Talk:Kamala Harris/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Campaign finance section

@Ecelon: You have violated the edit restrictions on this article, specifically "If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit." I'm assuming you somehow failed to notice the big warning when you were editing this article, so I haven't reported you, but you should self-revert immediately. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the added content is not supported by the cited source. JTRH (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the added content is supported by that source. Ecelon (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In response to the accusation I violated the rules for this article page I only reverted once so I did not violate the 1RR policy. As far as discussing on the talk page I have no problem with that (was busy yesterday so that's why I didn't reply until now). Fox News is not an unreliable source, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it is a reliable source, and nothing is said about not being able to use Fox News for a democrat BLP or CNN for a republican BLP. Ecelon (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. The CNN analogy is a strange one—CNN is highly regarded as news sources go when it comes to accuracy, whereas Fox News is notorious for "spin" and outright falsehoods. In any case, reliability depends on context, and Fox News is more reliable for straightforward news reporting than for controversial partisan claims. Here's a recent discussion where related issues came up. The article you cited is far from straightforward news reporting, and is more of an attack on various Democratic presidential candidates. (The fact that they're Democrats is relevant because Fox News is well known as a conservative source; if we were talking about a Republican this might be a less severe issue.)

You also haven't addressed the other problem I raised, which is that the definition of "large donors" is unclear.

You're correct that you haven't violated 1RR, but you've violated the other portion of the edit restriction, which I quoted above. Please do not restore the disputed content without first gaining consensus. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Granger I am genuinely confused. If I'm reading the rules correctly they state "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit". I'm not seeing any language that says "Please do not restore the disputed content without first gaining consensus". If I am wrong on this please point out where the rules say what you claim they say. As far as calling the article an "attack" I didn't read it that way at all. I read it more as a straight-forward article showing how many democrats are taking money from wealthy donors and large corporations/tech industry, etc. Get back to me, thanks Ecelon (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Leaving aside the bureaucratic stuff about 1RR, etc., my guess is that "large donors" refers to donors contributing above $200 — typically it's contrasted with small-dollar donors, defined as those giving less than $200. Here's a similar article from Reuters that defines it as such: [1]. By their numbers, 37% of Harris's $12 million haul was from small-dollar donors, which would mean 63% was from large ones, which is roughly what we'd expect from the Fox numbers (which are from 2015 on, not just her presidential campaign like the Reuters numbers, to be clear). I don't really see the issue with the Fox source, but perhaps we could cite the Reuters article as well or instead if others agree it's a problem. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Including the information from the Reuters article is fine with me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Please do not restore the disputed content without first gaining consensus" is nothing to do with 1RR, but based on one of the guiding principles of how Wikipedia operates; see WP:Consensus.

As for the source, just look at the headline: "2020 Democratic candidates publicly blast the rich while privately taking their donations". The point of the piece is to make the candidates look like hypocrites who are funded by the ultra-wealthy. It is written in a manner that plays up the wealth of the donors and the candidates' schmoozing, and, importantly, doesn't indicate how it is defining "large donors".

I doubt either of us is going to convince the other on this. We currently have two editors who oppose adding the information and one (you) who supports it. Maybe someone else will weigh in too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Granger I'm counting one editor who opposes (you) and two (me and cmonghost) who support including. If you still think the FoxNews source isn't usable, do you think the Reuters article showing 63% from large donors is OK to use? I can't see any reason for keeping the data out since it is from a RS (reuters) and the info is just basic math and numbers. Ecelon (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That comment was written before Cmonghost posted and took into account your, my, and User:JTRH's comments. As I said above, I'm fine with including information sourced from the Reuters article, which says "Senator Kamala Harris had the second-largest Democratic fundraising haul, with 37 percent of her $12 million coming from small-dollar donors." —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Added. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Granger you left out the numbers from large donors but only added small donors, so I added that data from the Reuters article for balance. Ecelon (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Reuters article does not mention the number 63%, so I don't think that it makes sense for us to add it. Better to stick to the source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Granger the Reuters article actually does reference the 63% number (100 - 37 = 63) but I think your most recent edit is fine (as long as the 63% is included in the text for balance) so there is no reason to discuss this issue further unless you want to remove the reliably sourced 63% number and only selectively include the small donor number. Ecelon (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The source does not present it as 63% but rather as 37%. We should follow suit, and the current sentence is unnecessarily wordy. But since this is a fairly minor problem I won't press the issue if no one else objects. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Miscommunication about smoking pot to Snoop Dogg records

The editor Capriaf has repeatedly added content about some faux controversy where it's implied that Harris lied about smoking pot while listening to Snoop Dogg records (she did not claim that). This content obviously does not belong in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems WP:UNDUE. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Leave it out.- MrX 🖋 12:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a fake controversy. It was non-stop in the news. I cited different sources and specifically added where both the interviewer and the campaign said it was miscommunication. Currently people make memes about that incident and by putting this in there, it is very much needed to clarify the situation. It in no way implies she is a liar. It says she was answering two different questions. People inferred it as if she was listening to Snoop and I purposely clarified that. When this stuff happened with Hillary Clinton and others, it was left up. Why not Kamala? --Capriaf

You've just violated 1RR. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it as that significant to the overall topic despite receiving mainstream media coverage for a week. Her overall presidential campaign is at present a relatively minor part of the article. And you should self-revert before someone reports you for 1RR. TFD (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a fake controversy. It was non-stop in the news. Non-sequitur there. Some "news" outlets pump fake controversy as a matter of course; it sells ads. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, TFD, I only did one revert, not a violation. --jpgordon, yes news do sell stuff for ads, but the fact that it was covered on MSNBC, FOX, CNN and others, not just tabloids, it should be included. If wording is a problem, lets work that out. But it is noteworthy and should be in. My non-sequitur is actually a reference to Snooganssnoogans saying its fake. I am specifically trying to clarify what happened because people are under the impression she smoked and listened to Tupac, when reality is she was answering two questions.-Capriaf

But it's one of those things that gets less and less important every day. "Some people thought she told a trivial lie, but she actually didn't." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

jpgordon, It's something that is still lingering, the memes are still being made, and the general public's consensus is she lied when I'm trying to show she did not. -Capriaf

Show us a source for "the general public's consensus is she lied". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am basing it off interactions with people and what I see all over Facebook and Twitter, and also based on the coverage the news gave on the situation. Which is why I feel it is important to have something in here saying she was answering two different questions. Snoogs is suggesting I'm saying she lied when I have repeatedly said she did not and that I want to make it clear to the public as a whole that she was not lying. -Capriaf

What you find on facebook and twitter represents confirmation bias, You and your friends hold a certain view of the world, so you exchange things that you agree are important and social media tailors what it shows you based on that. TFD (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

TFD, it wasn't based on my friends posts, it was based on NYTimes, CBS, etc., where the top comments were about Kamala smoking pot to Tupac/Snoop Dogg. Those people I am no way affiliated with. Also, I included news coverage in my previous comment, which you purposely ignored. So it isn't the confirmation bias from my friends, rather it is specifically the people I do not know who have top comments on posts from well known news outlets. That's why we should have something here that specifically says she was answering two different questions and people are less likely to think she is lying when she was not. -Capriaf

I realize that. The story was in mainstream news for a week. But it probably registered more for you because of your interest in articles that make Democrats look bad. Sometimes slips like this have major consequences and sometimes they don't. The Dean Scream for example was seen as a defining moment of the Dean campaign, while similar or worse things are quickly forgotten. The Breakfast Television interview could become an issue in the campaign, in which case it might be right to put it back in.

I have a question for MrX and Snooganssnoogans though. In the Talk:Tulsi Gabbard you are arguing that a criticism that was published in a source that Wikipedia editors have no consensus was reliable has weight for inclusion, but a story about Kamala Harris that appeared across major media does not. Why should we have different rules for the two candidates?

TFD (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: Russia taking exceptional interest in an American presidential candidate, who has publicly expressed views that are arguable favorable to Russia, is magnitudes more encyclopedic than a botched story about Harris smoking pot while listening to records. It's not different rules (we don't have hard rules anyway); it's simply editorial discretion. By the way, I don't personally favor Harris over Gabbard. I wanted to address that, since that's what's implied by your question.- MrX 🖋 02:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. This is a fleeting triviality based on solely on media confusion, laziness and bias. The "incident" received about a week of coverage in February and is no longer discussed by reliable sources. Including this in her biography would give the misunderstanding undue weight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you have made a subjective judgment, ignoring the degree of coverage in mainstream sources. The problem is that Capriaf may think the Harris story is very important because the honesty of a future president is magnitudes more important than whether the Kremlin prefers them. TFD (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What you call "subjective judgment", The Four Deuces, I call sound editorial judgment informed by ten years of study of our most important content policies. This incident has absolutely nothing to do with the honesty of a future president since anyone who takes a close look at the facts of the matter knows with certainty that there was no dishonesty here. Red herrings, much? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I was replying to MrX not you and in fact agreed that it would be undue weight to include this. TFD (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in stuff that puts democrats in bad name. I have explicitly said over and over again, I want to make it clear she was NOT lying but was answering two questions, not saying she was smoking pot to Snoop and Tupac. So can you stop accusing me of such? I have not engaged in the Tulsi Gabbard's page concerning Russia, because I think the section is well done as it complies with WP:NPOV because it outlines the accusation and provided details as to the source of the accusation. Based on what I saw on RealClearPolitics, Kamala's polls started to fade a little after the incident. I do not know if it was because of that, or if that was when other candidates, notably Pete Buttigieg started to rise, but I still feel as if this should be included briefly in the article. It should be included in the Cannabis section because she does have a long record with Cannabis matters, so it would not be undue weight, especially when cannabis gets expanded on. I also have a feeling this may get brought up in a Democratic Debate, but that is speculative. --Capriaf

So here's a prosecutor who claims to be smoking marijuana at the same time she is sending people to prison for long periods of time for doing the same thing. And when asked what music she listened to in school she mentions groups that had not yet recorded. Her supporters then say she was referring to when she was a prosecutor, not when she was a student. I can understand why you or any reasonable person may find that interesting but the criterion for inclusion is weight. And while you may think it may become an issue in the debates, it only acquires weight if it does. I am guessing however that it does not. The only thing that does have weight is that Harris said she has smoked marijuana in the past, which seems to be important for every candidate. TFD (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha! Was this article written by her campaign staffers? My god, this site has the objectivity of a undergrad poli sci paper. You idiots are truly embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4C01:4CBB:80F0:4E18:19E9:3B2B (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Instead of being uncivil to others here, why not edit the article and improve the content that you believe is injecting a point of view that isn't neutral and within policy... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Green New Deal

The huge cost of implementing the Green New Deal proposed by Harris is important and relevant information that should be included in the article. BattleshipGray (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This article should and does link to Green New Deal, which extensively discusses various points of view about the proposal. Cherry-picking one analysis from a group with a contrary political orientation is obviously not WP:Due weight. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to insert the information the way you did. If an article about Harris mentioned the cost, or if she commented on it, then it would appropriate to add here. petrarchan47คุก 04:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris proposed and supports the Green New Deal. She is never going to acknowledge the huge cost of implementing it. We have to rely on other groups to assess the costs. And with a program this massive, which she intends to put into place if elected President, mentioning the cost is important and relevant. But if there are more groups who have assessed the costs, I am OK with including mention of those analyses as well. BattleshipGray (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The GND article is the place for such detail. There a more nuanced and balanced presentation is in order. This addition was more like a one-sided hit piece that ignores balancing information. The AAF is an extremely conservative group with a strong agenda. You may find this article from FactCheck interesting, as it shows the AAF's own modifying comments which you did you include. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Medicare for Illegal Immigrants

Of course Kamala Harris supports Medicare for illegal immigrants. She has made this clear on several occasions, including during Democratic candidate debates. There is no reason that this factual statement, supported by reliable sources, should be excluded from this article. -BattleshipGray (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the three sources you cited support the statement. The CNBC source mentions "health insurance" (which could mean many things), not Medicare specifically, and is focused on "immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally", not "all people in the United States". The NYT source is a more complex discussion which nevertheless doesn't even seem to mention "illegal immigrants" at all. The CBS source does touch on this topic, but it quotes Harris's response and she conspicuously doesn't state support for extending Medicare specifically to people "in this country illegally".

