Talk:Rachel Dolezal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Art at United Nations

Better source needed on her showing art at the United Nations. So far all I can find is her biography on the webpage for the University she worked for, and a lot of other people quoting that.Jacob Secrest (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation

I'm attempting to remove the following sentence "Dolezal sought local (Spokane, Washington and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, which are 30 minutes apart) media attention, saying that she was the victim of nine hate crimes against her because of being allegedly black." None of the reliable sources say the alleged hate crimes were because of skin colour or ethnicity. The implication I get is that they were to do with activism or her involvement in the NAACP. The geography comment is original research and also not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- haminoon (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One wikipedia editor has removed either the entirety or most of the hate crimes section twice now, using two entirely different excuses, instead of judiciously editing the parts that (according to that editor) are presumably objectionable. Will restore now, editing out the parts which are "presumably" objectionable, even though they are not at all objectionable, just in a spirit of comity. XavierItzm (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you have restored the violation. As a general rule I don't edit sentences when BLP violations are added to articles unless I can see a good reason for that sentence being in the article. -- haminoon (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There are sources (including the Washington Post) for the assertion that Dolezal claimed to be the victim of hate crimes. For anything more than that - saying that she sought media attention, or that she said the hate crimes were motivated by her claimed race - there needs to be a source that says exactly that, or else it is indeed a BLP violation. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

She has repeatedly claimed hate crimes were because of her being black. Her she was at a rally [1] where she talks all about it and says "the crimes aren't just targeting me but are targeting the wider black community." etc. and again here [2] "racist attacks against me" —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Then it's probably okay to mention that in the article, provided that specific sources are used for specific claims. You will want a better source than that Youtube link, though. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Plenty of white anti-apartheid activists were the victims of racist attacks. The victims called them racist attacks. It doesn't mean the activists were attacked "because of being allegedly black". -- haminoon (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So these racist attacks were because she's white? That makes no sense. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't even know if they existed. But they could have been because she was involved in the NAACP. We shouldn't be speculating in the article about it. -- haminoon (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course they didn't exist. This woman is a ****. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The woman stated she received nooses and KKK threats. Therefore she is a victim. You can't question the victim. It might result in other victims fearing to come forward with their victimisation stories. XavierItzm (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikimandia, mixed couples have endured racism (and she was in such a relationship). Logically from that argument - is one a victim, the other not? The article doesn't care about our opinions. As a WP:BLP it must be written conservatively, no WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Sources can be combined but be aware of WP:SYN. Widefox; talk 09:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect to white anti-apartheid activists by comparing the article's subject with them. -- haminoon (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion because victim never used the word?

An editor blanked out an entire paragraph with sources by The Washington Post, CNN, and BET (Black Entertainment Television), using the pretext that certain words were never used by the victim. This is not a WP policy that I can identify. I have restored the text and invite discussion here. Please do not delete the paragraph until consensus has been reached. XavierItzm (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

removing "trans" stuff

I've removed this information as she has never claimed to be "transracial" or any kind of "trans."

CNN reported: "Dolezal's name and the term "transracial" becoming top trending hashtags on Twitter.". The Washington Post's Justin Wm. Moyer wrote "comparing Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner found a home at the hashtag “#transracial,” but described it as "controversial.". BET (Black Entertainment Television) published: "#transracial and #wrongskin were both trending on Twitter, drawing much comparison to the current trans movement reignited by Caitlyn Jenner’s (formerly Bruce Jenner) male-to-female transition." NYU sociology professor Ann Morning told CBS that "just like some people are transgender, others may be trans-racial."

There are a million things people are writing about her, but it does not mean it's appropriate for WP:BLP. By the way, I agree she's nuts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had only claims by the individuals biographed, it would be a much smaller database. You have brought no reasons why CNN, the WP, CBS, or BET cannot be cited in the article, as these are WP:RS. Immediate deletion would be warranted per WP policies if there were a WP:BLP, but no WP:BLP has been articulated. Please do not continue blanking whole sections of the article until consensus is reached. XavierItzm (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPDELETE; additionally consensus must be gained to ADD THE CHALLENGED MATERIAL back, not to first delete it. See WP:CHALLENGE. Stop edit warring with me please. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. The well-sourced information has been deleted under false pretences. First it was argued that the subject did not use the words. False. Then it was argued that the references were a BLP violation. At no time was an argument raised as to why this might be a BLP violation. Please refrain from further blanking the article. XavierItzm (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WP, CNN, CBS and BET never actually called her "trans-racial"; they just reported that some people on the internet said that. Its not even close to being notable enough to be put in a BLP. -- haminoon (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

BBC, WP, CNN, CBS and BET reporting is not notable?. XavierItzm (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not always. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- haminoon (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. However, the section is entitled "Racial Identity". If the quotes from BBC, CNN, Washington Post, CBS and BET are not about "Racial Identity" and Dolezal, it is hard to tell what might be. Your argument of "Not always" is pretty content-free, anyway. XavierItzm (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of the text deleted without clear articulation of the reasons:

Mike Wendling of BBC wrote that there were comparisons of "Dolezal's story with the discussion around transgender issues, especially the example of Caitlyn - formerly Bruce - Jenner. Soon the hashtag #transracial was trending." CNN reported: "Dolezal's name and the term "transracial" becoming top trending hashtags on Twitter.". The Washington Post's Justin Wm. Moyer wrote "comparing Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner found a home at the hashtag “#transracial,” but described it as "controversial.". BET (Black Entertainment Television) published: "#transracial and #wrongskin were both trending on Twitter, drawing much comparison to the current trans movement reignited by Caitlyn Jenner’s (formerly Bruce Jenner) male-to-female transition."

NYU sociology professor Ann Morning told CBS that "just like some people are transgender, others may be trans-racial."

Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As Haminoon stated, none of them even called her or referred to her as transracial. They talked about how it was trending and some idiot professor claims that some people could feel they are transracial. And just because something is discussed in RS it does mean it should be included in a BLP. There are a lot of RS discussing mental illness also but it doesn't mean we can bring up insanity. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So, CBS (a WP:RS) interviews a NYU professor regarding Dolezal's racial identity (name of the section where the text is being blanked from) and this WP:RS should not be included in Wikipedia because a random editor thinks the professor is an idiot? Not a defensible argument.
Furthermore, the transracial term was brough up in Rachel Dolezal articles in comparison to Bruce Jenner. How is this not a reference to her as transracial? You are attempting to deconstruct the plain citations to the point of meaninglessness. XavierItzm (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the idiot professor being an idiot. The professor is speculating ("others may be trans-racial"). That doesn't mean Dolezal actually is transracial or claimed to be transracial. And transracial (as it's being described) is about people who are born one way but "just feel" or "identify" they are actually another race. That's speculation to say such a thing applies to Dolezal, who more likely claimed to be black to get attention for herself as an "oppressed" person (same reason she claimed she had cancer and was beaten by her parents and husband and raped by someone else), or because of financial gain, or because she has a tumor in her head and actually believes it, or just being a patholigal liar. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The argument that the professor is not referring to Dolezal is disingenuous. Here is the full quote: "The president of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP is being accused of falsely portraying herself as a black woman, but an NYU professor said some people can, in fact, identify with a race other than their own." XavierItzm (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL how does that say she was referring to her? The author of the piece is bringing the two together. And again, what about "others may" is not speculative? —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Because the professor was being interviewed about " The president of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP". Anyway, other editors are already adding equivalent material, so soon it will be a matter of rounding up their comments/backfilling with the material heretofore censored. XavierItzm (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not being "censored." I have no problem with the current content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Alternate spelling of last name

I saw a previous edit changing the spelling of her last name to Doležal but it was reverted as incorrect. I have located two sources showing this... 1 - Rachel Doležal, MFA via EWU 2 - Spokane NAACP Bio page

Are these sources legit to change the name or to list it as an alternate name? FriarTuck1981 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed it so that it is now listed as an alternate spelling. However, see my reasoning below. There's no reason to believe that is actually her legal or common name. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As the person who originally reverted this, I should say that I was going by press coverage of the one thing she's known for (which, by the way, is probably not sufficient to sustain an article); independent sources invariably use "Dolezal" with no accent. In general I support people being able to go by any name and any spelling they want, within reason (the limits of "within reason" being more or less Sean Combs), but there was no source for it originally. With the present sourcing it's fine to list it as an alternative spelling, but we should still follow secondary sources for the page title and primary spelling. Moreover, while the article is correct to follow other sources in treating her claim to be black as dubious, the article should also avoid implying that the is "obviously" Czech; that was one reason I preferred to revert quickly in the first place. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear from several places where Doležal must have been personally responsible for policing the spelling of her name that "Doležal" was the spelling she chose to use when there was such an option. To avoid using it because it "implies she is obviously Czech" is absurd; it is indeed a Czech surname, but at no point has she ever denied being of Czech ancestry, so I'm not sure that there's even a controversy. The bottom line, however, is that it's her name and she gets to decide how it's spelled.24.181.167.211 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's how she spells it; that's not the same as it being her legal name nor common name. Czech ancestry, yes, but names are altered over time. She could also have decided to spell her name R'Shell, or to use Doležala as her female Czech relatives would have done, but it doesn't mean that's actually her name or that we should refer to her that way. It's sufficient to say "also spelled"; it simply looks absurd to have it throughout the article when no independent reliable source refers to her that way. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous syntax

"She has one son with Kevin Moore who, as of June 2015, is 13 years old."

