarify that they are disinformation. Let me explain it another way: one can't be citing a flat earther theory without any corrective context immediately afterwards or it is misleading.  Yet you are doing the same by allowing the coach's unsupported claims to be presented without such context.
Wikipedia should not quote the coach’s claim without providing context that it is disinformation, especially if the claim lacks credible evidence and scientific backing. Quoting the coach's statement without explaining that it's disinformation could mislead readers into thinking that the claim has validity.
Wiki's core principles emphasize neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources. If coaches claim is easily deemed disinfo (hard not to) or based on biased or unverified information, simply repeating it without clarification would violate these principles. If the claim is to be included, it must be framed appropriately with corrective context, explaining why it is disinformation, to ensure readers are not misled. IP49XX (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC
The content ('Post race controversies') under discussion here is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. It starts by grossly misrepresenting the first two sources cited, and goes downhill from there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @AndyTheGrump, thanks for your input. I agree the title isn't ideal, but I couldn't think of a better one. Can you explain what you mean by "grossly misrepresenting the first two sources cited"? I thought I did a relatively good job at summarising the most relevant content. If this is the case, I need to take a serious look at how I edit. IAWW (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Firstly, the Japan Times article [2] in no way supports the cloaim that "Zhanle faced doping allegations". Instead it states that his win "came against the backdrop of a doping controversy". An existing controversy, in which "Pan was not named".
As for the second article, in Swimming World, [3] it makes no explicit mention of doping whatsoever, merely stating that (unspecified) questions around the Chinese swimming program rose in volume. We don't cite sources for things they don't say.
Beyond that, the inclusion in this article of what appears to be little beyond the sort of random noise that competitive sport routinely attracts is entirely improper. If there actually had been significant  controversy (i.e. long-lasting, discussed much more broadly) over the win, the place to discuss it would have been in the Pan Zhanle biography - acompanied by much better sourcing than this. Articles on Olympic events are not repositories for tabloid tittle-tattle on particular performers. The whole thing amounts to gossip, shoehorned into an article where it doesn't belong by presenting it as a 'controversy', rather than a few people expressing opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump That's fair. I agree with both the two sources being misrepresented. It was a big mistake. I happen to have realised it earlier and updated my proposed additions to cut that out (see above discussion, though it's extremely unwieldy at this point):
Two time Olympian and coach Brett Hawke said he was "angry" at the swim, and that it was "not humanly possible". Hawke's comments were spread widely on Chinese social media. When questioned about the integrity of the swim in the post-race interview, Chalmers said that he "trusts" Zhanle's swim, while Popovici said "everyone is innocent until proven guilty". Ben Proud, the 50 metre freestyle silver medallist said it was "a great swim by a good athlete".
The rewording is what I mistakenly thought you were referring to. Regarding your characterisation of the content as "random noise" and "gossip", I don't think our opinions matter here. What matters is that it has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, which it has, almost the most out of any of the rest of the content in the article. As for its relevance to the article, I think it is relevant because all the sources refer to his performance in this particular race. I'm not sure how you could get more specific than that. As stated before I agree that "controversies" was not the correct word for the title, but I couldn't think of anything better. IAWW (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Read WP:UNDUE. A few people made vague insinuations about the performance. This in turn attracted passing hoo-ha in social media. Nothing more. Nothing long-term And note that being properly sourced (if this is, which is questionable) is necessary, but not sufficient, grounds for inclusion of content. More so when referring to living individuals. Definitely not in this article: per WP:BLP "Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". So yes, this is gossip. If it wasn't, there would have been formal complaints, if not investigations. Or at minimum, a heck of a lot more commentary in WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump thanks for this. I didn't realise we had the power to decide what information is included in the article based on what we opine to be important, rather than its presence in reliable sources. That was the core misunderstanding.