If you find reliable sources that do support the material you want to add, please bring them here and we can discuss them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

French info

Not sure why this is a controversial mention, it's interesting to note that she can conversationally speak French.The lorax (talk)

 Additional information needed: We can only "note" that in the article if we have a reliable source that supports it. Do you? General Ization ^Talk 21:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned in this New Yorker profile.The lorax (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Uh, what I see there is "She speaks some French." That likely describes a significant segment of the US population, including many who speak some French badly and also like cooking and puns, and is a long way from "she can conversationally speak French." Want to try again? General Ization ^Talk 22:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. A very small segment of the US population speaks French, according to the 2010 census, it's only 2.07 million Americans or approximately 0.6% of all Americans. I think it's a unique trait about her, which isn't mentioned that often, in addition to her time living in Canada. What if we re-add it to her Personal Life section saying, "From her time living in Quebec during her childhood, she knows how to speak some French."The lorax (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

First, we have no information that her knowledge of French stems from her time living in Quebec during her childhood (where, pray tell, did you come up with that?), and the Census does not ask whether a respondent speaks some French; it asks what language(s) they regularly use at home. Nearly every high school student in America has the opportunity to learn (some) French, though few will ever be conversational speakers of the language. This observation about Harris verges on trivia, and does not belong in the article based on that single source. The source clearly did not mention it to show that Harris is exceptional in that respect; in fact, quite the opposite: it was mentioned, in a paragraph which also said she enjoys cooking and likes puns, to humanize the subject.General Ization ^Talk 03:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "we have no information"? Easy enough to find “While my sister Maya and I made great friends and even learned some French, we were happy to return home to California,” she said through a spokesperson..[2] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the information at the source provided above by the OP. This source also doesn't indicate that's where she first learned, or learned most of, whatever French she knows (only that she "learned some French" there); nor that she can conversationally speak the language, which was the initial assertion above. Lastly, even Harris seems to discount the significance of her experiences in Quebec, so it would be a stretch to use this statement to suggest that her knowledge of French is a unique characteristic that should be mentioned in her biography here. General Ization ^Talk 03:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"She speaks some French" is too vague a comment to use. TFD (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, because there are not reliable sources for it.Ndołkah (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Disability

May we add a section based on her newly established plans for people with disabilities?Ndołkah (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I mean I came up with it but here is the link so whatever.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndołkah (talk • contribs) 10:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

I know there has been a lot of activity on this article with a lot of editors working to make improvements. I have two suggestions. One is to reduce the number of direct quotes in the section on Harris' 2003 campaign to make the section conform with the rest of the article. There are too many quotes that are set apart and change the flow of the article. Second, in the section on Harris' tenure in the Senate, I would suggest combining some of the one sentence paragraphs about how Harris questioned Zuckerberg and others into a single paragraph about Harris' role as a questioner during public hearings. Knope7 (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agree that the quotes add a level of emphasis on minute details (such as that she wore certain clothing brands) that give that section a particular negative slant. Agree with the suggestion to reduce the quotes and stick to the main, notable facts.--23.233.75.150 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

Change her status from 'is running' to 'was running' for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 Presidential Election. Verified by Business INsider and BBC reports. Santi726 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The text has been changed to past tense. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Office turmoil

The office turmoil subsection has several problems and needs to be significantly cut down if not removed. It focuses on details that are too minute for the scope of this article and cites almost exclusively to one source. It introduces a POV problem. I am mentioning this hear before removing such a large chunk of content, but I think its clear the subsection violates multiple policies for a BLP. Knope7 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Knope7, I agree. Why are those two short quotes given the block quote prominence? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And again

Found the text had been altered, apparently again since these notes show a history, to include references to Harris' crusade against "the epidemic of child prositution in the city" [fiction]. Also removed several phrases which, as others have pointed out, seemed to have come from a staffer or political campaign ad.

-- J. Cornelius 02:13, 26 July 2006 (PST)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kamala Harris graduation photo from Howard.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo: "stidents" should be "students"

Under 'Early Life and Education':

'According to Harris, hers was only the second year when children of Indian and Jamaican graduate students at University of California, Berkeley like herself were allowed to study along with white stidents' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyet (talk • contribs) 29 June 2019 (UTC)

FOR YOUR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

This page is being edited to hide and mislead people about Kamala Harris's record and statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.100.48 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hide, yes. Mislead? Eh. If you're going to wikipedia for information on a Democrat (or Labour party, for that matter), you may as well just assume they walk on water and fed thousands on five loaves of bread and two fishes and not bother reading the article, it won't say anything different. Likewise, if you came here for information on a Republican (or Tory party), you may as well assume they barbeque babies on weekends and not bother reading the article, it won't say anything different. Wikipedia has always been like that, this is not anything new. 174.28.39.102 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Capital punishment

I just read the sub-section on capital punishment, and have absolutely no idea what Harris' position is on the matter. Can that sub-section please be re-written in English, rather than legalese that's quite incomprehensible to a lay person? I suspect it could also be written in around 75% fewer words. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing refs

I don't see any refs beyond #58. (Also, this is the longest bio I've ever seen and IMO you could easily cut half of it away and it would still be too long.) Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That is strange, I also only see refs 1-58. The user Bnguyen1114 made a lot of edits expanding this page in April and May, and I don't know that anyone has vetted the changes. Maybe the page is too long now, like the problems on Trump's page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to ask. Why do I only see 1-58 references? I took the time to gather 400+ for all this. Where did they go? If it is because of length, I can start editing for length... Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gandydancer, Bnguyen1114, and Muboshgu: Those references aren't displaying because the post-expand include size of the page is too large. Basically, there are so many templates (including {{Cite web}}) on the page that it stops processing them after a certain point. ----Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly the issue that's been brought up at Talk:Donald Trump, and what I suspected was going on here. Thank you Ahecht. Based on my estimation, there are about 480 templates on the page, over 400 of which are {{cite}} templates. So, what can we trim? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me know how I can help. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Bnguyen1114, one thing to do is to look for any cases of WP:OVERCITE. Like, for instance, in the early life section, I see this: She went on to Howard University in Washington, D.C. where she double-majored in political science and economics, interned as a mailroom clerk for California Senator Alan Cranston, chaired the economics society, was elected to the liberal-arts student council, led the debate team, organized mentor programs for local youth, demonstrated against apartheid, and joined Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority.[31][32][31][8][33] Are all five four (just noticed that ref 31 is invoked twice there) sources required to verify that content? Any time two citations are used where one would do, we lose no content by cutting the extra source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank, Muboshgu. I will identify those instances, verify their content, and remove accordingly. Good tip. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And just like that, the sources are back! I will continue to edit the page to bring down its size, but one problem solved today. Thanks everyone. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Bnguyen, I see that you are fairly new and I'm sure that you tried very hard to improve this article. The problem is that in your effort to provide a great deal of information you overdid it. I know that when I tried to go through it I just couldn't take it no matter how hard I tried. And the thing is, by nature I'm one of those that usually reads every word in the articles I look up and I often look at some of the refs as well. So I'm thinking that for the most part people are just not going to read this article. They just want an overview. Hopefully others will give an opinion as well so we can be sure that I'm not alone in my suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is bloated and also pretty much too unstable to edit or review. One editor has made almost 500 edits to this article in barely six weeks. Gandydancer is entirely correct. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem....I can pare it down even more. I'll make another pass at it. Just want to note that when I started, there was granular details about her career. So I followed that format. But I can make it look like "general overview" no problem. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

And we are at about 180K. Let me know what you think; feedback is welcome. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I still think that it is far too long. However, majority rules here and it seems that the other editors find it to be appropriate for a political bio. So I will step aside with my objections. Gandydancer (talk)

Four paragraphs on VP speculation is excessive

The current section on VP speculation is excessive. This definitely suffers from some recency bias. At most, speculation of this nature should warrant a paragraph. I am posting here to allow for discussion and to allow others to make further cuts or add material back. Overall, I think this article still suffers from some bloat although I commend recent efforts that have made significant progress on that front. Knope7 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't think it's the exact same cuts I would have made, but totally Agree with the intent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm cool with the edits, thanks Knope7Bnguyen1114 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Harris's record on wrongful convictions

Last time I looked at Harris's article, it included a section on her controversial handling of cases as CA's Attorney General where there had been prosecutorial misconduct, including supporting the original DA's position rather than siding with the defendants.

I think these should be in the main article unless they were pure fiction, unsupport by WP:RS.

Indeed The Intercept has reported on this. I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic operatives are editing this page. Kamala is likely to be Biden's VP, and criticism on Wikipedia is a no-no. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote all those sections. including the Mnuchin and Orange County prosecutors. I can add them back in if you like. But the editors asked me to trim it down. I'm not a Democratic operative, I do this for free because I'm sick of misinformation about Kamala Harris. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sick" is an interesting choice of word. It indicates that you are personally invested in defending the reputation of this woman. Despite how you may feel, Wikipedia articles are expected to be written neutrally. This entails the inclusion of criticism, provided it is well-sourced. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Accordingly, I have added the information pertaining to the Mnuchin and Orange County prosecutors to the page. I think you will find they are satisfactorily factual. Let me know if you'd like me to add other criticism she received, such as the Deborah Madden crime lab issue. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

No It was taken out that Kamala didn’t psss the bar the first time. It was added that she was brilliant. Her relationship with Willie was left out. You guys sure cleaned it up. 184.58.220.149 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This fact is cited repeatedly in public profiles. For example, this one: "After attending the historically black Howard University, Harris returned to California for law school at Hastings in San Francisco and went to work at the Alameda County district attorney’s office in Oakland. (She failed the bar exam the first time she took it. Harris says she recently consoled a young law graduate who also didn’t pass; “I told her, it’s not a measure of your capacity.”) " NYT 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:4010:1800:0:0:0:0:15 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bnguyen114

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.

