Talk:Kamala Harris/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The birth name

@Strugglehouse: For four years, Kamala Harris's middle name on this (her Wikipedia) page has been Devi in the lead, the infobox, and the early years section. She was indeed given a different middle name at birth, but it was changed two weeks later, when she was very decidedly still a helpless infant not much different physiologically than she was at birth. That middle name is mentioned in the infox in a footnote, but no more. More pertinently, for Wikipedia, due weight considerations do not allow us to include this information more prominently as no tertiary sources do. Please read about the role of tertiary sources in determining due weight at:WP:TERTIARY. That this is the biography of a living person which has seen its share of nationalistic, subnationalistic, ethnic, or xenophobic bickering, cautions us further to tread carefully. Having edited this page for four years, I am confident that this is the consensus version here of how her name should be written. For all these reasons, I have removed what is only technically her birth name from any form of mention what would be considered undue. If you do not agree, you are welcome to reply here and attempt to reach a new consensus. But that, I should warn you, takes time. But please do not engage in WP:Edit warring. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Birth name is what's written on your birth certificate. Her birth name is Kamala Iyer Harris, and this is what should be displayed as her birth name.

I believe it should be included how I put it in the article (i.e. The lead should read: "Kamala Devi Harris ([...] born Kamala Iyer Harris; October 20, 1964) is an American politician [...]", and the name should be in the birth_name section of the infobox, and the Early life and education section).

However, as a compromise, the lead could be left alone, and only the infobox and Early life and education section changed. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the note suffices. If Harris requested a copy of her birth certificate, it would say her middle name is Devi, not Iyer. YoPienso (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

illegal immigrants vs undocumented immigrants

There seems to be a disagreement between PrecariousWorlds and Slatersteven regarding which of the two phrases to use. The latter (in the comment for the first revert) suggests looking at the source, but unfortunately both cited sources are about her stance on gun laws, not immigration. (That points to another issue, one which--if addressed--might settle the dispute on terminology. Until then, perhaps a {{citation needed}} might be in order.)

It seems to me that neither terminology is neutral, as both expressions seem to signal a certain stance on the issue. I don't know of neutral terminology for this concept (though I have seen reference to the expression unauthorized migrant). Perhaps someone else is aware of some. Otherwise, how do we come to consensus on a disagreement such as this? Trackerwannabe (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is unsourced, it should be just removed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few sources:

• Remarks by Vice President Harris Before Meeting With DACA Recipients, Dreamers without DACA, and Immigrant Rights Leaders
• Harris meets DACA recipients after ruling
• How Kamala Harris would provide citizenship to Dreamers

I can neither add reference to the sources, nor remove the statement regarding her position, as I do not have permissions to edit a protected page. Perhaps someone, with such permission, will choose to do so.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Undocumented" is the neutral term. "Illegal" puts a negative connotation on the individual. AP Stylebook has a good explainer. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This has come up several times over the years. Most style guides seem to go with "undocumented immigrant" or something similar, but when it comes to picking one or the other those who prefer "illegal immigrant" point out that even those sources with style guides still sometimes use that formulation and, perhaps most saliently, it appears in many places in US law. IIRC consensus has stopped short of prohibiting "illegal immigrant" while acknowledging it's fallen out of favor and considered offensive by some groups. I think most people could get behind something like "people without a legal immigration status" or something as a compromise, but it's wordier. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hence "undocumented", which indicates that their status isn't that of a legal citizen. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

While "undocumented" may be a less loaded term, I wouldn't consider it neutral. Even the AP Stylebook page you reference states: "Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented." [Bold added for emphasis]

Trackerwannabe (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense to use "undocumented" in this instance when illegal immigration is clearly the accepted convention on Wikipedia PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that the article is much better as it is now, with the phrase omitted entirely and just mentioning the DREAM act. The wording of the sentence was confusing before PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Are we taking a stance to make her look good in the eyes of progressives? Is that what Wikipedia stands for? Bohbye (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you prefer we make her look bad? HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

How about no stance. “undocumented” is a fact. They don't have the appropriate documents as required by law (so could use illegal instead). Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2024 (3)

Change "Harris has said life imprisonment without parole is a better and more cost-effective punishment than the death penalty,[94]" to "Harris has said life imprisonment without parole for octogenarians is a better and more cost-effective punishment than the death penalty,[94]"

The current text makes it sound like the source material was discussing people of all ages on death row when in fact it specifies elderly people. 2600:1700:83A2:8400:D999:549D:CEF:489C (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed that whole paragraph, because it didn't mesh well with the text in the reference. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes

Some userbox templates are available at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics by country/United States/Politicians#Kamala Harris. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

More npov verbiage

Here is the language from the page on Harris's policies, which is more npov regarding "sanctuary cities" than what is here now.

In 2006, as San Francisco's district attorney, Harris expressed support for the city's sanctuary city policy of not inquiring about immigration status in the process of a criminal investigation, saying it allowed people to come forward as witnesses to crimes when they might not have otherwise. She argued it is important that immigrants be able to talk with law enforcement without fear. Seananony (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

fAILED VERIFCATI0ON. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Are you suggesting the paragraph be deleted? Seananony (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

< no as this is on her page, Im am saying do not add it here without better sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Maybe the links to sources didn't work in my post. They seemed like good sources for the proposed language. Not so good for the existing. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/12sanctuary.html

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/10/steve-cooleykamala-harris-debate-the-arizona-immigration-law.htm Seananony (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

Here is the existing language:

Harris has expressed support for San Francisco's sanctuary city policy of not inquiring about immigration status in the process of a criminal investigation.[88] Seananony (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Presidential Nomination

If I'm not mistaken, Joe Biden just nominated her as his successor. I take it someone with permissions will make this change? SirShaunIV (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@SirShaunIV Joe Biden has nominated her HOWEVER the caucus has not. Democrats held primaries to nominate Biden. He can't just do that. Heddingite (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden endorsed her. He doesn't control the delegates other than to release them from being bound to him. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, but having been named as his endorsement is noteworthy. Does it not belong on the page? SirShaunIV (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, but having been named as his endorsement is noteworthy. Does it not belong on the page? SirShaunIV (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I see the endorsement has already been added Frankserafini87 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Border czar 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In order to better collaborate and create a useful article based on verifiable data from reliable sources, I think it's important that we clear up the "border czar" issue.

First, Biden's initial announcement on March 24. 2021, was unclear. He said, "I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border." Obvious goal: stemming the [im]migration at the southern border.

Then Biden went on to talk about the root causes of the migration.

As he headed for a conclusion, Biden reiterated the need to "stop what's happening," i.e., the surge at the border. But in his final description of Harris's job, he said she had "agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders." Nothing there about our southern border.

A garbled paragraph (beginning with "And I can think of nobody who--") follows, and then an appreciative paragraph, and finally he wraps it up with thanks and support.

Harris accepted Biden's charge, mentioning only diplomacy and root causes and nothing about enforcement at our border. Here's what she had produced 3 months later.

The venerable BBC reported on the day Biden made the announcement, "US President Joe Biden has put Vice-President Kamala Harris in charge of controlling migration at the southern border following a big influx of new arrivals," and wrote the line, "Announcing Ms Harris's appointment as his immigration czar. . ." [Emphasis mine.] The BBC said Biden believed Harris was the best person to "handle the complex political, logistical and diplomatic challenges this immigration issue presents." The article as a whole makes it sound like Biden put Harris in charge of every aspect of the border problem.

Also on Mar. 21, 2021, Politico reported, "Vice President Kamala Harris will be the White House’s point person on immigration issues at the nation’s southern border, President Joe Biden announced Wednesday, tasking her with stemming the rising tide of migrants, many of them unaccompanied children, arriving in the U.S." The rest of the article goes on to explain that Harris's role was with the Northern Triangle, but one can hardly blame readers for taking the first paragraph as a summary of the article. (Indeed, that's the function of journalism's "inverted pyramid.")

NBC News also got the pyramid wrong, with this lead: "President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he has appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to lead efforts to stem migration across the U.S.-Mexico border, as the administration faces growing political pressure to address a surge in undocumented migrant children unaccompanied by parents." That report, too, explained Harris's role better in the body of the article.

My point: the RSs were saying exactly what we understood back then. (And, yes, opposing politicians and pundits quickly ran with the "czar" moniker.) But here's an NBC News report many of us missed: "In the 2 1/2 weeks since President Joe Biden announced he was tasking Vice President Kamala Harris with leading diplomatic efforts to stem the flow of migrants at the Southern border, the White House has found itself having to clarify the shape of her role on a near-daily basis." This article is key to our discussion here; I recommend reading the whole thing. Here's one more excerpt: "White House press secretary Jen Psaki has fielded frequent questions on whether Harris' role includes addressing the current situation on the southern border, while aides to the vice president have quickly shot down suggestions that Harris is focused on anything other than tackling the root causes of migration in Mexico and the "Northern Triangle" countries of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras."

This week, when corrections were made to reports from 2021, it seemed Orwellian, didn't it? Winston Smith was rolling up his sleeves to control the past, wasn't he? But on April 10, 2021, NBC News had clarified Harris's role in a timely fashion.

Bottom line: As Wikipedia editors, we make more progress when we try to understand the facts, the perceptions, and the misperceptions brought to us. I think we can improve the Immigration section of the BLP. It's misleading to target Republicans as spreaders of disinformation when the BBC, NBC, Politico, and others got it wrong. (I should note the AP pretty much got it right.) YoPienso (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

All of this is WP:SYNTH. RS do not call her a "border czar", and the few that did have issued corrections. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is zero synth here.

The BBC called her an immigration czar and has not corrected or updated that story.

Politico and NBC published erroneous or misleading stories; Politico hasn't corrected or updated, either, but NBC set it straight a month later in another article. (Good on NBC!)

Just today Axios updated its 3-yr-old story.

All RSs make the occasional mistake.

People who thought Biden had made Ms. Harris his "border czar" aren't necessarily stupid or evil or ill-informed. We make more progress with less debate when we assume good faith. YoPienso (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's news I was unaware of: Six House Dems vote with GOP to condemn Kamala Harris for 'border czar' role. Not sure how or if this affects our discussion or the BLP. YoPienso (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't affect anything. Biden did not make her his "border czar". The fact that six of the 212 Dems joined such a vote is not relevant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim isnt that Biden called her "border czar", it's that *everyone did* based on the responsibilities he assigned. There's no offical position of "czar" and no one is suggesting otherwise. The entire debate here is a misinformation campaign driven by the DNC to distance Harris from her responsibilities with the border crisis.

https://x.com/burackbobby_/status/1816523387948400854/photo/1 24.57.55.50 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Not close to a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't, other than to lead me to point you to WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS so that we can stick with better sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This will probably be more relevant at Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign, which I haven't participated in so far. Her record regarding immigration policy will be an ongoing campaign issue.

It's not only Fox that is reporting this, of course: ABC, the AP, Politico, Spectrum News, etc. YoPienso (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I looked at each of these sources and the Fox source. Only Fox added: House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., similarly opened debate with, "We've been told that Vice President Harris' job was to find the root causes of the crisis. Turns out to do so she could have just looked in the mirror." Which is to say that she was the root cause of this worldwide immigration problem; when just a week ago it was Biden who as the root cause of this worldwide problem. The community decided not to use Fox for politics for a reason. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The non-Fox sources are valid, but they don't change the fact that this vote is a publicity stunt meant to smear their political opponent, so UNDUE. I don't think we'll be hearing about the "Biden crime family" any longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The lie that she *wasnt* called "border czar" is UnDue because THAT lie is being orchestrated directly by the DNC. https://x.com/burackbobby_/status/1816523387948400854/photo/1

SO, in one case you have a ACTAUL House Resolution -- which you anoint yourself worthy to blithely dismiss -- and in the other, you have a documented and revealed misnformation campaign managed by the DNC.

And you carry water for the DNC talking points. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, not close to a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Like it or not, the HOUSE of Representatives -- which has more authority on appropriate labels than the press -- called her "border czar" - it's a first party citation, not merely media reports;

House passes bipartisan resolution strongly condemning 'border czar' Kamala Harris (nypost.com)

https://nypost.com/2024/07/25/us-news/house-passes-bipartisan-resolution-strongly-condemning-border-czar-kamala-harris/

H.Res.1371 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Strongly condemning the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris's, failure to secure the United States border. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/1371

Second, here's a second fact-check article that speaks to the Orwellian propaganda now swirling here; trying to deny that the term was used (as if it matters, being simply pedantic and generic label, not an official title at all).

FACT CHECK: Harris was Biden’s second 'border czar,' despite recent media claims | News | kten.com

https://www.kten.com/news/fact-check-harris-was-biden-s-second-border-czar-despite-recent-media-claims/article_0ca9885a-48d1-53d5-b9a7-ba3a865e09e1.html

It's a FACT that her responsibility gave her the moniker "border czar". The memory-hole work here on wikipedia to carry water for this lie only further cements wikipedia's decline. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

> People who thought Biden had made Ms. Harris his "border czar" aren't necessarily stupid or evil or ill-informed.

Because that was how it was _widely_ and unanimously reported at the time she was given border responsibilities. It's a fact. That was how it was reportd. Widely. An argument that "no such position exists" isnt at issue here; a term "czar" has been widely used for decades in american politics and its never been questioned. It's only NOW being questioned because this **misdirection is printed, paid-for, managed misinformation by the Democratic Party. And wikipedia is carrying water for the DNC.**

See; Democrat Lawmakers Receive Talking Points On How To Talk About Kamala Harris | OutKick

https://www.outkick.com/analysis/democrat-lawmakers-receive-talking-points-how-talk-about-kamala-harris-role-border

Here's a photo of the talking points that are DRIVING this entire wikipedia debate;

(8) Bobby Burack on X: "Wow. A Democrat lawmaker confirmed to FOX that Dems have received a piece of paper with talking points/lies about how to discuss Kamala Harris' role at the Southern border. They are already using the exact lines. https://x.com/burackbobby_/status/1816523387948400854/photo/1 24.57.55.50 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What you're missing here, IP user 24.57.55.50, is:

1. There's no way to know if the list posted on X is legitimate, and
2. The House of Representatives is a political body, sharply divided right now into Democrats and Republicans. It wasn't the House, but the Republicans, specifically Elise Stefanik, who purposefully used loaded language to attack the Democratic candidate for president. Only 6 of 212 Democrats voted "Yea," while every Republican who voted (214 our of 220, with 6 not voting) voted "Yea." This is political partisanship and by no means reflects the intents of Joe Biden, who appointed Harris to work on border policies, specifically the reasons so many people want to flee Central America and find haven in the US.
3. At Wikipedia, while we acknowledge nicknames erroneously or hostilely applied, we don't use them in our own voice.

YoPienso (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit out of practice posting at a wiki as I've not been active in years. I am concerned though with the rewriting of history when it comes to the "Border Czar" moniker. The casual term Border Czar was used in reference to Vice President Kamala Harris. Here's a link from one of America's oldest newspapers headline "Six Dems join Republicans to condem ‘border czar’ Kamala Harris for botching border crisis" Link: The term may be a casual one, much like the term First Man or First Lady, and if we plan to remove a recorded usage of the term Border Czar perhaps we should start removing the casual titles given to presidential spouses. My biggest concern is Wikipedia rewriting history to suit their political persuasions. Reporters of history should always try to record history in an unbiased factual way. Think long and hard about the actions you've taken in rewriting history. I will finally add Congress acknowledged the Border Czar term.MDaisy (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Congress did not "acknowledge" the Border Czar term. The Republicans falsely claimed that was her appointment, an appointment that never existed. It is they attempting to rewrite history. Please read the several discussions here. Also, Wikipedia has no political persuasion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Its a neologism, First lady is well established. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, first used in 1838. We even have an article on it First lady. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Reliable sources make the facts, according to the standards of Wikipedia. Reliable sources report this, and it doesn't matter if you don't like it. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask again. What reliable source states that she was appointed to this position without later retracting it? What source shows an announcement of this assignment? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@MDaisy

Agree.

Just about every Wikipedia article makes use of media quotations and media references.

so, at this point, if Wikipedia has chosen to remove the Harris "border czar" link, they are obviously playing politics with recording facts.

I will remind you that up until a week ago, no one had an issue with this issue. It was not until the Republicans began campaigning with the issue that Wikipedia chose to sanitize Harris' entry.

I have attempted to warn off these issues in the past and have had my talking pages deleted for the effort. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Removed offending comments. Agreed should have been a bit more civil. Original sources trump secondary sources. An official government document, which I linked to as a reference, is an original source and a government document.

Accurate information is what's needed or readers will doubt your research. Wikipedia allegedly is an unbiased source that understands research.

I'm a retired print journalist who believes in honest research. I also have a degree in English (didn't study journalism but fell into the job by accident) and a minor in history. I LOVE history and respect how it will hopefully give accurate information to the ones who are studying it later.

Lest think I am biased towards one particular political party over another I am not in this instance as I believe in honest, accurate writing. MDaisy (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it is gross incompetence or lack of education. Please be civil WP:CIV. Original sources trump secondary sources. Original sources do not trump secondary sources on Wikipedia WP:PSTS. We use reliable secondary sources. A bill by the Legislative Branch cannot establish a czar in the Executive Branch. There is nothing "honest" about political documents in general. You will find that bills often purposely make misstatements for political reasons. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A government document is an unbiased, reliable, official source. It clearly states action taken by our legislators. That is accurate and unbiased. I have never mentioned my politics in this discussion. I might be a Biden-Harris supporter but you do not know that as I have remained objective. I do appreciate unbiased writing though. Thank you! MDaisy (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We can state based on the text of the resolution that House Republicans called her a "border czar". But we can't use the resolution to call her a "border czar". Does that make sense? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a bill that has not and can not pass the legislature as the Senate will not vote on it. It is a political statement with no expectation of passage. There is no "action" that will occur. Unfortunately, both parties engage in this nonsense. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Congress did acknowledge the term "Border Czar". H.Res.1371 The reso did include the term and it has been used by various news sources for a long while. The term is correct as she did serve as the "Border Czar." MDaisy (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

They did not acknowledge it. They made it up. The RS that reported it withdrew their mistakes. If you believe in primary sources, show the one where Biden appointed her "Border Czar". There isn't one. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

One last thing this is an official source stating Congress passed the bill that clearly stated:

Strongly condemning the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris’s, failure to secure the United States border. Vote Type: Yea-And-Nay Status: Passed Link:

Bill: Roll Call 400 | Bill Number: H. Res. 1371

This is official documentation and an original source. In research writing, which I assume Wikipedia is striving to reach, the source clearly states Harris was called a Border Czar. The term should be used in the WP article. This is called objective, unbiased research. In college I majored in history and english. I'm a retired print journalist who covered governmental affairs. I also believe in factual reporting. MDaisy (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a primary source from House Republicans, who are quite unreliable for their opinions on Harris. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you not understand research? Primary sources (which I posted) trump secondary sources. A government reso was passed by Congress. This is an official government document and original research. Do I need to teach a class on research? Did anyone here suffer through writing a research paper? MDaisy (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You should be more WP:CIVIL considering that you are wrong. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources. WP:RSPRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Also, that's a House resolution, that is not going to be taken up by the Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it wrong to want accurate writing? I was taught the MLA Stylebook, Strunk and White and the Little Brown Handbook. I also used the AP Stylebook professionally. All taught writing and what I've posted is accurate in all college level or professional writing. I will see if I can find an admin to review the article, if needed. Thanks!MDaisy (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not wrong to want accuracy, but calling Harris a "border czar" because House Republicans say she is isn't accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Here some links from varying media sources calling Harris a border Czar:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/fact-check-harris-was-biden-s-second-border-czar-despite-recent-media-claims/ar-BB1qC2XX

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56516332

https://www.axios.com/2021/04/14/harris-immigration-visit-mexico-guatemala

And I end my message with this comment by stating Congress's reso said Border Czar. Both Republicans and Democrats voted to approve the reso. I have included references in my earlier posts. While the Czar was not an official title it was used to describe Harris' role when directed by President Biden to resolve the southern border crisis. ~~~ MDaisy (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not used by the Executive Branch, which is all that counts, and did not include protection of the border, which is what the Republicans falsely claim. And why do you keep bringing up the partisan political resolution? There were only 6 of 212 Dems to vote for it. Saying Both Republicans and Democrats voted to approve the reso is highly misleading. You don't even know if they just wanted to vote for other parts and couldn't do anything about that language as it was a Republican written bill. Such resolutions have no meaning in law. And we use secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an official government doc and historically accurate unless you wish to re-write history. Congress called it that and that's all you need. Yes, you can use secondary unbiased sources. Has anyone posted secondary source calling Harris a border czar?

I have reported this to the admin board. Hopefully, a neutral, objective admin will review this. MDaisy (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It is the House Republicans who are rewriting history by calling her a "border czar" when POTUS never did. It's an official document, that resolution, but that doesn't mean anything. It's a WP:PRIMARY document that is contextualized by WP:SECONDARY sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have reported this to the admin board. And they explained to you that you are wrong and closed the filing. Why do you keep repeating this even after your report was rejected? Congress called it that and that's all you need. That's completely false. Congress has no power to do this. And Congress did not pass the bill anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Congress is an official government agency and they create actual legislation. That's newsworthy and worth reporting. I had not checked the admin board so I didn't know...thought being civil was important...

While doing dishes I did come up with a diplomatic solution. Not saying you have to write exactly what I'm writing here but it could be something like this. Don't know if the article is locked, or not, so I'll post it here for review.

In an alleged political move the United States Congress passed H.Res 1376 on July 25, 2024, condemning alleged Border Czar Kamala Harris' failure to secure the border. The vote for the resolution was passed by 214 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 6 Republicans and 10 Democrats did not vote on the resolution.

That's a neutral statement that is historically factual. MDaisy (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Congress is an official government agency and they create actual legislation. Yes, but they passed a non-binding resolution, not legislation, and only through one house. Harris' failure to secure the border is not NPOV or sensical since she was not put in charge of the border. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You can write alleged Border Czar. Missed that one and it would work. Yes, she was appointed to diplomatically work to reduce illegal immigration. I thought wikis were to promote collaboration...MDaisy (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

10 and 11 references issue

They don't mention shr supported cannabis legalization and dream act. Also wasn't she known for strict prosecution of cannabis related crimes? 50.93.223.205 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Soeruce? Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wanda Kagan

Is all this really necessary or appropriate? Sounds gossipy to me. With fewer words and less drama we could have a sentence saying Harris took up the protection of women and children after a college friend told her of being abused.

This is the passage I think she me should be eliminated or drastically reduced:

Wanda Kagan, a high school friend of Harris, later told CBC News in 2020 that Harris was her best friend and described how she confided in Harris that she (Kagan) had been molested by her stepfather. She said that Harris told her mother, who then insisted Kagan come to live with them for the remainder of her final year of high school. Kagan said Harris had recently told her that their friendship, and playing a role in countering Kagan's exploitation, helped form the commitment Harris felt in protecting women and children as a prosecutor. YoPienso (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Information like this can be greatly shortened by moving attribution to the footnotes. For example, readers don't need to know that Kagan "later told CBC News in 2020." They don't need to know that "She said that Harris told her mother." Readers can infer that from the fact her mother asked Kagan to stay with them. TFD (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I removed details about Kagan from the article at 14:17, 23 July 2024, with the edit summary, Boldly removing off-topic details since there's been no response to my question on Talk. Preserving ref to Kagan.
Today at 14:33, 23 July 2024, you reverted my edit with this summary: You posted yesterday! Please read talk page guidelines. In such a busy cycle, you need to give it at least a week and allowed people (e.g. I) who have had a hand in writing the article to think and look for sources. Again, at least a week.
I can't find any guidelines that require waiting any time at all, much less a week. WP:BRD, which is prominently announced at the top of the talk page, allows me to boldly edit without even opening the issue on talk. Can you please point me to the guideline about waiting at least a week? Also, please engage with me here and explain your opposition to removing the details about Kagan. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I guess; I see that The lorax restored my version. (An edit summary would have helped me find it much more quickly.) YoPienso (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

She's Indian not black

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

She's Indian not black look at her family and earlier Campaign ads Firefly1778 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is she described as black? HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ. Of emphasis: As PolitiFact notes (see A look at Kamala Harris' multi-ethnic background and racial identity in the US, PolitiFact (August 14, 2020)), social media posts have inaccurately suggested that Harris cannot be African American because she has an Indian mother and Jamaican father, but "this is a poor understanding of history, and ... the implication that Jamaicans aren't African or connected to Africa is wrong on its face." While not all Jamaican-Americans identify as "African-American," Harris and many others do. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Please also read the third paragraph of the Early years section beginning "African-American intellectuals and rights activists ..." The US today is a complex society in which identity is determined as much by Nurture and history as by Nature. Both Barack Obama whose father is from Kenya, but with no history in his ancestry of the Middle Passage and Kamala Harris whose childhood was shaped by an African-American world, a father and an ambience, which did have a history of the Middle Passage are African-American. India, KH's Indian relatives and Hinduism have played a secondary role in the formation of her outlook. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nationality, she is not African American. She is Jamaican American and Asian Indian American 184.98.43.135 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo ... Kamala Harris and her maternal grandfather PV Gopalan. Lusaka circa 1971

Edit ...

Add photo ... Kamala Harris and her maternal grandfather PV Gopalan. Lusaka circa 1971

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._V._Gopalan#/media/File:Pv-gopalan-kamala-harris.jpg 76.156.161.247 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a provenance for this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

File is attributed to Meena Harris via Twitter. In other words, it is a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Provenance or not, a short visit to once-in-half-a-dozen-years-visited grandparents is is undue illustration of her life's arc. There are quite a few pictures of her with her father's family in Jamaica as well. The pictures already in the article are good enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2024 (2)

Why does this not list her appointment to “BORDER CZAR” by Joe Biden? It was part of the article before?! I trust Wikipedia to be unbiased and non-political, so this needs to be added back in! Thank you! 2603:8080:61F0:6C50:2963:D298:EAB3:EBCC (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done: Because Joe Biden did not appoint her as "border czar". We need an FAQ on this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

IP user, we do mention the term "border czar," in quotes. That's appropriate. If I find time I'm going to edit that part, though, because it makes it seem like only Axios was confused. No need to mention Axios specifically, but we do need to include the fact that multiple RSs--not only right-wing media or Republicans--used the term. YoPienso (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Error in these articles. Kamala Harris is NOT African American. She is Jamaican. 2603:6081:5A00:CEC:1001:205C:FDE:A5 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Not according to her birth certificate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Her birth certificate says her father was Jamaican. YoPienso (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

She is not her father. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

So, according to her birth certificate, what is she? Or what is she not? I have no idea what your comment "Not according to her birth certificate" means. YoPienso (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well as it says she was born in Oakland, California, USA, she is Amerian (by birth). Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The question wasn't if she's American, but if she's African-American. YoPienso (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the question was is she Jamaican. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

IP user, Please see Q1: Why does Wikipedia say that Kamala Harris is African American/Asian American/South Asian American? in the FAQs in the yellow box at the top of this page. YoPienso (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that I've read that explanation at the top, I find it faulty. Unclear. I can't follow the logic. We don't necessarily go by what people call themselves. (Consider Rachel Dolezal, for example.) What makes sense to me is that she is an American of partial African descent, thus making her partly African-American. YoPienso (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't, we go by what the law says she is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please show me the law that says what Harris is.

Wrt my comment about not necessarily going by what people call themselves, please read the concluding paragraph of the meandering explanation at the top. Here, I'll paste it in for you:

Also of note is the difference between race and ethnicity. Race is grouping based on society's view. Ethnicity is grouping based on how people see themselves in common with others. Ms. Harris's race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount. Using this criteria, Ms. Harris is clearly African-American and South Asian-American. YoPienso (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

14th Amendement "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.... " Slatersteven (talk)

?!?!? There's no birther issue here. Nobody's saying she's not an American. The discussion was if she's African-American or not. Are you suggesting we should drop African-American and South Asian-Americn descriptors and simply call her an American? YoPienso (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Error in these articles. Kamala Harris is NOT African American. She is Jamaican.", that was the question asked, the answer was no she is not, she is an American. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A vast number of African-Americans have some non-African ancestry. This is due to the fact that masters slept with slaves and enslaved and/or sold their progeny. It was not called rape because slaves were considered property with no rights. Jamaica was filled with slaves and is now around 76% Black as a result. This is also likely where the rumor her great-great-great-grandfather was a slave holder originated. Fortunately, we don't have to determine this ourselves. We just go by RS. But an explanation in the FAQ is helpful for the constant claims she isn't. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe we need an FAQ entry for the racial history of the Americas, including the one drop rule, miscegenation, Middle passage, Triangular trade, and the rest of it.

This the Kamala Harris page. Regardless of her phylogenetic tree, she was shaped as she as repeatedly said, by the African-American community in Berkeley and Oakland. Please read the third paragraph of the Early years section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

贺锦丽

The fact that Kamala has a Chinese name that is used in Chinese language communication is quite unique and should be mentioned. https://radii.co/article/kamala-harris-chinese-name John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What's Chinese about it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I found This article which seems to verify this. It was published by the South China Morning Post, which Wikipedia considers generally reliable. This NYT article may say something about it, but I don't have access. I think we need a reliable source that says something more specific than "the early 2000s" for the year she adopted the name. – Anne drew 04:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No it does not, it says her name is translated into Chinese as X, not that it is a Chinese name. In fact "Her given name “Kamala Devi” means “the goddess Kamala” – one of the many names of the Hindu goddess of wealth, Lakshmi. And “Kamala” itself means “she of the lotus” in Sanskrit." make it pretty clear, its an Indian name. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

See https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/china-watcher/what-kamala-would-mean-for-china/ (Politico) and https://sfstandard.com/2023/05/10/becoming-chinese-picking-the-right-name-on-san-francisco-ballots-is-serious-politics/ (The San Francisco Standard) which both use 賀錦麗 , which is different from 贺锦丽. We probably need a native Chinese speaker to assist here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

They are identical, one uses traditional (more complex) and the other simplified versions of the same characters. M.boli (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The South China Morning Post article is four years old. It acknowledges—as user:Slatersteven has already indicated—the name, "Kamala Devi" is from Sanskrit, it says, "To assist voters not proficient in English, the law requires that candidates’ names be translated into Chinese for the ballot in areas with a large number of Chinese speakers. And so 賀錦麗 will appear on the ballot in places such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York City." We don't know that this provision is still available, and even if it is, how "Kamala" is written in a ethnic community's native non-English script in order to communicate unambiguously to a critical number of voters not proficient in English is not of encyclopedic value in WP, for the simple reason that Chinese may not be the only script. I suggest that we not pursue this line of investigation much further, unless it appears in 2024 sources, and not just once. If there is agreement with this, can someone please collapse this thread? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • This is not about her official name and its Sanskrit origins, so stop attacking that strawman. This talk section is about a Chinese name she was given by the father of one of Kamala's friends. And she adopted and used it as part of her public office. It is relevant to her early career. It is not a transliteration for the benefit of voters. And other politicians have tried giving themselves a cute Chinese name, and usually they are rejected for it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Ahh I see, at least one of you other sources seems to say this is not unique "When San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston ran for reelection in 2020, he changed his name on the ballot—not his English one, but his Chinese identity.". Also (as far as Im can see) they are talking about the ballot, not "as part of her office". Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      Very good point Slatersteven. A factoid that had appeared in one or two newspapers about how some candidates in the San Francisco area use Chinese names to court voters, and appear on the ballot in both the Roman and Chinese scripts to help those who are not proficient in English simply does not have enough due weight to warrant inclusion in such an article. I think we are wasting time here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    That Politico article only incidentally mentions the name: The fallout from President Joe Biden’s decision Sunday not to seek reelection continues but there are indications Vice President Kamala Harris —whose self-chosen Chinese name is He Jinli (賀錦麗 ) —will maintain the Biden administration’s China policy if elected in November. Thereafter it talks about what to expect from her, policy wise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris Afro American ?