Are they saying Kevin Moore is 13 years old, or the son? Obviously if Kevin is 13 this is a whole different story.--Varkman (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed this by the way, good catch Varkman :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Civil rights accomplishments

What are her civil rights accomplishments? Has she passed any legislation? How has she helped the black community? That should be added. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The head of the NAACP would not be expected to "pass legislation" because she is not in the legislature. In the future, try to ask an intelligent question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:6202:5300:6993:C6DB:3116:22C2 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"What are her civil rights accomplishments?" 12.180.133.18 (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Racial identity presentation and transition

• 2000-2002: "When Rachel Dolezal Attended Howard University, She Was Still White" "“All of her time has been controversial here [at the historically black college Howard University], like when she presented her thesis.” Dolezal’s final thesis was a series of paintings presented from the perspective of a black man and the late Dean Tritobia Benjamin, a formidable scholar whose specialty was black women in the arts, wanted to know how Dolezal felt qualified to tell this type of story as a white woman." http://jezebel.com/when-rachel-dolezal-attended-howard-university-she-was-1710941472

• June 2015: ""Angela Schwendiman, an Africana studies professor and colleague of Dolezal's at Eastern Washington University, said she thinks Dolezal perceived herself as black internally. "She's embraced the philosophy, the ideology, the culture. She knows it better than a lot of black people, believe me. And that is her," Schwendiman told NBC News. "I think she was only trying to match how she felt on the inside with her outside."" http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/embattled-naacp-president-rachel-dolezal-will-address-race-controversy-monday-n374986 12.180.133.18 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

birthdate and middle name

If you are going to add her birthdate or middle name you will need a reliable secondary source, not an unverified scan of her birth certificate. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- haminoon (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:WP:BLPPRIMARY - see line "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." I contend, WP:SOURCE states 'base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".' It's presumed that CNN can be considered a reliable secondary source as they would most undoubtly fact check the reliability of the birth certificate and the scan of the certificate is considered available to the public. The original article that I originally used to cite the birthdate was this CNN article, but a subsequent editor changed to an alternate, presumably unreliable source since you did remove it in the first place. CNN's credibility as a source (OMG please no debates on this topic lol) is verified via WP:RELIABLE. Also, here is the link to my original edit. If I'm incorrect in my statement, please accept my apologies. Thanks! :) FriarTuck1981 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the CNN link doesn't mention her date of birth or even link to a scan of her birth certificate I'm assuming this is still OR. I'll ask for clarification at WP:BLP/N#Rachel Dolezal. -- haminoon (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight to bisexuality

"Rachel Dolezal (also spelled Doležal,[4] pronounced /ˈdɒlə.ʒɑːl/)[5] is an bisexual[6] American civil rights activist" << what do we care that she's "an bisexual"? What about "Rachel Dolezal is an bisexual atheist trekkie brony American civil rights activist"? She's not known for being bisexual is she? --94.222.230.10 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Partial Transgender - Since she identifies as bisexual, does that mean she is 1/2 Transgender?

Trolling by blocked user.
The following discussion has been closed by Haminoon. Please do not modify it.
"As a single mom who has lived on the poverty line and identifies as bisexual" http://spokanefavs.com/an-interview-with-rachel-dolezal-the-new-spokane-naacp-president/ Since she identifies as bisexual, does that mean she is 1/2 Transgender? --Andhisteam (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC) If you don't actually know the difference between bisexual and transgender, I'd suggest reading WP:CIR. Unless you're just trolling, of course. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Transethnic

Trolling by blocked user.
The following discussion has been closed by Haminoon. Please do not modify it.
Is Transethnic a better term than Transblack, or Transracial for Rachel Dolezal? Or is she all of the above? All three are currently being used in the media --Andhisteam (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) None of them are valid, because they are all neologisms that have not been defined. I've told you this already at least twice. Are you deliberately not listening? Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC) He's trolling. Look at his contribs. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Washington University deleting faculty profile of Rachel Dolezal

One of the references is a faculty profile page of Rachel Dolezal at the website of the Eastern Washington University (where she has been a part-time instructor on a quarter by quarter basis). The university has just deleted this and at least one other such page on Dolezal and redirected them to pages that don't mention Dolezal. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the archived version. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Assumed to be black by the admissions office

We've got this: "Upon applying to Howard, Dolezal was assumed to be black by the admissions office; she received a scholarship from the university." It's sourced to an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I took this out but it's been restored. I don't think it belongs in a BLP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and is quoted as such. Further, another source has since been added that supports the content as currently written. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This has in fact been sourced to statements by her parents and brother, which are cited in numerous media reports, not just an opinion piece. They have stressed that she did not deliberately pose as black (at that point), but that people were surprised when she turned up. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I only see one source cited for this statement. If you have another source for this that isn't an opinion piece, please add it. If this has been attributed to her relatives, we need to say that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Another source was added a few hours ago -- it's attached to the direct quote from her adopted brother. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"no longer an employee of Eastern Washington University"

"Breitbart News spoke with David Meany, the person in charge of media relations at Eastern Washington University (EWU), where Rachel Dolezal was listed as a professor of Africana Studies. He said Dolezal’s contract with EWU expired June 12th and she is “no longer an employee of Eastern Washington University.”"[3]

Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The article currently goes back and forth about whether Dolezal was a professor and whether she currently is one. Since I can't currently edit the article, can I ask someone to at least harmonize the references to her employment at EWU to describe her consistently as a former employee, or else to describe her consistently as a current employee? There are multiple disagreements on this in the current article text. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Which sentences are you referring to specifically? Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the article has been harmonized at this point. I'm just behind on reviewing additions to the text. In any case, the current description of her employment status seems correct, so whoever has fixed it has my thanks regardless of whether they read the above or not. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we cover Dolezal's suit against Howard University?

Several sources, including Time and [The Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-spokane-naacp-rachel-dolezal-resigns-20150615-story.html#page=1] have now reported on a lawsuit filed by Dolezal against Howard University, claiming that the historically black school discriminated against her "as a white woman". The ultimate source for this is a court filing obtained by [The Smoking Gun http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/rachel-dolezal-discrimination-lawsuit-786451], a primary source, but both of the previous articles at least quote people at Howard acknowledging that the suit was "resolved". Given that the whole reason for this article's existence is Dolezal's claims about her racial identity, shouldn't this be covered in the article? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So , of course, while I was busy writing this someone with the ability to edit the article was busy actually adding this to it. I'll just repurpose this section to say that I strongly suggest keeping coverage of this if we keep her other claims about her racial identity, which of course we will. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It was actually initially added a few hours ago by me. As an IP user, you might not always see the most recent version unless you wikipedia:purge it. Clearing the browser cache also helps. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd come to the conclusion myself that I must be seeing old versions. I'm not planning to suggest future edits without looking directly at the history first. And since there's a section above complaining about talk page spam, I guess I have to apologize for my part in it. In the meantime, semiprotection is clearly the right thing to do even if it causes talk page issues. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Child sex allegations against biological brother as the reason behind outing

A person has accused Dolezal's brother of child sex abuse, and Dolezal's support for that person is, according to some media outlets, the reason her parents have decided to out her. The person is apparently a relative.[4] S/he also claims Dolezal was victimized by her brother.[5] 177.175.99.176 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• More speculation. As far as the mainstream media reports, Dolezal's parents did not specificly "out" her but were contacted by the local newspaper, CDA Press, who had a suspicious reporter. After she was busted in the news interview, her parents were contacted by CNN and did interviews. In my personal opinion, they didn't seem to be out to destroy her but were genuinely confused and also hurt that she was denying they were her parents. Plus, even if they did have motivation for "outing" her, it doesn't really change much. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• "It’s now pretty clear that Dolezal’s parents didn’t out her viciously or vindictively."[6] She was outed by journalists from her area questioning her countless, dubious police reports, not by her parents. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a "professor"

(Relating to this edit): The university did not list her as a "professor". Most often, faculty members are allowed to edit or determine the content of their own faculty profile page/CV, so in terms of reliability it's really not that different from the person's own LinkedIn profile. (The text of that page actually clearly looks like something written by herself). The title she used on that page, "quarterly professor" (not "professor") is not a real title and hardly returns any relevant results in a Google search. The university has specifically clarified that "since 2010, Rachel Dolezal has been hired at Eastern Washington University on a quarter by quarter basis as an instructor in the Africana Education program. This is a part-time position to address program needs. Dolezal is not a professor." Also, the page that oddly referred to her with the neologism "quarterly professor" has been deleted by the university. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And: "School leaders also said there was a misrepresentation on her school biography where she was described as a "professor.""[7] Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that particular school web page was essentially a self-published source. Thanks. Agreed we should not call her "professor." Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

People writes: "Dolezal writes she is a professor at Eastern Washington University. But the school issued a statement saying she is not a professor, but a teacher "on a quarter by quarter basis as an instructor in the Africana Education program … Dolezal is not a professor." The school has also erased an online profile of her that was on its website. " http://www.people.com/article/rachel-dolezal-ethics-charges-naacp-black Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaints about other editors "taking up bandwidth" don't really belong in this section

I'm confused as to why you seem to feel a need to post all of this on the talk page. You're not asking for comments, nor are you attempting to discuss edits to the article, you're just posting more stuff about the article subject. What's the purpose in it, Tadeusz Nowak? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC) You are wrong. This specifically relates to previous edits where the description of her as a "professor" on the website (which her employer says was incorrect) was included in the article. This section is an explanation of my removal of that a few hours ago. In case anyone would want to disagree, I am adding a few sources relating to this issue here. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC) But, now what's the point? The content has been added back in. Posting all this is just taking up more bandwidth by rehashing something that's no longer an issue. Further, you are posting a lot to this talk page with items not really being discussed. It's like you're discussing with yourself (or, in reality, no one). I'm just trying to understand why you are doing it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I removed a few words added by another editor with specific reference to this discussion[8] (it has not been added back in). I don't see which problem you are trying to raise here. I have no way of knowing whether it's still "an issue", as the edits took place just a few hours ago. Explaining one's edits is a good thing. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I gave my reasons and what my concerns are. It really isn't a problem at this point. If you keep doing it, yes, it could become an issue (with someone). Like I said, since the issues you're say you are addressing have been taken care of, so there's really no point in continuing to post on it. Especially since you're not really starting a discussion, just adding more evidence to support content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) You are derailing this discussion, and you are "taking up more bandwidth" as you put it, and this could indeed become an issue with someone. I don't think this a constructive debate. I have correctly explained my earlier edit here on the talk page. If noone disagrees with the edit, then the issue will be resolved, but I had no way of knowing that when I started the discussion and later added two extra sources. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Stepfather story

