Talk:Kamala Harris/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Change “first African American” to “Jamaican American”. She is not African American because her father is from Jamaica and her mother is Indian. There is no Africa there. 2600:1004:B0A0:8FCD:E0E8:18CB:6E56:BC01 (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please research where the ancestors of the dark skinned people in Jamaica came from. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. If we go by HiLo48's logic, we should change every article that describes Jamaican Americans to African Americans. While they may be descendants of Africans, it also removes the specificity of the origin of the person. Jamaican-American is more descriptive and more accurate. Additionally, her mother is Indian born, not Asian. – Brenr 03:36, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Kamala Harris is not African American. Her father is from Jamaica and her mother is from India. She should either be referred to as black, Jamaican American, or Indian American. 97.119.2.54 (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done RS in the article state that she is African-American. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 03:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Her heritage is Jamaican and Indian so it would be accurate to say she is the first Jamaican American not African American. PeaceLovePositivity (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See above and the sources cited. Many, indeed most Jamaican Americans have African heritage and are thus also African American. Neutrality^talk 03:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala's Descent Indisputable

Regardless of how many articles exist claiming she is African, it does not change the reality that she is born to an Indian-born, Indian-American mother and a Jamaican-born, Jamaican-American father. We should ensure factual information is on the article, not information from inaccurate sources. – Brenr 03:30, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dark skinned people in Jamaica have pretty much the same ancestry as those you would presumably call African American. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Brenr, the vast majority of Jamaicans, including her father, are of African ancestry, and African people were enslaved in Jamaica. Her ancestry is both African and Indian (Asian). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion about Barack Obama. Neither politician is descended from African Americans and neither grew up in African American communities. Neither is more than half African ancestry. Yet that is how they are described in reliable sources. But we don't carry out synthesis and determine who is or is not African-American but defer to sources. TFD (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you are incorrect about her being raised in African-American communities. She was born in heavily African-American Oakland, California and raised largely in adjoining Berkeley, California, which has several heavily African-American neighborhoods. She lived in one such neighborhood, which is why she was bussed for integration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As for descent from "African-Americans", Jamaica is an island part of the Americas, where African people were enslaved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, Cullen328. I agree with The Four Deuces's overall point though; as Wikipedia editors, we cannot apply our own standard regarding the fraught, unresolved question on who should be considered under the "African-American" label. We must defer to reliable sources. RedHotPear (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, Harris childhood neighborhood, according to Berkeley historian Steven Finacom, was “an integrated community with families of various races, both middle class and poorer residents, and both renters and homeowners.”[4] When she was 12, her family moved to Westmount, Quebec, which had a negligible black population. As is well known she went to an integrated primary school, before going to Westmount High School. TFD (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that link, The Four Deuces. I drove by her childhood home and her primary school today, took photos, and expanded the content about her childhood. She was raised in a fairly poor neighborhood of cheap apartments, tiny bungalows and the city's corporation yard, and went to school in a much more prosperous neighborhood. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your "corporation yard" reference made me curious, so I looked it up and it turns out I used to live less than 500 meters as the crow flies from her childhood (NOT at the same time). Admittedly it was a decade-and-a-half later, but I don't think it's fair to call the neighborhood "fairly poor". And believe you me, the apartments weren't THAT cheap. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We have to go by what sources say. It could be that you consider any neighborhood outside Beverly Hills to be fairly poor, which they are relatively. Her neighborhood in Canada btw was rated the wealthiest in the country for many years. Not that her mother was wealthy, but they weren't living in the projects. Another thing is that neighborhoods change over 50 years. While a lot of working class neighborhoods have become gentrified, there has been urban decay in others. Harris' parents were grad students living in a duplex near the campus. They weren't rich but they weren't living much differently from other grad students. Do you remember what kind of accommodations your colleagues had when you were in college? TFD (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Descent and ancestry should not be the focus here. Identity should be. "African-American" and "South Asian-American" should be lead. Where relevant and citable, of course include descent and/or ancestry. Rklahn (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have started RfCs below so that we don't have to discuss this in a dozen different sections. - MrX 🖋 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Change "Barr stuttered, unable to answer her question. " to "Barr replied "Yeah, but I'm trying to grapple with the word 'suggest'. I mean, there have been discussions of matters out there that they have not asked me to open an investigation, but..." Harris interrupted, "Perhaps they've suggested?" Barr replied, "I dunno. I wouldn't say 'suggest'" "Hinted?" Harris asked. "I dunno." "Inferred? You don't know. Okay."

Sources: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/01/attorney-general-william-barr-i-dont-know-if-trump-suggested-that-the-doj-open-inquiry.html https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/03/kamala-harris-barr-trump-1301502 Stemy7 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, with some modifications. The two paragraphs on Barr's testimony need to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic style. - MrX 🖋 13:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Change: In the aftermath of her questioning, President Trump reportedly called Harris "nasty".

to: Following her questioning of AG Barr, President Trump said that Harris was "probably very nasty" to AG Barr during her questioning.

Source is the same, but this represents a more accurate and contextual quote. If additional sources are needed: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/441733-trump-accuses-harris-of-being-very-nasty-to-barr-looking-for Stemy7 (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I took it out entirely. It's not noteworthy. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with removing it. This is not only not noteworthy, it's not even newsworthy. "Trump called a woman nasty" seems to happen several times a week. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: LGBTQ rights

I propose elevating this section to a higher level, moving it below "Consumer protection" for alphabetical order and dividing it under the headings "Opposing Prop 8" and "Michelle-Lael B. Norsworthy v. Jeffrey Beard et. al." Then we can move the content which YuvalNehemia had added to the "Political positions" section to this article before the last sentence. The revised paragraph will read

In February 2014, Michelle-Lael Norsworthy, a transgender woman incarcerated at California's Mule Creek State Prison, filed a federal lawsuit based on the state's failure to provide her with what she argued was medically necessary sex reassignment surgery (SRS). In April 2015, a federal judge ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to provide Norsworthy with SRS, finding that prison officials had been "deliberately indifferent to her serious medical need." Harris, representing CDCR, challenged the order in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. She argued that "any “disappointment” Ms. Norsworthy might feel at the denial could be assuaged with psychotherapy", "Norsworthy has been receiving hormone therapy for her gender dysphoria since 2000 and continues to receive hormone therapy and other forms of treatment", and "there is no evidence that Norsworthy is in serious, immediate physical or emotional danger." Harris later claimed that "it was their policy", and that she "got them to change the policy". In August 2015, while the state's appeal was pending, Norsworthy was released on parole, obviating the state's duty to provide her with inmate medical care and rendering the case moot.

Typeprint (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done - MrX 🖋 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

African American?

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing editors' personal opinions on who is allowed to identify with any particular racial or ethnic descriptor. Talk pages are for constructive discussion about improving Wikipedia articles: participate in the request for comments or don't, but this discussion is closed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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

---

She was born to a foreigner from India and a Foreigner from Jamaica. How does this combination make her an African American??????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You've never spent much time in Jamaica have you? GMG^talk 15:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So Jamaica is part of Africa? I have been to Jamaica and absolutely none of the Jamaicans I met called themselves African Jamaicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In any event the source [5] says the first Black and South Asian American woman to run on a major political party's presidential ticket. so we should follow the source and say Black not African-American. Umimmak (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And yet the British and the Spanish showed up and then all these African people were there. GMG^talk 16:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please participate in the section above, RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead?, where this is already being discussed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

How about first Jamaican black woman clear and precise and does not offend the whole Island of Jamaica. As the are not African Jamaicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

IF it said first Jamaican or first female black woman it would be more accurate. Jamaicans don't call themselves African Jamaicans EVER.

Afro-Jamaicans GMG^talk 16:13, 12 August 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

For easier understandability, I'd make these small edits:

Change: When she was 12, Harris and her sister moved with their mother to Montreal, Canada, where their mother had accepted a research position at Jewish General Hospital and teaching at McGill University.[20] She attended Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec, graduating in 1981.[21]

To: When she was 12, Harris and her sister moved with their mother to Montreal, Canada, where their mother had accepted a research position at Jewish General Hospital and a teaching position at McGill University.[20] Kamala attended Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec, graduating in 1981.[21] Caulds (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, sensible. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Heritage

She is of Jamaican decent not African — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CD:C101:8460:7D82:36CF:3298:12FE (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

See the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Please revise the statement that Kamila is African American, her father is Jamaican and her Mother is from India, the statement that she is African American is not accurate 174.104.204.255 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

See Q1 of the FAQ near the top of the page. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Most media outlets are referring to her as "a Woman of Color" because it is an overarching term that includes people with Jamaican and Indian (or South Asian) heritage. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-biden.html. Alternatively, she could be called "Black and of South Asian descent" to recognize her biracial heritage. See: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-harris-black-voters.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/opinion/kamala-harris-indian-american.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoney1976 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Change "Harris Barr if he had reviewed the underlying evidence before deciding not to charge the President with obstruction of justice."

to

"Harris asked Barr if he had reviewed the underlying evidence before deciding not to charge the President with obstruction of justice." Ranchorama (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Kamala Harris isn't African American. She is Jamaican. I could be wrong. 108.35.139.201 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You may wish to participate in the requests for comment further up the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see the FAQ section at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

she nor her parents are/were african americans. its a simple google search to get it correct. 2601:144:201:3B00:F822:1A96:DDCD:C740 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ. If you have remaining questions, please come back here. —valereee (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town) http://archive.is/907zm#selection-2675.0-2675.206 65.36.122.116 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, IP. Are you requesting an edit? —valereee (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020 Kamala Harris is not African-American. She is American of Jamaican and Indian decent.

Kamala Harris is Not African-American. She is of Jamaican and Indian decent. 50.38.238.148 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: read the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Muboshgu. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The tense of the verb should be changed

The presence of the word "since" in this sentence requires that "has served" be used instead of "serves": who serves as the junior United States senator from California since S. Valkemirer (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"a black Baptist Church" to "a Black Baptist Church"

Black Baptist Church is a specific church as the link implies. The link should span the whole phrase "Black Baptist Church" as that is just a more common name for the National Baptist Convention. 67.164.26.160 (talk)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Please Change ....She defeated Loretta Sanchez in the 2016 Senate election to succeed Barbara Boxer, becoming California's third female senator as well as the second African-American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate.[

To.... She defeated Loretta Sanchez in the 2016 Senate election to succeed Barbara Boxer, becoming California's third female senator the First Indian American to serve in the United States Senate.

The above is not factually accurate . At the time she won in 2016 she was being touted as the FIRST INDIAN AMERICAN TO WIN. There was no mention of African or Asian american. Even she never mentioned any other than her Indian roots during that time.

https://www.businessinsider.com/californias-kamala-harris-becomes-first-indian-american-us-senator-2016-11 https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article124327739.html https://www.nripulse.com/kamala-harris-may-become-first-indian-american-senator/ Kitcarguy (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done @Kitcarguy: See the two related RfCs above on this page dealing with race/ethnicity identification. These deal specifically with the wording in the lead, but we would presumably follow similar convention elsewhere in the article. GMG^talk 10:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)  

Father

Someone please add info about her father.

https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a28259825/who-is-donald-harris-kamala-harris-father/

https://web.stanford.edu/~dharris/professional_career.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:101:8200:DC60:481A:B03F:A1E8:C916 (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2020

Kamala Harris is Joe Biden's official running mate/ vice president Remembereverything101 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Already done. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Though she has yet to receive the actual nomination at the convention; she is not yet the official running mate. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of VP pick lead

@Cpotisch: why did you remove her being picked from the lead paragraph? Albertkaloo (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't. I removed it from the third paragraph, since it was already mentioned in the first paragraph. Cpotisch (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Welp. I need glasses. I see that now, sorry about that. Albertkaloo (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

All good. Cpotisch (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Half of her lead paragraph is saying she's the first X and Y person to be A and B. Shouldn't lead paragraphs just be for basic descriptions, eg she's been a senator for X years and was chosen as Bidens running mate, with all this race stuff moved later? It definitely seems out of place where it currently is.  Nixinova   T   C   21:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nixinova: the Manual of Style says Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability, so I would assume it's because she is partly notable for being the first 'X and Y to be A and B'. However, I do think that the lead has changed quite a bit in the roughly 40/50 minutes since you posted your comment, so we may be talking about relatively different leads by now. Seagull123 Φ 21:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been toned down, and is now fine.  Nixinova   T   C   22:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Harris identifies as African American"

Isn't Harris 50% (Asian) Indian? Charles Juvon (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. She's biracial, and identifies as African American.[6] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Her father is from Jamaica and her mother is from India. RS, including the news tonight, are currently referring to her as a Woman of Color, Black, and biracial. Stoney1976 (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

When and where (reference) does she say she "identifies as African American"? Charles Juvon (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Moboshgu gave you a reference, immediately above. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. On second thought, a reference to (Asian) India's reaction to Harris' selection of racial identity might be more enlightening. Charles Juvon (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Donald Harris

Recommend linking mention of her father to his Wikipedia entry: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Harris_(professor)#:~:text=Donald%20Harris%20(1938%20%E2%80%93%20Current),from%20University%20of%20California%2C%20Berkeley. JackaIope (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

He is linked in the infobox. – Teratix ₵ 02:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

reversion

Just reverted a fairly major edit which among a bunch of capitalization changes included a fairly major content change. Let's discuss before reverting back. —valereee (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed those capitalization issues to conform with MOS:JOBTITLES more than once today. Editors have been reverting changes to before my capitalization edits, making me go through the exercise all over again. Thanks for pointing that out here. Whatever content changes are discussed here, please let's try to keep the MOS edits. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 02:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Punctuation change request (a very minor one)

In Section 4.6b (entitled "Michelle-Lael B. Norsworthy v. Jeffrey Beard et. al."), the fourth sentence begins:

    She argued that "any “disappointment” Ms. Norsworthy might feel at the denial could be assuaged with psychotherapy", etc. . . .

To avoid confusion, the "quoted" text inside longer quote should use 'single' quotes, and therefore read:

    She argued that "any 'disappointment' Ms. Norsworthy might feel could be assuaged with psychotherapy", etc. . . . .

Thanks. Yogabear2020 (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done GMG^talk 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Racial description in opening paragraph.

Is it accurate to say "She is the first African American and first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate" when "African American" connotes a descendent of enslaved people living in the U.S.? Her African ancestry is through Jamaica, not the US, so it might be more accurate to say "She is the first black American and first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biasbalancer1 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The Jamaican part is accurate, but her mother is Indian. She is not Asian. – Brenr 03:27, August 12, 2020 (UTC) 03:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

She self-identifies as African-American and reliable sources frequently describe her with those words. Africans were enslaved in Jamaica as well, and Jamaica is an island near both North America and South America. Her mother was born in India, and India is indisputably part of Asia. So the statement that she is not Asian in her ancestry is incorrect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because she chooses to identify as African-American does not make it factual. Her heritage comes from her parents and can never change in her lifetime - you don't have the ability to change your descent at will. By your logic, there's only one more distinction before she's identified as a Homo sapien. – Brenr 03:48, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Brenr, the function of an article talk page is to discuss how to improve an article based on how the topic is described in reliable sources. In the case of a biography of a living person, we also consider self-identification. We pay no attention to the personal opinions of individual editors. Unless you can point to specific reliable sources, then please drop the subject and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Failure of protection policy

Please help me understand what went wrong. Wikipedia's article protection policy directs: Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred. Yet when we hover over the blue padlock of a BLP having extended confirmed protection, a balloon pops up declaring, This article is extended-protected until [date and time] to promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons.

I take it, then, that extended confirmed protection can be used as a preemptive measure against further disruption in a BLP that has experienced it in the recent past—such as Kamala Harris.

If so, I must ask: why wasn't it?

On 11 Aug 2020, this BLP was vandalized in a grossly abusive manner. While the edit remained online for just two minutes, and the user was indefinitely blocked two minutes later, the damage was done, as shown by this tweet from a young woman who called it "absolutely unacceptable" and who attached a screenshot of her Google search showing the vulgar vandalism intact.

This shameful episode could have been easily avoided. At the time of his violation, the vandal was technically an autoconfirmed user, since his account was more than 4 days old and had made at least 10 edits. However, his contributions suggest that immediately prior to trashing, he gamed the system by making nine meaningless edits to his user page in order to raise his total edits past 10, thus permitting him to vandalize this BLP, which required only autoconfirmed access despite its history of disruption.

Extended confirmed protection could have prevented User:Eee302 from making the edit that so pleased him, he was willing to sacrifice his account. And it would not have required a soothsayer to anticipate the need for increased protection. After all, this BLP's huge spike in pageviews during the high-profile event of 11 Aug 2020 was readily predictable, given Harris's long standing as a frontrunner among Biden's VP candidates.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken. But if my understanding of policy is on the mark, then Wikipedia administrators blew it. Big time. NedFausa (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• We don't preemptively protect articles. We will very rarely preemptively protect non-article pages. For example, there have been times where we have changed the main logo to celebrate a special event, and in these cases the image will generally be protected before going live.

As a matter of accountability, if someone asks "why did you protect that article", you should be able to respond "because of that disruption", and merely having the expectation of future disruption is not sufficient. As a matter of principle, the intention of Wikipedia is to be as open as possible. Protection cuts off the contributions of many well meaning people, normally only because of a few bad actors, and so it is only done begrudgingly and out of necessity. That unfortunately means there will sometimes be egregious and distasteful vandalism; however, this is the price of doing absolutely everything we can to be as open as possible, and we cannot do away with that principle without doing away with what Wikipedia is. GMG^talk 11:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The article was originally semi-protected. Earlier today an administrator changed it to extended confirmed protected. I assume that was because problem edits by autoconfirmed users made it necessary. As far as moving the article, that is now protected so that only administrators can do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

“Presumptive vice presidential nominee”

There’s really no such thing, but it’s only going to be wrong for about eight days and then we can remove “presumptive,” so I’m not too worried about it. Neutron (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a similar concern. There is no Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee right now. Thats not Joe Biden decision, its the Democratic National Convention's. Like you, Im willing to let this one slide. Rklahn (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Typo in first paragraph of “Privacy Rights”

The sentence “Later the same year, Harris notified 100 mobile-app developer of their non-compliance…” should read “developers” as the correct pluralization. Bryanlallen (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done: thank you for pointing that out. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

Privacy rights section: grammar: I believe "...allegations the company recorded..." should read "...allegations that the company recorded..." Student298 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Trillfendi (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Please add this information to here wikipedia bio. This is not opinion, it is fact

GovTrack US rates Harris as the most liberal Senator in the Senate. She is not a moderate.

1. 90 0.16 Sen. Chris Van Hollen [D-MD]
2. 91 0.15 Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
3. 92 0.14 Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
4. 93 0.12 Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]
5. 94 0.10 Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D-MA]
6. 95 0.09 Sen. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
7. 96 0.07 Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ]
8. 97 0.07 Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
9. 98 0.03 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
10. 99 0.02 Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
11. 100 0.00 Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA] 2600:1702:3B30:1CC0:B1ED:CFDA:B8A3:85E8 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No? They apparently rank her to the right of Sanders, Merkley and Gillibrand. GMG^talk 15:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I just became aware of this website about 10 minutes ago so I know nothing about it, but this list appears to be from their "Ideology Score" which does give Harris a 0.00 in 2019 ([7], scroll down) however it notes "An ideology score is not computed for Members of Congress who introduced fewer than 10 bills or who have a low leadership score, as there is usually not enough data in these cases to compute reliable statistics," but nonetheless provides a score for all 100 senators. On their profile on Harris (also restricted to 2019, [8]) it says "Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators" (emphasis in original), though that description is clearly automatically generated from the site's underlying data. I would suggest this is not sufficiently reliable to include, especially not without attribution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: the 2018 Ideology Score ranked her above (more conservative than) Merkley, Sanders, and Gillibrand, maybe that's what you're thinking of. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I was just referring to the main page for her. So at the very least it seems the site is not entirely internally consistent. GMG^talk 16:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's the Washington Post's article on this subject. "Is Kamala Harris really the most liberal senator, as Trump claims? On one data point, yes. But that misses the holistic picture." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/13/is-kamala-harris-really-most-liberal-senator-trump-claims/ Stoney1976 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sentencing and prison inmate retention

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&type=revision&diff=972552252&oldid=972551393

The removed paragraph is relevant to Harris' biography because it happened during her tenure in office and came up during the primary debate referenced under the 2020 presidential campaign section. Typeprint (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A lot of things happened during her tenure, but they are not significant in the overall context of her life. I believe that this material is WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but not all of those things were the subject of controversy. In any case, we'll have to agree to disagree, and the context in which the content was originally removed and later restored indicates a lack of consensus. Typeprint (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If you believe it has consensus you are welcome to restore it. I don't feel that strongly about it. My interest is in keeping the article as concise as possible. - MrX 🖋 00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Twitter suggests that her first name is pronounced "Comma-La" not "Camel-Ah". Have we got it wrong here? Timrollpickering (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

She herself says it is pronounced like "calm". That's closer to Comma and is probably what we have in mind with KAH. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite a source on her saying it's pronounced "calm"? Regardless, it would be an anglicized pronunciation and likely not what her mom called her. Kamala is a Sanskrit origin word, meaning lotus, and pronounced intonation free (like Japanese). It's pronounced more like cuh-muh-lah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.207.45 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

COMMA is a confusing reference word to use, in an international context. It has the back open unrounded /ɑ/ vowel in American English, but in most varieties of English around the world, COMMA retains a rounded vowel /ɒ/, which is often higher and close to /ɔ/, and certainly far from the way Senator Harris pronounces her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130A:1297:F047:47E4:2E07:6528 (talk • contribs)

I agree completely. This is meant to be the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. The correct "respell" template should be more like {{respell|CAHMMA|lə}} to get around the American mispronunciation of the "o" in comma. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested Edit to Early Life (or Personal Life) Section: Religion

The early life section indicates that she grew up Hindu and Christian. This would be better qualified by indicating that Kamala considers herself a Black Baptist now, and referenced the parable of the Good Samaritan on the campaign trail. The baptist affiliation is listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, so we could use any of the three references there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate

Or use this reference here: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/08/11/five-faith-facts-about-biden-vp-kamala-harris

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

I would like to request that the terms African-American be removed from this page. Kamala herself only identifies as an American. Jamaican-Americans do not consider themselves African-American. https://theracecardproject.com/caribbean-americans-african-americans/ https://theracecardproject.com/caribbean-americans-african-americans/. Most African-Americans (including myself) consider an African-American, aN AMERICAN DESCENDANT OF SLAVES. ADOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Descendants_of_Slavery. It is not accurate to describe Kamala Harris as African-American. She is American. She is Caribbean American. She is a Jamaican-American. She is not the first African-American female as referenced. She is the first Black, but not African-American. It is a fine distinction that perhaps only African-Americans care about but it should be corrected.