How can Kamala Harris be mentioned as "Afro American" ? Her mother's parents are both from Madras, India. Her father's parents are both from Jamaica, with African ancestry. Wikipedia describes them as Afro Jamaicans. 83.42.140.205 (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ and umpteen threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

See wiktionary:African-American: A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent. Ergo, Harris is African-American. Peaceray (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Errata: her law school was renamed in 2023

It is now University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. The name of her school should be amended in this article. 67.180.172.22 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that this can be counted as errata. University of California, Hastings was the name of the school for 150 years, including during Harris's attendance. Most know the institution by its former name.

University of California, Hastings is a redirect to the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco article which explains the name change. I think that this suffices. Peaceray (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely an errata. Regardless of how long the "Hastings" name was employed by said institution, the fact is that "Hastings" has been stricken from the school name per action of the California Legislature (see California Assembly Bill 1936, 2021-2022 session). As part of the legislation, the State of California explicitly found that the school's former namesake bears responsibility for funding "Native American hunting" parties" (specifically against the Yuki people) and thereby engaged in genocidial activities, that he enriched himself via said genocide, and that the genocide ennabled S.C. Hastings to finance the establishment of the law school. This was the impetus for the name change. The name change has been given retroactive effect per action of the State Bar of California (the law school affiliations for all California attorneys who graduated from said institution now reflect the name University of California College of the Law, San Francisco irrespective of graduation date.) Finally, the clear and explicit intent of the California Legislature, and of the school's board of directors, is that the school shall be knwon by its new name in all its dealings and in public references so as to address a past injustice; regardless of the personal opinion of any reader or Wikipedia editor, this intent should be honored. Spotty's Friend (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the historical acts that prompted the school's name change (i.e.genocide) I hardly think that a mere redirect to another page while in the main article retaining an old name that honors a person found to have been instrumental in enabling said genocide should "suffice". See my above comment with a little more detail on the name change. Cheers. Spotty's Friend (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

67.180.172.22 did not state this further information. Looking over the talk page, I see that this was discussed at #Update Hastings School of Law, but I had not seen it beforehand. It probably would have helped it the comments had been made under that heading.

I was making my comments out of practicality but heretofore was unaware of Serranus Clinton Hastings's involvement in the California genocide. With this knowledge, it makes perfect sense to change the link to University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done As of this edit Peaceray (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Border Czar" discussion at Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

Editors here may be interested in weighing in at Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar" on the List of U.S. executive branch czars page. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would we add that she was appointed "border czar" when she wasn't? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

According to the passed House Resolutions, she *is*. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And according to our reliable sources, she isn't: In 2021, Biden tapped Harris to head up a Central American initiative called the “Roots Causes Strategy,” an effort to “address the root causes of migration” from “from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.” It seeks to deter migration from those countries by, among other things, providing funds for natural disasters, fighting corruption, and creating partnerships with the private sector and international organizations. (Emphasis mine) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this section is being caught up in ongoing politics. Numerous left and right wing outlets called her the border czar, right up until June. She has been called it in interviews. It was a known title of hers, and she was in charge of the border. If the media are suddenly backpaddling, it's not because they were all somehow wrong. It's because they want to memory-hole this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No she was never in charge of the border. And please do not speculate about media motivations. Corrections are not only extremely common in reliable sources, it is part of being a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

Change "has been described as" the presumptive nominee to "is". The definition of presumptive makes "has been described as" redundant, and those are weasel words. Keys5257 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus for this before proposing it. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that doing so will likely be academic, as she will actually be the nominee in a couple weeks. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that there will be a roll call before Aug 7th for the DNC to pick a nominee and Aug 19th will be when that nominee accepts or declines the party nomination. So that should be fine until the roll call at the least and maybe up until the convention. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

She isn't African-American but she is Jamaican-American / South Asian American LycanHD (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See Talk:Kamala_Harris/FAQ EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Border Czar 3

This sentance; "Axios in 2021 inaccurately described Harris as a "border czar," suggesting she would be responsible for security along the U.S.-Mexico border; Axios corrected the story in July 2024, though Republicans continued to use the moniker.[283][284]"

Is completely false. Everyone -- hundreds of examples, including the House of Representatives in 2023 and 2024 used the term "Border Czar" as title for Harri's responsibilities.

The only reason the above sentence is exists is to cover and carry water for the partisan misinformation. That sentence is a direct embodiment of the DNC-directed misinformation issued to Democrats. See;

https://x.com/Banned_Bill/status/1816581620704641271

The media is parroting the DNC talking points. Partisan editors cite the compliant media (which is why merely axios is mentioned, because Axios demonstrated the greatest degree of supplication.)

The above sentence should be removed. A new section created to document this entire affair. Instead, the cited sentance presents the most false and most generous representation to benefit the partisans and comply with the orwellian misinformation demanded by the Democratic Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you really believe the purported DNC talking points posted on X is a legitimate DNC list? I don't. You would have to have reliable sources supporting it. YoPienso (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The MSM has been repeating -- almost in complete sync -- those exact talking points. Peter Doucy of Fox News asked Karine Jean-Pierre asked her about that very leaked talking point list.

Do you _not_ believe that the talking points was created by the DNC? What other explanation would you have for the clear coordination on those same points? Out of no where, dozens of stories in the MSM trying to pretend she wasnt called "Border Czar". 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please point to the announcement by the Executive Branch appointing her with this title. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive comments YoPienso (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
HOUse Republicans do not get to appoint cabinet positions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Cabinet positions? Harris was VP. YoPienso (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC) The legislative branch doesn't get to appoint any task to anyone in the executive branch. (Although there was an attempt a few years back to appoint a different president.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Which was my point, the house does not have the authority to declare any one an anything Czar. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Good grief. You two aren't making any sense. O3000, the House, in fact, elects (not appoints) the President if no candidate receives enough electoral college votes, and the Senate elects the VP. Slatersteven, why don't you just say "Whoops"? Hatting all this as unconstructive. YoPienso (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit request is merely a repeat of 3-year-old Republican propaganda memes, described as such in reliable news media and discredited from the moment they were created in 2021.

• Contemporaneous news articles from 2021 emphasize that Harris was tasked by Biden with addressing the causes of migration from the Northern Triangle. The 2021 reference in this Wikipedia page, from NBC News, is congruent with that. Here is another from WaPo on the day on the same event, with a similar description of Harris's remit.
• The Republican efforts to use the word "czar" and tar Harris with border enforcement failures go back to the original appointment time in 2021. Here are two WaPo articles published within a few weeks of the original appointment. They explain that Republicans will try to pin border enforcement failures on Harris regardless of that wasn't her charge. One article describes Republicans repeatedly bleating that word "czar" which the administration kept rejecting.

Parenthetically: the supposed Democratic talking points are, I believe, correct and factual. They reinforce what the reliable sources tell us, going back as far as the original reporting in 2021. I can't speak for whether it is indeed a list published by somebody, but I don't see that they contradict this Wikipedia page. It is pragmatically weird to wave a list of facts which agree with the news reporting and claim this proves the reliable sources are wrong.

But to the topic at hand: the edit request is merely a repeat of three year old long-discredited GOP memes. -- M.boli (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There are 38,000 Google News references calling Harris "border czar" since she was appointed by Biden to these border responsibilities.

All this nonsense over "border czar" or otherwise is moot. She was tasked with the border file -- call her czar or otherwise is immaterial. The ONLY purpose to distance from this term is to serve to distance Harris from the border crisis under Biden (which she was a party-to, czar or not.)

She was given the responsibility to lead the effort, and she failed. Her support of an open border is clear and obvious. And, the 'czar' term was used widely. Denying it is Orwellian newspeak, driven by the DNC issued talking points and the usual gatekeepers are manipulating wikipedia to support it. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No, she was not. She was not responsible for border security. That was and is Homeland Security. Her role was in dealing with the source countries, the root of the problem. To that end, she fostered foreign investment to increase jobs to improve the problem countries. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the word "inaccurately" as poorly sourced and unnecessary. The sentence makes it clear that Axios has retracted the designation. StAnselm (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is ONLY Axios mentioned? Every single MSM outlout, for years -- thousands of times -- have used the term.

That the *ONLY* reference here is that *Axios* alone decided to rewrite history isnt the whole story. It's only being made the 'whole story' here because they retracted it.

What about the hundreds of other references that *havent* been retracted? What about the fact that she was called "border czar" by passed House resolution in 2023 and 2024? Doesnt that primary source rise above a single mention of 'axios' here?

This is obviously DNC-directed misinformation being pushed onto wikipedia. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the word "inaccurately" [1] that StAnselm removed as "poorly sourced and unnecessary" [2]. The content is directly from Axios's correction, which states, "Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a 'border czar' in 2021" [3]. Without the use of a modifier in the sentence of our article, it no longer makes sense because there is nothing to suggest why Axios issued the correction. The sentence currently in the article is "Axios in 2021 inaccurately described Harris as a "border czar," suggesting she would be responsible for security along the U.S.-Mexico border; Axios corrected the story in July 2024, though Republicans continued to use the moniker." – notwally (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's poorly sourced because we don't have an independent source saying it's inaccurate. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes we do. We have WaPo reporting from a few weeks after Harris received the remit in March, 2021. Reporting which says Republicans made up using the word "czar" for their own political purposes, but the principals involved said it was clearly not correct. -- M.boli (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't read the WaPo articles because they're behind a paywall. What are their exact words wrt to border czars? StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Sullivan/Alamany on 24 March 2021 does not mention the word "czar."

Sullivan/Wootson on 3 April 2021 has one usage, where Texas Governor Greg Abbott sends a letter that says she is the border czar ("Now that President Biden has named you Border Czar in charge of the administration's response, I want to express to you the threats and challenges caused by this administration’s open border policies"). LizardJr8 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

(ec) How about "Axios described Harris as a "border czar" in 2021, suggesting she would be responsible for security along the U.S.-Mexico border, but withdrew the designation in July 2024..." StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Or, perhaps following the WaPo articles cited above, something along the lines of "Harris was widely described in 2021 as a border czar, a designation which the administration rejected. Some news outlets, such as Axios, retracted the designation in July 2024, but Republicans continued to use it." StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

StAnselm, that's not what happened, and it looks like you are merely attempting to push a POV by ignoring the actual source and putting a "disputed" tag on a term directly supported by the cited source [4]. Axios didn't "withdraw the designation". They issued a correction notice that their use of the term was "incorrect", along with an updated article that explicitly notes that she was never the "border czar" (e.g., "border czar" title — which she never actually had" [5]). You can't attempt to use a source for the term while ignoring their correction. – notwally (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is saying she actually had the title - it was always, as the article you link to states, an "unofficial monicker". The issue is whether it was "inaccurate" or "incorrect" and it is this which is disputed (not just here, but in the media). StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually a large number of editors here are falsely claiming this as well as a large number of right-wing media that continue this claim and the Republicans in the House. Problem is that what you call an "unofficial monicker" includes the false claim that she was in charge of the border, which is false. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "in charge of the border". Do you agree that she was "tasked with curbing the flow of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border"? StAnselm (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

She was tasked with trying to solve the root causes in the failed countries, and in fact spurred foreign investment in those countries. In no way was she charged with border security as claimed by Republicans. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, although I don't know how many Republicans have made that claim about border security. I don't think it's necessarily implied by the term "border czar". StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Every single House Republican claimed that in H.Res.1371. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@StAnselm: You reverted my edit. It looks like you took issue with this text:

The role did not include power over the US-Mexico border, although critics began calling her the "border czar", a title then mistakenly repeated by some news organizations at the time, despite never holding such a role

because your edit summary said:

The claim that the label originated with the critics is quite blatantly made up, and it not in any of the sources provided

Politifact: In the meantime, Republicans have revived a title they gave her in 2021: "border czar."

Regardless, that's easily fixed by 'although critics and some news organizations mistakenly called her "border czar" at the time' or something. I fail to see how the version you restored, which inexplicably puts it all on Axios, is an improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the StAnselm's revert was not constructive. And if there were any minor probems, fixing them is the correct action, not reverting to less accurate text. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

(ec)I agree about Axios, but I think we should work out the wording here first. Yes, I saw the phrase "a title they gave her", and it's putting a lot of weight on that phrase to say that the critics/Republicans started using the phrase first - he could just mean they called her that. (Of course, it would be really interesting to actually find out whether it was the critics or the news outlets who first used the phrase!) Anyway, my other point above is that the informal POV nature of the phrase makes it hard to call it "mistaken" or "inaccurate". StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the opposition has declared that she was in charge of border security. That is, simply speaking, a lie. Now we all know that politicians never lie. But we should not be part of spreading a lie if by some extremely odd circumstance, a politician (or 200) did tell one. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Kamala's childhood in Madison, Wisconsin

I see that this article does not mention that Kamala lived in Madison, Wis., from 1968 and 1969. (Her father was an associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin and her mother worked at the McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research.) An article in the Capital Times published information about those two years of her life on March 13, 2024, when she lived in a two-bedroom home on a bluff above Lake Mendota in the Spring Harbor neighborhood. Leavittdc (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

What can I say but that I love Madison, Wisconsin! As for whether there's room in this article's shrinking space for those details, I can't say. Perhaps some others will weigh in. If only there was a picture of young Kamala and her family on the Memorial Union terrace! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Kamala identify as South Indian on official Youtube video channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7rNOAFkgE&t=74s 1:15 -> she identify as Indian and then she specifically identify as south Indian. Is this reliable source enough? rather than a news website. We are directly hearing from Harris rather than a news website. Video also talk about her Indian background heavily. Fact she eats Indian food etc... I think this is strong reason to update the lead. ( Faq says Also of note is the difference between race and ethnicity. Race is grouping based on society's view. Ethnicity is grouping based on how people see themselves in common with others. Ms. Harris's race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount. ) Astropulse (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. Some countries (such as mine, Australia) don't give people ethnic labels at all. So it can't be that critical. (No racial labels here either.) We allow people to self declare their ancestry, ansd that's it. We have heaps of details on Harris' ancestry. No more is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ, and youtube is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As the other above have observed, since when did KH become a reliable source for her life or those of her ancestors? She's said, for instance, that her maternal grandfather was an anticolonialist freedom fighter in India. But the Indian relatives among whom he retired said that he worked very assiduously in the Imperial Secretariat Service, never raising an iota of doubt about his allegiance to the King-Emperor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is as follows: Per RSPYT, Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Given that this is Harris' official YouTube account, it appears to me to meet the level of ABOUTSELF applying. I am not convinced it passes all five criteria of ABOUTSELF, so it fails as a source there. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the only source i can find where she directly talking about her ethnicity. I think its RS because its her official channel. WP:RSPYT already states it has some level of reliability because its official channel. Because we are specifically talking about ethnicity - it is upto her. There is no other source i trust more that her own words. So yes, in this case, i think we can treat YouTube as reliable.

All other website - is probably based on their own perception or based on available facts Astropulse (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Border czar 4

Wikipedia states that the Vice President was and is not responsible for the southern border. Please refer to a press conference on March 21, 2021 - Joe Biden - where he assigned Kamala Harris the responsibility of immigration which included the Mexican border. You might want to include that transcript in the appropriate place to identify way conservatives think she was the “border czar.” Kimroot (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Kimroot, I've moved your suggestion over here (from Wikipedia talk:Citing sources). This is the primary page that we use for discussing changes to the article about Kamala Harris. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris' assignment was to focus on the root causes of illegal immigration, not to supervise the southern border. It would be inaccurate to describe that position as a czar for the southern border. TFD (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

got transcript? soibangla (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hallo, maybe this is helpful Lotje (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The source is https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/kamala-harris-border-czar/285-602d662c-c3f2-469e-b288-cd5795845480 172.92.122.122 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lotje Thank you. It refers to M as the Czar, I agree, but also dubs her a Czar and says she was in charge of the boarder? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

hey so 3 parts written about her...

first is: Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a biologist whose work on the progesterone receptor gene stimulated advances in breast cancer research.[16] Shyamala had moved to the United States from India as a 19-year-old graduate student in 1958.

the second is:Kamala Harris's father, Donald J. Harris,[20] is a Stanford University professor of economics (emeritus) who arrived in the United States from Jamaica in 1961,

the 3rd is: She is the United States' first female vice president, the highest-ranking female elected official in U.S. history, and the first African-American and first Asian-American vice president.[273][274] 

so she's not African- American if her mom is from India and her dad from Jamaica. 2001:569:777C:6300:9981:86BA:2A40:E897 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the FAQ and this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2024 (2)

Vice President harris was not voted for Presidential nomination by anyone in any State primary and has yet to be confirmed by Democratic convention. 173.170.39.163 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The consensus version

I don't know where I can add a message requesting an edit to Kamala's wiki page, but I would like one of the mods to add a hyperlink to the 2010 California Attorney General's election that is in the second paragraph: "Born in Oakland, California, Harris graduated from Howard University and the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. She began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, before being recruited to the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and later the City Attorney of San Francisco's office. In 2003, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco. She was elected Attorney General of California in 2010 and re-elected in 2014. Can you link 2010 to the 2010 Attorney General's election? Thanks, Rhein Amacher, Tue May 10th 8:01 PM PST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhein Amacher (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) The consensus version for describing KH's achievement is the first female vice president of the US, the first African-American, and the first Asian-American. I'm on vacation until mid-February 2021. Admins valereee, MelanieN, Drmies, Muboshgu please note and restore; otherwise, the "ethnic" sub-nationalists and trolls will have a field day. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur this is the consensus version and I have restored it. "First female" is the first sentence since it is the most reported and most historic. "First African-American and first Asian-American" is the second sentence. Terms like South Asian-American, Jamaican-American, and (per the one I just replaced) Caribbean-American and should not be added without a new discussion and a new consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The edits I made did not contradict the overall achievement of Harris being the "First African-American and first Asian-American" Vice President, it simply provided further accurate and separate cited detail regards her own personal family's ancestry. Though I can see the FAQ, I do Respectfully request that someone please guide me to where consensus was actually reached not to include this information. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, archives, linked at top of page. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I was unable to spot the RfC in the archives, I now have thanks (maybe a simple specific wiki-link RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead? to similar previous archived discussions would quickly deal unknowing editors like me in future :) Thanks anyway. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And Bodney, the additional information about her ancestry is included in the body of the article, just not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the lead reflects the article, but I do agree that not everything can or should be in the lead, especially when an article is likely to be extensive based on her own personal biography. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we tweak the FAQ? It says South Asian American throughout, which could be confusing. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should simply be "Asian American". I believe that is what the sources predominantly say. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

They say Asian-American specifically in reference to being vice president. In that position, she is not only the first South Asian, she is the first Asian. We say South Asian for other positions, such as senator where she was the first South Asian but not the first Asian. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If one goes far enough back, you will discover the consensus was South Asian-American. Then Sen. Harris was picked by VP Biden to be the VP nominee, and a large number of editors were attracted to this page. South Asian-American is how Sen. Harris identifies, and that is what should matter. Rklahn (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe we had consensus that the largest group should be used for the "firsts", so rather than first South Asian-American VP-elect, first Asian American was what we went with. For the senate, first South Asian-American. My question was only whether that needed to be further explained in the FAQs. Not that anyone reads them, but it's good to document what current consensus is. —valereee (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Im not sure such a consensus existed, but I am also not the Oracle of consensus. That begin said, yes, there is value in documenting what the current consensus is. I think it moves us closer to consensus having some of the attributes of Stare decisis. I think that this idea floating around Wikipedia that consensus can be achieved, and in the next moment ignored, counterproductive. Rklahn (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're getting at with that final sentence. —valereee (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please tweak the FAQ to reflect her new status. Yes, it should be the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American, in that order. In my view, Af-Ams takes precedence over As-Ams in the context of the US, not only because they go back further in this history of the US (indeed on average they precede even European Americans), but also because they have played a major role in the creation of the American ethos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

PS She is and will remain the second female African-American senator and the first South Asian American (senator) in US history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, can you clarify what you mean by new status? —valereee (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, The point Im getting at is that true consensus on Wikipedia is illusory. On this very page, on this very subject, I worked hard with a group of Editors to achieve a consensus, which we did. Out in the open and on these Talk pages. Less than a week later, that consensus was ignored. So, any move that gets us closer to consensus meaning something is welcome to me. Rklahn (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, diffs please? I'm still not following. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

By new status I meant from senator to VP-nominee (and VP-elect and eventually VP). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee I cant even find the consensus Im referring to in the Talk Archive. Im reasonably sure it happened before the Talk pages were archived at all, so maybe it got lost in the shuffle. I think at this point the best move for me is to drop the point, which is minor anyways, and to say that I support efforts to document the consensus, whatever it is. Rklahn (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

please read the FAQ above--RegentsPark (comment) 13:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

First African American is disingenuous (at the very least) to say she is African American. Her father was Jamaican...how is this a qualifier for African American inclusion? The last I checked Jamaica was in the Caribbean and not on the continent of Africa. My asking this question and pointing out the obvious probably makes me a racist and surely a half dozen other socially stigmatizing labels. Though an answer would be appreciated. Signed an unimportant IP address editor.2600:1700:7610:41E0:C5FD:ED64:EB06:3ADA (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC) How do you think the Afro-Jamaicans wound up in Jamaica? Magic? Volunteer Marek 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Read the FAQ at the top of the page. This has been answered countless times already. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Wow! what a friendly and courteous answer from a arrogant and aggressive editor. I asked a question and I get sarcasm. Though in your response you do agree with me and yourself call her Afro-Jamaican and not African-American...hmm...interesting...don't ya think? This is probably why this article and many others do not get improved and only sink deeper into the abyss. The second response was much friendlier and appreciated. Thank you. Though I still find it inaccurate and barring a family tree likely inaccurate to be described as it is. Wouldn't one of the terms Black Caribbean, Afro or Black West Indian or Afro or Black Antillean or Afro-Jamaican (as the first respondent used) to be more accurate in describing her ancestry seeing as no documentation or family tree is provided or cited within the article itself. I would think an encyclopedia should be as factual and reference filled before taking a large leap (of faith with assumption) such as this article has done. Thank you and have a blessed day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64D8:8847:54E7:E855 (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC) I am Australian and only drop in here occasionally. To answer the comments above, her father was Afro-Jamaican. As she is American, that makes her both Afro-American and Jamaican-American. In Australia, we have politicians who were child immigrants from Malaysia, but they are both Malaysian-Australian and Chinese-Australian. As with many people, if you look at enough generations, you find all sorts of interesting history. --Scott Davis Talk 10:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC) This is well covered ground. Countless editors have spent a long time discussing this, and 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64D8:8847:54E7:E855, you have brought nothing new to the conversation, and ask the same questions countless editors have asked. Please take the time to cover the discussions in the archives. And what the heck? Ill repeat this too. You are confusing race with ethnicity. Race is grouping based on society's view. Ethnicity is grouping based on how people see themselves in common with others. Ms. Harris race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount. She is African-American and South Asian-American. Rklahn (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

One issue that deserves a lot more attention in this article is her relationship with Willie Brown. While a 29-year-old deputy district attorney, Harris had an affair with then 60-year leader of the California legislature Willie Brown. While they were dating, Brown appointed Harris to two paid commission posts, and effectively jump-started her political career. As she would likely never have had a political career otherwise, an item of this significance should be prominently mentioned, perhaps in the lede. Certainly it deserves more than part of a sentence buried deep within the article. Vinny Gambino (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed the Willie Brown connection many times, and seemed to reach a consensus that presents the facts in a balanced encyclopedic way with an appropriate amount of weight. That being said, if you have a proposed edit, let's talk about it. Rklahn (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I also have a few of questions regarding Harris' past employment history, specifically her being hired as Alameda county Deputy DA in 1990 (she was 26-years-old). Two of the requirements for that job is almost always to have clerked for a judge and have experience as an attorney in private practice or as a Deputy DA. Harris had neither. In fact, she never had a job until she was given her Deputy DA job. It should be noted in the article, in my opinion, that she had a resume that should have precluded her from getting that job. She claims to have gotten "involved" with Willie Brown in 1994. Well, the lack of a worthy or notable resume seems to indicate someone - someone of considerable influence - pulled strings to get her that Deputy DA job in 1990. Willie Brown was certainly someone who at that time, being Speaker of the CA Assembly, could have arranged her employment as a Deputy DA in Alameda county. Alameda county was in his district at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:6201:a79b:2913:a3bc:f1d3:c561 (talk)

Your opinion of the matter has no bearing whatsoever on a Wikipedia article. If you have an actual suggestion of an addition to an article, then by all means produce one, sourced to a reliable source. Zaathras (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the requirements are that high. See for example Indeed's list of open positions.[6] IIRC, there was little interest among graduates to work for the county DA. In any case, you would need a source that said their was something exceptional about this. Otherwise, it's just a case of a law grad getting an entry level job that paid below average. TFD (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, Valereee, MelanieN, and Drmies: (admins mentioned above) - Is this pin still necessary? Can't it just be archived and linked from the FAQ if it's still current? This talk page is getting awfully long. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, thanks--I learned what a "pin" is! I have no problem with you removing it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem with removing pin, although if it comes up again and again we may need an FAQ. Valereee (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

There is a typo under "Early life and career".

"Harris's office ultiamtely prosecuted seven parents in three years, with none jailed" Nextrava (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024 (2)

"Kamala is jamaican american and indian NOT african american this is creating a false narritive of her ethniticity" jamaicans are NOT africans" 2600:1011:B150:A4A4:406:ED3E:6139:16E3 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: She is described as African-American by reliable sources, this term is generally understood to include anyone of African descent (including Jamaicans and other Afro-Caribbean). Jamedeus (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"贺锦丽" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 贺锦丽 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31 § 贺锦丽 until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"He Jinli" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect He Jinli has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31 § He Jinli until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"賀錦麗" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 賀錦麗 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31 § 賀錦麗 until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Her mom is Tamil from TamilNadu

I don't see the point of deleting this information, it's necessary because it's part of her history (Kamala Harris went to Tamilnadu every year when she was younger). Please put the state where her mom is from, which is TamilNadu and her ethnicity which is Tamil back again. 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not the biography of Shyamala Gopalan but rather of her daughter. Anyone who wants details of Shyamala Gopalan's birthplace and ethnicity can go to her biography. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Her mother's ethnic group is also Kamala Harris' ethnic group. It's part of her, especially as she's already said words in Tamil on several occasions during her speeches. She has also mentioned many times that she comes from South India, which has a different culture to North India. It is necessary to add at least the state from which her mother comes or her ethnicity, which also refers directly to Kamala Harris. To simply put that her mother comes from India without any further détails is not a complete Biography.

Please read the link below :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/20/chittis-kamala-harris-dnc-tamil/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/my-chitthis-significance-sen-kamala-harris-speaking-tamil-national-stage-n1237562

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9037j47pyzo 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Her mother's ethnic group is also Kamala Harris' ethnic group. It's part of her, especially as she's already said words in Tamil on several occasions during her speeches. She has also mentioned many times that she comes from South India, which has a different culture to North India. It is necessary to add at least the state from which her mother comes or her ethnicity, which also refers directly to Kamala Harris. 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

There are two ISBNs on this page in section Publications with incorrect hyphenation, according to Bowker and ISBN International. 978-1-984837-49-3 -> 978-1-9848-3749-3 and 978-1-984886-22-4 -> 978-1-9848-8622-4.

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

  −

  978-1-984837-49-3

  +

  978-1-9848-3749-3

  −

  978-1-984886-22-4

  +

  978-1-9848-8622-4

• Why it should be changed: ISBN hyphenation rules (which indicate the publisher, showing that the two books were published by the same agency) are controlled, and we should follow them.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Cam1170 (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done See this diff. Thank you for your request, and happy editing! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 21:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Missing DA section?

Right now I'm seeing her early career and then her time as AG. No section for her time as SF DA. Would be very helpful! 136.62.205.81 (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was moved to Early life and career of Kamala Harris, and then there was a bungled revert. This should be resolved soon. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

Change ethnicity from African to Jamaican, per her father's description 140.177.141.89 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the message at the top of this page for further explanation. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Change "African American" to "Black"

Most notably, the WhiteHouse.gov source used in the lead to describe her race/ethnicities uses Black, not African American. Per WP:V, we should be matching that language.

Here is a review of other sources using Google searches of Kamala Harris "first X" where X is either black or african:

Black:

• BBC - "first woman as well as the first black and Asian-American to serve as vice-president"
• AP News - "Harris is the first woman, Black person and person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president."
• Pew Research - "She became the first female vice president, as well as the first Black person and first Asian American to hold that office."
• ABC News - "become the first Black woman and the first person of South Asian descent to head a major party's presidential ticket after President Joe Biden’s ended his reelection bid"
• New York Times
• NPR - "after all, she's Black and Asian and South Asian and Indian American."
• NPR again - "in addition to being the first Black or Asian American person in the position."
• CNN - "Harris is the first woman to become vice president, as well as the first Black or Asian American person to hold the office."
• CNN again
• NBC News - "nation's first female vice president, as well as the first Black American and first person of South Asian descent."
• Reuters - "The attacks on Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black and South Asian person to serve as U.S. vice president, have intensified in the days since she consolidated support to become Democrats' likely presidential nominee."

African American:

• CBS News
• CA.gov
• USA Today

Both:

• Politifact
• ABC News

In sum, it appears that Black is more widely used by national news outlets and RS when referring specifically about Kamala Harris. I propose we change the language in the article and the FAQ accordingly. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Read what I wrote. The FAQ is wrong. The ending "Ms. Harris's race is unimportant. Her ethnicity is paramount." is beyond ignorant and easily refutable with RS. We are in violation of our own policies as it stands. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

MAny of those sources also say "Asian-American", should we call her that instead, or as well? Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Yes, if that's what the preponderance of sources use. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

So do they, your the one who checked? Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I would support a change to "Black". Incidentally, I would prefer we use the capitalized "Black", in accordance with most American style guides, and most available sources on Harris. Current usage in the article is mixed. I would also support removing the part of the FAQ that EvergreenFir quoted. It's not true at all that Harris's race is unimportant. The US Census treats "Black" and "African-American" as synonymous race labels, and a lot of American scholarship does the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, let's try changing the text and FAQ and hopefully that'll stop the otherwise never-ending edit requests. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I capitalized "Black". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

White house website says "Black American" - not Black as per your proposal. Black American or African american is fine. But big NO to just Black Astropulse (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Black American" is fine with me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The sentence prior says she's American and, as VP, she has to be. It's redundant to say. And all the other sources I listed just say Black. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Capitalized Black works. She's obviously American. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

she's not even "Black", so stop twisting the truth. She's of Asian and Jamaican decent. BubD (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Jamaican is not a race, there are black Jamaicans. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As per wiktionary:African-American: A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent. Harris is of black African descent & is American. Hence she is both African-American & black. Peaceray (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• I do not at all and will probably never support capitalizing "black". But that's a gud grammer argument. GMG^talk 17:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• May I suggest, with respect but very emphatically, that we not go back to Black as the main descriptor of Kamala Harris's ethnicity. We came to a consensus four years ago (after a long debate) that the best, the most expansive and inclusive description was: first African-American and Asian-American VP. Someone had narrowed Asian American to South Asian American, which I'm glad to see @Firefangledfeathers: has reverted.

