Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Dolezal/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Overly length and detail but no quality sourcing

The article has been covering a formerly current issue. Rachel has had her 15 minutes of being famous. Much of the detail is rather private, not essential and outdated, based on press, blogs and the huffington post. And no, her inner organs are not our business. BLP applies. The article has 116 sources, none of them beyound media snippets. We have 31 entries on scholar, some of them (e.g. the ProudFlesh articles) problematic as well but e.g. Rogers Brubakers The Dolezal affair: race, gender, and the micropolitics of identity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2015 - Taylor & Francis is useful. Quote: I situate the Dolezal affair in the context of the massive destabilization of long taken-for-granted categorical frameworks, which has significantly enlarged the scope for choice and self-fashioning in the domains of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, and sexuality. Anxieties about opportunistic, exploitative, or fraudulent identity claims have generated efforts to “police” unorthodox claims – as well as efforts to defend such claims against policing – in the name of authentic, objective, and unchosen identities. Instead of a shift from given to chosen identities, as posited by theories of reflexive modernity, we see a sharpened tension between idioms of choice, autonomy, subjectivity, and self-fashioning on the one hand and idioms of givenness, essence, objectivity, and nature on the other. Non of the scholar entries has found so far its way into the article. I would like to cut the current version down to basics and try to put the case into perspective. How is your opinion about that? Polentarion Talk 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds likely to be contentious. Maybe you should try it in a user space first? Artw (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing a draft of that. I agree that since little further information has come out, the article has the risk of getting dated through implying that it describes a situation that continues to be so. I agree with Fatidiot1234 that the problem with this kind of article is that the sources are all basically the subject, a proven fabulist, and people with an obvious axe to grind against them. Blythwood (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Fully agreed, Polentarion. The purpose of this bloated article appears to be mockery, not helping readers learn the notable facts about Dolezal. It should be cut down to a few paragraphs, all of which relate to the "scandal" and its three essential facts: (1) She "passed" as black for decades even though she has no black ancestry and (2) faced career ruin after her white ancestry was revealed, after which many (though by no means all) commentators accused her of racism and dishonesty, but nonetheless (3) continues to identify as black. Right now, the article reads like a National Enquirer-style expose whose purpose is to ridicule and bully Dolezal. Steeletrap (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I copied the current version on a user page of mine, User:Polentarion/RD and made a draft. I invite the participiants here to provide ideas and input. I hope thats along with the rules (including copyright). Brubakers paper is available online. Polentarion Talk 22:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Draft is ready to go from my perspective.
Article starts with Dolezal affair, evolves into Caitlyn Jenner, Rogers Brubaker and ends with Vanilla Ice....but really does not cover the 5 Ws. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I did some copyediting and deleted the allegation on Ice, to avoid red herrings. Rogers Brubaker provided an actual study on the case, so I mentioned him. Yes, the comparision with Jenner is part of that. He deplores a sort of "logic of the trial" used on the case (and imho as well on the article). Take statements like In April 2007, while working as an art teacher .. with children ... which included a total of 35 works by students. Courtroom detail, but not the larger picture. Maybe there is room for a compromise? Polentarion Talk 21:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Read through it again. Why call it an "affair". Article seems to be more about Brubaker and his theories from an article centered around "I treat" and "I begin" along with the pushing a book at the end of it than it does to answer the 5 Ws about what happened. Good, Bad, Ugly, the information should be put out there and not white washed over. If Roland Barthes was still around, he too would write an entire book on it. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thnx. If Barthes had written it, why not using it? Affair is more appropriate than person. This is about a summer story 2015, not about a small persons personal life and school activities. Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR applies, I was not aware about a 5W rule. But if you use a 5W approach - the current article does not have neither start nor end (of the actual affair) but contains various Her uncle Dan ... said. Thats overly detail. Polentarion Talk 08:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping you would have used the 5 Ws as part of your rewrite of the article instead of revolving around a theorist. Current active article does cover the 5 although a mess in many places with a lengthy background portion to establish who she is. I would prefer to see you concentrate on the event and actual person involved - Who: Her name, where she came from, etc What: What led to her becoming a news item Where: Where did it all take place Why: Part of claim of self identifying/Claims that she is not who she says she is/Why it made the news, where the reaction section can be utilized. How: How it came about and made the news. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I used 5W to reword my intro, good point. Lets call this one 'the article' and my draft 'the draft', OK? I prefer academic sources for the larger pic. Brubaker etc are not describing her but the public discussion about her case. That's my intention as well. active article is a patchwork of Original Research based on media snippets, 5W or not, the actual summer affair is the main thing. Its not traceable in the active article (using the - valuable - 5W approach on the affair, less the person). Polentarion Talk 09:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Have had a look at the draft. I'm sorry but I don't like all of it it. While some bits are good it seems like OR and your personal slant on the case, for example saying that the Charleston shooting 'has been said to end the affair'. Also, I think the transracial stuff is just a bit unnecessary. Jenner isn't denying having had sex-change treatment. Dolezal was (apparently) literally claiming she was black, born this way, etc. until her parents said so. Also, I think it might be worth covering why the parents did an interview about her - apparently something to do with her brother and some discredited sexual harrasment accusations, but I forget the details. May make some suggestions when I have more time. Blythwood (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I am somewhat surprised - but the Quote about Charleston putting an end of the affair is based on the New Yorker and refered to in academic sources, as well as the rest. That said, the current article sounds like an OR patchwork to me. it refers to details about a person which is - as such - not noteable at all - except for her involvement in a summer media hype. The hype and affair has been described in academia. The person as such is not of any interest. Polentarion Talk 00:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Rename and rework

I suggst to rename and rework the articel to Dolezal affair and use her name just as an redirect. Her personal life is much less of interest than the discussion about cultural appropriation / trans cultural and the disputed connction to transgender, the latter went into academia. There is no use in elaborating her CV at length based on media snippets. The main thing is the affair in summer 2015. Polentarion Talk 15:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding Dolezal's December 2015 interview in The Guardian as a source

Look, I realize this is a controversial subject, and that longstanding contributors to this page have a well-deserved skepticism about Dolezal's trustworthiness in producing her birth certificate showing "Jesus Christ" as the attending doctor at her 1977 home delivery. I'm sure if it's fake, we'll hear soon enough from her parents or someone else, but I doubt The Guardian would reproduce it (and make it their article's lede) if it had not been independently verified by them. I've tried twice without success to add a footnote linking to this new interview and don't care to fall under 3RR, particularly given the uphill climb against the very strong WP:OWNERSHIP editors seem to feel about this page. Anyway, here is the article. May some other Wikipedia editor, more intrepid than I, make good use of it. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

First two paragraphs of article

These were WP:pointy, poorly-written, and incoherently organized. I revised them substantially; now they plainly state the important facts of the controversy. They now read:

Rachel Anne Dolezal (also spelled Doležal /ˈdoʊləʒaːl/;[4] born November 12, 1977) is a civil rights activist and former Africana studies instructor. She was president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter in Spokane, Washington, from 2014 until June 15, 2015, when she resigned following allegations that she had lied about her racial identity and other aspects of her biography.[5][6][7][8][9]

In June 2015, Dolezal came to media attention when her white parents publicly alleged that Dolezal is a white woman passing as black. It was eventually confirmed that, despite identifying as black, Dolezal has no African ancestry. Dolezal's critics contend that she has committed cultural appropriation and fraud; Dolezal's supporters argue that her racial identity, though not based on biology or ancestry, is genuine.[10] In a November 2015 television interview, Dolezal acknowledged that she was born white, but continued to insist that she identifies as black.[11][12][13]. (Those accusing me of bias toward Dolezal should note that I also cut from the paragraphs the NAACP's support for her, which is not an essential fact and belongs later in the article.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No. However pointy you think the lede is now, what you've written here is beyond pointy, the changes to big to be done without discussion. I've reverted it back to the previous version. Per WP:BRD, we should discuss here and hopefully come to a consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion, and we've arrived at a point where all users but you agree that the old version should be changed. Since you lack WP:Competence in the subject--and believe (contrary to Wikipedia, the dictionary, and all reliable academic sources on the subject) that ethnicity=race, and that neither concept is malleable--your opinion counts for little. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a diff for this alleged consensus in favor of your preferred version. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Two proposed changes

(1) We delete everything apart from basic biographical information and facts related to the scandal/controversy over her racial identity. This means deleting BLP-violating content like the (poorly sourced, and non-notable) accusations of plagiarizing paintings.


