Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Dolezal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,553,551 edits
m Signing comment by 84.68.190.94 - "→Deadnaming?: "
PC848 (talk | contribs)
22 edits
Line 56: Line 56:
:Wholly agree. She identifies as black, so saying she is "white" (without a qualifier) passes a judgement on her position (i.e., implies she is wrong), thereby violating [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]. The previous wording ("born to white parents") nicely incorporated both sides, allowing the reader to make their own judgement... We should stick with that. -[[User:Tiredmeliorist|Tiredmeliorist]] ([[User talk:Tiredmeliorist|talk]]) 11:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:Wholly agree. She identifies as black, so saying she is "white" (without a qualifier) passes a judgement on her position (i.e., implies she is wrong), thereby violating [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]. The previous wording ("born to white parents") nicely incorporated both sides, allowing the reader to make their own judgement... We should stick with that. -[[User:Tiredmeliorist|Tiredmeliorist]] ([[User talk:Tiredmeliorist|talk]]) 11:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::Her being white isn't a point of view. It's a fact. NPOV doesn't require us to use wording that incorporates both sides, {{tq|'''Prefer nonjudgmental language'''. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity.}} {{tq|Born to white parents}} sympathises with the subject by lending credibility to what she says (and what RS dismiss), and it doesn't do all that much for clarity. Also, that specific wording is Dolezal's own description, as quoted in RS, so I'd say that falls afoul of NPOV. {{Tq|Despite being white}} doesn't sympathise with nor disparage the subject. If you think it does disparage then I'd argue it's {{tq|balanced against clarity}} by removing any possible doubt of her actual race, which, again, is something that Dolezal herself and all RS say is white. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red">''<sup>2</sup>''</span>]].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: blue">'''''O'''''</span>]].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red"><sup>''Boxing''</sup></span>]] 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::Her being white isn't a point of view. It's a fact. NPOV doesn't require us to use wording that incorporates both sides, {{tq|'''Prefer nonjudgmental language'''. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity.}} {{tq|Born to white parents}} sympathises with the subject by lending credibility to what she says (and what RS dismiss), and it doesn't do all that much for clarity. Also, that specific wording is Dolezal's own description, as quoted in RS, so I'd say that falls afoul of NPOV. {{Tq|Despite being white}} doesn't sympathise with nor disparage the subject. If you think it does disparage then I'd argue it's {{tq|balanced against clarity}} by removing any possible doubt of her actual race, which, again, is something that Dolezal herself and all RS say is white. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red">''<sup>2</sup>''</span>]].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: blue">'''''O'''''</span>]].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red"><sup>''Boxing''</sup></span>]] 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:::No, read the last sentence of the second paragraph. Dolezal does NOT say that she is white. She acknowledges that she was born to white parents but maintains that her self-identity as Black is genuine and has never backed down from that. [[User:PC848|PC848]] ([[User talk:PC848|talk]]) 22:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


== Deadnaming? ==
== Deadnaming? ==

Revision as of 22:49, 16 May 2023

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

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

Welfare

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

Because she is a fraud, and proven. See last paragraph.
I don't know. I do know of many cases where professors have qualified for welfare. Many professors at universities earn very little money. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health

Has anyone taken the time to get this woman help. She clearly had a rough childhood, and now she’s living a ridiculous lie, hurting herself and her children. She’s feeding off the negative attention, and twisting her lies into a “cause”, while her children deal with the aftermath in silence. In the documentary, she lied countless times, and then when confronted with the lies, she couldn’t acknowledge them. Take this one step further; imagine she identifies as a horse. Are we to cheer her on, even though everyone knows she’s a fraud? She needs help. 2607:FEA8:28C1:F200:9161:5300:DA18:51A (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum to criticize this lady -- plenty of those around if that's what you're looking for -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite being white"