"Black" can be used occasionally or informally just as Native Americans use "Indian" informally among familiar Native American audiences, but not in a prominent place such as the lead. There are many reasons to prefer African-American and Asian-American. One is that they are increasingly the scientific and social scientific terms, i.e. the scholarly terms (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for its preeminence as RS). "Black," in contrast, appears more in autoethnography, and is more qualitative. Another is that Africa, Asia, and the Americas are continents, and thus the terminology is not only consistent, i.e. references large land areas, which first Black and first South Asian American would not, but also most inclusive as land areas. A third, which appears in the third paragraph of the Early Years section is that a critical support group of friends of KH's mother who were pioneers in the the field of African American studies, in fact gave that field of study its name, were her surrogate mothers, most influential in the formation of her life's arc and her sense of self. In other words, "African-American" was critical, and formative, for her, not just a name. As for Black American, a big problem is that the page redirects to African Americans. We will have to ask on the African Americans page why citing Whitehouse(dot)gov will grant us an exemption from that redirect. As for Asian-American, see the very recent article in the NY Times, The Lesser-Known Side of Harris’s Identity: Asian American.

Pinging @MelanieN and Valereee: I don't think we should make any changes to a consensus we arrived at after much discussion four years ago. I request that the FAQ also be changed back to reflect that consensus. I'm happy to discuss this more, but I don't see any compelling reasons offered above for a change of descriptors. Flip-flopping at this late stage of high viewership is not good for the reliability of a tertiary source. Finally, although Black Americans themselves use Black all the time, on formal occasions and first mentions (which a lead is) they prefer, and are most proud, of African American. There is a good reason that the term (along with Native American for Indian) were invented in the wake of civil rights movements. Black or Indian (for native Americans) had been around for ages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler respectfully, it seems things have changed since 4 years ago. Recent RS do not use "African American" solely, and even the .gov site uses Black now. As for the FAQ, I am vehemently opposed to that nonsense about race being unimportant that was unilaterally added by an editor. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The consensus emerged in late summer 2020 when she was nominated for VP, not in December. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I've written above carefully. Whitehouse(dot)gov is not a reliable secondary source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the consensus changing from four years ago, I will soon produce here a list of sources published the scholarly publishers (such as university presses, Wiley, Academic, Blackwell, ...) after 2021 which use "first African American" for Kamala Harris. Please note WP:SOURCETYPES, a part of WP Policy, which states: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You have to note that MOS:IDENTITY applies for this specifically and language evolves. So given that Vice President Harris works in the White House, even though it is a primary source, given that she has direct oversight of it, it may be her latest self-identification per our MOS, which is also specifically called out to be preferred If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. And it appears as shown above by @EvergreenFir that many other recent secondary sources use the same wording. The MOS guideline also calls out to Use specific terminology. For example, it is often more appropriate for people or things from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African. Raladic (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah. Whitehouse(dot)gov is not a reliable source. It is a form of autoethnography as reworded by a website manager. You are welcome to propose at WP:RS/N that it trumps WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The scholarly sources, the post-2021 use "African American," as I will soon demonstrate below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That's quite a leap to say that whitehouse.gov is not acceptable for self-descriptors. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Self description, yes, but we can't write in the lead, "She is the first female and the first—in her description, Black American—vice-president ..." Like I said above, "Ask at RS/N if self description trumps peer-reviewed scholarly sources which according to Wikipedia policy are the most reliable. I'm in the middle of some chores, but I will soon make a list of the latter below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why can't we write, ""She is the first female and the first Black/South Asian vice-president ..."? YoPienso (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I actually like the way she and/or her helper(s) have it in her official government autobiography: "the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American" YoPienso (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Because on her own websites of all her previously held offices as US Senator, Attorney General of California, and District Attorney of San Francisco, she self-identified as African-American.
• Because a Wikipedia-wide RfC of 2020 overwhelmingly supported African American. To override it, you would need to have another RfC, by WP rules.
• Because Black American redirects to African Americans
• Because if she becomes president, she will be the second African-American to hold that office. (Barack Obama's lead identifies him as the first African American.
• Because the WP List of African-American United States senators and the United States Senate's List of African American Senators lists her has the second female African American senator after Carol Moseley Braun, whose lead also describes her as African American.
• Because a large number of scholarly books published after 2021 identify her as African American (See my collapsed list in this section)
• In other words, there are already all sorts of precedents in Wikipedia and elsewhere that we would need to override if we change the lead's phrasing (i.e. African American)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That was a reply to you @Yopienso: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Several times you have mentioned a 2020 RfC. Do you mean this RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead That RfC did not give Black as an option, only African-American, and many of the respondents who responded Yes also said Black would be good. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

You seem to be stuck in the past.

• Both her official White House biography and her Harris for President website call her Black, with no mention of African-anything. Both site call her "the first woman, first Black American, and first South Asian American..." (The campaign website inserts the article the 2 more times.)
• I don't know what her Senate bio said when she was in the Senate, but now her congressional bio makes no mention or race or ethnicity.
• Her attorney general bio does call her "the first African American woman and South Asian American woman." It also says she attended a HBCU, and identifies her mother as Tamilian. Harris was in that office from 2011-17, so the wording is at least 7 yrs. old.
• I can't find her district attorney bio.
• Regarding the 2020 RfC, O3000, Ret. points out many editors would have been happy to go with Black, even then.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Consensus can change. YoPienso (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Summoned by ping. IMO we go with how she self-identifies -- which is what I'd argue for anyone whose self-identification isn't being questioned in RS like Rachel Dolezal -- and the best source for how she identifies is a self-source/affiliated source. Whitehouse.gov says "the first Black American, and the first South Asian American to be elected to this position". IMO that's what we go with. Valereee (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Since when did self-identification become a matter of WP:RS? Of course, her self-identification is not consonant with the RS, if reliable scholarly sources published after 2021 describe her as African American. (Added later, here are books published after 2021 by scholarly publishers:

Fowler&fowler's Scholarly Textbooks that use African-American for Kamala Harris

• Please do not edit this section

Books published after 2021 by scholarly publishers using "African American" as a descriptor for Kamala Harris's ethnicity

" Kamala Harris became the first African American vice president of the United States ...", Statistical Thinking: Analyzing Data in an Uncertain World, Princeton University Press, 2023, p. 78. "Kamala Harris his running mate, thus giving her the opportunity to become the first African American vice president in American history." , Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, Oxford University Press, 2022, p. 286. " Kamala Harris the first woman, the first African American, ... to serve as vice president." Winds of Hope, Storms of Discord: The United States since 1945, Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 486 "Vice President Kamala Harris's ascension as the country's first woman (and African American) to assume the number two position in the White House." Race and National Security, Oxford University Press, p. "Celebrating America's arrival as a desirable "post-racial" ideal has been somewhat reinvigorated by America's first African Asian vice president, Kamala Harris." Discounting Life: Necropolitical Law, Culture, and the Long War on Terror], Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 118. "Senator Cory Booker and Senator Kamala Harris are African American", The Point of No Return: American Democracy at the Crossroads, Princeton University Press, 2023, p. 202. "Right-wing critics ready to pounce on all things Harris—the first vice presidential candidate with African American lineage—were quick to contradict and condemn her ...", Trash Talk: Anti-Obama Lore and Race in the Twenty-first Century, University of California Press, p. 129 African-American women are unrelentingly conceptualized as the embodied salvation of national political parties, most predominantly in Joe Biden's selection of Kamala Harris as his vice president ...," The Divided States: Unraveling National Identities in the Twenty-First Century , University of Wisconsin Press, 2023, p. 44. "In 2020, Biden was elected president, and Harris became the first woman, and the first woman of 'African and South Asian descent, to be elected vice president of the United States." Making the World a Better Place: African American Women Advocates, Activists, and Leaders, 1773-1900, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2023. "This chapter explores the stony road African American women have walked, from ... to the ascendancy of Kamala Harris, the first African American woman Vice President." (Identity Politics in US National Elections, Springer, 2023. "Kamala Harris, as the highest-ranking woman official in US history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president of the United States," Barbara Jordan and the Politics of Scripture, Georgetown University Press, 2022. "In the person of Kamala Harris, the first woman, the first Asian-American and first African American Vice president was elected—a historic breakthrough ...", The Battle for the White House: The US Presidential Election 2020 under the impression of Polarization, Coronavirus Pandemic and Social Tensions, Springer, 2022, p. 156. "It is also historic because Kamala Harris became the first woman vice-president and the first African-American and Asian-American vice-president." Politics of Racism Beyond Nations: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Crises, Springer, p. 235. "the first African American and South Asian woman vice president Kamala Harris. ", Religious Rhetoric in US Right-Wing Politics: Donald Trump, Intergroup Threat, and Nationalism, Springer Nature, 2022, p. 14. "Although Ms Harris was received with excitement and enthusiasm by many as the first woman, the first African American, and the first Asian to be nominated for and elected to this high office ...," Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace, SAGE, 2022, p. 158. "Kamala Harris as his running mate, he positioned her to serve as the not only the first woman but also the first African American, and Asian American vice president in American history," Mass Media and American Politics, CQ Press, the historic collection of workings of the US Congress., 2022, p. 343.

Fowler&fowler's Excerpts from VP Kamala Harris's Remarks on her Trip to Ghana

See the full conversation about her Africa trip here.

Moderated Discussion at the National Museum of African American History, Washington DC

MR. YOUNG: ... I really want to ask you a bit about the Ghana portion of the trip. We’re in this museum of history and remembrance, a place from the beginning that was committed to the unvarnished truth. And I know you visited Cape Coast Castle in Ghana. And you said some powerful words, which are not only about pain but survival. I was watching it today, and it said, quote, “History must be learned, and we must then be guided by what we know also to be the history of those who survived in the Americas and in the Caribbean.” Can you tell us about your experience at the “Door of No Return” and what that meant to you? THE VICE PRESIDENT: You know, in many ways, I’m still processing it. It’s one thing to read about it and learn history as most of us have since the day we were born, and then to be at that site, which is one, sadly, of many such sites. And, you know, the — the tour guide — I don’t want to call him a tour guide; he was a historian — taking us through the various dungeons — right? — the section for men, the section for women, the section for the troublemakers, where pregnant women were kept because they had been raped. The details of the fact that women were being raped by their captors and then the baby taken away on the day she gave birth so she could be sold — the mother. And then if the baby lived, would be put to work in that very place. It’s — it’s like — this monument to all that we are discussing today. There is something about being in a physical space that if you have learned about what it represents, you feel what it represents. And that’s how it felt. It was — it’s a place of horror. It’s a place of horror. Because let’s remember, first of all, people were kidnapped from their homes and taken for miles, hundreds of miles, to this place. They didn’t know where they were headed. Untold numbers died on that voyage, then to be put in dungeons, where there’s a hole toward the ceiling where the light could come, but also depending on whether it was — there was a pathway behind it is where the guards would watch. And from time to time, they might give water. And the water was so — there was — it was so little that he described about how these people who had been kidnapped — these victims of a horrible crime — would try to survive, including drinking the water off of somebody else’s hair. And you — you see this place, and it’s — it’s — it’s horrendous. It’s horrendous. And so, after — you know, we had press with us on the trip. And after they had — they — I spoke to the press, and I had some prepared comments. And I looked down at the prepared comments and I was like, “No, I’m not doing that.” And I just said what I felt. (Applause.) And — and it was about — yes. Right? In the midst of so-called leaders who are trying to erase history in our country — (applause) — what we must all do to stand up and speak out about this as loud as we can. It’s not just about “forget”; they’re trying to erase history. Let’s understand what this means. And there are historical precedents for this kind of approach and what it means and what could come next. So there was that piece of it, in terms of my comments that day. There was also the piece of it that — that I spoke of that was about: We are not going to be defeated. And we weren’t defeated. And out of that incredible pain and those crimes, the survivors and the descendants, carrying traditions and culture and faith and a memory of family, endured generation after generation. And in this country included the freedom fighters who fought for civil rights. And all of those who benefited across the board, whether their ancestors were at that slave — I don’t even like calling it a castle, by the way. MR. YOUNG: Right. THE VICE PRESIDENT: And what we should do then to also celebrate the strength of our people to come through that and go on to be astronauts. I just spoke yesterday with Astronaut Glover. Do you guys know who he is? (Laughs.) (Applause.) He’s about to go on the Artemis II mission to circle the Moon. I just talked to him yesterday. Right? And so, the scientists and the astronauts and the mathematicians and all of the people — MS. NABONGO: And the Vice President. THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and the Vice President of the United States. (Laughs.) (Applause.) Right.

Discussion continued

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It always has been for the purpose of MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:GENDERID - we trust the person itself first as other secondary RS can lag behind, which is why we allow primary sources if they are WP:ABOUTSELF. Raladic (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes!!! YoPienso (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not genderID. We don't describe right wing nuts who self-identify as Aryan to be Aryan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I linked two separate MOS guidelines, both of which refer to use self identification - in this particular case MOS:IDENTITY is the applicable one. Raladic (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I don't think that argument works. Right wing nuts may not be Aryan and it may not be relevant. She is Black. That is relevant. RS editorial guidelines differ and it's probably something requiring difficult internal debate. In a case like this, I think self-identification trumps. Let her identify herself as she wished so long as it is accurate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000: In that case, since you guys are the ones looking for a change in the longstanding language of the lead based on the overwhelming consensus of an RfC (see its link I have posted above or below), post at WP:RS/N and see if self-identification has traction there, especially when KH's self-identification is variable. She uses "Black" in part because it is more familiar language to "African-American"'s more formal, not necessarily because she thinks one is more accurate than the other. If and when you do post at RS/N, please let me know. But an RfC consensus is not easy to overturn with an informal discussion such as this or even at RS/N. If you have the heart for it, please start another RfC and see where it goes, i.e. its consensus is more definitive than the previous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

She uses "Black" in part.... Please don't assume others' motivations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

But it is still a variable self identification.

• When she began her major public career as SF's District Attolrney, she was described as "African American." (See here) Here it is the host calling her that, but I remember her own website when it did exist and she called herself African-American.
• At her CA AG website, she was " first African American woman and South Asian American woman in California to hold the office."see the website
• When she became a Senator, she was still "African-American" on her website. The website no longer exists, but you can view numerous references to it in the RFC of four years ago, whose link I have posted here.
• At the VP website, she is "Black American."

So, if we are going to be obsessively self-identifying, what do we say, "She is the first Black American VP, the 2nd African American female Senator, the first African American attorney-general of CA, and before that the first African-American District Attorney of SF?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

But @Valereee: All her previous website—US Senator, California AG, San Francisco DA—said first/second African American as I've pointed out above and was noted in the RfC of four years ago in which you supported "African American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Very difficult question. Three points: (1) African American and Black (or Black American) aren't interchangeable, so it's entirely possible that it makes the most sense to include both in some way. (2) Whether a Jamaican American identifies as African American is very much that -- a matter of identification. While we should consider what secondary sources say, what Harris herself has said matters. (3) The bit at the end of the FAQ was a controversial claim that was out of place in an answer to a frequently asked question and does not clearly come out of the discussions which led to the FAQ. I've made a bold copyedit of the FAQ, including removing that line. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that African American and Black American are both used. As I've written above, Black American redirects to African Americans. We can and do use "Black" later in the article.

There is another issue we need to think about. If she does become president, what will we write? It will have to be: She is the first female president, the second African American president and the first Asian American president in US History." We can't really use "Black American," as the Barack Obama page says, (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. As a member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, we don't have to word it that way. How the Obama article is written isn't relevant to this article. How about this for another possibility: including both. We should definitely include both in the body of the article, and possible even in a dedicated section for "historical firsts" that goes into all of these details (there are so many sources talking about firsts that there's a good WP:DUE argument for it). Then the question is just the lead. I'm not opposed to including both, but if it really comes down to it, and if we can't find quotes for self-identification, I suppose we could do some searches for ("first black *" OR "second black *") vs. ("first african *" OR "second african *") and see which gets more hits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We already mention both in the lead. In the second paragraph, we say, Harris served as the junior U.S. senator from California from 2017 to 2021; she defeated Loretta Sanchez in the 2016 Senate election to become the second Black woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the U.S. Senate, and thus give the reader a flavor of her different descriptions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• (ec)I suggest we stick with African American. Black is a term that refers to the race of a person while African American refers to their ethnicity. Race is a fraught subject (and is often uncertain anyway) while ethnicity is often easier to source and is a better marker of identity (and also happens to be Harris' chosen identity marker). And, of course, Fowler&fowler makes a cogent point in their comparison with the way we refer to Barack Obama.--RegentsPark (comment) 19:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the progress made here, particularly changing the illogical statement in the FAQ. There's one more to change: When Wikipedia describes Harris as the "first" to do something, we default to the larger category. Therefore, while she is the first Tamil-, Indian-, and South Asian-American to be elected Vice President of the US, we describe her, as reliable sources do, as the first Asian American.

  That makes no sense. Default to the larger category? So just call her a woman with no descriptors? No, you'd have to call her a human. No, that won't work either. Mammal? Animal? Earthling? Sentient being?? YoPienso (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest going with "Black," which is what she calls herself and is accurate. "African American" is accurate, too, but misleading, since many readers will think of a descendant of an enslaved American. Maybe everyone should take a moment to scroll through Black people.

  Also, watching the endless discussions, it seems some editors don't keep in mind that Harris is of MIXED HERITAGE. We can't focus on just one of her lines of descent. YoPienso (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  George Washington too had many descriptors, but we choose the most inclusive, i.e. human, which, as the American presidency is thus far limited to humans, is a tautology and left unsaid, " (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was an American Founding Father, military officer, and politician who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm guessing you mean racial/ethnic/gender descriptors? Or, it could be systemic racism and genderism--by default, Washington was a white male. I honestly don't know what you were trying to communicate to me. I do NOT think we should use the "most inclusive" racial/ethnic/gender descriptors for Harris, or we erase her as a unique human being. YoPienso (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Yopienso: Of course I meant ethnic descriptors. The language of the lead is the result of the overwhelming consensus in a long standing Wikipedia-wide RfC. View its link below. If you'd like to change it, please start another. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can you please name some half dozen of the "many [ethnic] descriptors" Washington had? YoPienso (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark "Race is a fraught subject"... so? Obama was Black and his race was the most salient identity for him and for the American public, not his ethnicity per se. He said on The View, if memory serves, that he "Black enough to not catch a cab in New York". His Kenyan ethnicity didn't matter as much as his race did. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir: What I mean is that it determining a person's race is not easy, and this is particularly true for Harris. Most people are multi-racial as DNA tests usually end up showing. Ethnicity, since it is not a physical characteristic and is often self identified, is a lot easier. To be African American, for example, merely requires having a black ancestor since around 1600 (Medievial times, otherwise all Americans would be African Americans) regardless of whether there are other types of ancestry in the tree. That, coupled with self-identification as African American is all that is necessary.RegentsPark (comment) 14:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler I just remembered that we had a Wikipedia-wide RfC on the descriptor "African American," in September 2020, and by an overwhelming majority editors voted in its support. It was closed by user:MelanieN. Talk:Kamala_Harris/Archive_4#RfC:_Should_Kamala_Harris_be_described_as_'African_American'_in_the_lead? if people want to disregard the consensus of the RfC, they will need to have another RfC to change the erminology. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Black person here… “African-American” is the politically correct phrase but not always correct. In this case, she is Black, not African-American. Jamaicans are black unless they are some like Sean Paul. Maybe if her father’s family had immigrated here generations ago, African-American could apply (like I said, to be politically correct) but that’s not the case here. Trillfendi (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Black Jamaicans are black because their ancestors came from Africa. Surely that means they can become African-American if they move to the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 not to all of them. I knew a Black Jamaica woman in undergrad. I called her African American once and she quickly corrected me saying "I'm Black and Caribbean American". Her family may have had Indigenous ancestry, for example. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Was she also American? HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Trillfendi: As KH's mother had perceptively pointed out to her and her sister, society would see her as Black (and she meant not just American society, but also Indian, which had been and still is in 2024 straitjacketed in arranged-marriages within caste.) The milieu whose values Kamala Harris primarily imbibed in order to have pride in her life's arc, as this article has long taken pains to point out, is that of African-American Berkeley and Oakland: Although the two Harris sisters spent summers with their father in Palo Alto and now and then traveled to Jamaica with him, their "experience and relationship with blackness," according to Maya Harris's daughter, Meena Harris, " is through being raised in these communities in Berkeley and Oakland, and not through the lens of being Caribbean."

  As for this Oakland and Berkeley community and why we use African-American, please see the third paragraph of the Early life and education section.

  Just as her Jamaican identity is secondary to her African-American, so is her Indian, if for no reason than no Hindu Indians in the mid-1960s would have touched a divorced Hindu woman previously married to a Black man, any Black man, with two girls in tow (heavens forbid in India's obsessively patrilineal and caste-ridden culture)—with a ten foot pole. Sure they are thrilled today as KH is soaring, but even today how many Hindu men will marry a 20-something ordinary Hindu woman previously married to a Black man and with two girls from that marriage? How many Hindu families will even associate? It is a sad reality, that K. H.'s mother had shrewdly observed, but communicated in more positive and self-building ways to her children. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  African-American implies that her family is from Africa when her maternal family is from India & her paternal family is from Jamaica. Trying to pass her as Asian-African American is just a ploy to make her look like someone she is not. 2600:1700:344C:3600:E02E:CED9:398A:5511 (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  As per wiktionary:African-American: A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent. Harris is of black African descent & is American. Hence she is both African-American & black. Peaceray (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Fowler&fowler mentioned scholarly sources using African American and presented examples, but failed to show if Black is used as well. Unsurprisingly, it is. Here are some examples:

Locke, T., & Joseph, R. L. (2021). All intersectionality is not the same: Why Kamala Harris is our vice president and not Stacey Abrams. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 107(4), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2021.1983197

Clayton, K., Crabtree, C., & Horiuchi, Y. (2023). Do Identity Frames Impact Support for Multiracial Candidates? The Case of Kamala Harris. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.33

Filindra, Alexandra, and E. J. Fagan. 2022. “ Black, Immigrant, or Woman? The Implicit Influence of Kamala Harris' Vice Presidential Nomination on Support for Biden in 2020.” Social Science Quarterly. 103: 892–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13162

Ma, D.S., Hohl, D. & Kantner, J. The politics of identity: The unexpected role of political orientation on racial categorizations of Kamala Harris. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2021; 21: 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12257

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The sole criterion should be how rs describe her. All of the terms are problematic, so arguing about which is correct is fruitless. They say first African American and first Indian-American. TFD (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Not journal articles but books published by university presses that are vetted for due weight. Journal articles are a dime a dozen. See the role of textbooks in determining due weight in WP:TERTIARY Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also (as one of the sources (also) says "On her official website, she asserts that she is “the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history.”", so she idetiofices as African-American, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: On her previous US Senate website, her California AG website, and her San Francisco DG website, she was "first/second African American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

She gets to decide how she identifies, not us and not the media. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Eeeh. This isn't an absolute principle (and an example about why "race" is stupid at a base level). But like... I can't identify as white. It's not gon work. Trust me. There's some wiggle room probably for people like me and a large number of others who have a diverse ancestry, but I can't just up and decide to identify as Japanese.

This is Wikipedia. We follow the sources. We are a servant to the sources first and foremost. GMG^talk 11:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

And no RS has said she is not African-American, they just have not said exactly that. We do (however) have sources (explicitly) calling her African American, and none contesting it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, sure. I'm just contesting what seems to be an assertion that self identification trumps the description in sources. GMG^talk 14:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

just like her Wikipedia page has recently been edited with black adjective in front of about everything so just because her recently edited page of some website says it doesn't make it so 2603:9001:1702:D00D:4D1B:7E37:4611:840F (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, if this needs an RFC lets have one. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: An RfC is a complicated thing. It has to be framed without bias. It has to be advertised at a large number of Wiki Projects, and the previous consensus, which was closed by an admin MelanieN was overwhelming for "African American." Complicating this further is KH's own self identification in her previously held offices (US Senator, California Attorney General, San Francisco District Attorney) was "African American." So what happened that in four years that her ethnicity has changed? I recommend not going for an RfC. The way I see it is this: some new editors have appeared on this page very likely because of the new buzz around KH, but they are not aware of the precedents that already exist on Wikipedia and elsewhere for KH as "African American." Let us just patiently answer the questions. The high level of interest will die down soon enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

RfCs are not that complicated and neutral phrasing and "advertisement" are trivial. As has been mentioned, this section should have been tagged an RfC in the first place. And I responded to your many comments about a previous RfC. There was no option for "Black" and many respondents said Black is OK anyhow. If this is the RfC you are talking about; I think all your refs to it should be stricken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because there was a previous RfC discussion on it four years ago, doesn't mean that we have to form a suicide pact around it and never change. Any topic is subject to discussion and language and the WP:CONSENSUS can shift over time.

Also, as others have already pointed out, the previous RfC centered on the topic of whether to include her race/ethnicity at all, it didn't explicitly list Black as an option.

So yes, maybe it is time for a new RfC to determine if the consensus has shifted, in particular based on her apparent shift in self-identification, which we do take into account per our WP:IDENTITY policy. Raladic (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:IDENTITY says, "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses."
• But WP:SOURCETYPES says: *Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
• WP:TERTIARY says, Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
• That is why I made a list of text-books and monographs published by Oxford, Princeton, Cambridge, University of California, Springer, SAGE, ... which use "African-American" (See collapsed list here.)
• Even if you make the claim that the tertiary sources are not unanimous, the question of her own identity is fraught, as in all her previously held offices, she self identified as "African-American." (See for example: Kamala D. Harris, 32nd Attorney General, which is much more detailed personal biography than the
• If her blurb on the White House website, which is chock full of superlatives (e.g. "Both of the Vice President’s parents were active in the civil rights movement." view here) is a personal self-identification then so it her entry in the timeline of the US Senate, whose President she is. It states, "2021, January 20 Kamala Harris of Los Angeles became the first woman and the first African American and Asian American to serve as vice president of the United States and president of the U.S. Senate" (scroll all the way to the right here)

In other words, neither in the scholarly sources, nor in the websites of all her previously held appointments which can be considered to be a form of self-identification, is there any preponderance for the label "Black," or "Black American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• RfC created at the bottom. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Whatever happened to the useful and apt term "multiracial"? Acroterion (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, the kind of "she's not X, she's really Y" has become some kind of talking point now for opposing candidates and surrogates, echoing the perennial arguments we keep seeing here and muddying what may appear in RS. We have handled this demand for racial classification poorly since 2008, and it's not confined just to Harris or Obama, it's just amplified. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Removal of "the DREAM Act" and "advocacy for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants" from the lead

An editor recently removed this part from the lead. Despite it being on the article for years. Why exactly was this removed? KlayCax (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

When is enough enough. 100.8.153.58 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. These sections should be added back in. Or is Wikipedia politically biased? 35.134.166.234 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not African America

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Her mother is Indian, her father is Jamican. She is not African-American as India is not part of Africa nor is Jamica! 72.255.169.73 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ near the top of the page. Americans from the West Indies (including Jamaica) can identify as African-American. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The FAQ is malformed. 202.89.148.53 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Noting these definitions from Wiktionary:

African-American

1. A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent.

Indian-American

1. An American with South Asian ancestry or extraction.

See also WP:COMMONTERM, African Americans, & Indian Americans. If you still have questions about this, perhaps read the WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue essay. Peaceray (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The last I checked, 90% of Jamaicans are of African descent. Indeed, the article states Kamala Harris's Jamaican American father, Donald J. Harris, is of Afro-Jamaican ancestry. Peaceray (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't this mean, then, that she is Afro-Jamaican not African-American? I'm not expecting the article to change out the latter for the former, and black is still black, but I have always wondered why media refers to her as African-American when she is Afro-Jamaican. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No, as she was born in America, thus she is American. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course she's American, that's not the point. American isn't pertinent to her racial and ethnic origins, as we understand racial and ethnic origins as well as heritage. At least that's what I've always learned and have been taught for more than 60 years. Has there been a change in how a racial or ethnic identity is assigned per heritage? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Jamaica is neither a race nor a continent. But if we accept it as such (do RS?) then she would not be Afro-Jamaican, she would be Jamaco-American (which as far as I know is not a thing). Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Her father is referenced in media repeatedly as Afro-Jamaican. Harris herself has referred to her father as Afro-Jamaican. Which leads me to believe she would not only reject your identity nomenclature ("Jamaco-American"), but would be insulted by it. I know that to me, it has an insulting and dismissive ring to it. You might want to strike it. In the meantime, here's a good article on Jamaican culture, ethnicity, heritage.[7] A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

its an encyclopedia about facts not imagination, just because someone identifies as a chicken doesn't make them a chicken. 101.119.170.241 (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If RS accepts it, we do. Unless other RS (directly) contest the claim, do you have any? Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact is that she was born in America and has African ancestry. After the arrival of Christopher Columbus in Jamaica in 1494, many of the indigenous people either were killed or died of diseases, after which the Spanish brought large numbers of Africans to Jamaica as slaves. That also makes her Black. It does not make her a chicken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, we all have African ancestry somewhere along the line. So can everyone in America be called African-American? 35.134.166.234 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

She may well be "American", but NOTHING in her lineage is "African-American". Unless the term "American" is now going to be expanded to apply to AMERICAS, which would include central America, South America, etc.

Mohammad Ali is African-American. Oprah is African-American. Magic Johnson is African-American.

General Colin Powell, same as Harris is American, but his heritage is by way of Jamaica....so NOT African-American.

One can be Black, but that does not make them African-American any more than somebody from Peru who is Indian, would called American Indian / Native American.

Harris's attempts to claim she is African-American are false claims. 47.146.38.207 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ and umpteen threads above. As per wiktionary:African-American: A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent. Ergo, Harris is African-American. Peaceray (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There could be a thousand threads making the claim that Harris is "African-American", but WE who are in FACT African-American know the truth. She is NOT African-American. Harris's mother is 100% Indian, and her Jamaican father is mixed race, with a high percentage of Euro (Irish) in his DNA. Barrack Obama is 50% African. Harris is way less than that. But to help demonstrate mine (I'm African-American) and other African-Americans test for what WE define as African-American would be turning back the clock 200 years to 1824, and have Kamala walk down the streets of Charleston or Savannah and be grabbed up and put on a slave trading block, then yes, she would be AFRICAN-American. But if she were able to "pass" and go free, then NO, she would not be African enough use that term. 47.146.38.207 (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment inn the RFC below if you want your opinion to have an impact, but note that arguments based on wp:or will carry very little weight. We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

In the article below the Personal life section, the expression "prominent Black American [women]" is used, and it is linked to another article, which is "African-American upper class". This is a mismatch of concepts. A "prominent Black American" does not necessarily belong to the "African-American upper class". For instance, a black American may be a professor at a university, and he/she may be quite prominent as a scholar. But he/she does not necessarily have "high disposable incomes and high net wort". The same goes for any/many artist(s). A painter/a writer may be prominent, but it does not always translate into wealth. 2001:14BA:44A4:B500:1C07:7612:29A0:F205 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2024 (2)

She is the first female vice president, making her the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president.[5]

There is no documents showing she is Asian. Per the wikipedia article on her father, his grandmother, Kamala's great grandmother is of Irish descent from Mr Brown, who was a slave owner in Jamaica and owned approx 1,200 slaves on a sugar plantation. Her father is not of Asian descent, and either is her mother, per the wikipedia page about her mother. Medicmicki1967 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Her mother was Indian, India is in South Asia. The citation on the line you quoted also describes her as Asian American. Jamedeus (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

2020 presidential campaign convenient omission

This sentence conveniently does not include the detail about her term as attorney general, which is also in the title of the source. This should be edited to include this important detail.