(2) We delete the "ethnicity- white American" portion of the infobox. This violates WP:SYN, since her ethnicity is a matter of debate. We should present the facts (her white ancestry, the lies she told about her genetic origin, as well as her long insistence that she is black) and let readers draw their own conclusion. Steeletrap (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How is her ethnicity a matter of debate? She was born White, its been proven. She may think herself Black, she has lied about being Black, but she's not Black. Where's the "debate"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
RS disagree on this (see the article). If the facts (her ancestry, her lies, and so forth) make it indisputable that her "ethnicity" is "white," why don't we just present the facts, and let the reader judge? WP:SYN prohibits us from drawing conclusions, even sound ones. Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No, our sources do not disagree on this. Artw (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted the "ethnicity" field because it presents a viewpoint that is disputable as if it were just a fact. The disputable viewpoint is that ethnicity is defined by one's parents. The WP article on Ethnic group, to which Ethnicity redirects, is inconsistent with this narrow interpretation: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience". She still identifies as black. See [1]. This is clearly a matter for debate and not something to put in the info box in an unquestioned way. Trbdavies (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the field in the infobox per WP:BRD. Discussion about removing it reallt should have occurred first. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion did occur first, over multiple days. See the comments above mine. I'm not going to engage in a revert war, but I encourage someone else to delete the "ethnicity" field at this point, based on my reasoning above.Trbdavies (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion occurred and you ignored consensus. If you want a new discussion specifically about deleting the field, now's your chance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Her history as a fabulist seems pretty relevant to the scandal, TBH, I'm not seeing a reason to remove. Artw (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I've made this edit. I feel that the subject of this article takes a stance at variance with the simple depiction of her ethnicity as "White American", and I think the reader benefits from reading about this in a series of sentences addressing identity and perception of identity as found in the body of the article. Considerable discussion surrounds this. We should not in this instance reduce this to a one or two word Infobox field. Bus stop (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What you think is fine in relation to discussion toward reaching consensus. Taking matters into your own hands when discussion is happening and consensus so far has said something different than what you think isn't. Make your case here, but don't unilaterally edit because you decided what you think trumps discussion and consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Steeletrap is right. The ethnicity: white American field in the infobox violates WP:SYN. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This field should be deleted from the infobox.Trbdavies (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Facts that came out in every reliable source reporting on the Dolezal during the controversy: She is White and she is American. Not synthesis, just reported facts. if it will make you feel better, we can add references to White American in the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is "ethnicity" common on infoboxs? If not then having it here seems a bit POINTy and we should probably omit it. I notice there isn't one on the article for Shaun King, whose ethnicity people were making a fuss about earlier in the year. No objection to discussing it within the text of the article. Artw (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of WP:OWN and agenda-based editing at the Shaun King article, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was removed as a result. Let's keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in mind -- just because you don't see it at other articles doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. Is the field part of the original template for the infobox? If so, why remove it? Her ethnicity and the controversy surrounding it (controversy she caused, by the way) is what has given her notability, so it seems germane to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the central issue here, therefore you don't reduce it to an Infobox entry. Is she black or is she white? The question of interest requires an article to be adequately addressed. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Her ethnicity has already been established by reliable sources in this article month ago: she is White. I'm not sure why this is even a concern. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This is your opinion, but others (like me) have different opinions. The article says she admits she was born white. It does not say that her ethnicity is white. The whole point is that people disagree about whether ethnicity can change over a person's lifetime. There is strong evidence that it can, in the way we use the term, e.g. when someone moves to another country and adopts its customs and language, japan to brazil, say, we say they have a hyphenated ethnicity (e.g. "japanese-brazilian"), or we may simply say (they may say) they were born japanese, but are now brazilian. It is not necessarily fixed at birth. There is a deeper question about whether race is fixed at birth, but Rachel and many others believe that race is a social construct as well and that one can identify as black after being born white even if we view these as racial categories. These are complicated issues, and it is unfair to pretend otherwise. The infobox has a special status in WP as a set of agreed on facts. Dolezal's "ethnicity" is simply not one of those.Trbdavies (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There are various questions in play and the Infobox is preventing them from being explored by answering them from the outset. This is a case in which the Infobox is counterproductive. For instance if she had she been adopted by a black family at an early age, we would not be so quick to categorize her as white, despite the fact that her birth parents are caucasian. We would instead be having a complex discussion about how she was "culturally" black while genetically white. As it stands it is primarily her insistence that she is black that makes one stop and think about the possible fluidity of black identity and white identity in the USA. Nevertheless we should allow that discussion to play out in the expansiveness of a variety of factors presented in the body of the article rather than succinctly supply the most prominent finding in the form of an Infobox field. It is almost offensive to state on Wikipedia's part that she is white despite her contrarian stance on that question. It is not necessary to baldly state in an Infobox that she is white when she feels otherwise, based on reasons that are not entirely clear to most other people and most sources. She served in a prominent role in a black organization, the NAACP, for a period of time and apparently defended the interests of black people prior to being exposed for being of caucasian heritage instead of her claimed black heritage. But as has been pointed out by many of the best quality sources and is widely perceived even in the twenty-first century, it is the white ethnicity that is privileged and given advantages over the black ethnicity therefore: for what personal gain would she claim to be black? I think many good quality sources see these as sincerely held beliefs. Given the possible fluidity of blackness and whiteness in the USA we should allow the reader to read the article rather than get crucial information (and possible misinformation) from an Infobox entry. Nothing requires this Infox field to be responded to. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It's well reported by countless reliable sources that the woman LIED about her ethnicity and was fired from two jobs and resigned from another because of it. This is not an issue. She is White, period. She was fired because she claimed otherwise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
That she was fired does not force us to use an Infobox to say she is white. Employers' concerns and encyclopedias' concerns are not necessarily the same. I don't think we necessarily care what the "truth" is. The pivotal issue is one of identity. That is explored at length by presenting numerous factors to the reader. An Infobox should not be used in a way that is counterproductive. Rather than being a black/white issue—no pun intended—this is a question which includes answers that fall in a grey area. The Infobox entry "Ethnicity: White American" fails to capture the most interesting aspect of this biography. We could write "Ethnicity: White American (disputed)" but wouldn't that be silly? The best course of action is to leave the field out of the Infobox. The purpose of an Infobox is not to hit the reader over the head with a sledge hammer. The purpose is to apprise the reader of easily reconcilable information. Ethnicity is not solely a function of genetics. Into the mix go for instance language and geography and hard to define "cultural" factors. This is not to say that every white aficionado of a type of music or cuisine associated with black people is a black person. But she would be a source on her own ethnicity even if she were only a minority source of one. We should respect her opinion and omit the field for ethnicity from the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
No. She is a primary source. Tons of secondary, reliable sources say she is White. Her birth certificate says she is White. The police commission she was appointed to says she is White and fired her because she lied about being Black when she was White. She is White. We go by the reliable sources that say so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
But refer to the ethnicity definition given by Trbdavies. "White American" doesn't fit that as she identifies as black. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
An article is not always replaceable with an Infobox entry. This is a case in which the simplistic Infobox entry "Ethnity: White" is the reason for the article's existence. That, and her notability as president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. We should not distill almost the entire article down to an Infobox entry. The article's value is in reading the reasons for the controversy. It is infantile to sum up the article for the reader in this way. By omitting the field we require the reader to read the article. Any person can be said to be "black" or "white" or some other attribute of identity. But in this special case it is the possible fluidity of such attributes of identity as "black" and "white" that is under examination. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"But in this special case" "Special case"? First of all, we don't classify people or article subjects as special cases. They are the subjects of articles. We don't judge what they are beyond that -- doing so is bias and we are to remain neutral. Secondly, how in the world is Dolezal's story a "special case"? "it is the possible fluidity of such attributes of identity as "black" and "white" that is under examination" No, it's not. Ethnicity is not "fluid", it is what it is. Ethnicity = race regardless of how agenda pushers are trying to change the definition. The woman's race is White, ergo, her ethnicity is White. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not there are no "agenda pushers" here. Ethnicity consists of several factors. Whether various factors are applicable is a judgement call. Among the factors applicable are cultural factors. Is her concern with black hairstyles a cultural factor? I don't know. She "is working as a hairdresser specialising in black women's hair". And, of course, she remains firmly wedded to her insistence that she is black. "For me, how I feel is more powerful than how I was born. I mean that not in the sense of having some easy way out. This has been a lifelong journey. This is not something that I cash in, cash out, change up, do at a convenience level or to freak people out or to make people happy … If somebody asked me how I identify, I identify as black. Nothing about whiteness describes who I am." An Infobox entry is used when useful and omitted when counterproductive. We are not required to pigeonhole her in an ethnicity via an Infobox entry. If ethnicity were irrelevant or of unclear importance then we would probably include it. But as it is of pivotal importance in this article it is best left for the body of the article where it can be discussed using full length prose sentences rather than as a succinct but opaque Infobox entry. Bus stop (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to WV's insistence: ethnicity does not equal race. Take the "Hispanic" ethnicity. The federal government defines "Hispanic" as a "ethnicity" referring to "[a] person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race." Therefore, there can be(and are) ethnically Hispanic people of every race.
The definition of "race," in addition to the definition of ethnicity, is also fluid and subject to controversy. People from India, for example, used to be classified as "white" by the feds; that was changed to "Asian" in the 1980s. Arab Americans were classified as non-white until the early 20th century, and have been classified as white ever since. But (owing to social science data indicating that Arabs are not perceived to be and do not identify as white) they will be probably reclassified as non-white in the 2020 census. I'm a lily-white Jewish girl, but my Jewishness would've led Americans to see me as non-white just a few generations ago.
I think WV is out of his depth on this issue and hope he will step aside. (See WP:Competent). Steeletrap (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Lol! Nice try. A true academic and someone as intelligent as you claim to be on your user page would never attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint. Only the intellectually challenged who are afraid of being wrong would do such a thing. Educated folks appreciate what others have to say and never attempt to shut discussion and the exchange of ideas with others. What's more, an actual anthropologist would know that "ethnicity" is a synonym for "race". So far, you have done nothing more than show us the very antithesis of what you claim to be through your comments here. And, thanks for proving there truly are agenda-pushers present at this article (in spite of what Bus Stop thinks). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
"What's more, an actual anthropologist would know that "ethnicity" is a synonym for "race"." So, Winkelvi, you are going off original research. Which is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither is edit warring and sock-puppetry. Or hounding, for that matter. Why the sudden interest in the talk page of an article you've never edited, Prasad? Never mind, I already know the answer. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You have to point out something that happened a long time ago, Winkelvi? Shame on you. This is now. That was the past. Plus, stay on topic. Your original research is actually relevant to the conversation. You're just upset that I called you out on doing something wrong, cause you're obviously some elitist who thinks they can do no wrong. That aside, I've added this talk page at about the same time as I did Caitlyn Jenner, which was a while ago. -- Joseph Prasad (talk)
Your 6-month block was just very recently lifted, so no, it wasn't "a long time ago", Prasad. My comments are not related to original research, so you aren't calling me out on anything. "you're obviously some elitist who thinks they can do no wrong. Are you sure you want to start making personal attacks so soon after the end of your 6-month block (when adminstrator eyes are likely on you)? You are hounding me/following my edits and didn't magically end up at the article talk page of an article you've never previously edited. To keep yourself from having issues with civility and edit warring and socking again, I suggest you take this off your watchlist and either go hound someone else who will put up with you or just start doing what you're supposed to be doing here: editing articles and staying out of trouble as well as not creating more drama. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The behaviour itself was a long time ago, Winkelvi. Your comments were original research. Saying "Any anthropologist would say __" is original research. It is obvious from your behaviour. You think you're some experienced guy who knows better than everybody else. You did the same thing on the Meghan Trainor discussion a long time ago. I am not hounding you. You don't have to have edited something to put it on your watchlist. I never edited Adolf Hitler and that page is still on my watchlist. I felt the need to jump in, so I did. You can't tell me, or even suggest what I should do. I don't abide by you. More editors on here for discussion is a good thing and should not be discouraged. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck are you talking about? A synonym is a synonym - knowing that isn't original research. So far, you have not offered anything toward edits or improvements in this article, just arguing with me and countering what I've said. Go harass someone else or start contributing here constructively rather than disruptively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not a synonym. Go type into Google or whatever your preferred search engine is: "are ethnicity and race the same?". I already see sites like PBS and livescience stating they are two different things. I don't have to "contribute" on the article itself. I'm contributing with the discussion. I never really made changes to other articles, yet got into discussions on there. For example, Leonard Nimoy. I didn't start editing that article until the discussion. I can say the same about many. If I was really harassing you, I'd be looking at your contributions. Not my own watchlist. I can edit anything that is on my watchlist, and even stuff that isn't. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"No, it's not a synonym." Hard to believe you didn't try looking at a dictionary or a thesaurus. Oh, wait. That's right. You're just a teenager. Dictionaries and other resource materials are usually a teenager's last resort (if even in the 21st century).

