Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial transformation (individual)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are about divided as to whether this is a genuine topic, or a hoax or original research. With many participants merely asserting that the one or the other is the case, I can't find an informed consensus one way or the other, or a policy or guideline mandating a particular outcome. Future discussions should focus more on the level of sourcing for this term or concept. If the degree to which it is described in reliable sources is addressed in the discussion, future closers may find the policy WP:NOR easier to apply.  Sandstein  11:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Racial transformation (individual)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this is a hoax. None of the references mention racial transformation and there is no difference between this topic and Passing (racial identity) which this article should be merged into. The point of difference appears to be this absurd and uncited sentence "It is similar to passing; however, it requires some attempt a medical procedure, rather than lying about one's race or using makeup.[citation needed]". -- haminoon  ( talk ) 00:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Calling for a definition of "racial transfromation", I presume it is the following
 * Wanting to be recognized as other than one's inherent birth/genetic(sic) race
 * And/or simply wanting some/many/all features from one or more other races
 * And not having those inherent features/attributes or going beyond "soft transient methods" cosmetically
 * resorting to "hard permanent methods" physically via plastic surgery and chemicals
 * versus the definition of "passing"
 * Wanting to be recognized as or accepting others presumption of one's being other than one's inherent birth/gentic(sic) race
 * because of having inherent features/attributes
 * or by using "soft transient methods" via cosmetics, makeup, wigs, contact lens
 *  WurmWoode  T   22:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - redirect to Passing (racial identity)  for now. I know the Rachel Dolezal insanity is going to attract a huge mountain of coverage on this topic, and won't necessarily be referred to as "passing," but I don't know that "racial transformation" is the correct term. I have heard people joke about being "transracial" and heard people say transgender people feel this is offensive (understandably). This article is purely WP:OR as of now and until there's coverage of it to make it gain its own notability, I don't see why it should be kept.  —Мандичка YO 😜 01:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - You forgot to add the hoax tag to the article. I did it for you. --TL22 (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep! This is not a hoax. It's as legitimate as gender transformation (individual). 12.180.133.18 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not as legitimate in any way. Transgender people have a diagnosible condition known as gender identity disorder. This is just people who "feel" they should have been a different race, and so decide to pretend they are. I don't see racial identity disorder popping up on the DSM any time soon. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: non-notable concept; fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience t 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep! Especially after the Rachel Dolezal controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.180.135.66 (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable references to say that Dolezal underwent "racial transformation"? -- haminoon  ( talk ) 02:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect this of being a sockpuppet of 12.180.133.18. See Sockpuppet investigations/12.180.133.18 --TL<b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 02:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not 12.180.133.18. Just an unsuspecting anonymous poster who fell into his/her trap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.180.135.66 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , that's not a reason to create a sock investigation. They have no other pattern. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 WurmWoode  T   03:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: There is a big difference between (passing) having mixed heritage or advantageous physical attributes versus this article of not having those attribute(s) and seeking to attain them physically (surgical or similar) rather than merely through cosmetics or make-up.
 * Make the effort to google women's pursuits of physical beauty and fashion trends and habits of Asian, African, and European markets, revealing a pro-white or pro-western bias, implementing skin whitening, rhinoplasty, eyelid (Asian), and hair straightening. And a rising demographic for men, too (LOL !)
 * I can't understand your argument. The only article you've shown here that mentions "racial transformation" defines it in a very diiferent way to the article we're discussing. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 04:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * None of these articles discuss "racial transformation" as far as I can tell. These are articles discussing plastic surgery among different ethnicities. People changing their body because of pressure for a "Western" beauty standard (such as Asian eyelid surgery) is something else. If there is a big difference between "passing" (because of hair/makeup/just looking one way) and "transforming" (through surgery or other permanent alterations) as you claim, we need WP:RS that say so.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is an ongoing surgical/cosmetic trend of women, and men, seeking to alter what they perceive as racial signifiers, but "racial transformation" was a term used by Rachel Dolezal. It has created the usual explosion of click bait and the lightning-fast Wikipedia article. There is a phenomenon that might need coverage in ethnicity or racism, but it's a bag of mixed stuff that doesn't offer to "transform" the person's innermost being, which is what Rachel Dolezal claimed happened. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I am calling for clarification of definition, I have inserted at top — Preceding unsigned comment added by WurmWoode (talk • contribs)


 * I doubt that "racial transformation" was used by Dolezal. This entire article appears to be a hoax. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 00:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Transracial is NOT the same as "passing" ("passing" has a Wikipedia page so I won't explain it here). An example of one being "transracial" is the June 2015 controversy involving Rachel Dolezal. I adopt the reasons others have said this page is a "keep." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartinsanfrancisco (talk • contribs) 04:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Rachel Dolezal already has an article. No RS have claimed she has undergone a "racial transformation" - according to above, this requires surgery or some kind of cosmetic procedure. It seems like she just used spray tan and wore a wig. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Who is to say what is transracial? I say a wig and an atomic tan qualifies Rachel Dolezal to be as transracial as she likes. Just like Bruce Jenner, who hasn't had his penis cut or his gonads removed. He says he is a grandmother now, well, more power to him, and more power to Rachel Dolezal, transracial woman. 06:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs)