Should her stepfather story be added? Her parents, Ruthanne and Larry, are married and she has never had a stepfather. She has claimed over the years to have been beaten by her "white stepfather" on the basis of her "skin complexion". (And she claimed her biological father is black)

Sources:

• "Rachel Dolezal has said she has biracial parents, was abused by a step-father, and lived in South Africa as a child. Her parents say they are white. They also say she never had a step-father, and though the couple did live in South Africa, it was from 2002 to 2006, after Rachel had left the house and married." http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/spokane-naacp-leaders-parents-shes-not-being-rational/

• "The Easterner reported: "Dolezal has no contact today with her mother or stepfather due to a series of events that still haunt her thoughts today. Dolezal and her siblings were physically abused by her mother and stepfather." "They would punish us by skin complexion," Dolezal reportedly told the Easterner." http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_385adfeb-76f3-5050-98b4-d4bf021c423f.html

• "The Easterner reported: "According to Dolezal, the object her mother and stepfather used to punish them was called a baboon whip, used to ward baboons away in South Africa. These whips would leave scars behind, 'They were pretty similar to what was used as whips during slavery.'" (Ruthanne says her daughter was not abused, does not have a stepfather, and has never lived in South Africa.)" http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/naacp-leader-accused-of-pretending-to-be-black.html 12.180.133.18 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe as part of her backstory but since the "stepfather" was made up, not sure. For now I wold leave it out. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that she attempted to identify Larry as he "white stepfather" and that an unidentified black man is her genetic father (the one she released a photo of, saying he'd be coming to an event he didn't turn up for). Nick Cooper (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Name

The name is Doležal with a ž. See [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.167.211 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 June 2015‎

I think SHE uses that spelling but it is not actually her birthname. The only place where it's spelled that way is that diversity biography at the diversity section of the university, which she clearly wrote herself. It states she is a professor. It's even called "Professor" in the URL. However, in the EWU press statement, from today, they specifically state she is NOT a professor and it is not true that she is. I could put graphemes all over my name, it wouldn't actually be my name. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia (talk · contribs) - should I replace all the žs with zs now? 12.180.133.18 (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I would. I forgot, thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I should think how she spells her own name should be diagnostic. The media rarely use diacritics even when called for, so media usage is not particularly relevant. This [10] says she's a "Quarterly Professor." 24.181.167.211 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you about an article subject's spelling of name, but Wikipedia needs to be encyclopedic; since she has NO credibility whatsoever she is not even considered a reliable source on her own life. Her birth certificate was published online and it does not have an accent/ž. Media do use accents, though not 100 percent of the time (for example, Beyoncé; John Le Carré. There's no indication she used Doležal as a published author aka pen name (see articles here) or stage name. The university released an offiical statement saying she was not a professor. That is their statement and they decide who is a professor, which makes sense, as people without doctorates are not usually considered professors. We don't know who wrote the faculty profile; it's probably originating from her and the person editing the website didn't know any better. (Her bio also claims she's going to medical school, another questionable claim.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that many typewriters in Montana state offices in 1977 had a ž key. It's also possible that her parents didn't use the ž spelling and she chose to use it later. But Doležal's reliability isn't the question; the question is how she chooses to be named. Where there are signs of her own input (as in her university profile) the ž spelling is used. It also appears on one of her paintings: http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/painting1.jpg. It is moreover a legitimate Czech surname (see Doležal), and her parents say she's of Czech ancestry (inter alia) so I don't have any reason to believe she doesn't come by the spelling honestly (whatever her honesty or dishonesty on other matters may be).24.181.167.211 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, no independent reliable source refers to her that way. I know Doležal is a legitimate Czech name, and I have argued repeatedly for the correct use of accented letters in the English Wikipedia; but our job here is to be accurate and go based on what the independent reliable sources say. I could decide my name is spelled with six consecutive Qs and a 4, but that doesn't make it true. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The spelling may be one honest thing the woman presented, it shouldn't be disregarded. Most English-language sources will lack the knowledge or ability to present foreign characters, it would be finicky to given them supreme authority over other well established information. All the more since people seem to have ultimate choice over their own name in English-speaking countries (even down to your QQQQQQ4 example).88.157.194.238 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

She is Transracial

Trolling by blocked user.
The following discussion has been closed by Haminoon. Please do not modify it.
Transracial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhisteam (talk • contribs) 11:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Thats not what transracial means. I haven't checked Breitbart, which is not a reliable source, but the first two don't call her transracial. -- haminoon (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Transracial is the same analogy as Transgender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhisteam (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Jenner has a penis, but is considered a woman, that is how Jenner feels. Dolezal has white skin, but wants to considered black, that is how Dolezal feels.--Andhisteam (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC) This can't stand in the article, sorry. There's a section in the article concerning racial identity, and your edits are contravening WP:OR and more importantly BLP. We don't even have a definition of "transracial". You simply can't insert it in the lead sentence of a living person's article. If the term becomes clearly defined in the future, or Dolezal identifies as such, then it can be re-discussed. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) She is Referred to transracial in Time Magazine. http://time.com/3918915/rachel-dolezal-race-naacp/talk) 11:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) She is brave, and should be on the cover of Vanity Fair.--Andhisteam (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC) She is the pioneer of Transracial rights. --Andhisteam (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC) As I said, your own opinions can't be inserted into the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC) and wider than just this article, for using the term in WP see WP:NEO. You've linked to the dab (which in an article would need disambiguating), we have the same issue at Transracial (a dirty dab needing cleanup due to it being an adjective and NEO that's not even in wiktionary for this meaning). Widefox; talk 14:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) No, Time discusses the fact that others have used the term "transracial" in relation to her case, it does not apply it itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Jenner does not claim to be anatomically and genetically female. Rather, Jenner claims to identify as female and as such seeks reassignment. This case would only be analogous if Dolezal were seeking to transition from 'white' to 'black' because of a black identity. Rather, she claims to have been born black, of a black parent, and brought up in a black environment. No analogy at all to Jenner.88.157.194.238 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015

Please remove the alleged plagiarism section. It's a very poorly sourced accusation of a crime which shouldn't be in the article per WP:BLPCRIMEBosstopher2 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Bosstopher2 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I blanked it for now - it actually looks like there might be something there but let's wait for an rs that isn't sourced to random people's tweets. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarizing J. M. W. Turner, who died in 1851, isn't a "crime", so it's really only a matter of artistic standards. Copying art is really legitimate, as a training exercise and for other purposes; the criticism is that she claimed the artwort to be her original and didn't mention Turner when she copied The Slave Ship. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Transracial again

Another AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transracial identity for those on both sides of the argument to opine on. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Poorly-sourced plagiarism accusation

These sources http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-art_n_7586972.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3125889/Now-race-faker-Rachel-Dolezal-faces-claims-ART-WORK-plagiarized.html don't provide sufficient evidence of plagiarism. That one artwork resembles another is not enough, there should be clear evidence that the artist didn't credit their source. For any biography of a living person, the catty, hatchet-job tone of both articles is utterly inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons makes clear that serious accusations require high-quality sources, not gossip rags, lazily-researched blog posts, or partisan hacks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Transblack