"I'm contributing with the discussion." No you're not. You're arguing. And doing it with someone with whom you have a grudge. Your comments here were not in regard to improving the article, but were made with the purpose of refuting my comments, causing/creating drama.

Now, go plead your case with someone who might believe you. After all of The Boy Who Cried Wolf stories previous up to your latest block and during it, few believe you any more. You might be able to find someone who will give you your 50th chance, but it sure isn't me. Stop. Trying. To. Agitate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As a pathetically minor editor who hasn't even awarded himself a medal, I can't help thinking that you folks might do better to have your slanging match in private. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not, Winkelvi. I'm trying to debate on this subject, and you brought up previous situations. You had no reason to do so. You're obviously the one with the grudge. You still went after me after the block was placed (as shown on the Talk:Drake Bell page). I couldn't care less. It was obvious you had some sort of obsession, some editor even told me that you metaphorically had a "hard-on". My comments refuting yours had nothing to do with previous interaction, it was about the article itself. Whereas you brought up previous encounters. Just stop the hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if I'm a teenager or not. Age is an irrelevant factor. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Responpded on your talk page, Joseph Prasad. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

BLP Violations

Per WP:BLP, "[i]f you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There are multiple RS supporting two allegations against Dolezal: (1) that, despite her "black identity," she has no African ancestry (in fact, this allegation is confirmed); (2) that she lied about having "black ancestry" to colleagues and employers. No allegations against Dolezal other than these two belong in the article.

However, many other allegations are being inserted in the article. One editor keeps inserting a section devoted to an allegation that Dolezal lied to Howard University about her race to get admitted. This allegation enjoys no support apart from the speculations of her father (who actually implies that Dolezal checked the "white box" on her Howard application, but says she misled the admissions officers by 'sounding black on the phone.'). The fact that an allegation is printed in multiple sources does not satisfy WP:BLP. Before an allegation can be published on WP, it must be *corroborated* by multiple RS (reporting an allegation does not=corroboration).

The editing on this page is a serious problem for any editor who cares about WP rules in general and WP:BLP in particular. Steeletrap (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Huge sections of cited content have recently been removed from the article with no discussion and in some cases with no accompanying edit summaries. This section has been created for discussion to commence. Please propose and discuss these changes here per WP:BRD. The article has been restored to the last, most stable version prior to those undiscussed edits with a few minor edits following. Per the BRD cycle, once the new content and removal of established, cited content has been challenged, those reverted changes should stay out until consensus is reached. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you have the burden of proof reversed (that doesn't surprise me; see WP:Competent. Since the information removed is, without exception, disparaging to Dolezal, WP:BLP mandates that we revert to my "new" version until we find a consensus for your "old" version. In any case, ample consensus for my version has emerged; the only one in opposition is you. Steeletrap (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
You can continue to cry that I am incompetent, Steeletrap, that doesn't make it so. As well, you continue to say you have consensus. I have asked you more than once to please provide a diff to that consensus. You have failed to do so each time. Even so, I will ask you again: do you have a diff to this alleged consensus, and if so, please provide it here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no single "diff" that can contain a consensus, since a diff reflects a single comment by a single editor, and consensus is formed by many editors over an extending period. That you cannot infer a consensus from the discussion in the "Two proposed changes" section of this page shows that this is a competence issue. Steeletrap (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Fine, more than one diff will work. Just something that actually supports your claim there is consensus that supports your changes, please. Saying you have consensus isn't enough. And, just for the record, continuing to say I'm incompetent isn't helping your case nor does it have anything to do with what you are being asked to provide. It really would be best for you to (1) Stop saying I'm incompetent because that's truly not the point here; (2) Provide diffs to show you have consensus for your most recent changes; (3) Understand that your changes over the course of a few days not only removed huge portions of established and well-sourced content that you then replaced with what appeared to be biased and POV but none of it was related to the consensus you say exists. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I would agree with various deletions of stuff based on media snippets. The article should be expanded with actual scholarly work first. Polentarion Talk 18:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel Dolezal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

white ethnicity in infobox

I see this is not in the infobox. I also read the discussion above but consensus seemed to be in favor of including it. Not sure why it was removed. But sources are very clear: she is white. Someone in the previous discussion had original research about ethnicity changing over time but unless we have reliable sources that say her ethnicity has changed, we go with what the sources say -- and they say she is white. 50m race walk (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for non-contentious facts only, also we dont generally include "ethnicity" (in the American sense=race) in infoboxes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Look, I'm no expert but this picture needs to be in this article somewhere http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150612092018-rachel-dolezal-split-exlarge-169.jpg 73.247.148.84 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I believe the opening sentence should still start with Rachel Doležal, because

  1. She is universally known as such by reliable sources in connection with the event(s) she is notable for
  2. She herself continues to use Rachel Doležal as a public person. Her autobiography is published under that name later this month.

If a person is widely known under a particular name or pen name, while the person's current legal name is relatively unknown/obscure, there is precedent to mention the name under which the person is notable/famous first. One example is Israel Shamir, who writes under that name and is known under that name, but who has a different legal name. --Tataral (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence has both names. Her new name that she chose is first. Similar to Bill Clinton, it starts with his full name. Whether she uses both or none is tangential. There are many people that must use their former name (Manning is one case that required her to file every court document as Bradley, Cat Stevens is another whose stage name is the article but his full name is the lede). --DHeyward (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Does this apply to every person on Wikipedia? Because I can think of a few people who get to have their original name concealed for some reason. 2601:600:8000:9423:3C47:BF0A:621D:3DA3 (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't think of any like that, save for porn stars and other figures for which there are no reliable sources connecting them to their given name. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Zoe Quinn. I expect to shortly be banned for mentioning this, of course. 2601:600:8000:9423:B4E3:77BD:7160:3FF6 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything on that article which indicates that it's remotely relevant to this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that, even since the official name change, the subject's most common name in reliable sources is still "Rachel Dolezal". Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


Rachel Dolezal → Nkechi Amare Diallo – per MOS on title, subject and names. Page is fully protected. DHeyward (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there's a strong source that includes an acknowledgement from her. The BBC is reporting that the Daily Mail has reported it, but nothing from her yet. [2] Her first book has just been published naming Rachel Dolezal as the author, and The Guardian interviewed her recently as Rachel Dolezal. SarahSV (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've just noticed that The Guardian article does say: "She has changed her name on all her legal documents, but is still recognised wherever she goes." They don't say what the new name is. [3] Someone should reach out to her and ask what she prefers. SarahSV (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In terms of more reliable sources than the Daily Mail, the New York Daily News also reported that she changed her name, and gives her new name as "Nkechi Amare Diallo", citing Washington state court documents. [4] Other reliable sources: [5] [6] Everymorning (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia:Article_titles#Name_changes tells us to respect common name, but to privilege sources after the name change. This means that a change of title is no possible untill there are at least a handful of sources that actually refer to her by her new name. It seems unlikely that her new name will be very commonly used, as for example her book is published under her former name. I suspect that the name change is partly an attempt to dissociate her private life from the public person and the controversy, so we might actually be hindering this by having a redirect from Rachel Dolezal to Nkechi Amare Diallo.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose We should go with the name she is most commonly known by. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support She has the right to choose her identity and how she identifies, and that should be reflected within the article--We changed the article from 'Brad' to Chelsea Manning afterall, did we not?