This is all I wanted to get out of the dispute resolution request, so I'm going to go ahead and close it. Note @Manuductive and @IP49XX, I believe this discussion has ended! IAWW (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed allegations before not primarily because they were allegations. But it consisted of a no more than two sources that were extremely biased and terrible. For those that disagree on that appraisal, I am giving my reasons why those two sources are too biased and baseless to be included.
1. Literally one is an opinion piece whose entire argument is that Pan zhanle cheated because he is from the Chinese team and all Chinese swimmers regardless of whether they tested clean or not, deserve to be regarded as cheaters. One editor wants to add it to 100 m free race lede on Wikipedia and rationalise it as if it's a fair argument. Except what real confirmed evidence is there that Pan cheated or was forced by a gov to take drugs? There's zero evidence to prove that and not even WADA is making this extreme prejudiced claim.
I removed largely as they are such baseless accusations. And should be keeping the article neutral and fact-based to help preserve the integrity of the content and ensure that it reflects reality rather than personal opinions or prejudices.
Pan Zhanle, like any athlete, deserves to be treated fairly, and accusations should not be based on unfounded or biased claims. If there is no credible evidence to support such allegations, it is important to avoid perpetuating them, especially in a public site like Wikipedia, where misinformation can spread easily.
And the second source is just pure disinfo masquerading as facts. Wikipedia's core policies Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No Original Research (NOR) all exist to prevent misinformation and fringe ideas. Brett Hawke’s claim that Pan's swim is illegitimate because he claims Pan exceeded the fastest speed limit that a human can possibly do. Such a claim is unverified, lacks scientific backing, and amounts to fringe speculation. Including it would violate all 3 policies, making removal the correct course of action.
I can demonstrate at the noticeboard that his claim is unreliable and misleading, but I’d rather not waste volunteers’ time proving what is already clear. Unless you believe his statement is grounded in expertise or academic consensus, I suggest taking it to the Fringe Theories of Npov Noticeboard to determine if it qualifies as a fringe claim and unfounded prejudiced statement. 
IP49XX (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Were those broad accusations against the Chinese team based on a previous case that was misproven? Manuductive (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it’s not proven. WADA has explicitly stated there is no evidence of doping, and all test results strongly support contamination.[4] WADA explained that the 23 swimmers (with 28 positive samples) came from different regions and clubs but only tested positive while staying at the same hotel during a meet. Their test results consistently showed very low levels of the substance, with fluctuations from negative to positive within hours - a pattern inconsistent with deliberate doping or micro-dosing. Some tested positive on one day and negative the next, further indicating contamination. Meanwhile, athletes from the same team who stayed in different hotels did not test positive.[5] But this case is completely irrelevant to Pan Zhanle - he was not even one of the 23 swimmers involved. The overreaching claim that the Chinese government forces all swimmers to take drugs is an extraordinary accusation with zero credible evidence to back it up. It relies on opinion and speculation, not verifiable facts. The argument that Chinese swimmers should be presumed guilty regardless of evidence is blatantly biased and prejudiced. Adding such a claim about Pan specifically, without evidence, would be a clear violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines.IP49XX (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
There have been doping controversies in past generations and maybe there are more than that. But the key word is "maybe". If you want to point out that a particular state is cheating in international competitions, and misleading its competitors, why not talk about something that matters? Manuductive (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
What about a sentence that saysDue to the magnitude of the victory, Chinese social media took viral the statements of two Westerners--that of an Olympic swimming coach, and an article in Sports Illustrated that based the speculation in part on past doping allegations that had been shown not to be proven. Manuductive (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Good luck. Your suggested edits are factual and seem neutral enough, and I won't oppose them. I also appreciate your response to 30. However, based on previous experience, I doubt the other person will approve your proposed edit. When I suggested a simple edit noting that the allegations were not from official doping authorities, they opposed it.