Trolling by blocked user.
The following discussion has been closed by Haminoon. Please do not modify it.
Melissa Harris-Perry questioned whether Dolezal is “cisblack and Transblack”. Alyson Hobbs, author of the book A Chosen Exile: A History of Racial Passing in American Life said there’s "certainly a chance that she identifies as a black woman and there could be authenticity to that." http://www.mediaite.com/tv/melissa-harris-perry-on-rachel-dolezal-it-is-possible-that-she-might-actually-be-black/ Why is this being censored?--Andhisteam (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Probably because (a) you keep putting it in the lead section, which you've been told at least twice not to do, and more problematically (b) because it's a random person's opinion. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Melissa Harris-Perry is not a random person, she is an American writer, professor, television host, and political commentator with a focus on African-American politics.. --Andhisteam (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC) For the purpose of this BLP, she is a random person. She's not qualified to "question" Rachel Dolezal's identity, whatever it is. People can share their theories but that doesn't mean they belong in Wikipedia. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) The comments of an American writer, professor, television host, and political commentator with a focus on African-American politics very well belong in the "reactions" section. Not clear what the rationale is for wanting to keep it out of the article. XavierItzm (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC) There isn't a problem with mentioning that Harris-Perry said it, but Andhisteam is trying to make it (and transracial) out to be an actual recognized condition, which it clearly isn't (at this time). Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Harris-Perry is a WP:RS for some topics in which she is certainly an expert. She is not, however, an expert on Rachel Dolezal, nor is there any indication she heard of her before a few days ago. All of this is speculation. Yes, Rachel Dolezal could really think she is black because she feels "transracial." Or she could have a tumor in her brain causing her to think she really is a black person and that guy is her father. Or she could suffer from schizophrenia and think she is Black Jesus. Or she could be just a generally troubled person and pathological liar who does whatever she can do to get attention for herself. So Harris-Perry or anyone's ponderings about what exactly is wrong with her is WP:UNDUE per WP:BLP. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Jonathan Capehart is merely a U.S. journalist and television personality. Compared to a Princeton/University of Chicago professor and writer who specialises in African-American stuff, who is he? Yet his statements do not get censored out of the "Reactions" section. But Melissa Harris-Perry's do. Is it because she is female? Is it because she is black? Is it because she hasn't paid her taxes to the IRS? What exactly is it that might move a Wikipedia editor to want to censor her out of the "reactions" section, but not Jonathan Capehart's comments, which have been on the "Reactions" section for a while now? XavierItzm (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) It's not about them being "unreliable" sources. This is a WP:BLP and therefore what they say matters if it is considered undue. Capehart did not say anything about her in his reaction, nor diagnose her, nor speculate on her motives. He was speaking about blackface and saying it remains offensive. I would not object if you deleted his comment, though, since her brother's comment also discusses the topic and he is a better person to discuss her. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) So, —Мандичка "Capehart did not say anything about her in his reaction" so citation is OK , but "NYU sociology professor Ann Morning told CBS that "just like some people are transgender, others may be trans-racial", and this is not OK even though Morning did not say anything about Dolezal in her reaction?, which is your own criterium? Looks more as if for some reason the quote from the female authority and college professor is being censored, but not the quote from the male authority and tv presenter. XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Dude give it up. It's a fact that what she did was basically blackface. They are not speculating on that; all he said was blackface is still offensive. The NYU professor quote about some people may be transracial is used to speculate that she may in fact be transracial, when there's no evidence of that. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Bottom line: the WP:RS don't matter, what matters is you like what Capehart says, so it goes into the Wikipedia, and you don't like what the NYU professor says, so it gets censored out. XavierItzm (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Why would I "not like" what the professor says? The point is that it's pure speculation. As soon as she declares herself to be transracial then I will have no problem with the discussion on it. But until then there's no evidence that she really believes she is "transracial" - there's a lot more evidence that she's a pathological liar. All you're trying to do is promote your personal agenda here. Go bah over it on reddit. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Wish granted: "Rachel Dolezal in her own words: How she explains her transracial identity" - MSNBC. So, —Мандичка, you no longer have a problem with it. Thanks XavierItzm (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC) -- References

trans racial

should she be listed as transracial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.131.237 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I added Racial transformation (individual) to the "See also" section. She's currently not out as transracial. As of today, she is claiming to be black (as opposed to white-to-black). 12.180.133.18 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And I removed it. There is no such thing as "transracial". -- haminoon (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

says who? you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.131.237 (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It exists, as a word, whether it should be recognized as a actual "thing" is another matter. Though, if people can change their gender, why not their race? It's both just genetics(ie, the code that says what you actually are) and physical appearance. 69.121.144.8 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Black Privilege

Trolling by blocked user.
The following discussion has been closed by Haminoon. Please do not modify it.
Is Rachel Dolezal in this predicament due to Black Privilege? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyree-rush/mindy-kalings-brother-sou_b_7014496.html --Andhisteam (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC) No. Just ... no. Your link is a low quality source, about one person's (fringe) opinion. Any use of this in the article wpuld be massively undue. Please stop making these kinds of absurd suggestions. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Do you see the words "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" at the top of this page? This is not the place to share your theories, as insightful as they are. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) That is a legitimate question for this Talk Page. The editor asked a simple question. He/she (User Andhisteam) did not offer a theory or opinion. He simply asked a question. A question that is relevant to the editing of this article. The "no forum" warning is inappropriate and inapplicable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) This is not a legitimate question for this talk page. There's not even such a thing as "black privilege" (at least as far as RS are concerned) and the article he posted predates this drama and does not mention Rachel Dolezal. Andhisteam is a troll [11] and has been blocked as such. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) OK, I did not know that he was a troll. I will take your word for it. So, you know more of the "back story" on this editor than I do. If the question were not posed by a troll, however, I sincerely think it to be a legitimate question. Thanks for shedding light on the situation. Also, on its face, Huffington Post is indeed an RS. Hence, I did not see what the issue was. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC) But it's not a legitimate question because there is no such phenomenon known as "Black privilege". He's doing a play on the term White privilege. Which is just continuation of his/her trolling that has been going on around this article for days. Please don't feed the troll further. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Gotcha. Point taken. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

transracial (again)

Currently the word transracial is used in the article twice to mean two vastly different things. Neither meaning is the most widely accepted meaning of the word. I wonder if these could be paraphrased for clarity or placed with a brief definition. -- haminoon (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And now a third time, still with a less accepted definition, and from a quote presented without context. -- haminoon (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinion of a New York University Professor removed because she is obscure (but she is widely cited)

Hello, Tadeusz deleted the following for this reason: "rm opinion by obscure figure; undue prominence given to hoax term":
New York University Associate Professor of Sociology Ann Morning, whose reseach area is "race and ethnicity, especially racial classification " defined the term: "just like some people are transgender, others may be trans-racial – identifying more with a race other than their own."
However, the article has several other quotes from other college professors, and those haven't been removed because the professors are obscure. A second reason given is that there is a hoax term. How can there be a hoax term if the BLP subject herself uses the term and states she raised no objection? How can there be a hoax term if a subject matter expert college professor cites the situation?
And how can it be obscure if the NYU professor gets cited by numerous commentators regarding Dolezal? Examples who responded to Ann Morning's quote, or cited her again regarding Dolezal:
Gothamist - NYU Professor Weighs In On Rachel Dolezal "Trans-Racial" Controversy
The New American - Are Trans-racials the New Transgenders?
International Business Times - "According to CBS, NYU sociology professor Ann Morning believes "that just like some people are transgender, others may be trans-racial"
Salon.com : Rachel Dolezal, Sunday update: Reports from inside her race and culture college courses. (cites Ann Morning)
This is the third time an editor deletes Ann Morning's citation, each time for a different reason. So far, the reasons were: "Dolezal did not use the word transracial", "Ann Morning is an idiot", "Ann Morning did not personally diagnose Dolezal," and now, Ann Morning is "obscure". What is going on here? I should add that Ann Morning is of dark skin herself --- is she creating hoaxes? Is she being discriminated against?- XavierItzm (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your fringe quote has now been deleted numerous times by several editors, so knock it off. This ridiculous, irrelevant and insulting comparison propagated on 4chan and by extreme right-wingers to mock transgendered people doesn't belong in this article. Dolezal is not transgendered. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Its actually not even a quote - its paraphrased by the journalist. I don't see the significance of it to her biography. -- haminoon (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Xavier makes good points. This person is a professor, like Harrison Fairchild, and makes a similar point apart from the analogy to transgenderism. Ann Morning does not seem to be an extreme right-winger or have become a pariah or outcast for making this analogy. If anything, her background suggests sensitivity and compassion to transgender people and those she chooses to call transracial '''tAD''' (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, this person is not a professor, but an unknown associate professor with an ill-informed WP:FRINGE opinion, which happens to be the same opinion as the one held by 4chan and various extreme right-wingers, and her quote has now been used by some users (some of them meanwhile blocked for trolling) to aggressively compare transgender people to Dolezal for the purpose of mocking a recognized a medical condition by comparing it to a one-on-the-planet bizarre case involving one woman. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Ann Morning's opinion should be included. I don't see how it's relevant what any one mocks on 4chan or Fox News. Let them bleat. Dolezal said she is transracial, and Morning, an competent expert in the subject, has offered a definition of the term. WP:FRINGE is not a bludgeon for erasing opinions a Wikipedia editor dislikes. I think an article like this would be much easier to write with a little less passion. Just read then sources and summarize. Don't worry about the political implications of Wikipedia. What all this means for transgender people is not a controlling factor in how we edit this article. That is spin. We're not here to spin. We're supposed to be neutral. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a WP:FRINGE opinion similar to climate change denial, if not worse. Transgenderism is a medical condition recognized by the scholarly community, there is no evidence that "transracialism" is a real phenomenon enjoying the same same status (as claimed by this unknown associate professor) and recognition in academic literature; indeed it has been demonstrated to be a hoax, currently no less than 3 AfDs are underway relating to variants of this made-up term/concept. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a strawman. Morning didn't assert "transracial" is a medical condition. It's irrelevant. You appear to be losing sleep over the policial implications for transgender acceptance getting a flank attack from some kind of slippery slope argument. We're not here to guide trans acceptance strategy. Just convey the facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit said specifically that being "trans-racial" is "just like" being transgender. That is an exceptional claim (especially considering that a majority are currently voting to delete articles on "transracial" and the like because it is a hoax) and requires far better sources than one comment by an obscure associate professor. Transgender people have a formal diagnosis recognized in medical literature, and the condition is recognized by a huge scholarly literature. Where is the evidence that "transracial" is recognized in academic literature rather than being a hoax and WP:FRINGE POV? Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at those links it appears unlikely Morning actually used the word "transracial". To quote someone saying something they may not have said is a BLP violation. -- haminoon (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

CBS said "But NYU sociology professor Ann Morning told CBS2's Jiang that just like some people are transgender, others may be trans-racial – identifying more with a race other than their own." Where's the problem? Help me see what you're seeing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Its paraphrasing. Journalists do it all the time to get key words into headlines. The direct quote is "“We’re getting more and more used to the idea that people’s racial affiliation and identity and sense of belonging can change, or can vary, with different circumstances." -- haminoon (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a headline. Why are you saying it's a headline? It is paraphrasing. Why do you think it's paraphrasing of the quote given a couple paragraphs below? That would be rather redundant. Assuming CBS knows how to write a news story, the sentence "But NYU sociology professor Ann Morning told CBS2’s Jiang that just like some people are transgender, others may be trans-racial – identifying more with a race other than their own." is a paraphrase of something Morning said that included the words transgender and transracial. The direct quote “We’re getting more and more used to the idea that people’s racial affiliation and identity and sense of belonging can change, or can vary, with different circumstances,” is something else that Morning also said, to amplify her other comments.