However, I think we need more sources before we go along with the change, just to be on the safeside. Stevo D (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Manning name change was preceded by a shift in the naming in the mainstream media. Our naming policy tells us to privilege recent sources, but establishes on right to choose one's own identity or name.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the mainstream media was what dictated a person's name. Stevo D (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

coverage in mainstream sources doesn't dictate a poerson's name, but it does dictates the titles of our articles per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Article_titles#Name_changes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - as long as mainstream sources call her by the new name, and I do suspect that they will. At the very, least, the lead section of the article should be updated to reflect the legal change, perhaps: "Nkechi Amare Diallo (born November 12, 1977), formerly Rachel Anne Dolezal...". This NPR op-ed by Denene Millner acknowledges the name change, though hardly seems to respect it. From the informational standpoint, it is useful because Millner does explain the traditional Igbo and Senegalese/Gambian origins of some of the names.
  • Oppose move for now. Let's wait for sources to come in.  ONR  (talk)  01:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Until sources change usage, which is not likely to be soon. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 1) She is publishing her autobiography under the name Rachel Doležal on 28 March 2017 and obviously continues to use the name Rachel Doležal as a public person. A person's legal name is not necessarily their WP:COMMONNAME, the name they are widely known under or the name they use as a public person. 2) Furthermore, she became known under the name Rachel Doležal in connection with the only event she is notable for, and it seems extremely unlikely that she will ever become better known under another name, so I don't think there will ever be a good case for moving this article to another title. The Manning case is entirely different, both because Manning did not continue to use her former name as a public person when publishing books, and also because Manning remained famous under her new name and because the new name was widely adopted by reliable sources, whereas Doležal's fame is limited to the 2015 events. --Tataral (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As there are plenty of reliable sources (here is Reuters version. --DHeyward (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • AP covered and NPR. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
      • These sources only say that she has changed her legal name; they do not support a claim her WP:COMMONNAME is Nkechi Amare Diallo (that she is more widely known as Nkechi Amare Diallo than Rachel Dolezal, or that she is known as Nkechi Amare Diallo to any significant degree at all). Wikipedia titles aren't based on legal names, but on WP:COMMONNAMES. Furthermore, other sources, including her own autobiography released later this month under the name Rachel Dolezal, document that she herself still uses Rachel Dolezal as a public figure. --Tataral (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. She has chosen a name and we should respect that. It is her naming preference and our article title should follow suit. The source we are using says that the name "has origins in Africa" and that is entirely congruent with our reason for hosting this article. The subject of the article is notable for past and present assertions of African origins despite having been born to white parents. Bus stop (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • 1) Wikipedia does change an article title to "respect" a person's whims but uses the subject's WP:COMMONNAME, the name under which the subject is widely known in reliable sources. 2) Aside from that, she herself is publishing her own autobiography later this month under the name Rachel Dolezal. --Tataral (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose for now It's not the name she is most known under. She could change her legal name in a month again. She's not transgender and changing her name to suit her true identity. There's no reason to assume that this name will be permanent unless she continues to use it for a longer time and becomes well known under it as well. Then we should move it.★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In this case the name goes to issue at the heart of the article. We should be taking a neutral stance, which in this instance means going with precision, not commonness of name. This is one instance in which I think WP:BLP matters. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Your argument goes directly against the applicable policy regarding article titles and personal name changes. BLP is irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is a WP:BLP. The relevance is that the person has indicated a preference, and the title of the article is the name of the person. We didn't title this article Caucasian person passing for Negroid person. Policy doesn't tie our hands. Policy provides guidance, where applicable. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing in BLP or in our naming policy suggests that the subjects preference can or should determine our titles. We change our titles in accordance with the most recent reliable source - as long as they state that "Rachel Dolezal changed her name" and "Rachel Dolezal published a book" and not "Nkechi Diallo published a book" then there is no basis for changing the title. Sources determine the coverage. Always sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
We have ample support in sources for her name being Nkechi Amare Diallo. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but not a single source that actually uses the new name.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There isn't ample support in sources and certainly not enough to ignore WP:COMMONNAME. Not to mention her upcoming book release is going to be listed with her birth/common name. Sorry, but it's just WP:TOOSOON to facilitate this change at the article. Maybe in a year or so. Until then, we go with what the majority of sources are using, policy, and WP:COMMONSENSE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oxford comma in header?

In the last sentence of the article's first paragraph, it seems a comma between "biography" and "and alleged hate crimes" would make the sentence clearer. But I cannot edit the article for some reason. Anyway, please consider the suggestion, anyone who can edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.249.141 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV problem: factual claims about contested metaphysics

At several points, the article states in WikiVoice that Dolezal is, in fact, not black (e.g. "lied about being African American" in lede, "her parents...exposed her stated ethnicity to be false", etc.). In doing so, we endorse answers to several questions which remain deeply controversial among race theorists and philosophers of race, including the ideas that race is determined by ancestry rather than self-identification or societal treatment; that labels such as "white" are real kinds; and that it can be factually determined that individual people have certain races and not others. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's section on "Do Races Exist? Contemporary Philosophical Debates".

Regardless of how individual media organizations choose to describe the situation, the question of Dolezal's "real" race is a matter of active dispute among the experts on what race is. Just as it would be unencyclopedic to cite the NYT for a claim about physics which is unpopular among physicists (WP:SCIRS), it is unencyclopedic to cite news organizations to make metaphysical claims which are unpopular among the relevant metaphysicists. In any case, this is what the most RS do (e.g. the NYT's "NAACP Leader Rachel Dolezal Posed as Black, Parents Say"). I propose changing these instances to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: "her parents asserted that her stated ethnicity was false", etc. FourViolas (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Name

Why isn't the name of the article changed to reflect her legal and preferred name a la Caitlyn Jenner or Muhammad Ali?Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Her new book was released as by "Rachel Dolezal". Even if she changed her name legally, we go with what reliable sources use as the title. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Already discussed above. The result was that it should not be moved.★Trekker (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This was discussed above, but the relevant policy is here. Essentially, we go by the most common name in sources, with a preference for sources published after the change; for Muhammad Ali, it is obvious that that's his WP:COMMONNAME. That's also true for Caitlyn Jenner, but in her case an additional policy applies; MOS:GENDERID specifically overrides the common-name policy when it comes to gender-identity (on the basis that WP:BLP requires that we minimize harm, and misgendering someone is potentially more harmful than using the wrong name in other contexts.) In this case, that doesn't apply; and the only sources we have are bare-bones references that the legal name change happened, which isn't enough to change her WP:COMMONNAME or establish that it will be her common name going forwards, so we stuck with the current name for now. --Aquillion (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent trim of the lead and WP:Quotefarm tag

Lead trim

DrFleischman, regarding this and this edit you made to the lead, while it can be argued that the lead needed a trim, some of that material should be in the lead...per WP:Lead. We need a lead that adequately summarizes the body. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What material do you think is missing? Remember that the purpose of the lead is to summarize, not to highlight highly specific details (no matter how revealing they might be). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Quotefarm

As for the quotefarm tag you added to the article, I don't see that it needs to be there. Political articles often have a lot of quoting. Look at the Barack Obama article, for example. In the case of both articles, I'm only seeing quoting where it's needed or is likely the better option. Given how many debates the Dolezal topic has caused, I'm thinking that it's often safer to use a quote than to leave the matter to the interpretation/original wording of editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some quotes are appropriate, when the wording itself is noteworthy or there is some ambiguity. But the vast majority of these quotes can be easily paraphrased without controversy. The lack of our own voice here through such extensive use of quotes is unencyclopedic and reads as if we're trying to hide behind others' words. Also, a number of these quotes lack in-text attribution, which confuses readers and raises WP:NFC issues.Barack Obama has nowhere close to the number of quotations as this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

IP question

Not a forum Edaham (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why list her ancestry as Czech, German, and Swedish if she states she is black? That self-declaration is good enough for Shaun King. (IP question [7])

Sources. Also, there is a big piece common to both Shaun King and Dolezal. Their families are undoubtedly African-American and they live in and are exposed to the same common experience as African-American families regardless of their own individual DNA. They experience it at least as parents and spouses of Afrcan-Americans. That is downplayed in order to exact some sort of punishment by some editors but it is a very real experience that they are living. -- (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
imagine a whistling sound gradually lowering in pitch followed by an explosion Edaham (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
DHeyward aren’t you currently under a broad ban from American politics related articles? Artw (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
You writing a book? Did you disagree with my revert or statement that we should be kinder to Dolezal or King or do you think a sanction is more appropriate? Or are you just casting aspersions? My TP comment was after my revert here[8] which I explained above assuming the TP heading was created by the IP (the heading isn't mine). . --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

She does have African ancestry

The most recent research indicates that all humans outside of Africa trace their ancestry back to a single migration from Africa that happened between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago. So her claim is indeed based on ancestry. The article should be updated to state as such. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/science/ancient-dna-human-history.html --Westwind273 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, um, no. Artw (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
So you disagree with the NY Times article? --Westwind273 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
After more than 11 years, isn't it time to drop the stick? Scr★pIronIV 19:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it is time for you to stop cyber-stalking participants in the Wikipedia talk pages. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Lied about being black"