---

that is a huge conflict of interest and all of his edits should be reverted right nowFlynnwasframed (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not gonna lie, I jumped in hot. I've since read everything else and will be taking all advice and suggestions found within. Poor first show, I know, but I won't make noise or a mess, I will conduct myself respectfully. Five12Man (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You're free to contribute to the article and discuss possible changes to it here, but you're not free to engage in WP:DOXING and WP:INCIVILITY. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The accusation of doxxing is baseless. This individual is not being doxed. Any personal information about him, he revealed himself on his own accord. As for "incivility", well, is it really "incivility" to criticize someone's obviously disruptive editing? The chief goal of editors here should be contributing in good faith to the encyclopedia. If this is not done, they should be criticized. CompactSpacez (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sir, before I took on this quarantine project, this page was devoid of sourced content. Please do not cast aspersions about my motivations for editing the page - I am stuck at home, with a wealth of knowledge that I wanted to contribute to the page. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell the user in question has not done so. I suggest you re-read the page I linked more closely, particularly this sentence: "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of 'opposition research'." PrimaPrime (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly erasing well-sourced content with the purpose of airbrushing a politician's image, against how he or she is portrayed in reliable sources, is disruptive editing and thoroughly unencyclopaedic in spirit. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The editors asked me to cut down the size of the page, sir. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

None of what you just said is an excuse for doxing. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

Add the following 3 sentences just before the last sentence end of the second-to-last paragraph for the 2003 Campaign for District Attorney section: "Harris continued her attacks on Hallinan by slamming him for refusing to prosecute anti-war protesters for property destruction. These quotes prompted some local public defenders, including Jeff Adachi, to express concern that Harris would be a hard-nosed prosecutor and favor punishment over rehabilitation. Harris responded by saying that those criticisms would be endorsements anywhere except San Francisco.

This can be cited from the SF Weekly article "Kamala's Karma" by Peter Byrne from 09/24/03 https://www.sfweekly.com/news/kamalas-karma/ Slammingsam456 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. You misrepresent what your cited source says, which is: Harris just laughs at this criticism, which would qualify as a wannabe DA's dream endorsement almost anywhere except San Francisco. That is a characterization by the story's author, Peter Byrne, not a quotation attributed to Harris. NedFausa (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Good Catch. Probably the right call. Do you want me to revise it or should I just get rid of it? -Slammingsam456

Personal Life

I am unable to edit the page, but it MUST include the fact that Kamala's husband worked for corporations fighting workers' wage theft complaints as well as fighting against consumers and employees that had their private information abused/stolen. This is important to who her family is and what financial interests her family has if she continues in politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:527F:8DC0:B0ED:E861:102B:A1A7 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@2601:681:527F:8DC0:B0ED:E861:102B:A1A7: Can you provide sources for us to cite? MorganKevinJ^(talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have it in front of me right now but it was all on his LinkdIn profile about a year ago. His job is/was to prevent employees from receiving stolen wages from their employeers. And to attempt to avoid legal liability when private employee/consumer data was stolen from a corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:527F:8DC0:6CFA:4A6:9B24:C67F (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Her husband's LinkedIn page is not going to be a good source for the article. Better to check for secondary sources that discuss his work. If it's significant enough to be included in the article, it at least should have been written about by reputable secondary sources. Knope7 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It was a profile of his previous work. It is extremely important. People of color suffer from wage theft disproportionately and she is likely to end up VP. People deserve to know what money her family is beholden to, or what conflicts of interest she has due to her family's income streams. But, again, I can't edit the page.

Here is a secondary source saying what he does at his firm: https://www.kcra.com/article/attorney-general-kamala-harris-is-engaged/6412777

"The site says his experience is in commercial litigation, "primarily defending class action matters concerning claims of unfair business practices, the validity of advertising and marketing claims, cases challenging privacy statutes and wage and hour violations."

That is he DEFENDS the companies that stole wages from employees when they get sued.

ALL he does is represent corporations against employees and consumers: https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/e/emhoff-douglas-c/?tab=experience

"REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS:

Defended a group of production companies in an insurance coverage dispute over a highly publicized aviation accident on a recent major motion picture.

Representing the rights holders of a famous animated character in copyright and trademark disputes across the globe.

Successfully prosecuted a trademark dispute for a renowned wine brand against a competing brand.

Advising on copyright action against production company over alleged misuse of content on worldwide superstars' tour and music video.

Lead counsel in a cutting-edge fair use trial in the viral content space.

Represented more than 50 commercial producers in an entertainment industry-wide wage and hour class-action lawsuit and various subsequent individual litigation matters.

Defending highly publicized wrongful death action brought against a production company that was producing promotional content for a major motion picture.

Defeated a plaintiff's antitrust claims against one of the nation's leading bar associations in a high-profile California federal court action regarding allegations of engaging in monopolistic practices by limiting the number of accredited law schools and by lobbying for restrictive rules which require corporations to be represented by licensed counsel.

Defended a studio executive in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and fraud relating to a blockbuster film.

Represented a leading digital advertising agency in a trade secret and defamation action relating to a potential automotive campaign.

Representing a leading digital media licensing company in a copyright action involving the pervasive infringement of the company's videos.

Represented a former NFL athlete and sports and entertainment executive in connection with a contract dispute regarding a management company.

Defended a prominent former NFL and Olympic athlete in a civil action brought by the SEC.

Represented a municipal school board in an NEPA matter involving the location of the proposed west side subway extension in Los Angeles.

Defended a global retailer in a group of California class actions alleging Song-Beverly Credit Card Act violations concerning the collection of personal identification information.

Defended a leading media conglomerate in a putative class action challenging mobile ad serving technology under a variety of state and federal privacy statutes, in one of the first cases to challenge tracking of mobile Internet usage.

Defended an office product manufacturer in a California class action involving invasion of privacy claims and challenges to privacy statutes due to the defendant's alleged practice of monitoring and recording telephone communications between the defendant's sales force and the plaintiff and plaintiff's class.

Defended a national sports nutrition company against alleged consumer class action claims concerning certain products the defendant manufactured and marketed as dietary supplements for use as bodybuilding and weight loss supplements.

Represented a global manufacturer of workplace products against one of the company's competitors regarding allegations of trademark infringement, false advertising, bait-and-switch and violations of the Lanham Act regarding the competitor's practice of utilizing advertising techniques that led consumers to believe they were purchasing the plaintiff's products.

Represented a leading advertising agency in a securities derivative suit filed in the US District Court in the Central District of California Secured a favorable settlement for a direct marketing advertiser in a Song-Beverly class action alleging improper capture of personal information during credit card transactions at retail locations.

Defended a mobile content provider in a consumer class action alleging improper business practices.

Represented a credit counseling company in a California consumer class action regarding whether the company is a valid nonprofit and thus subject to the requirements of the CROA statute.

Represented the manufacturer of a national brand lotion in a California consumer class action alleging false advertising among other claims Represented a major security firm in a federal class action complaint alleging the company failed to protect its employees' personal, confidential information from theft.

Represented the liquidating trustee of a bankrupt computer manufacturer against an international investment bank in a fraudulent claim regarding supplemental agreements.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a defense summary judgment Doug's team obtained for an advertising agency in a high-profile case arising for advertising for popular fast food chain."

The article is about Kamala Harris, not Doug Emhoff or your opinions on corporate lawyers. You would need to find reliable secondary sources which discuss Emhoff's work with respect to Harris, beyond a passing mention that they're married. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like an attempt to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No thank you. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

the Intercept

Regarding this edit [4] by User:NedFausa - I think the point of the "better source needed" tag is that we need a better source than the Intercept, so "relying solely on the Intercept" doesn't solve the problem, only makes it worse. The tag is still needed. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: You looked at the wrong diff. Here's the correct one. Administrator JzG removed this reference to a primary source and replaced it with a {better source} tag. I believe his tag related to the OneWest Package Memo not to The Intercept. Hopefully he'll drop by again and clarify. NedFausa (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think my diff is the correct one, but what the actual issue is here is indeed confusing. Volunteer Marek 05:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, no, the better source tag refers to The Intercept. I do not like single-sourcing to them, it's too small an outfit. Surely one of the heavyweights reported on this? WaPo? NYT? The Intercept does great work breaking stories, we can trust the accuracy, but not the significance. Guy (help!) 09:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG Thank you for clarifying! I apologize for misunderstanding, and kudos to Volunteer Marek for bringing this to light. I have restored the {better source} tag following that disputed reference. Presently, there are no other references to The Intercept in Kamala Harris, but I will keep a close lookout for new additions and tag those accordingly, noting your caution about this dubious source. NedFausa (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, it's not dubious as such, and I wouldn't want to mislead there: it is reliable for facts, but The Intercept has a distinct POV so we must be mindful that it may be misleading by virtue of selectiveness. That is, they may choose to publish or not publish according to the biases of the staff. If it's mentioned in other reliable sources, which establish significance, then it is unproblematic and does not require attribution. If they say it's a fact, it generally is. Guy (help!) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source that picked up The Intercept story. Thank you https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/trump-treasury-pick-steven-mnuchins-former-bank-accused-of-widespread-misconduct.html 2601:482:8000:C470:14B4:52C6:D599:89F4 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, I doubt the CNBC story will pass muster because it expressly relies upon The Intercept article that is here disputed. (See circular reporting.) We need an independent source. NedFausa (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, CNBC is a bit marginal but probably does establish the significance of the Intercept piece (see above). Guy (help!) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

CNN stated that it obtained the memo. https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/04/news/mnuchin-onewest-california-memo/index.html 2601:482:8000:C470:14B4:52C6:D599:89F4 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! That's just what we needed. I made the change here. Thanks for your help. NedFausa (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

One West statement addition, 7/4/20

I understand how sensitive the section on OneWest is. I added a sentence that includes the official statement of the Harris campaign as to why she didn’t pursue a prosecution. I believe that it’s appropriate to include her statement of reasoning in a section that questions a decision. As written, the section makes an insinuation...that the decision was made because she received donations. If that’s fair to include, then we should also include her official statement on her reasoning. I will now step,aside and let the internet lambast me for the change, ha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey1107 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoever is scrubbing this page for Kamala Harris is getting noticed

If this activity is not supported by Wikipedia then all edits made by this person should be reversed and the editor should be banned from editing her page.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-Biden-vice-president-Wikipedia-page-15386023.php Eegorr (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That's already been discussed in the threads above. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2020 (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.

Inappropriate Material in Summary section. MS:LEADBIO and MS:BLPLEAD Suggestion

The lead section currently states in two relevant parts...

"Harris is the first woman of Jamaican or Indian ancestry to represent California in the United States Senate."(reformated to emphasize)

"Many sources consider her the favorite to be chosen by Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate in the election."

The section below in Speculation as Joe Biden's running mate states ...

"On June 12, The New York Times reported that Harris had emerged as the frontrunner to be Biden's running mate, as she is the only African-American woman with the political experience typical of vice presidents.[294] On June 26, CNN reported that Harris was among Biden's top four contenders, along with Keisha Lance Bottoms, Val Demings, and Elizabeth Warren.[295]"(reformated to emphasize)

The reference to "African-American woman" in the Times reference contradicts the lead.

MOS:BLP talks about the need for sourcing and to avoid sensationalism. Stating that Harris is the "frontrunner" is a remark about the quality of the Times' journalism, not Biden's decision. It's also a prediction of a future event which is another problem. I suggest two alternatives:

• Remove the speculative material from the lead. (or)
• Edit the language to more closely reflect the facts in the underlying referenced materials as follows:

"Harris is reported by the New York Times and CNN as one of several contenders to be Biden's running mate."

Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the second part, about being the favorite, should be removed. It may very well be, but as you say at this point it's WP:CRYSTALBALLing. For the first part, I think there are sources which mention that, maybe in the body of the article? Volunteer Marek 16:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I revised wording in the concluding paragraph of our subsection Speculation as Joe Biden's running mate to conform to The New York Times and CNN sources. I also revised the lead accordingly and added references to those same cited sources. NedFausa (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I also added a {citation needed} tag to the lead because no source in text appears to support her being the first woman of Jamaican or Indian ancestry to represent California in the U.S. Senate. Of course she is, but without a source, this violates WP:NOR. NedFausa (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

We had the same discussion on Barack Obama. Citizens of the United States with black ancestry are called African-Americans. Since it's a social construct, the determination for Wikipedia editors of whether someone is African American is whether that is how they are described in reliable sources. Per no synthesis we cannot second guess their judgment. TFD (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I double-checked and we refer to Harris as African-American only twice in the article space—in both instances using the term verbatim from the respective cited WP:RS. NedFausa (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Harris' views on sex work

I think the fact that there's been signficant controversy around Harris views on the legal status of prostitution and history of conflict with sex worker rights activists needs to be mentioned. Right now, it's treated as a subset of "sex crimes", and her actions against Backpage are treated as uncontroversial crime fighting measures. Her backing of SESTA/FOSTA was particularly controversial, and though she's since come out for decriminalization of prostitution in a very vague way, there's been a good deal of speculation as to how she define's "decriminalization" and whether that is in fact a continuation of her earlier support for the "End Demand" or Nordic model approach to prostitution.

I have some familiarity with this issue, but I also know how contentious articles like this are, and particularly how revert-heavy they are, so that makes me frankly a bit wary of making such a contribution - putting hours into writing and sourcing (and being careful to balance POV) only to have it immediately reverted is not a good use of any contributor's time. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Iamcuriousblue: A really large section might be undue, but I agree that Harris's views on sex work should be included. Maybe start small? There's currently not even a mention of SESTA, which she co-sponsored and was criticized for making sex work more dangerous.[5] In her February 2019 interview with The Root she said that she supported the decriminalization of consensual sex work when no one is being harmed or exploited.[6] gobonobo ^{+ c} 07:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there might be a section on that in her "Political Positions" page, which I separated as to cover her work in the Senate more comprehensively. I did less work on that section (I prepared the table and some foreign policy work mostly), but if it's not there, I encourage you to add it. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of SESTA or sex workers or Backpage on the Political positions of Kamala Harris article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I did the Backpage article on the main one. Feel free to add the SESTA entry to her political positions page; be sure to include her history of protecting sex workers as DA (she was first to establish a safe house for former teenage sex workers with an anti-human trafficking advocates, declined to prosecute workers while aggressively going after johns, and very aggressively moved against human traffickers and sex traffickers as attorney general. I have some articles if you're interested. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your entire framing here is *exremely* biased! The claim that not prosecuting sex workers while at the same time aggressively going after "johns" (POV language, by the way) "protects" sex workers is the basis for the "End Demand" or "Nordic model", which is an extremely controversial approach to prostitution law and does not have the level of support you seem to think it does. It's an approach that's supported by some European governments, and in the US by some feminists, prosecutors, and parts of the law enforcement community. It has near-universal opposition among sex workers themselves and is increasingly rejected by the human rights, civil liberties, and public health community - Amnesty International has takin a position opposing the "Nordic model" and supporting full decriminalization.

I am interested in the articles you have in mind, as I want this section to be properly sourced. However, I think it absolutely needs to be properly balanced and adhere to WP:NPOV, so support for her End Demand policies should be noted along with criticism of them. What is not is OK is to make a claim that Harris "protected" sex workers by aggressively going after "johns" and then present this full stop as evidence of her support for sex workers. That's POV pushing, in my estimation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Root interview was very ambiguous and many sex worker rights activists have questioned what she meant by "decriminalizaation". (I can provide references.) I don't think her statement there is the last word on the topic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

It is false to say that Kamala Harris is African-American. She is actually Indian-Jamaican. African-American means the continent of Africa. Even CNN's Don Lemon agrees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2fH8XmuLM

The article itself says her mother is Indian and her father is Jamaican. It also says she identifies as Black. She may identify as Black but considering her parents she is not African American as the article states. 2601:880:8100:1F60:FC8E:AD43:624E:2ED5 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2020 (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. The article does not refer to Harris as African American. – Anne drew 22:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: The proper response would have been the "please cite reliable sources" option, FWIW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The article does not state that she is African American. The request makes no sense regardless of sources. – Anne drew 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Oh, my bad then for just looking at the silly request and not taking a look at the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that West Indian American would be the most accurate description of her ethnicity. Black and Desi mixtures are quite common among West Indians. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Following the facts and evidence like any other case

On 3 July 2020, administrator JzG added two {better source} tags in the Fraud, waste, and abuse subsection. I removed the first after copy editing to rely on The Intercept. The second tag, however, has me stumped. It follows a reference supporting the sentence, In 2017, she said that her office's decision was based on following "the facts and the evidence...like any other case." Our cited source is The Hill, which Wikipedia says "is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources." The story in question is about American politics. It is neither an opinion piece nor a contributor piece as labeled in its byline. The author is Sylvan Lane, who has covered American financial regulatory and economic policy for The Hill since 2015. The quotation he attributes to Kalama Harris comes from an interview he conducted with her as part of his professional duties. Frankly, I am at a loss. What could possibly be better than a contemporaneous publication by a generally reliable source reported by the staff writer who interviewed her? NedFausa (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, The Hill is a tabloid with a long history of publishing any old crap. Guy (help!) 23:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, thank you for your succinct explanation. I have removed the disputed content from the article space. We certainly don't want "any old crap" in there. NedFausa (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard this opinion of The Hill before... Natureium (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's why it's so helpful to have an administrator's guidance. There's really no substitute for the blunt instrument an admin brings to bear. NedFausa (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Natureium, seriously? Have you not? There are two serious issues with it.

One is the fact that it hired John Solomon, and put hi in a position effectively isolated from editorial oversight. Solomon is the guy who mainstreamed the Kremlin's Ukraine conspiracy theory. Finkelstein, the owner, is putting his thumb on the scales in favour of Trump, and his wife is reportedly friendly with Melania. So there's that.

But the more serious problem is that The Hill contains two different kinds of story, and we don't distinguish between them. One kind is the regular business of DC sports reporting - ball by ball commentary on the circus in Congress. That tends to elevate the trivial and contribute to the culture of permanent outrage. The other kind of content is op-eds, which are largely uncensored. It fulfils a valuable role in publishing the views of numerous partisans, but that publication should not be interpreted as imbuing those views with any factual merit.

So you have to handle with care. It's a reliable source for "X said Y", but only when it's a staff writer or X themselves. It's not a source for significance of anything, and unless it's the editorial staff and not John Solomon or someone nobbled by Finkelstein is also can't be taken as a source of fact. Guy (help!) 10:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Much to my chagrin, following this discussion I found no fewer than seven remaining references to The Hill in Kamala Harris.

• Kamala Harris: 'Make no mistake — this is a Muslim ban'
• Kamala Harris grills Homeland Security secretary on separating parents from kids at border
• Harris wants Barr to testify on Mueller report as 2020 Dems call for its release
• Harris: I believe Barr 'intended to mislead' on Mueller's report
• Harris calls for judicial nominee freeze during impeachment trial
• Kamala Harris on 2020 presidential bid: 'I'm not ruling it out'
• Clyburn urges Biden to pick black woman as running mate: 'African American women need to be rewarded' for loyalty

Naturally, adhering to the example of administrator JzG, I affixed a {better source} tag at the end of each such reference. We must not be satisfied with "any old crap" in this BLP of a prominent American politician. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am questioning the labeling of The Hill as unreliable. Ad Fontes Media has a different take than many of you. The have it in the Most Reliable sources, barely skewed to the right of center.

• "The Media Bias Chart". Ad Fontes Media. 2020-06-19. Retrieved 2020-07-04. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Peaceray (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am making my way through the citations you have listed above. Please explain what you find to be unreliable in them. Peaceray (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The first one is a blog, so fair game to remove. I see nothing that is not accurate in the other citations. Peaceray (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm afraid you're missing the point. A particular story does not have to be unreliable. After all, the quotation above where Harris said her decision was based on following "the facts and the evidence...like any other case" is entirely accurate. What makes these sources unacceptable is the fact that, as we have been advised by administrator JzG, The Hill is a tabloid with a long history of publishing any old crap. (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And I am challenging that. I do not know what the reputation the paper had, but the web site now has a different reputation. One administrator does not make policy. Please tell me what makes JzG's opinion better than Ad Fontes Media? @JzG:, please feel free to weigh in on sources that indicate that thehill.com is currently disreputable. They may have had some problems in the past, but I have been following them a lot when they are referenced out of Google News. I have found them balanced, & I tend to be leftist. Peaceray (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right manner or venue to be having this discussion, but FWIW while I've always thought of The Hill as being tabloid-esque and certainly not the best source, it's not unreliable for basic facts about what a politician said or similar. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

PrimaPrime, it is fine to establish what a politician said, but not to establish its significance - hence for any contentious BLP claim, I want another source that assesses the significance of the thing.

The Hill is, among other things, a blow-by-blow account of every spat in Washington. It is like toddler with no object permanence: things happen, and when they are shown to be trivial or misunderstood, The Hill has already moved on to the next drama. It can be entertaining and sometimes it can break real news but much more often it's just like the guy on Facebook telling you the latest thing the various warring factions said, with little or no analysis. Guy (help!) 09:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators do not get to decide what passes and doesn't pass Wikipedia sourcing muster by executive fiat - not that JzG was trying to that. I've never thought of the Hill as patently unreliable, and if that argument is going to be made it should be had on the reliable sources noticeboard before we disregard it here. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Peaceray, The Hill is not unreliable as such, but a huge chunk of what it publishes is partisan op-eds, and it has a tendency to both-sidesism. It's basically a DC gossip sheet, and I want a better source for anything even remotely contentious. Guy (help!) 09:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I object to the idea that Wikipedia should reject or downgrade a source simply because a single editor holds the opinion that it's unreliable or inadequate. The content of op-eds is not evidence of bias in news coverage. The Hill is well-regarded in the DC political community. JTRH (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, so go with the fact that they hired John Solomon, gave him a p[latform for his conspiracist bullshit, and leant on the staff to skew stories in line wihtt he proprietor's preferences.

Or read what I actually wreote, and make a diostinction between staff pieces and contributor blogs. Guy (help!) 22:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. I would ask you to provide evidence, but apparently someone has unilaterally decided to remove it as a source for this article, so there's no point in arguing it further. JTRH (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. All references to The Hill and all {better source needed} tags have been removed. NedFausa (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see any consensus in this thread for overturning the previously established consensus that news articles from The Hill are a reliable source. Why do you insist on removing them Ned? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a WP:POINTY reaction to this. Leijurv (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bzweebl: Do you see any consensus in this thread for disregarding administrator JzG's advisory that The Hill is a tabloid with a long history of publishing any old crap? I believe our BLP Kamala Harris has already endured enough public censure for massive editing that violated WP:NPOV. We should not add to our embarrassment by knowingly citing crap sources just to promote Senator Harris's VP prospects. NedFausa (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this demonstrates that my assessment ^^ is accurate :) Leijurv (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Ned. The previously established consensus I am referring to is not in this thread but at WP:RSP. The opinion of a single administrator is not enough to overturn that. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

When a source is considered "generally reliable" at WP:RSP, as is The Hill, editors of any particular page have the option of forming local consensus as to whether or not to rely on that source. Such is the case here. An admin has cautioned us against this source, and we should follow his advice until local consensus overrides it. NedFausa (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:RSP is the default, not the opinion of a single admin. We would need local consensus to override it, and until then we can treat it as a reliable source. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Article is coming off as merely a "Puff piece" than anything encyclopedic

Just read through the entire article and it is far too long with far too many recent edits added which appear to be by mostly one "editor". Wikipedia can do much better than this. Would it be too much to ask just to revert the article to what it was two years ago with a few exceptions for Senator Harris' run for the Democratic nomination, and then have some balanced and reasonable edits going forward by more than just one prolific editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:97D3:F5D1:25AC:1EB2:E932 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased

This article is hideously biased and requires an extensive rewrite. It reads like a campaign ad. There is zero criticism, just lauding. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do people keep using the words "heels up"?