Morning's comments have been covered in multiple sources. Calling them "insignificant" or "fringe" is spurious. Maybe Mornign's opinion is wrong. That's OK. But here she is an expert and we're not here to savage Dolezal. If somebody is speaking in her corner we have an obligation give that some mention, not erase it because we happen to disagree. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My comment about the headline is to do with the word "trans-racial". News sources try to put trending topics into headlines. Maybe Morning did use that word but its just as likely the editor used it because it was trending. Yes the quote was picked by multiple sources - that is because CBS is a news leader. Oddly Morning's brief interview is even fringe within her own work - none of her academic papers ever use the word "transracial" or "trans-racial". And that is where an academic's work is important - not in soundbites without context on CBS. -- haminoon (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

She is not an expert on anything related to transgenderism, she seems to have no knowledge of the field at all. Her claims are spurious WP:FRINGE claims that don't belong in an encyclopedia, and the claims that a bizarre one-the-planet case is "the same" as transgender people is mainly propagated by Internet trolls and is a hoax, nothing else. Transgender topics are not at all relevant in Rachel Dolezal's article, Dolezal has never said she is transgender. To include such a claim we would need reliable sources demonstrating that "transracialism" is a recognized phenomenon in academic literature, and no such evidence has been provided. To include an exceptional claim that it is "just like" being transgender we would need even better sources. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

To quote User:Black Kite in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transracial identity: "There is practically no scientific definition or investigation of it" ["transracial" identity] [...] We don't invent things based on a single case." Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If this does go in, please be careful with the quotes. Make it clear who you are quoting. If you are quoting a news organization, don't make it sound like you're quoting Morning. To avoid confusion you shouldn't be quoting news organizations at all, paraphrase them instead. And find a reliable source to identify Morning, don't just copy off her web page, which is self-published. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion, until the DSM adds transracial as it has transgender (which is diagnosed by the medical community as Gender Dysphoria), then we shouldn't be entertaining its inclusion. It's not an actual diagnosed condition, then it's not a real condition, therefore it's not encyclopedic content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  The problem I see with that is that this article is artificially isolating Dolezal's opinions, making it seem like nobody on Earth shares her views. Saying that one academic has similar views is not the same as asserting that the whole scientific and medical community shares it. Putting transracial into a high-level article like Race (human classification) would definitely be a violation of WP:FRINGE. It doesn't belong there. It does belong on narrowly-focused article about a particular person whose notability is largely connected with their views on transracialism. By analogy, the high-level article September 11 attacks makes no mention of conspiracy theories related to the subject. On a bio like David Icke, however, such theories are not fringe; they're pertinent to David Icke. So an idea far out of the mainstream doesn't belong in core racial identity articles, but it does belong when it's closely connected with the person who is the article topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly see your point Dennis. If Morning is mentioned I think referring to her as a sociologist is enough. "Associate professor" is confusing and misleading for international readers. And as Kendall-K1 says above editors need to be careful with quotes. -- haminoon (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Dolezal is now agreeing with Morning makes it a little more notable than a few days ago. -- haminoon (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line, we have Bratland, Almightey Drill, and Itzm for inclusion.
Hamminoon seems to be OK, subject to not mentioning Morning is an Associate Professor, but only as a sociologist.
Kendall wants use of his revised quote.
Objecting are Tadeusz and Winkelvi, although their objections have been addressed by Bratland.
Therefore, I'll add it back with the modifications requested by Kendall and Haminoon. Let me know if I missed anything. XavierItzm (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, in its current form (which is nothing like the previous wording), I don't think anyone would object strongly to it. At least not if it is balanced by other, more mainstream opinions. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need these detailed descriptions of who these people are? Also I think the reactions section is getting imbalanced now as I got the impression a large number of activists made public comments about this. -- haminoon (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Large numbers of people have spoken out about this issue. If this article contains large numbers of reactions and comments, then it reflects reality. I personally wish people would find something else to talk about, but that is only my opinion and not something that should be used to limit the content of an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dolezal has now specifically said she does not claim to be "transracial."[12] Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Quotes

The article is becoming overrun with direct quotes; most of them need to be put into the form of prose. This is an encyclopedia article, not a collection of quotations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the article looks like a "collection of quotations". The number of quotes is balanced in proportion to prose, and adds more clarity. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at the link above, also look at MOS:QUOTATIONS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that and I still think the article (mostly at least) uses quotations in a reasonable and not excessive manner. "Quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia," as Wikipedia:Quotations points out (to use a quotation). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there are too many quotes, but the formatting is a mess. We have quotes that are not identified as quotes, and phrases in quote marks that are not attributed to anyone. I'll see if I can clean some of this up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes the formatting should be cleaned up, and it should always be clear what is a quote and who said it. At some future date, when the article has become stable, and if it were a WP:FA candidate, then maybe the number of quotes could be trimmed back some. But for now, with the article evolving daily, that shouldn't be a priority. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There's 'No Biological Proof' She's Her Parents' Daughter: 'I Haven't Had a DNA Test'

This should be in

There's 'No Biological Proof' She's Her Parents' Daughter: 'I Haven't Had a DNA Test'

http://www.people.com/article/rachel-dolezal-biological-proof-parents-dna-test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.101.11 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a really weak article. She has a birth certificate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"defenders argue she is "transracial"" in lead

I think having this sentence in the lead gives undue prominence to this neologism, especially considering that she has clarified[13] that she has never claimed to be "transracial". As far as I'm aware, the term has predominantly been used by extreme right-wingers and trolls to deride her (and transgendered people as well). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tadeusz Nowak: Please stop saying the term is being touted by this group and that group. You're making this a political issue when it's not. Your characterizations of specific groups are WP:POV and inappropriate. When used in conjunction with who is inserting them as content in Wikipedia, they are personal attacks. You really need to cease with the rhetoric. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, I'm merely merely referencing who are mainly using this term in the sources available, outside of Wikipedia in my (and others') assessment, and why the prominence given to the term is therefore undue. Please stop making false accusations of personal attacks when there are none. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Your claims of "extreme right-wingers" in several discussions at this talk page as well as at others is unnecessary. You don't need to keep saying it over and over; you really don't need to say it at all. Just name the individuals/groups promoting the term and let those reading the comments decide on their own what their political affiliations are. Enough, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I was specifically addressing a claim in the article that her defenders used the claim that she was "transracial" as their main argument. I think slightly better of her defenders, that is, I don't think it is her defenders who are propagating this word in this context, and the claim was wrong in my opinion, based on what I've read, and I'm not the first to point out that the term is used to ridicule (both her and transgendered people). Also, she says herself that has never claimed any such thing (being "transracial"). I started this discussion in order to find an alternative wording describing what her defenders use as their primary argument in a fair and correct way. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the rationale of those inserting "transracial", whether it be extreme right-wingers or a collection of dickheads sitting in their basements doing it for shits and giggles, it's still a BLP violation. I've removed it twice tonight; if I have to remove it from someone inserting it twice, I'll block them. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is "transracial" a slur? There is a fair amount of mainstream press coverage mentioning the word, not just the people making bad Trump/Jenner recent news-type jokes. Apparently Dolezal herself notes that others first identified her as that in older articles.[14]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "transracial" when used to ridicule and draw spurious parallells to transgendered people in order to ridicule them as well is definitely a slur. It's not a slur when used in its real, established context: Transracial adoption. The word really only means transracial adoption. When she said some media had identified herself as such previously, she meant transracial in its established context, as in transracial adoption, not in as "I'm born white, but now I'm a black woman." Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Milowent, it may or may not be a slur -- depends on who is interpreting it, I suppose. I've seen it on Facebook the last several days used as a joke, not a slur. I've seen it used legitimately, but not officially, as there really is no medical or psychological condition with that label attached. To say continually that the use of the term is only a slur in the manner it's been used since the Dozeal case came into the public eye is essentially a biased POV, original research and synthesis that's being used in a political manner. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Conditions or concepts with no scientific support are still worthy of discussion, whether it's Big Foot, which we can debunk, or ASMR which is unproven but arousing some interest in investigation, or medical marijuana, which you could say "doesn't exist" because the US FDA doesn't recognize it (thought they're barred from even trying to test it). The US FDA is one authority. The DSM is one authority. Neither is universal. What I'm saying is that the meaning, existence, and/or legitimacy of 'transracial' is a topic that is being debated right now, and we should do that in this article. Wikipedia can and should describe that debate in a neutral way. I don't like these blanket bans on what we can and can't say about the term. Why can't we cover whatever high-quality sources say about it, good, bad, dismissive, debunking, or supportive? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

civil rights activist

Should there be some evidence of her being a "civil rights activist" if she is described as such? Avocats (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Place of residence

Place of residence is listed as Spokane. Multiple articles list Dolezal's residence as Couer d'Elaine Idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scranton (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

She lives in Spokane. She used to live in Coeur d'Alene which is quite close. "When Dolezal told police the same type of racial harassment was happening after she moved to Spokane, KXLY and the Coeur d'Alene Press decided to take a closer look." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.225.179 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The genealogist

Do we really need the genealogist? I don't think Dolezal is claiming black biological ancestry. Plus this is sourced to the Daily Mail, which is not usually considered a reliable source for BLPs. Putting this in seems like WP:SYNTH to me, implying that she's lying about her biological ancestry. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Yes I know that's what she was claiming before this all came out. I don't think anyone still thinks that claim is true, and I don't think we need more debunking beyond what we already have. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Banas is a well known professional genealogist frequently cited by media, and the Daily Mail is a major English newspaper. Yes, I think the inclusion is relevant because both she and everyone else have made her ancestry such a huge issue; Banas doesn't claim anything out of the ordinary, but largely confirms what the parents told, with some nuances, based on available genealogical records. Since her parents' claim is just a claim, a third party investigation based on genealogical records provides far more certainty. Not all of Dolezal's claims would necessarily be spurious, e.g. her claims of Jewish and Arabic ancestry. Therefore it is interesting that the genealogical investigation only found ancestors of Northern European/Central European origin. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting doesn't always equate encyclopedic. The genealogist really isn't necessary; it doesn't help the reader better understand the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because it is germane to the discussion of whether Rachel Dolezal is white by genetic reality. She fails even the "one-drop" rule that can identify someone who accepts that one is 'white' as 'black' in America. It has nothing to do with whether she has become black by education, culture, behavior, affiliation, and appearance, all of which she has done. She seems to have completely rejected any connection to the white population that she grew up in.