Original:

In the second debate in August, Harris was confronted by Biden and Representative Tulsi Gabbard over her record as attorney general.

Should read instead:

In the second debate in August, Harris was confronted by Biden and Representative Tulsi Gabbard over her record prosecuting low-level marijuana-related offenses as attorney general.

The title of the source, after all is “Tulsi Gabbard Takes Kamala Harris To Task On Marijuana Prosecution Record”. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

'Tamil' or 'Tamilnadu' have been removed

Her mother's ethnic group is also Kamala Harris' ethnic group. It's part of her, especially as she's already said words in Tamil on several occasions during her speeches. She has also mentioned many times that she comes from South India, which has a different culture to North India. It is necessary to add at least the state from which her mother comes, which is Tamilnadu or her ethnicity, which also refers directly to Kamala Harris. To simply put that her mother comes from India without any further details is not a complete Biography. Misinformation about her south asian ethnicity is already spreading on social media. Please read the link below : https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/20/chittis-kamala-harris-dnc-tamil/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/my-chitthis-significance-sen-kamala-harris-speaking-tamil-national-stage-n1237562 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:197D:D7FA:DEFD:BC1E (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've now added it, cited to a scholarly source. It is at the end of the first paragraph of the Early years ... section. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It says Harris "self-identifies as a Black woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) heritage." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content of due weight in KH's biography

@Antony-22: I'm sorry but no matter how you interpret WP's injunction to be WP:BOLD, you cant importune a page's longstanding content with such mutilation, without posting on the talk page first and garnering a new consensus. You've seriously mangled her biography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

PS As 38K bytes of longstanding content was removed the sources for which some of us had painstakingly read before summarizing, can @RegentsPark, MelanieN, Valereee, and Abecedare: please keep an eye on those sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No content was removed; I split the content to Early life and career of Kamala Harris, but it looks like someone removed the hatnote with the link. The article was on the long side by the WP:SIZE guidelines. Does anyone have any actual objection to the split? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You spun it off to a new article, I think, which is fine if an article has ballooned, but the determination of what is to be removed and what constitutes an precis of due weight is usually made on the talk page with the input of many editors. That is why I restored the sections. I know you meant well.

Coming to the topic of spin offs: upon a quick reading I think it is the Senate and VP sections that need them. They seem to have recitations of deeds done with little qualitative discussion of their impact. A section even has her oath of office as if to say it is different from all the 48 other VP before her.

Please tell us how you would like to proceed. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Also I don't understand why after your edits the content size decreased by 38k, but after my "restoration" it increased by only 1.4K! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Because you didn't restore all of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The spinoff is good as it helps keep this main article as an overview.

I agree that likely we could also consider spinning of the US Senate career of Kamala Harris to further lighten the length of the current article. Raladic (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic: I think the version of Early Years etc in place at the end of this edit of yours is fine by me, but no further reduction is required. But the rest of the article, especially her career of the last eight years, has too much undigested recitation of deeds done, without a qualitative higher level description. What it needs is rewriting more than just reduction. The article size is 6K words, which is not excessive for an important biography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is WP:BOLD, but spinning out a big piece of one of the highest traffic, most controversial articles on the entire project ... there weren't very good odds of it sticking absent any discussion. I'm ambivalent. It's a long article, and the early life section seems as good as any to split off, but it also doesn't seem like a huge improvement and the removed content was only about 14% of the article. That said, it doesn't seem particularly harmful, either, and I don't see any real objections beyond "discuss first". Fowler, if you're going to revert, please make sure to do so in full. You could also "revert" by nominating the other article for AfD, I guess. But I'm curious if people have concrete objections here first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine to start a formal split proposal discussion if people are more comfortable with that. The article was >9,000 words before this split (and >11,000 words before I split the Attorney General article!) which is in line with when WP:SIZERULE says it's appropriate to split. Since Harris is now a presumptive presidential nominee, there will likely be more detail added to all periods of her life, and it's easier for editors to do that if the article isn't already very long.

I'd also like to point out that WP:DUE is completely the wrong guideline here, since that only applies to coverage of opposing viewpoints, not biographical facts from different time periods. WP:SUMMARY is the proper guideline here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think a formal split discussion is really needed in this case as I think most would agree it is time to start focusing the article to overviews with separate main topic articles. The size of the current article is growing rapidly, so starting to outsource these sections like we have done for many other notable figures sounds entirely appropriate. Raladic (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the page is not that 6000 words is too long, but that much of what there is is written without high-level sources, such as scholarly books and journal articles, not even trade books or long featured article in major newspapers or magazines. When the sources used are poor, what you get is an article without subordinate clauses (for those require a qualitative judgement). Nothing will be achieved by shrinking it for it will still be fluff, only less of it. A case in point is the Presidential Campaign section. No subordinate clauses. Very few adverbs (for those too qualify). Little is said with enough knowledge to qualify. How will you write a precis of this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about Napoleon. It's a bio of a living person. I don't think I'd give much trust to an author of a scholarly book or journal article as it's too early for them to provide adequate perspective on a living person's life, particularly given what may lay ahead for her. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The quality of sources has nothing to do with the article split. I do agree that the sourcing needs improvement with more holistic, retrospective articles. If anything, splitting the article should make this slightly easier. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course it does. If you use better sources, replace endless recitation of simple declarative sentences with semantically and syntactically complex ones, you won't need spin offs. In other words, how are you able to summarize when you don't know what is important? Or alternatively, how do you know what is important, if you don't have sources that make those judgements for you? Hard news does not for the most part. I couldn't disagree more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000: How are WP:FAs such as Mitt Romney and Liz Truss written? She is ten years younger than KH. Examine their sources.

Alternatively, please propose that notion about BLPs at WP:RS/N and tell me when you do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That's nonsensical—it's not the case that details are unencyclopedic and should be removed outright, and changing the grammar or sourcing won't bring down the article size by thousands of words.

Is there anyone other than Fowler&fowler who objects to the split? It's a bad idea to keep a content fork going because it becomes a mess to resolve if the versions diverge, so I'd like to restore a summary-style overview here as any further discussion continues. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please examine the two FAs I have just mentioned. Compare the sources of your unilateral spin off and those of Liz Truss. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Antony-22: No one is saying details are unencylopedic, only that they are best presented as vignettes interwoven with synoptic prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

And for those itching to reduce Kamala Harris, simply because it is too large at 6394 words, please note that Liz Truss is 6222 words and Mitt Romney when it successfully navigated FAC was 11K words. It is not the size per se, it the size of blather. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Concluding: An alternative is to ask for a peer review. They might say the article is not nearly far enough along for PR, but on the other hand this is about someone poised on the cusp of glory and they might bite. It's worth a try. Anyway, I've said what I had to. I have to bow out. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We really need to avoid this content fork from getting out of hand, so I'm going to restore the summary to this article. Anyone should feel free to rewrite it to have a different balance of facts, or to replace it completely, as long as it conforms to WP:SUMMARY. User:Fowler&fowler, I still don't understand your objection, since regardless of a split you can continue to rewrite the text into "vignettes interwoven with synoptic prose", as you put it. If you'd like, I can start a split discussion to endorse or reverse the split. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You've written a third-rate summary, which I will revert again. It is not my job to expand it. Childhood and early years is hardly the section that needs drastic distillation into a string of simple sentences. Please try it on the later sections, which are fluff anyway. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine, I will start a formal split proposal. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I had given you the example two WP Featured articles Liz Truss, the former British PM, who is ten years younger than KH. It has 6222 words which is about the size of KH, and Mitt Romney which at the time of becoming an FA was 11K size. When you make such a drastic edit, how do we know that it is not a POV edit in which the subtleties of KH's childhood are removed, for no one reads the parent article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This article was at >9,000 words before this split, which is in line with when WP:SIZERULE says it's appropriate to split. I don't know where you're getting ~6,000 words from. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I’ve restored the summary you’ve made.

Further editing can follow.

Also @Fowler&fowler - WP:OTHERCONTENT of what other pages have done when is irrelevant, we’re talking about this article here and I agree that it was getting lengthy and starting to split out content is about time now before the article continues to grow. Raladic (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris identifies as Indian american in her own book

https://www.amazon.com/Truths-We-Hold-American-Journey/dp/0525560718

another official source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7rNOAFkgE&t=74s

I know there is lot of disagreement which ethnicity to use. because RS uses Asian American, Indian American, South Asian American. But in her book - she identifies as Indian American. Therefore i'm adding a Tooltip in the wiki to calrify different variations of ethnicity associated with her . We should also discuss changing lead to Indian American. Because her book represent her official words. Why are we trusting some other RS - which we are not sure is approved by Kamala? Astropulse (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of these are from several years ago.

Her latest self-identification based on her Whitehouse profile and campaign are Black American and South Asian American.

Please refer to the other discussions further up on the talk page. Raladic (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Then why is lead says Asian American? Also it doesnt matter its several years ago. Are you telling me white house page is written by Kamala? Can you say for sure Kamala has approved the text ? Astropulse (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

and whats wrong with adding a Tooltip ? Astropulse (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing against it, I agree, she is Indian American, just as she is South Asian American or Asian American - they are just different levels of precision. When it comes to what we use, we follow MOS:IDENTITY, which suggests that if there is confusion about the term, to use what the person uses and as such, her current white house and political campaign websites are the latest and we should follow it.

At some point based on a consensus forming process, it was just simply decided to use the broader term in text, as is linked at the FAQ at the top of the talk page.

I had only reverted the changes since you not only added the Tooltip, but also changed the text prose (for which we do have a specific consensus per the FAQ and before bold changes to the article changing that wording, there should be a discussion here, just as there is currently an RFC ongoing about whether to use African American or Black American), but I have no opposition to the tooltip to help clarify it for readers who don't come to the talk page, which I already saw you added back. Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Bohbye (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

From the very beginning of her career in elected public office, Kamala Harris has identified as both Black and Indian. Because her father Donald J. Harris is Black and her mother Shyamala Gopalan was Indian. Countless reliable sources say that, and none say anything different. Her public persona as a candiate for public office goes back 21 years, and every one of the reliable sources discussing her ancestry say the same thing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have never seen her say that she is Asian American. Plenty of reliable sources state that, but in all her videos and in her own book, she says she is Indian American Astropulse (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Astropulse, since "Indian American" is simply a more precise description of the much broader "Asian American", I do not see the point you are trying to make. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Asian American include alot of countries. She is not affiliated with those countries. South Asian narrows it down. Indian American specifies it. When people read Asian American - they cannot understand her Indian ethnicity. We need to be clear and precise so as to not leave our readers guessing. That's the point im trying to make. Astropulse (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Astropulse, here is my sincere advice to you: Do not argue with editors who are not arguing with you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Im arguing ? This is a dialogue aimed at improving the precision and clarity of information rather than an argument. Arguing typically involves more confrontational exchanges Astropulse (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've worked with Cullen before and found him agreeable and logical, but I can't understand where he's coming from in this discussion. How can it possibly be better to be less precise?? I'm pretty much avoiding this article because of the lengthy, unproductive discussions. You may find that a good idea, too, since common sense seems absent at this moment on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 03:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

did that sound as arguing lol Astropulse (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Astropulse: Kamala Harris is multiracial and most people know this. We introduce her ethnicity in three waves of meaning for the novice reader:

• In the first paragraph of the lead, it is her most expansive or inclusive ethnicity, African American and Asian American. This is the longstanding consensus version, which has been in place in this article for 3 years and 10 months, and as the futile RfC upstairs is going nowhere, is unlikely to change.
• In the second paragraph of the lead, is the second wave of meaning which narrows a bit: Black and South Asian American, and finally in the Early years section, we say (or said until it was removed:
• Kamala Harris self identifies as a Black woman of Afro-Jamaican and South Indian (Tamil) heritage.
• Officially, she has self-identified as "African American" and "South Asian American" from 2003 until 2020 (i.e. 17 years) and still does on the website of the US Senate, whose president she is. On her folksy VP website written in a perennial campaign mode, she mentions Black American (not Black) and South Asian American. When that changed from African American to Black American, I'm not sure, but it wasn't the case at the onset of her VPresidency as reliable sources mention the official website's Af-American phrasing.
• Finally, her sense of Blackness comes not from her Afro-Jamaican ancestry, but her critical African American ambience after her mother's marriage began to fall apart. See my comment in the One-drop rule section above or below.
• Thanks for your question. There is a lot of talk page mavenry on this page postulating all sorts of simplified certainties, but KH's heritage is complex, at the very least. All the best,

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The "mavenry" appears to me to be the "over-complification" of such a simple, verifiable fact. She is Black and Asian-American. Analyzing every part of her life, her influences, her family for racial clues may be interesting for some scholarly article. Looking at what many other scholars, pols, childhood friends for opinions on racial influence I find strange. This is a living person. We are not looking at the historical influences on the thinking of an icon in race relations, like Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X. What other living person has had this treatment in WP? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How is it simple and verifiable? She has for 17 years (from 2003 to 2021 or 22) self-identified as African American on all her official websites and still does on the website of the US Senate whose president she is. In the last two years, her website has gone from a formal tone to a folksy one, a campaign mode one might say. Very likely in keeping with that change of tone, the somewhat formal African American has become Black American. Nothing is simple and verifiable. And please don't direct those silly last sentences at someone who has some authorship in the article which too has slipped from 5th rank to 10th because of removal by well-meaning distillers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why any of that matters or what is silly about my statements or what "rank' anyone's "authorship" in any article matters. This is not a competition. I don't know why the "folksiness" of her campaign mode matters to this article. This article isn't even about her campaign. Nothing she has ever done and no influence she has ever been subject to has affected her birth. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Not folksiness of the campaign, but the language on her website, i.e. the change of the style of writing on her website from a more formal tone of two years ago to a folksy one now. When people are out campaigning they typically use more informal language than they normally do, in order to appear more people-friendly

It is not birth or what she looks likes. Her inner sense of Blackness has more to do with a childhood support group of American Blacks in Oakland and Berkeley, as she and sister have said many times, not the Caribbean, which she visited once every six years, or her Afro-Jamaican father who too she saw occasionally. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not here to psychoanalyze her or to try to build some sketch of her character formation based upon our own research using opinions and statements found in multiple books and articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm moving on. I doubt I have anything to gain by engaging you. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

Same thing as on the Tim Walz article: we shouldn't state that she has announced someone as her running mate until there's an official announcement from the campaign. Until then, it's still officially unconfirmed. "On 6 August 2024, Harris announced that she had picked Minnesota governor Tim Walz to be her running mate." should be changed to "On 6 August 2024, it was reported that Harris had picked Minnesota governor Tim Walz to be her running mate." or something similar. AG202 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, as of 2:24 UTC, it's been officially announced: Twitter announcement. But I maintain that the phrasing we have should have waited until an official announcement. AG202 (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 (2)

Kamala Harris is not African American. She is also not Asian American. She is Jamaican American and Indian American. Please correct. It is disrespectful to her. 208.58.53.98 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, please review the FAQ at the top of this page which explains that she is African American and Asian American: Many reliable sources over a long period of time refer to Harris as African American and Asian American, so we reflect that in this article. Moreover, Harris's Senate and campaign websites state that she is African American and Asian American. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Religious upbringing

Please re add that she attended a Pentecostal Church of God in her youth. https://international.la-croix.com/world/2024-us-election-kamala-harris-a-committed-baptist 164.119.5.58 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not just that, there are quite a few other biographically notable things that have been removed in the most recent attempt at summarizing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Does that matter? Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The suggested edit also misrepresents the cited source, which makes a case that she had a diverse religious upbringing and as a child she attended a Baptist church "with Pentacostal roots". That doesn't sound like the same thing as a Pentacostal church. As Slatersteven said, however, I don't see why this detail matters. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

Your statement about Kamala Harris being African American is in correct. Her father was from Jamaica. Making Kamala Harris Jamaican-American

Donald J. Harris is the father of Kamala Harris. He is a Jamaican-American economist and professor emeritus at Stanford University, originally from Saint Ann's Bay, Jamaica. Please update your information. Thank you Blue in Maine 206.85.227.23 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

--Add below Tim Walz VP pick

"Walz was picked over a wide range of other candidates including, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly.

Other candidates, such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, and North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, among others were also considered, but were not seen as likely candidates. Lime9226 (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's extraneous for an article about Harris. Linked 2024 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection so users can navigate to read full details if desired. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo: "Champaign", not "Champagne" Illinois

One of the cities where she lived as a child would have been "Champaign" Illinois. It is misspelled as "Champagne" in the Early Life section Boondaburra (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well-spotted, fixed. Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Add TamilNadu in her Biography

Can you at least add the state of India where her mother comes from because it's incomplete to just write 'From India' and it would also avoid people having to click on her mother's biography to find out. It's important that the word Tamil appears at least ONCE in her biography, which is still not the case :

Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan was a biologist who moved to the United States from Tamilnadu, India as a 19-years old student .... 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:F9F1:579E:C233:4D9D (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

adding Tooltip in her Asian American ethnicity

because there is lot of debate about her ethnicity and which to represent it in wiki - i'm adding a tooltip to clarify this in lead. This will help user understand her ethnicity better in the lead - who may not read the whole article

Indian American : https://www.amazon.com/Truths-We-Hold-American-Journey/dp/0525560718 ( her own book )

South Asian American https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/vice-president-harris/

Asian American : other RS Astropulse (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven please avoid reverting saying no consensus WP:DRNC i think you should self revert as per WP:DRNC Astropulse (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple discussions about her ethnicity here (and a FAQ), and per WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS it is down to those who want to make a change to get consensus, and not to wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

yes - there are multiple discussion. im not looking to change the ethnicity in lead paragraph. merely add a tool-tip to clarify for readers reading lead - but may not read the full article or faq page. i dont see any harm in it. I still dont hear a valid reason for not having tooltip. Astropulse (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Astropulse (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Failed Bar Exam

Asked and answered. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It should be added that Harris failed her bar exam on the first try in 1989. Glemery007 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Many people do, especially in California, which according to State Bar of California has a very difficult exam. Why does it need to be called out specifically for Harris? Do you have independent reliable sources that discuss this? 331dot (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC) This has been discussed many times before and consensus is against inclusion. It's random trivia that serves no encyclopedic value for inclusion, other than being use by some people trying to defame KH. Raladic (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Failure on first try is common. Even FDR failed on first try and was elected to four terms. She passed on second try, so what? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Is it trivia or relevance? Would it be trivia or relevance if Jesus Christ (who made laws for the whole Christianity) or Abraham Lincoln (who was a lawyer) failed his first bar exam? However, the following seems to be a independent reliable source for the failed exam: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/18/fact-check-claim-harris-barrett-legal-backgrounds-true/3669109001/ 2A02:21B4:AC58:E400:772D:A5B6:6DB3:6ED4 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Asked and answered, it does not need to re re-litigated. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we please rein in the templates a bit?

I will start off by saying that we had this same discussion at Talk:Joe Biden years ago. The infobox is big, possibly so big that it defeats the purpose of an infobox ("the less information an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose").

But what exacerbates the problem is further template creep, i.e. the addition of a navbox with the same content as the navbox at the bottom of the article. So now we have two huge templates, one of which is completely redundant to another template, both featuring the same photo of the subject and squeezing the images and the text into an unsightly sandwich. There is supposed to be a photo of her childhood home in the childhood section but due to the template stacking it is pushed down to the early career section.

So how do we deal with WP:SANDWICH here and restore the layout? I would propose that, at the very least, we lose the extra navbox. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the problem. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both have the same template configuration. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I did some testing and it is simple to add a collapsible box to the infobox without interfering with the contents as at John Kerry and John McCain. I do want to note that it is a reasonable size in my opinion. (Especially when compared to Bob Dole's infobox.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist, Super Goku V, the problem is the effect on the layout. Images are pushed from sections they are supposed to be in into sections they are not supposed to be in, and text gets squeezed between the templates and the images, which is both against the Manual of Style. We should at least, I think, have a truncated option for the navbox because there is no need to have the same photo in two stacked templates; and the photo of the seal seems to be there just for decoration. Surtsicna (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Then either reapply my edit or append {{-}} to the end of the lede. I think either solution would work, but if it isn't enough then maybe mode the second infobox to the later portions of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

In agreement. We need to trim down or remove templates. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Appointments by Willie Brown

Personal information is referenced in the first section of the article that should be placed under the Personal Life section. Kamala Harris, “who was dating Willie Brown” should only be mentioned under the Personal Life section as it is for male profiles. Written as is, allows for inference of women’s dating history influencing their career advancement. This is inherent sexism. 2600:1007:B080:412D:45E5:69FC:75FD:5447 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

In 1994, Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown, who was then dating Harris, appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later to the California Medical Assistance Commission.

It is not mentioned in the "first section" of the article (which is called the lead). It is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Early career section, where her early California government experience is introduced. It is not inherently sexist. If the Speaker of the California Assembly had been a woman, and appointed a man she was (quite openly) dating to a major state board and a state commission, I believe it would be appropriate to mention that also. The sentence states a well-known and verifiable fact, and does not state, or even suggest, that she was unqualified for the appointment. The personal connection between Brown and Harris is extensively discussed at the 1994 article that sources the information about her appointments, and it would seem quite odd not to mention it. I daresay it is sexist to suggest that this information should be suppressed on the basis that Harris is a woman. General Ization ^Talk 03:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The One-drop Rule

Re: the statement "Kamala Harris is a Black woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) heritage." I believe this should state that she is "a woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) heritage." Why should Ms. Harris' black ancestry take precedence over her Indian ancestry? This harks back to the era when one drop of black blood made a person black. That rule was outlawed by the Supreme court in 1967. Why are we perpetuating a practice that was used to discriminate against people? 206.127.90.175 (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes the one-drop rule was used to discriminate against Blacks. The rule no longer exists. So we are not perpetuating anything. Yes Blacks still face discrimination. But that doesn't mean that they cannot embrace their Blackness. No one is investigating her, outting her, and declaring her inferior because of her heritage. (Well some are.) But she has been saying she is Black since her early life. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Objective3000 and @Fowler&fowler - I hope I'm not making this discussion rather tedious but there has obviously been a lot of debate recently about Harris's heritage and self-identity. I'm pretty sure the sentence the IP user cites ultimately comes from a book (?) about Harris's life. IDK why it's problematic to have that sentence or why there's anything wrong with the self-identity of Harris.

Tons of people of mixed descent personally identify as and/or are widely considered to be just "African-American" or "Black" or whatever. Same with any other heritage/category in the U.S. Is Obama's mother not of European descent? Is actress Halle Berry's mother also not of European descent?

But FWIW to the section starter, as race is a social construct, the idea of being properly classified as "Indian-American" (which may historically have been conflated with "American Indians" given "Indian" meaning in American slang) or even "Asian American" is a more recent concept (c. 1980s). Sometimes Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans were lumped together under the same "race" category. And it apparently wasn't uncommon for South Asians in America to identify as "Caucasian" or "Other" prior to the late 1900s.[8] So I'm not sure if Harris had the same sense of "Indian" and/or "South Asian [American] identity" she may have today like she did in the past (for example, being "Asian-American" in the U.S more often denotes East Asian descent, not South Asian heritage, who may see themselves as being "Other" or "Brown" over "Asian-American" or "Brown" and "Asian American" or something like that). Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of what you say is true. Indians are Asian American in the census, but not in common parlance, as you've observed.

KH's sense of her ethnicity, however, in my understanding, is a very specific one: a somewhat distant Afro-Jamaican heritage from her father, a more immediate South India (Tamil) from her mother, but a strong African American or Black American glue from the support group of African-American friends of her mother on which she was imprinted as a child. It is the kind sense of ethnicity not found among South Asians. I get the sense from her that she has no particular feeling for most of India or Pakistan (say of the Himalayas, the Maharajas, the Taj Mahal, North India, East India, West India, Goa, the Ganges, Khyber, etc.,), it is only for the small corner of Madras in which her grandparents lived. She does have feelings for Indian anti-colonial nationalism which her grandfather had reminisced about during the walks with his oldest grandchild. (During British times, he had worked very faithfully in the Imperial Secretariat Service so it is unlikely that he had taken active part in Indian nationalism, but he may have had yearnings.) Perhaps for that reason, after her mother's death Kamala Harris did not choose to immerse her mothers ashes—which she had take to India—in the Ganges, the Godavari or any other river. She scattered them on the waves off a beach in Chennai, South India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris has said that it was her mother's perception that in American society her girls would be seen at Black, and she raised them to be proud Black girls. That possibly does sound like the one-drop rule. But it is very likely more than just that.

For today, Indian Americans as well as Indians in India might well be proud of Kamala Harris, now that she's potentially on the verge of making history, but in 1970 it is not clear at all that—her Indian family aside—a rigidly caste-based social group (which even today seldom marries outside its caste and is sons-obsessed) would have formed the kind of support group for a divorced 32-year old Indian women, with two girls from a marriage to a Black man, that the African American friends of Shyamala Gopalan did in Oakland and Berkeley. They were Shyamala's friends in need, and thus the Harris girls' crucial formative ambience, what in a sense they became imprinted on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is some proof of my conjecture above. It used to be in the article and I had forgotten that it did :

Although the two Harris sisters spent summers with their father in Palo Alto and traveled to Jamaica with him now and then, their "experience and relationship with blackness," according to Maya Harris's daughter, Meena Harris, " is through being raised in these communities in Berkeley and Oakland, and not through the lens of being Caribbean."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we're wondering into forum territory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

(deep aggravated sigh) The "one drop rule" would apply to someone like Johnny Depp (who verifiably had a black American slave ancestor several hundred years ago) and society would turn around and say for that reason he must be called black. You see how stupid that sounds? Not somebody whose own father is literally a black man. My parents are black… so that makes me black… that's how genetics work. If one parents was black, and the other was (just shooting at the wind here) Ashkenazi Jewish I would be a black Jewish person. Eric André and Doja Cat are examples of that. No one is saying they can't be ethnically Jewish because of their black fathers' DNA. Blackness doesn't erase nor supercede anything regardless of phenotype. This "rule" doesn't exist anymore just like black people are no longer "three-fifths of person" anymore. Let's turn our damn noggins on. Trillfendi (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion of a "one drop" rule is completely irrelevant. GMG^talk 13:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. it borders on soapboxing. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Split proposal

Portions of this article were boldly split to Early life and career of Kamala Harris, but there was an objection, so this discussion is to endorse or reverse the split. This article was at >9,000 words before this split, which is in line with when WP:SIZERULE says it's appropriate to split. Since Harris is now a presumptive presidential nominee, there will likely be more detail added to all periods of her life, and it's easier for editors to do that if the article isn't already very long. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment - adding as a side note for those that didn’t see the earlier discussion, linking it here: Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of content of due weight in KH's biography Raladic (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support split. The article is growing daily so splitting out the early life and career section was a good start to keep this article at overview level. Raladic (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, let's split this article. There is definitely going to be a lot more information added to this article soon and even more if she becomes president. 124.244.153.35 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in the manner in which this has been done.

Before you made your splitting edit of 0:51, 31 July 2024, the Early life and education section had 799 words and the Early Career and District Attorney section had 1893 words, together totaling 2692 words.

After your splitting edit, in which the article had shrunk from 7,982 words to 6,177 words, the Early life and career section had 860 words, of which Early life and education was 234 words, and the Early career 626 words. Overall, the early life was reduced by 70% and the Early career + DA by 67%, which is about the same. So, no complaints thus far. But the first three paragraphs of the pre-splitting Early life etc. had already been much worked on four years ago. They don't have any room for compression. In particular, if you examine cites [17] to [37] of the pre-split article, they are in a different gene pool altogether than the cites in the remainder of the article. They are feature articles or review articles in major newspapers; the rest are the scribbles of your basic sleep-deprived cub reporter at the DA's office. So, as long as you don't touch the first three paragraphs, it doesn't matter what you do with the rest of the article. You can reduce it to 500 words for all I care. But those three paragraphs are inviolable. I apologize for mangling the DA section. Thanks for your effort, which I agree is needed, but everywhere else. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a policy based Oppose reason. If there should be edits made to the WP:SUMMARY that is now in place on this article after the split, then those are editorial and can be made through copy-editing, but don't change the fact that the split was proper and in line with our guidelines. So you can be WP:BOLD and fix the copy-editing issues you raised instead of opposing the split outright. Raladic (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

oppose even more emphatically because the editor does not know how to summarize. See my examples in the statement of user:Bohbye Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Last time I try before I give up, this split discussion is about the technical aspect of whether we should have split the article or not, based on guideline informed rational, in this case WP:SIZESPLIT.

It is not a discussion of the content or finesse of the prose (we are writing an encyclopedia and use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) of the summary left behind, that can be refined over time through copy-editing, by all editors, yourself including. We reserve to put WP:DETAIL into separate sub-articles - Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles).

Your continuation of ignoring this point of the discussion and instead continue to argue that the current summary in the article isn't good is besides the point of the reason for the split and this discussion. Raladic (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We can't eat theoretical pudding. You can't cite a theoretical WP guideline to justify something that doesn't meet basic WP guidelines of writing. That summary is not a summary, a precis, a concision, or an abridged version of a text that—while on the long side—was still half way comprehensible. Anton-22's summary is semantically null. The bottom line is that summarization is not excision; it involves rephrasing, it involves expressing the gist. There is no rephrasing in that summary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I notice that you've added note to the Kamala Harris Early life and education section about a discussion, but have failed to replace the original text that was to be the subject of said discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Question to @Fowler&fowler - I see you have now started fixing the issues you raised as your basis for your objection with the current summary - so does it mean you no longer object to the split and should strike it and endorse it?