It’s a reference to her sleeping with Willy Brown to get ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5FB1:620:21CE:F0BE:373A:E7CF (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

💯 – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

change "(with whom Harris was in a relationship)" to (with whom Harris was in a relationship while he was still married)"

In "Early Career" Kamala was in a relationship with Willie Brown. It should be noted that Mr. Brown was married to Blanche Vitero at the time. He may have been separated from his wife but he was still married.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Brown_(politician) Dynamiteservice (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This has been discussed and rejected before. Please review the previous discussion and seek consensus for this change. - MrX 🖋 00:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicative content added by User:Cpotisch

Cpotisch has, with a single stroke, added 10,201 bytes to Kamala Harris, apparently without even bothering to look at the page to see if that content was already present. This has resulted in duplicative coverage of, for instance, the National Mortgage Settlement, Brown v. Plata, the Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest, Michelle-Lael Norsworthy, and how many other topics I can't bear to count. I've already made one massive reversion today, so I can't undo this mess. But I urge another editor to consider it. NedFausa (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll fix it now. Cpotisch (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You should also probably revert to a prior version while you're identifying the content that's already in the main body of the article, while respecting the removals in the edit history unless you bring them up here. Thank you for your effort. 2601:482:8000:C470:D1B7:5187:6B96:63E5 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what happens when newly arrived editors rush to short-cuts. Oh, yeah, says ProcrastinatingReader, let's add 31,589 bytes. Oh, yeah, says Cpotisch, let's add 10,201‎ bytes. And off they go off to watch from the sidelines, leaving the rest of us to clean up after them. NedFausa (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: "Newly arrived?" I think I've been editing WP for about four years. Anyway, I'm sorry for the mess I made, but I cleaned it all up just now. That said, the (non-duplicate) content I added had been removed without community consensus, so I think the article is now better for it. Cpotisch (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant newly arrived to Kamala Harris. That undiscussed addition of 10,201 bytes was your first edit of this article. NedFausa (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Marijuana

As a spot check on the objectivity of this article, I checked the treatment of marijuana under Public safety. My reading is that the Wikipedia article gives a one-sided summary of a more balanced source.

It says, in total:

While Harris oversaw more than 1900 convictions for marijuana possession, lawyers working in her office stated that most defendants for low-level possession were never charged with a crime, consistent with the city and county's low enforcement priorities.

In other words, the Wikipedia summary quotes Harrison's own staff, saying that (by today's tolerant standards), they did a great job. There are defense lawyers, and pro-legalization activists, who disagree. But read it yourself and see.

(I also compared it to the 1 January 2020 version, which gives her changing position and I think is more objective.)

The current version references the Mercury News story Campaign fact check: Here’s how Kamala Harris really prosecuted marijuana cases.

Harris oversaw more than 1,900 marijuana convictions in San Francisco, previously unreported records from the DA’s office show. Her prosecutors appear to have convicted people on marijuana charges at a higher rate than under her predecessor, based on data about marijuana arrests in the city.

But former lawyers in Harris’ office and defense attorneys who worked on drug cases say most defendants arrested for low-level pot possession were never locked up. And only a few dozen people were sent to state prison for marijuana convictions under Harris’ tenure....

Still, advocates wonder why it took so long for the California senator to come out in support of marijuana legalization. She actively fought a ballot measure for recreational pot in 2010...

Harris publicly came out for legalizing marijuana only in May 2018, after she was widely considered a likely presidential contender....

When it came to the fight for legalization, “she was nowhere, zilch, nada, no help,” said Tom Ammiano, a former San Francisco supervisor and assemblyman who has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for president....

“Kamala Harris and I disagreed on a lot of criminal justice issues, but I have to admit, she was probably the most progressive prosecutor in the state at the time when it came to marijuana,” Solis said.

Not all defense attorneys agree. J. David Nick...

“Just because you didn’t rot your life away in prison doesn’t mean it wasn’t a big deal to get a conviction,” said Dale Sky Jones, a Bay Area marijuana activist. “Your ability to keep your job, get another job or get housing with that conviction on your record is all hurt by that.”

I think most of this Wikipedia article is like that. It's filled with press releases (or news stories that are essentially press releases), that go on at great length about unevaluated programs like "Back on Track LA." The issues of exculpatory evidence and wrongful convictions are also summarized to eliminate the toughest criticism from, for example, Lara Bazelon. There's too much to edit detail by detail. If I had to rewrite this, I would blank the whole page and start again from scratch (using the same sources). --Nbauman (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The issues of exculpatory evidence are written in precise legal language that describes what happened in court proceedings. I know this because I reviewed all of them in detail. If accuracy is your concern, you should probably question why Professor Bazelon felt the need to embellish her criticisms with respect to the wrongful conviction cases, such as the 2014 Carney appeal or the Gage case. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, could you give your 2-3 best examples of this article's "news stories that are essentially press releases"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I changed "never charged with a crime" to "not sent to prison,"[7] since the source says "never locked up." Defendants are by definition people charged with crimes. Unfortunately the source is not clear whether that decision was made by Harris' staff or the courts. TFD (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Bnguyen1114, I've written news and feature stories for several legal magazines, so I have an idea of what legal language is. I don't think the language here is particularly precise, or particularly following legal language. It reads, "For example, law professor Lara Bazelon contends Harris 'weaponized technicalities' to uphold lengthy sentences." When I studied legal writing, I learned that a lawyer is supposed to make a claim, and then support that claim with facts and examples. This article doesn't support that claim with facts or examples. In her NYT articles, Bazelon offers several examples. I think the worst is the case of George Gage, in which, Bazelon says, the prosecutor unlawfully withheld exculpatory evidence, "including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had been repeatedly untruthful with law enforcement." I think that withholding evidence is a serious violation of prosecutorial responsibility and of the rights of the defendant, and here it casts doubt on the credibility of their main witness. Bazelon is a law professor, and the NYT has editors reviewing her stories for accuracy, so she and the NYT are WP:RSs. If you're dismissing her arguments because you think she's "embellishing" them -- well, maybe that's the problem with your editing. (How is she "embellishing"?)

Because Bazelon is wrong, period. It doesn't matter what the LA DAs did in the 90s or what the stepdaughter did or did not lie about. Those details are fun to spar over, but ultimately inconsequential. For purposes of an article about Kamala Harris, what matters is what she did. And what she did was appeal a ruling from a federal district court to a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. That panel unanimously sided with her, in the case of Gage v. Chappell, in finding that Gage failed to abide by federal law when he brought his habeas petitions. It doesn't matter how you feel about the case, how you feel about the rights of the defendant, or the credibility of whoever. What matters for purposes of this article is that the 9th Circuit handed down a controlling legal precedent in Kamala's favor. Here is the link: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/07/20/13-73438.pdf. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also note that "contends" is a word that violates Wikipedia's style sheet, in MOS:ALLEGED. That may be legal style, but it violates Wikipedia style.

I think the whole entry is full of selective editing like that -- the criticisms of Harris are abbreviated to mere assertions, and the defenses of Harris go on with elaborate, irrelevant details. --Nbauman (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

All due respect, NBauman, it is important to be precise and accurate in describing what happened in certain cases. What you deem irrelevant may not be factual. And I took exquisite pains to ensure everything I wrote was legally and factually accurate, every time. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Lots of people think that their work is legally and factually accurate, but since they often come to different conclusions, they can't all be right. Bazelon is a law professor and NYT contributor, and her work is reviewed by editors, which makes her a WP:RS. You are, like the rest of us, an anonymous Wikipedia contributor, which makes your efforts WP:OR. According to Wikipedia guidelines, we should take Bazelon's opinions over yours. Sorry.

And on the merits of it, I don't think your description of Harrison's critics is good legal writing, because you mention Bazelon but don't include her supporting arguments. --Nbauman (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I just read the case. (BTW, in Wikipedia, you should add your comments to the end of a section, not the middle.)

You're right. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think. What matters is what Bazelon, a WP:RS thinks. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html She wrote "that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence," and that Gage couldn't bring it up again because, while acting as his own lawyer, he hadn't raised the issue in lower court. Bazelon is a defense attorney. She thinks that, whatever the court decided, it's an injustice to convict Gage when the prosecutor withheld evidence. That's what a WP:RS says in support of her position and I think it should have been included in the article. And I think it's bad legal writing not to include it. --Nbauman (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The quality of opinion pieces published in the NYT is generally very good, but it is still Bazelon's opinion and not the only RS that matters. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång Well, here's a press release https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/BackonTrackFS.pdf , here's a report that looks like a long press release (although I'd have to read it all to make a confident assessment) https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/tr/truancy_2013.pdf and here's a news story that might as well be a press release https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/New-D-A-promises-to-be-smart-on-crime-Harris-2831205.php But that's a side issue.

The basic problem with this entry is that it doesn't have a coherent story. It's an agglomeration of details, with editors warring with each other like a game of Go, trying to get more or less favorable coverage of Harris, according to their preference. --Nbauman (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's another press release. https://www.drugpolicy.org/press-release/2017/07/senator-cory-booker-introduces-marijuana-legalization-bill-focused-racial The problem with press releases is that they are inherently one-sided and flattering. Which is the problem with this entire Wikipedia article.--Nbauman (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are .gov/WP:PRIMARY sources and a fairly gushing article. Sources to be used with caution, but not necessarily useless, it depends on how they are used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:PrimaPrime, Bazelon is a WP:RS, and her opinions are one of the viewpoints we should include under WP:NPOV. I would be happy to include Bazelon's opinion of Harris, along with another WP:RS legal scholar who disagrees. I don't want to see Bazelon's opinion truncated to the point where the reader doesn't know the meaningful point she was getting at. And I don't want to see a Wikipedia editor's WP:OR summary of a court case. --Nbauman (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

May we change the archive period to 15 days?

This page is over 100kB. May we change the archive period to 15 days? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: It's been less than 12 hours since I added auto archiving. The bot hasn't gotten here yet. Please, let's wait and see what happens in the next 12 hours. NedFausa (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It got noticed

The Intercept had an article on what's going on here. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That link is misentered, the Intercept story is There’s a War Going On Over Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia Page, with Unflattering Elements Vanishing in part it reads

At least one highly dedicated Wikipedia user has been scrubbing controversial aspects of Harris’s “tough-on-crime” record from her Wikipedia page, her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin for mortgage fraud-related crimes, her strong support of prosecutors in Orange County who engaged in rampant misconduct, and other tidbits — such as her previous assertion that “it is not progressive to be soft on crime” — that could prove unflattering to Harris as the public first gets to know her on the national stage. The edits, according to the page history, have elicited strong pushback from Wikipedia’s volunteer editor brigade, and have drawn the page into controversy, though it’s a fight the pro-Harris editor is currently winning.