The article summary near the top says she "lied about being black", but that's not as neutral it can be, as it presumes that trans-racial and changing race identity is not a thing (whereas whether or not is a thing is part of the controversy and debate, and should not be presumed matter of factly). In comparison, an article about a trans-gender woman would not matter-of-factly state "she lies about being a woman" (and I'm not arguing that the two are equal, rather, that whether or not they're equal is part of the controversy and debate). A more neutral version of the article would put the pro and con arguments of whether she lied into a later section, and try to find a more neutral phrasing for the summary. 2001:16B8:2C7A:3C00:C83F:ADD3:7785:73F1 (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not your comparison to trans-whatever bears any merit is debatable. It is an uncontroversial fact that she lied. I did however check the sources and the exact wording in the wikipedia article text is, as you say, not fully supported, so I changed it to more accurately summarize what the quoted sources say about her. In fact one of the quoted sources did accuse her of lying, but I think stating that the falsely portrayed herself is more accurate. Edaham (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
"Whether or not your comparison to trans-whatever bears any merit is debatable" -- Yes, that was exactly my point, that's part of what the whole debate about her is about (and it's irrelevant what side I would be on in that debate, as Wikipedia wants to have a neutral point of view). "It is an uncontroversial fact that she lied" -- I specifically referred to her *lying about being black*, which is not an uncontroversial fact, but rather depends on your definition of whether or not birth-assigned biological race can be trumped & change based on identity (which would make her "I am black" become a true statement). It is in fact accepted for gender nowadays that it *can*, hence it wouldn't be a lie for a trans-gender woman to say she's a woman. Again, it is not important of what I side I'm on in that debate and whether trans-gender can be compared to trans-racial, but that is part of what the controversy is all about, hence it shouldn't be stated matter-of-factly (not even your edit, while well-intentioned, helps in that regard). For reference, see the Netflix documentary on her. Thanks. PS: I have near-zero expectation that my caveat and perspective on neutrality as explained above will be regarded by the Wikipedians-that-be and today's majority, so I fully expect the article to remain non-neutral. Bias against accepting trans-racial as a realistic thing is too strong (and again, I take no side in that debate). 2001:16B8:2C7A:3C00:C83F:ADD3:7785:73F1 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedian's aren't required to take neutral stances in "debates", we are required to impartially and neutrally summarize the sources we find. If you have a source you wish to contribute to this article, which connects the subject of the article to trans-racialism in some way and you feel it is fit for inclusion, you can bring up the source, as well as the parts of it you would like to contribute to the article on this talk page. Neutrality - for the record - does not mean that our articles have to stand on a middle ground when presenting contentious material. Due weight is given to what the majority of reliable sources have to say about a subject. If you feel that Wikipedia is unduely representing an opinion as fact, then in-text attribution is often a good way to edit the text to emphasize that a contentious piece of information originates from a specific source as opposed to being a fact stated by the encyclopedia. This is especially useful in biographies of living persons. Thanks for your time. Edaham (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The trans-racial sources are plenty enough that Rachel herself is the featured person on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transracial_(identity) The Netflix documentary on her goes into a multitude of mainstream sources discussing the transracial aspect, too. (If majority bias becomes fact, then I guess a Wikipedia in the 1960s would have considered transgender people to be "lying about their gender" -- or to go closer in history, presented Iraq's WMDs as fact, because of the way most US mainstream sources at the time treated it.) I can only emphasize again that I do *not* make the argument from a side which a) accepts transracial being a thing or b) considers transgender and transracial the same or c) considers Rachel to not be a liar. Rather, she may be the biggest liar in the world -- for the sake of argument, let's consider that very likely -- and my point merely is that *it is precisely part of the controversy and debate* around her "I am black" statement whether or not one believes in transracial being a thing... as she is then truthfully referring to identity, whereas others are referring to her biological assigned birth race. That, in turn, is brushed over with the summary sentence which states it as fact, and slightly misrepresents the core of the discussion around her. 2001:16B8:2C7A:3C00:C83F:ADD3:7785:73F1 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
so you want to mention (or make implicit) the controversy in the lead of the article? The fact that she raised the debate might be worth a mention. This controversy is also mentioned in the body, with quotes coming from both her proponents and detractors. Edaham (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
That is a good question. If you take a look at many of the sources following the statement, "she had falsely portrayed herself as a black woman", they do not at all paint such a clear picture as that sentence would indicate. The NYT article for instance portrays both sides of the issue; her parents claim about her being born biologically white (which is undisputed, even by her) whereas, in the same article, raising issues of transracialness and transgender, and race vs identity. Some of the other articles, too, take that more balanced approach of trying to untie the controversy. I find it would only be appropriately neutral to indeed mirror that debate in some way, instead of having the summary take such a clear side. Why not just state the facts? 1) She was born biologically white, 2) She says she identifies as black, and she clearly portrayed herself as such and understood people perceived her that way, 3) this causes her parents and a lot of people and media to call her a liar, whereas she argues her identity (similar to transgender) trumps her biologically born race. This way, everyone can make up their own mind, and if there's many more arguments against her stance, then that could be appropriately weighted in the further details in the article. I want to emphasize again that I am not on either side of the issue as per this debate, and for the sake of argument, let's say we may have more arguments that she's a habitual liar. The point remains. Thanks for considering! (While I often do edit articles, in this case I do not want to edit such a hotbutton topic myself, as I'm not as well-knowing in the ways of Wikipedia.) 2001:16B8:2C7A:3C00:6D42:D27C:E9B6:C788 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you care plainly to write that here on the talk page as you would write it were it to appear in the article? Edaham (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
To stick to just the facts, one could amend "after it was revealed that she had falsely portrayed herself as a black woman" to e.g. "after it was revealed that while she had portrayed herself and claims to identify as a black woman, she was born biologically white to Caucasian parents". Mileage may vary, e.g. the extra layer of "claims to identify" may or may not be appropriate, and in terms of transracialness in general, "born biologically white" could again open up a can of worms (though the documentary on her indicates that her black identity indeed only evolved later). 2001:16B8:2C4D:F700:7827:7433:BE2E:5E0 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Have a look at the change I just made. I get what you are saying and don't agree that this page needs to take a neutral (or any) position regarding the legitimacy of trans-racialism in the lede. However I do agree with you that the word "falsely" is less than neutral and could be worded to more clearly state the issue. I've reworded it with this in mind. Although she may have "falsified" forms, evidence etc to lead people to believe she was black, none of these specifities is conclusively covered by the sources and therefore we can just say what they say is factual. 1)she's got white parents 2)She claimed her father was some black guy 3)She told everyone she's black for a while etc. The specifics of the trans-racial issue are covered in the body and a seperate article and seem too specific for the lede. Edaham (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's very good now (for reference, it currently reads "she resigned after it was revealed that she had been born to white parents and had portrayed herself and identified as a black woman"). I think neutrality is a good goal, but I fully agree it doesn't have to be equally balanced (a Wikipedia page on Hitler wouldn't need to be equally pro vs cons -- and no I'm not comparing Hitler to her). The way it's worded now allows those who think of her as a liar to continue doing that by reading the intro, and those who disagree on this trans-racial issue to not to... a perfect Rorschach picture. Thanks for being so considerative instead of argumentative... a rare treat on the internet these days!2001:16B8:2C72:6000:A1E0:C1BE:A798:3A69 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I’ve found the editorial process to work slowly but well here. Wikipedia policy sometimes invites an adversarial process in areas where material is found to be contentious, but ultimately disallows arguments which are not based on verifiable source material. You are right that the anonymity of the net allows people to squabble without the fear of meaningful confrontation, but this isn’t reddit and there’s lots of people here who just want the articles to be accurate. You will of course, among such a large group, bump into a few difficult types from time to time, but don’t let that put you off. If you enjoy editing the Wikipedia project, the editors here, myself included, encourage you to make an account and continue to contribute. Edaham (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I have an account for many years, but on many topics prefer anonymity. 2001:16B8:2C2A:5100:38AC:D3:772C:F419 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Article title

Why is the article title in italics? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Because Tkbrett recently added a Template:Infobox film to the subsection on The Rachel Divide. That template is set to generate an italicized title by default. I adjusted it now (but I'm not even sure the film infobox should be in this article). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and correcting the problem, Sluzzelin. The infobox should not be in this article and has been removed. The documentary section has also been pared down because of WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The Rachel Divide is independently noteworthy enough that should have its own article. Knobbly (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Then make it so. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Decided to start the article myself. Feel free to contribute, of course. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks the topic seems so controversial, I was worried someone would accuse me of WP:CFORK. Knobbly (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Name Change

I believe she has legally changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo. That being the case, should that be the main article, and this the redirect? Obviously, most people know her as Rachel Dolezal, but is there an official policy? Carlo (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There is article naming policy (too lazy to look it up right now) and IIRC, the article name is to be the name the general public knows her by and if there are any works attributed to the article subject, the same applies to the name under which she is attributed. Her new name is noted in the article at the beginning of the lead, and that should suffice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Not Accurate

"while falsely claiming to be African American." is in the first sentence. First of all, she never used the term "African American." She calls herself, "black." And I think saying "falsely" shows bias because there is no objective standard to say she isn't black.