There is only one article stating that Kamala attended black church as a youth. Her sister does not confirm this assertion. Her mother is Indian. Why would she attend black church with her children and not just her temple? This assertion should also be removed. Coffee4 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Coffee4 If you wish, you can join the ongoing Talk:Kamala_Harris#RfC:_Should_Kamala_Harris_be_described_as_'African_American'_in_the_lead?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Coffee4, people besides African-Americans do care about it. We currently describe Harris as she describes herself on her campaign and Senate websites: as African-American and South Asian-American. As mentioned above, we are having a debate about this very thing right now and you are welcome to join in. That single source about Harris attending a black church quotes Harris herself as saying that. I'm not sure why it would be unlikely an Indian mother with daughters who she believed would be perceived as black (which Harris has said her mother did, also discussed on this talk page) wouldn't want them to attend a black church as well as attending temple. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources typically take precedent over personal websites. Most media outlets are referring to her as "a Woman of Color" because it is an overarching term that includes people with Jamaican and Indian (or South Asian) heritage. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-biden.html. Alternatively, she could be called "Black and of South Asian descent" to recognize her biracial heritage. See: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-harris-black-voters.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/opinion/kamala-harris-indian-american.html. Stoney1976 (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because that is the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see the FAQ section at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The pronunciation revert

She says it should be "Comma-la": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYkZkpLQUS0

The Indian pronunciation actually has all three syllables unstressed; the English language is iambic; her pronunciation, which is the only version that matters, combines the two. WP should refer to her version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.26.160 (talk • contribs)

"Comma-la" doesn't work because Americans pronounce the "o" of "comma" like an "ah" sound. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American pronunciation Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit by Umimmak (talk · contribs) is surely incorrect. There is no emphasis on any of the syllables in the name. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well reliable sources say there is stress on the first syllable, and that the first two syllables are pronounced like (the standard American English pronunciation of) the word "comma", namely /ˈkɑːmə/, KAH-mə. What sources are you looking at which claim otherwise? Umimmak (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The video helpfully linked by the IP editor at the top of this section, with a segment distributed by the subject, explains how to pronounce it. There's no emphasis on any syllable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I hear a clear emphasis on the first syllable... you can hear the aspiration of the initial /k/, it's a full, not reduced vowel, it's at a louder volume, a longer length... it has all the hallmarks of a stressed syllable in English. And again all the sources say as much when describing her first name's pronunciation. Umimmak (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and all the reliable sources make the same error with "comma" because they are from American outlets. The video originally came from this tweet. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The first syllable is stressed; the vowel is long, not reduced. Her comparison to "comma" underlines the point (ignoring the oh and ah difference in American pronunciation). That is different from the original Indian pronunciation where the first vowel is reduced and syllable unstressed. 67.164.26.160 (talk)

(edit conflict) The video also has the children saying her name with stress on the initial syllable. Harris herself is American so I'm not sure what mistake you think is being made, especially when she herself has said the first two syllables are pronounced like "comma" (KAH-mə) and agreed that the emphasis is on the first syllable: [9]. What is your source for saying there is no stress in her name? Your own interpretation of the audio in that video? Umimmak (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) /ˈkɑmə lɑ/? I don't have a source for that, I typed "comma la" into a phonetics translator. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh it's already there. Never mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, the first syllable is stressed in comma, and that is not an American pronunciation thing. Would the youtube video be considered reliable for linking as source? Seems the simplest way to get the point across. IPA and explanations based on stress don't really capture the nuance. 67.164.26.160 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2020‎ (UTC)

I am reminded of Stephen Kings' Dark Tower Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

She is an American, she speaks American English. Regardless of how it would be said in India, in American English it is almost impossible to say a three-syllable word without emphasizing one of the syllables. She emphasizes the first syllable, as do reporters and other politicians and just about everyone who is paying attention. (Which explains why Trump calls her Ka-MAH-lah.) (Actually Trump probably got it from Tucker Carlson, who is mispronouncing it on purpose.[10]) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Yes, thank you; that’s a good point about American English words of that length needing stress somewhere. Still not sure why Scjessey thought my revert was surely incorrect, but glad that there’s a consensus to follow the sources. Umimmak (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

She herself has been known to say that the first syllable is pronounced CALM, and that she likes to think of herself as a calming influence. And of course in American English the unstressed syllables become a schwa. So that a truly accurate indication of her pronunciation might be CALM-uh-luh. I'm not suggesting we do this, however. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California.[2] Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a breast-cancer scientist who had emigrated from Tamil Nadu, India in 1960 to pursue a doctorate in endocrinology at UC Berkeley.[8] Her father, Donald Harris, is a Stanford University emeritus professor of economics, who emigrated from British Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study in economics at UC Berkeley.[9][10] In a 2018 article written in Jamaica Global, Donald Harris claimed to be a descendant of slave owner Hamilton Brown.[11] Biracial of Indian Tamil and Jamaican descent, Kamala Harris identifies simply as "American".[12][13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

http://archive.is/907zm#selection-2675.0-2675.206 65.36.122.116 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Counterpart"

This article currently states that Harris "signed an accord with her counterpart, the attorney general of Mexico, Marisela Morales." The AG of California is NOT the counterpart of the AG of Mexico. Much as Californians might like it to be, California is not a country. Mexico is. This type of belittling of our southern neighbor, treating it as an equal of one of the states, is alarmingly widespread and completely unfounded. The counterpart of the AG of Mexico is the US AG, not any state's AG. I'm removing the phrase "her counterpart." The rest of the sentence does fine without it. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That's because you're Australian. Your states use Australian law. If California followed US law, it wouldn't be California and wouldn't need an attorney general of its own, on the same level as every top prosecutor, from North Dakota to Sweden to New Zealand. Not arguing for or against any wording. Just saying, it's how we were taught in Ontario. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Whether it's technically accurate or not, the "her counterpart" bit is a great example of the padding and fluff found everywhere in this article. Harris signed an accord with the attorney general of Mexico. Simple. Even if they're counterparts in some sense, it's unenlightening to say so, and in fact such wording is likely to puzzle or irk many readers, as we've just seen. EEng 15:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Take out the "third female U.S. vice-presidential nominee" in the lede

She is still a presumptive nominee. This sentence can be put back after the Democratic convention. 67.164.26.160 (talk)

We say "presumptive nominee" in the first paragraph. We say "running mate," which is probably accurate at this point, in the third paragraph. I think that's clear enough that we don't need to throw in another "presumptive". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I would leave it out because being third isn't trend-setting. And there's already been a female candidate for the presidency for a major party. TFD (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see that, but the gender aspect is also important in a sense because the prior two female VP nominees were not elected. She would be the first female vice president if elected. RedHotPear (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We could say that if elected she would be the first Female elected VP. But being the 3rd nominee of a major party isn't a big deal. TFD (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the hurry. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If nominated she will be the third female nominee of a major party. If elected, she will be the first female VP. And four or eight years after that if nominated and elected she would be the first female president. Should we put hypotheticals in here? 67.164.26.160 (talk)

No, it would not be appropriate to speculate about her presidential aspirations "four or eight years" later; that goes too far and would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. RedHotPear (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

All hypotheticals are WP:CRYSTAL. I have seen no justification for the sentence that we have right now. It may be high probability but as of now it is inaccurate and until and unless she wins, largely irrelevant. 67.164.26.160 (talk)

shrug I am ambivalent about the current sentence. Whether or not it is notable enough is one thing, whether or not "presumptive" is needed is another. I strongly dispute that the gender aspect is "irrelevant." RedHotPear (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL is about speculation by editors not those made in reliable sources. The election is in the future but we can still talk about it because reliable sources do. I'm not psychic but I predict the U.S. will hold a presidential election in November and that either a Democrat or Republican will win. I further predict that if Harris wins the election for vice-presidency and is sworn in, she will be the first female vice-president. If anyone thinks that's just CRYSTALBALL nonsense, I'm willing to take bets. TFD (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, any way you look at it we are currently giving entirely more context in the lead than we are in the body. I'm inclined to agree that being a "historic third" is a little meh. Probably more so that it needs to be further qualified to exclude third parties. (The Green Party has fielded a female VP in six of the last seven elections.)

I do not at all think that we need further context about Ferraro and Palin. That's entirely too much into TRIVIA territory.

But regardless, we're all fairly experienced contributors here. If it ain't important enough to go in the body, then it don't go in the lead. Doubly so when it means that content on a BLP is essentially unsourced. Triply so when it's an article that is receiving five million views a day. GMG^talk 11:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• At least for the moment, I have removed this bit from the lead:

Extended content
Once formally nominated, she will also be the third female U.S. vice presidential nominee of a major party after Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin.

We can discuss the merits of the information, but we don't get to let content hang around on a BLP when it's not directly supported by any source either in the lead or in the body. GMG^talk 14:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you. RedHotPear (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What sourcing do you need that she will be the third female major party VP nominee? JTRH (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

1) Some source per WP:BLP. 2) A pretty good one per WP:DUE. GMG^talk 00:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Anachronisms in the 'Early life' section

So, while a lot of people may not care much about facts in the post-factual era of America, I nonetheless think it's worthwhile to point out an inconsistency in the 'Early life' section. It currently reads:

Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a breast-cancer scientist who had emigrated from Tamil Nadu, India in 1960 to pursue a doctorate in endocrinology at UC Berkeley. Her father, Donald J. Harris, is a Stanford University emeritus professor of economics, who emigrated from British Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study in economics at UC Berkeley.

Yes, Harris' father had indeed immigrated to the US from British Jamaica. So far, so good. But her mother did not immigrate from Tamil Nadu, and she was not born in Chennai. She was born in the city of Madras in the Madras Province of British India. So those statements are blatant 'anachronisms. Moreover, the 'Early life' section makes no mention whatsoever of the meaning of the name 'Kamala', despite Tucker Carlson's butchering of this exotic name. Well, it means lotus flower, in case anybody in America cares. It's a reference to Indian culture, specifically Tamil Indian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.107.132 (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the meaning of the name matters, and Turker Carlson speaking about something doesn't make it encyclopaedic. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. As for the birth place of her parents, do you have a reliable source for that? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, comments by someone no one's every heard of like this Turker Carlson shouldn't get much weight. EEng 00:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We did have several sentences in the article about the reason her mother gave her Indian names, and their meaning, but they were removed as excess detail, per a discussion on this talk page which you can see higher up on this page. As for her mother's birthplace, that is irrelevant; what matters for purposes of this biography is that when she emigrated to the U.S. in 1960, it was from the state of Tamil Nadu in modern India. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Additional Section under Kamala Harris' page will include her record on incarcerations. I can pull data from multiple sources, include Harris' website, this medium article which has a lot of citations (https://medium.com/@moon_bat/the-troubling-past-of-kamala-harris-f017207333cb) and government records themselves. PrachiJitVakh (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The edit request feature is meant to convey a request for specific text to be added, removed, or changed. If you feel the above information is noteworthy, then do the legwork of composing the actual paragraph(s) to add. Otherwise, if you just wish to initiate a discussion on the topic, there's no need for the edit request, just create a normal talk page section. ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The Atlantic has an article about this page

It is: The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be. Before warring further, however, please learn to spell Barack Obama's first name correctly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And I see that you are mentioned in it. Congratulations, I think. 0;-D And that it has already been added to the "media" section above. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I added it yesterday. I see they've changed the title since then. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Also serves as additional RS confirmation of the consensus that has developed around her identity descriptors. RedHotPear (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. The quote is: "As of this writing, the Kamala Harris article on Wikipedia says, accurately, 'She is the first African American and the first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate.'" cited to: <ref>{{cite news|last1=Benton|first1=Joshua|title=The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/08/the-wikipedia-war-over-kamala-harris-race/615250/|accessdate=August 14, 2020|work=[[The Atlantic]]|date=August 13, 2020}}</ref> Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions the name that the article was moved that got RevDeleted. Is there a point to keep that revision RevDeleted since multiple screenshots of the move exists on the internet? SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 20:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As silly as it seems, SuperGoose007, I would suggest that there's a difference between the information being widely available online and available via Wikipedia. My preference (since it doesn't even rise to the level of a !vote) would be that the RevDel remain in place. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Even though the screenshots are out there, we won't be undoing the RevDel. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Its nice to have been quoted correctly, for once. Rklahn (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

African American designation needs to be removed.

See above RfC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
She’s not African American. Lauralchandler (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC) She identifies as African American. JTRH (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC) okay. And? Anon0098 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Sen. Harris has heritage from African Diaspora. She is African American as well as South Asian American. I favor the consensus. Bataromatic (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Lauralchandler, read the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC) I favor the consensus reached in "Racial categorisation of Kamala Harris" which in this area is "African American." Rklahn (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Thank goodness she doesn't identify as a Martian, or we'd have to have that in the article. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC) I too favor the consensus referred to by Bataromatic Muboshgu, and Rklahn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Kamala Harris identifies as "American," which she is. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-who-i-am-kamala-harris-daughter-of-indian-and-jamaican-immigrants-defines-herself-simply-as-american/2019/02/02/0b278536-24b7-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html Technically, as far as we know right now, everyone is of African descent. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/news001207-8 That said, there is a separate debate regarding who is "African American" versus "Jamaican American," in part because of proof of ancestry, etc., but also because their colonial histories and cultural identities are different. Many Jamaican Americans do not consider themselves African American. See: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/21/black-history-african-american-definition/1002344001/ In their most recent story, the AP's fact checker says Kamala identifies as "Black and Indian American." They say, "Kamala Harris for years has identified herself as both Black and Indian American. In interviews, she has regularly talked about how her mother, who was from India, raised her as Black." Black is a more overarching term that includes people whose recent ancestors are from different countries. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/breaking-the-news/african-american-or-black-which-term-should-you-use/89-0364644d-3896-4e8b-91b1-7c28c039353f The even more overarching term for a woman with both Black and Indian ancestors would be a "person of color" or a "woman of color." The Washington Post says, "A “person of color” identity is a new entry in the portfolios of nonwhites, who can identify primarily as black, Latino, Asian; Mexican, Jamaican, Chinese; or Catholic, Methodist, Muslim. Under many circumstances, they now choose to identify as POC." See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/02/people-color-are-protesting-heres-what-you-need-know-about-this-new-identity/ Current reporting supports "Black and Indian American." If we are going by parents' countries of origin, "Jamaican and Indian American." "Black and South Asian American" is another option.Stoney1976 (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

FAQ pronunciation

Why do we have an FAQ on the pronunciation of her name? We haven't gotten frequent questions about that. FAQs should be about editing the article, not about Harris. And honestly, asking a black person with an unusual name how they pronounce it is a little microagressiony. —valereee (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not frequently asked here, and the article does give the proper pronunciation. Signed, someone with an unusual (middle) name that gets mispronounced. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing Phoebe... —valereee (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Close! Phineas. At my high school graduation rehearsal, back in the early Pleistocene, the principal pronounced it "Fine-ass". The nickname stuck a while.--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Phineas! Oh, be still my beating heart! EEng 05:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, the early Pleistocene years--I remember them well! And then in later years, as I remember it, my more northern clan met up with your more southern clan, and here we are today! But, I digress...as happens with us old folks at times. I was going to add my youthful name mispronunciation but it can't top yours--not even close. Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Better to be J. Phineas Gordon in the Golden Age than Phineas I. Godwin in the New Generation, per my dictionary. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Jpgordon, lol...oh, I'm sorry, but that is hilarious. Er, I'm sure not so much at the time. I hope it was at least true. —valereee (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There was an uptick in edit requests about it after a Fox News talking head deliberately mispronounced it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead sentence should also have the pronunciation of her middle name. In Sanskrit, and in South Asia in general, it is pronounced, "Davey," not "Devi," but I'm not sure how she pronounces it, that being more important. I checked some youtube videos of her various swearing-ins, but none had the middle name.  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Fun FAQ: Due to his ancestors' ignorance of the English language and/or standard medical procedure, Davey Boy Smith's middle name is pronounced exactly like the dimininuitive gender and racial slur. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Section #District Attorney of San Francisco (2004–2011)

Please remove, or provide a source for, the statement "Convictions of drug dealers increased from 56% in 2003, to 74% in 2006". I can't see any mention of this statistic in either the archived source, or the original. Thanks, Zindor (talk)

I re-added the original cite. It's from the website for 'Re-elect District Attorney Kamala Harris', so it's not a great source per WP:ABOUTSELF. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Tamil & Jamaican ethnicity never mentioned

There is reference to her being able to speak a small amount of Tamil but no references to her being of Tamil descent/ethnicity. Yet there are seven references to her being African American. Seems fishy as heck considering the political ramifications--2604:2D80:DE13:6300:BC82:F2F:2F93:E82E (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What "political ramifications" would those be? Oh, and the first two sentences of the "Early Life " section":

Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a breast-cancer scientist who had emigrated from Tamil Nadu, India [emphasis added] in 1960 to pursue a doctorate in endocrinology at UC Berkeley.

What really seems fishy is your inability to read that. --Calton | Talk 08:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. Tamil Nadu has people of several ethnicities, not just Tamil. I should further state that it only mentions Jamaica once and this in reference to her father, never in reference to her ethnicity.

The political ramification is that Americans Descendants of Slavery will presume they have a shared lived experience with her if she is simply called "African American." ADOS are a key voting demographic. Even if you consider the one mention of Tamil Nadu with regards to her mother and Jamaica w.r.t. her father, this is still a 7:1 disparity. I can't see any justification for this.

I don't know Wikipedia's procedures so I'm not sure if this conversation is supposed to be moved back to the active page or stay in Archive or what. Seems odd to have one person reply and then immediately archive it without the OP being given time to respond or allow input form other editors. So, I will make a copy and place in the active page. Pardon me if this is the wrong procedure.--2604:2D80:DE13:6300:BC82:F2F:2F93:E82E (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you are implying with the "key voting demographic" information. Her mother may be from India, but Harris's African-American identity is much more salient; she is broadly referred to as African-American in reliable sources, and we must defer to them instead of applying our own metric. She has made little indication of identifying with the Tamil ethnicity, and there is scant coverage of her being Tamil in reliable sources. Her mother is described as being an immigrant from India, and that is, in my opinion, sufficient. If "Tamil" is mentioned at all, it should be very brief. RedHotPear (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There is really nothing more to say here. Our coverage reflects the way she is covered by Reliable Sources. Your argument seems to be Original Research. IMO this discussion should not have been placed in the archives immediately, but it can and should be closed. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I think W.E.B. Du Bois answered this quite well 80 years ago. Irrespective of the specifics of a certain person's genetic inheritance, "the black man is a person who must ride Jim Crow in Georgia." It seems to me that 'shared life experience' is based much more on phenotype than on accurate genealogy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

And Kamala Harris had that shared life experience. Remember, she was born and raised in the America of the 1960s. She was bussed to a white school to integrate it. Neighbor children were told not to play with her. She says (paraphrasing) her mother never had any doubt that she was raising two Black daughters. She identifies as African-American and South Asian-American, reflecting both her biracial identity and how she perceives herself and is perceived in society. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention in the Donald Trump article that he is of Bavarian descent. It's a matter of how specific one wants to be. That depends on how specific reliable sources are in their usual description of her ethnicity. TFD (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you have to go to Family of Donald Trump for that. Perhaps Harris will get such an article too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. When you use insulting conspiracy-theory phrasing like "Seems fishy as heck considering the political ramifications", I'm going to go with, yeah, you earned that. --Calton | Talk 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris birtherism

At some point we’ll have to address the claims made by some conservatives (and amplified by President Trump [11]) that Harris isn’t constitutionally eligible to be VP due to her circumstances of birth. We have an article about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, the difference being that the Harris claim isn’t technically a conspiracy theory (since she isn’t being accused of deliberately falsifying her birth information, they are just claiming that the circumstances as she described them make her ineligible). Whether that should be a short segment in this article, in the article on the election or Biden’s campaign, or an article of its own is something I’ll let Wikipedia decide. 97.116.78.1 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

See the section above called #Birtherism 2.0 ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

97.116.78.1 seems only to want to promote conspiracy theory. I think this proposed edit be ignored. Rklahn (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Using a schwa to indicate pronunciation

A schwa must mean an unstressed vowel, not a vowel with secondary stress. But if I'm right, Kamala has 3 syllables; one with primary stress, one unstressed, and one with secondary stress. This article says both of the last 2 syllables have schwas even though the second of these has secondary stress. Can a schwa really be a vowel with secondary stress?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say the second third syllable has secondary stress? In most people's mouths, including hers, the second and third syllables sound identical. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It is the third syllable that has secondary stress; that is, it has more stress than the second syllable but less stress than the first syllable. Georgia guy (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reliable source on that. IMO they are emphasized identically. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The la is just naturally emphatic by going on last, whether you pronounce it like Kamala (wrestler) or an elongated Kama (wrestler). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean, InedibleHulk?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The last word, note, whatever. People assign significance to and often remember the finish, or last thing they hear. We probably have a psych stub about it, hold on (and yeah, that second wrestler rhymes with "comma"). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Serial-position effect, kinda, but faster and compartmentalized. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also maybe plausible that the la subconsciously reminds you of a French, Italian or Spanish surname, thereby gaining a primacy and recency boost. But I'm no brain expert, especially concerning yours. I just know ma and la are the exact same duration and intensity to my ears. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

Please remove the reference to Harris being childless - this is a sexist comment, directed at women. It is never a status attributed to male candidates. Storkney (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done --RegentsPark (comment) 15:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Storkney, good catch. —valereee (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this change. A woman being childless is no more notable than a man being childless. RedHotPear (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the change as well. I can think of times where being childless is citable, relevant, and encyclopedic. This is not one of them. Rklahn (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek

Nothing here that is relevant to the article. That was an op-ed expounding on a fringe theory of citizenship, and Newsweek has already apologized for publishing that piece of "vile birtherism" (their words).-- MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964. That, according to these commentators, makes her not a "natural born citizen"—and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president. "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen. Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood. Interestingly, this recitation of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause might also call into question Harris' eligibility for her current position as a United States senator. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that to be eligible for the office of senator, one must have been "nine Years a Citizen of the United States." If Harris was not a citizen at birth, we would need to know when (if ever) she became a citizen. Her father's biographical page at Stanford University identifies his citizenship status as follows: "Jamaica (by birth); U.S. (by naturalization)." But there is some dispute over whether he was in fact ever naturalized, and it is also unclear whether Harris' mother ever became a naturalized citizen. If neither was ever naturalized, or at least not naturalized before Harris' 16th birthday (which would have allowed her to obtain citizenship derived from their naturalization under the immigration law, at the time), then she would have had to become naturalized herself in order to be a citizen. That does not appear to have ever happened, yet without it, she could not have been "nine Years a Citizen of the United States" before her election to the U.S. Senate." https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.182.208 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC) This belongs to the Birtherism page, or rather its talk page. Newsweek, meanwhile, has apologized. See this AP News report which also answers some of your questions. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Actually, it belongs nowhere because there's nothing in it about improving any article. Here's the note the editors of Newsweek added to it: Editor's note, 8/14: This op-ed is being used by some as a tool to perpetuate racism and xenophobia. We apologize. The essay, by John Eastman, was intended to explore a minority legal argument about the definition of who is a "natural-born citizen" in the United States. But to many readers, the essay inevitably conveyed the ugly message that Senator Kamala Harris, a woman of color and the child of immigrants, was somehow not truly American. The op-ed was never intended to spark or to take part in the racist lie of Birtherism, the conspiracy theory aimed at delegitimizing Barack Obama, but we should have recognized the potential, even probability, that that could happen. Readers hold us accountable for all that we publish, as they should; we hold ourselves accountable, too. We entirely failed to anticipate the ways in which the essay would be interpreted, distorted and weaponized. As we said in our earlier note, this essay was an attempt to examine a legal argument about the difference between "natural born" and "naturalized," the latter being ineligible to hold the office of president. In the days since the op-ed was published, we saw that it was being shared in forums and social networks notorious for disinformation, conspiracy theories and racist hatred. All of us at Newsweek are horrified that this op-ed gave rise to a wave of vile Birtherism directed at Senator Harris. Many readers have demanded that we retract the essay, but we believe in being transparent and are therefore allowing it to remain online, with this note attached. 'Nuff said. EEng 14:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

In the Suspension section which talks about Harris dropping out of the presidential primaries in December, 2019 "after stating she did not have enough funding to continue.", a new sentence should be added: "At that point in time, she also had just 3.4 percent support nationally (NBC News 12/03/2019)." 2606:A000:111F:36D:FC71:263F:8586:D43C (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Your edit could suggest that she dropped out not for her stated reason of insufficient funding but really because of the low approval rating, which fails WP:SYNTH as no source states that conclusion. Could you revise? A link to the source you're citing would be useful to evaluate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit to Early Life and Education

The article presently reads "Harris was raised in Berkeley, California, with her younger sister, Maya Harris." I believe it should be edited to read "Harris was raised in Berkeley, California, and Montreal, Canada, with her younger sister, Maya Harris." (The italics are just to show the proposed change, btw.) She moved to Montreal at age 12, and a person of 12 years is not normally considered "raised" in the United States. Further, she says she grew up "In Berkeley and in Oakland and in Montreal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintonge235 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The source you cite doesn't say when she moved to Montreal, nor does it say for how long. It includes a statement that she also grew up in Oakland, which is in the US, do those years not count for some reason? Also, this is the first time I've heard someone say that someone who spends the first 12 years of their life someone wasn't raised there. The Constitution only requires that the president have lived in the US for 14 of their 35+ years. The line a person of 12 years is not normally considered "raised" in the United States could be taken to suggest a possible motive for wanting to add that bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

and a person of 12 years is not normally considered "raised" In what universe is going from birth to 12 years-old NOT normally considered "raised"? Are you now going to claim that only her teenage years counts for "being raised" somewhere? Because that's the only logical inference from your premise. And why, exactly, are you cherry-picking a single source and not all of the others? --Calton | Talk 09:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's mentioned later in the section that she and her mother and sister moved to Montreal when she was 12. The next several paras after the 'raised' sentence are about her childhood previous to that move. Adding it into the earlier sentence would just be awkward, I think. We could maybe tweak it to 'spent her childhood' but to me that reads a bit 'hails from'. —valereee (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Calton: I don't think that Saintonge235 said that only the teenage years count. He/she said that they also count, and shouldn't be discounted as part of "being raised". She appears to have been raised in California and Montreal. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

References

...a person of 12 years is not normally considered "raised" in the United States. So no, I'm not buying that. --Calton | Talk 17:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A person is still being raised after 12. I would be fine with clarifying the sentence with something like "Harris was raised with her younger sister Maya Harris in Berkeley, California, until she was twelve." Montreal is discussed later in this section. 67.252.46.102 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Violent crimes section weird math statistics

She took 49 violent crime cases to trial and secured 36 convictions, for an 84% success rate.[59] - 36 divided by 49 is 0.73. Imho, this either needs correction or clarification.Oathed (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the math looks fishy, not just for the sentence you mentioned but also the sentence before it. We should investigate the sources and try to clarify this. RedHotPear (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

Kamala Harris is Jamaican not African American. This categorization is an insult to African American peoples. Africa is 11,973 kilometers (7400 miles) away from Jamaica and on separate continents. Miguelfranciscoanshoustagie (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There is effectively no difference between having black African ancestry via Jamaica and having black African ancestors who were brought direct to the US. I am depressed by how many Americans don't understand how all the dark skinned people in Jamaica got there. But you also need to look at the FAQ right at the top of this page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See FAQ Q1. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 02:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

change areas labelling Harris as African-American. Her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian, and she was not born in Africa. 75.159.251.60 (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See FAQ, Q1. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 03:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Make criticims cited in article more faithful to source

Under Anti-Truancy efforts, the following is stated referencing a Huffington Post article:

"Critics charged [...] that Harris's rhetoric legitimized the notion that parents were responsible for their children's education."

The following can be found in the source:

"But to critics, the language Harris used to encourage a truancy crackdown and the system she reinvigorated were cementing the idea that parents always were the ultimate source of the problem."

I don't think that the source is faithfully represented by the current wording in the article which appears polemic/sarcastic. Neither is this criticism particularly central to the argument made in the source which is best summarized by the following two paragraphs:

"Harris has since replaced her punitive stance with the message that parents of truant children need help, not scare tactics. It’s a shift that happened roughly in step with voters’ waning tolerance for using the criminal justice system to address complicated social problems and Harris’ own preparations to seek higher office. In the memoir she released shortly before announcing her candidacy for president, Harris described her work on truancy as “trying to support parents, not punish them.”

[...]

Yet the penalties she once championed for truancy and the way she originally thought about the issue are foundational to how California handles truancy today. Peoples’ arrest wasn’t a freak occurrence ― it was the inevitable outcome of Harris’ campaign to fuse the problem of truancy with the apparatus of law enforcement. And Peoples is far from an outlier. There are still hundreds of families across California entering the criminal justice system under the aegis of Harris’ law."

