Talk:Rachel Dolezal

"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)

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)

Can we agree to keep this language then? --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Lol...I acknowledge that I was biologically born white. Seeing as everybody and their nan knows you can't change ethnicity...lol. No amount of prancing around with silly little flags while assaulting anybody who still enjoys living in reality will change biological facts. But, I wasn't born after the 2000s, so what do I know? Hopefully, I'll be able to self identify as 6'6" one day. How cool that fantasy would be. – ².O.^Boxing 07:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Is that statement coming from Dolezal herself? In my opinion, this is a genuine case of transracialism. "Born to white parents" takes the most neutral perspective as to what her true race actually is. PC848 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I'll entertain the above now I'm here again. Is that statement coming from Dolezal herself?, read the article. In my opinion, this is a genuine case of transracialism, your diagnosis is irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of sources agree; she's a white woman (what her true race actually is) pretending to be black. A description used by a lot of high quality RS.

WP:Consensus is not a show of hands, fortunately, so no, you don't have consensus for your blatant NPOV-violating edit. – ².O.^Boxing 08:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, as a result, it keeps getting changed back to the very language that was initially frowned upon. "Despite being white" doesn't actually define what a white person is. "Born to white parents" does. PC848 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The very language that was initially frowned upon...with unconvincing reasoning. This article doesn't need to define what a white person is, because everybody already knows. Regardless of your viewpoint, despite being white is unambiguous, born to white parents is not. – ².O.^Boxing 21:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If everyone already knows, how could "born to white parents" be ambiguous? If that's not what defines a white person, then what does? PC848 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with PC848. And that was the original wording before User:Squared.Circle.Boxing started this editing war. Also, race is a cultural construct -- there are no "true" races, as you keep implying. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This original wording was agreed to by two editors last year and remained stable for a week or so, if that. The wording had been altered multiple times before I arrived. The longest-stable wording regarding her false claims has been variations of, she resigned following allegations that she had lied about being African American, many other aspects of her biography and alleged hate crimes against her, along with, her white parents said publicly that Dolezal is a white woman passing as black. Sometime in 2020 it became variations of known for being a white woman who identified and passed as a black woman, with the mention of her parents' clarification removed.

We follow the sources. The overwhelming majority of RS, more often than not, plainly state something along the lines of 'white woman pretending to be black' (check the sources in the article). And on that note, reading the rationale by the OP again I think it should be noted that the comparison with women identifying as men isn't valid; the overwhelming majority of RS do not call them something along the lines of 'women pretending to be men', so neither do we. And philosophical debates on the definition of race are irrelevant; she is demonstrably considered white based on the indisputable-worldwide understanding of what a white person is. – ².O.^Boxing 18:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

- hah, I would love to hear your definition of the "indisputable-worldwide understanding of what a white person is." Does it include Jews? Irish people? (They weren't "white" until WWII.) Does it involve people from the Caucasus region? (They were once considered "black" by Russians.) What about albino Africans-- are they white or black? Or people of "mixed race" -- would you follow the one drop rule (meaning they are black) or would you go by skin color alone? Or, out of courtesy (and especially given that we are all mixed in some way), would you defer to what they themselves identify with -- with the label they themselves use?? -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My definition isn't important, neither is yours. It's the definition that the overwhelming majority of RS apply when describing Dolezal that's important. Ask them why they describe her as a white woman pretending to be black, and not something along the lines of 'a self-identifying black woman'. – ².O.^Boxing 19:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I still think that "born to white parents" is unambiguous because it makes clear exactly where the controversy lies. "Despite being white" does not directly explain why there has been controversy over Dolezal's racial identity. PC848 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You wouldn't say any of this sort of thing about transgender individuals. I wonder why. 38.242.181.64 (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

known for presenting herself as a black woman despite being white. In addition to claiming black ancestry, she also claimed Native American descent covers the controversy in full. Born to white parents is not only unconvential and unnecessary, it sympathises with the subject, contrary to RS. The arguments of 'respecting identity' prove as much. That's NPOV territory. – ².O.^Boxing 22:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Nkechi Amare Diallo" and "Nkechi Diallo" redirect to "Rachel Dolezal", which seems appropriate until her current legal name becomes her more commonly accepted name. —Pippinitis (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

She is basically doing blackface, but worse

She's 100% WHITE, but she's been dying her skin to look black. She's doing a full body blackface. 2603:8090:1504:278A:74D0:1588:E7BD:C6B6 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Blackface was a form of performance rooted in white supremacy and minstrelism, where entertainers wore exaggerated makeup, costumes, and speech to mock and caricature black people. Dolezal, on the other hand, does not identify as Black for the purpose of performance or to mock black people. She claims to identify as Black because she feels a deep connection to Black culture and experiences. Dolezal's identification as Black is a complex and personal matter, not a harmful and racist practice. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

So you support pretendians? 24.224.77.187 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Native American heritage claim

Does anyone know if Dolezal claimed to be descended from any particular Native American tribe? Thanks. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

minor edit for adoptive brother clarification

I was confused by the fourth sentence in the second introductory paragraph, "Dolezal had also claimed on an application form to be mixed-race and had falsely claimed that an African-American man was her father and that her brother was her son." What would claiming her brother as her son accomplish?

Later in the article it's clear this must be referring to one of her Black adoptive brothers, which then makes sense. It would be helpful just to add "that her adoptive brother was her son" at least so that the intro makes more sense. 2601:445:801:6F30:A862:FB96:645D:C954 (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)