Source that she doesn't use the term "African American": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USr_bm39hrU

108.183.22.133 (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing back to consensus wording in lead

Two editors went through a lengthy discussion in May (see above), leading to the removal of "lied" from the lead. It has since been reinserted through the statement that Dolezal was "falsely claiming to be African American". The consensus previously reached was that the article should not take a position as to whether her claim was false. I am changing it back to a wording in line with this consensus. I did remove "falsely" once alreadey, and was reverted. Please do not revert again without discussion. 5.103.130.132 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC) (sorry, unable to log in from here)

Unless I'm totally missing it, there was no agreed-upon consensus. There was discussion, but no consensus that I can see. If you have a diff that points to a consensus, please include it here. Additionally, it's inappropriate for content being contested/challenged and discussed to be changed at the time of discussion. Please change it back to the status quo until discussion has ended and consensus reached. To not do so is disruptive. Also, please reveal your account name since you claim you are unable to sign in with it at this time. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The two people discussing this issue ended up agreeing to a wording here. Thus, at that time, this established a consensus. The "falsely claimed" was then added here by User:Taratal, without an edit summary, and without previous discussion. To me, this means that the "status quo" is what was reached through discussion on this talk page. We apparently disagree on this issue. This should not separate us - I will once again insert "falsely" into the article (while leaving in the AA -> black, which I assume is undisputed). Now, what we should then do, is reach a new consensus regarding whether the lead should contain "falsely", or "lied". You have made some points on my talk page, which I take the liberty of quoting here:

(...) Use of the word is supported by reliable sources. After all, Dolezal was fired from her position at a university and with the local police department for falsely claiming she was black, she was forced to resign from her position with the local NAACP for falsely claiming to be black. If you have concerns about the word being in the article to describe what she had lied about for so long, please take those concerns to the article talk page. (...) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Now, first of all, none of the sources currently given for this part of the article state that Dolezal lied about being black. I have not seen any reliable sources stating that "lying about being black" was the reason for her being fired by EWU or resigning with NAACP (nor indeed that she was being "forced to" do so). A few sources quote her family using such language - but the sources themselves do not make the claims.
More importantly, the point made in the previous discussion on this page is that Dolezal's claim of being black (while being born white) is the point of controversy and debate. For this there are plenty of sources, including some already given. Thus characterizing her as "falsely claiming it" is unnecessarily taking sides in this debate. I would like you very much to respond directly to this point. User:NisJørgensen 19:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC) (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.103.130.132 (talk)
"Thus characterizing her as "falsely claiming it" is unnecessarily taking sides in this debate" No, it's presenting what the reliable sources say: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. There are more, should I continue to post links from reliable sources that state she "falsely" claimed to be "black"? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there are reliable sources for stating that Dolezal was lying, "falsely claiming", "posing as" or "pretending". Only 2 of the 5 you give are both accessible and using such words when describing Dolezals claim to be black.. The Slate article is specifically debating whether Dolezal's claim to be black is valid. UPI makes mention of falsely claiming "African American heritage", as well as misrepresenting her upbringing. UPI does not state that she "falsely claimed to be African American" (nor black). sltrib.com is inaccessible from Europe at the moment.
The important point, however, is that this is only one of three common way of describing the situation, which can be found in reliable sources. The second just repeats the "objective facts" - Dolezal's bological parents are white, she says she identifies as black. The third position - put forward by the Slate article and others, are specifically debating the validity of Dolezal's claim, and mentions the fact that Dolezal "has set off a national debate about the very meaning of racial identity" [14].
Thus it is not true that "the reliable sources" state that Dolezal is lying. "Some reliable sources" do.

5.103.130.132 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC) (User:NisJørgensen)

I was engaged in the previous discussion. Let me clarify. I did not take the position that all text stating that she lied or made false claims should be removed. The sentence I edited read, " She was president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter in Spokane, Washington, from February 7, 2014 until June 15, 2015, when she resigned as it was revealed that she had been born to white parents and had portrayed herself and identified as a black woman.". In this one particular example, I edited the text not to remove the word false or in any other way soften the impact, but merely to better reflect the source material. I believe the other editor in the debate at the time, wanted to contribute overtures about trans-racialism, which I did not think appropriate and did not agree to include. Regarding the word "falsely", outside of the sources and article text which were previously discussed, it may have been used any number of times by reliable sources, and if this is the case then there's no reason that it shouldn't be used. Further to this, there's no policy based reason why an editor shouldn't use the word, even if it were not used in source text, if that's what the information stated obviously amounts to. At present the lead sounds fine and perfectly factual. I slightly prefer the way I wrote it in the aforementioned diff, but have no objection to it being changed per the present version. Edaham (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason for Dolezal's fame is not that she identifies with black culture/blackness in itself. It's not that she was "born to white parents" while being involved with NAACP either (noone objects to white people being involved with NAACP). It's rather specifically the deliberate false portrayal of herself as a person of African American descent, including the nine alleged "hate crimes" she is widely suspected of having fabricated (as discussed in both the article and the Netflix documentary) that caused the controversy. The current opening sentence ("is an American former civil rights activist known for being exposed as Caucasian while falsely claiming to be a black woman") would make no sense without the last part, because it would omit the important context, and being "exposed as Caucasian" in itself isn't noteworthy. Also I think "Caucasian" should be changed back to "white" because to the rest of the world, "Caucasian" is a very outdated racial term referring to an outdated racial theory, and is really only appropriate as a description for people who actually are from the Caucasus. --Tataral (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's rather specifically the deliberate false portrayal of herself as a person of African American descent, including the nine alleged "hate crimes" she is widely suspected of having fabricated (as discussed in both the article and the Netflix documentary) that caused the controversy. - agree with this, and the bulk of the above. Edaham (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

She may have African admixture

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.

Rachel Dolezal may have African admixture from historical times (i.e. more recent than the original human migration out of Africa). Recent research shows that about 3% of Czechs have the sub-Saharan African haplogroup L2. Dolezal may very well have L2, which means she has African ancestry within historical times. Without evidence of a blood test, I think it is presumptive to assume she has no African ancestry. http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/czechs.html --Westwind273 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Noone has claimed she has "no African ancestry". In fact all Europeans most likely have a small amount of African ancestry after the original human migration out of Africa. But that doesn't make her African American or different from any other white person from Europe or the US. Her ancestors weren't enslaved or discriminated against in America. --Tataral (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 not done while you’ve provided a link to an article on genetics, you haven’t stated what part of the article you wish to improve or how. This subject has also been covered on the talk page before. If you wish to readdress the subject, please do so with regard to specific changes you wish to see. Alternatively you can boldly edit the article yourself. Edaham (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Westwind273, you wrote: "may very well have L2, which means she has African ancestry within historical times. Without evidence of a blood test, I think it is presumptive to assume she has no African ancestry." There are several problems with what you are suggesting be done (I'm assuming you think the article should include content on what you've written, correct?)
(1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains facts, not presumption. See WP:NOT, specifically the section WP:FORUM, point 1.
(2) You seem to be saying that because research states such and so, and because Dolezal's ancestry is part Czech, then the logical conclusion is that she must have African ancestry. That's not how we add content in articles. Please see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR
(3) In the absence of a blood test and no reliable source to verify any DNA/blood test she may have taken, there's nothing to add into the article about her DNA/ancestry. We don't add things based on them not existing, rather, we add content based on things that exist and are verifiable. See WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:CRYSTAL for more.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between being African-American (as the term is commonly used) and being an American who has (in small amounts) African ancestry. I would agree that based upon reliable sources for the definition of African-American, Rachel Dolezal is not an African-American. Reliable sources would indicate that African-American only applies to those Americans whose ancestors left sub-Saharan Africa after AD 1500. I would suggest that the wording in this article emphasize that reliable sources state that Dolezal is not an African-American (nor black) in the common sense of the word. However, I would suggest modifying those parts of the article which state that she has no African ancestry. In general, what I am saying is, steer the wording toward "African-American" not African ancestry. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Westwind273, re:"I would suggest modifying those parts of the article which state that she has no African ancestry." ... allow me to put it more plainly (it seems you missed the gist of what I was writing above): Unless there are verifiable and reliable sources stating Dolezal has "African ancestry", it cannot be added into the article. End of story. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