Therefore I intend to replace this half-sentence by a more faithful version and to add an additional criticism that is close to the source's main argument:

"Critics charged [...] that Harris's rhetoric one-sidedly identified parents as the sole root of the problem and that a punitive, criminal justice based approach is unsuitable to address a complex social issue like truancy. They charge that she has since attempted to reframe her original views on the issue as supportive of parents out of political expedience."

Rappatoni (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed replacement. It's more faithful to the source. --Nbauman (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that I don't have the extended confirmed user status required to edit this article. Therefore, I changed this to an edit request. Rappatoni (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I would not support that change. For one thing, the source does not mention 'rhetoric' which is a loaded term. the current version seems good to me. - MrX 🖋 15:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Her 'language' is explicitly mentioned (and not only her 'policy' as in the current version). Replacing 'rhetoric' by 'language' might be the way to go? In addition, the current version does not reflect the main claims of the article (see citations above), namely that 1) Harris' approach was punitive and criminal justice-based which caused harm and 2) that she is now trying to reframe it as 'supportive' (when, according to the article, it was not) out of political expedience. This is part of the wider, high profile debate about whether Harris was a 'progressive prosecutor' or not and therefore very relevant to the article in my opinion. Rappatoni (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A note on these edit requests questioning her ethnicity

It's based on conservatives who are attempting to discredit her. Mark Levin and Dinesh D'Souza are two who have tried to claim that she is not African American or Black in terms that are very similar to the rush of edit requests we've gotten in the last 24 hours.[12] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I should have suspected. Insanity. Neutrality^talk 22:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this really news? Look below. I am SO tired of this kind of BS. It's like we're on Instagram. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, more like Parler. I meant this section solely as an FYI to provide context. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh it gets worse? Maybe I should quit social media altogether. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, it gets much, much worse. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith... Most media outlets are referring to her as "a Woman of Color" because it is an overarching term that includes people with biracial (Jamaican and Indian (or South Asian)) heritage. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-biden.html. Alternatively, she could be called "Black and of South Asian descent" to recognize her biracial heritage. See: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-harris-black-voters.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/opinion/kamala-harris-indian-american.html.Stoney1976 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Stoney1976, AGF has its limits. It would be some coincidence if all of these requests were completely independent of each other. I don't think it assumes bad faith to point out that conservative commentators have likely inspired these requests. Sources point out she's biracial because of the African background. "Jamaican" is not a race. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Given how difficult it is to define "race", this non-American is having trouble keeping up with Americans think ARE races. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Stoney1976, "most media" are not referring to her as a "Woman of Color", certainly not with those initial capitals. Yes, that matters: it makes me doubt you. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I provided sources that call her a "woman of color" earlier. Stoney1976 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that some editors simply don't know or understand the ancestry of dark skinned people in Jamaica? Maybe they think such people have been there for thousands of years. Not trying to to rude here. Just suspecting possible ignorance at play rather than political machinations, at least for some posters. (And I mean ignorance in the literal senses, not intending any offence.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, certainly possible. Ignorance is a powerful force. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Technically, we all come from Africa... Reliable sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Rachel Maddow, etc.) are all describing her as a "Woman of Color" or "Black and of South Asian/Indian descent." I wouldn't describe them as ignorant.Stoney1976 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The volume could be due to the attention this page is getting, especially from Black women and Women of Color. Or just People of Color. Identity and accurate descriptions of it are very important issues.Stoney1976 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Which is why we would go by what Kamala goes by. The volume is from the attention the page is getting, specifically the attention from the right. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala just says she considers herself "American." Says so here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-who-i-am-kamala-harris-daughter-of-indian-and-jamaican-immigrants-defines-herself-simply-as-american/2019/02/02/0b278536-24b7-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html Her ancestry deserves more attention than that. 67.82.88.203 (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the following exchange comes from the same article: "'You’re African American, but you’re also Indian American,' a reporter said. 'Indeed,' she replied." Dumuzid (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

D'Souza claims that because his father says he is descended from a white slave-owner, he is a white man. But lots of African Americans have white ancestry. As I said above, race is a social construct, not a biological category. TFD (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Change "Shyamala Gopalan emigrated from Tamil Nadu, India" to just "India"

Note the asymmetry with the next sentence on Donald Harris, who emigrated from "Jamaica." One emigrates from a country, not a city or state; passport, visa, emigration clearance, and all other formalities are country based. She did her undergrad in Delhi, so it is not even clear where she physically departed the country. Not that that matters. 67.164.26.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• India is not Jamaica. The formalities aren't that relevant. From an encyclopedic point of view, what matters is what's relevant and what the sources say. Surely you understand that India is a big country, and that there are great differences between the various states. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The source does not say she emigrated from Tamil Nadu. The point is "emigration" is a formal process and an encyclopedia must look at the norms of that process. The various ethno-linguistic pulls and pressures driving the wording is not apt for this forum. 67.164.26.160 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    • An encyclopedia should not fetishize possible legal niceties. And I mean "niceties" in the old meaning of the word. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree that the formalities are unimportant, but it seems to be unsourced? It could warrant removal as an unsourced, possibly unimportant/excessive detail. RedHotPear (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
      • (I am referring to the "Tamil Nadu" aspect, of course. The source mentions south India, which is a broader region than Tamil Nadu.) RedHotPear (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Several sources mention Kamala Harris's mother is from Tamil Nadu, India. All sources mention she emigrated to the U.S. Putting that together to say she emigrated from Tamil Nadu is WP:SYNTH. We are talking of the biography subject's mother, and I do not see the need for this kind of inaccurate phrasing just to highlight a part of the mother's identity. We are not the ones to decide what divisions of India must be given due weight here; our sources do that work for us through their wording, and that wording says things like "emigrated from home" or "emigrated from India." I challenge you to find one source that states what we do. Shyamala Gopalan has an article covering her. 67.164.26.160 (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
          • I would agree with removing it out of caution and because it is not an essential detail. RedHotPear (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
            • I would be OK with just saying "emigrated from India". The article makes it clear a little later that her mother's family lived in Chennai, or Madras if you prefer, the capital of Tamil Nadu, so that establishes her home base in a different way. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• As several of you have already stated, in traditional usage, you "emigrate from" and "immigrate to/into." (OED; emigrate: To remove out of a country for the purpose of settling in another. immigrate: To come to settle in a country (which is not one's own)) Regardless, I'm not sure what "emigrated/immigrated" means in the context of KH's mother. She did not come as an immigrant in the manner of Ellis Island arrivals of the 19th and 20th centuries with a firm intention to settle, with papers that gave her the permission to do so. She came for higher studies to the US as a student to train in her discipline. In this, she was no different from a Gandhi, who more than half a century earlier had gone to England to train in the law, but stayed only two or three years. Most likely, she had no idea what the future held for her, whether she would return to her native country (as some students did) or stay on in America (as some students did also). In any case, at some point, she decided to stay, becoming a legal immigrant, and later a naturalized American. (I don't this in the manner of the guy who Trump was quoting in his "birther" insinuation, but simply as a point of usage.) I think it might be more accurate to say, "She arrived in the US from India to train in endocrinology at UC Berkeley, receiving her PhD in 1964." I'm sure there is a reference that says that without the implication of emigration/immigration which might have happened on the fly.

There are some other issues for which I want to choose my words carefully. Kamala Harris has written a book about her mother. Before the book appeared, several articles had appeared about KH in which she had told her mother's story. A decade earlier, Barack Obama had written one about his dad. Creative nonfiction, however, is not history. We don't really know that KH's mother was a civil rights activist. Sure, she and her husband attended civil rights rallies at Berekely, but so had hundreds (if not thousands) of other students. We don't have any independent contemporaneous accounts that verify their activism at a level that signifys real activism. Similarly, KH's or some newspapers' accounts describe her grandmother to be a women's rights activist. This too will require a contemporaneous source or a solid (scholarly) source, unless it is qualified accurately. My point is that politicians might turn their mothers into the original My Antonias, include emigration/immigration in their pioneering histories, but we have to delve into how the sources are arriving at their information, and parse our descriptions carefully. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

A separate, but not entirely unrelated topic, is her mother's name, which is discussed in Talk:Shyamala_Gopalan#Name_order?. I seem to have uncovered enough evidence that indicates her mother's name is G. Shyamala, or at least her official and professional name is, and not Shyamala Gopalan. I'd like the admins (Drmies and Valereee to weigh in there. If I have engaged in unseemly speculation (I don't always keep track of WP rules), they are very welcome to remove it, but there seems to a real issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Kamala Harris is not an African American. Please replace the term "African American" with "Black American." Her father is West Indian; he is not an African American. More importantly, Kamala Harris self-identifies as "Black." She has never self-identified as African American. Jenjo1 (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Jenjo1 (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because that is the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see the FAQ section at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, MelanieN is correct. Please see the FAQ. RedHotPear (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I favor the consensus reached in "Racial categorisation of Kamala Harris" which in this area is "African American." Rklahn (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree again with MelanieN, RedHotPearl, and Rklahn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris and far-flung language and religious nationalisms

Hello Valereee, Drmies, MelanieN, Muboshgu, Rklahn, Naddruf, The Four Deuces and others,

Several sentences (constituting WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS) have been added by one or more editors. These are:

As a result, Harris writes in her memoir that she understands small amounts of Tamil. Gopalan insisted on giving her daughters names to help them preserve their Indian cultural identity; she named Kamala "Kamala Devi" for religious reasons, as both words are derived from Hindu mythology. "Kamala" is Sanskrit for "lotus" and an alternative name for the Goddess Lakshmi who is often depicted with the aforementioned flower; whereas "Devi" is Sanskrit for "goddess" and the name of the female deity who protects villages.

The LA Times article says only "Indian mythology," (full quote: "Shyamala insisted on giving her daughters names derived from Indian mythology, in part to help preserve their cultural identity" see here) Both "Kamala" and "Maya" also occur in Buddhist mythology, the latter much more so than it does in Hindu mythology. Besides being a name for "illusion" in Indian mythology, Maya is the name of the mother of the Buddha, see Britannica here; see WP's own Sacred lotus in religious art, whose names in Sanskrit and Pali language are both Kamala and Padma.

The point that I am attempting to make again, this time more explicitly, is that South Asia is riven by various forms of linguistic- and religious-nationalisms. Kamala Harris is an American politician whose stomping ground is American culture, not South Asian or Jamaican. A brief description of the parents' background is appropriate (but keeping in mind that they too spent the majority of their years in the US, not India or Jamaica); but an extended disquisition on family ancestry—especially with a view to puff up, to promote or extol, far removed issues and fancies—is not. The original sentence said only, "Harris identifies as African-American and considers her experience to be American." Please help keep the article NPOV, the main body as well as the lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• IMO: trivia. If people want this level of info, they can consult the sources we so helpfully provide. —valereee (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Similarly, the sentences, "In a 2018 article written in Jamaica Global, Donald Harris claimed to be a descendant of slave owner Hamilton Brown. Biracial of Indian Tamil and Jamaican descent, Kamala Harris identifies simply as "American"." are other examples of benighted trivia, this time Jamaican. Tamil is an ethnic and language category, not racial. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I removed the passages and, Valereee, cited you for critical mass. The WaPo headline is deceptive, and that last edit is plucked right from it: "Kamala Harris identifies simply as "American"" can be taken in many different ways. The article also says "Harris grew up embracing her Indian culture, but living a proudly African American life" and "My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters", so the whole "there's only one American" just isn't correct, and the headline, and how that ended up in the article, that's easily misleading. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not sure how any of that is synthesis or original research and I think this is interesting and relevant info to include. I also don't understand your title of "far-flung language and religious nationalisms". It seems to be your idea that Indian culture and/or languages are somehow less American than other culture. It seems that this wouldn't be an issue with any type of European ancestry, or names from some kind of Christian tradition.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know about "far-flung", but I do know that we do not do etymologies and context for names of other people, unless there are some serious considerations there--like someone being named for Nathan Bedford Forrest, or someone getting a different name later in life (like Saint Boniface). Drmies (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• This page does seem to be going off into minor language and religious directions. I think drilling down into her Tamil roots may be interesting regionally, but not particularly encyclopedic. The Tamil roots may be relevant if she were an Indian politician, as Californian is to an American one. Generally, I agree with Fowler&fowler on this. Im no longer in a position to edit the article (I lack 500 total edits), but if I were able, there are edits I would make in this area. Rklahn (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with removing all of this. Not because there is anything wrong with it, just because it is a level of detail not needed for a biographical article in an encyclopedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, this should be either removed or greatly trimmed. RedHotPear (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for replying. For the record, I do not think that the culture of India is less American, indeed less of the world, than European culture. The very fact that arithmetic, as we know it, as it is taught in elementary and middle school around the world, is largely a creation of Indian culture would belie that. Where it is appropriate, discussion of that culture whether literary, artistic, or scientific, is fine. I have done my share of explicating it in subject areas in which the standards are well-defined. But there is very little reliable literature on Kamala Harris's history. We have her version, but she is not a historian. A Wall Street Journal article on her, for example, says, “I come from a family of fighters,” she added, a reference not just to her mother but to her grandfather, P.V. Gopalan, who Ms. Harris says was part of a group in India in the 1940s that sought independence from British rule. He didn’t promote his views widely because of his job as a civil servant under British rule, she says." This is the sort of vague historicizing, about what in effect is a closet freedom fighter, and thus unverifiable, that we need to be smart about when reporting in WP.

Anyway, I think the page seems to be stabilizing. I am happy to return to my vacation. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I enjoy working with you and appreciate your contributions! Happy vacationing. RedHotPear (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Kamala Harris was given the middle name "Iyer" at birth. It was later changed to "Devi."

Source:

https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/is-kamala-harris-described-as-caucasian Alexandergrant19 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

After some research, this notion of an alternate middle name appears in no other source. The birth certificate image alone is not verifiable and thus is not credible. ValarianB (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The Dispatch is an IFCN approved fact checker and one of Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. The basis mentioned in the article isn't the image but her actual birth certificate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandergrant19 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

When that image is verified as authentic, and sources discuss the middle name, then we can proceed. ValarianB (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Mercury News just published an article on this. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Racial categorisation of Kamala Harris

How exactly can you describe someone with south-asian ancestry as 'African American'?

Does this term now mean 'black', 'dark skinned', or simply 'non-white'?

Obviously the term is now misused and abused by people obsessed with race and ethnicity over a person's character and leadership capabilities. One step forward, two steps back. Harris, as she will tell you, is "American" with parents from India and Jamaica. How difficult is that to accept? How difficult is it to understand that mixed marriages do indeed tend to yield upon the offspring the issue of personal cultural and ethnic identity? If only we could move on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EyefulOne (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, this is disrespectful to people from the Indian sub-continent who have their own very distinct identities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.237.39 (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In the case of categorization of Sen. Harris, it's complex, and without getting too high handed, reflects upon the state of race in America. Yes, she is of South Asian ancestry, and also of African heritage, via Jamaica. But, and I think this is the important part, she identifies as African-American. And in the desegregation program in the Berkeley schools, was treated as if she was African American. But I understand this might be disrespectful to South Asians. but I think thats out of scope on this page. Drop me a note on my talk page, or an Echo on yours, and we can continue this further. Rklahn (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

As the African-American article notes, "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa. The term African American generally denotes descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States."

Many embrace being African American as a part of Black pride. Yet there is also the legacy of the one-drop rule.

IMHO, we have much to learn & grow around this in America.

Please see the following citation for Harris's own take on her ethnic background.

• Sullivan, Kevin (2019-02-02). "'I am who I am': Kamala Harris, daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, defines herself simply as 'American'". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-08-07.

Peaceray (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a problem at all. She is described as South Asian as well.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the question here is how she identifies, and in the Washington Post article she says '“My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters,” Harris writes in her recently published autobiography, “The Truths We Hold.” “She knew that her adopted homeland would see Maya and me as black girls, and she was determined to make sure we would grow into confident, proud black women.”' I think we need to refer to her as black throughout, with ancestry treated separately. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

That seems like a reasonable premise. El_C 18:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, a reasonable approach. Identity and ancestry are two different things. Behind OPs statement there may be an implication that we are being Amerocentric, and this is an encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. I agree. Rklahn (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not involved enough to know what's going on here, but I just want to make sure that she is still described as Indian and Jamaican as well. Someone can be more than one ethnicity at the same time. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Naddruf, it shouldn't be any issue at all to describe her both as a black woman and as a woman of Indian and Jamaican ethnicity/descent. —valereee (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It is fine to include multiple descriptors here. But to be clear, "African-American" is the predominant identity of hers, and it is not problematic to use this. It is not an insult to South Asians to use "African-American" to describe her, even though it is certainly the case that other identity labels may also be justifiable. RedHotPear (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Another inane WP discussion. She identifies as African-American. End of story. Please don't rehearse tired old banalities about who is black who is African-American. Please also don't imply (if you are doing so) for the hundredth time the other pieties about whether the Middle-Passage is a sine qua non for being one or another, whether rum, cod, and slavery are the sine qua nons. By any definition, she is more African-American (in the traditional meaning of the word) than Barak Obama is. So if you are particularly hurting about unloading the monkeys of old-fashioned bias off your backs, go to the Barak Obama page and turn him into a Kenyan-Kansan president with no history of slavery. What is the matter with Wikipedians? If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid). Obviously her South Asian Indian mother did not have those insecurities, and she does not have either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, do you have a source for her identifying as AA rather than as Black? —valereee (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Not Fowler, but I just am not sure how important the distinction is here. Some want "African American" to be restricted in meaning to "descendant of slaves," but Harris herself uses the terms interchangeably, and she clearly identifies with the African-American community. Reliable sources also frequently refer to her as the first "African American" to do/be X, etc. ([13], [14]) RedHotPear (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Race is not a biological category but a social construct. In other words, society, not their pedigree, determines a person's race. TFD (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I found TFD's statement very influential. Where I said ancestry, above, I meant ethnicity. I was less than precise, and regret the error. We should not stray away from Sen. Harris' self identification. Rklahn (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I have partially reverted a recent edit which used misleading edit summary and unilaterally changed "Indian American" to "South Asian American". Per Google searches, reliable sources refer to her as "Indian American" at least 100 times more than "South Asian American" so we need to stick to common interpretation. To name a few, CNN[15], Washington Post[16], Politico[17], LA Times[18] and many other sources are very clear with using "Indian-American". SignificantPBD (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

See her own pages, both in the US Senate and her website, now cited in the lead. The usual Indian nationalism, or sub-nationalisms, have no value on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

African-American is clearly the main identity of hers that this article should address. When it comes to other identities, why not avoid the "Indian-American" vs. "South Asian American" distinction together and go with "Asian-American," the broader category? This broader description seems to be echoed in RS coverage. RedHotPear (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

RedHotPear, "Asian" is a very broad term and unpopular compared to "Indian-American". This scholarly source from Harvard University Press also refers to her as "Indian American". We need to check what reliable sources say and the person in question. The sources noted above are of high quality and they leave no doubt.

Fowler, your personal bias "has no value on Wikipedia". Kamal Harris says "My Indian mother knew she was raising two black daughters .... But that’s not to the exclusion of who I am in terms of my Indian heritage".[19] When asked "You're African-American, but you're also Indian-American," Kamala Harris replied "Indeed", she also said that her African American and Indian heritage "are of equal weight in terms of who I am."[20] But you are just POV pushing and misrepresenting this source which makes no mention of "South Asian". I am afraid your poor comprehension skills violate WP:DE. You are also edit warring and ignoring that the page said "Indian American" until you modified it recently by providing misleading edit summaries. Read the top notice of this talk page and stop adding POV terms without gaining consensus. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Im really tempted to do a partial undo here, but Im going to let things develop a little more. I think we are clear on "African-American", less so on "Indian American" vs. "South Asian-American". The citations are, unfortunately, silent on how she refers to herself. So is https://kamalaharris.org/meet-kamala-harris/, which is in advocacy of her. https://www.harris.senate.gov/about leads you to "South Asian-American". This is a messy area that needs time for reflection, time is not of the essence here. Also, can we do a little more Assume good faith on the part of other editors? Rklahn (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Race, as has long been said, and wisely said again above by TFD and Rklahn, is a social construct. However, naming these social constructs is a fraught issue. For example, in more formal contexts "African American" is preferred to "Black." In a submission to the Supreme Court, a petitioner will most likely prefer "African American" to "Black" in the lead paragraph, but in whispering to their lawyer will most likely use "black." Similarly, "Indigenous American," or "Native American" is the more formal version of "Indian." Again, even today in informal contexts Native Americans refer to each other or their culture as "Indian." (The lawyer representing the Muscogee Nation in the recent US Supreme Court decision on Oklahoma being half Native American land says in a Youtube video, "I'm delighted to be back in Indian country.") The reason for the two levels of reference is that the formal name is usually a mouthful. So, the same person will be found using both terms be they "African American" (formal) or "Black" (informal), "Native American" (formal) or "Indian" (informal).

Also, the modern convention is to refer to ethnicities by the broad regional categories of ancestry, not by the names of the modern nations to which ancestral link might be determined. The broad regions are: Latin America (i.e. regions of the Americas in which the Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese, and French) are spoken)), Europe, Africa, and Asia (which is usually split into West Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia), and perhaps Australasia. The reason for this is that the ethnicities were established long before the modern nations took shape. So, South Asia is preferred to India (not to mention the additional confusion that might result from the usage referred to above).

So, summing up, Kamala Harris's father was born in Jamaica, and his ancestry is African (i.e. he is not the odd Jamaican White); her mother was born in the British Indian Empire (which then comprised present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) and her ancestry is South Asian. It is unimportant that the British Raj had decolonized by the time she came to the US, and that she most likely arrived with a passport of the Republic of India; her ethnicity is still South Asian for the reasons given above. Furthermore, KH's self-identification is African-American or Black. She has said very poignantly, "I was born Black and I will die Black." So, in our description there will be an order: "African American" first, and "South Asian American" second, but the latter only if needed. I should warn that if she does become Biden's choice of VP, this page will receive far more attention by editors promoting the various POVs about race and gender that have traditionally riven both American and South Asian societies. Various POVs will both disown her and claim her for their own. We have to be especially careful about preserving the NPOV descriptions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

PS For the editors who might be thinking that I've come here with a naive or ignorant view of India, let me add (though there should normally be no reason for this) that I am the primary author of the FA India. I am well-versed in the nationalism (not to mention sub-nationalism, e.g. "Gujarati," "Tamil" or "Bengali") that India-POV editors attempt to promote in many things related to South Asia. See for example the pages Pilaf or Shalwar kameez, where "South Asia" is now established, but a year ago was subject to constant edit-warring by editors wanting to change "South Asia" to "India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, I do not think you are naive or ignorant at all. I have also seen nationalist POV-pushing of the type you describe on issues related to India, and it is something to be watchful for, though I cannot definitively say that I already identify it on this talk page. I completely agree with you when you say that "African American" should come first, and when warranted, other identities should follow. Riddhidev BISWAS, it is absolutely not the case that the balance of reliable sources indicates that her "Indian-American" identity is equally notable. RedHotPear (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that someone, probably the editor you mention, has reinstated "Indian American." I would submit that the term "Indian American" if it is to be used at all should be applied to people born in India who have become naturalized citizens of the United States. Otherwise, for ethnicity, as I've already stated above, the broad category is "South Asia." ("Asian American" would be confusing because in the US it has traditionally been applied to East Asian Americans (i.e. those with Chinese or Japanese ancestry). There is good reason that all the former "India studies," "Indian studies," or "Indology" academic departments around the world have changed their names to "South Asian Studies." See Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, University of Chicago, Princeton, Cambridge, Oxford, ... it is a long, long, list. Anyway, I am on vacation; this is all the time I have. I've laid out my argument. I think the usage "South Asian American" should be preferred to "Indian American" for the reasons that I have given at length. Thanks everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That seems off-topic, but I would add that I don't see anybody ever changed "Indian" to "South Asian" on this article except you. So I don't think that will be the case.

Rklahn, the two interviews of Kamala Harris[21][22] linked above are absolutely clear about her self-identification as "Indian-American". TFD was also referring to the same Washington Post interview. I think we must abide by the status quo here. SignificantPBD (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

For heaven's sakes, her own US Senate Website says, "South Asian American." Your citations are incorrect. In neither of those two articles (the LA Times and the Washington Post) does she herself use the expression "Indian American." Moreover, in her book, The Truths We Hold, she does not once use the expression "Indian American." However she does use "South Asian:"

My mother, grandparents, aunts, and uncle instilled us with pride in our South Asian roots.