It has been brought to my attention that User:Bbx118 has repeatedly changed the opening introduction from "an American former college instructor and activist known for presenting herself as a black woman despite having been born to white parents" to "despite being white." The edit suggests that her being white is a fact in contrary to what she identifies as, and dismisses transracial people as a whole to fit the user's narrative and personal perspective. Whether or not she is white is up for debate and subjective, whereas her being born to white parents is a widely accepted neutral fact. WP:NPOV. Similarly, saying that "trans men present themselves as men despite being women" would be considered extremely biased. Miunouta (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with "born to white parents"; while many of our readers will take "born to white parents" as equivalent to "white", Wikipedia doesn't need to stance on Transracialism; that article already notes that it's a controversial concept. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree to keep this language then? --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit suggests that her being white is a fact. Because it is a fact. It's a widely accepted neutral fact, as can be seen in the overwhelming majority of (if not, all) RS. Besides common sense and the fact her parents state she's white (I think they have a pretty good idea), she admits she's white. Born to white parents is an attempt to push a user's narrative and personal perspective and is quite very clearly taking a stance on Transracialism; there's no other reason for such unconventional wording. After all, white people are usually born to white parents. Case and point: this very article.

We're supposed to describe her as RS do, and the overwhelming majority say she's a white woman pretending to be black. Not a self-identifying black woman born to white parents. – 2.O.Boxing 13:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dolezal's self-identity as black is genuine. She still identifies as such to this day despite the backlash she received. There is absolutely nothing to be otherwise gained by this if she didn't really feel like that. Furthermore, the previous language did not explicitly state that Dolezal IS black - only that she presents herself and identifies as black despite having been born to white parents. I believe that takes somewhat of a neutral position on the issue of transracialism and could be applied similarly for transgender identities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PC848 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Born to white parents" is affirming something that almost all RS dismiss. More importantly, non-white children can be born to white parents. So "born to white parents" isn't the same as "being white". The latter is neutral and verifiable. – 2.O.Boxing 21:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly agree. She identifies as black, so saying she is "white" (without a qualifier) passes a judgement on her position (i.e., implies she is wrong), thereby violating Wikipedia:NPOV. The previous wording ("born to white parents") nicely incorporated both sides, allowing the reader to make their own judgement... We should stick with that. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her being white isn't a point of view. It's a fact. NPOV doesn't require us to use wording that incorporates both sides, Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Born to white parents sympathises with the subject by lending credibility to what she says (and what RS dismiss), and it doesn't do all that much for clarity. Also, that specific wording is Dolezal's own description, as quoted in RS, so I'd say that falls afoul of NPOV. Despite being white doesn't sympathise with nor disparage the subject. If you think it does disparage then I'd argue it's balanced against clarity by removing any possible doubt of her actual race, which, again, is something that Dolezal herself and all RS say is white. – 2.O.Boxing 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, read the last sentence of the second paragraph. Dolezal does NOT say that she is white. She acknowledges that she was born to white parents but maintains that her self-identity as Black is genuine and has never backed down from that. PC848 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deadnaming?

It has been over 10 years since I was really active in Wikipedia, so I'm asking a question about something that puzzles me. Why is it that Veronica Ivy is where I will find the article about the person most famously known as Rachel McKinnon, but the article on Nkechi Amare Diallo is located at Rachel Dolezal? Both Rachels have changed their names, but it looks like Wikipedia respects one change but not the other. I have no idea if this is policy or an internal inconsistency, or what. Could someone explain this to me? Unschool 01:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there might be a case for making the official name of the page "Nkechi Amare Diallo" with redirect from "Rachel Dolezal", but we'd have to go through the policies (e.g., WP:OFFICIALNAMES). -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is the policy. Wikipedia takes in account a name change when reliable sources start using it (more details at WP:NAMECHANGE), but is not the main factor for the article title. We have the article at Kanye West, not Ye. cookie monster 755 07:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEADNAME only applies to transgender people. Rachel Dolezal is not transgender, so WP:COMMONNAME is what applies to her article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like wikilawyering. She is transracial which is the same as transgender just a different aspect of identity. The article should reflect her current name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.190.94 (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Dolezal&oldid=1155150123"