 * "[M]ore power to him (sic)", you say as you misgender her, deadname her, and use the phrase "penis cut". Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 22:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep: The topic is discussed worldwide by now (e.g. in Poland), gives rise to numerous memes (e.g. "if somebody feels Transnegro, let them claim to be Transnegro"), and contributes to healthy discussions about race, truth and political corectness. Soon reporters and public will be lookup up this very article for edification. Zezen (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That article does not appear to mention racial transformation or anything of the sort. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 01:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Need more info. Is this popping up because of Rachel Dolezal? Only person that I have known to do it was the singer/pop star Michael Jackson but he's dead now so I'm not sure if it succeeded or not. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes, it's related to Dolezal. The article has been around for years but did not receive attention. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Passing. It doesn't seem to be a separate topic - and a number of commenters above seem to think that one can surgically remove one's parentage. That cannot be correct. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't disagree more. The article on passing focuses on people's statements (such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren stating she is Cherokee), whereas the article on transformation is about what people do to transform themselves.  For instance, Adjunct Professor of African-American Studies Rachel Dolezal transformed herself by dying her hair, curling it up, and taking atomic suntans or dying her skin. XavierItzm (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually plenty of the examples in the Passing article involve skin dye and hair dye; eg Black like Me. --  haminoon  ( talk ) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Sources needs to be found as a WP:NEO / overlap with passing. It may be WP:TOOSOON or need a complete rewrite, but attempt at finding sources and fixing should be made first. Widefox ; talk 10:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur with Мандичка . This is a somewhat nonsensical neologism.--Rpclod (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge/redirect to passing: The debaters are indirectly asking people to consider the validity of race as opposed to ethnicity and as opposed to political identity. That is not a matter for Wikipedia to litigate. Furthermore, the RS are about the argument, not about a stable concept or practice. The practice at present would redirect to "passing," inasmuch as it assumes a stable political and cultural concept of "race." Yes, there is a firestorm of nonce usage because of a now-embarrassed activist, but, had she called herself "racially transmigrated," that wouldn't make "racial transmigration" any more a real thing. It would only make it a more common search result while blogs seek clicks. For all of these reasons, ephemeral references don't count as RS. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by my position on the debate/debaters here, but the article's depth seems to replicate the discussion at "passing" far more than it stakes it to a neologism, so redirect and merge makes more sense than deletion. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Original research. The article lumps a lot of things together that are not really related.  White Americans tend to want darker skin and South Koreans larger eyes, etc.  No source to put everything together.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Just as Transgender is becoming mainstream, so will Transracial. Some people have gender identity disorder, some people have racial identity disorder, and some have both. There are lots people who identify as "transracial", and it is of course possible to change one's "race", because "race" is subjective, just like gender.  --Andhisteam (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no phenomenon called "transracial" today and no people who consider themselves to be "transracial." There is no disorder called "racial identity disorder", and this comment frankly demonstrates that you are engaging in trolling. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is such a thing as "racial identity disorder", as well as "The WrongSkin movement". There are discriminated against, laughed at, and ridiculed. They are also subject to microagression. There is a bunch of trollers trying to suppress and censor this. --Andhisteam (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete hoax. This is a hoax perpetrated by 4chan trolls in the wake of the Rachel Dolezal case to ridicule her and/or transgender people, not a real phenomenon. There are no people who identify as "transracial", and it isn't possible to change one's "race", because "race" is not a real category recognized by the scientific community. The topic supposedly covered here is already better covered in passing (racial identity) (which should be retitled "passing (ethnic identity)") and passing (sociology), and possibly in other articles on inter-ethnic relations. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Many of these !votes are to "keep transracial." This is a vote in regard to racial transformation (individual), and neither the term "transracial" nor the concept of "transracial." This latter term has a great deal of usage and adoption, although it's pretty mushy in terms of definition. At any rate, I, at least, was moving to delete this article, not the concepts. (It seems like a lot of people confuse articles with their concepts.) Hithladaeus (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HOAX. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Racial transformation is a genuine topic apart from passing. See this article for an example.  I've removed the OR, unreferenced and possible hoax material.--Nowa (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears all you've removed are the hoax and failed verification tags, and added some material that belongs in ethnic plastic surgery and Passing (racial identity). -- haminoon  ( talk ) 22:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be concerned about something, but I'm not sure what it is. Can you elaborate?--Nowa (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:HOAX - this is 4chan "having fun" with the Rachel Dolezal trainwreck. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 22:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HOAX. 4Chan should nor be given an inch in the pedia. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See also Ethnic plastic surgery, which is more or less what this article is supposed to be. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing here that isn't better (or already) discussed at the article on passing. Article seems to have been created as a joke/to make a point, and I don't see anything salvageable here. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I invite you to take another look. The most recent reference by Cressida Heyes argues that there is no such thing as true racial transformation.  The concept,however, is still out there and deserves at least some treatment if only to indicate that it doesn't exist.--Nowa (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - None of the claims about this being a 4Chan hoax provide any evidentiary support, and regardless of any problems with the article, it does not by any form of logic fall into the category of "hoax". If anything, I'm inclined to think the opposite ... that people from 4Chan are making the hoax claim. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Because a quick google search shows chans enjoying the lulz. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - This seems very real. Just because it may sound silly and there is also a media circus, does not mean it does not exist. --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - If a person can be born one sex and then think they are another and change and that's accepted then there is no way we can say this can't be accepted Cls14 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... gender is a thing, race is not a thing. You're making the kind of argument that people make about how if gay marriage is allowed, people are going to be able to marry their dogs. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 15:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WHATABOUTX. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable term, and I agree this may be part of a systematic hoax involving the Dolezal case. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – Fails WP:NEO, based in WP:OR and junk sources. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once this becomes accepted in proper literature, not just the blogosphere or tweetosphere, we can take it up again. For now, it's a neologism that has no value outside of the media cycle--and very little traction inside it. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ethnic plastic surgery, which has an existing article, and is the real topic of most of the references given. I wouldn't say this article is a 'hoax' as such, but its subject matter is too vague: it doesn't make clear what constitutes 'racial transformation' or what it refers to. This might become a notable concept at some point in future, but it doesn't seem to be notable yet. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As a further comment: it appears many of the comments above are really about the article transracial identity (which is also up for AFD) rather than this one. I should say that unlike that article, I think this one could potentially be worth saving. There could potentially be an article which covered phenomena like blackface, yellowface and other forms of 'racial impersonation', as well as more long-term acts like plastic surgery and skin whitening. But that article is a long way off at the moment, and it's questionable whether it would really be a coherent topic, so I say merge or delete this one for now until someone can do a better job. Robofish (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: "Passing" is being born in a way that appears to fit the phenotype of another race. This is actively aiming to change your appearance and it's done by...looks for word...different people from all different backgrounds &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of examples in the Passing article about people changing their appearance to look like another race. Do you think the Passing article is wrong? -- haminoon  ( talk ) 00:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah um don't say what passing means if you don't know what it means. It's not about "being born". Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 22:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * delete - non-notable neologism. Skyerise (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Racial_transformation_(individual) for examples of academic usage of term over past 10 years.--Nowa (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable and a valid analogue to having an Identity disorder. 67.149.41.193 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is an IP voting? Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 22:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Note that comparing Dolezal's actions to a transitioning is profoundly offensive to transgender people, a ludicrous misunderstanding of what's going on and a good way of identifying that some users are either trolling or really need to do some reading before speaking about anything, ever again, in any venue, if the desire is not to look silly . Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that the article no longer contains any reference to Delezal or transgender.--Nowa (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; this note was for the truly horrifying comments in this AfD. Ironholds (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Any more comments on the article itself?--Nowa (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete -- this is part and parcel of the same stuff that is going on at Transracial identity. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable topic, well-sourced, neutral tone. Seems worthy of inclusion to me. Kelly  hi! 13:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article to me seems analogous to Sex reassignment surgery, which is certainly notable and encyclopedic. Kelly  hi! 19:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. First, SRS is a surgical procedure for transgender people. In contrast, the term "transracial" refers to "children of color adopted by white people" because no one recognised "transracial" as a category. Until you understand the difference between race and gender... better read up. I'm not sure who would be more offended, people of color or transgender people. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 01:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as per my similar contents in the parallel AfD for Transracial identity, this meets the scope, breadth and quality of RS needed for inclusion. BlueSalix (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This definitely seems real to me (look at Michael Jackson, for example), but whether it's notable or not, I don't know. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * His article states that he was diagnosed with vitiligo as stated in a biography and in his autopsy after his death. <em style='font-family:Tiger Rag LET;color:#0070FF'>The Snowager <em style="font-family:Tiger Rag LET;color:#6F00FF">-is awake  14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Passing (racial identity), but the topic still has some original research. <em style='font-family:Tiger Rag LET;color:#0070FF'>The Snowager <em style="font-family:Tiger Rag LET;color:#6F00FF">-is awake  15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (does not look to be anything to merge, but not opposed to a close as merge to passing (racial identity) and/or ethnic plastic surgery, without redirect) - Similar rationale for my !vote at the transracial identity AfD: fails WP:NEO, ill-defined subject, not sufficiently distinct from other existing topics. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.