I just want to clarify, because else, depending on how someone uninvolved reads this discussion here, the old article may otherwise just be merged back in its entirety over these new improvements, if the editor finds a consensus to overturn the split retroactively. Raladic (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Instead, have one category for Early life and another category for Early career. That way, the section won't be so long. DocZach (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason for an article split based on WP:SIZERULE is about the entire article length, splitting into multiple sections doesn’t solve the problem of the article size getting unwieldy. Which is why we have guidelines to start splitting articles past 9000 words, such as was the case here. Refer to other politicians such as President Joe Biden or Barrack Obama, which similarly have splits of their Early life and career sections into separate main articles. Raladic (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no point of splitting it just because of Joe Biden and Barack Obama Having such pages. the main page can handle her fairly short life story. Bohbye (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bohbye: I agree. Biden's and Obama's articles are not what we should aspire to. The two Wikipedia politicians' Featured Articles, Liz Truss and Mitt Romney both have separate Early life and Education section followed by Early career etc. If they have passed FAC, then the separate sections with some individuality and not one long boring read written in simple generic sentences has Wikipedia's blessings. Liz Truss is over 6K words and Romney over 11K, so I'm not even sure we should be in such a hurry to drastically reduce the article. From my POV, for someone to traipse into the article and without any discussion on the talk page to run their red pen through it is not WP:BOLD, but WP:Amazing Amount of Gumption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

PS Here is an example of the drastic distillation in the split:

Third paragraph of the original Early life and Education section

African-American intellectuals and rights advocates constituted Harris's formative surroundings; Mary Lewis, who helped start the field of African-American studies at San Francisco State University, and taught there for many years, was one of Shyamala Gopalan's most trusted friends. When Shyamala worked late at her lab, Kamala was cared for by Regina Shelton, a black woman whose day-care center in the apartment below was decorated with pictures of Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth. Harris has written that Shyamala “knew that her adopted homeland would see Maya and me as black girls, and she was determined to make sure we would grow into confident, proud black women.” Although the two Harris sisters spent summers with their father in Palo Alto and now and then traveled to Jamaica with him, their "experience and relationship with blackness," according to Maya Harris's daughter, Meena Harris, " is through being raised in these communities in Berkeley and Oakland, and not through the lens of being Caribbean."

is reduced to:

"African-American intellectuals and rights advocates constituted Harris's formative surroundings."

which is not a summary, only the first half of the first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Antony-22:, I've just read your summary of the Early years etc. section. Here's one paragraph:

In 1966, the Harris family began moving around various locations in the Midwest, with both parents working at multiple universities in succession over a brief period.[19][20][21] Kamala, along with her mother and sister, moved back to California in 1970.[22][23][20] African-American intellectuals and rights advocates constituted Harris's formative surroundings.[24] Harris's parents divorced when she was seven. When she was twelve, Harris and her sister moved with their mother to Montreal, Quebec.[25][26] Harris graduated from Westmount High School[c] in 1981.

• "began moving around various locations"

• The phrasal verb to move around, typically has the implication of moving quite often, or to keep moving, like an army family's ... but KH's was nothing like that. See below.
• "moving around" means to change locations, so what does "moving around various locations" mean that "moving around" does not?
• What useful information does the reader glean from "various locations in the Midwest?" They were in a very small part of the upper Midwest: Urbana, Illinois, 1966–67; Evanston, Ill. 1967–1968 and Madison, Wisconsin, 1968–1970, all within a smallish radius; not in Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, or Indiana. How does your phrasing enlighten the reader?
• "Kamala ... moved back to California in 1970. ... Harris's parents divorced when she was seven.

• But she turned seven in 1971, which was only a year later. So, why this change from the Julian calendar to the personal calendar?

• "African-American intellectuals and rights advocates constituted Harris's formative surroundings."

• What connection does the sentence have with anything before or anything after?

• General comment: What you have produced is not a summary, but a representation of a paragraph by one or two of its sentences. You therefore end up with a text which by its ellipses begins to push against the tolerance of natural language, as it is thin on both cohesion and coherence., the issues of diction aside.

How you are managing to wage aggressive battle for this text is beyond me. Please note, it is not enough to say, "But you have the freedom to fix it." This is because it takes much longer to fix an overly thinned out "summary" than it does to fix the original article.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:SOFIXIT situation. I did my best to keep what I thought were the most pertinent facts in the summary, but I didn't intend it to be the final version, and I support your proposed improvements. I'm not advocating for the exact text of the summary, I'm advocating for the article split based on the large size of the combined article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about reducing the size both of the article and in particular the early years section in which I have some interest. But in my view, the way to spin large sections out is not to unilaterally take on the mantle of the splitter and produce something in mainspace. You should have posted your summary of a section here and we could have commented on it, or simply proposed that the section be reduced in size and editors would have suggested various approaches. Your method has created needless disruption, as it has for the moment given the summarized section the imprimatur of something more hallowed than a work-in-progress section.

Also as you must know, this article is much edited. The early years section was mostly written four years ago, when KH first walked into the national limelight. The editors who created the content and read the sources might be less frequent visitors, and may need to be pinged. In their absence, we end up with talk page discussions—as we have here—in which the participants have written precious little in the article, and very likely not read the sources.

Anyway, I do understand your point of view. I will try to improve the early years section. Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. That's not a method I've used in the past, but I can see how it would be helpful for a very-high-visibility article like this. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, nearly all of the text you object to is directly carried over from the original text, and can be improved in both locations. As I've said, splitting articles to reasonable sizes often brings more attention to them and encourages improvements of this type. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that. Not all your fault. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early life and career of Kamala Harris had been filed by another user and has received a fast and overwhelming speedy keep, which likely will preempt an outcome other than supporting the split based on our policies and guidelines around sizesplits. Raladic (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not an argument against the split, only against removing the summarized article which they say is not a fork of this article. There are many such copied and pasted summaries on Wikipedia.

  If those participants have article-based and not policy-based arguments they can very well participate here. But please don't canvass there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging all people who participated in a related thread for more input: @Rhododendrites, Objective3000, Bohbye, Galaxybeing, Isaidnoway, Left guide, Geschichte, Ravenswing, Maile66, Bsoyka, 750h+, Bgsu98, and Another Believer: Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This section belongs in the main article about Harris, and is not long enough to warrant separating into its own article. Vrrajkum (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you realize that an oppose !vote will result in all the text at Early life and career of Kamala Harris being merged back into this one? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, we can agree to a compromise. If the opposes, hold, i.e. a consensus results, we can agree to restore only the Early childhood and education section, not the Early career. The Early career was the one that had the real bloat as did the other later sections where you have done yeoman's work or stalwart service or both (take your pick @Antony-22:). I stated earlier: the original Early life and education section had 799 words and the Early Career and District Attorney section had 1893 words, together totaling 2692 words. After your splitting edit, in which the article had shrunk from 7,982 words to 6,177 words, the Early life and career section had 860 words, of which Early life and education was 234 words, and the Early career 626 words.

  If we accept this compromise, then we would have 799 + 626 words = 1425 words instead of 860 words. We can then work on reducing Early life to 500 words, which I think is reasonable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Let me think about that. There are a lot of fine details that are much better for a subarticle, like what streets she lived on in Berkeley and every school she attended in Montreal. On the other hand, there's some narrative that could be brought back into the summary, especially from the fourth paragraph of the full version. But if the summary is more than half the length of the full version, it's not really a summary any more. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: If I move the Early life and Higher education sections back here, would that satisfy your objection and allow me to withdraw this split discussion? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you may have missed that the split already occurred and the split off article is 2800 words long that would be merged back into here, becoming a third of the entire article. Raladic (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  But in my compromise, it will increase increase in size for only a few minutes until the 1893 word Early career is split off by itself and shrunk back to 626 words. So the article will increase in size by 799-234 words = 565 words, which is the net gain in size incurred by the first half, i.e.

  Early life and education. We would then work on the Early life section to produce a summary of 500 words (instead of the all-too-bare-boned 234 words currently in place) and split the Early years and education section off a second time independently of the first split. Eventually the article will have increased in size by (500-234) = 266 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - doing so will allow further research and presentation of content during this period of Harris' life, which a page view of 13 million plus demonstrates a great public interest. Not doing so will unduly restrict editors' contributions to the section, and the exploration of Harris' formative years, in an effort to conform to WP:SIZERULE ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above mentioned reasons. Also, splitting because another page is split is not a reason to do so. As was mentioned above, Biden's and Obama's articles are not ones to aspire too.Naheehsp93 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that User:Fowler&fowler changed their !vote via their talk page because they're currently on a three-day block: "Yes, please consider my vote to be a support for a split. You don't even need to bring the the old early childhood section back as the phrasing now is much better. Just ignore my old vote and let the split stay as is. Apologies for the rigmarole." Since they were the one whose objection led to this discussion, would anyone object if I withdrew this discussion, thus retaining the split? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think from a technical standpoint since there were technically also some other oppositions, you should request formal closure, but I agree that the consensus strongly favors to support the split with Fowler now supporting it in addition to the others (myself included) and the one other user who parallel filed the AfDs that were speedy closed and appears to now have retired from Wikipedia. So based on policy informed opinions (mainly SIZERULE being at the center) the split seems well supported. But since it technically was controversial at first, it's probably better if someone uninvolved closes it per WP:SPLITCLOSE. Raladic (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

Kamala Harris was involved in an extramarital relationship with Willie Brown, Speaker of the California State Assembly. During that time Harris was appointed to the California Medical Assistance Commission by Brown. She also dated Montel Williams in coming years. 68.109.9.118 (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Same as above. To add, the article appears to already cover this: "In 1994, Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown, who was then dating Harris, appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later to the California Medical Assistance Commission." "In the 1990s, Harris dated then-Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown. In 2001, she had a brief dating relationship with talk show host Montel Williams." --Super Goku V (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for your infantile Facebook memes.

1) Brown had been publicly separated for 2 years before entering a relationship with Harris.

2) Harris briefly dated Montel; no he wasn't in a relationship at the time. 1.145.115.40 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Of some relevance is this discussion in Wired of the playbook that arose during the Gamergate campaign and how it has been used in this context with Harris [9]. I don't suggest that it be included here, but there is a common thread in the way a woman's dating history is interpreted. It is analogous (in my view) to the Swiftboat-style methods used with male military veterans. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we add in results of her "tough on crime" stance

NBC news article from July 2024 https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-policies-california-rcna163518 WIKILMK (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2024

She failed her California bar exam on her first attempt, subsequently passing. 208.81.192.53 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Citation: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 (3)

A punctuation correction - Location of change: Section: Vice Presidency; subsection: Immigration; 2nd paragraph; last sentence. Change "...human trafficking; a woman's..." to "...trafficking, a woman's..." by changing the semicolon after "trafficking" to a colon mark. Goman1 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Good eye. Changed to comma, not a colon. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

pronunciation of Kamala

The pronunciation given on the page is incorrect and it is not how Kamala refers to herself. The correct pronunciation is KəH-mə-lah. That is Kuh muh lah. Kuh muh luh is also ok. The stress is on the first syllable.

Source: Sanskrit english dictionary entry for Lotus. Also type in kamala in google translate for Tamil (kamala’s mother tongue) or Sanskrit to get the right pronunciation.Hariraumurthy (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We need a source of her saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pronounced - Calm-ma-la. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? That second syllable would appear to rhyme with "car", or "la" in the musical sense. I don't think most people say the second syllable that way. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rhymes with her nickname by her step-children. Mom-ma-la. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

[[10]] it seems its "comma-lah". Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The sound of the "o" there would vary a lot depending which accent it's said with. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but its at least a source and not wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if this is obvious to everyone, but the article used to include Kamala Harris saying her name: File:Kamala-Devi-Harris-pronunciation.oga. The quality is not great, but it's hard to argue with the authenticity. Two edits changed it: 21:04, 16 August 2024 and 00:53, 17 August 2024. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to slighly alter the education-part of the Infobox

Change from

• Howard University (BA)
• University of California, Hastings College of the Law (JD)

to

• Howard University (BA)
• University of California College of the Law, San Francisco (JD)

or perhaps an abbreviated version thereof.

The name of the college has changed and this should be reflected in the infobox. Felixsj (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There has already been significant edit-warring on this issue. My personal preference is for the name in effect at the time she graduated. Affixing a name that did not yet exist is an anachronism which professional historians are carefully trained to avoid.

And to be clear, as an undergraduate, I majored in history in one of the highest-ranked departments in the world. One of my recommenders for law school is the current department chair and is famous enough to be the subject of a WP article, on which I am silently recused. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There shouldn't be edit warring at all when the current consensus is to use University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

Anyways, it seems like the name change is retroactive under Californian law. While we are not bound to follow it, it seems like the Hastings version is considered to have never existed at all. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

What’s the relevance of your second paragraph other than to name drop? 2A02:C7E:2EC1:8D00:4B7:38B1:4018:EB1A (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a policy on this, because it happens frequently today. Often, people's names are removed because of their involvement in slavery, genocide or politically incorrect views. TFD (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

To respond to User:Super Goku V's statement above about a "retroactive" name change: In that linked discussion, User:Spotty's Friend cited no source for the claim about "the clear and explicit intent of the California Legislature". The actual bill as enacted merely says Hastings's name "must be removed" but says nothing about retroactive effect.

Under California law, the general rule is that "unless there is an 'express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic sources that the Legislature ... must have intended a retroactive application.'" (Myers v. Philip Morris (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828, 841.) Any ambiguity is construed in favor of prospective application. (Ibid.)

In other words, one needs to be able to point to very clear extrinsic evidence. However, if you look at the notice and agenda for the relevant vote on November 2, 2021, and the resulting press release, nothing in those materials mentions that the college was seeking a bill with immediate retroactive effect.

Also, I strongly doubt that a discussion which was on this talk page for only about a week before it was archived could be fairly said to represent a stable consensus. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Stable consensus, not anymore. But with that discussion, there should not have been edit warring. At least a new discussion was finally started.

As for the rest, I thank you for the clarity that it was not retroactive. That disputes the major claim in the prior discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, one more point: At the time of that earlier archived discussion linked above, the State Bar of California had voluntarily chosen to retroactively display "UC College of the Law" on the official records of all Hastings alumni. But if you look at the current record for Harris, it again displays her law school as "UC Hastings COL." It looks like this is because the State Bar adopted a policy at its May 16, 2024 meeting (search the linked agenda for item 704, "Adoption of State Bar Policy on Law School Name Changes on the Attorney Profile") in which law school name changes would be applied only prospectively to new members of the State Bar. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I wonder if that was the cause of the earlier confusion. In any case, given the current record, it seems to make more sense to stay with what we have rather than change the infobox. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Chinese Name

Please add her historically used Chinese name to her page:

Kamala Harris/Archive 6
Traditional Chinese	賀錦麗
Simplified Chinese	贺锦丽
Transcriptions Yue: Cantonese Jyutping 3 1 1

Lusanders (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done ;I think it's unfair for voters to have the misconception that she might be Chinese, because she clearly confirmed by reference that she is not Chinese. If she is going to use a Chinese name just to get Chinese votes, she should at least have Chinese heritage. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

We have already rejected this idea. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind update. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Its not an update, its informing them we have already discussed this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Word Salads

Similar to the way the article on Donald Trump mentions his frequent lying, even in the lede, prominent mention of Kamala Harris' frequent, rambling, well-publicized incoherent word salads should be made in this article. TopShelf99 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

sources? Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There are hundreds of examples, with well-regarded sources. They are not hard to find. TopShelf99 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

THen provide them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ohh and read wp:or and wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello TopShelf99, I agree that this article also mentions Kamala Harris's frequent, rambling, and widely known incoherent arguments, so that people who participate in the election can fairly learn about people's tendencies, and that this is what makes a fair Wikipedia.

If you could give me even one example of a Source, it would be helpful for me to find more. I think it would be a great contribution to the general public, and not an option, to allow people who create Wikipedia to fairly see the true tendencies of the people who are running for president to represent the people. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Please also read wp:not and WP:FALSEBALANCE before posting any suggested text. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions: both wp:not and WP:FALSEBALANCE . I've seen the mainstream media support one party in the US, so it can be hard to find reliable sources on issues of this party. Hi, TopShelf99, if you have a source, but it's not a mainstream media source, we can check the references on the talk page here. For example, if it's a Youtube video with Kamala Harris's voice, we can listen to it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

And read wp:v please. No a youtube video that requires us to engage in OR can't be used as a source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate where you are coming from. My frustration is that the only so-called reliable sources that Wikipedia administrators accept are those that lean left, and that are strongly supportive of Harris, similar to how they supported Biden and Obama and have not masked their discontent with Trump. For example, even extreme left wing MSNBC is considered reliable, while right wing Fox News is generally not. Similarly, most Wikipedia editors tend to lean left, as is evident by the tenor of articles about conservative vs. liberal politicians and comments on talk pages. So to try to get an unbiased article about any politician is nearly impossible, but we need to keep trying. TopShelf99 (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read our very well-sourced article on Fox News and see why it's not considered an objective, reliable source. For example, "Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch testified that Fox anchors endorsed conservative conspiracy theories about the election." HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

We allow a number of conservative news outlets, Fox is not the only conservative news outlet. And read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It was TopShelf99 who brought Fox News into the conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and opinion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That is why my comment was indented as a reply to them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

Reword the last sentence of the first paragraph, which is "Harris is the Democratic Party's presidential nominee in the 2024 U.S. presidential election." I am requesting that it be reworded to "Harris is the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason that wording is better than the original - could you elaborate? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid

My suggestion would actually be "Harris is the Democratic Party's nominee for president in the 2024 election."

No need for two "presidentials" in the sentence. "US" is unnecessary and could be deleted as well, but could also go before "president." Seananony (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good to me. That said, I am changing my edit request to reword the last sentence of the paragraph to "Harris is the Democratic Party's nominee for president in the 2024 election." RedactedHumanoid (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

ADD: Harris failed the California bar exam in July of 1989 but received a passing score on her second attempt in February of 1990.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ms. Harris’ bar results have become a topic of discussion in the present election. Here is a citation to Ms. Harris’ initial bar exam. https://archive.is/x2OJi 66.214.205.19 (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC) As has already been discussed, this isn't notable. Someone failed a test, re-rook it and then passed. I've done the same, as have plenty of others. Acalamari 18:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris’s Track Record

Thread retitled from "Kamala Harris’s Track Record: Big Spending, Wokeness, Equity and Flip Flops". WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"There are various sources, including CNN, that support the fact that Kamala Harris actually changed what she said. What do you think about adding an item to the main text about this? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Well you can always actualy produce such a source. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

For example, Kamala said that the government should require American citizens to sell their guns to the government. And the government should require citizens to buy guns with cash. In quite a few cases, Kamala has changed her tune. Source: You can search for the above title on YouTube as an external link. - This was produced by John Stossel's channel with 975K subscribers, with various reliable News, Interview sources attached. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

THis is not an RS. We need an RS saying she has changed her tune on issues such as Big Spending, Wokeness, and Equity, not YouTube videos or editors wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

YouTube links are the actual recorded speeches of Kamala Harris and the recorded testimony of someone she works with. I will summarize them by topic. The actual sources of the content are CNN, GovTrack Fox News, etc., which are Wikipedia's accepted sources. First, I will summarize them by topic. If I summarize them, other people will be able to find the actual sources based on the summarized contents and the video. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:primary and wp:or we do not evaluate or extrapolate. If RS does not explicitly say it we cannot. We need RS drawing conclusions, we cannot (and per wp:v it has to be stated, in black and white, what those conclusions are). Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's first summarize what Kamala Harris actually said on the recording, by topic. Then, other users can find the credible evidence that was actually used. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We do not do fishing, we need RS saying this (as I have said more than once) and I oppose adding this until I say otherwise. This is my last word on this, until my word changes. And this is a wp:blp We can't make accusations (even on the talk page) unless RS make them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that RS should have at least one clear reason for each. It seems that it should be summarized as a separate topic.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• This section appears to be entirely WP:OR. A WP:BLP is the worst place to use such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Are YouTube channels like CNN, GovTrack Fox News, etc. included in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that can be used on Wikipedia? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In general, videos should be used with great care. If they are of the article subject, especially a politician, saying things about proposed policy, they are primary sources, subject to the interpretation of the viewer/editor, and should only be used to substantiate something significant that they said that has been covered and given context in secondary sources, or should be used for simple factual statements like "I was born on XX." It is too easy to quote out of context, or to place a personal interpretation on the clip - much like the original section heading at the top of this thread. A noted historian giving a lecture or being interviewed on their topic of study would be a different situation and would have greater scope. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that videos should be used to prove simple facts as some sources.

I was trying to put YouTube content from a CNN broadcast, but Wikipedia says that YouTube is blacklisted. Why is that?Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Because YouTube is not an RS as it contains a lot of self-published material. CNN does actually have a TV channel (I am led to believe) so use that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't use YouTube. And don't use videos for editorializing, original research or synthesis, as you did with your heading for this thread. Wikipedia isn't a host for some sort of strung-together supercut of "they said this then and this at that other time."If a reliable secondary source does that, and it's considered due weight, then that might be admissible. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate the recommendation that you use news as your primary source of trustworthiness and videos and broadcast material as your secondary sources of trustworthiness. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:or, it is that to which they refer. If RS do not say it we can't, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

CNN Interview fact checks Kamala Harris

Can we use the new article for understanding Kamala Harris better? Subject : CNN fact checks Kamala Harris 'flip flopping' on fracking stance on YouTube , it is quite benefical, and I belive that we can find several trustworth news about this topic as it's from CNN.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Please specify the subject for the summary of the CNN factcheck below.

The video discusses Kamala Harris’ recent CNN interview after a six-week media hiatus. During the interview, Harris faced criticism for her inconsistent stance on fracking. In 2019, she supported a federal ban on fracking, but in a 2020 debate, she stated that Joe Biden would not ban fracking, without clarifying her own position. CNN fact-checked her claims, highlighting her flip-flop on some issues. The video also mentions Harris’ inconsistencies on other policies, such as healthcare, defunding the police, and immigration. The speaker criticizes Harris for lacking genuine rethinking of these issues, attributing her changes to political convenience. Additionally, Tim Walz, who appeared with Harris on CNN, was criticized for inflating his military record and providing a weak excuse when confronted about it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Its still being discussed above, you are going to get the same answers here you got there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Please specify the subject of talk that I can check, I will merge it to the relevant topic . I tried but I was unable to find the subject related with CNN interview fact check. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

[[11]] and [[12]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"Thread retitled from "Kamala Harris’s Track Record: Big Spending, Wokeness, Equity and Flip Flops". Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

So to sum up the other thread, no we can't use some random YouTube video as a source, you need to link to the CCN video saying she flip flops, not some YouTuber (or your) analysis of it. This new thread has no new arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I merged the topic to the related main heading, and I am asking feedback about the text News source from CNN whether it can be used. (1) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahh thank you, yes that is a useful source, I fail to see why therefore you went on about a youtube video. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

But only for her change of stance on Fraking. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding a few more text News sources about the CNN interview for getting feedbacks - all links can be acceptable? (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As this is a blp, to an op-edd might not be acceptable, also some of these might well fail wp:v as they do not seem to say she flip-flopped. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the comment. Could you please tell me what you mean by blp, and an op-edd specifically or examples of the blp, and an op-edd ? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

wp:blp a biography of a living person, Opp-edd, an opinion piece, WP:NEWSOPED. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am planning to add CNN interview part to the article when I can. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Chinese name

Why is there no mention of her Chinese name, 賀錦麗? She's used it since 2003, since she was a politician in San Francisco, and it's how she's still referred to today in Chinese language media, e.g. on Wikipedia: zh:賀錦麗. I looked up her English page because it's my native language and I couldn't remember it, but I was surprised to see no mention of it. Although the placement/phrasing is awkward, it is on, e.g., Scott Wiener's page. Not sure where would be best, but is there a reason for its omission? Miladragon3 (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

She's not Chinese and has no ties to China. What sources do you have that show she personally uses a Chinese spelling of her name, and not just that others use it to reference her? 331dot (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

See talk page archive for every answer about this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

muslim-american polling

In response to revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&curid=3120522&diff=1243898742&oldid=1243891486

with edit summary "Why would that be relevant here? it comes out of nowhere"

The polling is of course notable and relevant since a big portion of coverage in RS on polling and support for harris is surrounding muslim-american support, particularly in swing/battleground states, and the uncommitted movement.

I suggest to undo the revert. @Drmies DMH223344 (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Polling, especially the inundation we are about to experience through November 5, is absolutely WP:UNDUE, despite how many RS will repeat it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

fair point DMH223344 (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

DMH223344, it has NOTHING to do with her getting the nomination. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments: The polling - This is something for WP:users to review. Thank you. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Why involve Drmies instead of looking for consensus? That is not how Wiki is supposed to work afaik. DN (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No its not, it tells us nothing about her, if this belongs anywhere the place it belongs is the article about her campigh. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Muslims are only 1 percent of USA voters. The question of who they support as a candidate could be added to the Harris campaign page, but not this biography. The bigger question is how voters in general are reacting to the Harris position on the Israel/Palestine conflict. She has not laid out an exact plan. It's clear that she is going to have a measured response rather than an emotional one, but for specifics she is holding her cards close to the chest. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

African American

when did Jamaica become a part of Africa? So how is she African American? Misleading to get a vote? 64.188.215.241 (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page or the numerous other times this has been discussed. The majority of Jamaican residents were slaves brought from Africa. The majority of current residents are descendants of those slaves. "Misleading to get a vote" is a lie told in some quarters. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments:Answers and summary explanations to the FAQ are good suggestions for other users. Thanks. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

(refactored from #To increase the accuracy of this article: Please add important historical fact that Kamala Harris lived in Berkeley California when she was born.)

Harris cannot by definition be African-American. That is exclusive to those born second generation to a black parent. Thus, if she had children, they would be African-American, White and South Asian. Correctly, she can only be a South Asian Black American female. Not sure why Black is used first when describing her - the patriarchy winning again?

Basically the wiki page is promoting dis/misinformation. Discoperry (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

As per wiktionary:en:African-American:

African-American

1. A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent.

Through her father, Harris is of black African descent & she was born in the USA, which means she is American. End of story. If anyone is promoting dis/misinformation, it is you, Discoperry, by unduely presenting what seems to be trivial objections so as to deny that Harris is African American. I think that you are failing to be objective here & acknowledging the obvious. Please see the FAQ & please read the WP:OBV essay. Peaceray (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

What has here ancestry got to do with her birthplace? Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Slatersteven. Agreed.

Discoperry and Peaceray, we value your comments, though please move them to the appropriate topic on this page - we have a place for her 'race' discussion above on this talk page. Greenmcguire (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Discoperry and Greenmcguire:  Done as per WP:TALKO. Peaceray (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

To increase the accuracy of this article: Please add important historical fact that Kamala Harris lived in Berkeley California when she was born.

We state that Kamala Harris was born in Oakland California (with no documented proof), and yet we are omitting that her physical address where she & her family were living when Kamala was born was in Berkeley, California - and this is well documented on her United States birth certificate as well as in City of Berkeley documentation, including the city making her Berkeley childhood residence a Berkeley City Landmark. (https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/03/08/no-changes-needed-in-berkeley-to-landmark-the-childhood-home-of-kamala-harris)

By omitting the fact that Kamala lived in Berkeley when she was born, and by omitting that she was born in a 'hospital in Oakland' not just 'Oakland' - and by also omitting that she lived most of her formative years in Berkeley, misleads readers into thinking that Kamala and her family lived in Oakland, California when she was born, and that she spent some of her 'Early Years' in Oakland, yet she did not live in Oakland at all during her 'Early Years' as a child.

Indeed, Steve Finacom, City of Berkeley historian and a member of the Berkeley Landmarks Commission who worked on the paperwork to make her Berkeley childhood home a Berkeley City Landmark states clearly:

"...It would be most accurate to say she spent almost all of her childhood in Berkeley.." - see City of Berkeley article here: https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/03/08/no-changes-needed-in-berkeley-to-landmark-the-childhood-home-of-kamala-harris

My suggestion on how to honor this important historical fact:

Change: Kamala Devi Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964.

To: Kamala Devi Harris and her family were living in Berkeley California when she was born in an Oakland hospital on October 20, 1964. She spent most of her formative years in two Berkeley California residences, except for brief periods in the Midwest and Canada. Greenmcguire (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for this claim. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Took a quick search and apparently there has been some recent news coverage about it: Seattle Times: "The word almost never spoken was the name of Harris’ actual hometown: Berkeley, California. (...) She was indeed born in an Oakland hospital in 1964, but she did not settle in the city until she was in her 20s and working as a prosecutor in the county district attorney’s office." USA Today has a timeline.

As for the change suggestion, if it does happen then I think we can omit the actual address and just say that 'she and her family were living in Berkeley, California' or similar.--Super Goku V (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you --Super Goku V, I agree with you. - lets make omit Kamala's two actual Berkeley home addresses for now based on your reason for not wanting to bother the current residents living in the Berkeley apartments where Kamala lived during her formative childhood years - and we can just make sure to include the fact that she lived in Berkeley during most of her childhood 'early' years. Wikipedia has an 'Early Years' for a reason I'm sure. Let's honor it & not hide the city where Kamala spent most of her 'Early Years'. I think just making sure we say that she lived in Berkeley is quite important - as the current language could be misleading. When we read it, it seems to us all that she could have lived in Oakland during her childhood, or perhaps that she 'lived' in the hospital where she was born - and we all agree that this could not be further from the truth.

At some point, We all know that it is inevitable that very soon, the two addresses where Kamala grew up & spent most of her formative childhood years (both of these addresses are in the city of Berkeley California) will be all over the internet and here on Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia is not last to the table on this.

As history evolves, the two Berkeley addresses where she spent her childhood (never in Oakland) will be part of US History - no matter whether she wins or loses the presidencial election.

I have no idea if news articles can be relied upon for evidence, though we have found hundreds of them showing where she lived during her childhood in Berkeley similar to this one:

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/08/19/kamala-harris-berkeley-homes

The article shares photos from the Book Kamala Harris wrote herself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truths_We_Hold

In this particular article, two family photos (all shared frequently online by Kamala herself and also in her own book: Kamala Harris’ 2019 memoir, The Truths We Hold) shows her family in front of Harris’ first residence in Berkeley at 2531 Regent St. This Berkeley residence is where Kamala, her sister and her family states that her family lived in when Kamala Harris was born.

Shared more prevalently all over the internet by Kamala herself are photos of Kamala, her sister, mother and grandparents standing on the property, next to their second Berkeley home at 1227 Bancroft Way, Berkeley California, where Kamala and her family lived for a more extended period of time, and is the one residence where Kamala spent most of her childhood upbringing, attending elementary school in Berkeley as well.

_____________

As to O3000,'s comment about Berkeley being merely the 'Northern' part of an Oakland township - we are no longer in the mid-1800's which is when Europeans were still newly arriving to the area because of the Gold Rush. Long gone are the Gold Rush days. The language you mentioned referred to the mid-1800's. In fact, Berkeley was incorporated as a City in 1876 and Oakland is a different city altogether. Today we are in 2024 - not the 1850's. I think we should not refer to how things were in California during the 1800's when referring to a person who was born in the 1960's.

Berkeley is not the 'Northern' part of an Oakland township and hasn't been for more than 200 years. Berkeley is a world-renowned city in the United States of America, situated in the County of Alamedia, and a short drive from San Francisco. Most parents in the world's greatest wish is for their kids to get accepted to the University of California at Berkeley, California. And, some of these kids grow up to be parents of Kamala, like Kamala's own mother and father - who both attended UC Berkeley as graduate students in the 1960's. The Lawrence Berkeley Lab (where Kamala's mother worked) is not in Oakland. Many people in the world learned this when watching the Oppenheimer movie. Growing up in Berkeley had an immense positive impact on Kamala Harris' life. Kamala Harris shared a photo of her Berkeley 2nd grade elementary teacher with Kamala and her mother when Kamala received her law degree 21 years later.