Note: here we have a new editor, registered in May 2020, with 102 edits, who is attempting to lay down the law. It doesn't matter that I'm the primary author of India, British Raj, Company rule in India, British India, Partition of India, Indian mathematics, Indus Valley Civilisation (which was most likely a Dravidian civilization) ... it is a long list, which includes the FA Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), a region adjacent to the Dravidian-speaking region from which where KH's mother hails. All this experience and record is of no value in Wikipedia discussions. Go figure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Im afraid I disagree about the conclusion here. The LA Times article only comes close when it quotes Sen. Harris saying "But that’s not to the exclusion of who I am in terms of my Indian heritage." Two points: 1) Heritage is not identity. 2) The subtext about this article is race, and has already been said, thats a social construct, not identity either. I find this particular LA Times article dubious as a source on identity. The Post article goes further in this regard. In the headline "Kamala Harris, daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, defines herself simply as ‘American’" she goes as far as to decline Indian identify. Now, the direction this should go is clear to me: "South Asian American". Its the only thing Ive seen where she identifies her identity, from her own US Senate Website. I really tried to see both sides here, but am now in a position where I can draw the "South Asian American" conclusion. Rklahn (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@RedHotPear: I am agreeable for "South Asian American" to be changed to "Asian and Pacific American" but she will then be the eighth Asian and Pacific American Senator (jointly eighth with Tammy Duckworth of Illinois who also assumed office in January 2017). Please see the usage in this citation, which is being cited for "Indian American" in this edit! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to use terminology that conveys meaning to readers. Presumably readers have heard of Indian, but they may not be familiar with terms such as Asian Pacific and South Asian. Also, those terms may have different meanings depending on the user, and different terms may be used in different countries. For example, in the UK the term Asian is used to describe India and its neighbors, while in the U.S. it is used to describe China and its neighbors. TFD (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

For a large number of readers in the US, Indian = Native American; it does most certainly for Native Americans themselves in everyday use. "Asian" in the US and UK respectively has the meaning of the region from which Asian immigrants first appeared on the shores of those countries. National or sub-national jargon, however, is not a criterion for encyclopedicity. Precision is in the first description in a lead paragraph, and "South Asian" is precise; later, in the main body, it can be elucidated with "Indian," particularized with "South Indian," or even more with "Tamil." "South Asian" is unambiguous and is the NPOV usage worldwide now, used in scholarly writing and by international organizations. It is used by the California Department of Justice in its page on their former Attorney General Kamala Harris. When I have some time I will make a list of its use in the formal register by various sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Another point, when we use the adjective "first," we want to apply it to the largest ambit of its use. South Asia = India + Pakistan + Bangladesh + Nepal + Bhutan + Afghanistan + Sri Lanka + the Maldives is quite a bit larger than India. She is the first South Asian, not just the first person of Indian, South Indian or Tamil ethnic ancestry in those offices. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

PPS Although I had used the link before I was reverted, it bears mentioning here on the talk page that South Asian American, which pipes to its plural, does exist on Wikipedia, and does a good job of explaining the term. Please also read both paragraphs of the section: Indian_Americans#Terminology about the pitfalls of that term's use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I found Fowler's "PS" point to be quite a good one. I encourage others to consider it as well. RedHotPear (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray:, @The Four Deuces:, @Rklahn:, @Riddhidev BISWAS:, @SignificantPBD:, @RedHotPear:, @Valereee:, @Naddruf:, also pinging admins with South Asia experience @El C: and @RegentsPark: I will be changing Indian American in the lead paragraph to South Asian American for a variety of reasons (all offered above), but mostly for the fact of term "Indian American" being both ambiguous and informal (best explained in Indian_Americans#Terminology). Her own senate website (see above), as well as the California Department of Justice site (also see above) about her tenure as their 32nd AG, use "South Asian American" only. If Joe Biden does choose her to be his running mate, this page will attract even more attention; it is best to choose the more precise terminology now. More precisely, I will be changing the sentence:

A member of the Democratic Party, Harris is the second African American woman and the first Indian American to serve in the United States Senate., ( which is problematic also because the first citation makes no mention of "Second African American woman," senator only of "first African-American to represent California in the Senate" and the second talks about Asian and Pacific Islands Americans (and as I've remarked before she is the eighth API-American senator (jointly with Tammy Duckworth)), but makes no mention of Indian-Americans.)

to

A member of the Democratic Party, Harris is the second African American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

I do not feel very strongly, but your change seems fine. You make a good case that "Indian American," while popularly used, may be informal and imprecise in this situation. RedHotPear (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think either of these are good, but I agree that it is better to say the "first South Asian American" in the lead. South Asian American is a broader category than Indian American. Otherwise it would be plausible that there could have already been a Pakistani American or Bangladeshi American, etc. in Congress.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I second this. RedHotPear (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I am on board with this. I hope that others see this as the consensus. Also, thank you Fowler&fowler for the ping. Rklahn (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@RedHotPear, Rklahn, and The Four Deuces: Contrary to Fowler&fowler's blatant misrepresentation of Kamala Harris' book "Moreover, in her book, The Truths We Hold, she does not once use the expression "Indian" needs to be ignored since the actual quote of Kamala Harris is:

My mother, grandparents, aunts, and uncle instilled us with pride in our South Asian roots. Our classical Indian names harked back to our heritage, and we were raised with a strong awareness of and appreciation for Indian culture.[23]

This source does not qualify for "South Asian American" over "Indian American" and she has mentioned "Indian" two times right there. She also mentions her husband Douglas Emhoff in her book and writes:

Doug and I were married on Friday, August 22, 2014, in an intimate ceremony with the people we loved. Maya officiated; Meena read from Maya Angelou. In keeping with our respective Indian and Jewish heritage, I put a flower garland around Doug's neck..."[24]

She is very clear about her "Indian" heritage, so why we shouldn't be? @Fowler, you must stop edit warring and stop bragging about your contributions on other off-topic articles. This edit warring without gaining WP:CON, continuous blugeoning and canvassing isn't going to help you in denying these two interviews of Kamala Harris[25][26] which are absolutely clear about her self-identification as "Indian-American". Reliable sources refer to her as "Indian American" more than hundreds of times than "South Asian American". Unless we are seriously questioning the reliability of CNN[27], Washington Post[28], Politico[29], LA Times[30] US News,[31] ABC News,[32] The Hill,[33] and thousands of other WP:RS, which also identify her as "Indian American" but not "South Asian American", I clearly don't see a single reason to pick "South Asian" (which can also mean Pakistani, Afghanistani, Bangladeshi) than more specific and much more common term "Indian". There is no need for this page to be different than the rest of the Wikipedia or the world. SignificantPBD (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What concerns me is that most readers may not know what South Asia refers to. I had to look it up, although I was aware of India. Does it include Saudi Arabia and Vietnam for example. If you use the term, the text should provide an explanation. For example, she is the "first South Asian American" (Asian American includes India and neighboring countries)." TFD (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Why? We can assume people will click on links; that's the whole point of links. And you don't even have to click; when I look at this article without logging in, if I hover over the words South Asian American, I get a popup that tells me where they are from. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Of all the terms used on Wikipedia that are not explicitly explained, South Asia hardly stands out as obscure. Indeed, much of its meaning is reflected in its words; the link should be sufficient. RedHotPear (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the FA India, Wikipedia's oldest country FA, which I have primarily written and been managing for 13 years, says in its first sentence: India is a country in South Asia. South Asia is the modern term, corresponding to the five divisions of Asia: West Asia (to which Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey (the eastern half), Jordan, Israel, ... belong), Central Asia (Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Kirgizstan, ...), South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bhutan, and Bangladesh), Southeast Asia (Burma, Thailand, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines) and East Asia (China, Japan, the Koreas, ...) All United Nations agencies use those terms. The old western-centric terms (Middle East, Far East) are passe. The CNN announcement of a few minutes ago says "South Asian American." India-POV editors (by which I don't mean editors of Indian heritage) have for years on WP been promoting the use of "India" or "Indian" as in Indian subcontinent, but those terms are now outdated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor, and I'm not taking a position in this debate regarding Indian-American vs South Asian American. I just want to ask Fowler&fowler why they feel it's necessary to keep pointing out they've made significant contributions to other articles about India on here? As far as I'm aware, your contributions there - although I'm sure are very positive and beneficial (I must admit, I haven't looked at them) - are pretty much irrelevant here (WP:CAU, I know it's just an essay). I'm sure the decision on "Indian" or "South-Asian" will be much better served if editors stick to that discussion, and the sources found for Harris's ethnicity/race. Seagull123 Φ 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Very true. How we forget.  :) Thanks for the reminder. I've scratched the last bit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I favor the formulation proposed above: "A member of the Democratic Party, Harris is the second African American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add that the term "South Asia" is used only when there is something mutually shared between India and Pakistan (or Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) but cannot be undoubtedly associated with either country due to their recent partitions from each other. In this case, there is no doubt that she has "Indian" roots as she has herself confirmed in her book and interviews. Thus "Indian American" is much more appropriate. Also, see this recent source which discusses her self-identification of Indian and African ancestry. Zakaria1978 (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you shouldn't be claiming consensus when several editors have reverted you and enough editors have objected the disputed edits in question. The article is using "Indian American" since 2017.[34] I don't see why you have to come up with "South Asian American" all of sudden contrary to the sources discussing her self-identification. Zakaria1978 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978 Please do not misinform the readers about what South Asia means. Wikipedia can plainly see it in the link. Please also read her US Senate website which clearly states "South Asian American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, kindly speak to me properly. Do not speak to me in such a disparaging tone. Don't breach WP:Civility and WP:NPA. I have been saying to use Asian Americans, and have debated it extensively. But, you are the one who put South Asian Americans. Her stating South Asian American on her website was just a distinction, as she is the only one, nothing more I can see on this web link. Her identity is Asian American or Indian American, since her mom was from India. That is what I can clearly confirm. Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, Fowler&fowler, do not say stuff like this: "If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid)." That is pretty blanket and bigoted statement to make. I have many Indian friends where I live, they don't all think like that. Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, I am definitely correct with my definition of "South Asia". You have ignored the sources where she is identifying herself as "Indian" which is more specific term than "South Asia" which is certainly too broad and can create confusion. While I am not opposed to using "Asian American" for lead, it still makes no sense to refer to her as "South Asian" when she identifies as "Indian". Why did you expand about her ancestry on 2nd paragraph of the lead? Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, please read her US senate website. It says, "In 2017, Kamala D. Harris was sworn in as a United States Senator for California, the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history." Please aalso see the California Department of Justice's page on their 32nd Attorney General, which states, "In 2004-2010, Kamala Harris served as the first woman District Attorney in San Francisco's history, and as the first African American woman and South Asian American woman in California to hold the office." What is that? Chopped liver? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Sorry that last description was for District Attorney of San Francisco. Here is the one for AG of California: "Harris is the first woman, and the first African American and the first South Asian American, to hold the office of Attorney General in the history of California." (See here). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm butting in to an established consensus (I don't see one), but while obviously she can be described as the first South Asian American senator, or Indian American or Tamil American more generally, Tamil Nadu, India, and South Asia are still part of Asia, and in terms of her significance as a VP nominee I agree that the widest possible "first" ambit should be used, i.e. Asian American. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing that there might have been an established consensus. Briefly, before Joe Biden's announcement, one existed. "African-American" was reached pretty quickly. "South Asian American" was harder, but its where we ended up. Being that its Sen. Harris' identity, I hope it's where we end up again. Rklahn (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In terms of describing her identity in general, obviously there was a consensus around South Asian American, but in terms of noting she is the first VP nominee of x characteristic, is Asian American not the most accurate? PrimaPrime (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This entire discussion is proof that continental labels as applied to human beings are little more than contrived constructs which cater to the whims of those who seek to use them, not an indicator with any basis in fact or rule. Elon Musk is an African-American by most definitions. Many don’t feel comfortable with that. Self-identification and what others call you is not relevant to ancestry, geneology, and science. It is a social-cultural construct and completely unnecessary and should be removed from ALL bios. Joey.J (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

She is not African American. Her father was Jamaican and mother is Indian. See wikipedia article on African American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans She is a black Indian, or black Indian American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.75.22.3712:34, August 12, 2020 (talk • contribs)

Seeing the discussion here (and elsewhere unrelated to Harris), I can only go back to Peaceray's comment above and confirm that people of the USA have much to learn & grow around things related to race. Such apparently diehard attitudes are our downfall. For now, if we need such a definition it seems to me that what 96.75.22.3712.34 wrote immediately before this may be one of the closest definitions were it not for the fact that it's shameful that supposedly intelligent people can spend so much time and effort engaged in this definition game. She was born in the United States, so she's "American". Grow up, children, and stop bickering. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:6000:73C0:D95D:7A1 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

She just referred to herself on international television as "black" so let's cut out all the erroneous (and ridiculous) references to her somehow being "African-American" when that definition is clearly reserved for descendants of African slaves. Joey.J (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

She ain't black man. Gregor 05:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwarner999 (talk • contribs)

@Gwarner999: well Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources and what the individual believes; The opinions of editors based on nothing but that -- opinions -- is completely irrelevant. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

She is Jamaican-American, not African-American.Dplautatwikip (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dplautatwikip: and the reliable sources provided in the article describe her as both; as previously said, Wikipedia isn't concerned with the opinions of editors. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they are reliable if they say something that isn't obviously not true. If my father was born in Mexico I can call my self African-American but that does not make it true. No need to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dplautatwikip (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it seems White folks always want to label what they think is African American. Obama was NOT African American, he is half White half Black Kenyan. Kamala Harris is NOT African American, she is half Indian and half Jamaican. A person from South African (White or Black) who comes to live here, is NOT African American. The fact that they migrated here is irrelevant. I find it disheartening that White folks on either side of the aisle, think they have the right to say who is what, when they live the life or heritage of the descendants of American slaves. MPA (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not about "White folks." It is about reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an avenue for righting great wrongs. RedHotPear (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala's father was from Jamaica, so referring to her as African American is wrong. Jamaican or Black American would be more appropriate. Ebony75 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As per African Americans: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa." That definition applies to Harris. Peaceray (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

She describes herself as African American. It is absolutely not Wikipedia's place to challenge that. JTRH (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this ready for archiving? EEng 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

FAQ re ethnicity

Anyone object to adding an FAQ at the top of this page re: her ethnicity? We're getting inundated with edit requests from people saying she's not AA, but Indian and Jamaican. I guess people don't realize that the slave trade visited Jamaica as well as the U.S.? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, no objection. Clearly needed. I think it should note that we're calling her what she calls herself, period. Doesn't matter about Jamaican and African diaspora. —valereee (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu I guess, strictly speaking, she'd be Caribbean-American, which is somewhat distinct, that's unimportant inasmuch as reliable sources describe her as AfAm. We can use that, along with WP:OR (drawing conclusions), as a stand-in answer; I'd prefer that over a slave trade talk. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Iseult, we would have to use language from reliable sources, and I don't know that they mention the slave trade. I brought it up as a simple fact that her father's family aren't "native" to Jamaica. I can draft something.... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Iseult, I'd argue it doesn't matter. On her senate and campaign websites, she calls herself both African-American and South Asian-American. We should call her what she calls herself. —valereee (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a Reuters fact check of use. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

One question I support the FAQ should include is why this article isn't titled "Kamala Enhoff". Please explain your opinions on this question (I'm not asking this question myself; I'm only asking if the question should be on the FAQ.) Georgia guy (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that question asked "frequently"? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the question will likely be asked by someone who studies her life and family. Georgia guy (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the biographies are already being written after about an hour. KidAd (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgia guy, why would anyone ask that? —valereee (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you think because her husband's last name is Emhoff, people will be wondering why her name isn't Emhoff? Seriously? —valereee (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't need to be in FAQ. Most people know better; it's common knowledge that many professional women keep their maiden name. (Why isn't the Ivanka Trump article titled Ivanka Kushner? Now there's a NFAQ for you!) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't start new threads. This is already a consensus above that the description of her ethnicity should be "African American and South Asian American. That is all the FAQ needs to say. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel in another thread. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would support a FAQ. There's no point having the same discussions again and again. - MrX 🖋 21:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Echo the "no FAQ" thinking on the topic of identity. We have gone through it extensively, it has subtlety that I don't think an FAQ could capture, and any editors should simply go find the talk page discussion. If there must be an FAQ, it should simply point to the talk page section, and make no reference to even the consensus. Rklahn (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rklahn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I created Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ. Please refine it with me. This is my first FAQ. If we agree to it, we can post it to the page. Otherwise, I can delete it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, should we add name pronunciation to the FAQ? KidAd (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Please delete the FAQ. There is no reason to redo a discussion that has already reached consensus and nuance at Talk:Kamala_Harris#Racial_categorisation_of_Kamala_Harris. A second discussion does nothing except give people a chance to be disruptive. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

KidAd, yes! That's a common mistake people make. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu You jumped the gun here. There is not consensus on the existence of an FAQ. Even if there was, there is not consensus on what it should contain. Please delete the FAQ. Rklahn (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

While true, "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." You entered into an area where there was already a well thought out recent consensus, and contradicted it, with less than 24 hours warning. Im going to remove question 1 as it contradicts consensus. Rklahn (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My edit got reverted, for reasons I don't quite understand. I restored consensus. However, it later got edited into a form less objectionable. I still think any FAQ is a mistake, this is a page now highly in flight, and any FAQ is likely to become outdated quickly. I would double down on that for any FAQ entry that contradicts the article, or consensus. Rklahn (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to violate the FAQ in my response at the time I wrote it, but having thought about it, I do object. The recommended classification of Harris' identity as "African American" is not consistent with RS, scholarship, or practice. All RS say her father is from Jamaica and her mother is from India. Jamaican immigrants are not called "African Americans." They are called Jamaican-American. Immigrants from India are called Indian-Americans. RS call her a "Woman of color" which is an accurate umbrella term. There is debate about who the term "Black" applies to, but that might be acceptable. Calling Harris "African-American" and South Asian-Americans is political, not based on scholarship or practice. It is not based on RS.
• I also object to admins removing comments from the talk page. They deleted this, as far as I can tell: I get it. Democrats want the African American vote and don't want Kamala Harris associated with India because of the outsourcing of jobs...but her parents are Jamaican-American and Indian-American according to all RS!

She calls herself an 'American.' You could say she is the first "Woman of Color" or "Black woman" (though there is some debate about the use of this term to refer to people of color from other regions) to hold those offices. Although many people living in Jamaican come from Africa (as do all of us, technically), African Americans have a different history than Jamaican Americans. India is her mother's country of origin - it is the most specific term. Stick to RS and state that. People will eventually find out anyway - why compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? I think someone actually removed the record of my edits from the history! Articles:

   ‘I am who I am’: Kamala Harris, daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, defines herself simply as ‘American’ - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-who-i-am-kamala-harris-daughter-of-indian-and-jamaican-immigrants-defines-herself-simply-as-american/2019/02/02/0b278536-24b7-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html
   Kamala Harris Is Biden’s Choice for Vice President. A former rival for the Democratic nomination, she will be the first woman of color to be nominated for national office by a major political party.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-biden-vp.html Stoney1976 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Stoney1976 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources call her "African American". Or Black. Or a person of color (which does not exclude being Black). No source calls her "Jamaican American" that I am aware of. Donald Harris is Afro-Jamaican. His ancestry comes from Africa. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We absolutely should have an FAQ section here, and it should include more than just racial identity. It should include other things as they come up, such as how to pronounce her name, for instance. The beauty of having an FAQ section is that we can stop having to write out answers to the same old questions that keep getting asked here - "frequently" you might say. We can just reply "See FAQ #1 above". End of discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good, I see the name pronunciation is already there too. Good work, User:Muboshgu. I propose we transclude it to the top of this page right now. And add other things we get tired of answering, as they come up. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, are you good with the current wording? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the name pronunciation?

The other thing that strikes me is that there's an awful lot of explanation and verbiage at the top. Is that typical for FAQ pages? Is it wise to say things like "feel free to change it" and to encourage discussion? I was expecting something more like the "Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus" page at Talk:Donald Trump, whose attitude is "this is the existing consensus, don't change it without discussion;" it allows us to just point to it when the question gets asked for the umpteenth time and it doesn't encourage people to argue about it. I think it was User:JFG who set that up. Did you look at some other FAQ pages, to see whether they make their intro assertive or accommodating, and whether it is wordy or brief?

You may have trouble figuring out where to put it at the top of this cluttered page. Again, you might look to see where other pages put it.

I'm glad you're doing this, it is going to save us all a lot of time and energy! You said it was your first FAQ so I thought I would share some thoughts. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You may not have transcluded this yet but I am already using it. My standard reply now: "We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ."

I just want to go on record, again, to say that I am against the very existence of the FAQ. Its not helping for reasons I predicted: The page is moving quickly, and there is not a good consensus on the one question that it still addresses. In fact, it contributed to the dismissal of a recently achieved consensus. The FAQ should go away. Rklahn (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'd be happy to set up a "current consensus" section similar to the one at Talk:Donald Trump. On high-visibility political articles, it helps incoming users understand at a glance what has already been decided in previous RfCs or well-attended discussions. It is particularly useful when there is a lot of talk page activity, and discussions get buried in archives quicker than on regular pages. To address Rklahn's objection, of course, consensus can change and the "current consensus" list does not preclude new discussions in any way. At the Trump page, many consensus items have been deprecated or replaced over the years, as facts evolved and editorial judgment got refined. — JFG ^talk 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm against a current consensus section. The most nuanced discussion is Talk:Kamala_Harris#Racial_categorisation_of_Kamala_Harris, which led to the early consensus. The RfCs are not; for any one can add a line or two of perfunctory reasoning and vote their Yes or No in boldface. It is best to refer readers to the above link where they can examine the evolution of consensus and add anything they find wanting. Otherwise, there will be a constant rehashing of arguments, often oversimplified, by new editors, with the editors of old absenting themselves, their eyes glazed, suffering from consensus fatigue. Consensus is an art not a science. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There has been so much blatant disregard for consensus in this article that it makes a straight faced reply nearly impossible. Editors are cherry picking policy to justify their edits in the absence of true consensus to edit what they want. I can think of two recent examples. I was against the creation of this FAQ, then got told "Consensus does not require unanimity." and the editor went on to do exactly what they stated what they were going to do, without regard to what the objections might be. No attempt at compromise was made. This all took place in less than 24 hours. Not to disrupt consensus or anything, Im still against the existence of the FAQ. It adds little value, Editors are paying it no mind, and it contributes to the lack of consensus. Second example: There was a well thought out consensus on the subject of Sen. Harris' identity. It lasted a good 72 hours. What is the point of working hard on achieving consensus, just to have it rough shot over because consensus can change. I would favor a policy change at Wikipedia that said that a consensus had the power of precedent, and it cant be overturned simply because a new group of editors, regardless of their points of view cant simply show up as the mob and overturn it. Rklahn (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Any objection to archiving this? EEng 03:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Asian America or South Asian American

Mr. KidAd, kindly revert your edit here[35]. According to Race and ethnicity in the United States, United States Census officially recognised five racial categories, which are White American, African American, Native Americans/Alaska Native, Asian American, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander as well as people of two or more races. It does not recognise South Asian American, please change it back to simply Asian American. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your politeness! But per WP:NOTSOURCE, do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article, even when describing Wikipedia. As far as I can tell Harris identifies as South Asian-American, so we should make that distinction. KidAd (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr. KidAd, that is not true, her identity is of Asian American. What source do you have that she "solely" identifies with the sub-category of South Asian American? The US does not recognise South Asian American, straight from the US census. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what categories the U.S. government/census/etc. use or recognize. What matters is how the subject of the article identifies. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Her official Senate.gov page says it all here. Then there's CNBC, CNN, Politico, and Business Insider. KidAd (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment wasn't about what she claims. Whatever sources editors find for that are great. My concern is that there's no reason to base anything description on census categories. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, please stop calling other editors Mr. It's offensive. Harris identifies as African-American and South Asian-American on her website. —valereee (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I live in the UAE, here, calling someone "Mr." is a sign of respect. You did not have to be so rude and America-centric. Saying it politely would have worked. No, her website does not say he "identifies" or "solely identifies" as South Asian, it just says she was the "first South Asian American senator". Little to do with ethnicity, as South Asian can be Iranic (like myself), Indo-Aryan, Dravidian or Mongoloid. The mention of South Asian is just to distinguish herself. The USA does not recognise South Asian American, it only recognises Asian American. And none of those sources provided states she rejects being Asian American and "solely" identifies as "South Asian American. Also, other sources like here[36] states she is Asian American. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The source he lists says "The 55-year-old senator says she has not grappled with her identity and describes herself simply as "an American"." Other RS describe her as "Black" and a "Woman of Color" which are broader terms for people of mixed ancestry. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-who-i-am-kamala-harris-daughter-of-indian-and-jamaican-immigrants-defines-herself-simply-as-american/2019/02/02/0b278536-24b7-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-biden.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoney1976 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, I'm sure Mr. is a sign of respect for people who identify as male, but KidAd doesn't have it stated that they are male. You are assuming that someone who doesn't specify must be male. That is offensive. —valereee (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

While I did not personally find the use of "Mr." offensive (I am male, so that may have something to do with it), the honorific can be interpreted as condescending or sarcastic, especially if you are not speaking with someone face-to-face. A good rule of thumb not to use honorifics, preventing any potential miscommunication. We're all equal here anyway. Apart from that, sources clearly reference her as "South Asian-American." Her official Senate page says it! So why belabor the point? KidAd (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Asian American is most appropriate here. Getting messed up in South Asian ethnicity is long and complicated. We should follow the US census, none of your sources say she "solely" identifies as "South Asian". Asian Americans are the recognised term by the US government and is most neutral. South Asian is not an ethnicity, we can be Iranic, Indo-Aryan, Mongoloid, and Dravidian. Asian American is the most neutral term, globally and in the US (since Asian American is recognised). Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The census categories are entirely irrelevant. A term doesn't have to be recognized by the government to be appropriate. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying US census is irrelevant, fine. But you failed to provide any source says she solely identifies herself as solely South Asian American. Most of these sources give her that ethnic distinction. I also explained multiple times above that her use of "South Asian American" was to mark her unique position as being the "first South Asian" in US Senate, putting just Asian will make her after a long line of Asian American senators. She did not say anything in her senate page of being "solely" South Asian as an ethnic term. That is a stretch. She is an Asian American. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, I totally get that, but until Harris definitively corrects her preferred categorization, we have to accept what she has personally said. What she's said is that she is African-American and South Asian-American, that her mother knew she and her sister would be considered Black, and that she is proud of her Indian-American heritage. That's the kind of thing we can use. —valereee (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, again, all of you failed to provide any source says she solely identifies herself as "solely" South Asian American, and rejects Asian American. South Asia is clearly in Asia, and South Asia Americans are Asian Americans. Her senate page uses South Asian American to distinguish herself, since there are many other Asian American senators before her. Again, South Asians are not a single ethnicity. We are very diverse. Asian American is the least offensive language, since the broad term is accepted by the US government, and she, or other Asian American don't reject it. I did not find any source where she rejects her wider Asian American heritage. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, the WP:ONUS is not on us to prove a negative. It is on those who want to include something that isn't in sources. We are sourcing what she says about herself. —valereee (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I provided the sources above. Both US census and National Post.[37] Again, kindly reread what I mentioned above. Asian American is the least offensive language. Zakaria1978 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, the US census is not a reliable source for how Kamala Harris identifies. The National Post -- unless it quotes her directly and more recently -- does not trump what she says about herself. —valereee (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, where does she identify "solely" as South Asian American? And rejects Asian American? I also provided other source. Zakaria1978 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, again, that's the WP:ONUS. You're asking us to prove a negative; we don't have to do that. —valereee (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether she identifies solely as something or rejects something else. If we go with that logic, we should describe Harris simply as "American." After all, where is the source that states identifies solely as Asian American and rejects American? This is silly. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As for the contention that you feel only the census values are what the US recognizes, that is not true there are over a dozen for Immigration forms as a counter example, nor is it even an accurate statement for the census since it does allow you to enter other.Gloern (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