I don’t see any point whatsoever in ‘’steering’’ the article one way or another based on conjecture. The subject of this article is not notable for having had the fidelity of her genetic makeup discussed. A summary of reliable and notable sources does not reveal any protracted discussion regarding teaspoonful quantities of what may or may not be in this subject’s DNA. It would be undue to alter the article text based on such speculations without a large number of sources on such minutia, which don’t just mention the phenomenon of genetic mixtures in general, but which name her specifically. This isn’t an article summarizing sources which talk about genetics. We have those elsewhere. This is an article which summarizes sources about a subject who pretended to be black and was discovered doing so after a prolonged and notable series of events which were covered in news (and less notably some academic) sources. Edaham (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to put it more plainly, because it seems you missed the gist of what I wrote. I am not saying anything should be added to the article. I am not saying there should be a sentence saying she does have African ancestry. What I am saying is that the sentences which say she does not have African ancestry should be changed to say that she is not African-American. There are many reliable sources which say that Rachel Dolezal is not African-American nor Black. However, I cannot find any reliable sources that say she does not have any African ancestry. Thus I think the article should not state that. End of story. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
After taking a look at your talk page, it's clear you have done this kind of thing before, forcing a point and attempting to manipulate article content to fit a particular narrative, and a fringe one at that. Reliable sources in this article as well as those not in this article have been referring to Dolezal as an individual who has falsely claimed to be African American for quite some time now. That is what the article reflects and that is what it should continue to reflect (terminology and all) because that's what the sources we are using say and have been using ever since this story broke. You can talk about this until you are blue in the face, but I recommend you do not. You are now wading into the waters of talk page WP:DISRUPTION and WP:BLUDGEON. I suggest you let it go. Time to drop the stick. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking at your comments here, it's clear you have bullying tendencies (WP:BULLYING) Any impartial observer of these comments would say that my comments were dispassionate and respectful, whereas yours are wading into the waters of bullying (missed the point, end of story, etc). If you think this discussion is a dead horse, then simply stop responding. Drop the stick. If you look at my contribution history, you will see that I do not have a history of repeatedly posting the same comments; this was my first time to post a link to the Czech admixture source. I would also point out that Wikipedia has a well-known chronic problem with this kind of bullying on the talk pages. https://www.quora.com/What-can-I-do-about-editors-at-Wikipedia-who-are-bullying-me --Westwind273 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry you feel bullied. That's not what's happening, but your feelings on the matter are noted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, if you think the text can be better worded, you are in fact welcome to make the edits yourself. I don’t see any major problem with changing a part of the article which says “African descent” to “African American” etc, it seems frivolous to have such a protracted debate about it. Just open up the links to the existing sources, check the wording and make sure that what ever changes you make are reasonably in keeping with the source texts. You aren’t being bullied, you’ve joined a group of editors of a piece of work who have a way of doing things and you are having a mild disagreement about how to interpret some guidelines on accepted practice. Please be reasonable and have a sense of perspective on what’s going on when your efforts encounter criticism. To date your criticism of other editors has been met with a reasonable amount of patience. You cannot expect to offer criticism so freely in the course of a discussion and not receive any. Serious accusations of bullying are not particularly nice to receive if one is a volunteer attempting to maintain writing and policy guidelines. The key issue here is that you offered a source, and seemed to be inferring from it, which is original research, if that wasn’t what you were doing and you had some other point besides, please continue to edit the article freely. Edaham (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of manipulation to fit a fringe narrative are also not particularly nice to receive. I think the bullying article I linked to hit the nail on the head. There is definitely an aspect of the pot calling the kettle black here. If I were to distill my main point, it is this: In a number of places the article says that Rachel Dolezal has no African ancestry, and yet the referenced sources say no such thing. The referenced sources say she is not African-American nor black. Let me give you one specific example. The third sentence in the second paragraph says "Doležal and her defenders contend that her racial identity is genuine, while not based on biology or ancestry.", and the reference 14 is to an NY Times article. Please look at the article. I challenge you to find any place in the article where a defender of Dolezal says she has no African ancestry. In fact there is only one use of the word "ancestry" in the article, and in that case it is the author speaking, not any defenders of Dolezal. Moreover, the article does not contain the word "biology". --Westwind273 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

can you please just edit the article yourself, follow WP:BRD if you are reverted and use dispute mediation where necessary. I’m not even sure what your proposed text will be and these long walls of discussion are unnecessary. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
As you can see from WP:BRD, it is something to be used with caution, and it is not the only method of improving articles. I prefer to operate by the original consensus method. However, I can give an example of proposed text. Using my example above, I would change the sentence to "Dolezal and her defenders contend that her racial identity is genuine, while not being African-American or black in the common sense of those terms." Or perhaps just delete the last part of the sentence and say "Dolezal and her defenders contend that her racial identity is genuine." I would also point out that this discussion would have been much shorter if you and Winkelvi had not engaged in personal attacks against me. A lot of ink was wasted on that. Let's discuss the issues at hand, not attack each other. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I sloshed through every word of those four tabloid sources, on which that passage is based. The word I could not find there anywhere is “defenders”, so a better edit might be to use your second version minus the words “and her defenders”. Edaham (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
the closest I could find to any reference of support was from this quote in the “people” source While Dolezal’s appearance on The Real was sometimes met with tense questioning by the panel of cohosts, her rise to notoriety has not been without at least some high-profile support. In the November issue of Vanity Fair, Rihanna said that she viewed the activist and artist as a “bit of a hero” because she “kind of flipped on society a little bit.” - “Is it such a horrible thing that she pretended to be black?” Rihanna asked in the interview. “Black is a great thing, and I think she legit changed people’s perspective a bit and woke people up Edaham (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Westwind273, you suggested, "Dolezal and her defenders contend that her racial identity is genuine, while not being African-American or black in the common sense of those terms." Where's the reliable, verifiable source that supports this content suggestion?
Also... no one has personally attacked you. Please stop with the false accusations. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I will confess that I am relatively inexperienced with Wikipedia footnoting rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the footnote 14 comes at the end of that sentence, shouldn't the entire sentence be supported by the single NY Times article that I referenced. Frankly speaking, I'm not sure if any part of that sentence is supported by the article, and I read the entire article carefully. Maybe the best choice is simply to delete that entire sentence. Correct me if I'm missing something. I am willing to be WP:BRD and delete the sentence, if you folks think it is the right thing to do. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Without a reliable, verifiable source to support it, the content cannot go into the article. Which is something I already told you roughly 30 hours ago. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I've changed the article text in the hope of bringing this discussion to a close.
  1. I can't find anything about "supporters" plural, in any of the sources given so I've removed that.
  2. She identifies as black so I've removed all of the hoo-ha about specific terminology, which in any case is too specific and detailed for the lead summary whether it's sourced or not.
  3. There's nothing wrong with the following sentence which talks about her TV interview, which is notable enough to be in the summary. I left it alone. happy editing. Edaham (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, closed. I will also desist in any type of interaction with Winkelvi. I can see from his talk page that he has had a lot of problems with many users of Wikipedia talk pages. It is best to simply ignore that kind of person. Frankly, I wonder how he got the editor privileges that he has. The bullying article seems have been written about him. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It now says Doleža, who maintains that she identifies as black, fueled a national debate in the United States about racial identity. She has been criticized for having committed cultural appropriation and fraud, with others appluding her goals. And I can't think of a more succinct and accurate single sentence summary of the NYT source. Regarding your above comment, as a mediator <-- person who cares, I cannot condone your comments regarding Winkelvi. Your demands have not been easy to meet and some of your suggestions for improvements seem nebulous and have shifted throughout the course of the discussion. I haven't seen any of the editors in this discussion doing anything other than trying to maintain Wikipedia standards in good faith and while the tone has been a little heated, I think this temperature is something to which you will have to accustom yourself if your contributions are not more thoughtful and measured in future. I'll be happy to work with you on any further suggestions if they are offered in a calm and patient manner. Edaham (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully, have you taken a look at Winkelvi's talk page? I am not the only person with whom he has had these problems. I also must respectfully disagree with your statement that the nature of my participation here made me deserving of disrespectful and insulting comments. I cannot recall making any "demands", let alone ones that were hard to meet. And your standard for non-nebulous and non-shifting discussion is so high that it would make the vast majority of Wikipedia participants deserving of insult and disrespect. In all honesty, I don't think that is the kind of Wikipedia that we want to have. I might also suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on Bullying. There is a lot that is applicable to this discussion. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's quite enough of this discussion. It's going nowhere and has only once again devolved into insults, accusations, and aspersions. Sadly, this has been nothing more than a time sink and great waste of energy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:21, 7 July 2018 (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.

Concern with bias

Let's let the facts about her speak for themselves. We don't need loaded language or undue weight. Indeed, if anything, we have to be a little biased (not extremely so, just a bit) in her direction, since it's a BLP. Steeletrap (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Her kids

She has kids; if she identifies as being black then what does she define her kids as? HardeeHar (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@HardeeHar: That's not our business! She has a right of privacy like you and me. --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015

To a regular user: Please add to the current end of the "Art" section of the Rachel Dolezal page, the following, or something very similar... thank you.:

Authenticity of a number of Rachel Dolezal's recent artistic 'works' has come under serious question. Evidence has been found that shows plagiarism of both a movie poster and a scene from the movie entitled, "Pariah." Evidence brought forth in the 'D.C. Art News blog' supports the theory that Dolezal had photographic images printed onto canvas and then painted over them, and marketed them as her own creations on her own web page.[1]

  1. ^ http://dcartnews.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-curious-case-of-artist-rachel.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gina164 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 June 2015‎ {UTC)

 Not done

You would need a secondary source like a newspaper article. That blog references another blog and both are self-published so they aren't reliable enough for wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haminoon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Excessive references and info

This is an article about a person. Her adoptive brother seems to have no hesitation to speak ill of his sister in the media. He even talks bad about her on TV. Regardless of her misdeeds that is not the common role of a relative, neither biological nor adoptive. But in this article he is referenced over and over again. I think that it is excessive.