... the language was getting pulled directly from press releases and campaign literature. “You seem to have gone through a database of press releases from Harris’s office, cataloging every single one and adding it to the article,” one Wikipedia editor said.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed an admin, Drmies, posted a little while back on Bnguyen1114's talk page. I haven't been following this page, but it appears there's been at least some scrutiny and reversions. Drmies, can you help catch us up about what's been going on here? Is this a case of the media trying to pretend there's conflict when it's actually being handled fine, or is there some potential cleanup that needs to be done? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing discussion of conduct rather than content

Look y'all, I'm just a constituent of Kamala Harris who volunteers for Democratic candidates. I've met Jill Biden, Josh Harder, Julian Castro, and Kamala Harris. I'm on lockdown like everyone else and took on this page as a project. There's nothing sinister about me. If you have questions, feel free to ask, I'll be happy to answer. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) You should probably recuse yourself from this topic, then. We can't have paid editors going around and changing articles on the subject that they are paid by. Jdcomix (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Do you have any proof Bnguyen1114 is being paid by Kamala Harris? PrimaPrime (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Oh, so you're admitting to being extensively politically involved in the constituency and party of this politician, and have also admitted to feeling "sick" at reading criticism of this politician, but we're to assume that this "project" you have undertaken in deleting said criticism is not sinister? You re-included the Mnuchin thing, but the way the Mnuchin thing is worded is terrible. It's highly one-sided and favourable to Harris, much more so than reliable sources have been.In general, you seem to lack an ability to write dispassionately. CompactSpacez (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC) This talk page should only be used for discussing changes to articles, not the conduct of other editors. If anyone has any concerns, they should discuss it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or file a report at ANI or ARBCOM. TFD (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Agreed. Neither Bnguyen1114's involvement in local politics nor their preference for editing specific pages are against Wikipedia policy, provided their contributions cite WP:RS and abide by WP:DUE with regard to factual criticism of Harris. I agree some of their initial editing was potentially disruptive, but the last time this was discussed in May, they agreed to reduce their activity on this page, and appear to have done so. I have no reason not to WP:AGF at this point; any issues at this point should be handled through the WP:BRD cycle, not by an Intercept writer looking for a controversy or the casting of vague WP:ASPERSIONS about paid campaign operatives. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Except this is clearly violating WP:DUE and WP:RS. Fair, properly-sourced criticism is being removed. This editing behaviour was so egregious that a reputable news organization reported on it. Moreover, it is also not enough for them to merely cease disruptively editing. Their disruptive edits must also be removed, and the criticisms re-instated. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Sir, I added both of the criticisms back to the page, as was previously requested. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) You did so after the article came out. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say The Intercept has a certain political lean -- we're not talking about the NYT here -- but setting that aside, you're free to edit the article if you have issues with its current state. Be the change you wish to see in the world. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PrimaPrime The NYT also has a political leaning, but BOTH are considered by WP as reliable sources.TJD2 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Unlike the NYT, the Intercept did not support the Iraq War or any other, similarly fraudulent international crime based on fake and biased information from politicians. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is for discussing potential improvements to the article, not your opinions on the Iraq War. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The willful blindness required to still consider the NYT a reliable source makes me fearful for the future. Torriende (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bnguyen1114 is, as far as I'm concerned, a problematic editor--but I will say that CompactSpacez, with their limited experience and doubtful contributions, has little right to jump on them, just as brand-new User talk:GLIZZY GLADIATOR is highly suspicious. Bnguyen seemed to be a COI editor who's prime interest was the flooding of these articles with every bit of information, whether relevant, reasonable, well-sourced or not--not overly promotional stuff, or I would have blocked them, but just too much stuff. It's the kind of editing that turns articles into swamps. User:Sdkb, I quit looking at these articles and the editor's work a while ago, at a time when it seemed things had settled down a bit. But I will say that I was less concerned with their supposed deletions than I was with their additions (I hate fluff); the article seems a bit overblown to me, and I'm sad they didn't give my username when they cited me, haha. You, Sdkb, seem like an editor with some experience and common sense. Shoot, I see now that the article has 160k, with half the content and over half of the text contributed by Bnguyen. Sometimes drastic times call for drastic measures, and if there are a few editors willing to do the work, then restore the earlier version of the article, go through those walls of text added by Bnguyen, and turn this into a decent article. Or go the slow route and start pruning. Either way--this article needs something. (TFD, article talk pages should allow for this kind of discussion too: the article itself is directly a subject of discussion.) Drmies (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the motion to recuse - Bnguyen1114 needs to recuse himself from editing the Kamala Harris page, any further edits will have to be scrutinized for POV issues. TJD2 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. No need for a motion. I'll voluntarily recuse myself until some editors go through it. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I created this account to ask the following. TJD2 and others have called for you to recuse yourself from editing this page, yet your reply here implies that you will only temporarily recuse yourself. Is it your intention to resume editing this page, after it has gone through review? Assuming you do return to editing, would you agree to your edits being scrutinized for POV issues? Thank you for your time. - A fellow Californian Democrat (Firepengu) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I will abide by the judgment of the group. I genuinely enjoy researching and writing about politicians I admire but if the editors think it inappropriate, I don't have an issue stepping aside. If I am permitted to continue contributing after the whole article has been reviewed for bias subject to further scrutiny for POV issues, I don't have a problem with it. Thanks for your question. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, Good practices for talk pages says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." Of course there can be exceptions, but I think we've already reached the point where the discussion should continue elsewhere if at all. TFD (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You should not be lecturing a WP:Administrator on the rules of the website. I'm sure Drmies is well versed in this area.TJD2 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the argument from authority. Being an administrator does not necessarily mean that one is always right. Tell me, if yo disagree with an administrator on content policy, do you always adhere to their judgment? TFD (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but TFD is also well versed--and while I agree, usually, with the sentiment, with COI editing it's a slightly different kettle of fish. We have two issues of concern here, and they're intimately connected: one is the possibly/likely COI editing (paid or not, that's irrelevant), second is the resulting article, which (the Interceptor suggests, albeit not very clearly) is allegedly partial, and is certainly a bloated bag of factoids. So while I'm interested in what editors think of Bnguyen, it's true that such discussions are frequently held at COIN or whatever--TFD, if you want to start this up at COIN, that's fine with me, but I am hoping we don't lose track of what IMO is really at stake here: the neutrality, readability, and quality of the article. It is my belief that Bnguyen withdrawing from the article will likely improve article quality, in case there was any doubt on where I stand. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Going over this page is more of a heavy lift than I'm willing to take on currently, but I've tagged it for a {{POV check}} in light of the discussion here so far, and I'd suggest that, given its importance, it might be good to go to some more widely watched noticeboard to find experienced editors willing to do the check. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Any discussion that's about Bnguyen1114 should just be closed here. If someone thinks Bnguyen1114 has run afoul of Wikipedia policy, take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. And no, admitting to being a democrat or being a constituent does not run against any policy. It's not appropriate for the article talk page to focus on the user rather than the content. Receiving a bunch of "attention" off-wiki like this sucks, whether or not it's warranted. If there's an issue, the Intercept piece did its job in drawing attention to it. No need to get bogged down in ad hominem irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Close this discussion, bring Bnguyen1114 to a noticeboard if necessary, and focus on content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• the discussion about Bnguyen1114 is highly relevant to staying in the talk page, as the talk page is the first place wiki readers like me go to when an article seems like not an article but an AstroTurf attempt. further, if we use rhododendrites logic, the talk page is not the place to tell people not to have nguyen114 discussion in the talk page Flynnwasframed (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am deeply disgusted with the fact that much of this page has been scrubbed. There was more about her not prosecuting Steve Mnuchin and taking campaign donations from him. It was up here as of last month. Her history with the death penalty was also scrubbed, where she defended it before the 9th Circuit. She also opposed parole reform and that was scrubbed. Lastly, the marijuana position is disingenuous. She opposed legalizing marijuana until 2018, but the wording makes it seem her change in position is unknown as to when she changed. Capriaf (talk)
  • Capriaf, you've been a Wikipedia editor for a while; you should know that shooting from the hip about content in a section that's not about that at all is only going to water everything down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Drmies, actually if you read the intercept article, you'd see what I said has to do with this topic, so don't make baseless attacks like that at me. I purposely based everything I said the Intercept article the sparked this section on the talk page. Capriaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.106.121 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If you let these bogus edits stand, Wikipedia will have lost the little credibility is has. SawdustForBrains (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• SawdustForBrains, thanks, but I think we can handle it. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Note, that in my role as an uninvolved administrator, I have closed the conduct discussion below and collapsed a part of the discussion in this thread that had veered towards conduct. My intent was to leave content stuff alone which does mean that the discussion collapsing is a bit awkward which I acknowledge. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw this article, too. I am concerned that Wikipedia not be turned into a campaign website for Kamala Harris. At the same time, I do think the content should be fair and meet WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. I do ask that if anyone here is working for Kamala Harris's campaign, they should declare themselves, per WP:COI; as well, if anyone here is working for an opponent's campaign, I ask that they too declare themselves, per WP:COI.--Beneficii (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Look guys, you either specify what is suppose to be non-neutral in the article or the tag stays out. Onus for that is on those trying to add the tag. And trying to question other editors' motivations doesn't cut it. Volunteer Marek 00:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And honestly, who cares what the Intercept writes about this article? Volunteer Marek 00:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

As it currently exists, this article is a propaganda piece written by a user with a vested interest in making Kamala Harris look as good as possible (a self-proclaimed Democratic activist who gets "sick" at misinformation about her should not be allowed to remove negative information from this article, full stop). Until every single edit from User:Bnguyen1114 is reverted, this article has zero basis for claiming to be even slightly encyclopedic. Allowing a "quarantine project" that is clearly an attempt to whitewash Kamala Harris to stand is utterly outrageous. This page is propaganda written by a Democratic party activist, nothing more. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is pretty bad. A lot of content has been removed, and I'm surprised it took this long to get noticed. Here's a net diff of all the changes made since the user in question started editing: Special:Diff/952562673/cur. Some are worth keeping, and other edits have been made, so it's not as easy as just reverting everything, but it may be easier to revert and add back in relevant changes. Across over 500 edits, it'd be a lot of work to vet each one individually vs just do it that way. There were numerous good edits, as well. The majority of edits by others were ultimately minor edits, so on balance, I think just reverting everything and readding the changes is a much faster option. Just to add, the user did make good edits, and a lot of the reorganisation is helpful, but since they made so many changes and removals it's hard to tell what's good and what isn't. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've made the revert, for the reasons in this statement and in Drmies'. Over 30k characters were added back in as a result. The revert I've done was rather far back (to the diff I listed in my prev comment). I compared changes from that to the revert Drmies did not too long ago, and even in that range a lot of content was removed and small changes made to remove criticism, so I felt that wasn't enough. I will add clearly legitimate contributions back in, mainly from other editors, but I probably don't have the time to vet each single change by Bnguyen1114. I suspect many were good, but I saw too many which removed legitimate content or criticism, and we cannot, especially in this time, have such an important page which has been puffered up sitting around on the wiki. This is a very bold and not-ideal solution, but it's ultimately necessary and the fastest solution to get back to a stable page. I hope other editors can help vet those other changes, so we can add some of those back in as well. I must also note the associated pages which must be checked, Political positions of Kamala Harris, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You guys are really f*****g this all up. Shows Wikipedia for what it truly is, a Democratic Party mouthpiece. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you want to build an encylopedia. Kindly take your rage elsewhere. Cpotisch (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I re-added the info critical of Harris removed by Bnguyen weeks ago, though the promotional language remains. Then I requested that the article be bumped to EC protection. These editors are clearly affiliated with Harris, and are literally destroying the article. Cpotisch (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Strangely, Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge of Wikipedia.