""Harris identifies as African American" has been edited out of the Article while we were Talking. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We went through this at length recently, and the consensus was "African-American" and "South Asian-American". Many points of view were represented, most of them being rehashed here. If we are now revisiting that consensus, please make that clear. Otherwise, please respect the work of the other editors who put a lot of thought into this issue. Rklahn (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A radical suggestion here from someone from a country with somewhat less of an obsession about giving people racial labels. One of Australia's leading politicians is Penny Wong. The lead of her article says a grand total of this about her ancestry (the preferred word here, rather than race)... "Born in Malaysia to an Australian mother and Malaysian father." This is elaborated on later in the article with "Wong was born in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, to Jane (née Chapman), an Australian, and Francis Wong, a Malaysian of Chinese origin." That's it. That's all that's said about her "race". Is there a Wikipedia rule that says an article on an American politician must give an interpretive and obviously highly debatable racial label to that person? Does Wikipedia really have to play the racial label game so strongly? Can we not just write simple facts about her background,and leave the interpretation to others? HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, I think that would go with how Harris sees herself, and myself I think the sources support it, but we might be getting into territory where others will be calling OR. —valereee (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do we even need to describe how someone sees themselves? Even that seems to become a point of contention for a some American politicians with complicated ancestries. Stick to facts. Let readers interpret. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, now you're going too far. :D In the US, how a politician identifies does matter. It would seem strange not to address it at all. Does it need to be in the lead? Maybe not. Is it stupid that this is as important as it is? Yes. —valereee (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

While I think you are trying to be fair to a previous discussion that people currently in this thread might be unaware of, reading that section, it seems to me this current discussion is covering a different aspect completely, there is no repeat between the 2, as the previous one was concerning the duality of her ethnic history and this one is at least mostly concerning the validity of one of the terms being used.Gloern (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I like what HiLo48 stated. Lets put something like an immigrant mother from India and an immigrant father from Jamaica. That might be the best. Since she is American above all else. However, I am firm in the evidence, she is an Asian American, the least offensive term. Zakaria1978 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris IS NOT African American or Black as stated in her bio and needs to be corrected. She is biracial half Jamacian and half East Indian. She affirmed her nationality when sworn into Congress as "Proud to be one of the first Indian American women to be serving in Congress" Now Kamala Harris identifies as Black but that is like Elizabeth Warren identifying as an American Indian. TooterTurtle2003 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

On a second look, I am seeing that the article said "Indian American" for a long time until it was modified yesterday.[38] I have changed it back to "Indian American" since that is how she identifies herself as also mentioned by this recent source. Zakaria1978 (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Race_(human_categorization) makes this discussion even more complicated. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, we are revisiting covered ground. Race is a social construct, imposed by society. Identity is what counts here. That is "African American" and "South Asian American". Clearly. Rklahn (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Social constructionism is an ideology and not one that most RSs reflect Anon0098 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a common criticism of social constructionism, but I don't think it's accurate. It's a sociological and information theory line of thought. Regardless, I don't think it changes my main point: We should be seeking identity here, not race or ancestry. Rklahn (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously there is a biological component to race, but in every way that is relevant, it is a social construct (and in this way, is related to identity). I agree with Rklahn that identity is what matters here. RedHotPear (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Zakaria1978 that we should use "Indian American". In the U.S., "Asian American" though it technically can include anyone whose ancestry originated on the Asian continent, tends to imply East Asian. "South Asian American", though also correct, is more complicated and a bit of a mouthful, and also not used quite as often as "Indian American". "Indian American is the more concise and precise term to use here. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Admins

Pinging admins @El C:, @RegentsPark:, @Vanamonde93:, @Doug Weller:, @Bishonen: Could you all please keep an eye on this page. The precise and NPOV terms are South Asian American and Asian American, not Indian American, whose issues are explained in Indian Americans#Terminology. Besides, as I have explained above, when we use the adjective "first," we are looking to apply it to the largest ambit of its use. She is the first Asian American presumptive VP nominee, not just the first South Asian American. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

First Black woman and first Asian-American. —valereee (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what will you wikilink "Black" to? If it is African American and I don't see any other link, WP:EASTEREGG will compel us to use "African American" instead, no matter what language newspapers use in order to be popular. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not an Easter egg. "Black" is legitimate, it is both an alternate term for and another word for African American (because the times are a-changing). But wait, User:Fowler&fowler; you didn't call on me, but I adminny too, though often ad minimum. What is this "language newspaper use in order to be popular"? It would be wise of you not to answer that, but to just give it some thought, because as it stands that statement doesn't make a damn bit of sense, and has more than a whiff of...well, it starts with an r. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It is an informal term, interleaved later, but not used in the first instance in the lead. There is good reason that the Barak Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Bunche, Thurgood Marshall , Carol Moseley Braun pages use African American. Sorry, about not calling on you. I forgot. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, Vanamonde93, sorry, but I wasn't feeling left out or anything--it was that as an admin I was trying to tell F&F that this "newspaper language" thing was not appropriate. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I almost wonder if (Aiyee) we need a section on her race/identity/ethnicity. I apologize to the entire world for America thinking this is necessary. —valereee (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear precedent here in the above "first" pages of distinguished African Americans. No need for a section. I submit that doing so, at least at this state, will become a form of devaluation of person on account of her gender, and ultimately of sexism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, so want to avoid a race/identity/ethnicity section, but I don't know what you're saying with clear precedent here in the above "first" pages of distinguished African Americans. Can you provide again, sorry. It's a really long discussion. —valereee (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Sorry, I just realized that you too are an admin. I was tired when I wrote what I wrote. What I meant was the pages: Barak Obama, Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Bunche, Thurgood Marshall , Carol Moseley Braun use "African American" the first time they refer to the subject's ethnicity in the lead; they might be later using "Black" as well. See also Colin Powell whose parents were Jamaican immigrants. The "no need for a section" remark was added later after I saw your post. I should have signed it separately, but I did not so it appears that it is one post. The precedent is only about "African American." I mean that if the Barak Obama page does not have a separate section about his ethnicity, despite the POV about it promoted in many places, there is no reason to start a new section about KH's ethnicity. It might be seen as a case of double standards, or rather of holding female candidates to a different standard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: I rather think Fowler pinged me and the others because we're admins who've dealt with the whole South Asian vs Indian mess before, and of course because he knows all of us also admin politically messy areas...Fowler&fowler I'm happy to keep an eye on this, but Valereee and Drmies' know what's what and have more experience in the AP2 morass than I do. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• @Vanamonde93: What is AP2? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler, AP2 is "American politics 2"—it refers to the topic area and the associated discretionary sanctions in effect on such pages. More details are listed and linked in the notice at the top of this talk page. czar 04:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your heartfelt apology, valereee, it really means a lot. Can we just finally establish a consensus one way or another? There are like 10 different headings under the talk page about this Anon0098 (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources seem to be mainly calling her Black and she calls herself Black:"I was born black and I’ll die black and I am proud of it. And I am not going to make any excuses for it, for anybody, because they don't understand.”[39]. She can still be listed as African-American as a category and on lists so far as I'm concerned, I don't think that the fact her ancestry doesn't seem to include American slaves precludes this although I know ADOS says it does. Sources also refer to her as "Indian American" - mainly without the hyphen and of course we do have an article Indian Americans. Doing a search it's a very common term. Doug Weller talk 06:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

One need not look any further than https://www.harris.senate.gov/about She calls herself "African-American" and "South Asian-American". Rklahn (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm requesting the admins to implement the consensus already achieved an earlier section, "Racial categorisation of Kamala Harris," (and already implemented in the FAQ (see its section above) which is to use African American and not Black, and South Asian American and not Indian American, and in the instance of using "first," to use the largest ambit of its use (in this instance "first Asian American" (not "first South Asian American") to be the presumptive nominee for Vice-President of a major party. I'm not asking for their views on these terms. They are welcome to add those to that section above if they so choose. There is pretty much nothing they will find in the sources that has not already been raked there. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I too, like Vanamonde93, prefer to leave this to editors more tuned to AP2. But, afaik, it is customary to use African American rather than Black as the primary identifier. Indian American, South Asian American, I'd go with whatever sources predominantly say (the NYT, and this is just one example, uses Indian American ([40]) but not sure if that's uniform across reliable sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reality overtakes our categories and processes here. It is not surprising that readers, editors, and our very system have a bit of a problem with this intersectionality. It's probably best to let the sources speak for themselves. There are a lot of "African-American" mentions in the sources, and to have that in the lead is not bad. Or, "African-American, descended from..." etc. (What it proves, of course, is that "African-American" is less a racial than a cultural category.) And to cite her, speaking of herself as "black", is justified and I would encourage it--as it happens, "Black" is taking over as the term of choice, and that's fine. (What is unfortunate is that the passage that Doug Weller cited has lowercase "b"; Reuters is a bit conservative, and this is their version of her speaking. The capital is important.) BTW I'm fine with F&F's request, right above this: use Afr-Am and S-A Am. There is consensus for this, it is well-sourced. I myself slightly favor "Black" in the lead, with a capital B, but I don't mind setting my personal things aside to help implement and maintain this consensus. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this page is overwhelmed with dozens of discussions on this same subject, I propose that any future such discussions be answered with "We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ." And move on. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended protection edit request on 12 August 2020

We have drifted from the identity consensus. In the first paragraph, please change "Asian American" to "South Asian–American". Rklahn (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Rklahn:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The senator is indeed South Asian American. Since they are a subcategory of Asian Americans, we should not change the lead. It is important to note that she is the first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate. Not just the first South Asian American, and not just the first Asian American woman, she is the "first Asian American" to be so chosen and so honored. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rklahn: The ambit has expanded. She is the first South Asian American in the Senate, but we are now talking about presumptive VP nominee. She is more than just the first SA-A, she is in fact the first Asian American (a larger category). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

P.I. Ellsworth There was consensus around identity on 10 August 2020 @ 14:34 (UTC) that lasted until 12 August 2020 @ 01:06 (UTC). The end of this consensus was driven, largely by Joe Biden's announcement that Sen. Harris will be nominated as the Democratic VP. The consensus should be treated as the status quo in the current discussion revisiting the identity consensus. And thats exactly what the current discussion does. It disrupts a thoughtfull and well discussed consensus. Rklahn (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the current lead (first African American and the first Asian American). This has been discussed and debated ad nauseum in multiple sections of this talk page, so feel free to start an RfC if you think it should be changed. - MrX 🖋 11:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I may. I think the change of the consensus was disruptive. Thanks. Rklahn (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. - MrX 🖋 11:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but this time around, the consensus was developed recently and was run rough shot over. It's a disruptive rehashing of points gone over already. It has no respect for the hard work of editors that spent a lot of time and effort sorting this out. Rklahn (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, Rklahn, you do see the the fact that nobody is arguing that Senator Harris is not South Asian American. The argument for using "Asian American" in the lead has to do with the largest group or groups to which the senator belongs. Since the senator is South Asian American, then there is no question that she is the first South Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate. She is also the first South Asian American woman to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate. No question. However, the largest group to which the senator belongs in this context is "Asian Americans". Since there have been no other Asian Americans who have ever been chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate, then wouldn't you agree that the senator is the first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Im not entirely sure this is a universally held view in the current discussion, but your point there remains valid. I do not think the Senator identifies as "Asian American", rather we should not be searching for some category beyond "South Asian American", because thats what her identify is. Rklahn (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether or not the senator "identifies" as any certain ancestral category. And I think it matters most that it causes so much contention among really good editors of this encyclopedia. So the entire thought that she is the very first whomever to receive the honor of being asked to run for the second highest office in the US should be stripped altogether from the lead. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So how do we describe Rachel Dolezal?

I don't think we have WP:CONSENSUS.

I think there is enough discussion of Harris' racial identity in WP:RSs that it deserves a paragraph of its own. The best way to resolve a hopeless disagreement is to acknowledge it and give both sides. --Nbauman (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There was consensus until somewhat recently. I tried with this edit to restore it. It should be "South Asian–American" in the absence of a new consensus, simply to restore the status quo, if not anything else. Ive been pretty clear on this position for a while. Heck, Ive been been quoted in the media on this. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/08/the-wikipedia-war-over-kamala-harris-race/615250/ Rklahn (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Cite for second Black woman and first South Asian-American Senator in history

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/11/look-senator-kamala-harris-joe-bidens-pick-vp/3350018001/ JTRH (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I favor the consensus reached in "Racial categorisation of Kamala Harris" which in this area is "African American." Rklahn (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I do too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Second Black woman and first South Asian-American" works for me. See details above. Stoney1976 (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• African-American vs. black --Grammarist
• Not all black people are African American. Here's the difference. --CBS News
• 'African-American' Becomes a Term for Debate --New York Times
• Why I'm Black, Not African American --Los Angeles Times
• 'An African American', or 'a black'? --Politico

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We are describing her as African-American and South Asian-American because that is the way she describes herself - at her Senate page and elsewhere. Please see the FAQ section at the top of the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My issue is that we are not describing her this way. We alternate between "Asian American" and "South Asian-American" rapidly. IMHO, it really should be "South Asian-American", and we should return to the consensus that said that. Rklahn (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

African American NOT.

For her race breakdown She is 50% Asian Indian 25% WHITE and 25% Black. She never was a descendant of black slaves brought to the United States. Both her parents were not Americans at the time of her birth as they were accepting money as foreign exchange students . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sen. Harris reasonably identifies as "African American" and "South Asian-Americana" in https://www.harris.senate.gov/about. Identity is what we should use, not ancestry or race. Rklahn (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Weird how nobody ever talks about Trump's degree of whiteness. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Her California birth certificate says Asian not BLACK.As she is 50 % Asian that is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe using a birth certificate as a source for identify is irrelevant. It does help to define her natural born citizenship and that she is over 25 yesrs of age, both useful in determining if one is qualified to be president. Sen. Harris is unquestionably "African American" and "South Asian-American", and you are just not going to find that on the birth certificate. Rklahn (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP, We cannot keep rehashing old arguments. Please scroll upstairs, and read them. There is a longstanding consensus about "African American." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

She is also the first South Asian American senator and VP nominee of a major party. Not only does she say it on her senate website, but also in her Independence Day message to India (August 15, 2020). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Also for the IP. There is effectively no difference between a descendant of black slaves brought to the United States and a descendant of black slaves brought to jamaica who is born in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, HiLo48 is correct. IP: please read Middle Passage, especially the sentence, "Traders from the Americas and Caribbean received the enslaved Africans." Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler is correct. RedHotPear (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

[sigh] Someone born in California with a Jamaican father has the agency to call themselves African-American because the term is broad enough to include people whose African ancestors were enslaved in the Carribbean (where trans-Atlantic chattle slavery was first established) and emigrated to America. Truth be told, this is why black people hate this term. It’s too politically correct. Trillfendi (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

They don't hate the term, only prefer not to use it in casual contexts (in part because it is a mouthful and formal). When they are petitioners in a lawsuit, they prefer "African American," at least in the first few paragraphs. This is much documented. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler -- I apologize for a bit of a tangent, but I can't resist. Your clause "[w]hen they are petitioners in a lawsuit" catches my eye, and I feel like I'm missing some sort of context. Could you point me to a source or just elucidate a bit further? I'd be grateful. Dumuzid (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I was assuming s/he was referring to it as an example of a more "formal" situation. Per WP:TONE, this encyclopedia would also be one of these situations. RedHotPear (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@RedHotPear:. Yes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m black... trust me, I know the idiosyncracies of why (most of us) don’t like being called African-American. Trillfendi (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: So what? One's own tradition, as someone said somewhere, is not a birthright; it has to be earned, repossessed. Thus far all you have produced is blather. 15:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Struck per admin advice at my user talk page. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

[deeper sigh] Get this, unsigned commenter, one black person can proudly call themselves African-American, another can wholeheartedly reject or despise the term. It is not mutually exclusive within this community. You’re not going to blacksplain to me. Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi:, but she is speaking for herself; you are speaking for "most of us," i.e. a community, and all you have for evidence is, "trust me." That does not help at all in this discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

she is speaking for herself Exactly. And we should let her speak for herself. It doesn't matter what we think she is or should be called; that is WP:Original research. She calls herself African American. And so do plenty of Reliable Sources. Case closed. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I should have been more precise. I mean if they are asked how they would like the group of black/Af-Am people to be referred to in a lawsuit, as petitioners, respondents, in briefs, etc (say, in the Supreme Court), or in any formal submission (say, to the Congress), they prefer the use of the term "African-American." In intimate or casual settings, captured, for example, in a novel, they prefer the reference to be "black." Novelists are likely sensitive to that preference. I haven't checked, but I'd bet Toni Morrison's Beloved very likely does not have the expression "African American," but does have "black." I'll look for references next. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Examples:

• page 1, sentence 2
• Title page
• Title page

Granted these are examples, not a proof. I will look for sources next. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source, summing up the result of a few surveys, page 8. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the references, and I don't really disagree. The basic gist aligns with my own anecdotal experience. It's just that the lawsuit context struck me as interestingly specific. I would only caution that the language of court decisions (and even pleadings!) is not necessarily a good proxy for self-identification. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Thanks. My remarks were not an argument for KH's self-identification, but meant to show that black people's response to the term "African American" was more nuanced than (informal) "hate" (as claimed in the post I was responding to), that the context of use, the register, played a role. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• It is at least a little bit funny that we get any person of color in a central political position, and we immediately get two weeks of debate that they're 10% Filipino, 12% French, 22.5% panda, and 4% El Camino. GMG^talk 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This non-American, from a country where the word "race" has no legal meaning and is slowly disappearing from the language, actually finds it quite sad that the US still has so many people so obsessed with peoples' ancestry, especially when it's not (supposedly) pure white. I also find it unbelievably confusing. But I do know that there is effectively no difference between having black African ancestry via Jamaica and having black African ancestors who were brought direct to the US. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw a clip of Trevor Noah talking about the issue and he had probably the best formulation I've heard. In America, no one ever questions blackness in failure. There is no like...crime where the police are on the lookout for a suspect who's half black and Japanese on their father's side, but also lived in Vancouver for three years. But in success, when you get Tiger Woods, Obama, or Harris, suddenly everyone has an Ancestry.com account. Explicitly people are looking for nuance, but implicitly people are looking to justify the national intuition that blackness and success can't coexist, therefore cognitive dissonance necessitates it be more complicated than that. GMG^talk 12:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, so true. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of Trevor Noah, remember when France won the World Cup and he was like, “this is a victory for Africa!” because of the likes of Mbappé. Long story short, the Gauls got mad and said it was a double standard. The same applies here. Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: And yet he seems to have remained fairly consistent on the principle. GMG^talk 21:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s a crying shame that she has to be subjected to the “she isn’t really one of us” (even coming from whites who feel the authority to speak on the subject) bullshit while the Indian community in America is crying tears of joy that there has now been a VP nomination speech with the Tamil language. Trillfendi (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Folks, lets not complicate the discussion. Much as I enjoy Trevor Noah, and talented as he is, he is clueless about French culture, and very likely about American. There is a reason why people from French ex-colonies can speak much better French than people from British ex-colonies can speak English, including South Africans. It is because language has always been a much greater marker of Frenchness than color, more emphasized in contrast, for example, to the British in Africa and Asia. I think Noah misunderstood the point of the ambassador's letter. It was not about countering the French Fascists.

Remember also folks, it is not just race, it is gender as well. Barack Obama himself benefitted from widespread sexism in the 2008 primaries which very likely led to many male white Democrats preferring him (despite reservations about voting for a black man) to Hilary Clinton (on account of greater reservations about voting for a woman, regardless of color). In that sense, KH has a double-whammy of burden: color and gender, perhaps even a triple-whammy if you add to that the suspicion—which will be kindled again and again—of her not being American enough. We are not going to stop manifestations of all three appearing in talk page discussion, or in article edits; we have to keep calm and carry on, citing consensus and pointing to the previous discussion, preventing POV-pushers from rehashing old arguments. The consensus here is: KH is African American and South Asian American. If people want to rehash the arguments, they should go to that discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

IF Her birth certificate says Asian. Your mother is Asian she gave birth to you and had Asian put on the birth certificate it Quite clear she is Asian. IF she would say she is the first Asian VP selected that would be correct. If she said she was the first black woman elected that would be correct. If she says she is the first African American elected that would be incorrect. As her American roots start at her birth. She has no family history of America what so ever prior to her birth. Mother from India Father Jamaican . Nobody in Jamaica calls themselves African Jamaican. If you called one African Jamaican they would think you are crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk • contribs)

I don't know, I think the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all speak understandable, if unlovely, English. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

White settler colonies are different from colonies in which nonwhite people were colonized by whites. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

PS @Dumuzid: I did not acknowledge the humor in your post because I thought it was the end (somewhat uncharacteristic I'll grant) of the previous unsigned post, dabbed by the bot only now.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Though Trevor Noah, like John Oliver, is not an American citizen at this time, he speaks on political issues as if he is American, but from a foreign perspective. Ultimately, it’s the “real news” taken with a grain of salt. He still gave a take on blackness related to nationality, even if others like the French Ambassador (who isn’t a black person) debated it as only an American ideology. Anyone with the most basic aspect of common sense knows Jamaicans are black, so African-Jamaican would be redundant... but not all Americans are black, hence the hyphen. Hence the duality. What about Chinese Jamaicans? You run into the same issue. Trillfendi (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Americans keel over in laughter when they hear the French accent being mimicked by people who can't speak French. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It is pointless to argue about this. Apparently the claim is that no matter how Black an American is, no matter how much African ancestry they have, they don't qualify as African American unless they are descended from American slaves. And yet you will notice that the Barack Obama article says right in the second sentence, "Barack Obama was the first African American president of the United States." And rightly so: he is an American with African ancestry, but without any slavery connection. We don't quibble about people's right to call themselves Italian-American if they have Italian ancestry, or Chinese-American if they have Chinese ancestry. We don't say you can't call yourself Italian American unless you can document that your parents came through Ellis Island. The consensus here is that if a person identifies as African American as Kamala does, and clearly is an American with African ancestry as she is, there is no reason for us not to call them what they are. IMO from now on we should shut down such repetitive and time-wasting discussions with "see consensus above". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree with admin MelanieN. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but please note that at these pages I edit as just a regular editor - not as an administrator because I am WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The sheer volume of ungrounded complaints about her race/ethnicity/identity has been crowding out potentially more constructive discussions on this page. RedHotPear (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is quite tiring. I thought that this had already been resolved. ~ HAL333 01:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is there any chance this thread will lead to an article change, or can I archive it? EEng 06:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think archive everything about race except the formal RfCs, and then start closing any new discussions and directing the poster to the RfCs. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Distinguish hatnote with wrestler Kamala

I've removed the distinguish hatnote with the wrestler Kamala (wrestler). My reasoning is that Kamala Harris is far more famous than the wrestler, and even though their names are similar, I believe it would be very unlikely anyone would mix the two up. I don't think it's necessary here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

FuriouslySerene, I've been thinking about that, too. I don't disagree. The wrestler isn't known as Kamala Harris. They're known as Kamala. Just so happens their legal name is Harris. I'm not sure it's enough for a hat. If necessary we could direct people to a dab, maybe? —valereee (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Since Kamala is its own dab page, I agree with removing the hatnote. If Kamala redirected here, we should keep it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I was considering doing it myself. - MrX 🖋 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Back again. Doesn't anyone read talk pages anymore? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, it may be hard to find this section sandwiched between sections created by people who don't understand that most Jamaicans are of African origin. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sort of on-the-fence about it. It could go either way. However, some headlines refer to him as James "Kamala" Harris (so you could say that he too could be called "Kamala Harris"). ...Also, one user (User:Byzantine Scholar) changed the image on both Kamala Harris templates to that of the other Kamala (wrestler), which they said was in protest of the hatnote's removal. I've since reverted those edits (and asked them on their talk page not to vandalize again), but just thought you should know. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please restore the link. Kamala (wrestler) received 280,000 recent views. Removing him is ridiculous and potentially racist. It is certainly disrespectful of someone who recently died.Byzantine Scholar (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no likelihood that these people would be confused with each other. - MrX 🖋 00:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you mean by "potentially racist" but the Kamala Harris page gets about 30 times more views than the Kamala wrestler page. So I'm unsure why the hatnote isn't on the Kamala wrestling page. But I'm quite certain nobody is getting the two confused. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favour of restoring it. It's not about the two people being confused for one another, of course they wouldn't. But the wrestler Kamala's real last name was Harris, it would be easy to make the mistake of thinking either their stage name or real name was "Kamala Harris" and looking for them at this title. Besides, hatnotes are cheap. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see this earlier. This should be restored; it's not like there are that many people named "Kamala Harris," and she isn't on the disambiguation page "Kamala." Nuke (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

she isn't on the disambiguation page "Kamala." What are you talking about? She's right there. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unless Kamala becomes a redirect to Kamala Harris instead of a disambig page, then I don't see the point of a hatnote. NO ONE is going to type "Kamala Harris" into the Search box hoping to get the wrestler, though it's possible someone typing "Kamala" alone is doing so. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Kamala Harris and James Harris known as Kamala are completely differently, and I don't believe anyone would mistake the two. Oppose hatnote based on that, and also for the fact that Kamala doesn't redirect to Kamala Harris (different story if it did). I would note that GhostOfDanGurney has reverted a revert of the hatnote, violating the WP:1RR discretionary sanctions in place. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support hatnote based on reasons on my last revert. Two subjects with similar names, both involved in current events. The hatnote doesn't have to be permanant, you know? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's curious how nobody added it to the Kamala wrestler page then. Considering this page averages 30 times the views, and with the recent news the imbalance will grow to thousands of times more views, it's far more likely that someone looking for Kamala Harris would go to the wrestler's page. Frankly this hatnote seems to diminish her. I really don't get what it serves. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

People were doing it there since he died, too. Today, some even changed the name and infobox picture to hers, bunch of nuts. None of his contributors care to emphasize the pronunciation (kuh-MAUL-ah) or debate his ethnicities, though, so yeah, way different story. (And as a biased asshole, I should point out that while the latter Kamala is the hotter ticket now, the former has more global syndication hours in the bank, and got an article over seven months sooner in '05.) InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed the hatnote again. Consensus appears to be not to have it, with minimal opposition saying we should keep it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'South Asian-American' or 'Asian-American' in the lead?