In fact, the city of Berkeley is one of the oldest and most prominent cities in California. For many years in our nation, Berkeley had the largest college population in the Western United States. According to the reputable US News and Reports, UC Berkeley is one of the top 5 universities in the world. Oakland is quite unknown in comparison. Also, a majority of American Nobel Prize winners are from Berkeley California, which is quite notable. Is it because of something in the water? Is it because of the abundance of trees or organic produce at Berkeley Bowl? I don't know, but it's definitely something someone ought to look into at some point. I'll be heading over to Berkeley Bowl as soon as I finish writing this.

Wikipedia asks that we focus on facts - not bias.

Let us put down the facts, without bias, and without omitting Berkeley as her home when she was born. We don't want to 'influence' our readers into beleiving that Kamala Harris 'maybe' or 'potentially' lived in Oakland during her formative years - which is quite misleading and absolutely not true. Oakland is a very different city than Berkeley. As soon as Kamala was born, her parents drove from the hospital in Oakland to their home where they lived in Berkeley California. Kamala and her family were not 'living in the hospital'. We owe it to the world to let them know the truth.

Thank you to all the editors here who believe in sharing the facts, not hiding the facts.

and...Go Bears!

(a famous Berkeley Saying :) Greenmcguire (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't provide a reason for omitting the address, but if you want one, it is too much detailed info that few readers would care about from my perspective.

I hope Wikipedia is not last to the table on this. That kinda is what Wikipedia is intended to be. We wait for what RSs say.

I don't believe I have much to say for the rest of your reply. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems hardly an important historical anything. As for the history, Berkeley is an area that was the northern part of Oakland Township and the College of California was a private college founded in Oakland that became Berkeley. In any case, she was born in Oakland. If someone is living at 2531 Regent Street, let’s leave them alone. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, leave the precise address out of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000 Berkeley has not been part of Oakland for almost 150 years. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Objective3000! Agreed. Greenmcguire (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Harris was not born in Oakland. She was born in Berkeley. This is a basic biographical fact. Even Harris' birth certificate lists Berkeley on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/25/us/politics/kamala-harris-berkeley-hometown.html Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That NYT link says in part She was indeed born in an Oakland hospital in 1964. Bring some facts, please. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Bringjustthefactsplease! This could be true since we have no proof nor documentation showing that Kamala was born in Oakland - only a birth certificate that shows she & her family lived in Berkeley when she was born.

Birth certificates for people & their families living in Berkeley at that time will show their mother's address is Berkeley - which is factual. Kamala may have been born in a hospital in Oakland - but we will never know until we see documentation of this. I say we remove 'Oakland' from her Wikipedia page until we have documentation prooving she lived in Oakland as a child/toddler, etc... - in her 'Early Life' section - which is supposed to describe her 'Early Life'. Greenmcguire (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure this is all that significant. Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There are folks trying to tie her to UC Berkeley which is nicknamed The People's Republic of Berkeley. She did not go to Berkeley. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What has this to do with where she lived? Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It should have nothing to do with it. But what is and what should be are often different. [13] O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on the reply to my comment, apparently it is a big deal to some to connect the two. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do RS connect the two? Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

None that I see. Of emphasis, I would note O3000, Ret.'s reply to me about the situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently it is a "big deal" to those attempting to push the narrative that she is "Comrade Kamala" from the liberal bastion, the University of California Berkeley, an odd type of guilt by association. In fact, while still a toddler the family moved to the Midwest. At 5 the family returned to Berkeley in then a working-class part of the city with a large population of Black families. Then Montreal, then Washington D.C., then Alameda, eventually settling in Oakland. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000 I say this as someone who is planning to vote for Kamala, but it seems odd that the article currently goes out of its way to avoid mentioning what city she lived in California. It has no problem specifying "Urbana, Illinois", and Illinois is a lot smaller than California, and I'm not buying the "guilt by association" part because the article has no problem mentioning that both her parents attended UC Berkeley. If you look at other articles, Joe Biden specifies "Claymont" and "Mayfield" Delaware, Donald Trump mentions the "Jamaica Estates" neighborhood he grew up in, Tim Walz mentions "Valentine, Nebraska" (despite the hospital being in "West Point, Nebraska"), and JD Vance mentions "Middletown, Ohio", but this one just says "California"?

I would propose the following:

The Harris family moved from Berkeley, California in the fall of 1966, around Kamala's second birthday, and lived for a few years in college towns in the Midwest where her parents held teaching or research positions: Urbana, Illinois (where her sister Maya was born in 1966), Evanston, Illinois, and Madison, Wisconsin. By 1970, their marriage had faltered, and Shyamala moved back to California with her two daughters; the couple divorced when Kamala was seven. In 1972, Donald Harris accepted a position at Stanford University; Kamala and Maya would spend weekends at their father's house in Palo Alto and live at their mother's house in Berkeley during the week. Friends of Shyamala, among them African-American intellectuals and rights activists in Oakland and Berkeley, served as mentors for the Harris girls. Five years later, in 1976, Shyamala accepted a research position at the McGill University School of Medicine, and moved with her daughters to Montreal, Quebec. Harris graduated from Westmount High School in 1981.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, this isn't Mount Vernon or Monticello. She lived in that house for two years before moving to the Midwest. Unlikely she has any memory of living there.[14] I have no problem with your proposal, just where she was born -- the subject of this section. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems fine enough and doesn't overemphasis her connection to Berkeley. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

!Thank you --Super Goku V & everyone here. You made a lot of good points.

The update in the second paragraph of her 'Early Life' does seem slightly more accurate.

However, the first sentence still goes out of it's way to avoid saying where she lived when she was born, whilst also alluding that her family perhaps living in Oakland when she was born. Most readers will assume that she and her family lived in Oakland when she was born.

It is also quite confusing to someone who may want to read facts about her 'Early Life' - because her 'physical location' goes from "Born in Oakland" then in the second paragraph to "moved away from Berkeley" - which is super confusing to someone reading it & wondering 'How did she move 'from Berkeley' if she was 'born in Oakland' with no mention of 'Berkeley'.

I think it would be clear if we used the following language:

'Kamala Devi Harris was born in a hospital in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964 while her family was living in Berkeley, California.'

This version does not mention her exact Berkeley address, and will be more accurate and no longer mislead readers into thinking she 'lived in Oakland' when she was born - which is not true.

We could also leave out Oakland, since she never lived in Oakland during her 'Early Years'. Her mother lived in Oakland later in her life - after Kamala moved out of the family home, but Kamala Harris did not. Kamala Harris spent most of her formative 'Early Years' in Berkeley California - never did she spend even one of her 'Early Years' in Oakland.

In the first paragraph of her 'Early Life' section where we state: "Kamala Devi Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964. Her mother,..."

it is still very misleading to readers, since we mention the hospital where she was born, and avoid mentioning the city where she and her family lived when she was born. People want to know where she lived - where she spent her 'Early Years' - not a city miles away where she did not grow up.

_____

While we make these important edits, I also think it's important to ignore anything said about Berkeley being 'liberal' or letting these rumors influence our edits.

The fact is that UC Berkeley has the largest republican student association in the State of California, and one of the largest republican student associations in the United States.

https://callink.berkeley.edu/organization/berkeleycollegerepublicans

Why is this important?

Because, for those of us here who think that we are 'labeling Kamala a liberal' by mentioning 'she lived in Berkeley when she was born' in the first sentence - we are not labeling her as liberal at all - Berkeley is more famous for having one of the largest far-right republican associations in our nation.

We should not be ashamed to make it clear which city Kamala Harris lived in when she was born. In fact, why are we going out of our way to deny where she lived when she was born? Because some of us here think that less people will vote for a someone born in a liberal city? Despite rumors, Berkeley is not a liberal city and has always had one of the largest republican associations in the United States. We really need to focus on the facts and not be swayed by 'hoping to get her more votes'.

If we are honest and truthful in the first sentence by saying that Berkeley is where Kamala and her family were living when she was born, then we are sharing that she is from a place that is strongly bipartisan - as Berkeley supports all voices - replublican and democratic. Indeed, UC Berkeley is the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement in the United States of America. America is only free because we have 'free speech', which is rare in other countries & is a precious and important right that allows our country to remain 'The land of the free, and the home of the brave'.

Thank you. Greenmcguire (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In her autobiography, Harris wrote she "spent the formative years of my childhood living on the boundary between Oakland and Berkeley." (p. 4) That seems like an accurate way of describing it.

Also, the conspiracist talk about not mentioning Berkeley is not helpful. Most people have never heard of these places. TFD (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Greenmcguire, I am going to start by letting you know that I am subscribed to this discussion and am getting notifications for new replies.

Regarding the Berkeley deal, you have a point that it does jump a bit, which may surprise the reader a bit. However, the section already mentions Berkley five separate times and includes a sixth mention in the photo in that section which says, "Harris's childhood home on Bancroft Way in Berkeley." I think it is clear enough to the reader that she lived in Berkeley. If the reader wants more info, then can read the sources that talk about Berkeley or go to Early life and career of Kamala Harris which has additional mentions of her living in Berkeley.

As for the rest, TFD already said it best: the conspiracist talk about not mentioning Berkeley is not helpful. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you --Super Goku V and TFD, you made some good points.

Thank you for agreeing that it does 'jump a bit' which may surprise the reader. However, I think it does more than 'jump' - it misleads readers to beleive mistakenly that she may have been living in Oakland when she was born. Several others here have made the same point - so I'm sure this huge error will be fixed in time.

Responding to your words "the boundary between Oakland and Berkeley." (p. 4) That seems like an accurate way of describing it." Bancroft Way and Regent Street are no where near the border of Oakland and Berkeley.

I agree, I don't like consipiracist talk either, however - mentioning the hospital town where she was born, but going out of our way to not mention she lived in

Berkeley when she was born is misleading and this many here have agreed upon.

There is no reason to mention Oakland and I suggest remove Oakland from the first sentence and just let people know that she and her family lived in Berkeley when she was born. The hospital where she was born is of little importance. If you look at other biographies, the town where the person lived when they were born is the focus.

Thank you,

Greenmcguire Greenmcguire (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Its less than two km away. The point is that the areas they lived in were more like neighboring areas in Oakland than they were like the affluent areas of Berkeley. TFD (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you TFD for your reply.

Regarding your first point:

Many cities in America (including Manhattan-New York City) are less than 2KM wide. The width of a city does qualify as a good reason to mislead readers by focusing on the hospital she was born instead of the town where she lived. In fact, by mentioning Oakland without saying 'a hospital in Oakland' is also extremely misleading to our readers as it does not differentiate the fact that when we refer to 'Oakland', we are merely referring to a hospital where she was born - not at all to her 'Early Years' - which is what we are supposed to be focusing on in this section

Regarding your second point:

Berkeley is no more 'affluent' than Oakland, and Oakland was more affluent than Berkeley when Kamala was born. Oakland has a large, affluent population - mostely living in the hills (just like Berkeley). Today, the average income for Berkeley Residents is about ~$100,000/year, and for Oakland, ~$95,000.

Also, even if you were correct about there being a vast oppulence difference, it is still not a good reason to mislead our readers into thinking that She was not living in Berkeley when she was born. There is never a reason to mislead people from the truth.

Thank you,

Greenmcguire Greenmcguire (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Early Years. The first two years of her life. Humans rarely have any memory of those years. It's not like it had any influence on her life. I don't know what "truth" there is here. It's not like Obama birtherism when he ran. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether all the people with biographies on wikipedia remember their 'Early Years' or not - we still need to share the truth about those 'Early Years'. Her remembering has nothing to do with telling the truth.

The truth is that we have no proof Kamala was born in Oakland, but we have volumes of truth (including her birth certificate that does not mention Oakland at all) that she and her family lived in Berkeley when she was born & that two Berkeley residences were her main places of 'home' when she was growing up during her 'Early Years'. Greenmcguire (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I am going to quote myself: However, the section already mentions Berkley five separate times and includes a sixth mention in the photo in that section which says, "Harris's childhood home on Bancroft Way in Berkeley." I think it is clear enough to the reader that she lived in Berkeley. If the reader wants more info, then can read the sources that talk about Berkeley or go to Early life and career of Kamala Harris which has additional mentions of her living in Berkeley. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I am surprised wikipedia had this incorrect content. Kamela Harris was born in Berkeley, not Oakland. This is confirmed by the New York Times and her own words. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

She was indeed born in an Oakland hospital in 1964, but she did not settle in the city until she was in her 20s and working as a prosecutor in the county district attorney’s office. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

> "The word almost never spoken was the name of Ms. Harris’s actual hometown: Berkeley, Calif."

> "Her birth certificate lists an apartment building near the University of California, Berkeley campus, where her parents were pursuing Ph.D.s."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/25/us/politics/kamala-harris-berkeley-hometown.html Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between hometown and birthplace. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. She was born at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, and her parents resided in Berkeley. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Muboshgu!

Her 'Early Years' are the years mostly 'before'20 years of age - so what her biography currently states is so grossly incorrect and false.

Also, we have proof that her mother settled in Oakland when Kamala was no longer a minor, but we have no documentation that Kamala lived with her mother in Oakland - or ever resided in the city of Oakland. All the documentation we have is that she lived in Berkeley - never in Oakland. I recommend we remove the word 'Oakland' from her page, so people will no longer think she lived in Oakland at any time in her life. Greenmcguire (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You want to take a fact out of the article? And you think that improves accuracy? Please don't ping me again. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The City of Berkeley made Kamala's childhood home a city landmark. The person behind this effort is Mr. Finacom, according to an article written on the city's website:

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/03/08/no-changes-needed-in-berkeley-to-landmark-the-childhood-home-of-kamala-harris

"...said Finacom. “It would be most accurate to say she spent almost all of her childhood in Berkeley, but not all...”

The statement above from the city of Berkeley really says it all - we really need to remove 'Oakland' from the first sentence of her 'Early Years' - or at least specify that she was living in Berkeley and was born 'in an Oakland hospital' - so it is clear that she never lived in Oakland during her 'Early Years'. Greenmcguire (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Talk page banners

there are a lot of banners on this talk page - this is especially noticeable on screens with smaller widths, and can lead to people skipping the important ones. on other talk pages with a similar issue I've seen some of the less important banners being collapsed - I think this would be helpful here. Rexo (talk | contributions) 05:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you think of an example page with collapsed banners? Wondering what style/approach/templates they use. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden collapses the Top 25/50 reports media mentions, page views and section sizes with {{Banner holder}}. I'd personally want to go further, but I'm not entirely certain what else could be hideable by default without causing annoyance - the OTD notice probably? I'd also support collapsing the attribution notices (maybe in their own holder?) but understandable if they're a bit too important for that. Rexo (talk | contributions) 15:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

actually, looking at Talk:Twitter (another page with a heap of banners) the attribution banner is hidden so presumably that isn't a concern. Rexo (talk | contributions) 15:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

An obvious use-case for {{Too many banners}}, which sadly seems to have been deleted last month. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd support removing the attribution templates entirely. The revision histories of the other articles now include edit summaries noting the copying, and it's not possible that this article will be deleted. I'd favor collapsing the banners Rexo identifies. I also think we should remove the activepol parameter from the WikiProject banner shell, as the header that renders is not helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I went for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Please add pronunciation of name to lead

So many commentators (mostly those that oppose her, obviously) mispronounce her first name nowadays. If she's running for POTUS, we should tell people how to correctly pronounce her name. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It is in the footnotes. [b] Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

edit request regrading omitted information / partial quote

there is a part from her speech that is omitted:

which is what is currently on the table. after six weeks.

change : "Given the immense scale of suffering in Gaza, there must be an immediate ceasefire for at least the next six weeks...This will get the hostages out and get a significant amount of aid in"

to: "Given the immense scale of suffering in Gaza, there must be an immediate Ceasefire for at least the next six weeks, which is what is currently on the table. This will get the hostages out and get a significant amount of aid in."

in case my edit request is rejected, I would appreciate knowing what is the reason that this part is omitted from her quote 109.64.55.154 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC: How to refer to the African ancestry of Kamala Harris?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following should we use to refer to Kamala Harris when discussing her African ancestry:

• African-American
• Black

Note: There are cases where she may be referred to as Asian-American either alone or with one of the above two. This RfC is only about her African ancestry as that has been the greatest area of contention. This does not apply to quotes. You will find a lengthy discussion on the subject above at:[15]. --O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If Black, please indicate capitalization preference so we don't have to have a second RfC. Also, try to keep responses in the Survey section reasonably brief. The Discussion section can be used for more detailed responses. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Both. They're not mutually exclusive. Might remove the "when talking about her African ancestry" part of the question, as the context in which each are used can be complicated. IMO the question is really more about how to thoughtfully present both, and how doing so in the lead might differ from the body of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Black - To reiterate what I've said in the discussion above, most news sources now use Black to describe Harris and the most recent official websites use Black:

• WhiteHouse.gov says "On January 20, 2021, Kamala Harris was sworn in as Vice President – the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American to be elected to this position."
• KamalaHarris.com says "Throughout her life, she’s broken barriers, and she’s now the first woman, first Black American, and first South Asian American to serve as vice president."

List of other sources discussed above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Black: BBC - "first woman as well as the first black and Asian-American to serve as vice-president" AP News - "Harris is the first woman, Black person and person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president." Pew Research - "She became the first female vice president, as well as the first Black person and first Asian American to hold that office." ABC News - "become the first Black woman and the first person of South Asian descent to head a major party's presidential ticket after President Joe Biden’s ended his reelection bid" New York Times NPR - "after all, she's Black and Asian and South Asian and Indian American." NPR again - "in addition to being the first Black or Asian American person in the position." CNN - "Harris is the first woman to become vice president, as well as the first Black or Asian American person to hold the office." CNN again NBC News - "nation's first female vice president, as well as the first Black American and first person of South Asian descent." Reuters - "The attacks on Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black and South Asian person to serve as U.S. vice president, have intensified in the days since she consolidated support to become Democrats' likely presidential nominee." Locke, T., & Joseph, R. L. (2021). All intersectionality is not the same: Why Kamala Harris is our vice president and not Stacey Abrams. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 107(4), 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2021.1983197 Clayton, K., Crabtree, C., & Horiuchi, Y. (2023). Do Identity Frames Impact Support for Multiracial Candidates? The Case of Kamala Harris. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.33 Filindra, Alexandra, and E. J. Fagan. 2022. “ Black, Immigrant, or Woman? The Implicit Influence of Kamala Harris' Vice Presidential Nomination on Support for Biden in 2020.” Social Science Quarterly. 103: 892–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13162 Ma, D.S., Hohl, D. & Kantner, J. The politics of identity: The unexpected role of political orientation on racial categorizations of Kamala Harris. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy. 2021; 21: 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12257 FactCheck.org - "Harris Has Always Identified as Indian American and Black" African American: CBS News CA.gov USA Today " Kamala Harris became the first African American vice president of the United States ...", Statistical Thinking: Analyzing Data in an Uncertain World, Princeton University Press, 2023, p. 78. "Kamala Harris his running mate, thus giving her the opportunity to become the first African American vice president in American history." , Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, Oxford University Press, 2022, p. 286. " Kamala Harris the first woman, the first African American, ... to serve as vice president." Winds of Hope, Storms of Discord: The United States since 1945, Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 486 "Vice President Kamala Harris's ascension as the country's first woman (and African American) to assume the number two position in the White House." Race and National Security, Oxford University Press, p. "Celebrating America's arrival as a desirable "post-racial" ideal has been somewhat reinvigorated by America's first African Asian vice president, Kamala Harris." Discounting Life: Necropolitical Law, Culture, and the Long War on Terror], Cambridge University Press, 2022, p. 118. "Senator Cory Booker and Senator Kamala Harris are African American", The Point of No Return: American Democracy at the Crossroads, Princeton University Press, 2023, p. 202. "Right-wing critics ready to pounce on all things Harris—the first vice presidential candidate with African American lineage—were quick to contradict and condemn her ...", Trash Talk: Anti-Obama Lore and Race in the Twenty-first Century, University of California Press, p. 129 African-American women are unrelentingly conceptualized as the embodied salvation of national political parties, most predominantly in Joe Biden's selection of Kamala Harris as his vice president ...," The Divided States: Unraveling National Identities in the Twenty-First Century , University of Wisconsin Press, 2023, p. 44. "In 2020, Biden was elected president, and Harris became the first woman, and the first woman of 'African and South Asian descent, to be elected vice president of the United States." Making the World a Better Place: African American Women Advocates, Activists, and Leaders, 1773-1900, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2023. "This chapter explores the stony road African American women have walked, from ... to the ascendancy of Kamala Harris, the first African American woman Vice President." (Identity Politics in US National Elections, Springer, 2023. "Kamala Harris, as the highest-ranking woman official in US history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president of the United States," Barbara Jordan and the Politics of Scripture, Georgetown University Press, 2022. "In the person of Kamala Harris, the first woman, the first Asian-American and first African American Vice president was elected—a historic breakthrough ...", The Battle for the White House: The US Presidential Election 2020 under the impression of Polarization, Coronavirus Pandemic and Social Tensions, Springer, 2022, p. 156. "It is also historic because Kamala Harris became the first woman vice-president and the first African-American and Asian-American vice-president." Politics of Racism Beyond Nations: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Crises, Springer, p. 235. "the first African American and South Asian woman vice president Kamala Harris. ", Religious Rhetoric in US Right-Wing Politics: Donald Trump, Intergroup Threat, and Nationalism, Springer Nature, 2022, p. 14. "Although Ms Harris was received with excitement and enthusiasm by many as the first woman, the first African American, and the first Asian to be nominated for and elected to this high office ...," Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace, SAGE, 2022, p. 158. "Kamala Harris as his running mate, he positioned her to serve as the not only the first woman but also the first African American, and Asian American vice president in American history," Mass Media and American Politics, CQ Press, the historic collection of workings of the US Congress., 2022, p. 343. Both: Politifact ABC News

The strange insistence on either textbooks or some other specific sources does not square with WP:V or WP:RS. Self-identification is key to our handling of race, gender, sexuality, disability, etc. and the two main official websites about Harris use Black. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic query, now anwered

Please no collapsed lists here. Create them elsewhere and link them, as I have done. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Please remove the references to African American that were already in my list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC) You seem to have reproduced my quotes in the length in which they appeared in my list. This is a little distressing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC) @Fowler&fowler - There is no rule against collapsed lists. As the list's title says, I've included other sources discussed above, including the African American ones you mentioned. I copy-pasted them verbatim so readers can see a full list. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• African-American in the first paragraph of the lead, followed by Black in the second paragraph (as in the current lead). This means I am happy with what has been the status quo for the last three years and 10 months. Here are my reasons:

• On all her official websites from December 2003 until December 2020 she used "African American" to describe her paternal ethnicity:

• District Attorney of San Francisco, December 2003 to December 2010: "About us":"In December 2003, Kamala D. Harris was elected as the first woman District Attorney in San Francisco's history and the first African American woman in California’s history to hold the office."
• California Attorney General, December 2010 to December 2016: About the AG: "She is the first woman, the first African American, and the first South Asian to hold the office in the history of California."
• U.S. Senator January 2017 to January 2021: About Kamala," Harris was the first African-American and first woman to serve as Attorney General of California and the second African-American woman to be elected to the United States Senate in history.
• After January 2021:

• Although her subpage on Joe Biden's White House websie) describes her to be the first "Black American" Vice President, it is not at all clear judging from the overblown language used, who has written the page, the White House PR team or Kamala Harris.
• However, the US Senate, whose President she is, continues to describe her as: "2021, January 20 Kamala Harris of Los Angeles became the first woman and the first African American and Asian American to serve as vice president of the United States and president of the U.S. Senate" (scroll all the way to the right here)

• There are precedents in on Wikipedia that MOS:IDENTITY cannot simply override: The Wikipedia pages of all the Black elected leaders which mention ethnicity in the lead, have only "African American." The list includes not only senators and later president such as Barack Obama, but also: Hiram R. Revels, Blanche Bruce, Edward Brook, Carol Moseley Braun, Roland Burris, Tim Scott, Mo Cowan, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris (current version of the lead), Raphael Warnock; governors such as Deval Patrick, David Paterson, Wes Moore; and members of Congress dating from the period before emancipation (Jefferson F. Long, John R. Lynch), to reconstruction (Jeremiah Haralson, John Adams Hyman, Charles E. Nash, and James E. O'Hara; to early Jim Crow era (Henry P. Cheatham, John Mercer Langston, Thomas E. Miller), late Jim Crow to Civil Rights era (Oscar Stanton De Priest, Arthur W. Mitchell, William L. Dawson, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Charles Diggs, Robert N.C. Nix Sr., John Conyers, Louis Stokes); to the Modern Era (where there are too many but some notable ones are Charles Rangel, Andrew Young, Barbara Jordan, and Harold Washington). (Added 13:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC))
• Per WP:TERTIARY on due weight A large number of text-books and monographs published by Oxford, Princeton, Cambridge, University of California, Springer, SAGE, ... and other scholarly publishers, use "African-American" (See collapsed list of 16 scholarly books here). There are also a lesser number that support Black.
• Black American on Wikipedia redirects to African Americans
• The previous RfC Talk:Kamala_Harris/Archive_4#RfC:_Should_Kamala_Harris_be_described_as_'African_American'_in_the_lead? in which 46 editors participated, an overwhelming number (21 of 46) were declared by the closer to have supported "African American." 8 supported both African American and Black; 2 only Black ... see the Closer, MelanieN's analysis.
• A group of pioneering African-American intellectuals and rights activists in Berkeley and Oakland, all friends of KH's mother Shyamala Gopalan formed a crucial support group that influenced her childhood, and thus notions of her ethnicity. Please see the third section of the restored Early life and education section (whose permalink I have given, as it was drastically reduced earlier today). (Corrected 14:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC))
• Finally: For those who argue that Kamala Harris herself prefers the label "Black," and give as evidence the Whitehouse.gov's VP site's blurb, here is a more detailed and heartfelt description of what she identifies with. : It is from a moderated discussion at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, Washington DC, in April 2023 after her trip to Africa, and in particular to Ghana. See here for the conversation about her Ghana trip, which is excerpted from this full report. She explicitly identifies with the descendants of those who survived the Middle Passage. Unlike her Indian ancestors, her Caribbean passed through a Door of No Return as they left Africa. As she says very forcefully and with feeling: In the midst of so-called leaders who are trying to erase history in our country — (applause) — what we must all do to stand up and speak out about this as loud as we can. It’s not just about “forget”; they’re trying to erase history, I feel we have to acknowledge the other coast of the Middle Passage in the primary description of her ethnic history: She is the "first African American vice president in American history" followed by Black later in the lead or in a footnote. Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Follow up to Yopienso's helpful remarks

You seem to have misread and misinterpreted Harris's report about her visit to Zambia. Either that, or you accidentally linked to the wrong report. YoPienso (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC) She is talking there about her earlier visit to Ghana. It is that part I am referring to, to the Door of No Return, etc. I have to take my cat out to the doc's but will take another look upon my return. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC) OK, I'm back @Yopienso:. I'll take a look and fix it. Thanks for noticing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Fixed. See above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC) You're welcome, and thanks. There are still some discrepancies, though. The document you linked to never once says "African American" or "Black." Wrt whether "Kamala Harris herself prefers the label "Black,'" here's another document about that trip. In a speech to Ghanaian youth given at the Black Star Gate on March 28, 2023, she said, "...this continent, of course, has a special significance for me personally as the first Black Vice President of the United States of America." [Emphasis added.] Now, that doesn't necessarily show a preference, but it's a prime example of her recent usage. I don't find where she "explicitly identifies with the descendants of those who survived the Middle Passage." She visited the Black Star Gate in Accra as a tourist, making no mention of any ancestor who passed through it or any of the 40 or so similar gates across western Africa. I suspect she doesn't know her father's genealogy many generations back. Maybe it doesn't matter much if we use "African American" or "Black," which are commonly used synonymously. YoPienso (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC) I can't speak to what she said elsewhere, but in the conversation I've referenced she very much considers herself to be a descendent of people who endured the Middle Passage, for this is how that excerpted conversation ends: THE VICE PRESIDENT: And what we should do then to also celebrate the strength of our people to come through that and go on to be astronauts. I just spoke yesterday with Astronaut Glover. Do you guys know who he is? (Laughs.) (Applause.) He’s about to go on the Artemis II mission to circle the Moon. I just talked to him yesterday. Right? And so, the scientists and the astronauts and the mathematicians and all of the people — MS. NABONGO: And the Vice President. THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and the Vice President of the United States. (Laughs.) (Applause.) Right. As far as I'm aware, the term African American as envisaged by the people who originally created it was a reference to the Middle Passage Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC) No, the interviewer interrupted and included her, and Harris then repeated the interviewer's words. YoPienso (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC) But she agreed and had used "us" and "our people" before. She was being modest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC) {{re|@Yopienso: I am collapsing this, so it doesn't distract other participants. Thanks for your helpful comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC) I really appreciate your friendliness. My view isn't that Harris was being modest--why would a politician be modest? She was being gracious with the interviewer, an increasingly rare quality. You can tell by the fact she laughed and then said "Right" that in the moment she wasn't thinking about including herself. I'm not sure I want all my comments hidden, particularly this: Wrt whether "Kamala Harris herself prefers the label "Black,'" here's another document about that trip. In a speech to Ghanaian youth given at the Black Star Gate on March 28, 2023, she said, "...this continent, of course, has a special significance for me personally as the first Black Vice President of the United States of America." [Emphasis added.] Now, that doesn't necessarily show a preference, but it's a prime example of her recent usage. How can we give those lines visibility? Between you and me, I'm concluding that we're wasting our time here. "Black American," "Black," and "African American" mean almost the same thing. They do generally mean exactly the same thing; the difference lies in the speaker's and hearer's personal opinions. "Jamaican" or "Jamaican American" would work just as well. Same for Asian. I much prefer South Asian to the much broader "Asian," which often conjures images of China, Japan, and Korea. Far better would be to use "Indian." It's been a pleasure working with you because you've been so civil. Just a friendly hint here: Be sure not to cross the line into WP:OWN. YoPienso (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both because both are supported by high quality sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Binksternet: Would the phrasing in the current lead—which has "African American" in the second sentence, and Black in the second paragraph—be acceptable to you? Alternatively would "African American" in the second sentence, but with a footnote which says, "Also Black American or Woman of Color," be acceptable to you? If not, please suggest something specific that will. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a note. The current wording is fine, with AA in the first paragraph and B in the second. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Black and Asian American (my preference is Black Asian American, or just Black for brevity). This aligns with what it says at her own website and the White House website. Apparently, it's what she wants and what her PR people want, as she and they both had to sign off on those descriptors. Media often get things wrong, so I think we should go to and rely on the primary source(s): Kamala Harris and the people who promote her and speak for her officially. It's at both of those places online where she's told us who she is. Why would we want to call her anything else? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

*:But for 16 years before that, as Senator, California AG, District Attorney SF, her previous media people identified her as African-American. See my statement above. So, is WP a tool of the media PR people, and if so, of which version of a subject's changeable identity? How do the last four trump over the previous 16? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Corrected in light of @Objective3000:'s remark below. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• is WP a tool of the media people Would you please stop this? Media have their own editorial rules. In earlier days, African-American became popular because older terms were heavily frowned upon, including the term Black before they owned it. Go back far enough, it was "colored". I remember the waiting room and water fountain signs. Then was then, Now is now. Let people be called what they want to be called, as long as it has a legitimate foundation, whether it be race, sexual identity, gender, etc. Trump was ranting today that she just turned Black. Let us not be his "tool". O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Again, let's not stay stuck in the past. Let's use the terminology Ms. Harris uses.