Pbrower2a (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(More on) Questions raised regarding integrity of Rachel Dolezal's artwork

Have read numerous suggestions that Rachel Dolezal's work at best is highly derivative and at worst is plagarized. There is an HUFFPOST article (6/15/2015) that addresses this possibility: "Rachel Dolezal's Artwork Is Not Only Problematic, It Might Be Plagiarized" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-art_n_7586972.html

Would the HUFFPOST article be sufficiently authoritative to introduce the topic of the originality of her artwork to this article?Designquest10 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is "absolutely, yes". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are solid sources that demonstrate that one of her paintings is copied from Turner's painting The Slave Ship, while presented as her own work with a new title and no mention of Turner. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. 100%. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree because Priscilla Frank of the HuffPo has done no more "reporting" than sit at her computer located who knows where, play with some search engines, and poke around some websites, same as you or I could do. An artist merely making a painting that looks like a famous work is not in of itself artistic plagiarism; it depends on how the artist presents it. If an actual professional journalist did some actual professional journalism, and went to Spokane, spoke to gallery owners, artists, and others in a position to know, and asked relevant questions about how these paintings were presented to the public, and verified that Dolezal did not in any way ever credit her sources, and someone qualified in the field of art were to publicly state that they say that constitutes plagiarism, then and only then would it meet the criteria of WP:BLP. Wikipedia's BLP policy does not allow repeating wild accusations from uniformed bloggers. My problem here, in short: lazy, lazy lazy. Wikipedia articles must treat living persons charitably. We don't sling damning accusations around without strong sourcing. This is not a free-for-all attack page where you can demonize Rachel Dolezal at will. The facts alone are bad enough (obviously), but Wikipedia should not pile on. We let the facts alone speak and go no further.

Also! How come only the Daily Mail has run with this "story", if it's really a story? Are the Daily Mail and the HuffPo alone good enough sources for accusing someone of a serious offense? If it's a fact, and not slander, then how come the NYT or Economist or CNN or anybody reputable has not picked it up? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed at People [15] and Newsweek [16]. Dennis, would you say those are reliable sources? Everymorning talk 00:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see, the People headline says, "Is Rachel Dolezal an Art Plagiarizer Too?" QUESTION MARK *wink* *wink* Zero actual journalism was done. Nothing but innuendo, again sourced to mother F-ing Twitter? Seriously? Innuendo is innuendo. Newsweek's 'The Striking Resemblance Between Rachel Dolezal's Art and J.M.W. Turner's 'The Slave Ship'" again, where's the journalism? Where's the footwork?

Lazy, casual accusations have no place on a Wikipedia BLP. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the well documented and widely reported (in RS) fact that her painting is a copy of Turner's painting is a "wild accusation" is ridiculous. Also, the article only notes that her painting is nearly identical with the Turner painting, it doesn't use the word "plagiarism". Multiple RS have commented on the fact that Turner is not credited, for example on the website where the painting is offered publicly for sale. Another (already refuted) strawman is that the article has accused her of a "serious offense", copying an artist who died in 1851 without crediting him is not a "serious offense" and not even illegal, but pointing it out is a legitimate (and in this case widely reported) criticism of the artistic quality and originality of the work. It would only have been illegal if she had signed it with Turner's name and tried to sell it as a work by him, something noone has accused her of. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The article says "it was discovered that one of her paintings..." Why "it was discovered"? WHO discovered it? Did "it" discover itself? Why the weasely lack of attribution? Why not specifically state that some gossip-rag bloggers "discovered" this via Twitter? End of investigation. Zero art experts were involved. Zero contact was made with the Spokane art community. If you're going to include this kind of trash in a BLP, at least own up to the fact that it's sourced to Twitter, and to uninformed opinions.

Personally I'd be more worried about my reputation as a Wikipedia editor for adding such weak sauce to a BLP. Newbies don't know any better but if you've edited for a few years you know that this kind of editing sticks to you.

Why not delete the section and put it back in a month or two if high quality journalism backs it up? What's the rush? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, it's a well sourced fact reported by several RS including People, Newsweek, Huffington Post (written by their culture editor) and other sources, and a consensus among all three users participating in the discussion at that time agreed to add it. I only see one user here making unfounded claims, with no basis in policy, that this is not adequately sourced, based on a strawman argument that the article accuses her of a "serious offense" when it does no such thing, and that it uses the word plagiarism, when it does not. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, your claim that the fact that the similarity was originally discovered by a Twitter user somehow disqualifies it from being mentioned has no basis in policy, because several reliable sources have subsequently reported on it. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, removing the sentence at this point would be ignoring the talk page consensus, and that's not something I would do. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the name of the art expert who has judged the paintings to be identical? And so what? Artists copy paintings all the time. It's an ancient, honorable practice. Who is the expert who has found evidence that this is anything than run of the mill copying by a painter? The article claims there is a "controversy" but who are the art experts who have said some crime against art has been committed? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should not fan the flames of the demonizing R. Dolezal. Nonetheless, I think it's appropriate for us to say something given the widespread coverage. Here's a reference from Artnet news that explores the subject in a little more detail.--Nowa (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, you continue with strawman arguments. Has the article said a "crime against art" has been committed? No, that's a made-up claim. Has the article said that copying art is illegitimate? No, it has only pointed out that several sources have noted that it was copied (a verifiable fact) and that Turner's name wasn't mentioned in the descriptions of it she published on the Internet (a verifiable fact). The sentence is a carefully worded and fair summary of facts that have been widely reported, and that no serious person could possibly dispute. It doesn't accuse her of any criminal offense at all. Copying is indeed, as I have pointed out, a legitimate activity in itself. Suppressing this information at this point would be censorship. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You wrote that my desire to keep weakly-sourced negative information out of a BLP has "no basis in policy". As if you've never read WP:BLP. I'd really like you to go and read it now, if you have not done so recently. It says right at the top: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Is that censorship? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea which "weakly-sourced" information you are talking about. There is a clear consensus right here in this section that the material in question is relevant and adequately sourced and should be in the article, and it was added based on a talk page consensus with no objections[17]. If you want it removed, you'll have to convince your fellow editors here. I'm done with this discussion and leave the issue to the other editors, but for the record, I note that I support its inclusion in some form. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Blog posts by poorly credentialed bloggers like Sarah Cascone and Priscilla Frank is what I'm talking about. I think it violates WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPSPS. Will someone answer my questions? Why don't we name the people behind these accusations? Because readers will look at their names and say, "Who?" If you wanted to attack any painter, this is how you'd do it: dig up some paintings they copied, as all art students do, and try to turn in into dirt. This painting "controversy" is the work of people trying to destroy Dolezal. The actual facts are bad enough, we don't need to go here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of the points made above by User:Tadeusz Nowak. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the points made by Tadeusz Nowak in this section. As far as the comment "This painting "controversy" is the work of people trying to destroy Dolezal.": 1 - I think she's doing just fine on her own destroying herself; 2 - There are reliable sources pointing out the strong similarities in the two paintings and the fact that she does not give credit to the original artist for any inspiration she may have gotten from the original painting. Plagiarism is, so far, just an unofficial charge against her in the art world. That said, the similarity is too obvious to ignore as are all the reliable sources covering this latest in the saga of Rachel Dolezal. I see no reason why we can't include it in the article. As long as it's included appropriately, without POV and the hint of "gossip", and undue weight is not given to the story, it's inclusion-worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• So far nobody has explained why we can't name her accusers. I'd like to state plainly who is accusing her of wrongdoing here, and I'd like to state clearly what offense she is accused of. The article is far to coy, saying merely "Dolezal made no mention of Turner." How is a reader supposed to know why this section even exists. Plagiarism is the unstated accusation, but instead we tiptoe around it. Either she did nothing wrong, in which case delete it, or she did, in which case, say what exactly is wrong with copying a painting. And by the way, shouldn't we explain how commonplace it is for painters to copy?
• Any objections to replacing "controversy" with "accusation"? Controversy is "disputing or contending one with another; dispute, debate, contention" (OED). There are no two sides in contention here. There is only one side [fringe gossip sources mostly] casting aspersions, and nobody else even replying. Controversy is the wrong word. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Caucasian doesn't = white?