Should Kamala Harris be described as 'South Asian-American' or 'Asian-American' in the lead? - MrX 🖋 11:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• Looks like she identifies with the South label [41]. RS are mixed, but at a glance it looks like the majority use "South Asian American"[42][43][44][45]. So probably "South Asian American". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Per the same sources I posted below (Britannica, NYT), I'm not sure why we just wouldn't say Indian. I struggle to imagine where we would identify someone as "North American" rather than Canadian, or "Eastern European" instead of French. I mean, she's not Laotian or Bhutanese. So I'm not sure why we would prefer the more vague term that introduces more ambiguity than is necessary. GMG^talk 12:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Asian-American" but only if as worded.

Both terms have previously garnered a somewhat limited consensus on this talk page at different times recently with a clear preference for either over alternatives. I notice that, currently, the lede inconsistently adopts usage contradicting that later in the WP:LEAD section and in the 2010 election section, within three otherwise verbatim sentences.

In that textual context—of vice-presidential firsts—but never otherwise, I'm happy for us to go with the attributive (hyphenated) form "Asian American"—the lede (if not lead) status quo—as the broadest term used by the reliable sources to describe Harris's ancestral connection to that continent.

I doubt WP:BLP rules on self-identity wholly apply here. As it stands, the article never either purports to describe her self-identified 'race' ("black"/"African-American" ?/"Indo-American"??), nor ethnic origin (Afro-Jamaican/Tamil), within the lead section, let alone lede (perhaps we should; that's a whole 'nother RFC). We, merely, state where she is on chronological lists in reliable sources that describe vice presidential nominees as reasonably somehow belonging to various groups based loosely on ancestral origins.

In an academic or encyclopedic (usually any non-colloquial) register (sociolinguistics) of either Commonwealth or American English varieties, the definition of "Asian Americans" subsumes any sense of "South Asian Americans", which, as an aside, itself subsumes any sense of "Indo-" or "Indian Americans" (cf. the ambiguous "American Indian").

On the basis of Occum's Razor and the bizarre brevity deficit of listing both (or all three), I suggest we replicate the lede wording (previously proposed on this talk page and then implemented) to both later paragraphs.

Llew Mawr (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Neither IMO, since she is of mixed "Tamil and Afro-Jamaican descent", why not simply say that more specific descriptor and not spend time deciding which geographical/ethnic labels fit best.Pincrete (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• She's from California. I don't really see why she can't just be a "Californian American". I found this RFC by looking at the talk page after seeing she is ".. the first South Asian woman..." without even mentioning that she's American. I think that is wrong. If her ethnic ancestry is important, it appears that South Asian American or Tamil American is the most precise, as her mother's Tamil origins are well sourced, and neither parent is identified as having ancestors from other parts of Asia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• If it must be mentioned, then Asian American is the largest group to which the senator belongs in this context, and is the most concise description that is still correct. Leads are meant to be more concise than precise. Since there have never been any other Asian Americans to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate, then it is most correct and concise to say that the senator is the first Asian American to be so honored. I am leaning toward not mentioning her ancestral categories at all in the lead. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I believe we should not refer to her race or ethnicity in the lead at all. We can discuss her descent in the section on her early life. If we feel we must categorize her in the lead, we need to use what she calls herself, which is African-American and South Asian-American. —valereee (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have made this same point elsewhere, and absolutely agree. Rklahn (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• To make it clear, we are not talking about the lead SENTENCE, right? We are talking about later in the lead, where she is described as the "first" of a particular group to do something. It has been decided, over and over at this page, to use "South Asian-American" because that is how she describes herself, for example on her Senate page. Can we please stop rehashing this? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN and Valereee and Rklahn that this is the consensus, and there is no reason to keep rehashing it. She is an American lawyer and politician, but she is the second African-American woman and the first South Asian-American to serve in the US Senate; the California Department of Justice, similarly, uses "South Asian-American" when describing her barrier-breaking accomplishments as District Attorney of SF and the 32nd AG of California. As for the presumptive VP nominee, she is both the first African American woman and the first Asian American (a super-category of South Asian American) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Ive also tried to make this point as well, and also wholeheartedly agree with it. I also agree with Fowler&fowler comments on this as well. Rklahn (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone has changed "first South Asian American" in the US Senate to "first Asian American." That is incorrect, as she is the eighth Asian-American (jointly with Tammy Duckworth). Asian American applies only to first presumptive VP nominee. Please correct this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Already fixed by User:Valereee. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I corrected and warned the editor, who is experienced enough to have known better. —valereee (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Echoing Paine Ellsworth on using the largest group when it comes to "firsts." She should be described as the first Asian American to be selected as the vice presidential running mate of a major party's nominee, and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate. RedHotPear (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Indian American but not "South Asian American", given consistency and her own self-identification.

Kamala Harris in her own book mentions her husband Douglas Emhoff and writes:

Doug and I were married on Friday, August 22, 2014, in an intimate ceremony with the people we loved. Maya officiated; Meena read from Maya Angelou. In keeping with our respective Indian and Jewish heritage, I put a flower garland around Doug's neck..."[46]

She is very clear about her "Indian" heritage, so why we shouldn't be? In the multiple interviews of Kamala Harris[47][48] she is absolutely clear about her self-identification as "Indian-American". Reliable sources refer to her as "Indian American" more than hundreds of times than "South Asian American". Unless we are seriously questioning the reliability of CNN[49], Washington Post[50], Politico[51], LA Times[52] US News,[53] ABC News,[54] The Hill,[55] and thousands of other WP:RS, which also identify her as "Indian American" but not "South Asian American", I clearly don't see a single reason to pick "South Asian" (which can also mean Pakistani, Afghanistani, Bangladeshi) than more specific and much more common term "Indian". There is no need for this page to be different than the rest of the Wikipedia or the world. SignificantPBD (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Most of the sources say Indian American in comparison to South Asian American. The article since 2017 used the term "Indian American"[56] until it was changed this month. Like I said above too, Indian American should be our choice over South Asian American because we need to be more specific about her ancestry. Her mother is from India, and we haven't seen if her close relatives come from any other region from South Asia. BBC's recent article about her also discusses that she has identified her Indian ancestry.[57] Though I am not opposed to using "Asian American", I especially prefer it when it is completely justifiable for the sentences such as "first Asian American to be chosen as the running mate of a major party's presidential candidate", but lede needs to be specific about her Indian ancestry in order to avoid any confusion. Zakaria1978 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't use "Indian American" because it is unclear; it could easily be taken to mean Native American ancestry. "South Asian" is not ambiguous. Yes, it refers to the whole Indian subcontinent, including several other countries besides India. But we commonly say "Asian" when referring to people of Chinese, Japanese, Thai, and many other ancestries. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm totally convinced that "Indian American" is really all that confusing. Yeah, it's easy to confuse Indian with NDN. But you're going to get some pretty strange looks if you try to refer to someone from the Navajo Nation as an Indian American. GMG^talk 18:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment with respect to everyone, there are two distinct questions here, the first of which is how to describe her ethnicity/heritage. IMO it makes sense to describe the most specific RS-ed info, which is she is mixed Indian-Tamil/Afro-Jamaican descent. The other implicit question here is which VP 'first' tick-boxes does she hit, which makes sense to be as generic as possible ie first "Asian VP candidate", first "African-American " VP candidate. Pincrete (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Why can’t we just come out and say Indian? While we’re being intentionally broad, we may as well call her an Earthling too Anon0098 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

She would not be the first "Earthling" to do anything notable. RedHotPear (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Birtherism 2.0

Welp, it looks like birtherism is back in fashion and Harris is its the new target.

• THE KAMALA HARRIS BIRTHER BULLS--T IS ALREADY TAKING OFF
• Kamala Harris Birtherism is Happening. Already. Seriously.
• Trump campaign adviser floats false birther theory about Kamala Harris' eligibility for vice president
• Trump campaign attack on Kamala Harris’s citizenship is right out of the birtherism playbook

We will probably have to include a mention of this in the article, but the real concern is that we're going to get some POV pushers trying to use our article to legitimize this.- MrX 🖋 22:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We've already had it. Acroterion (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I am glad there are people of good faith here, because that "yeah, well, that's just the Supreme Court's view" style of argumentation makes me irrational very quickly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Have to see if it lives past the 24 hour news cycle. TFD (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories That was quick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I was afraid of this - after Trump tweeted about it (without QUITE coming out and endorsing it). Somebody should remind him that his mother was an immigrant. And we should keep it out of this article - not even to debunk it - unless it becomes a more prominent issue. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheezits frickin' cripes. This on top of the massive fraudulent mail-in voting. Between now and November if I do anything stupid, just assume I'm drunk. —valereee (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about writing an article about the whole mail-in voting subject - the pandemic making it more necessary, Trump's constant claims that it is all wrong and fraudulent, his postmaster's attempt to make sure ballots won't be handled timely, etc. In fact I am working on a draft. Any idea what it could be called? "Mail balloting in the 2020 United States presidential election" seems clunky. Or should it be about balloting in general? Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

^ Like this idea. What about something more general like “2020 USPS funding controversy” ? KidAd (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've already added a section to the article United States Postal Service. IMO it was much needed; I see that daily page views have just increased from the low hundreds to a thousand or more. People are trying to find out what all the hoo-rah is about. But I'd rather focus on the absentee ballot issue rather than the money. I wonder if we can get anything about this into Donald Trump? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely think a section on Birtherism is inappropriate. It's in the realm of journalism, and bad journalism at that. Sen. Harris is unquestionably a US Citizen, over 35, with at least 14 years residence. Rklahn (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Somebody added a sentence about this to the article, right after the "Biden chose her" sentence. I removed it. No way is this the most important thing to say about the aftermath of her selection. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Khive?

I think it should be mentioned in the article, but any suggestions on where to locate it in the article? Given that it that emerged over time, I'm not sure exactly what period to put it in. It could be mentioned in the presidential campaign article, too. Blythwood (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Blythwood, Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It hasn't received much coverage in the press, but I think it could be mentioned briefly under 'Presidential campaign'. Here is a recent source that also ties it to her VP candidacy.[58] Here are some other sources: [59][60] - MrX 🖋 11:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• For those that also have no idea what we're talking about, this is apparently "K-Hive", which is apparently a reference to the grassroots organization left over from her presidential bid. GMG^talk 12:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Huh...those sources would support an article. For sure we have to cover it here. —valereee (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Turned the redirect into a stub at KHive. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  And OMG there's already a shitstorm... —valereee (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

2003 DA Campaign

Last sentence in the section: "…becoming California's first American district attorney of color." What does this even mean?! Did California previously have a NON-American disrict attorney of color? I attempted to view the citation, but there's no link. Chachap (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Jamal Trulove

I am requesting that the following be added to the end of the District Attorney of San Francisco (2004–2011) > Public safety > Violent crimes section. The case constitutes an aspect of Harris' career that is both relevant and notable, having been mentioned by CBS News in its "Crash course on Kamala Harris".[61]

In October 2008, Jamal Trulove was arrested by police for the 2007 murder of his friend Seu Kuka. He was convicted in 2010 and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. Harris' office provided the alleged eyewitness with $60,000 in housing and relocation benefits and publicly credited the "brave eyewitness who stepped forward from the crowd" for the conviction. After serving more than six years, Trulove was acquitted in a retrial in 2015. Kamala Harris did not personally prosecute the case, and an anonymous San Francisco District Attorney's Office employee claimed the approval process was a rubber stamp. Jamal Trulove claimed that Kamala Harris was present at both the hearings announcing the verdict and sentencing. In March 2019, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to approve a $13.1 million settlement over the case. The Associated Press reported that a federal jury had found the detectives showed an eyewitness a single photo of Jamal Truman, rather than using a "lineup", and the detectives were aware of another suspect they did not investigate, among other failures.

References

2601:482:8000:C470:48F9:A4C1:FFE3:9352 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, and thank you. I'll remember its proper usage next time. 2601:482:8000:C470:48F9:A4C1:FFE3:9352 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone had time to look it over yet? Typeprint (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Typeprint, the story is certainly true, if that's what you're asking. I just this afternoon had created the article Jamal Trulove. Are you asking whether it's worth including in this article? —valereee (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll weigh in. Given the size of this article and the tenuous ties to Harris herself, I don't think this should be included. The most involvement that the proposed language says that she had is that she was present in court twice. It doesn't attribute the bad line up to her or say that she ignored the other suspect. Knope7 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking if it belongs in the article. The most direct evidence of its relevance is the CBS citation. It really depends on whether or not the activities taking place under someone's management reflect on that person's biography in a "the buck stops here" sense. If the standard is that Harris herself had to be clearly involved in the case rather than merely signing off on it, then we should also save space under the same heading by also removing the "In April 2005" and "In May 2005" paragraphs. I don't feel strongly either way, as long as it's not left inconsistent. Typeprint (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The CBS article doesn't really explain Harris' role. I removed the April 2005 paragraph as it had one source that didn't mention Harris at all. The May 2005 paragraph is better sourced so I will leave it for now. I am against including every major case during her tenure where it is unclear what her involvement is unless there is some larger policy argument. For example, the paragraph I removed talked about a case applying the three strikes law. If instead a paragraph talked about a pattern of how her office prosecuted those cases that showed she had steered policy, I might feel differently (although it should still focus on her role shaping the policy, not every detail of one case). This article has long had a problem with getting dragged into the minutia of every controversial case her office touched. One particular problem is also that where there are allegations that the police, crime labs, or anyone outside of her office mishandled a case, somehow that gets attributed to Harris as well. This a biographical article and the more removed Harris is from an incident, the less inclined I am to think it should be included. Knope7 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this thread ready for archiving? EEng 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, so ordered. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Application of WP:JOBTITLES

Which is correct?:
"She was announced as former vice president Joe Biden's running mate...." or
"She was announced as the former Vice President Joe Biden's running mate..."
GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say "She was announced as Vice President Joe Biden's running mate", but I would say "She was announced as former vice president Joe Biden's running mate". The difference in the second example is that "former" modifies "vice president", making "vice president" a descriptor, not a title. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I must disagree, as vice president in this case would only be used correctly, as "the former vice president, Joe Biden". GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The relevant example from MOS:JOBTITLES is "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972". "US" modifies "president" even though "president" immediately precedes "Richard Nixon". In our case "former" modifies "vice president", so it's lowercase for us, too. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to see what others have to say on this. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES is clear in this instance, but I'm curious how others will chime in. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like it or agree with it, but that is the MOS rule, per a discussion within the last couple of years. It's Vice President Biden, but former vice president Biden. And she is nominated to be vice president of the United States. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Ayer. The "US president Richard Nixon" example was included specifically to forestall arguments like the current one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, that should be changed at WP:JOBTITLES, then. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish, would you do me a favor and check whether whatever needed getting done got done, so this thread can be archived? EEng 17:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not SMcCandlish, but yes, it got done. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 17:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe done, but trying to push it on all the articles-in-question, will prove not so easy. Nor should it be. WP:JOBTITLES has become a monster, that's being forced on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

NYT on Harris and police miscounduct

Here's the New York Times story about Harris' record on police misconduct:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/us/politics/kamala-harris-policing.html

‘Top Cop’ Kamala Harris’s Record of Policing the Police

By Danny Hakim, Stephanie Saul and Richard A. Oppel Jr.

New York Times

Aug. 9, 2020

According to the New York Times, Harris "struggled to reconcile her calls for reform with her record on these same issues during a long career in law enforcement...."

Since becoming California’s attorney general in 2011, she had largely avoided intervening in cases involving killings by the police. Protesters in Oakland distributed fliers saying: “Tell California Attorney General Kamala Harris to prosecute killer cops! It’s her job!”

After the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., she was asked to investigate a series of police shootings in San Francisco, where she had previously been district attorney. She said it was not her job.

Critics said she was "taking cautious, incremental action on criminal justice and, more often than not, yielding to the status quo."

In 2009, she wrote that she would like to see more police officers on the street. After the George Floyd killing, she said that the idea that putting more police on the street is "just wrong."

In 2007, she did not support legislation granting public access to disciplinary hearings. Anaheim mayor Tom Tait said that in July 2012 after an unarmed 25-year-old, Manuel Diaz, was fatally shot in the back by the police, there were hundreds of protesters at City Hall. He asked Harris to conduct an outside investigation, and she refused.

In 2015, Harris refused to endorse AB-86, which would have required her office to appoint special prosecutors to examine fatal police shootings.

--Nbauman (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

What improvements are you recommending for the article? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would revise the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Law_enforcement_accountability section, replacing the trivial details with a summary of the substantive issues, which the NYT story does a good job of outlining.

For example, I would cut the discussion of "Principled Policing: Procedural Justice and Implicit Bias," because there have been many programs like this, and when they have been studied, they don't affect meaningful outcomes -- specifically unnecessary civilian deaths, civilian complaints, and abuses. The only evaluation they have is subjective evaluations by participants [62] The KQED stories cited are just official statements, with no critics or evaluation. What do WP:RSs say about the program?

I would search the Washington Post, since they have good coverage of criminology, especially by Radley Balko.

There's too much detail about Rackauckas, etc., and it should be shorted to focus on Harris' role.

It should also address for example whether WP:RSs say that Harris' statistics effort was effective or ineffective. ProPublica tried to collect police statistics around the country, and found that they were inadequate. Is this true of California?

Generally, the NYT story is useful because it shows you how to write about police misconduct. If I were an editor assigning a writer to do a story about Kamela Harris and police misconduct, I would hand them this story and say, "Use this as a model."

I am generally reluctant to work on Wikipedia pages about popular figures, because there are usually editors who have strong feelings, and have effectively owned the pages. I'd rather find out first whether it's possible to to edit the Wikipedia page without an edit war. I don't feel like spending an afternoon writing a balanced, objective WP:NPOV story only to have an editor revert everything and replace it with the original press releases. --Nbauman (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, also, we're not a newspaper. What the NYT finds appropriate for an article isn't necessarily what Wikipedia finds appropriate for an article. And if you want to make large changes, run them by the talk page first -- especially if they're likely to be contentious, as you know these will be. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I did, run them through the talk page.

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, but since our criterion for including content is WP:RS, and most newspapers are WP:RS, we will have a tendency to follow the judgment of newspapers in most current events. --Nbauman (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like nobody's opposed, although toward the idea in general rather than a specific implementation, if you're still undecided on whether to spend time on this. 2601:482:8000:C470:B531:76E7:C82E:7E0F (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should delve into much detail based on one one newspaper article, but if you want to pursue this, it would be helpful to see a draft. Of course you could also edit it directly into the article, but if it's a major revision, you run the risk of being reverted. - MrX 🖋 11:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

wikilink "Willie Brown" on the first mention, please. Drsruli (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning past controversy would not be inappropriate given the upcoming election, just make sure it is carefully worded. Dig _deeper ^talk 18:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(I just meant fix the article so that his name is linked with his page.) (Now fixed; thanks.) Drsruli (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Good, balanced story with interviews giving arguments on both sides. You can also look up the op-eds they refer to. This is a video with a transcript.

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/8/13/kamala_harris_prosecutorial_record_2020_election

Was Kamala Harris a Progressive Prosecutor? A Look at Her Time as a DA & California Attorney General

Amy Goodman, Nermeen Shaikh

Democracy Now!

Aug 13, 2020

Quote: As Senator Kamala Harris makes history as the first woman of color on a major party ticket, we host a debate on her record as California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney, when she proudly billed herself as “top cop” and called for more cops on the street. San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Niki Solis says Harris was the state’s most progressive DA and advocated for “so many policies and so many alternatives to incarceration.” Law professor Lara Bazelon says Harris was on the wrong side of history for often opposing criminal justice reform, though her record did change as a senator. “Her office fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that in some cases kept innocent people in prison,” Bazelon says.

"I worked with Kamala Harris. She was the most progressive DA in California"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/10/kamala-harris-progressive-pioneer-san-francisco-da-column/3334668001/

"Kamala Harris Was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

--Nbauman (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this issue still live? EEng 01:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on WP:WEIGHT, yes. There are lots of recent articles evaluating her history as a prosecutor. --Nbauman (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a pair of articles from Jacobin. The print version, and the author Branko Marcetic, are trying to be critical but also fair to Harris, and give her credit for her accomplishments -- from a left perspective. The video, and the interviewer Ariella Thornhill, are a bit more critical, but also fair.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/08/joe-biden-kamala-harris-vice-president-neoliberalism

Joe Biden Has Found His Neoliberal Match in Kamala Harris

BY BRANKO MARCETIC

Jacobin

08.12.2020

Far from the “progressive prosecutor” Harris has been masquerading as since angling for a 2020 run, her record bears no resemblance to figures who might actually fit that description, like Larry Krasner or Keith Ellison. Even in a party that embraced Biden- and Clinton-style tough-on-crime policies, Harris stands out for her cruelty: she fought to keep innocent people in jail, blocked payouts to the wrongfully convicted, argued for keeping non-violent offenders in jail as a source of cheap labor, withheld evidence that could have freed numerous prisoners, tried to dismiss a suit to end solitary confinement in California, and denied gender reassignment surgery to trans inmates. A recent report detailed how Harris risked being held in contempt of court for resisting a court order to release non-violent prisoners, which one law professor compared to Southern resistance to 1950s desegregation orders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1cdPucyg3E

Corporate America's New Favorite VP Nom: Kamala Harris

Ariella Thornhill

Aug 17, 2020

Jacobin Magazine

Joining us tonight is Branko Marcetic, Jacobin staff writer and the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden, to talk about Joe Biden's decision to pick Senator Kamala Harris for Vice President. From her career-long pursuit of right-wing goals to her flexibility with the truth, the two are remarkably similar politicians.

--Nbauman (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• This has been open two weeks and I'm still not seeing anything concrete about improving the article. EEng 04:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, not even sure what it's asking for. Archive. —valereee (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  What am I, your archive lackey? "Archive this! Archive that! <snaps fingers> Hop to it!" EEng 01:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Firsts, seconds, thirds

Redundancy

I do not dispute the accuracy of the following two quotations in the lede section:

(1) "California's third female senator as well as the second African-American woman, and the first South Asian American, to serve in the United States Senate."

(2) "first African-American, the first Asian-American, and the third female vice presidential running mate on a major party ticket"

...but I believe the redundant mention of her ethnicity/heritage is...redundant. It strikes me as overkill. The first quotation establishes her race/ethnicity/heritage. It need not be repeated in the second quotation. I propose the first quoted text remain as is, and the second be changed to: "the third female vice presidential running mate on a major party ticket" (dropping repetition of race/ethnicity/heritage). DonFB (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

They're two separate sets of facts, one about the senate and another about the vice-presidential run, so i wouldn't exactly call them redundant to each other. Now saying that, there is a lot of race-related facts in the lede, and maybe we do need to have a discussion about the weight given in RS to Harris' race when describing her. Zindor (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to mention when she was second or third, especially when talking about California senators rather than senators in general. TFD (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The second or third is about senators in general; it isn't phrased correctly. I should be: "the second African-American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate, as well as California's third female senator." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were both elected California senators and served for about 30 years each until Harris replaced Boxer. That makes her third in California. But there are other female senators such as Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kristen Gillibrand, while Hillary Clinton was also a female senator. TFD (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. There is no reason to single out California. I'm not sure who added it. It wasn't there before the page was engulfed by the VP running mate news. Perhaps the source (which might have been from California) stated that and someone paraphrased it diligently. Happy to remove. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The needless repetition of "African-American" and "South Asian American"/"Asian-American" remains. The lede takes note that she is the "second" African American woman elected to the Senate. A worthy accomplishment, certainly, but will the next such woman be named as "the third..." and the one after that "the fourth"? I believe that stating "the second" is unnecessary in the lede, because it's a justification for one of the repeated descriptions of her as African American. Therefore, I now propose that her election to the Senate OMIT all reference to her race/ethnicity/heritage/gender, and that those monikers be applied ONLY to her selection to the Biden ticket, because in that arena, she is truly first, excepting gender. DonFB (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The election to the senate is her own achievement. Carol Moseley Braun, the first AfAm senator served more than 20 years ago. The selection as a running mate is Joe Biden's choice, based on his assessment of her appropriateness for that position. (And he was dawdling, dithering, creating the perception that a former national security advisor, a US House representative, a governor, a mayor were all coequals.) It will remain secondary to her US Senate achievement until such time as she becomes VP if she does. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with F&F that her being the "second African-American woman and the first South Asian American" to serve as U.S. Senator should not be removed. The removal of "California's third female senator" is okay because it is California-specific and does not merit a mention in the lead. RedHotPear (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RedHotPear.67.252.46.102 (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s two different accomplishments involving the same thing: heritage. If you want overkill of so-called identity politics, see here. Trillfendi (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Shaky English in lede

It says:

She is the first African-American, the first Asian-American, and the third female vice presidential running mate on a major party ticket after Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

The structure of this sentence is: "She is the <x-ranked> running mate after Ferraro and Palin." There are two problems here:

• "I'm the first conqueror of the Matterhorn after Whoever" actually means that I'm not the first conqueror at all; only the first relative to some previous event. But with respect to being African-American and Asian-American, she is absolutely the first.
• Moreover, the contraction of the two firsts with the statement about being female means implicitly that already Ferraro and Palin were African-Americans and Asian-Americans before her - which is obviously wrong.