And her new name shouldn't be mentioned here. Wikipedia must not assume the role of a pillory. She has the right to start a new life! --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried to set a clean-up sign but it was reverted. Why? Does anybody heed Melvin v. Reid? "[The right of privacy] does not exist where a person has become so prominent that by his very prominence he has dedicated his life to the public and thereby waived his right to privacy. There can be no privacy in that which is already public." https://casetext.com/case/melvin-v-reid. The question is: Does she match this criterium? I doubt it! --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The cleanup tag is not needed and excessively biased in it's reasoning, use the talk page to discuss changes and reach a consensus on what to change, but don't use cleanup tags to do it. TheMesquitobuzz 02:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


  • The legal case you cited is irrelevant. Also referring to legal challenges with regard to article content may be viewed as a legal challenge against the content. You are advised to cite Wikipedia policy when challenging content, rather than make legal comparisons.
  • Your cleanup tag may have some validity but it is too general to be actionable
  • The golden rule, or "do unto others" etc. does not prevent editors from adding material, which can be readily sourced. Your comparison of the article to a pillory is not justified when the subject of an article is a frequent focus of media attention. Wikipedia compiles, (it does not report on) what reliable sources say. Edaham (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed some tabloid crap from the article. There may be more areas which can be trimmed. suggest we deal with subsequent edits individually, here on the talk page. Edaham (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed response. I begin with the easiest section: "Plagiarism accusations". She painted a picture that resembled an old painting but she didn't counterfeit it. In the history of paintings this is common and not illegal. What merit has this accusation other than to throw dirt at someone who is already at the internet pillory? What relevance has this nothing-burger accusation for Wikipedia? --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Insektenrueckgang: Again, Wikipedia has no power over what the media focus on and because she meeets WP:WELLKNOWN, just because the content is negative doesn't mean we should leave it out of the article. Wikipedia serves as a place for information. You labeling it as a pillory is highly incorrect. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This "accusation" of repainting doesn't have any legal consequences. She isn't known as a painter either, she was only an arts teacher. So what informational purpose does it serve? Look at the pictures. The painting technique and the use of colour is different, but the motive is the same. (A high definition picture of the original painting can be seen in The Slave Ship.) --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The information on the painting should stay in the article. She is known as a painter, because the handful of sources we've found describe her as such. It isn't the most important piece of information in the article, but its verifiable and well-sourced. It looks like she's also been involved in several other art events, which are only briefly mentioned in the article. One thing you could do (per policy) to take the emphasis off of the negative plagiarism info, is (neutrally - don't write a puff piece) expand the sections on her exhibition on domestic violence etc. At the moment, the undue focus on the plagiarism issue is more prominent because it occupies a paragraph whereas lots of the other well sourced and expandable info is merely a sentence or two.
  • In short, this notable figure has done a lot. The article probably does unduly focus on the negative, but this doesn't mean that sourced information should be removed, rather that other areas should be duly increased in weight.
  • As far as I'm aware, this person has done a lot to maintain a public presence and generate press. Wikipedia doesn't owe the subject a debt of anonymity. You can however edit the article to expand it where you think merit is due. Edaham (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's aim is to be an encyclopedia, not a second Wikinews. This Wikipedia article was created on 12 June 2015, on the day her parents publicly labelled her as an imposter. And when one reads the background about her upbringing and the Wikipedia article about her brother then nobody can exclude the possibility of a profound background conflict. So according to the information one cannot exclude that her change of cultural heritage was some kind of personal coping strategy. Other people get religious. I think that neither I nor you nor anybody else has the right to question one others coping strategy. All I may say in regards to the accusations of imposition/artificiality is that it seems to be consistent and durable and not overt illogical. I'm neither impressed nor appalled by her actions. If I were in her situation I wouldn't like the prominence she received, would you? How can anyone suggest that she liked/likes it? Because she wrote a book after loosing her job and being ridiculed nation-wide and being in need of money? In every dictionary there are obsolete words that get erased, likewise in "paper"-encyclopedias. In general I'm a Wikipedia inclusionist but not in articles about persons, so I question the notability of the detailed information about her. Including further information - even if "positive" - would be a disservice because it would attract extra attention/voyeurism (albeit small compared to the news media-driven attention). To sum it up: Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Edaham Side-topic, regarding your reverts of the word "travails": In the referenced source the sentence is: "Dolezal has penned a memoir in which she compares her travails to ..." and according to the Cambridge Dictionary "travails" means "unpleasant experiences" (and that's in congruence with the meaning of the whole sentence) and therefore I would prefer to use the original word. I have to defer that you're against the original word, but I can't get it why you're against the proper substitution. --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I asked you to look at our manual of style at - MOS:WTW. Wikipedia can talk about “her experiences” or her “experiences, which she found unpleasant”, should the source say that, but saying “her travails” or her “unpleasant experiences” gives the text a non-neutral tone. Removing the word maintains editorial impartiality. Edaham (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Everyone has made pleasant and unpleasant experiences in life, and the quoted sentence focuses on the unpleasant ones. Seems quite far-fetched to spot the problem of (positive) impartiality here while accepting all the bad talk of this non-encyclopaedic article. Even the source of the sentence, the New York Post, which isn't on her side at all, uses the word "travails". Now the old-fashined word of the source will be explained without maintaining that all her childhood would have been unpleasant. (What I assumed to be self-evident before.) --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I don’t understand your point or how any change will benefit the article. Perhaps you could quote and attribute the source. text somehow - if you want to hammer down on the “unpleasantness” of the events detailed. I personally don’t see the need. We aren’t writing a book review. Edaham (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Now I've attributed the source since I don't know first-hand what was written in the memoir and Wikipedia shouldn't take part in a telephone game, at least not in the crucial parts. --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Insektenrueckgang, regarding this, I'm not stating that I oppose the removal, but keep in mind that we do allow the opinions of others. The whole Dolezal controversy is full of opinions, as is clear by the article. That stated, we shouldn't just be including any and everyone's opinion. WP:Due weight and WP:BLP are concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
America has always been place for people to start a new life, but for her it would be better to move to a remote English speaking country. And American media (Foxnews, CNN, ...) don't follow her and let her in peace. I'm from Europe and I was completely unaware of that story until recently. I think that there were two for that tango and the article focuses way too much on her. My edits were aimed at improving this fault. But I don't want to become a big hack and it consumes too much time, so I'll quit it. Bye, --Insektenrueckgang (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The article focuses way too much on her? Who? Dolezal? It's supposed to. This is a Wikipedia article about her. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
First time after many months to watch this article again and I'm favourably impressed by the fair sentence agreement. She must have had a committed and competent lawyer and a considerate prosecutor and a lot of good luck. --Insektenrueckgang2 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Daily mail is cited 5 times in this page. We should remove those refs. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 done Jytdog - performed daily-mail-ectomy x 3, per request Edaham (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Name of the article

Why is the article not titled according to her current legal name: Nkechi Amare Diallo? Any resulting confusion regarding her identity could be resolved by adding a redirection. 87.116.177.208 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Because we go by WP:Common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
You mean like Bruce Jenner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8280:1F08:7013:546E:7D46:16C6 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
That's William Bruce Jenner, I believe? JezGrove (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is the accented "z" in her name?

Her name Dolezal may be of Czech origin, but she is not a Czech citizen, and I've never seen her or the media spell the name with that accent over the z. It's original research if you're doing it because you think it's "correct" rather than reflecting how this particular American person spells it. Surnames in the US are frequently different from their European spellings; the accents are dropped, even if it doesn't make any sense to do so in a European context. That's why we say John Boehner instead of John Böhner, for example. Why are we using this ž here? Moncrief (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
For the record, her surname is spelled with the accent on her own website (albeit inconsistently) and also in her book. Muzilon (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent ancestry change to the lead

Siobhansax (talk · contribs), regarding this? We aren't going to simply go by her claim, especially given the controversy that resulted from her previous racial identity claim. We need to adhere to WP:Due weight on this. See what our WP:Due weight policy states. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That is why I reverted you. Also, do not mark non-minor edits as minor. See WP:Minor. That change you made was not a minor edit. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion discussion

I have reverted a proposed inclusion to this article; some of it may be relevant, but much of it is not, and/or is improperly or poorly sourced.

Until a reliable secondary source comments on Dolezal's current work, we should leave it out. If we have to dig around for primary sources, it really doesn't belong.

As for her OnlyFans, we need to stick to what reliable sources say - this doesn't include the NY Post or "Nicki Swift," a celebrity gossip blog. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a proper reliable source already existing for the hairdresser part, so we can include that; I don't think a link to a sales/marketing website is appropriate, for multiple reasons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I literally just cleaned up my own edits and added the "Reliable Sources" that you wanted. In regards to the OnlyFans thing; Business Insider and The Independent absolutely qualify as reliable sources according to Wikipedia's Rules. The information, especially in regards to the OnlyFans topic, is absolutely noteworthy due to the flurry of coverage it's received from media outlets across the political divide GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, regarding this and this, to repeat, "Where does MOS:MULTIPLENAMES state that her legal name should come first? For various Wikipedia articles, we don't put the legal name first." And "born and still commonly known as" is clunky and somewhat awkward wording; so I understand this editor removing it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am fine with your edit Flyer22 Frozen, but I think there should be a citation/note explaining that Dolezal is her birth name and Diallo is her current legal name. You are right, there is no section stating that a legal name should come first. It is more a de facto standard that many articles on Wikipedia use when someone uses a stage name different from their birth/legal name. But I am fine with your edit, but I think a citation should be added like I said earlier. Thanks. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
See my edit. If you don't like it, please bold revert it. cookie monster (2020) 755 02:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen the legal name come before the common name in our articles. I have a preference for the common name coming first unless it's best for the legal name to come first because the common name is something like PewDiePie. Anyway, I'm fine with your citation notes being there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The legal name should come first. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Welfare

If she was a professor, why was she collecting welfare? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Because she is a fraud, and proven. See last paragraph.
I don't know. I do know of many cases where professors have qualified for welfare. Many professors at universities earn very little money. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Dolezal/Archive_2&oldid=1197259542"