That said, the article should focus on the race, not unfounded claims from a coach or social media reactions. "Maybe" doesn’t make a strong argument. If we’re going to include allegations of state-sponsored doping, they must be based on concrete evidence, not assumptions. For example, Russia’s doping scandal was thoroughly investigated and backed by credible evidence, but there’s no such evidence against Pan Zhanle. Speculation or assumptions in his race article would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines and unfairly harm his reputation. I generally prefer not to mention allegations at all if they are worded to give the impression that serious, credible claims have been made when they have not.IP49XX (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think this includes quite a lot of original research. I think it's WP:SYNTH at best. IAWW (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world except that's not original research. It's a fact that none of those doping allegations have been proven. What's original research is Brett Hawke's claim that Pan Zhanle's speed is "not humanly possible". This is because the claim is not grounded in verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific sources or expert consensus, but rather in his personal opinion and speculation. Wikipedia's policies on No Original Research (NOR) prohibit the inclusion of unverified personal opinions, original ideas, or conclusions that aren't supported by reliable, published sources. Since Hawke’s statement doesn’t meet these criteria and is based on unsubstantiated views, it qualifies as original research. IP49XX (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Including Hawke's comments is not original research because they have been reported on by multiple reliable sources. IAWW (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world Don't be obtuse. I specifically said that the coach's claims in itself is original research. Citing himself as a source does not make the coach a reliable authority for making advanced scientific statements about Pan's performance. He is a coach who can make comments about coaching swimming but has no grounds to make statements that only sport scientists are qualified to make. I don't want to be pedantic but Wikipedia should not quote the coach’s claim without providing context that it is disinformation, especially if the claim lacks credible evidence and scientific backing. Quoting the coach's statement without explaining that it's disinformation could mislead readers into thinking that the claim has scientific validity, particularly for those who may lack the critical thinking skills to recognize this, including younger readers. IP49XX (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world basically any unsupported allegations without credible evidence should be excluded from the article to ensure neutrality, factual accuracy, and adherence to Wikipedia’s WP:BLP guidelines. AS including such claims, esp without proper context or verification, just risks misrepresenting the individual, spreading misinformation, and violating Wikipedia's commitment to reliability. To maintain a fair and balanced portrayal, any allegations that lack inherent support from verifiable and reliable sources should NOT be included.IP49XX (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
What about:Chinese social media users commented a lot on a reaction by a Western swim coach on Instagram that insinuated without any evidence that the swimmer's fast finish was suspicious. Commentators in China made light of it, seeing the baseless statements as evidence of sour grapes. Manuductive (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@Manuductive I already mentioned this on my talk page. But probably should say it here too. This content might be more appropriate for Brett Hawke’s Wikipedia page rather than the race article. The most significant aspect of this situation is that Hawke made controversial remarks and faced widespread criticism. Many Western media comments were critical of him, with only some defending his suspicions, and later many Chinese social media reactions also labeled him a sore loser.[6] However, this has become more about Hawke and the backlash against him rather than the race itself.
My main concern is that the race article should not be turned into a tabloid-style report. The so-called "allegations" presented do not meet the standard of verifiable and credible claims; rather, they appear to be speculative remarks without substantive evidence. If allegations are to be included in the article, they should have a minimum level of credibility and should not contradict or overshadow the views and findings of established anti-doping authorities.
Looking at news coverage, many comments focus on criticism of Hawke himself, and his comments does not appear to have particularly strong support in either Western or Chinese spheres. Given that he has no official authority on doping matters and has not provided credible evidence, it would be more relevant and appropriate to include discussion of his comments on his own page rather than in the Olympic race article, where they have minimal impact on the event itself. IP49XX (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Please see the thread above. IAWW has now agreed with my comments regarding the inappropriateness of discussing what amounts to transient, entirely evidence-free gossip concerning a participant in an article on an Olympic event, both on WP:BLP grounds (which should have been immediately obvious and not requiring this ongoing kerfuffle over), and per WP:UNDUE. I see no point in going through the same discussion again, and will instead simply state that if anyone adds this tabloid crap into the article again, I will remove it, on WP:BLP grounds, and consider reporting the matter if anyone should be so unwise as to attempt to edit-war it in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)