I would therefore suggest to rewrite this as

She is the first African-American and the first Asian-American vice presidential running mate, and the third female one on a major party ticket after Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

--User:Haraldmmueller 08:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should reinstate the original phrasing which had no mention of the third female. As someone had observed at that time, "Up to what rank is notable, fourth, fifth, ...?" Besides, the third after two losing candidates—the first forgotten, the second a laughing stock—can be interpreted to be encyclopedically diminishing, insinuating that her prospects could be like theirs. At the very least, "after ... in 2008" should be removed. After all, we are not saying earlier, "the second African American senator after Carol Mosley Braun." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• First, no we do not need trivia about Sarah Palin in the lead. To whoever is reinserting that, please stop. Second, despite the fact that someone decided to pointily insert three references into the lead to justify this bit in particular, it's still not compliant with WP:LEAD. We do not start with information we want in the lead, copy and paste it in the body for shits and giggles, and justify it with ref bombing in the lead to references that aren't even used in the body at all. GMG^talk 14:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the version ([63]) after GMG's edit. RedHotPear (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Would be fine with me, although I dont see anything wrong with adding Ferraro and Palin - WP's job is to convey information, and this would not extend the lede unduly, IMO, but answer the (again IMO) probable unspoken question "who were the two before?". --User:Haraldmmueller 16:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You should basically never have a 1-to-1 ratio of words in the lead dedicated to a topic, as compared with the words in the body. This is almost a 200k article, spanning a 30 year career. If someone is interested in the history of vice presidential candidates, there are no shortage of other articles that cover the content. GMG^talk 17:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Haraldmmueller, it does not stand out as extremely wrong, but it just feels excessive. RedHotPear (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it work as a footnote? Third female major-party VP candidate, ref something about Ferraro and Palin at the bottom of the page /ref. ? JTRH (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I did notice last week that this was why I was struggling to parse this sentence,but was loathe to re-open the can of worms of its wording on the talk page so soon after previous consensus (which did reduce this sentence from where it was).

I support extraneous information being in a footnote (or just brackets) so the sentence has logically consistent syntax.

I also note that most of the news articles referenced on the page foremost mention [[]] Harris is the first "black woman" or "woman of colour" to run for either position (I'm guessing on the logic that a VP first isn't significant if a president got their first.) (She is also the first Asian American on the ticket ,but I don't know we have a reference for that.)

Therefore, I propose this clearer wording (which may need moving out of the lead) with only twelve extra words:

Besides being the first [[woman of colour]] [!REDIRECT TO People of colour!] on a [[List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets|major party's presidential ticket]], Harris is the third woman <ref>preceded by Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008</ref>, the first African American and the first Asian American to serve as a ticket's [[running mate#In United States politics|]] [!linked article explains the term means VP nominee!].

Alternatively, for more clarity, "...as running mate on such a ticket." at the end.

Llew Mawr (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Changing archiving

Timrollpickering, I agree with EEng, we shouldn't go to 2-day archiving. —valereee (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This talkpage has exploded since the announcement and needs to be regularly archived to keep it under control. Automatic archiving of discussions that are no longer active is preferable to subjective manual decisions. 7 days and 30 separate threads is too long. However it seems there's little point fighting a rather aggressive user who's asserting ownership of the talkpage and making personal attacks. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• (a) By "under control" you apparently mean a short page giving the superficial appearance that God is in his heaven and all is right with the world. To those of us who actually edit the page, it means doing the best we can to address people's concerns and help discussions to consensus, however long that takes.
• (b) 2 days isn't "no longer active". In fact, exactly because there's so much going on you can see threads on minor – but valid – points which have sat idle for days. There's absolutely no reason to archive those. The community will get to them when it can, and it's not for you to set a deadline we all have to scramble to meet.
• (c) You may be uncomfortable making decisions but others are not.

So the page has "exploded" – so what? A page on one of the highest-profile individuals in the world is naturally going to have a lot of things to discuss. Those discussions have to take as long as they take, and the page has to be as long as it needs to be. Your personal aesthetic ideas are of zero consequence.

You give excuses for not engaging my reasoning. What about Valeree? Is she aggressive and exhibiting ownership too? Or is it that mindless one-size-fits-all gnoming can't compete with actually thinking about what's going on? EEng 00:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Im also with —valereee and EEng. Wikipedia is not a democracy but it does seem like this is approaching consensus. cc: Timrollpickering Rklahn (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• About a week ago I manually archived a whole bunch of edit requests that were in exactly the form of the one above: insisting that the commenter's opinion on her racial identification is more important than reliable sources. I did that so they wouldn't turn into threads like the one above, with a bunch of editors with better things to do wasting their time arguing with a racist. These repetitive "political debate" threads contribute nothing to building an encyclopedia and should be shut down and archived as quickly as they appear, IMO. But I agree that 2 days is far too aggressive for automatic archiving. I suggest 7 days minimum, with freedom to manually archive discussions which are obviously concluded, and answered edit requests. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a 7 day minimum with manual archiving is a good idea since a few that haven't had comments in a couple of days don't seem to be resolved. I archived a few today - stopped when I saw EEng's plaintive "ready for archiving requests" :) and this thread - but many more should just go.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If we continue to do as Iv describes (wrt to the ethnic-background threads, I mean) that will at least keep the proliferation of new threads under control. Meanwhile the existing threads need to be resolved somehow, but they're so complex I'll have to leave that to others. EEng 19:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• The talk page should not be unnavigable. Trillfendi (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  And there shouldn't be hunger in the world, but we can only do what we can do. (I think Timrollpickering's solution would be to kill all the hungry people – problem solved!) EEng 20:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody is forcing you to navigate Wikipedia with a crappy phone. If you can't deal with 50 discussions, that's a problem on your end. Come back when MediaWiki needs 10+ seconds to render a preview. (it was about 3 seconds the first time Timrollpickering changed the archive setting) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  If an iPhone 11 if crappy then we have indeed reached late stage capitalism. But hey, I’ve only written multiple Good Articles with this thing. 🥱 Trillfendi (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Saying people aren't allowed to edit and contribute to Wikipedia just because they are poor seems fundamentally wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  BTW since I don't plan to revisit this discussion I should mention since I'm sure it will come up. By no means am I suggesting that the fact we are cutting off some editors means we must keep the page very short. Ultimately a balance between keep a page usable to the widest range of editors, and preventing premature archiving needs to be struck. However we should accept that at some level which is a lot lower than you will experience with a 2 year old (or even 10 year old) computer in the developed world from Dell, that is what is going to happen. And telling someone using their family phone in India or whatever that it's their own fault for being so poor or suggesting it's reasonable for their parents to spend multiple months salary to buy a better phone so they can contribute is clearly flawed. We should smpathise with their situation and do our best to help them in other ways. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Oh for heaven's sake. The bandwidth consumed in downloading this page is 500K; that's 1/34th (yes, one thirty-fourth) the cost of downloading the article itself, which is 17MB. This talk of people being excluded is complete nonsense. EEng 12:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe in archiving at 2 days, it will light the fire under people’s asses to finish up their soapbox monologues so that actually important article issues can be addressed. Is this not a vital article? Trillfendi (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The grandfather in India

I'm leery about giving too much air-time to the Indian grandfather. KH has said many things about him, but we cannot include her assessments or her relatives'. For example, as I've said in an earlier thread, she has said somewhere (later qualified) that he was a freedom fighter in India. But he was a bureaucrat during British rule. And in fact, both the LA Times and NY Time articles state that her relatives in India denied that he had done any freedom fighting. Neither am I sure about his advanced views on this and that. The fact remains that when her mother married Donald Harris, she did not inform her family in India, until after the wedding. If there were so advanced, there shouldn't have been any problems. (See the Shyamala Gopalan page.) The grandmother, Rajam, was quite conservative as far as I can tell. Conversely, KH has said very little about the father's family, but she and her sister visited Jamaica (most likely) just as often. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the fact that all four of his children earned advanced degrees speaks to confirm his support for education, including for women. The information I added was from a NYT article that was clearly reported by speaking to several of her relatives in India, not just her own words - and it was clear that she has kept in touch with her aunts and uncles as an adult. I agree that "freedom fighter" is unsupported and unlikely. That article said Shyamala took her daughters to India "every few years", but the article just says they went there and I'm OK with that. We know almost nothing about her presumed visits to Jamaica, but they were unlikely to have been as frequent since she and Maya were predominantly raised by her mother after the divorce. In any case this is all WP:OR; there is a lot more information in sources about her mother's family so we have more about them in the article. Sources have reported very little about her father's family, and you'd better believe they have looked. My hunch is that he had very little contact with his family after settling in the U.S. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know you added it from the NYT article. I had already used that article (with a quote) in the Shyamala Gopalan page. It is mostly a rehash of the Bengali-Mason article in the LA Times (October 2019), which had interviewed the same people. (See here) That article, I believe, is the best, the most accurate, in terms of what is credible in relation to South Indian culture. As you will see in the picture accompanying the article, KH's grandfather is wearing the sacred thread of brahmins. He was obviously not progressive enough to discard caste altogether, which many progressive people in India had done long before. Gandhi had and he was born in 1869. Nehru (born 1879), India's first prime minister, was openly agnostic, if not atheist. Similarly, women had traveled from India to England to study starting in the 1890s By the 1930s, dozens of women were traveling annually (mostly) to England to study. So, I think we have to be careful about using "progressive" here. If you'd like, you can have an RfC at WT:INDIA. In other words, we can treat neither KH's musings, nor NYT reporting, based on talking to relatives, as entirely reliable. The NYT article is reliable about what the relatives said, but not about what the grandfather was. But it is not clear what the relatives said is notable. If there were contemporary newspapers (i.e. published before the rise of KH) or scholarly sources, that spoke to his progressive outlook, it would be different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not asserting that he had progressive views on every subject. (Hardly anybody does, after all.) Clearly he still believed in the caste system; he was proud of being a Brahmin. And he was traditional enough to enter an arranged marriage (which was actually the norm throughout India well into the late 20th century and still is to some extent; in college I knew an Indian PhD who said she would never dream of marrying a man her parents hadn't chosen for her). What we say is that he had "progressive views on democracy and women's rights", and that, I think, is borne out by his actions. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel, we cannot use the term "progressive" (Webster's Unabridged: "devoted to or evincing continuous improvement : making use of or interested in new ideas, inventions, or opportunities"), which gives more agency to Gopalan than the evidence warrants. I feel that "broad-minded," (Webster's Unabridged: "receptive to or tolerant of liberal views especially in religion or politics"), used in the LA Times article is more accurate. To be sure, Gopalan needled Shyamala about choosing Home Science as her college major, but it is not as if her direct response was to embark on a career in endocrinology. The prime mover of change was Shyamala, she made some uncommon choices for her peer-group and her siblings followed suit.

As for Gopalan's views on democracy, there too, it was Indian nationalists (see Indian National Congress) led by Gandhi and Nehru, that were the beacons for democracy in the post-colonial world. There were thousands of middle-level bureaucrats like Gopalan who supported the Congress passively. His views were unremarkable for his peer-group. South India, by and large, sat out the Indian Independence Movement.

As for his brahmin caste, it is true that despite a century of Bollywood selling romance, the majority of Indians still marry in arranged marriages within caste, but nowhere in India except Tamil Nadu was there a serious Anti-brahmin movement, so entrenched were the brahmins there in civic life, so anti-democratic their stance toward some other castes. Gopalan certainly has a right to be larger than life in family lore, but in an encyclopedia, we have to clarify that it is a claim/thesis of someone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We got the word "progressive" directly from the source: "he defied the conservative stereotypes of his era, embodying a progressive outlook on public service and unswerving support for women, especially in terms of their education, that was years ahead of his time." However, I can see that "progressive" has come to have a more specific meaning in contemporary American usage - implying the views of a liberal Democrat - so I would be OK with substituting another word. We currently say he had "progressive views on democracy and women's rights". Maybe "he was broad-minded for his time, for example believing in advanced education for both men and women." That particular belief he undeniably did have, as shown by his own children. And we are not calling him "larger than life" - for example we have already removed any mention of being a freedom fighter as unsupported. She says he was an influence on her life; surely we can grant her that much. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: "broad-minded for his time, believing in advanced education for both men and women." is fine. We don't need, "for example." 11:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement that she attended both Baptist Church and Hindu temple is also dubious and should be removed unless reliable sources exist or at least credited to her. It reminds me of Huey Long saying he had attended both Catholic and Protestant which was untrue but was intended to get Catholic votes. TFD (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why dubious? She is a Baptist to this day (more precisely, in her childhood she attended a church in the Black Baptist convention and she now belongs to a church in the American Baptist convention). In her childhood she lived in a predominantly Black neighborhood of Berkeley, so it's quite credible that she attended a neighborhood church. As for the Hindu connection, we know that her mother tried hard to keep them attuned to their Indian culture, and there is a Hindu temple in Berkeley and others throughout the Bay Area, so it's credible there were some visits to that temple, perhaps on important festival days. We do know that as an adult she asked her aunt to perform a Hindu ritual on her behalf, so she clearly had some familiarity with the religion. Here's the bottom line: We have her word, directly quoted in a Reliable Source, that she had this religious exposure as a child. The fact you doubt it is not a sufficient reason to say "leave it out". But if it bothers you enough we could credit the information to her, since she is the source: "According to Harris, she attended..." would be OK. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be more accurate to qualify with, "According to Harris, ..." Little puzzling though how deep these beliefs were. Was the mother accompanying them to church? Did they read the Bible at home? The Baptists, after all, are not polytheistic; they don't really allow for alternative forms of worship, even within the fold of Christianity. Did the church know they were going to the Hindu temple? If she truly sang in the choir, which requires regular attendance, don't the pastor or others remember the Harris family? No one has reminisced? There is Regina Shelton, (see also here and here) who according to Harris, took the Harris girls to a church in Oakland now and then. But Shelton has refused all interviews. Perhaps we can go with, "According to Harris, her downstairs neighbor, Regina Shelton, took her and her sister, Maya, to Oakland’s 23rd Avenue Church of God. Harris considers herself a Black Baptist." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, it's dubious because Donald Harris' family were Anglican, as a committed Marxist he probably was not religious, he only was with the family until Kamala was 7, the neighborhood was mixed ethnicity and Kamala's mother was not African American or Christian. Also, the church she said she attended in her autobiography was the 23rd Avenue Church of God, which is not Baptist.[64] TFD (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Come on, folks. We tend to take people's claims about religion at face value here; we don't nit-pick about whether they REALLY accepted that faith. Trump claims to be a Presbyterian so we call him one, even though he is clearly a total heathen with not the slightest understanding of the Christian religion or familiarity with the Bible. IMO we have no business parsing whether she REALLY attended a church in her own neighborhood as well as one in Oakland; during her 12 years in Berkeley it is totally credible that she may have set foot in more than one church, possibly with going wherever her friends go as many children do. And nobody has said she went there because of her father; friends or neighbors can be just as strong an influence on church attendance. I call out this whole parsing of her statements, and deciding whether we believe them based on our own analysis, as nit-picking Original Research. Let's have one sentence "According to Harris" and give her the courtesy of accepting her words at face value. If she has named one church in one source and another church in another church, mention them both and move on. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The source (LA Times) quotes Harris as saying, “I grew up going to a black Baptist Church and a Hindu temple.”[65] It does not assert that she did, so neither should this article. AP refers to the 23rd Ave. Church as baptist,[66] so it is probable Harris doesn't remember what denomination it was. WP:OR by the way refers to what we put into articles not discussions on the talk page. We can certainly examine if the information we report in articles is plausible. Otherwise WP:REDFLAG, which cautions against aquestionable information, would make no sense. For politicians such as Harris, Trump, Biden and Hillary Clinton, we shouldn't automatically report their memories as facts. TFD (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

All in all, upon rethinking this, I agree with MelanieN. The world over notable people tell stories about their upbringing, or their relatives, friends, or followers do. These are reported by the press or by the faithful and become a part of their biography. We don't really know that Churchill wrote nothing at all in the entrance exam at Harrow; that's his story, but it is widely reported. There are stories about Christ, Muhammad and the Buddha. We don't really say, according to the Greek Bible or Aramaic Bible (translated in KJV) .... We don't really say according to Buddhist lore/Pali cannon, the Buddha witnessed ... There is a danger here of holding KH to a different standard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, her mother quite likely sent her and her sister to a Black church because she wanted them to have exposure to that part of Black life in the US. Many non-Black parents of Black children do that kind of thing. Adoptive parents are instructed over and over that it's critical for their children of other races to have deep exposure to the culture they "appear" to come from. And for heaven's sake attending a Black church and a Hindu temple doesn't mean you go to two services every Sunday. Hinduism isn't monotheistic; different deities have different days, and there are festivals and things. —valereee (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Let's consolidate; no more about churches here. If you want to refer to something in the above about churches, please do it in the other thread. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have posted a proposal there under #Proposed text. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

diverse vs adverse

Brogo13, you seem to be trying to make a point. The website specifically says adverse backgrounds. —valereee (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"She went, curtsy of a program, to school." (Your solution is also technically right.) Watch this space. --Brogo13 (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to believe that "adverse" is a typo. It's not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Adverse is unquestionably correct. EEng 02:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently.

"Adverse" is the word used by the program being described. JTRH (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

$4.6m investments

The Harris household has $4.6m investments; net worth among top 15% of senate. Comments. Data from the Office of Public Records for the Secretary of the Senate. If it checks out, it could be notable. TGCP (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Already mentioned in personal life section. TFD (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Only partially - the cited source only states house value, not investments. Unrelated to that, it does say that she raised $37 million for the presidential campaign, about the 7th highest. 46 billionaires contributed to her campaign. TGCP (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It includes #2.4 million in investments and the couple's equity in their home. Since the source is a year old, it's possible that through earnings on her book and the increase in stock values, that has doubled. But we would need a reliable source for her current net worth. Someone's calculations of the current value of her portfolio isn't sufficient. it might be helpful to add a sentence or two on her fundraising but again you would need a reliable source. Bear in mind that editors are not investigative journalists, they merely seek to ensure that the most covered aspects of Harris are covered in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. While you and I may disagree with how she is portrayed in the media, we have to follow their template. TFD (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Harris grew up going to both a Black Baptist church and a Hindu temple

I changed this text to say "According to Harris, she grew up...." Another editor reverted. The source says, "“I grew up going to a black Baptist Church and a Hindu temple,” Harris recalled as she sipped an iced soy latte at a Berkeley coffee house." Calton reverted.[67]

Since the source does not confirm this as fact, we cannot either.

In fact, Harris claims in her autobiography that she attended the Twenty-Third Avenue Church of God, which is not Baptist.

If a fact cannot be reliably confirmed and reliable sources show it is false, we should not state it as a fact.

TFD (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If Harris were to write about her early childhood religious attendance on her own blog or social media, we could use that as a source per WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not controversial or unduly self-serving. Her comments in a newspaper interview shouldn't be seen as less reliable. Also, on what basis do you claim that the Twenty-Third Avenue Church of God isn't Baptist? They're a part of the Church of God Association of Northern California, Northern Nevada, and Hawaii [68], which according to their website is part of Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) [69]. While not a part of any Baptist conference, they follow many of the practices associated with Baptist churches, including full-immersion adult Baptism [70], so her calling it Baptist is not unreasonable or inaccurate. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's self-serving for someone to claim to belong to a church that is popular with African Americans when her appeal is that she is one of them. Thank you for finding the actual sect, it is the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana). While Baptists practice adult baptism, so do Anabaptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals and Mormons. More importantly, they are in the Arminianist rather than Calvinist tradition. TFD (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

" . . . when her appeal is that she's one of them." So by this, I take it that you mean African Americans don't vote based on issues or personal qualities? Because that certainly seems to be the import. Dumuzid (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. Harris believes that she can appeal to African Americans through claiming that she belonged to a church that was popular with them. She believes that African Americans don't vote based on issues or personal qualities. Personally I think that the approach will fail, but that's not the subject of this discussion. It's whether we should present false information. What is your opinion on that? TFD (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sort of answered your own question by deciding it was false, I think, but my opinion on that is pretty simple--basically I would echo Red Rock Canyon and WP:ABOUTSELF. It's entirely possible that she attended both the 23rd Avenue Church of God as well as a Baptist Church at different times. For instance, I doubt she went to church in Oakland while living in Montreal. I am also fascinated that you know with such certainty what Harris believes. Good trick, that! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That would not make any sense. In her autobiography she says she attended the 23rd Avenue Church every Sunday. It's not reasonable that she also attended another church regularly. As the AP story says, she was referring to the 23rd Avenue Church, which she described as Baptist. Except it isn't Baptist, although it performs adult baptism. And if she did attend two separate churches every Sunday, why did she not mention it in her autobiography? Normally when people make claims that cannot be substantiated, we attribute the claims to them. I am not saying that we should editorialize on whether or not her claim is valid. TFD (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TFD, as you know, this exact same discussion is going on a few sections up. We are, I believe, getting toward consensus to include something that would be attributed to her: "Harris has said..." or "According to Harris..." If she said two different things, we could say them both, clearly attributed to her. That's the simple, and fair, solution to conflicting information. As for the conflicting information, as I pointed out above, it is entirely possible that in the course of her 12 years as a child in Berkeley she attended more than one church at various times. Now then: I think you are out of line to describe her statement as "false information" rather than "information not confirmed by a neutral secondary source". I think you are way out of line to imply that she made up the claim to have attended a Baptist church as a cynical ploy to get votes. And your statement "She believes that African Americans don't vote based on issues or personal qualities" is totally outrageous - attributing to her a belief that African Americans simply vote on tribal lines, apparently being incapable or unwilling to actually think about how to vote. If that is actually how she feels (and there is no evidence that it is, although you cited it as fact), that would be a blatantly racist attitude on her part. I hope we will not hear any more of that kind of talk. Let's work instead on what we should say in the article. You apparently think we should say nothing about her attending churches and temples as a child, is that correct? OK, you are entitled to your opinion, which I gather is not to report anything she might have said on the subject. I intend to propose some alternate wording that I think will pass muster as adequately sourced to her. I'll work on a proposal tomorrow. I will propose it at the original discussion above, with a referral here pointing to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC) As per a suggestion at that thread I have posted it here instead. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

TFD, I am not proposing she attended two churches every Sunday. I am proposing she attended different churches at different times. Her autobiography, notably, does not say "...and I attended the 23rd Avenue Church of God at all times throughout my childhood even while I lived in Montreal that was quite a commute," which I am fairly sure it would say, were that the case. The claims simply don't strike me as in conflict at all. Where exactly does she say that the 23rd Avenue Church is Baptist? I missed that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, my original point was that her claim about church attendance was questionable and per WP:REDFLAG we need a good source to back it up, which we don't have. I don't mind saying that she says she attended a Baptist Church and Hindu Temple, so long as we don't state it as a fact. I also think that we should avoid Expressions of doubt, since no secondary sources question her account. It's probably better to resolve the issue now.

Dumuzid, She wrote in her autobiography, "On Sundays, our mother would send us off to the 23rd Avenue Church." See my quote above at 23:38, 20 August 2020: The source (LA Times) quotes Harris as saying, “I grew up going to a black Baptist Church and a Hindu temple.”[71] While she doesn't claim it was the 23rd Ave. Church, the connection is made in the AP article. Do you think she is referring to two separate churches?

TFD (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

TFD, You seem smart enough and seasoned enough not to have engaged in the much-decried practice of opening ever new threads on the ever same topics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I for one don't think TFD's as seasoned as you might think. I'd add a touch more salt and maybe some oregano. EEng 13:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

TFD -- I think it is entirely possible she's speaking about two separate churches. In my anecdotal experience, when families move, they often change houses of worship (should they have one), and are not always concerned with the actual denomination. For instance, per our article, her parents divorced when she was seven, and she spent weekends with her father. Did her mother still send her of to the 23rd Avenue Church then? It's possible, but I somewhat doubt it. It just strikes me that you are reading quite a bit into both her supposed motivations and an ambiguous line from her autobiography here. For me, the claims are in no way extraordinary and fall into WP:ABOUTSELF. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is self-serving to claim to have attended church if you are a politician in the United States. As you point out, it is guesswork by you, me and other editors to figure out what really happened. Usually if facts cannot be reliably sourced we present them as assertions, just as the Washington Post did. If I can't get agreement, I will take it to RSN, but since my edit request is merely applying guidelines and policies, I didn't think that would be necessary. TFD (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed text

Our situation is that we have some information about her religious upbringing, but all of it is sourced to the subject herself - no confirmation from neutral secondary sources. We can solve that part of it very simply by saying “According to Harris…” or “Harris has said…” So what should we say? She is talking about when she lived in Berkeley, from birth to age 12. Her father left when she was seven so he is not likely to have been much of an influence. We have at least four places where she said something on the subject; she is making this an important part of her life history so I would argue it deserves a mention from us.