  We could always say in the lead that she's a "person of color" and then use African American and Black throughout the article. (I realize there's a good argument that the two terms aren't interchangeable, but it seems they're often used as synonyms.)

  That said, in 2019, when she was running for the 2020 nomination, Politico quoted her as saying, "I am black and I am proud of it. [...] I was born black and I’ll die black and I am proud of it. And I am not gonna make any excuses for it, for anybody, because they don’t understand." YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• African-American or Black American - black is very informal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropulse (talk • contribs) 04:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree with you that "Black" is more informal than African American. It is one of the reasons the US Senate calls its list: African American Senators. It includes Kamala Harris.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Mmm, and then we have the Congressional Black Caucus, the HBCUs, the NABJ, the Association of Black Psychologists, etc.--all formal.

  Couldn't we agree that colored, Negro, Afro-American, Black, African American, all mean the same thing? They just arose from different times and places.

  (I'm aware that "colored" "color" as used in person of color now includes just about everyone who's not white, but I'm referring to "colored" as in the NAACP.) YoPienso (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  The word colored is considered highly offensive. Rep. Eli Crane used the word on the House floor a couple weeks ago. It was stricken from the record.[16] The NAACP chose the term "colored" for its name because it was the most positive description commonly used in 1909. More common words back then were and are far more offensive, but still used by many people today. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you might be confusing it with person of color, which is not the same thing – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Objective3000: @Macaddct1984:

  I was speaking historically, starting with colored, and I specifically referred to the NAACP. I also said the names arose from different times and places. It's exactly my point that it was the preferred term at the time. (Surely you noticed I omitted the most common term I heard when I was young.)

  I wasn't exactly sure where to put Black in the list, since "Black is beautiful" was a slogan before Afro-American morphed into African American, IIRC, but now since the Black Lives Matter movement began, "Black" seems more popular than "African American."

  I'm well aware of POC, which indeed is not the same as colored. I should have been more precise, and will correct that to avoid offense. YoPienso (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I understand. Speaking historically myself, I remember my teen years when the "whites only" signs were prevalent along with the "colored" signs. The public swimming pool was whites only, as well as the public schools I had to go to, a whites only school, and the sundown laws said all Blacks must cross the tracks before sundown. I could rant for an hour on other problems in my city alone. My point is that, at the very least, we should allow these people to self-identify and not be forced to accept the labels put upon them by others. And before someone says RGW, No, I am striving for neutrality and balance in a BLP. How can we document a current presidential candidate by changing the wording that she uses about herself? It's not like she is claiming she has done more for Blacks than any president since Abraham Lincoln (as another candidate just claimed). She just wants, and has wanted for a long time (BA from a Black college, pledged to a Black sorority) as Black. Who are we to change that? Appolgies for the rant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. We must be about the same age. I attended segregated schools until I was in the 7th grade, and the integration was NOT seamless.

  AFAIK, my list of words were all chosen by the people they describe(d). Every decade or so I've done my best to accept and use the term du jour. That's why on this page I've repeatedly said older RSs (more than 2 years old, I'll now say, or maybe even one year) aren't the best; we have to look at what Ms. Harris calls herself now, which seems to be "Black."

  What's RGW? YoPienso (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Status Quo, as no good argument has been made for a change to the article, I see no reason to change it. Ther is no controversy in RS about her ethnicity, this is a manufactured controversy here. This is wp:falsebalance, her self-identification has not actually been challenged by RS,so there is not need for us to challenge it, it's not controversial. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As evidenced by her own words (quoted just above), her own webpage and the White House webpage, her self-identification is Black and Asian American. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I must have missed where she says "I am not African American", please quote it for me. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You want the article subject to prove you wrong, to prove that your preferred definition of her is inaccurate? I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, is it? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No I want you to address the point I made. She has identified as African American, RS has identified her as African American. No one has said she is not African American. Just as we can say water is wet (even if you can find a source that does not say "water is wet"), so just finding a source that does not say "African American" does not mean its a contested claim. There is no controversy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Slatersteven - I'm sorry for replying late and I'm even more sorry if this issue has been resolved but if I could have my two cents in: I agree with you and vote to keep the status quo. I never knew this would be such an issue. If a source says she's "Black" or there's a specific context, then it should be noted in the quote or wherever the context is fit on her article, but otherwise, I don't see what's wrong with calling her "African-American" given how she has identified as such and has been described as such (though this may depend on source). And said term is also considered more formal, no?

I know many are citing varying sources and how the terms "African-American", "Black" and "Black American" shouldn't all be conflated, or how this topic is solely about her African ancestry and not her South Asian-born mother. But if I may make a point: Harris has also described her Tamil Indian mother as a "Brown woman" (though "Brown" is not an official U.S census category, it's often used informally to denote people who are not considered "white" or "black" in America)[17] [Kamala Harris:] She was a brown woman". This, in addition to her mother being variously called "Indian", "Tamil Indian", "South Asian", "(South) Asian-American", and whatever other descriptors.

Clearly sources clearly differ and use various terminology deemed fit by herself or others. I again, do not see what's wrong with primarily calling her "African-American" and not bouncing back and fourth every other sentence or bringing this up constantly on her talk page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Black-ish When quoting a source, use what the source says. Otherwise use Black as that is her self-description. Considering the past treatment of minorities, self-description in cases of race, gender, sexuality, disability, is an important neutralizer. Of course it has to be accurate, not a self-description like ‘most healthy president in history’. Also capitalize Black. There was a lengthy discussion about this elsewhere on WP some months ago. A few days ago, EvergreenFir changed African-American to Black in the lead sentence: She is the first female vice president and the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history, as well as the first African American and first Asian American vice president. It was reverted back to Afro-American. The citation is[18], the official page on her at the White House site. That official page says Black American, not Afro-American. Why would we misquote this? EvergreenFir’s correction should be changed back to Black now, instead of waiting for RfC close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  African American had been in the lead (a result of the previous RfC) from January 2021 until very recently when it was changed without consensus. What is in place now is the longstanding consensus version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your repetitive mention of that RfC is highly misleading. It did not have Black as an option and wasn't about Black vs. Afro-American. What is in place now is not what is in the citation provided, a page in an official White House site about VP Harris. If we are going to use citations, we should say what they say, not an editor's opinion about what they should say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  From 11 November 2020 until 29 July 2024, when EvergreenFir made the change, and from 30 July 2024 when it was reverted (with edit summary: "reverting lead change without consensus") until now, the lead of this page has always used "African American." That is three years and 9 months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  So it should be corrected per the citation, the official White House site on her. If we look at the most common term used for Blacks since 1492, we would be using a term I will not repeat. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Errr call me stupid, but what's the difference? Af-Am is more formal, as is "European" or "of European descent", while 'black' is slightly more colloquial, as is 'white'. Neither is any longer derogatory or excessively informal. If she herself is happy to be called 'black', who are we to argue? Whether to capitalise should be decided by the MOS, though I'm not sure what that would say. Incidentally, Obama himself sometimes uses the terms interchangably, and I've heard (and read) him describe himself as 'black'.Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: The difference is that in the Wikipedia pages of all the other major Black office holders from before emancipation until now, including KH, the first mention of the ethnicity in the lead is "African American." See my statement. I'm sure most have referred to themselves now and then as Black. The first mention is in formal language. Later, in the KH page's lead's second paragraph, we use Black. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• African-American at first use, Blacktherafter. Both terms appear to be almost equally sourced/used, with a slight preference for AA in more formal contexts, and Black in colloquial ones, and her own use. Apart from considerations of formality and her personal preference, AA is more precise. In the UK, 'Black' is most often used to refer to African-Caribbean and/or direct African ancestry, but it has also been commonly used for all non-Europeans. In Australasia I believe, it is commonly used for the descendants of indigenous peoples there. While I agree with the general principle of self-identification in such matters, when neither term has been objected to by KH, and when sources use both, being precise trumps (no pun intended) the language she herself uses when addressing a US audience. We should follow whatever MOS says about capitalisation, I can see the arguments both way on that as the term, when used about ancestry, is not being used in its ordinary adjectival sense. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just saying...we should not use "blacktherafter". I'm pretty sure that refers to someone with a bucket of tar weatherproofing the ceiling of an old church. GMG^talk 11:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both - as I already outlined in the earlier discussion prior to the RFC - The previous RfC from 2021 centered on the topic of whether to include her race/ethnicity at all, it didn't explicitly list Black as an option. Per MOS:IDENTITY we follow reliable self-identification and as such sources such as her whitehouse.gov profile and her ongoing Presidential political campaign self-identification are most recent on the matter, which indicate she uses the term Black American and South Asian American most recently and we should prefer it as such for top level per our MOS guidelines on preferring her self-identification if there is ambiguity - If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. We can for older pieces, such as her time in California and as Senator use African American as that was the term she used at the time and as others have already noted, the two terms can be used interchangeably. Raladic (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Black. Today the NYT, WaPo, and CNN all referred to her as Black.

The New York Times: "The party chair said she had won enough delegates to secure the nomination, setting up Kamala Harris to become the first Black woman and person of South Asian heritage to earn the top spot on a major political ticket for president."

The Washington Post: "Harris becomes just the second person of color in America’s nearly 250-year history to head a major presidential ticket, after Barack Obama in 2008. Harris is Black and Indian American, and Trump has recently attacked her identity and suggested that she formerly downplayed her Black heritage, an assertion for which there is no evidence."

CNN: "Harris, who said she will formally accept the nomination next week after the virtual roll call is complete on Monday, will become the first Black woman and first Asian American to lead a major-party ticket." YoPienso (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why my comment was moved from Discussion to Survey. I've never ever seen an RfC like this one.

I should have specified to capitalize "Black," which is how I wrote it.

It seems so obvious to me that the term "Black" has gained momentum since Black Lives Matter started. Why are we quoting older material as examples? Why are we saying Harris used to call herself "African American" so we still must? YoPienso (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason is to separate the individual editors opinions/"votes" and have a separate Discussion section for longer discussions, or else the Survey section can get overloaded in arguments sometimes.

You can find this detailed at the WP:RFC#Example of an RfC as a best practice on formatting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate votes from discussion.

So responses to the RFC question go into the survey. Follow up discussions go into Discusssion. Raladic (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your good-faith answer.

The most popular kind is the kind I'm familiar with.

This one is being run exactly the opposite of the format you linked to: "If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth." All the discussion here is taking place in the Survey section, and when I thought, OK, they're doing it backwards, I put my "vote" with supporting evidence in the Discussion section, and you moved it. ???? YoPienso (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The idea for the discussion section would be if someone has a COMMENT they would like to make (that isn't a vote), such as bring up alternative issues that the RfC didn't propose, they can be discussed in there. I've seen this separate Survey/Discussion format used a lot at WP:RSN for more complex issues. Raladic (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but everybody's commenting in the Survey section! We have 3 collapsed conversations! YoPienso (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Black per MOS:IDENTITY, as its the term used both by the subject and recent reliable sources. (Plus, there's something to be said for shutting up all the "Jamaica is not Africa!" edit requests, even if they're wrong) --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  How do you know that "Black" is the term used by the subject? For on all her official web sites from 2003 (when she became SF DA) until late 2021, almost a year into her term as VP, the her official web sites all said she was the first/second African American. That's a good 19 years. What do you make of the famous anthropologist, Yolanda Moses' observation:

  • Moses, Yolanda (4 May 2021), "Kamala Harris' Refusal of the One-Drop Rule", Sapiens, Anthropology Magazine, Given this history, it matters that Harris proudly claims she sees herself as both African American and South Indian. As an anthropologist who studies inequality, I see her self-identification as a repudiation of the one-drop rule and the unjust racial hierarchy it represents.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler Because that's what her current official website and white house biography uses. Pointing to a 3-year-old article in which a third party says that she "sees herself as ... African American" is irrelevant because it's not recent and it's the language someone else uses to describe her claim. By that argument we should use "negra" since that what the author of this article uses. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I've said here before @Ahecht:, "recent" on MOS is more like 40 years, not 1. See the footnote [j] in MOS:IDENTITY: In MoS's own wording, "recent", "current", "modern", and "contemporary" in reference to sources and usage should usually be interpreted as referring to reliable material published within the last forty years or so. In the consideration of name changes of persons and organizations, focus on sources from the last few years. For broader English-language usage matters, about forty years is typical.

  Her own official websites from 2003 to early 2022, all had "first African American and South Asian American Vice-President in history etc." In other words, in 19 of the last 21 years, the first mention of ethnicity in her official web pages has been African American. Only in the last two that you see "Black American," (not "Black," which seems to be your vote).Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Who are we to tell Blacks they cannot be identified as Black? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Who are we to tell Blacks they cannot be identified as Black? We are an international encyc addressing a world audience,. We aren't attempting to regulate how a section of a US audience refers to itself, especially informally, but we have different objectives and language use. To a significant section of UK readers 'black' is a label meaning "of non-European heritage", Southall Black Sisters were almost entirely of Asian ancestry and that 'broader' use of 'black' to mean 'of colour' is still common. From that perspective, "Black and Asian American" is almost a tautology. Other countries also use 'black' with a different meaning to the US. "American Black" is slightly clearer. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler Except that for "persons and organizations", footnote [j] says that recent is the last few years. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Only for name changes @Ahecht:, not intimations of identity, especially not when her official website in the US Senate, whose president she also is, continues to use "African American," as I've indicated before. See US Senate and scroll all the way to the right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler So you're arguing that a person needs to change how they identify themselves for 40 years before we can recognize it on Wikipedia? That's absurd. The footnote is comparing "persons and organizations" (last few years) with "broader English-language usage matters" (forty years). The usage of "name" in that context obviously isn't limited to "name of the subject" and can also include "name of their identity".

  The US Senate source was last updated in 2021 and was not written by Kamala or her team (Kamala's role as "president" of the senate doesn't mean she's in charge of it, it means she presides over the legislative body).--Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahecht: It says, "In the consideration of name changes of persons and organizations, focus on sources from the last few years." So in order to avail yourself of that exception to the broader rule of 40 years, are you saying she has changed her identity? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  She has changed what name she uses to identify her race/ethnicity. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  African Americans can also refer to Black Americans descended from former slaves. Wisenerd (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Could you clarify further what you mean, @Wisenerd: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  They're presumably referring to "American Descendants of Slavery" or ADOS. Some believe the term "African-American" should be only or primarily refer to ADOS. Or more specifically, America's black population of enslaved descent which would exclude people like Kamala (even if is a descendant of slaves, her ancestry is in Jamaica/the Caribbean, not the mainland United States).

  But I'm not sure if that's irrelevant to this discussion. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  If people are objecting to KH using African American (though I'm not sure who is) because her Afro-Jamaican ancestor was not enslaved within the US, they should be objecting even more emphatically which they are not to Barack Obama whose father most likely arrived on a Super Constellation from Kenya.

  I think the reason is probably more mundane. For 17 years KH had only Af-Am on her official website. In Joe Biden's White House, as a dutiful number two her official page is a subpage of the White House's. I wonder who has really written her page. It might be a PR team's handiwork, not her's, based on their determination that "Black" is more informal, more folksy, and thus less intimidating, to a critical number of voting age Americans than is "African American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a American with 2 Jamaican born parents, that also makes me a: JAmerican, WestIndian-American, or Caribbean-American. I do not identify as: Black or black— my Jamaican born siblings do not identify as: Black or black,...because if you look at any form, Black/black is synonymous with African-American. Africa is not a country, Jamaica is a country—with its own history, culture, a mixed race of people with their own: style, type of English, music, ethnic foods, and our own flag. It is very derogatory for America to conflate us with African-Americans because of their own, what i call, ignorance. It almost feels like an indoctrination,....Jamaicans immigrate here and get told that they're African-American, as if their country doesn't exist and isn't a part of who they are. Jamaicans didn't get to write the rules, but we sure did get conscripted into being called black/Black/African-American without our permission. I am a proud brown Jamerican, a Jamaican-American, and I check the OTHER box on forms. I don't even believe in this color-ideology of the American caste system. Fact of the matter is, i would have an easier time becoming a Jamaican citizen because i have 2 Jamaican born parents, Can any African-American do that? No, because African-Americans don't have that privilege, Jamaican-Americans do. Kamala might be familiar with the Black community because of who her mom hung-out with, and/or, due to her time at Howard University, not culturally speaking like she's simply an American, but ethnically speaking, on her DNA heritage, she is, an Indies-American, a mix of West & East Indies. As far as i've known my whole life, Jamaicans are Jamaicans, and i know plenty of them, Jamaicans are not just African, and though there is some African ancestries, Jamaicans actually have East Indies admixtures too, along with Europeans like Irish/British & German, Chinese, Jewish, Taino, people from other Caribbean isles, other minor groups, as well as West Africans—and the little island certainly wasn't as segregated as America. And Kamala Harris, or whoever writes her bios, is just doing what elected officials do, and attach themselves to a group of people; like: playing to Christianity though you don't go to church, or claiming you worked for everything you got but only got so far because of family wealth, or like saying your an African-American when you have a West Indian daddy and an East Indies moms (which somehow enables you to speak with a southern accent). I don't believe in the idea of black people anyways, the whole thing is a ugly leftover from colonialism, and I don't appreciate Kamala conscripting Jamaicans as African-Americans for her own political means. I question if she personally knows any Jamaicans besides her dad,...*sigh*... ......i digress. YieleyWilliams (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Black Just seems like the least contentious option. Or just leave the article as it is. This conversation seems to me to be a bit of a tempest in a teacup. What's important is who Ms. Harris is and what she stands for.Coalcity58 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Calling her an "American" is clearly the less contentious option. 67.251.144.180 (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Follow Up Discussion

• Query@Raladic: I'm afraid your interpretation,

  "The previous RfC from 2021 centered on the topic of whether to include her race/ethnicity at all, it didn't explicitly list Black as an option,"

  was not understood to be so by those who participated in it. As the closer, MelanieN, noted in her analysis at the end: As several people pointed out, this discussion is about whether to include the term “African American” in the lead in connection with being the first such person to do something. It specifically excludes using that term in the lead sentence or as a general description of her. People’s responses break down as follows: 21 people (not counting myself) supported saying “African American”. More than half cited RS and some cited her own self description. Another 8 people, including the OP, said they would be comfortable with either “African American” or “Black”. More than half cited RS and some cited her own self description. 2 people preferred “Black”. 9 people favored some other descriptor such as “Jamaican American”, “biracial”, “multi-racial”, or “person of color”. 5 people said not to use any kind of descriptor in the lead, only in the body of the article

In other words, everyone who participated in it understood we were discussing the second sentence of the lead which states, "She is the first woman Vice President and the highest ranking female official in US history, as well as the first African-American and first Asian American Vice President. A number of admins took part and an even larger number were watching. The result was that of the 46 editors who participated, 29 were comfortable with African-American, 10 were comfortable with "Black," 9 with other descriptors and 5 were opposed to any descriptor. Why would they have mentioned these other options (Black, Afro-Jamaican, etc) if they were only voting Yes/No to "African American?" I believe your interpretation might have been made by examining the letter of the law as it might have appeared four years later, but it was not the spirit of the law that prevailed at the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Because most people don’t amend their vote after making it.

The question of the old RfC was RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead?.

But some participants later in it noted that it was missing Black as an option and added that as their own, but the voting was already ongoing.

So my conclusion is right that the original question did not fully encompass for people to actually vote for Black as the RfC wasn’t restarted once that was added by some people as opinion. Raladic (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was posted at 11:56 12 August 2020.

At 12:11 12 August 2020, The OP, Mr X, wrote, "Yes. Sources routinely describe her as African American or black (which I'm equally fine with as an alternative)."

By 12:34 12 August 2020, CMG, the first vote after the nominator/OP, had posted, "It looks like NYT goes with black and Britannica goes with African American. I personally prefer black, since African American is most often just a euphemism for black. Nobody's gonna really pretend we'd be having this discussion about...like...an Arab dude from Morocco. But I'm not going to argue over splitting hairs there. Either one effectively communicates the information.

Their vote was counted at "African American" or "Black." The awareness of the other options was there 38 minutes later. That is more or less off the bat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Query @Yopienso: You say, "Today the NYT, WaPo, and CNN all referred to her as Black." But those are not examples of MOS:IDENTITY. They are descriptions of ethnicity by others. They are not descriptions of ethnicity by scholars, Wikipedia's touchstone of reliability such as these 16 academic books for the term "African-American," let alone scholarly attestations of her self-identification such as "Harris self-identifies as a Black woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) ancestry."

References

If you are attempting to make the case that in a frenzied news cycle before formal nomination the outpouring of journalists attempting to beat a deadline is a better indicator of due weight on WP than scholarship, then please open a thread at WP:RS/N. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are examples of current RSs on top of how Harris self-identifies. The RSs are following her own usage, which we should do, too, doubly--from her preference and from the RSs.

Also see the list of RS usages posted by EvergreenFir at 20:40, 29 July 2024. YoPienso (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But those are not scholarly books except the ones copied from my list (which all support African American) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Which is not relevant. We follow WP:RS (and in the case of identity, even primary sources for self-identification per WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:IDENTITY), it doesn't have to be scholarly books. Raladic (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have replied below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about a living person who is heavily represented in the current news cycle. There are no scholarly books on the specific subject of how Wikipedia should refer to the race/ethnicity of Kamala Harris in her BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly books will not tell Wikipedia to express itself in a certain way, @Objective3000: but to the extent that WP considers scholarship to constitute the most reliable sources (see, WP:SOURCETYPES): Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources., those 16 sources published after 2021 by the best academic publisher are certainly more reliable than the cascade of reporters trying to beat yesterday's deadline.

@Raladic:Please note that MOS:IDENTITY states, "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent[j] reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. But footnote [j] says, "In MoS's own wording, "recent", "current", "modern", and "contemporary" in reference to sources and usage should usually be interpreted as referring to reliable material published within the last forty years or so. In the consideration of name changes of persons and organizations, focus on sources from the last few years. For broader English-language usage matters, about forty years is typical"

40 years means from 1985 onward. Thus not only scholarly sources listed above but Kamala Harris's own self-identification of African-American from 2003 (when she became SF DA), to CA AG, to US Senator) until end of 2020 (when she became VP) was "African American." This is solid reliability that the newfound overabundance of "Black" among reporting frenzy of this past week does little to dent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The most important part you've missed here from MOS:IDENTITY is the word wikt:en:recent - use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources - in the literal English language sense and the follow up, that if there's disagreement - to bias it an use what the person themself use - If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.

The historic sources may be one thing, but for identity, we rely on most recent identification, including if in doubt - primary reliable sources - as I already linked above from WP:ABOUTSELF.

She did not just last week change her identification as Black American as shown on her primary sources such as the white house, that has been for a long while. It may be that other secondary sources have only more recently caught up to support it, which is fine and supports our MOS guidelines to use exactly that - the most recent reliable sources, not historic ones.

Misinterpreting it to mean we can't use more recent sources if they deviate from older ("recent") sources is getting into WP:WIKILAWYERING territority, it would mean for example that we would not report on the current President right now, since on average over the last 40 years there have been many Presidents, so which one is the most recent President based on the RS as you're interpreting the guideline. Raladic (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic: "recent" in MOS is specific, if there is descrepency betwen the "most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent[j] reliable sources." They don't mean for an abstract term such as "president." They mean in this instance, her, or KH. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. Sounds pretty obvious, doesn't it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But it is not clear what she has recently used, for in the definition of MOS:IDENTITY footnote [j], MOS has laid out a very clear meaning of the terms "recent," "current," etc.: for a name change, it is a few years; for everything else, 40 years is typical.

Kamala Harris has self-identified as as "African American" from well-before 2003 until 2020. That is more than 17 years. She has increasingly self-identified as Black during the last four. The scholarly sources, which carry Wikipedia's imprimatur of reliability, moreover, even among those published after 2021 refer to her as "African American" more often than they do "Black American" or "Black." So, it is not clear there is any need to even invoke MOS:IDENTITY; clearly the US Senate, whose President she is doesn't, as she is called African American on the Senate's websites in more places than one.

This is encyclopedia. It uses the formal linguistic register, i.e. "African-American," for all Black American U.S. political office holders from before emancipation until now, when describing them as the "first, or second, or third, etc., ..." All are "African Americans" in their first mention in the lead. You can see that impressive list in my statement. Why should we make an exception for her alone now, after four years? They've all said they were Black too at various times in their lives. If you want to describe her as the first person of Jamaican or Indian ancestry (as this article once did), fine make a case for it. But if you want to describe her as the first Black American, it goes against a well-established precedent on WP, of describing them as African American, not least of which is that the page Black American redirects to African Americans. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not "name change" (last few years) vs. "everything else" (40 years), it is "persons and organizations" (last few years) vs. "broader English-language usage matters" (40 years). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yopienso, Objective3000, Raladic, and EvergreenFir:

There is another issue with writing, "She is the first Black ...." What will you link "Black" to? The page Black says, "This article is about the color. For the race, see black people," a page which begins with, "Black is a racialized classification of people, usually a political and skin color-based category for specific populations with a mid- to dark brown complexion." If you are going to link it to Black Americans, the link will take you straight to African Americans, which is an ethnic category.

So why engage in eastereggery i.e. violate the principle of least astonishment in an encyclopedia catering to a worldwide readership? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't think readers don't know what Black means in this context? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If you leave Black unlinked, many readers will not be aware that it is not a racial category we imply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

What else could readers of this article possibly think Black means? Eye color? WP:BLUDGEON O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In context, "Harris self-identifies as a Black woman of Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) ancestry", the source appears to be saying that Harris uses 'Black' to refer to both her African and Asian roots. This is in line with a common UK use, where the word refers to all 'non-European' ancestries, similar to the US term person of color I believe. Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No its not that at all. No one in the US calls South Asians Black and neither does she. As I've said here before and will repeat until blue in the face, "Her ancestry is Jamaican and Indian, but her identity is Black or African-American. This is because it that was the Universe whose oxygen she breathed during a critical period of her childhood (when her parents' marriage had broken and her working mother had returned to the Bay area). It is the culture and ethnicity she is imprinted on. In other words, if she had not told us about a Jamaican father and Indian mother, there is no way we would know that from her language, manner, or behavior (and I don't mean looks). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Very simple, it links to Black Americans, which as you pointed out is a redirect to African Americans, which points out in the first sentence of the lead that the two terms are used synonymously - African Americans, also known as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, so no one will be astonished or confused. Raladic (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I obviously saw the first line, but you will still leave the reader wondering why you did not link it to African Americans in the first place, if your encyclopedia redirects it? Or, what is the difference between Black Americans and African Americans? You will create layers of complication. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The won't even notice the redirect. This is going beyond WP:WIKILAWYERING. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing, that you are saying the Wiki text [[Black American|Black]] which will be redirected to [[African Americans]], springs no surprises to an average reader. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think both Raladic and I are saying that. The reason we have piping in wikilinks is it is very common to have the text in the link different from the name of the linked article. And why would they even see the name of the redirect unless they hovered over it; in which case they would see both Black American and African-American? There is no problem here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Having been on Wikipedia for nearly 18 years, I do know about piping. But when the reader sees Black, they don't if the racial category Black peoples is meant, or the ethnic category African American. If they print the article, they could come away with interpreting it to be racial. And when they hover the cursor over it, it says, "Black Americans redirects to African Americans." Seems needlessly confusing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Asian Americans could be included. I agree with user: Alaska4Me2's suggestion. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Her father is Jamaican American

Her Mother is Indian American.

Why does Kamalas Wikipedia Page say she's African American. 38.188.135.157 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do some reading before posting. For example, see "Why does Wikipedia say..." at the top of this page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

African-American and Asian-American are best references in my opinion. She is American (born in California). The terms African and Asian best describe her ethnic connections. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on your opinion Ms. Harris should just be referred to as American. It is false to call African and/or Asian. And since when have people from India been referred to as Asian? If you want to add a modifier to her nationality it should be Haitian and Indian. Nothing else. 69.204.153.125 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Capitalized Black denotes the American cultural/ethnic group rather than skin tone alone.

If you're talking about Americans, you probably should capitalize Black.