For a couple of days, the article has had the description, "Caucasian" in it to describe Dolezal and her parents. According to Merriam Webster dictionary here, the definition seems to fit. I'm confused as to why it was removed by Thegreyanomaly as inaccurate. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated for the sake of clarification and accuracy in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My thought is that we need to go with what the sources say. I think most are now saying "white." Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't just repeat what sources say because sources are saying it. There's nothing inaccurate about Caucasian as a descriptor of Dolezal and her family. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, "Caucasian" and "white" are synonyms, and sources have used both terms. Caucasian is this context is derived from the outdated racial classification used in racial typology, and remains a popular American term for white. Elsewhere, "white" is a more common term for someone of German-Czech-Swedish ancestry. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would say "white" is preferable but essentially the same and clear in this context. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Caucasian is widely used in the US, but might lead to confusion in the rest of the word, due to, well, caucasus. It probably also leads to confusion in the US, but the other way round ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, I never got pinged about this conversation (or maybe I overlooked it). Caucasian is incorrectly used as a synonym for white in North American; however, it does not mean white, and the rest of the world does not use it to mean white. Caucasian refers to morphology of one's skull and nothing to do with skin tone. For example, most people of South Asian ancestry like myself have moderate to dark skin tones, but most of us are also Caucasian due to skull morphology. Just because a reliable source uses Caucasian incorrectly in place of white, does not mean Wikipedia should be. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Just one more point of emphasis, Dolezal is Caucasian, but she is Caucasian based on the way her head is shaped and nothing more. The article is largely covering an individual and the black/white identity. This subject has more to do with culture than anatomy, and thus White or European-American are much more fitting terms. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of discrimination and hate crimes

I added a a NY Times her own quotion the Tea Party discriminates which keeps getting removed even though it is relevant to her article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loccki (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

How is it relevant, in your opinion? What I saw was something just tacked on the section, with no meaningful context. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say her quote is relevant considering a large portion of the article is about her making accusations of discrimination and racism while claiming to be black. I'll post the NY Times quote from 2010 and you guys figure out what to do with it, “It would make me nervous to be there unless I went with a big group,” pertaining to a local Tea Party rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loccki (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said above, the issue isn't with the content the issue is with where it was placed and the fact that there was no context provided or connected to it. It was just hanging there, like a piece of trivia. Just because she said it and it kind of relates to the section doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

To an Australian this article is incomprehensible

...but most US American ideas about 'race' seem barely intelligible.

Barack Obama has a 'white' mother and a 'black' father. His father was from Kenya, so probably had no more racial affinity with most US American 'blacks' than would a 'white' European.

The point is that on arriving in Chicago Barack Obama chose to identify with the Black community of that city. I repeat: 'chose'!

If being 'black' in the USA refers only to skin colour, then it certainly doesn't seem to mean very much.

Here in Australia it is possible to be classified as an Aborigine even if one has no Aboriginal ancestry whatsoever. It is a question how one is regarded by the Aboriginal community.

From an Australian perspective, Rachel's ethnic identity depends on how she views herself and how she is viewed by the Black community.

This article needs reworking by someone with a knowledge of anthropology--someone who has lived outside the neurotic world of race as seen by US Americans.Luo Shanlian (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lou, I appreciate your feedback. Has there been any discussion of Rachel Dolezal in the Australian press? If their views echo yours, then it would be a suitable addition to the article.--Nowa (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Added two "See also" articles

I added two "See also" articles, Allophilia and Wigger. This addition was reverted. In defense of adding these two terms to the See also section, here is the meaning of the terms:

• Allophilia is having a positive attitude for a group that is not one's own. The term derived from Greek words meaning "liking or love of the other". It is a framework for understanding effective intergroup leadership and is conceptualized as a measurable state of mind with tangible consequences.
• Wigger is a slang term for a white person who emulates mannerisms, African American Vernacular English, and fashions associated with African-American culture, particularly hip hop, and in Britain, the grime scene. The term is a portmanteau of white and nigger.

OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 06:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding WP policy on the See also section, here is what the WP Manual of Style has to say about See also sections:

• "Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Consider using Columns-list or Div col if the list is lengthy. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." (from WP:SEEALSO).OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 13:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

References;

I am awaiting a response indicating that the two proposed links should not be added to the "See also" section. If there is no sign of opposition, I will re-add these links to the "See also" section. Thanks!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 19:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Allophilia might be OK for a link in See Also, but Wigger looks like a horrible article. I'm going to tag it for deletion based on coatrack and synthesis.--Nowa (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A number of other editors and I have been working on wigger. It's much better now with good references. I still don't think it should be in a "see also" for this article, however.--Nowa (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I just re-added a See also section with the two terms (Allophilia and Wigger) and Cultural appropriation. My addition was reverted with the statement that there are no sources attributing these qualities to Ms. Dolezal. I wish to remind the editor that WP policy on the See also section does not require sources attributing the qualities in the See also section to the article subject. Indeed, WP policy even says that the links in See also can be indirectly related to the article topic, to "enable readers to explore tangentially related topics":

Regarding WP policy on the See also section, here is what the WP Manual of Style has to say about See also sections:

• "Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Consider using Columns-list or Div col if the list is lengthy. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." (bolding added by me)(from WP:SEEALSO).OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment References don't support either Allophilia or Wigger in relation to Dolezal. Their inclusion is presumptive and, therefore, unencyclopedic. And, I agree with Nowa: "Wigger" is horrible, article-wise and nomenclature-wise. Hopefully, it will be deleted (for being yucky as well as the other reasons Nowa stated). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I originally removed them for sensitive BLP reasons. MOS is a content guideline and as such the inclusion must adhere to BLP policy and not include false light inferences. Those labels come across as offensive to me especially as applied directly to a person (and most likely why they don't appear in sources) as opposed to identifying a group or population segment. They appear to be No true Scotsman fallacy and belie more complicated issues such as the culture her children experience (would allophilia be appropriate term for them and how is the culture they grow up in different from the culture they are exposed to through their mother)? The subjective opinion that a "See Also" subject applies will need more support in BLP articles. We don't, for example, put "transgender" or "gay" in the "See also" section of people that don't identify as such (or even more akin to this addition, put "male" in a "see also" section for transgender women.) We need a source that is appropriate to include it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Reminder: Per the MoS, sourcing is not a valid criterium for assessing the inclusion of a See Also item.
• Comment: While I tend to agree that Wigger is, perhaps, a bridge too far, Allophilia and Cultural appropriation are relevant, appropriate, BLP-neutral, and should be included as helpful gateways to further reading. Eclipsoid (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Except that neither can be referenced back to Dolezal. Assigning these labels is (as I already noted) presumptive. We don't make such judgments here. Doing so would equate WP:CRYSTAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article. Cultural appropriation is mentioned in the lead, and it has a source. Eclipsoid (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read the article. Many times over the last several weeks while I've been editing it. As far as use of the term "cultural appropriation", I wasn't referring to it, rather, to "Wigger" and "Allophilia". Neither of which are in the article and are not supported by reliable sources. And, to be honest, I'm not sure Dolezal's critics claiming she is someone who has employed cultural appropriation makes it a truism in relation to her choices. She has other critics who have also said she is a con-artist, she is a liar, and her actions were criminal. But, we don't call her a liar or say that her actions were criminal because we have no proof that this is the case. Just as we don't have any proof that her behavior has actually been cultural appropriation - for now, it just looks like cultural appropriation. Until we have proof that's that case, I think that the wording for now is a borderline problem and am not convinced reference to CA should remain. The other two descriptors? I maintain they should stay out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you've read the article. Now try reading the editing guidelines. Again, for at least the 4th time in this discussion, there is NO requirement for sourcing in support of a See Also item. You are relying on an imaginary rule, and so that part of your reasoning fails. Do you have an argument that is grounded in actual Wikipedia editing guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipsoid (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. 55 whole edits to your credit, can't remember to sign your posts, and you're lecturing me on Wikipedia policy? Whatever, dude. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verfiability -- that means whatever we include needs to be verfiable with a reliable source. For See Also sections, it also needs to be pertinent. See Also implies what's there is relative to the article subject. Accusations and finger-pointing by critics of the article subject doesn't make those accusations verifiably relative enough to include. Further, in the case of a BLP, the guidelines and policies are more stringent. In this case, I think it's best to err on the side of caution. Now, go ahead and reply so you can get your 56th edit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good. So you do actually agree with me: sourcing is not a requirement to include a See Also link. Naturally, there are other factors to consider, but there is no need for a source to tie a See Also item to the article subject.

Now that the false pretext has been swept away, it is possible to have a productive discussion on the merits. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"So you do actually agree with me: sourcing is not a requirement to include a See Also link." That's not what I said. I said even though it's not a requirement, because this is a WP:BLP (and its subject controversial), we should err on the side of caution and not include links unless they are sourced. If you're not familiar with policy regarding BLPs and why those policies exist, I suggest you read up on it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Eclipsoid: Sourcing, especially for controversial or negative information, is an absolute policy requirement in every section of a BLP including talk pages, article pages and the "See also" section. MoS is a guideline. It is well understood and globally accepted that BLP sourcing requirements trump virtually every other policy which means a guideline has no bearing on it whatsoever. A BLP "See Also" section MUST be sourced. I cannot say it enough times. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're kind of preaching to the choir if your indentation is an indication of to whom your comments are directed at, DHeyward. Regardless, you are incorrect to a certain degree. See Also sections are not required to be sourced. They are, however, are required to be relevant. I further read that guideline to mean that the relevance should be sourced. The wording of the MoS on See Also sections reads as follows: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant". The preceding can be found here. I think it's all up to interpretation, but with a BLP, as you stated, one must be cautious - very cautious - and I think at least both of us agree that means anything not relevant and sourced as relevant needs to stay out of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

The media, for whatever reason, believes Mr. and Mrs. Dolezal, and disbelieves Rachel Dolezal. Does wikipedia have to follow suit? Note that the source of the facts describing the parents' race in this sentence is a mere claim by the parents: "Dolezal was born in Lincoln County, Montana in 1977 to parents Ruthanne (née Schertel) and Lawrence (Larry) Dolezal, who are white and primarily of Czech, German and Swedish origin." I could claim to be mostly Luxembourgeois and Estonian until someone did my genealogy. Are there independent sources that confirm the Dolezals' self-description?