These editors are clearly affiliated with Harris That's a strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. You DO have the slightest shred of evidence for this claim, correct? --Calton | Talk 02:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident. The thread is Bnguyen1114 and Kamala Harris. --Pudeo (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Extreme Bias, Orwell-esque excuses, source elitism

1. The Intercept is read by millions. It is a legitimate source who has uncovered some of the most SIGNIFICANT stories since their founding. Those that think commercial enterprises are more trustworthy or significant are forcing wikipedia to reproduce the party line of the very few majority shareholders interest to guide the content of its articles. This makes wikipedia worse.
2. The Hill is a somewhat rightwing news site. But, again, it is read by millions and thus is significant and while its news side pushes click-baity headlines, generally from a rightwing perspective, its news coverage, as opposed to opinion articles are generally considered trustworthy.
3. Kamala Harris' husband's job is absolutely relevant. He is by far the largest income in their household, thus finances much of the Harris' lifestyle, which has been reported widely as extravagant is absolutely relevant to whether Harris has conflicts of interests. To pretend otherwise because "this article is about Kamala," or "its not significant," is to live in the delusional world where politicians family's income streams don't influence them. The public cannot know if a conflict of interest is the reason for any given action that is why is absolutely NECESSARY that they have the information to make the judgement for themselves. If politicians don't like that then don't get involved in financial entanglements where it is not readily obvious to the public whether there is conflict or not.

I am a scientist and I actually used wikipedia a lot in university for chemistry calculations. Seeing how ridiculous the editors are stretching to cover up for Harris' obvious bad acts and questionable decisions here is a real eye opener on how the adage, "don't use wikipedia," is still true. Its sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:527F:8DC0:D9E5:74C4:C2DC:C1F6 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem pretty biased, and therefore probably shouldn’t be editing the page. If there is some sort of political issue with Harris’s husband’s job, income, or her spending, then that’s for journalists to Investigate and write about...it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia article. Likewise, the page is for a synopsis, not to offer opinions on “questionable decisions.” Davey1107 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This article reads like a campaign site. It needs to honestly demonstrate both positives and negatives or has no value. For example, no Controversy section is listed, and now is even stripped from the talk section. Can you honestly say that as a former Prosecutor and AG, as well as former presidential candidate, she has no issues that are "controversies"? If that is the approach, then the bias in her favor is clear.Bobbysev (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy to avoid Controversy sections. See WP:CRITS. Knope7 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not policy, but it's generally a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bobbysev: The controversy section that you say has been "stripped" from this talk page dates back three years and was routinely archived after it became stale. It may still be viewed with a single click here. NedFausa (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As a scientist you should realize that when you write an overview of a topic for undergraduates, you summarize the information about the topic that is most typically found in reliable sources. You don't say that the journal of the University of Pig's Knuckle, Iowa is a reliable source therefore we need to add what what Professor X said about quasars. If and when cable news starts reporting on Harris' husband, we'll put it front and center. But we can't provide a different emphasis than they do. Readers come here to read a summary of what they would find if they searched articles about Harris in CNN. If they want the dirt they ignore, they can look elsewhere.

However, if you think this article is more positive about Harris than mainstream media, then explain how and we can try to change it.

TFD (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I have added the NPOV tag because well-sourced negative information has been removed from this article by a Democratic activist (likely in order to whitewash Kamala Harris' image) and traces of said activists' edits remain through the lengthy, expository defenses of Harris' positions. Example: a one-sentence mention of her defending the death penalty in court in 2014, contrasted with extensive discussions of alternatives to the death penalty mentioned in her press relases. There is a clear agenda to make Kamala Harris look good in preparation for a potential running mate announcement, as evidenced by the editor saying "misinformation" about Harris made him "sick". The NPOV tag should be kept until the article is reverted to its pre-whitewash state.PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'm somewhat tempted to roll the article completely back to before one editor with very strong political ties to the subject started a massive series of changes. This would bring us back to April of this year. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose rollback. @Jpgordon: I for one (and I'm by no means alone) have worked very hard to repair damage caused by the activist and to otherwise improve this BLP since he recused himself from active editing. Your proposed rollback would take a meat cleaver to a page that is undergoing reconstructive surgery. Please resist your temptation unless there is clear consensus endorsing your draconian approach. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry; I've been editing here long enough to know that such an act without consensus would be a terrible thing to do. I'm just expressing frustration. This was a pretty good article before a loyalist supporter decided to turn it into a campaign biography. (For what it's worth, I'm a big supporter too, which is why I haven't done much on the article itself.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Intercept article made a lot of damaging insinuations unsupported by facts. Not everyone removing information from a politician's biography is conflicted or working on that politician's behalf. Political biographies tend to have a lot of excessive details added by editors who care strongly about political issues. This article has suffered from that problem for years (and you can find many past talk page discussions about that in the archives). The article does need to be trimmed down. That process will sometimes involve editors removing information that others find significant. When that happens, we should calmly discuss on the talk page rather than looking to conspiracy theories. It's bad enough that the Intercept misunderstood Wikipedia and didn't bother to get all the facts. We here on Wikipedia should know better.

If there are specific facts that should be added back to the article, we can discuss. This article is the product of the work of many editors, not just one. Knope7 (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that User:NedFausa has done, but when I review the article (I was just checking the Marijuana section), there is so much detail that would take so long to fact-check that I don't think an incremental approach is possible. The section misses the main point -- the debates over marijuana and which side Harris was on -- and instead is filled with trivia of efforts that sound good but really didn't get anywhere. The critical question is, when Harris could have made a difference in marijuana prosecutions, did she do it? (And is she a hypocrite for smoking marijuana herself while she prosecuted others?) he best way to edit it would be to blank the whole Marijuana section and start over, with just a few good sources.

I remember when I was working for a science publication, and I wrote a story. My editor read it, and said, "Rewrite it. Don't just touch it up. Rewrite it from scratch." And I did. That was good advice.

That's how I think this entry should be rewritten. Blank it and start again from scratch. And I think it would be easier than trying to copy edit it. But that's just what I would do. I'm not pushing for it. --Nbauman (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are absolutely the wrong questions for the subsection. It falls under political positions and so that is what that subsection needs to stick to: presenting Harris' political position on cannabis. Knope7 (talk)

In any case, remember that that the "Political positions" page also exists, following the standard procedure for politicians' pages that get too long. It was rewritten by the same user to move content from that section to Harris' biography when it seemed more relevant or redundant with information already there, but anyone suspecting bias in the main page should also look over the secondary pages as well. 2601:482:8000:C470:D1B7:5187:6B96:63E5 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(User talk:2601:482:8000:C470:D1B7:5187:6B96:63E5) You seem to be a single-purpose account with only 3 contributions, all to the Kamala Harris page. What gives? Are you a new editor, with only 3 contributions? If so, how do you know about "Political positions" pages? If not, are you also editing under another name? --Nbauman (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The "it's POV complaint" seems to boil down to "this is the attack page I was looking for! Therefore it's POV!". I'm removing the tag as spurious. Volunteer Marek 06:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I hate writing "me too" comments, but I agree with User:Volunteer Marek on this. Dare I say it? The page has become political, in a high profile way. I think there should be consensus before adding the POV tag in the future. Rklahn (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you, but I'm also not really willing to die on this hill. Honestly I just hope we can get this page back to where it was and wish everyone the best in improving it. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Forbes.com/sites

In re: this revert, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.com_contributors. RSNP distinguishes between Forbes.com editorial content and Forbes.com/sites contributor content. This can be seen in the two links: WP:FORBES (editorial) vs WP:FORBESCON (contributors). Forbes.com/sites is specifically called out in the latter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ping @NedFausa:. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes – Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. (Emphases added.) Jack Brewster, author of the reference you deleted, is a Forbes staff reporter, not an outside contributor. The disputed reference is acceptable and should not be removed on the basis you claim. Please await consensus before again deleting it. NedFausa (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the staff position. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Change African American to Black. Me norris (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Black redirects to African-American. Anyways, the terms are interchangeable -- it would not be necessary to do that. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104, The terms are not interchangeable. Nelson Mandela is black, but not African-American. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Nelson Mandela did not live in the US, if he did then he would be an African-American and Black. Correction: the terms are interchangeable when you are referring to people of African descent (or "black" people) who are living in the United States. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

P,TO 19104, This is a world-wide encyclopedia, the fact that some people act as if it were an American encyclopedia is offensive. (And no, your correction is not correct.) S Philbrick(Talk) 23:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Offensive" is too strong a word, perhaps "inappropriate" would be better. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Ok, since there is disagreement on whether this COI edit request should be accepted, I have newly marked it as not answered. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

P,TO 19104, FTR, I have expressed no opinion on the edit request. My narrow concern was the suggestion that the two terms are interchangeable. I'm old enough to remember when the term came into widespread use, and it is always struck me as a flawed decision. Personally, I hope to live long enough to see all such terms go away but I don't think that's likely. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This template should be used for non-controversial edits or where consensus has been reached but the page is protected. It alerts administrators to make a change. If no consensus has been reached, the template should not be used, but you are free to discuss the issue. Once consensus has been achieved since the article is not protected, any editor can change it. TFD (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020

In the first paragraph, the sentence reading

"Harris is the first Asian-American woman and the first African Anerican"

should have the word "Anerican" corrected to "American". Additionally, the hyphenation should be consistent with "Asian-American". Krajcevski (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Clarifcation. With this edit Larry Hockett fixed the spelling and rightly removed a hyphen. But as I read it, Krajcevski requested that African American be hyphenated. Per MOS:HYPHEN, we must never insert a hyphen into a proper name, not even when used as a compound modifier. Thus, the sentence is correct as Larry changed it, with neither Asian American nor African American hyphenated. NedFausa (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion in general about the appropriateness of apostrophes hyphens in terms such as these. Apparently, it can be a point of controversy. JTRH (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@JTRH: This edit request did not mention apostrophes. NedFausa (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant hyphens. Sorry for the confusion. JTRH (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The convention that I've seen generally adopted in other Wikipedia articles, which also is consistent with my understanding of English grammar (which I'll explain below), is that, while one should not hyphenate "Asian American" when it is an adjective-noun combo as in "Harris is an Asian American," the term should be hyphenated when such combo modifies a noun (such as in "Harris is an Asian-American woman." This is consistent with proper hyphenation in other contexts.

When one writes the phrase "I read a short story," "short" is an adjective that modifies the noun "story," and hyphenation should not be used. However, when one writes "Edgar Allan Poe was a short-story writer," one must hyphenate "short-story" to make clear that "short" is an adjective that is modifying "story," not writer; leaving out the hyphen would imply that Poe was a short writer of stories instead of a writer of short stories.

It should be noted that such hyphenation is limited to two-word combinations in which the lead word is or could be adjectives, but that adverb-adjective combinations should not be hyphenated because an adverb could not possibly modify a noun (adverbs may only modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs). Thus, "a poorly written essay" is not hyphenated, given that there could be no such thing as a "poorly essay" ("poorly" could never be an adjective and may only be an adverb).

