Talk:Rachel Dolezal

---

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)

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)

Name

The name is Doležal with a ž. See [1]. — 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 [2] 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)

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)

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 [3] 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 [4] "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)

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)

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

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)

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)

She is Transracial

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)

Transblack

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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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

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)

Caitlyn Jenner Compared To Rachel Dolezal Transracial

Power 105′s Charlamagne is addressing the “hypocrisy” surrounding America’s acceptance of the transgender community amid the nonacceptance of Rachel Dolezal’s racial identity crisis.

“If Bruce Jenner can be a woman Rachel Dolezal can be black,” Charlamagne tweeted. “So how can Bruce Jenner identify with what he wants to identify with but Rachel Dolezal can’t? I’m confused about this… So you can be transgender in America but not transracial?” Read more at http://rumorfix.com/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-compared-to-rachel-dolezal-transracial-charlamagne-weighs-in/#Eezoe3fCgmz8RIBS.99

http://rumorfix.com/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-compared-to-rachel-dolezal-transracial-charlamagne-weighs-in/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhisteam (talk • contribs) 20:33, 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)

Transethnic

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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.""[5] 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[6] (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)

"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.”"[7]

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. 03:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)209.211.131.181 (talk)

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.[8] S/he also claims Dolezal was victimized by her brother.[9] 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."[10] 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)

Black Privilege

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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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)

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)

Brother, Joshua Dolezal, alleged child rapist

Under her early life, I believe it should be mentioned that Joshua was charged with 4 felony counts of sexual assault on a child, instead of trying to pass him off as just an English professor. 50.251.87.249 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)