If not, I would rephrase as "the Dolezals appear to be white, and claim to be primarily of..." or "per DMV records, the Dolezals are white," etc. Thanks for your consideration.50.0.36.80 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If you read the article, yes there are independent third party reliable sources confirming the parents' statement, as evidenced by genealogical records. It's not a "mere claim" that she is white of primarily of Czech, German and Swedish origin, it's a fact. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Except the genealogical records are old books with lists of names, which assume that if a couple is married all the children they have under their roof are biologically their offspring, and if the name is German the person is assumed to be genetically German. Whatever that means. They didn't do any DNA tests, they looked at family Bibles. It's evidence, but don't get carried away. There's assumptions here that simply erase Europeans of color without a second thought. Not that I believe Dolezal; just saying. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We are all aware that such records list the legal ancestors and that legal parents sometimes can be different from the biological ones. But what's the relevance of that in this discussion? Has Dolezal presented any evidence that she is biologically of black ancestry, or of different origin than her legal ancestors in a way that is relevant to her biography (i.e. relatively recent ancestors)? I don't know which "Europeans of color" you are talking about. There weren't really any people of color in Bohemia, Germany or Sweden 150+ years ago, and I don't see how Europeans of color (mostly a 20th and 21st century phenomenon; my Black British girlfriend is one of them) are relevant to the fact that the Dolezals' ancestors mainly came from Bohemia, Germany and Sweden well before those countries had any colored minorities. Btw. there is no such thing as "genetically German" people because they are not genetically distinguishable from populations of their neighbouring countries. One could perhaps speak of genetically European. It's actually quite plausible that European people like me could have some extremely remote black ancestors in antiquity or earlier (for example due to contact between black people and the Roman Empire), but despite that possibility, and despite having a black girlfriend, I don't "identify as black." Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tadeusz, thank you for your reply. In that case I would request an additional footnote in that early sentence pointing to the genealogical report. I confess I -- and probably other people -- did not read the entire article.50.0.36.80 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary to me. I don't think anyone is disputing what the parents say about their ancestry. The disputes revolve around whether Rachel is the biological offspring of the parents, and whether Rachel can be considered "black" if she has no black biological ancestors. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times, Washington Post, and many other credible sources have cited Dolezal's ancestry as German/ Czech / Swedish and have reported in accordance with Dolezal's parents accounts -- I'd imagine that these sources wouldn't have printed her biographical information unequivocally had they not performed their own independent fact checking. Apologies if my amendment was not properly added -- I see colons preceding the others; not sure whether I need to add those myself. Joeletaylor (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, is there any reaon to doubt the birth ceritificate? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia must report all views stated, and the frequency of each type. Though the consensus seems to be that she is a serial liar, fantasist and plagarizer, I do not know if if this can be put in the article as such. Could we have a link to the full text of the NAACP's defence of her? 2.31.38.227 (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Media/ Pop Culture Page?

Should we add a section addressing how the Dolezal case has been treated in pop culture? The Daily Show has covered it twice, once in a skit with Jessica Williams and Jordan Klepper, with the latter lampooning Dolezal's deer-in-the-headlights reply to the reporter who asked Dolezal whether she were really African American. Maya Rudolph also impersonated Dolezal in an episode of the Late Night show with Seth Meyers. I'm sure there must be others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeletaylor (talk • contribs) 06:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think those are worth a mention although we have to be careful. This is a biography about a person's life. Coverage/lampooning of a person is not necessarily information about the person's life.--Nowa (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is inconsistent with the aims of WP:BLP. We should err on the side seriousness because in this case there is a particular vulnerability to ridicule. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Bus stop. Also, the content being persistently added by Joeletaylor needs to be discussed as well. See article edit history for reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that R.D. has granted multiple interviews including an appearance on the Today Show, has she become a public figure? I think that would point towards mentioning how she has been otherwise portrayed in the media. Plus the Daily Show episode in and of itself has been covered by multiple RS and is hence notable. (e.g. Time)--Nowa (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, I agree that we should not go out of our way to ridicule her -- and perhaps it's too early to early (in the case of a living person) to add such a section -- but this page, particularly in the "Reactions" section, should be an accurate representative of the overall response to this case (i.e., a neutral POV), not a representation of the sentiments of the editors of this page (it seems, in general, we're all more sympathetic to her than the public at large and the media in general). The additions I made were largely positive -- and positive reactions are rare, at least in the case of unmitigated support -- the most ringing endorsement I've seen from a RS is by Camille Gear Rich, a professor at UCLA who's written for and appeared on CNN, and whom I reference(d). But she adds the caveat: "I don't support her deception," a sentiment on which there seems to be a near consensus. And, yes, please discuss your objections to and subsequent removal of my contributions -- I've read nearly every article on this case and spent several hours last night amending the "Reactions" section in good faith -- the least you could do is explain to me the nature of your objections. Joeletaylor (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Charges against brother Joshua dismissed

Central College Professor Accused of Sexual Abuse Has Charges Dismissed. Quote: "Joshua’s parents had also claimed the allegations have been made up by Rachel." --Edelseider (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

”Rachel Dolezal” as an eponym

It appears as if the term “Rachel Dolezal” is gaining meaning on its own (i.e. becoming an eponym). I realize it's not appropriate to make a separate article at this time(e.g. neologism, OR, SYN etc.) but I thought I would share some examples to get people thinking about it.

• "In Australia, we’re unlikely to have a “Rachel Dolezal” scandal of our own."
• "Fox News pulls a Rachel Dolezal"
• "This is my plea to anyone considering pulling an Amina Arraf, or a Rachel Dolezal..."--Nowa (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King

There are numerous RS that draw a comparison between Shaun King (activist) and the subject of this article. Several editors feel strongly that mentioning this comparison in this article is inflammatory and against wp:BLP. I thought I would post at least one RS and let other editors determine to what extent this material should be in this article.--Nowa (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Aaron Morrison “Is Shaun King White? Black Lives Matter Activist, Writer Responds To Conservatives' Claims He Is Another ‘Rachel Dolezal’”, International Business Times, 19 August 2015
• [18]--Nowa (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

An ongoing discussion of the connection to Shaun King is found at Talk:Shaun_King_(activist)--Nowa (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it not being included. -- Callinus (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it is inflammatory to compare two people who have both recently been discovered to have lied about their race. Inconvenient for liberals, perhaps, but not inflammatory. 24.33.88.240 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a current BLP noticeboard discussion regarding the King/Dolezal comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shaun_King_.28activist.29_and_Rachel_Dolezal --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Page is biased against Dolezal

Is Dolezal black? Inflammatory though the question is, it's a matter of public debate, about which reliable sources--including African Americans--have disagreed. (Against Dolezal's claim is her lack of ancestry, her dishonesty about it, and her ability to be perceived as white by the broader community; in favor of her claim is the fact that she identified and was perceived to be as black for years, as well as the fact that race=social construct) We should not take a side on that debate; we should just present the facts and views from reliable sources, leaving it up to the reader to come to her own conclusion. Asserting that Dolezal's ethnicity is "white" violates WP:SYN; it is also insulting to our readers, who are perfectly capable of inferring that she is white based on her ancestry and appearance.

I don't care about this issue enough to engage in edit-warring. But I hope that my note will facilitate discussion. Steeletrap (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the page is not biased against the article subject and no, she doesn't get to choose her ethnicity. She's not Black. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Steeletrap, this page is ridiculously biased against Dolezal, and flatly stating that her ethnicity is white, is pretty inflammatory. While she has said, as per the citations, that she was born white, ethnicity means several different things and being born white does not make her unambiguously white. Heck, isn't the ambiguity the main reason she's notable in the first place? Wikipedia shouldn't be taking sides on this. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there actually any ambiguity? WP:FRINGE would seem to apply. Artw (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just neutrally and factually document what the WP:RS say, without needing to take any viewpoint; and per WP:IDENTITY "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person and the term that person uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person uses." —Sladen (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity, Artw, there was just lying and fraud [19] [20] [21] which is what got her fired from three jobs.[22] [23] [24] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

She was fired, and we should report this. But that doesn't mean we should endorse the firing or the allegations of misrepresentation. Instead, we should establish the facts that gave rise to the allegations of misrepresentation.

The reason for her firing was given. How does Wikipedia dispute that? We aren't in the OR game and to state that her firing was for any other reason that what was given will require a very reliable source (which doesn't exist). --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to me from an (admittedly cursory) examination of the sources that she was fired for the racial misrepresentation. But if that's why she was fired, we should put that. My problem is not with reporting what RS say; my problem is using WP's voice to say, independent of the sources, that "Dolezal is non black" (as opposed to saying she lacks African ancestry). Steeletrap (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If Dolezal is black, then I saw a bunch of oompa loompas a few years ago. I think the show was called 'Jersey shore'. Weird orange skin. edit: Also this should be removed from all LGBT listings. They are not known lesbian Gay Bisexual or Transexual. They are known for photoshopping, lying, and applying bronzer. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rachel exemplifies the problems that WP faces with people who are not truthful. Another case is Michael Cremo, a charlatan whom I peroncally know well. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I identify as a Mil Mi-24, a Russian attack helicopter. Therefore it would be biased to put my article in Category:Living people instead of Category:Mil aircraft. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That my friend is a snazzy bird. Although didn't Dolezal go on The Real, one of those day time tv talk shows, recently and finally admit that she was born white to two white parents which brought a round of applause and a discussion of that is all people wanted her to say. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wordchoice in lead

Small thing, but the lead says "Dolezal's critics contend that she has committed cultural appropriation and fraud". Does one really "commit" cultural appropriation? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Not in a legal sense. But the cultural appropriation issue has been described at length by scholarly sources not mentioned yet. Polentarion Talk 15:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)