Returning to "Asian American" and "African American," when the terms are used as an adjective-noun combo that creates a compound noun (such as in "Harris is an African American," where "African" modifies "American" to signify "an American who descends fully or partially from black Africans," it is like "short story" and no hyphenation is necessary nor should be used. By contrast, if one wrote "Harris is an African-American senator," the hyphen is needed to clarify that the adjective "African" is modifying "American" and not "senator." Harris is a senator who is African American, not an American senator who is African. Thus, the hyphen is necessary in "African-American prosecutor" and "Asian-American woman." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

AuH2ORepublican: Thanks for the lesson in English grammar. But unless I missed it in those four paragraphs, you neglected to mention MOS:HYPHEN, which as I quoted above, tells us to never insert a hyphen into a proper name, not even when used as a compound modifier. NedFausa (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:NedFausa, thanks for pointing that out for me. I'm honestly surprised to learn that Wikipedia guidelines state that proper names should not be hyphenated when it modifies a noun, particularly since it's not generally followed by editors in other articles. I've probably run into ten editors who write "Cory Booker is an African-American" (which is both grammatically incorrect and against Wikipedia guidelines) for every one who writes "Cory Booker is an African American senator." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward with NPOV issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We're not going to be rolling back, obviously. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Re. It got noticed, I can only see two options going forward: vet all changes made, and modify the article from the state it was left in to address neutrality and content removal concerns; or revert to the pre-changes state and add in changes as appropriate. I'm starting this discussion to see which people would prefer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Revert and re-add: I feel it's better to revert to Special:Diff/952562673/cur and re-add changes as necessary. The issue isn't just the blanking of complete sections. There's smaller changes, as well, which aid in puffery, remove critical statements, and even small critical words. I think there are serious NPOV issues here that are going to be an incredible amount of work to address in any other way. The issue extends to the Political positions of Kamala Harris article as well, where the political positions section of this article was selectively moved. I did boldly attempt to make this change, but in hindsight I agree with NedFausa for pointing out there should probably be a consensus on which option to go for before making such a large alteration. I appreciate that work has already been done on the vet and modify option, but I don't see how each change can be properly addressed with this, and ultimately I think it'd be a greater waste of everyone's time if following through with this option takes more time than the alternative. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Revert and re-add: I agree with the comment above. We need to maintain NPOV.—Beneficii (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Revert and re-add: for all the reasons stated above. This isn't a page or website meant to promote only the good and safe versions of people, especially politicians.TropicAces (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

• OPPOSE Revert and re-add: ProcrastinatingReader presents us with a false dichotomy—either "vet all changes made and modify the article from the state it was left in" or destroy the countless good faith contributions by me and numerous other editors to mitigate damage done by a fanboy. A third option (and there are likely others as well) is to continue repairing this BLP as we have done since 2 July 2020, when The Intercept exposé dropped. That does not require vetting all changes made by the fanboy. Rather, it involves closely scrutinizing our article as it now stands and making changes as justified by WP policies/guidelines and with consensus by interested editors. As I wrote here earlier today, a draconian rollback would take a meat cleaver to a page that is undergoing reconstructive surgery. Please, let's not succumb to impatience in some mad rush to mollify The Intercept. NedFausa (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  This isn't about The Intercept. Anyone looking at the revision history of this article could've seen this. They just happened to realise before one of us did, apparently. That third option is the second option, you're just stating that you're already in the process of doing said option hence we shouldn't revert. That's a fine statement, but there is no "false dichotomy" here. But, this article is 70k characters of readable prose in size, not including the text moved to Political positions of Kamala Harris. Including that, we're talking about 90k characters. It's an enormous article. GA/FA reviews of articles of this size take long enough, how are we going to vet each sentence across 90k characters for neutrality? How long will that take? Meanwhile, are readers going to see this scrubbed version? There are little edits made as well, removing things like "Harris was criticised for her view in ___" changed to "Harris was reported to be ___". The undertaking required to fix this article will be huge. I appreciate you've invested time in this already, but given that almost all of the content edits over the last few months were made by this one user, reverting it would've been more practical to do without excessive loss of content, and doing it now may be the overall greater time saver and result in a better outcome, even despite the time you've already invested in fixing this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Just as a point of curiosity, let me ask why it took four days following The Intercept exposé to bring your meat cleaver to Kamala Harris, which you had never before edited? You could have saved me and numerous other editors a great deal of effort simply by coming here in a timely manner. NedFausa (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about any person's effort -- if it were, we'd simply honor the vast amount of work that has caused the problem. This is about the quality of the article; no reason to personalize the argument. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is a thorny problem, but it is also important to note that POV on high-profile political figures typically comes from both pro- and anti- directions, so that a blanket reversion can end up reintroducing content that really does not belong in the article. Can we get a listing here on the talk page of the most significant specific points that have either been added or removed from the article, and which bear attention? BD2412 T 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Revert and re-add. Too much damage was done to incrementally remove it; it will be much easier to incrementally re-add it. We shouldn't have let it get this far, but I'm not sure there were clear policy-based reasons to get it to stop without the COI being raised externally. Sad thing is, these are good edits done in good faith, just with not enough understanding of what constitutes WP:NPOV and WP:COI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mount an investigation of prolific user / Revert and re-add: We know that there is a prolific user who has been editing this page. We know that this person almost definitely works for the Kamala Harris campaign. Action should be taken to revert and re-add but we should also call on Wikipedia moderators to mount an investigation into the user. As someone who edits a lot of politicians' pages myself, I know how critical it is that campaigns do not interfere in these matters. We need to send a message that this work by campaigns, the same done by Sarah Palin in 2008 and Tim Kaine in 2016, is unacceptable. Revert and re-add, and mount an investigation. PickleG13 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I personally have no interest in a dramatic 'investigation' here, this is about moving forward with the content issues. The editor in question said they're a regular citizen who had some extra time in lockdown and wanted to spend time building this article, for a candidate they like. I'm happy to AGF unless there's more evidence that comes to light. I feel bad that I'm petitioning to scrap their work (I hope the good parts will be added back in), but it's just necessary at this point. This editor had no ill-intent as far as I can see, it's just an unfortunate series of events. We don't expect new users to read 30 policy pages of 50 paragraphs each, this is why we give talk page warnings, and we tend to give multiple before blocking. Yet, not a single talk page warning for COI/NPOV was given, no attempt to explain to him what he was doing wrong before he spent so much time on this. 300+ editors watchlist this page, almost 200 have viewed recent changes recently, and multiple experienced editors and admins have been involved over 3 months. He was flooding the history of this page, so it's not like it was discreet editing. That editor isn't alone to blame here. That nobody took the time to at least leave a template NPOV/COI warning I view as our collective failure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you here but apparently to the opposite conclusion. Without a clear reason not to AGF and the fact that the edits were being made openly and generally without objection until The Intercept chose to make a story out of it, I feel that people suddenly jumping in with a desire to to take extreme action is inappropriate. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  This isn't about whether they're 'officially connected', regardless of official connection we have in front of us scrubbing of controversial content and rewording of issues to make them appear less problematic. I'm sorry that we're at this stage, but the content of this article matters more than any other issue. We feasibly cannot fix this at "the current pace of change" or even many times the current pace. There's people here who wish to fix this version, but nobody is going to read every sentence of 90k char prose, compare to previous, alter for NPOV. Even if there were, it'd take weeks at least, and we cannot keep this version live that long, especially not at this critical time in US politics. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think Wikipedia should pay heed to outside media speculation, not least because Harris isn't currently on a presidential ticket. And I think there is the potential for a large revert to simply produce the opposite problem of an article littered with overzealous NPOV/UNDUE criticism of Harris. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  The article was relatively stable for a long period of time. No editors other than this one have made major changes since, so any NPOV concerns with that version were addressed solely by this editor, whose edits have NPOV issues of their own, so I don't think that concern is logical. Logically, this version has at least, likely far more, NPOV issues than the old revision. Obviously, we still vet the changes they made and re-add them. It's just much faster to do it this way, rather than try to fix the current version. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this drastic and binary approach being presented after several days of editors working quietly to correct the NPOV issues with this article, and the recusal of the prolific editor in question. Without any proof they are officially connected to Harris, I see no reason not to continue with the current pace of change. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

By all means, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater. NedFausa (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Revert: A large portion of the argument to revert is based on speed. What is unstated, but could be reasonably inferred, is a concern about what state the article would be in when a potential upcoming political announcement is made. I think forgoing the standard revision process to present a particular set of facts at a particular time would be in itself a political move that Wikipedia should have no part in. -- Norvy (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Revert and Readd NPOV must be maintained.XavierGreen (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the fanboy's last edit, and as of 00:17, 7 July 2020‎, 44 unique editors have made a cumulative 162 good-faith contributions to Kamala Harris. (Both totals exclude the aptly named ProcrastinatingReader.) Option Two in effect gives each of us the middle-finger salute. NedFausa (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really; most of the work you have done will probably go right back into the article first thing; why shouldn't it? And please stop personalizing this; it doesn't matter where or why people are now more interested in this article; it also doesn't matter a bean whether your edits, the edits of the other guy, or anyone elses go into the article. It's not about you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Edit (and discuss when necessary) details that were added or removed that contribute to NPOV allegations instead of taking a sledgehammer to the problem. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose- I don't see much of a defense of the article as it was in April just fear stoked by the Intercept. The article has long had a POV problem in that every criticism that could be lobbed at anyone connected with the California AG's office during Harris tenure would make its way into the article. Unless someone actually wants to investigate and find facts to support actual misconduct, I say let's focus on fixing this article rather than bringing back old problems. Knope7 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Dozens of editors have been working for days to improve this article and the editor who has been criticized in the press has stepped aside for now. Let the normal editing process continue, in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose by my count we are 220 or so edits past Bnguyen's last batch of largest edits around June 12. Lots of good editors have had eyes on it since and continue to do so. Reverting does not make sense at this point; the ship is righted and on course.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Revert and re-add. I don't mind any of the edits I've made being undone. The corresponding original content was even more detailed with a better wording. I disagree with the principle that dates and visibility shouldn't matter when addressing large amounts of edits, because then every corporate PR person looking to push an image of a product on its release date or promotion at an expo will be secure in knowing the edits will be treated like any other edit, but that's a matter for Wikipedia policy. All that matters is in this case the content will be improved. Serpentinite (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - considerable effort has been made by several users to improve the article. Also it has never actually been successfully articulated how and why some of these supposed changes were in violation of policy (it seems they weren't, which is why some editors focused on attacking who made them). Even putting that aside, it makes no sense to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Volunteer Marek 06:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Revert and Re-add - It's quite clear that this article was edited in a severely biased manner and that much material that belonged in the article was removed without good reason. I also support putting on an NPOV tag on the article until some semblance of a consensus version emerges. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Revert and re-add. - This article seems to have become a battlefield, with certain editors pushing strongly against any language that might show Harris in a bad light. This ranges from small edits like adding "while" and "only" to make criticisms of Harris sound less significant, to large things, like the structure of the article (just compare the table of contents between April and today, where the old table of contents reflects the controversy behind some of Harris's track record more accurately). The article has been tampered with beyond repair and the best way forward seems to revert to a state before these nefarious edits happened and then add the missing information with a NPOV in mind. Mirek2 (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• ’’’Revert to April’’’, re-add any info modularly, in the sunshine.

—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs)  18:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment - While this discussion has been open for a while without much consensus developing, dozens of editors have been working productively to improve the article. I don't think it's fair to continue holding the spectre of a mass rollback over their contributions. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2020 (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.