Non-capitalized black is common outside of the US, but Kamala Harris is an American. Therefore, she ought to be referred to as Black rather than black. LesbianTiamat (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Jamaican-American not Africa (African- American) father is listed as Jamaican- 2603:800C:3802:343B:149B:32B4:A995:4E32 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris's self-identification and ethnicity

I would like to suggest adding Kamala Harris’s self-identification and ethnicity to the main text so voters can know the truth. For examples, 1) Asian American 2) African-American 3) Afro-Jamaican and Indian (Tamil) heritage. 4) Black Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Of all of the reasons to add that is the weakest, why should it matter to voters what her ethnicity is?, and we should not pander to such attitudes. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Kamala Harris's identity is just what it is, and it should not be judged as weak or strong. Instead, shouldn't the citizens of the United States fulfill their basic right to know the identity of the candidates who will represent the greatest power in the world, the United States? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

See wp:soap and wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the related wp:soap and wp:not, I think that part could have been included. I'll hold off on that for now. I'll try to find other content that would be helpful to voters in the US presidential election. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Like polices? Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think the US president leads the direction of the US and determines the future of the US and, by extension, the future of the world. For this reason, I'd like to judge whether Kamala Harris's previous language direction on government policies will be helpful to the US and the world. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic post

India is a country full of different ethnicities, languages and cultures. Kamala Harris's mother comes from Tamil Nadu in the south of India. Kamala Harris herself has already spoken about the south. It's important to make this clear, and it's not enough just to say that her mother is Indian. Her ethnicity was mentioned, but someone with little knowledge of the subject had to remove it. So it would be good to put it back in. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/my-chitthis-significance-sen-kamala-harris-speaking-tamil-national-stage-n1237562 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9037j47pyzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC) @2A01:E0A:211:5C70:ED5C:B11C:93EF:7BC9: Sorry, but you should open a new section/thread, as your comment does not belong to the topic of this RfC which is about ethnicity in the lead of the article, in particular the African-American or Black American, or Black, aspect of her ethnicity. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

Kamala Harris is not African-American. Wikipedia itself notes under the term African-American [6] that those born in Haiti or the Caribbean are not African-American. At best she is Caribbean-American and Indian-American. 146.113.207.58 (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ At the top of this page that addresses this matter. Note that the reason there are black people in the Caribbean is that slaves from Africa were taken there. Our article on African-American does not say that those born in Haiti or the Caribbean are not African-American. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

African Americans

Article

Talk

Language

Watch

View history

View source

African Americans, also known as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, are an ethnic group consisting of Americans with partial or total ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa. African Americans constitute the second largest ethno-racial group in the U.S. after White Americans. The term "African American" generally denotes descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States. Saana510 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQ, Saana510? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As per wiktionary:en:African-American:

African-American

1. A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent.

Through her father, Harris is of black African descent & she was born in the USA, which means she is American. End of story. Peaceray (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the specific name Wikipedia gives to the descendants of U S slaves, who have no immigrants in their family tree? Wikipedia is suggesting that they are the same as people who chose to go to the US and have completely different cultures? In that case there should be no difference made between an Irish-American and a white Cuban-American, right? Saana510 (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2024

I have information that doesn't appear to be on here 69.63.170.248 (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

First of all, Kamala Harris is not African-American. When we say African-American, we are talking about the descendants of slaves. Kamala Harris father was a south Indian born in Jamaica and her mother was full blooded west Indian. Take the lies down! As a black it is offensive that you miss use and disrespect the terminology not used in the correct context! 2600:8800:48A3:3000:F9AC:D3F6:5CFE:F821 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Donald J. Harris, Kamala's father, is not Indian, but a Jamaican man. Many Jamaicans are also descended from former slaves. Andre🚐 21:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

... including Donald Harris. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Presumably. Although, I couldn't find an actual source for that, but he's definitely not Indian as anon claimed falsely lacking source. Andre🚐 22:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that what is written and sourced in Donald J. Harris#Early life is accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said, a presumable truth from the circumstantial facts that if Donald J. Harris' story is accurate, nearly all of his ancestors were former slaves, and one was notably a slave-owner. However, I couldn't actually find a reliable source that said the full-stop sentence "Donald J. Harris is the descendant of former slaves," although as I said, this fact is presumed to be true given the other statements about him and his obvious status as a Jamaican person of African heritage. Andre🚐 22:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no credible evidence that Donald J. Harris has Indian ancestry. There is plenty of evidence that his ancestry is primarily African although he acknowledges that a small percentage of his ancestry may come from a British slave master. Donald Harris was a member of the Afro-American Association at UC-Berkeley in the early 1960s, where earned his PhD. After teaching briefly at several other universities, he became a professor at Stanford University in 1972 and was a tenured professor of economics at Stanford for the rest of career. He remains a professor emeritus there. He was the first Black economics professor at Stanford and became notable decades before anyone had heard of his daughter, and received coverage in many reliable sources over the years. All the reliable sources published about Donald Harris for over half a century that mention his race/ethnicity describe him as Negro (outdated term), Black, African-American or less often Afro-Jamaican. Never Indian. Cullen328 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Policy requires that we accept facts as stated in reliable sources and not engage in original research to correct their errors. This isn't a truth-seeking exercise, but merely an attempt to summarize what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what both Cullen328 and TFD said, I never said otherwise... I just don't have a clear source that states specifically that he was descended from former slaves. But, one can, as I said, readily deduce that. I also think I made it clear that OP was completely incorrect. Andre🚐 08:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if you did "original research", you would undoubtably find out that he was Afro. Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Who are you arguing with? Nobody here except for the OP has implied otherwise. Andre🚐 01:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor edits

In P1S2 of "Attorney General of California (2011–2017)": "was be re-elected" --> was to be re-elected. Henin (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done in a different form, Henin. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello user:Darknipples, I don't understand why you reverted this edit in the 'Political positions' paragraph. What is missing there and how it should he adjusted to be able to return there? You mentioned no edit summary, because of this I never revert (unless it is unclear why the edit took place). I don't understand what Wikivoice has to do with it. I think there is no doubt that it is definitely important for this article and is well-sourced. So, could you return this text yourself? Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The context you are attempting to add is an opinion by govtrack.us, and possibly UNDUE. It should not be added in WP:VOICE without consensus. DN (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely cannot agree that this is Undue, it is definitely important to mention here, certainly more than any other details on this page. Would it be more accurate to add there, for example "according to GovTrack"? And we can add other sources like this as well.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Attrbiution would be absolutely required at the very least. But I don't see for what reason we would feature one website's evaluation of who's "fourth most left". EEng 14:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious EEng? Of course, it is important to mention this so that you know who you are voting for, but you probably will not vote? It should be clear from the article what is her political position. After all, it is already mentioned in the Political positions of Kamala Harris article, or in the German version. Or are you questioning the accuracy of this site, if it is the fourth? Do you want it to be "one of the most"? There are many sources for that.Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'm serious. EEng 17:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So could you answer the rest? So do you think it should be completely removed everywhere? For what reason?Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

First, I would suggest you read VOICE to see what the main problem is with how the sentence was written and go from there. (Also, we don't worry about the other languages and they don't worry about us. Each one has different sets of rules.) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We are WP:NOT a voters guide. We don't WP:RGW like civic apathy. The question is: does analysis by GovTrack merit inclusion here? I don't see why it would. Do WP:RS hold it up as a useful metric? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu, now are you saying that GovTrack is not a credible source and cannot be cited? I wouldn't agree with that, I don't know anything about it, on the contrary it even has its own citation template - Template:Cite GovTrack. Anyway, there are many other credible news sources that report on this.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We've got a template {{Find a Grave}} even thought Find-a-Grave is not a RS and has almost no appropriate use in articles. EEng 17:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying, that from now on, we must never link to this website?Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Govtrack is a data aggregator that also includes opinions without attribution. I don't see why we would allow their opinion. Obviously not unattributed. We would need stronger sourcing for an evaluation that is so subjective. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

O3000 is essentially saying what I am saying, Jirka.h23. I don't see why it deserves WP:WEIGHT and would need to be convinced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Objective3000, what are you questioning? Why do you think it's their opinion? You don't believe that she is one of the most liberal? If you require additional sources, no problem.1,2,3,4,5 Thanks for the reply.Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Well let's see, how did they decide she was voting was left-wing? Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that's not our problem. Read: Wikipedia:No original research.Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

But this is why people are saying its undue, as we do not know their methodology, so we can't use their claim she is left-wing. They may be wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: Although CBS. CNN, Newsweek, & the BBC are considered to be reliable sources, you might want to think twice about including The Washington Times among them. As per WP:RS/Perennial sources#The Washington Times, There is consensus that The Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a partisan source. Peaceray (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously their opinion and this has nothing to do with what I believe. On your sources:

1. The Washington Times is not RS

2. The CBS article is far more balanced than what was added.

3. The CNN article is far more balanced than what was added.

4. Newsweek is not RS.

5. The BBC article is vastly more balanced than what was added.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot that Newsweek is no longer a RS as of 2013, as per WP:NEWSWEEK. Peaceray (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I didn't know that. But it doesn't change anything anyway. O3000, it is sourced enough, no? Now you don't consider it an opinion "one of the most"? As I suggested a bit above. The only thing that bothers you is that they marked her fourth, am I understanding that correctly?Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The section is not improved by using an UNDUE opinion of leftness somehow based on unexplained definitions and ranking system. The reader can read the actual positions and nuances therein as opposed to a sentence distilling those positions and actions into a simplistic rating. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

O3000, can you please finally answer that proposal "one of the most liberal" and not keep repeating GovTrack (because I probably won't push it here, although I don't understand why as it is commonly used on other sites, but I don't have time for this). Sourced it is good, or not?Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, aside from the BBC source that was published in Jan of 2021, the claim of "most liberal" does not seem as certain in 2024. Perhaps she was considered the "most liberal" presidential candidate by some sources 4-5 years ago (mostly conservatives and critics), but that isn't what OP put in the article. [19]

CBS: "When then-Sen. Kamala Harris was running for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president with one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, hers was a long-shot candidacy. But now, less than five years later, as the Democratic presidential nominee, Harris is moderating some of her more controversial policy positions"

CNN: "After former Vice President Joe Biden announced California Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate, critics were quick to label her as far left while some progressives bemoaned her as too much of a moderate." DN (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The source did not evaluate Harris' voting record but compared the types of bills she sponsored or co-sponsored. Some of her voting could relate to her status as an Africa-American senator from California, rather than her political position. For example, she might have sponsored a bill for disaster relief for California because it's her state.

There's also weighting of the sponsorships. Sponsoring a vote to cut military spending in half for example may be more left wing than voting for a statue for John Lewis, but the formula weights them the same.

It's odd that the chart shows Kirsten Gillibrand,who is a Blue Dog, as the second most liberal senator, while Elizabeth Warren, who is widely seen as among the most progressive, is seen here as the fifth most conservative Democrat.

To include it you would need to establish its weight. But I notice that whoever is the Democratic candidate is always portrayed by Republicans as having the most left-wing voting record next to Bernie Sanders, who they remind us is a a socialist. TFD (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's Bernie who kept reminding us he's a socialist. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders kept reminding us that he was a democratic socialist.

In 2008, McCain said, "It’s not an accident that [Obama]’s the most liberal senator in the United States Senate, more liberal than a senator who used to call himself a socialist,”

In 2004, the National Journal rated John Kerry as the most liberal U.S. senator, with Edwards close behind.[20]

Do you see a pattern? TFD (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You are probably right, would it be more accurate something like: one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, but during her 2024 presidential bid she took more moderate stance on some issues.Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't even think that's true. It's hard anyway to assess. TFD (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I want to warn you that it absolutely does not matter what do you think. What do you mean it's not true? This is exactly what is being sourced here. Are you missing there something?Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to warn TFD of anything in this instance. The fact that there is no consensus for your proposal is no excuse to threaten anyone. DN (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

DN Ok, so if you don't have anything against this well-sourced text, I'll put it in the article.Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not what was said. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any objections either.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

How can you miss them? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest trying to address the objections and issues raised here by changing the context of your proposed addition, instead of ignoring them. See WP:LISTEN.

Cheers. DN (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already changed the text of my proposed addition - several times, (last time 16:52, 24 September). The only objection was "that he doesn't think it's true", to my question why, when everything is well sourced was not answered, so I believe that there are no further objections. This is completely inappropriate, I might as well delete half of the text and justify it by saying that I don't think it's true. That's not how it works on Wikipedia, and believe me, after 15 years, I know what I'm doing.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how you responded to TFD's comments. As for your comment believe me, after 15 years, I know what I'm doing., I've been here two years longer as have TFD and Slatersteven. So what? O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I told him that it didn't matter what he thought. We are not here to judge anything. We just follow RS. I warn you again on Wikipedia:No original research.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That was only one comment. And I suggest you stop using the word "warn". O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This applies to both of his comments, we do not judge here what is or is not "odd" for someone and the like. We just follow RS.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Marx and Lenin were democratic socialists.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll say it again, we go by what RS actually say, and we go by what most RS say (see wp:undue) so how many RS say she has the most liberal voting record? 10:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would remind editors of WP:ONUS it is down to those wanting to add content to get affirmative consent, If a user does not say "I agree with you" you do not get to declare they do. Note as well that I am still opposed to this suggestion, as it is wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think this is Undue? This is not a minority opinion, the majority nowhere claims the opposite. She is considered one of the most liberal among all Democrats.1,2,3 Do you claim that it is not appropriate to find out from politicians' articles whether they have liberal/conservative or left/right-wing positions? Moreover, when it is very obvious with this politician. Are you saying that this should be removed from all articles about politicians because it is Undue? Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, Liberal does not equal left (so much of the above is wp:or). If her record has changed (per source 1) then at best we could say "In the past", this makes it undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that among the examples of having the most liberal voting record, the sources list support for gun control (about 80% of Americans agree) and gay rights (about 70% of Americans agree). Also voting against some Trump appointees. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven Yes, "In the past" could be used, I'm not against it.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are not going to read what was said I will not bother replying again, I am against this suggestion, and you have failed to convince me otherwise. Just keep on making the same badgering arguments will not change that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one who doesn't answer questions, quite the opposite. What is "badgering" about the question if you think it is necessary to remove all these things from all politicians' pages, because it is Undue? Thanks for the answer.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

THis seems to have really run its course with one against many, can we close it? Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You are the only one who says the last proposal is Undue. I'm still waiting for your answer, why you don't mind the same things on other articles.Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It's UNDUE. And this is my last word on this as I dislike repetition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Public Image section - RealClearPolitics poll

"According to a RealClear Politics polling average, a record low of 34.8% of Americans had a favorable view of her in August 2022, but this number rose drastically after she became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in July 2024.[21]

To be clear, my only concern is that RealClearPolitics is rated "no consensus" as a reliable source per WP:RSP. We can keep any criticism over low poll numbers from 2022 etc, but does anyone else prefer a better (generally reliable) source? I have listed some options for consideration below.

• BBC
• fivethirtyeight
• NYT

Cheers. DN (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to connect the two poll results ("but this number rose drastically"), you need an rs that mentions both results and compares them, per no synthesis. TFD (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not, I would just prefer a better source. DN (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur, remove RCP. Andre🚐 01:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure this kind of snapshot should be here. We are not a newspaper. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether she wins or loses, there was a noteworthy large increase in public opinion (i.e., Dems and Inds) support for Harris compared to Biden after the debate. There's news analysis about polling results, so the article does not need to rely on RCP alone, it can be RCP (or similar) filtered thru a reliable source. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4894579-campaign-polls-election-day/

Public image -- this section could also benefit from scholarly analysis, such as: Meeks, Lindsey. "The (vice) presidential pivot? Examining Kamala Harris's messaging before and after the 2022 midterms." Presidential Studies Quarterly (2024). Osei Fordjour, Nana Kwame. "Personalization as a strategic political tool on social media: The curious case of VP Kamala Harris on Twitter." Howard Journal of Communications 35, no. 4 (2024): 375-396. Another source from the other day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/28/how-kamala-harris-remade-joe-bidens-campaign-revived-democratic-chances/

Placement -- Can we move the Public Image section before the Personal life? It could even go before the 2024 campaign section. ProfGray (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I support the change in placement, and a scholarly analysis seems like a huge improvement. DN (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Job at McDonald's

Both the Washington Post and Snopes tried, and failed, to prove that Kamala Harris was telling the truth when she said she worked at McDonalds.

I think this is notable and should be included in the article.

What do others here think?

https://archive.ph/fmij4#selection-703.1-703.133

https://archive.ph/cCec9

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems trivial. If she worked there as a college student it will be very hard to prove, but there seems no sensible reason to doubt it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Our article doesn't claim she worked at MacDonalds. There is no issue. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, its trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Failure to prove something is not notable, especially if the claim isn't in this article in the first place(which would require a citation). 331dot (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Harris is not African American

Your article is inaccurate in Describing Kamala Harris being of African American decent,as most blacks in this country are improperly classified as African Americans. Her father was Jamaican born, not African.it is a wrongful assumption because someone is black they are of African decent.This is totally in accurate as the facts show, less than 1% of blacks are from African decent. They are predominantly from the British West Indies 2601:153:602:37F0:C401:6432:803B:3C2C (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

They are predominantly from the British West Indies Facepalm Please read about the transatlantic slave trade – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope you (the IP) didn't have a straight face when writing that. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Either that or they really believe most African Americans (including MLK) were not African Americans (his parents were born in the USA, not in Africa). Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on previous comments on this matter, I think the problem is that a lot of people are unaware that black people in the Caribbean have African ancestry. They somehow think that such people evolved locally. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we have some kind of nuclear-powered facepalm emoji that could be employed here? EEng 01:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Donald J. Harris should not be referred to in the past tense. He is very much alive. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Best to just delete these innumerable posts at the start with a reference to the FAQ in the edit summary. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

These comments almost inevitably come from inexperienced IP editors, wo are unlikely to look at Edit summaries. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If my counts are correct, this would have been the 16th deleted discussion and the 6th deleted discussion this month about Harris' ethnicity. The FAQ is helpful to cite, but it still doesn't deter everyone. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they look at anything, even responses. Clearly not the rest of the talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48 has a good point. Perhaps a prominent link to the article Afro-Jamaicans in the lede would help clarify the matter to readers. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help that the {{FAQ}} template apparently does not display in the mobile view. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Having checked the edit history, this seems to be the main problem. A good number of these discussions have the Mobile edit and Mobile web edit tags applied. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it's that AA were never immigrants and are a seperate ethnic group, with their own culture. Harris is half Afro-Jamaican. For example, Mariah Carey's father is described as half African-American and half Afro-Venezuelan, on Wikipedia. AA and Afro-Venezuelans have different cultures, and so do Jamaicans, Haitians, or Nigerians. Saana510 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

FAQ: Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Many reliable sources, over a long period, refer to Harris as African American and Asian American, so Wikipedia reflects that in this article. Moreover, Harris's Senate and campaign websites state that she is African American and Asian American. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Alas, there's no way for us to know where all the black people in Jamaica originally came from. GMG^talk 11:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we know it was Africa. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I took GMB's comment as sarcasm. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That it was not immediately recognizable as sarcasm is concerning. GMG^talk 16:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

sar-chasm (n.) the gulf between the sarcastic comment and the person who doesn't get it. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It probably was, but I've seen pleantyof comments from Others suggesting they don't know this. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting about this. Unbelievable that whoever is in charge of her page just blatantly lies that she is African American. Alikobe24 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the African ancestry of Kamala Harris, please read the Frequently asked questions at the top of the article.

I will also note that as per wiktionary:en:African-American

African-American

1. A member of an ethnic group consisting of Americans of black African descent.

Through her father, Harris is of black African descent & she was born in the USA, which means she is American. Although it is accurate to refer to her father as Caribbean American, this would is inaccurate for Kamala Harris herself as she was not born in the Caribbean. Therefore African-American is the common term for her. Peaceray (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Revision to lead

I think it would be helpful to include the following sentence, or something like it, in the first paragraph of the lead:

"As a woman of Afro-Jamaican and Tamil Indian descent, she is the first woman, first Black American, and first Asian American to hold each of the offices of the vice president, attorney general of California, and San Francisco district attorney."

This has a few benefits. It puts the Afro-Jamaican ancestry up front, as some readers seem to not be aware that Black Jamaicans have ancestors from Africa and aren't fully indigenous. It also consolidates two nearly identical sentences in the lead about her firsts, and implements the recent RfC preferring the term "Black" to "African American". Comments and revisions are of course welcome. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The recital of firsts is not encyclopedic. This isn't a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We can include that in the initial paragraphs, but don't need it in the lead. Also the rape of slaves was common, leading to "children of the plantation ", which may explain if some of Harris' paternal ancestry is European. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Antony-22, for me it's not a bad rewording. It's accurate. I could see how maybe it would help get some of the 'she's not african-american' folks out of here? Although honestly I'm not sure anything will help with that.

One of the problems is that I think everyone working here is so exhausted by the constant obsession with her racial/ethnic identification that literally any suggestion feels like just one more of the same. Valereee (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. If we use this sentence, I would wikilink attorney general of California and then remove the She is the first woman, the first African American, and the first Asian American to be vice president sentence, the Before that, she was the attorney general of California. sentence, and the As the San Francisco district attorney and the attorney general of California, Harris was the first woman, the first African American, and the first Asian American to hold each office. sentence. It manages to neatly cover the specifics as well as the broad terms and consolidate three sentences down into one. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Gun owner

The reference for it does not exist anymore reference 268 sends you to a page not found page 100.11.110.92 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is why you click on the link in the reference that says "Archived from the original". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

To add, Wikipedia has a policy of keeping sources where the original URL has been taken down, so long as an archived version exists. We still link to the original URL in those cases. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

Since I have done an edit request at Donald Trump, I now want to to Kamala Harris, explaining that Vice president Harris is in ‘excellent health,’ according to detailed letter from her physician according to this CNN article I found https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/12/politics/kamala-harris-health-records/index.html. Thank You 50.100.44.234 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that, unless there is extensive discussion about her health by RS, we don't need to cite her lack of health problems. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Never been an issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 (2)

REMOVE

In 2002, Harris ran for [[San Francisco District Attorney's Office|District Attorney of San Francisco]],

ADD

==San Francisco District Attorney (2002–2011) ==

In 2002, Harris ran for [[San Francisco District Attorney's Office|District Attorney of San Francisco]],

69.181.17.113 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the suggestion. Raladic (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Her Nationality Needs To Be Edited

Kamala Harris does not have any “African American” genes. She is not “black”. She is Caucasian, Asian American (Indian) and Irish. Birth Certificates, Marriage Certificates and Death Certificates do not lie. She is not “black”. This is misinformation. The picture with her “paternal grandmother” is the help. That woman worked for her family on the sugar plantation. The name of her real “paternal” grandmother that she states in her book and that picture, actually, died 4 years before she was born. How did she take a picture of a woman that passed away 4 years before she was born? That cannot be that woman’s real name, because her death certificate states otherwise. I’m sorry, but she is lying about her heritage. Do we believe someone’s words or do we believe the documents? RoomSplitter1111 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"African American" is not listed as her nationality, as there is no such country as "Afica-America". As she holds an American passport her nationality is correctly listed as American. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

We summarize reliable sources, please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ho hum. Her father Donald J. Harris was born in Jamaica of primarily though not entirely African ancestry, and has been a notable person as a professor of economics at Stanford University far longer than his daughter's notability. All relevant reliable sources going back 50 plus years describe him as Black or African-American. There is also Google Images where any intelligent person can disabuse themself of the mistaken notion that her father is Caucasian by using their own eyes. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

Please change becoming the first woman, Indian American, and South Asian American to becoming the first woman, African American and South Asian American WhizReviewer (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Not done for now - The article already currently says "She is the first woman, the first African American, and the first Asian American to be vice president." - it is unclear from your request what you'd like to change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raladic (talk • contribs) 18:42, October 13, 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done It said that in the Attorney General section. I fixed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh good catch, weird how my search missed it. Thanks :) Raladic (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?

I have added a short phrase to the lede of the You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? article. It has been removed twice, without an adequate reason. I would kindly ask for other editors to take a look at this phrasing for me. Thank you. Oliver Phile (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I've no objections to its inclusion, as it's not related to her 2024 campaign. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. I've been informed that I should have posted this discussion at You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?'s talk page. Would you mind terribly if I asked you to repeat your comment there? Oliver Phile (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Nationality

She is Jamaican/Asian American not African American. 2601:845:C380:1870:A474:3F49:6C4F:9FFF (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

She only holds an American passport, thus her nationality is correctly put as American. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We discussed that before. The term African American refers to people in the U.S. with some African ancestry. TFD (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

thats her ethnicity and Jamaicans with American citizenship are also of African origin Nohorizonss (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"Cackala" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cackala has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17 § Cackala until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight to similarity to Biden's Platform

The similarity of her platform with biden's has been given too much weight imo by including it in the first line of the section. Even Hillary's platform was similar to Bernie's but it wasn't included in the first line but rather in another paragraph as an afterthought. Plus her recent policy proposals have key differences with Biden's. Nohorizonss (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Plus the article cited was written even before her nomination and just a few days after Biden dropped out. It wasn't even clear what her platform would be. It's outdated and not accurate anymore. In fact her political ideology is said to be similar to biden's on the main article not her 2024 platform which differs. Nohorizonss (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's there because as vice president, her views had to fall in line with the president's. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That's her views as VP. Here'e we're talking about her views as presidential candidate. The concern that the source for "like Biden" is from before she was even the nominee is quite valid. If this is still true then there should be a recent source. I've removed the old statement. EEng 22:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Harris` interview on Fox News...

should be added, because of the clarification of her political positions. My poposal (without links to sources):

On October 16, 2024, during the presidential campaign, Harris took the opportunity to clarify her political position during an interview on Fox News Channel. “Anchorman” Bret Baier, who made the interview highly confrontational, turned it into a sometimes heated debate and raised questions related to illegal immigration, transgender health care for prisoners, and tax relief. On the important issue of the threat to American democracy, „the enemy from within”, Harris corrected the questioner and also stated that her presidency was not a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency. She stands for a new generation and will bring her own ideas and experiences into office. In doing so, she has made it clear that she wants “not a repeat of Donald Trump, not the continuation of Joe Biden, but something new”. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that this interview will be regarded as an important moment in all of Harris' life. It might merit some mention on 2024 Kamala Harris presidential campaign. No need to refer to Baier as "the questioner", just use his surname. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

i feel that it was a de facto second debate with a trump surrogate Nohorizonss (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Also this seems more about her campaign, so should be three, is anywhere. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

But wherever (if anywhere) it ends up, it certainly can't be saying stuff like She stands for a new generation and will bring her own ideas and experiences into office. In doing so, she has made it clear that [whatever] in WP's voice. EEng 05:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If so , the political positions article needs to be updated too Nohorizonss (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's not appropriate language; I think it should go on the presidential campaign page, as it won't seem very significant on the main page in a year's time. 300AD (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Coconut tree and accent

I fail to see the significance of this content in the article. In fact, I don't even the the point of either paragraph. They seem to be nothing more than standard, insanely shallow political nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 I think it relates fairly well under 'public image'. Yeah, some of it seems stupid, but I think that weirdly enough, it concerns people enough to have them feel differently about her. Honestly, I see no harm in having it. The article can have the facts and people can form their own opinion of the political weirdness from it. Coulomb1 (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's just a single opinion piece by a right-leaning talking head dismissing the idea. If, as you say, it concerns people enough to have them feel differently about her, you should be able to find WP:SUSTAINED non-opinion coverage of it emphasizing its significance to her public image; but right now, the coverage makes it seem more like a single failed barb by Vance that failed to land. For articles on subjects this prominent, we don't cover every single political zinger that fell flat – only ones that got enough traction to have significant secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A "consensus" based on an all-too-brief discussion

user:Antony-22 has interpreted this discussion to establish a consensus for including racial categories such as Afro-Jamaican or dubious ethnic categories such as Indian-American in the lead paragraph of this article. The discussion, in which four editors participated, lasted but two days (October 1 to October 3). The first three respondents (user:Jack Upland, user:JohnAdams1800 and user:Valereee didn't exactly agree with the user:Antony-22's proposal.

On the heels of an exhaustive RfC—which had begun on July 31 and was closed by user:S Marshall on September 26 and in which there was little support for including racial categories of descent—to claim that such a brief and perfunctory discussion constitutes a consensus for revision is a slap in the face of the RfC participants (who had cited dozens of sources). I have therefore undone user:Antony-22's changes in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

We had an RFC, a discussion had between 4 editors can't overturn that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Antony-22's edit should be reverted and not reinstated.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• In agreement with Fowler&fowler's revert, as it maintains the RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I won't edit the lead again. But I do want to point out that the RfC was specifically about the "Black" vs. "African-American" terminology, and there wasn't discussion there about whether to use "Afro-Jamaican". As I've mentioned, some readers seem to not be aware that Black Jamaicans have ancestors from Africa and aren't fully indigenous, and my intent was just that a link to Afro-Jamaicans somewhere prominent helps our readers learn that if they're not aware of it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

And African-Americans are none of those? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

When to accept a winner and loser tonight for this page's lead?

For 178 years, the Associated Press (AP) has been the gold standard for calling the American presidential election. See AP, Le Monde, Guardian, and NPR, which partners with AP to name just a few.

• I Propose that we wait until AP makes the call at its Live website That way there won't be any jumping the gun and edit wars in its wake. Please voice support or opposition below.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. This should be on the talk page for the election article. It's also extremely unlikely we will know the winner tonight; it could take days to count Pennsylvania where Democrats disproportionately vote by mail. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• We follow the procedures for the main 2024 United States presidential election, which will not call a winner until: Update notice Please do not state that a state/an election has been won by a candidate before the election has been called by all of the following networks:ABC, Associated Press, CBS, CNN, NBC. We shouldn’t deviate for other pages Raladic (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, OK, Thanks. So there we have it in Raladic's post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's over – she lost. TopShelf99 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What to write in the lead paragraph should KH win

Obviously moot – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I propose that we write: Kamala Devi Harris (English: /ˈkɑːmələ ˈdeɪvi/ , born October 20, 1964) is an American politician and attorney who is the President-elect of the United States. On January 20, 2025, she will be sworn in as the United States' 47th president, its first first female president, and the highest-ranking female official in its history. Harris was the Democratic presidential nominee in the 2024 United States presidential election, which she has won by defeating former president Donald Trump<cite AP here> The remainder of her current lead paragraph should be in later paragraphs. Please discuss below. Of course, if she loses, then this page will not have much traffic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Should she win we'll probably follow the precedent. The current lede paragraph wouldn't be moved to later, possibly cut down a little, but the information that's currently there would stay. Most of your proposed writing would probably be in the last paragraph, as they are written in chronological order. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Oh, I see. That makes sense. Didn't think of it. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Assuming it goes the other way at this point, I think the first paragraph would be fine as is with the fourth paragraph being updated about the election, similar to John McCain. Alternatively, we could do something similar to Hillary Clinton and say, A member of the Democratic Party, she was the party's nominee in the 2024 presidential election, becoming the most recent woman to win a presidential nomination by a major U.S. political party (following conditional on 2024 results) and the most recent woman to win the popular vote for U.S. president. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC) THis is why we have wp:crystal. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC) References

Closing paragraph of “public image” section

The closing paragraph of the public image section seems either unnecessary or written in a way that talks about Trump more than Harris. While the campaign ad did talk about her, it still seems unnecessary to talk about a campaign ad for Donald Trump under a page that is not his, or to make it the central focus of a paragraph. Bluseventy2 (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Incumbent, until Jan 20, 2025

Please oh please. When we know who Harris' veep successor-to-be is. Let's not change "Incumbent" to "Outgoing", in Harris' infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Now that Harris has been soundly defeated by Trump in the general presidential election, her successor will be J.D. Vance. TopShelf99 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - revert "Exiting office" in the info box

I request that "Exiting office" and the Jan 20, 2025 date is reverted back to "Assumed office" with the date she was sworn in as VP. "Exiting office" sounds silly, and the info box should have the date she assumed the role, not the date two months from now that she's leaving it. Luminism (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved --Super Goku V (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Kamala Harris/Response to claims of bias

Hello, folks,

I was looking into an editor's contributions and came across this subpage they created. Is this typical for politician's articles, do other high profile politicians have these pages? Or should there be a deletion discussion at MFD about it? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a copy of Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias with two changes: Donald Trump article → Kamala Harris article & sources are widely critical of Trump → sources are widely positive of Harris. The Trump sub-page has been linked to on 44 talk pages prior to this edit, though most are the archives of Talk:Donald Trump with some on other pages like Talk:2024 United States presidential election/FAQ. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What to write in the lead paragraph now that KH was defeated

Suggested change: Change "Harris lost the general election to her Republican Party opponent Donald Trump" to "Harris was soundly defeated in the 2024 presidential election by her Republican Party opponent, Donald Trump. Harris lost the electoral vote 226-312, and garnered over 4.5 million less popular votes than Trump." TopShelf99 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Becasue we try to keep it neutral. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly - What I am suggesting is both factual and neutral. I don't want this article to be completely laudatory about Harris, and I don't want it to be completely defamatory like the Trump article. TopShelf99 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So you do not want it to be negative, by saying she "was soundly defeated"?, Sorry that makes no sense, we say totally neutrally she lost. That is all we need to say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

She WAS soundly defeated. That is more factual and neutral than referring to Trump lying, racist, misogynistic, and one of the worst Presidents in history, and those terms were all allowed in the lede in the Wikipedia article on Trump. I can understand your disappointment about the election results and voters' repudiation of the damage Harris and Biden have caused for four years and what she stands for, but you and your fellow editors and administrators shouldn't let your liberal bias continue to influence Wikipedia articles. TopShelf99 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This not about Trumps article, it is about here, and we do not engage in tit for tat WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Please be mindful not to use talk pages as a WP:SOAPBOX. You can disagree, but your personal political opinions are irrelevant to the discussion. That being said, Trump's lede says "Scholars and historians rank Trump one of the worst presidents in history" as that is reflective of the opinions of scholars and historians, at least for his first term. The same is said for James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What's to re-write? She lost the 2024 election, that's it. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald, is that you? In all seriousness, can we please skip to a WP:NOTHERE block? @TopShelf99's contributions since their account creation have largely been reverted or been talk page soap boxing. Certainly not enough to warrant letting them continue. Note also the warnings and discussion on their user talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

wp:ani is the place to discus user conduct, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

soundly defeated - i think these adverbs are not entertained in Wikipedia. Hajpo (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bsasap (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)