Talk:List of impostors

message: Not sure if he belongs in this article or not. He made up a title that didn't exist, "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" and people just kind of went along with it for fun and profit, to the point that some business accepted money printed in his name. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say he belongs here, as this (old) publication, although with some reservations, calls Emperor Norton an imposter on p. 244. And the preview of this book even says: "the most unusual and perhaps the most famous imposter the world has ever known— " Emperor ” Norton". Daranios (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emperor Norton]]? 

message: From Susan Gubar's review (African American Review 36:1) of Laura Browder's Slippery Characters (U of North Carolina P, 2000): " . . Lillian Smith, a "voluntary Indian" renamed "Wenona," who starred in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show in the 1880s; the "imaginary Jew" Elizabeth Stern, whose I Am a Woman-And a Jew (1926) was penned by the illegitimate child of a Welsh Baptist mother and a German Lutheran father; Sylvester Lance, the son of former slaves who "transformed himself into the internationally famous Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance" and composed the memoir Lance Long (1928); Ben Reitman, a Jewish lecturer and Chicago fund-raiser whose Sister of the Road: The Autobiography of Boxcar Bertha (1937)..."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More 

message: Is basically a trivia section. There are literally thousands of possible examples that could be added, practically every sitcom ever has had an impostor scenario, along with hundreds of movies, books, and of course soap operas and telenovelas, and every episode of Deep Space Nine where Odo or one of the other Founders shape-shifted. It could get super ridiculous if left unchecked. I would suggest that this section simply be removed, or split into a separate article with some sort of clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , content is now at List of fictional impostors. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have created such a section again after the deletion of the split-out list, but only with two examples I find notable both as characters and in them being impostors as their defining characteristic, as attested in secondary sources. Therefore not a trivia section. Daranios (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hello ! Recently you have removed the "in fiction" section based on the argument that there are too many possible candidates to include, while the earlier split out article was deleted partially based on the argument that it was original research. I have a solution alternative to deletion for both problems: We require a secondary source verifying that the character in question is an imposter, and we restrict entries to notable ones. The latter critereon is also applied to the list as a whole without this being spelled out, where otherwise we would have exactly the same problem you have raised for fictious ones: There have been innumerable imposters in the history of humanity, we are not trying to list them all here, but try to provide a navigational help and some basic information to the notable ones. The number of entries in :Category:Fictional impostors is also not so large as to unreasonably bloat or unbalance this list if we used it in accordance with WP:CLT (and someone has to write the entries first, too). The section could still be split out again if it exceeds, say, a third of the length of the overall list. Daranios (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *:I'm afraid I don't really agree, I believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional impostors established a consensus earlier this year that we shouldn't have such a list and that a category is sufficient. Also, your solution would require routine maintenance to keep bloating at bay, while having it as a category does not Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: * I believe my solution solves all the reasons why the result was originally deletion (except maybe those which just as well could be used to delete this list here without the fiction part), wouldn't it? I suggest we try this out for a year, I would do the routine maintenance. (I think there were no undue entries even without spelling out a critereon the last three months). Daranios (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *:As I said, I don't believe there is consensus to host this content. Until there is some evidence that that has changed I don't think it is appropriate to re-create the section. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  Any opinions on allowing a much restricted and modified section with the same topic as the deleted List of fictional impostors here, as described above, for navigational purposes? Daranios (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Daranios I am fine with a section on fictional ones, if it is limited to notable, referenced (to non-primary sources) entries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed. Having a list of fictional characters to whom a specific epithet has been applied—even if we have high-quality sources that do so—is generally a bad idea. Experience has shown that the risk of such lists ending up not being particularly meaningful as a result of sources using varying definitions to the point of borderline equivocation is unacceptably high. The idea that this would serve some kind of navigational purpose is wholly unpersuasive to me; it does not seem terribly plausible that somebody looking for e.g. the article Tom Ripley would go looking here, and even then the link to :Category:Fictional impostors in the article is clearly sufficient. As I said in the AfD, I would instead suggest writing a prose article on the topic Impostors in fiction if there are sufficient sources to do so. TompaDompa (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel like the criticism of grouping "characters to whom a specific epithet has been applied" would refer just as well to the real persons listed here than to fictional characters. And ' argument seems mostly procedural rather than content-based to me. Be that as it may, as there is currently an equal number of pro and con opinions on the discussed section, having the link to the category seems like a good compromise, as long as there is no majority otherwise. Daranios (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Without getting into the details and specifics too much, considerations for lists of real people and lists of fictional characters differ. TompaDompa (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in fiction" section 

message: Why is it that only those making "False minority national identity claims" are considered "imposters" for the purposes of this list? Those blacks who "passed" as white to benefit from Jim Crow laws were motivated by the same desire—personal gain or acceptance—as those whites who now "pass" as minorities to gain the benefits of affirmative action. We rightly view Jim Crow as a hateful system—but we may well come to see race-based affirmative action in the same light. I've written about this at the Talk page for the article on racial "passing" here. Thanks for any and all input! ElleTheBelle 20:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusion of those "passing" for majority race 

message: An IP has been adding Elizabeth Warren to this article, which should not be accepted. This article is for imposters, which are described as "a person who pretends to be somebody else, often through means of disguise." That is clearly not the case with Warren, who believed she has distant Native American ancestry through family lore. She even took a DNA test to help determine the authenticity of the claims. That is completely different than someone intentionally assuming another race, like Rachel Dolezal, which should be common sense. --Kbabej (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I agree. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth Warren is not eligible for inclusion on this list

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:List of impostors →  – "Imposter" is the most common spelling. I never seen anyone use the word with the 'or' spelling. 2600:1700:1960:F100:F968:F898:A743:BA75 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: see also Talk:Impostor (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 February 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 February 2024