• The Los Angeles Times quotes her as telling a reporter in 2015, ““I grew up going to a black Baptist Church and a Hindu temple.”
• In a 2017 speech in Atlanta she said “And I grew up in Oakland, then, attending the 23rd Avenue Church of God, where we’d learn about caring for the least of these. And I sang in the choir about how faith combined with determination will always see us through difficult times.”[72] (BTW she said "Oakland" here, but that's an easy mistake to make; Berkeley is adjacent to Oakland and the two cities run seamlessly into each other. I say that as a person who grew up in Oakland but was born in a Berkeley hospital and attended a Berkeley church.)
• In her 2019 autobiography she says she went to the “23rd Avenue church” regularly.
• And in her acceptance speech last night, talking about her mother, she described her mother "ferrying me and my sister to church for choir practice".

That’s four places where she talks about going to a variously described “church,” including two references to singing in a choir, and one reference to “a Hindu temple”. Some people have challenged her recollection as contradictory, because she says “a Black Baptist church” but the 23rd Avenue church in Oakland is part of a Church of God convention (there are many and their website doesn’t say which) rather than a Baptist convention (there are also many). So why does she say a Black Baptist church in one place and the 23rd Avenue church in others? Answer: I think it is entirely likely that a child does not understand the difference between one branch of American Protestantism and another similar one. By “Black Baptist church” she probably means a church whose congregation was predominantly Black (very likely, then and now, in West Berkeley or West Oakland) and whose services were similar to those of a Baptist church. Another challenge to her recollection is the claim that her mother, a Hindu, would not be taking her to a Christian church. I think the answer there may be the choir; her mother was an accomplished singer and that may have been her best option for getting singing lessons for the girls. (Don’t laugh; I know many people who attend church primarily because they love singing in the choir.) (One of our sources states, unsourced, that an upstairs neighbor drove them to the church; it's possible that the neighbor was the one who recruited them to the church - and once they were part of the choir, the mother drove them to choir practice and the neighbor drove them to Sunday services. That would account for the mother taking them to a Christian church; she was supporting one of their activities, rather than urging the Christian religion on them. This much is true, if you are in a choir, you really do attend every Sunday as regularly as possible.) The mother would have been the one taking the family to a Hindu temple on occasion, possibly for major festival occasions like Durga Puja.

All in all I see no reason to throw out her recollections as long as we attribute them to her. I propose replacing our current sentence - Harris grew up going to both a Black church and a Hindu temple. - with this: According to Harris, she grew up going to a Black church, where she sang in the choir, as well as a Hindu temple. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

For me, it throws unneeded doubt into the equation, as I think the factors of WP:ABOUTSELF are met. But if the weight of consensus is against me, I will somehow find a way to go on. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

So is that a support for the proposed text, or an oppose, or an abstention? Or is there something about this proposed text that you don't agree with? Please clarify. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of clarity! I would personally oppose the "according to Harris" formulation, but as I say, I won't overturn any tables. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like any formulation involving "according to Harris" in this church matter. That wording unnecessarily inserts uncertainty. We have the facts: that she went to multiple Black churches in Oakland and Berkeley as a child, many of these visits to the COG on 23rd Ave which is deep in Oakland's Fruitvale neighborhood, not near Berkeley. We are adults here; we can dismiss any conflation of strict Baptist doctrine with that church. (The church in question invites a wide diversity of faith.) When Harris says she went to a Baptist church and a Hindu temple we know better than to repeat it verbatim. That statement is more like poetic license, not just because the church was not strictly Baptist, but because it sets up a false balance between the many church visits and the very few Hindu temple visits. My preference is to cite WP:SECONDARY sources who are more interested in accuracy than poetry. The National Catholic Reporter says that Harris "grew up in Oakland and Berkeley attending predominantly Black churches. Her downstairs neighbor, Regina Shelton, often took Kamala and her sister, Maya, to Oakland's 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland. Harris now considers herself a Black Baptist." So we can simplify the matter using NCR's language of "predominantly Black churches", and we can say she is now a Baptist. Let's drop the Baptist stuff from her early upbringing until we have a solid secondary source naming another one of the Black churches. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's much better. TFD (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, can you spell out the actual language you are proposing? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW it would be inaccurate to say she now considers herself a Black Baptist. “Black Baptist” refers to the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., which was originally the Black Baptist Church. According to our article, “She is a member of Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, a congregation of the American Baptist Churches USA”. IMO her current religious affiliation does not belong in the Early Life section in any case; it's already in the Personal section and that's where it usually belongs. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't see a smooth way to present religion in two different places, because the early life leads to the later. I propose one brief paragraph dedicated to religion, starting from childhood experiences:

• Harris grew up going to Black churches and a Hindu temple. Her mother wanted the girls to know their Indian heritage, and at Shiva Vishnu Temple in Livermore, Harris participated in Hindu rituals and prayers. She has revisited the temple as an adult. Harris's mother also wanted her Black daughters to have a foundation in Christianity, so on Sundays, Shyamala would leave the two girls in the care of their neighbor, Regina Shelton, who drove them to the 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland's diverse Fruitvale district. The girls sang in the children's choir; Harris remembers her favorite hymn was "Fill My Cup, Lord". Harris is a Baptist. In 2014 at her wedding to American Jewish attorney Douglas Emhoff, Harris participated in Jewish customs, including crushing a glass underfoot.

MelanieN, at first I thought I might reduce the emphasis of Hindu temple, which is not so well represented by details in the sources. Harris's book The Truths We Hold: An American Journey mentions going to church but nothing about Hindu temple, and her book Smart on Crime declines to mention either even though we meet neighbor Regina Shelton who cared for the girls. These elisions are probably politically motivated; there is always someone who will take offense at your religion. As an example, far-right author Peter Schweizer wrote in Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite about Harris regularly visiting a Hindu temple in Livermore. He quotes mother Shyamala Harris: "She performs all rituals and says all prayers at the temple." Schweizer writes to shock and horrify, expecting his readers to be very close-minded, but I consider the facts and quotes to be reliable. With Schweizer's facts, and with newsletters from the Hindu temple, I feel confident we can convey a proper balance of Hindu temple and Black churches. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Binksternet, for all the new research, especially finding information about the Hindu temple, and for the new proposal. Would this be a subsection under "Early life" or under "Personal"? You might consider adding that, at her wedding to Emhoff, yes, they crushed the glass (and presumably stood under a canopy), but he also wore a flower garland in tribute to her Indian heritage.[73] I support this proposed wording with one reservation. I strongly object to the sentence "Harris considers herself a Baptist." She does not "consider herself" a Baptist, dammit; she IS a Baptist, a member of a Baptist church. And even if everybody accepts your wording, which I encourage, I will oppose it if it says she "considers herself" a Baptist, which reeks of doubt that she really is one. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Grammar nitpick: Black churches and "a" Hindu temple. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If we put this material in the personal life section, it can more readily expand to fit new church information. I can push and pull on the text there to make a coherent flow. If the religon stuff grows a lot larger for some reason, we can put a level 3 header of "Religion" under "Personal life". Yes she IS Baptist. Grammar fix okay now. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see this, hidden as it was below the references, but I completely disagree with this far-fetched formulation. The sources are extraordinarily unreliable. Binksternet is looking for truth in the unowned wasteland between the conspiracy theories of a right-wing nut and the happy ramblings of a Hindu temple newsletter, and that too in America. If you think I don't know about Hinduism, please read my Raksha Bandhan. I am agreeable to nothing except what was already there, and that was short and sweet: that she went to a Black church and a Hindu temple. That was the consensus. End of story. There are dozens of impeccable sources, but we are scraping the bottom of the barrel for meandering histories. No "according to," no "Regina Shelton." She is already there. She cared for Kamala when Shyamala was working late in her lab, a much more formative intervention than taking her to church now and then. We cannot keep rehashing old consensus because someone is too lazy to read the threads. I am astounded that Binksternet is repeating my post of more than a day ago, in near-verbatim fashion, but cited to a third-rate source, and considering it to be a new find. It is beginning to look like old-fashioned sexism, a case of holding KH to a different standard because she is a woman. Can the admins @Valereee, Drmies, Vanamonde93, and RegentsPark: please look into this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, please mellow out. This is a discussion about the wording of a Wikipedia paragraph; it’s not a call for a declaration of war. Accusations like “lazy” and “sexism” are way out of line here. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You make several statements here that have no supporting facts. If you think a Hindu temple's humble little in-house newsletter is going to fabricate two visits from Harris, with a photo to prove one of them, you are woefully off the mark. You imply that I am lazy but I was the one going out to locate sources that had not yet been discussed. You assume I had not read your post but that, too, is wrong. I read it and rejected its argument for "according to Harris". I don't know how you think our two positions are so much the same that I am using your wording verbatim. And from where did you pull the sexism card? Amazing. I get the feeling you have me confused with someone else. But then you double down and call for admins, like I am trying to ruin the page. What I am trying to do is give a tiny glimpse into Harris's very interesting upbringing, describing the religion aspects which are important to many voters. Did Trump or Pence sing "Fill My Cup, Lord" in the children's choir? No, they did not, and it differentiates Harris the candidate. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not fair @Fowler&fowler:, dragging me into American politics! What's next? Black Death! I'm generally ok with Binksternet's formulation but have a few suggestions. Start with "Harris is a baptist" because that's the most pertinent piece of information. Perhaps "Harris is a baptist; her husband xyz is Jewish and Harris did the glass breaking thing at the wedding" should be up front because they represent the current state of (religious) affairs. Then move on to the current first sentence about her mother, the temple, and so on. I also suggest drop the "revisited the temple" sentence. Politicians visit religious places all the time and the current formulation gives the impression that she is also a Hindu. Since the visit was likely purely political, it shouldn't be in a section on her religion. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Sorry about dragging you here.  :( My thoughts exactly. What does a visit by an attorney general to Hindu temple recorded on the last page of a newsletter in a small one-paragraph blurb mean? Nothing. It doesn't mean that KH is Hindu, or even that she is a lapsed or occasional Hindu and went there to renew or refurbish her shaky foundations. She visited as a politician and posed for pictures. They presented her with a shawl and a souvenir (the newsletter says). She didn't pretend to be praying as Justin Trudeau did at a Hindu temple in Delhi or a Sikh temple in Ottawa. Politicians visit houses of worship. ( Off-topic but relevant aside: She is posing uncomfortably, it is obvious in the body language. That Hindu temple, by the way, is run (and mostly attended) by first-generation Indian immigrants from the states of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka not Tamil Nadu to which KH traces her roots. Why does it matter? Because Harris is nothing like them in her life history. They are socially conservative, have all had arranged marriages, for one. What are the chances that you will find a woman there among the regular worshipers who has married a Black man, let alone a woman who is the offspring of a failed marriage between an Indian woman and a black man? Zero. Such are some of the racist prohibitions and taboos among conservative Hindus.) The second newsletter says:

"The Grant-in-Aid program was conducted on Sunday, June 20, 2004. Ms. Kamala Harris, DA of San Francisco was the Chief Guest and Vice Mayor of San Ramon, Mr. David Hudson was the guest of Honor."

I rest my case. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I was also going to suggest putting her current situation first; "Harris is a Baptist" looks out of place suddenly thrown in after all that childhood stuff. In fact we might start the paragraph with the item already in the personal section: She is a member of Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, a congregation of the American Baptist Churches USA. I think we often do mention the actual congregation a person belongs to if we know it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The current situation is fine, but in the propose text I agree only to: Harris grew up going to Black churches and a Hindu temple. Her mother wanted the girls to know their Indian heritage, and at Shiva Vishnu Temple in Livermore, Harris participated in Hindu rituals and prayers. She has revisited the temple as an adult. Harris's mother also wanted her Black daughters to have a foundation in Christianity, so on Sundays, Shyamala would leave the two girls in the care of their neighbor, Regina Shelton, who drove them to the 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland's diverse Fruitvale district. The girls sang in the children's choir; Harris remembers her favorite hymn was "Fill My Cup, Lord". Harris is a Baptist. In 2014 at her wedding to American Jewish attorney Douglas Emhoff, Harris participated in Jewish customs, including crushing a glass underfoot. Examine the quality of the sources; abysmally poor. If this were all true, wouldn't the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, SF Chronicle, or the New Yorker, have told these stories. And we already have a consensus not to use Harris's memoir, The Truths We Hold. If it is being cited by a reliable newspaper (of the kind I have mentioned above) it could be paraphrased with proper attribution, but not otherwise. This is what I am pointing out: a consensus evolves after a long and nuanced discussion. People who don't like the consensus or people who are new and have not read the threads, start a new topic and repeat the same formulations. I am pretty certain the proposed text is nonsense, original research of the worst kind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)\

Sources

The Monitor, of course, is a respected newspaper, but that article is more about first-generation naturalized Indians. The women, presumably feminist, have taken their American husbands' last name, in the common form of anonymizing. But KH is not like them; even her mother was not quite like them (See her publications list). Besides, there are very few first-generation Indian women who have married Black men, especially in their youth. Madhur Jaffrey did but later in life. Everyone in India, or the Indian diaspora, is looking to identify with Kamala Harris. But she is nothing like them. She is polite to them, but the links are superficial. The decisive formative influence on her life after her mother, Shyamala, was Shyamala's circle of acquaintance, especially the Bay Area African American intellectuals and rights activists, among which were Regina Shelton and Mary Lewis, and that is already in the article. We cannot distort a biography by exaggerating the role of religion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If your aim is to highlight progressive, intellectual and political themes, why is there nothing in the biography about the Rainbow Sign in Berkeley, a community center of Black activism? Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, you claimed And we already have a consensus not to use Harris's memoir, The Truths We Hold. That is dead wrong. We did NOT have a consensus not to use her memoir; quite the contrary:

• Some wanted to not use any information from her memoir or other statements by her, namely The Four Deuces in the earlier discussion, and you now.
• Some of us wanted to include the information with the qualification “According to Harris…”, namely me, you in the earlier discussion, Calton, and The Four Deuces in the later discussion.
• Some of us wanted to use the information WITHOUT the qualification “According to Harris”, namely Dumuzid and Binksternet.
• Some of us wanted to include the information and did not specify whether to say “According to”, namely valereee, Red Rock Canyon, and RegentsPark.

You have recently been very vehement in your opposition to this proposed content, but you do not have consensus on your side. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN: I haven't been vehement. I was pointing to the discussion in the Stepchildren section following my comments of 15 August 15:35 Zindor and Valereee supported not using a politician's own account, whether in direct quotes or paraphrase, which is a primary source. The account has to appear in secondary sources, with proper attribution. I have done so in the article Kamala Harris in the early life section with "Kamala Harris has written, "...." and cited it to the New Yorker article. Granted that mine is a direct quote, but there is no reason, we can't write, "Kamala Harris has written in XYZ ..." here too. We don't have to use, "According to Kamala Harris," which is more formal, without a context, more hands-off, sounding like a claim, that is, the thesis of an argument that can be doubted. But we do need some attribution. There is no reason that we can't state a suitably reduced/paraphrased version of:

Kamala Harris has written in a reminiscence: 'On Sundays, we’d pile into the back of Mrs. Shelton’s station wagon along with other kids, on the way to the 23rd Avenue Church of God. When we got restless sitting in the pews, Mrs. Shelton would dig into her purse for hard candies to calm us down. Mrs. Shelton would bring her Bible to church every Sunday. Sitting alongside her, I was introduced to the teachings of that Bible. My earliest memories were of a loving God, a God who asked us to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” and to “defend the rights of the poor and needy.” This is where I learned that “faith” is a verb, something we must live and demonstrate through our actions. Even as we grew older and moved away, Mrs. Shelton remained an enduring and encouraging presence in my life. ... when I took the oath of office to be attorney general of California, and later, a United States senator, it was on Mrs. Shelton’s Bible that I laid my hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'

There is a major point here. She grew up Black. A Washington Post article sums it up accurately:

She (Shyamala Gopalan) brought her daughters home to India for visits, she cooked Indian food for them, and the girls often wore Indian jewelry. But Harris worshiped at an African American church, went to a preschool with posters of Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman on the wall, attended civil rights marches in a stroller, and was bused with other black kids to an elementary school in a wealthier white neighborhood. When it was time for college, she moved across the country to Washington to attend the historically black Howard University. 'Her Indian culture, she held on to that,' said Sharon McGaffie, 67, an African American woman who has known Harris and her sister, Maya, since they were toddlers living in Berkeley, Calif. 'But I think they grew up as black children who are now black women. There’s no question about it.' "

We cannot on our own give equal time to Christianity and Hinduism. We can't make a political appearance at the Shiva-Vishnu temple at Livermore along with Vice-Mayor of Wherever to be a sign of her faith. (If you think it is, write a letter to her and ask her about the Bhagawad Gita and its message, or the Vedas, the Upanishads.) I've been watching with dismay a discussion deteriorating: we had regulars here @RedHotPear, Naddruf, HiLo48, Rklahn, Muboshgu, Zindor, MelanieN, Valereee, MrX, The Four Deuces, and Dumuzid:, many of whom had appeared before KH's VP choice, some a year earlier; we had long nuanced discussions. One of them, TFD, was not happy with the evolving consensus around KH's religious life. So what did he do? He opened yet another thread. And what did you do, MelanieN? You vigorously protested. Then you made a modest proposal for a change in the text. That was fine. What else happened? Some other editors started archiving the threads? Pronouncers of etiquette in archiving appeared out of the blue and pronounced. So all the old consensus is in the archives (out of sight out of mind). Then Binksternet appeared on the 21st, with no history on this page, and without joining the discussion in the usual manner new editors do, proceeded to offer his proposed text, which is nothing but original research. Has the Shiva-Vishnu temple at Livermore been cited anywhere? By any responsible newspapers: NYTimes, LA Times, SF Chronicle, WaPo, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Times London, Guardian, Independent? It hasn't. So why is WP championing equal opportunity of religion in the biography of a politician in which it was very definitely not? Hinduism and Indian culture were the parts of a matriarchal family culture (cooking Indian meals, wearing Indian jewelery, visiting the maternal grandparents on occasion, holding hand with the grandfather on the Madras beach and listening (wide-eyed) to his stories and ideas), but her predominant identity is Black and her religion Black Christianity (it doesn't matter which denomination). There is a real danger here that by turning religion into an equal-opportunity list, we are doing a major disservice to Kamala Harris and her background. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PS And Doug Emhoff smashed the glass and the guests shouted "Mazel Tov." What is that about? She married five years ago, aged 49. That is an aspect of her religious life, or of a modern wedding ritual? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I note the Washington Post article omits the six years between going to an integrated school and going to Howard, when she lived in Westmount. TFD (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And Wikipedia has taken it upon itself to fill that in? There is the forest; there are the trees. This is about the forest. Do you seriously think that a seasoned journalist such as Dana Goodyear, in the highly nuanced article on KH in the New Yorker will miss something that obvious, if it were important? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PS @The Four Deuces: Hello: upon rethinking, if you mean the Canadian years at Westmount High School, that is fine. Examining the Canadian sources, the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and whatever is the name of the English newspaper (if any) in Montreal (plus others in Ottawa, Vancouver). There is no problem there. Find the best source and make a direct edit. I think the discussion on religion here is too focused on inessential details. Until tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you two are talking about. We already have in the article, in the early life section, information about her move to Montreal and the schools she attended there. Are we missing something? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I thought he was looking for more detailed info on the Canadian years, and in my sleepy state, I referred him to Canadian sources. I think now he might have been (rhetorically) referring to the sentence, "When it was time for college, she moved across the country to Washington to attend the historically black Howard University," implying (rightly so) that reliable newspapers make mistakes. The move was southward. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Fowler&fowler for drawing my attention to this subject. I have not expressed an opinion or suggested edit on the topic of Sen. Harris' religion, but it strikes me that it has parallels to our discussions around her ethnic identity, we should be strongly drawn by what Sen. Harris' thinks her religion is. Like identity, this has many layers in the modern world, and contains aspects that only the subject can define. Rklahn (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A brief PS. Ive seen a lot of reference to Sen. Harris attending this church or that temple in this section. That is only indicative of what she has done in the past, and how, perhaps, she was raised. Her current religion is what is relevant, and it's quite possible that is none of our business, and is between her and her higher power. Rklahn (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Both her current religious identification and her past can be relevant IMO, but we would need to adhere strictly to reliable sources and conform to due weight. RedHotPear (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let’s see if we can agree upon some basics. We do know what her current religion is, and what church she belongs to, and what her husband’s religion is; that is already in the Personal section as it is in most biographies. The question is how much to include about her religious upbringing. Considering the intense interest in her multi-cultural background, I think we need to provide something. After all we have a large paragraph about her childhood experience with Black culture and the civil rights movement. On religion: almost all sources on the subject cite, verbatim, the report that she went to “a Black Baptist church and a Hindu temple.” Since Reliable Sources are repeating this I think we should include it. I wouldn’t go into any more detail about the Hindu temple, about which we have little information, but there is more we can say about the church. Many sources mention her attendance at 23rd Avenue and singing in the choir. (She says, and sources repeat, she went to “a Black Baptist church”; 23rd Avenue is not Baptist, but she may have been mistaken about the denomination - that’s not something she would have paid attention to as a child.) Rather than a “religion” section somewhere trying to lump all this together, I would propose that we have a slimmed-down version of Binksternet’s proposal in the Early Life section, describing her religious upbringing just as we are describing her cultural upbringing - and leave the information about her current faith in the Personal section. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. We definitely don't want to string together content from disparate sources to construct our own narrative and this, "just the facts ma'am", approach is probably the best. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yonat Shimron of Religion News Service (who is already cited in the biography) has written more about Harris and religion, saying that Harris may bring an advantage to the Democratic presidential ticket, attracting voters who are increasingly part of "religious pluralism" and decreasingly Christian.[74] Shimron quotes John C. Green, a scholar of religion and politics, who says "I don’t think her religious biography will be a negative in the campaign. There may be people who complain. But I don’t see those complaints having much resonance because she represents a trend that’s an increasingly common pattern." Shimron quoted Public Religion Research Institute CEO Robert Jones who said that the religious backgrounds of the 2020 candidates make the Biden–Harris ticket look "a lot more like America's future" in terms of religious trends. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

After looking closely at Binksternet’s suggested paragraph and evaluating the sources, I have trimmed it of superfluous detail like her favorite hymn and her mother’s motivation, to come up with this:

Harris grew up going to Black churches as well as a Hindu temple. She and her sister regularly attended the 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland's diverse Fruitvale district, where the girls sang in the children's choir. Her mother also took her to the Shiva Vishnu temple in Livermore.

References

I propose this as a compromise summary of the commentary here; what do people think? This could be a short standalone paragraph, or it could be the first few sentences of the paragraph that goes on to describe her visits to India. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I like it. It accurately summarizes the known facts. If readers want to know more about Harris' childhood, they can go to the relevant article. Considering her lengthy career, we have to be concise wherever possible. Anyway it fixes the problem of relying directly on her personal recollections. TFD (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

[sigh] I’m not religious but I grew up with this mess so let me explain it in layman’s terms. Church of God means the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) denomination. They are not Baptists, they are Penecostal. There are thousands of what society would call “Black Baptist” churches out there but a Church of God in Christ is not one of them. It’s a lazy conflation. Trillfendi (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And that's precisely why my proposal does not say she went to Black Baptist churches. It says Black churches. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but Binsternet proposal is problematic. In all these situations, the first thing to do is to start with the most reliable sources and to look for a textured account by a third-party, i.e. not by KH, and not by the source itself without attribution. Textured means an account whose interwoven elements include both a broad statement and an illustrative vignette. The reliable sources in this instant, i.e.', of recent news, are the best-known newspapers, to which I've added Mercury News, a California news site). These are 11 in number. When you search for the string: "Kamala Harris" AND "Church" AND "23rd Avenue Church of God" OR "Twenty Third Avenue Church of God" AND "Regina Shelton" AND "Oakland" among these 11, you get only one return, which is the Washington Post article, "I am who I am," published in February 2019, i.e. before the feeding frenzy began, and written by the Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, Kevin Sullivan. Although it has two or three errors, which we've already discussed, it has the advantage, that there is a third-party source, Regina Shelton's daughter, who corroborates it.

Sharon McGaffie’s mother, Regina Shelton, ran the preschool that Harris and her sister attended. Because Harris’s mother traveled often for her work as a cancer scientist, the girls would regularly stay over at McGaffie’s house, two doors down on a quiet street in Berkeley. Shelton became like a mother to Harris’s mother, and grandmother to Harris. McGaffie said the Harris girls would regularly accompany her family to the Twenty Third Avenue Church of God in Oakland, Calif., an African American protestant congregation. Their mother eagerly encouraged them to go but did not attend herself, McGaffie said."

I think that some paraphrase of that is adequate, making the point that the mother did not attend. There is nothing there about singing in the choir. We should avoid adding that. The Shiva-Vishnu temple is not a secondary source, only primary. There is no texture there either, only descriptive prose about a politician's (or two politicians') visit. The Indian culture, ritual, and mythology (not necessary religion) was a feature of growing up in the family. I will propose something for a religious culture paragraph later today. Btw, what Trillfendi says about the church being pentecostal is true. A number of sources say that but the beauty of Kevin Sullivan's phrasing, "African American protestant congregation," is that it keeps it general. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The other problem with Shiva-Vishnu is that the source, Profiles in Corruption, a book written by Peter Schweizer, a right-wing POV pusher, associated with Breitbart News, is a non-starter. Look at the cover of the book. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And that's why I didn't use the temple newsletters as a source, or say anything about her visiting there as an adult. And I didn't say anything about whether the mother went to church or about who took them, just that they went. Regina Shelton is already mentioned elsewhere in the section, as a close friend and child care helper; there is no need to bring her up again. I agree that the Schweizer book is polemical and biased, so I only used the part where he was directly quoting the mother, and only as a source that they went there. (I do wish people would respond to what I ACTUALLY proposed, instead of arguing against things I didn't say.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I added a better source for singing in the choir: the Christian Science Monitor. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also [sigh]. At least in Europe, before 1517, this was so much easier. Rklahn (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Omit altogether: this is a minor detail and not critical to the subject's career. Her current religious affiliation is already mentioned and this is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid, it does not matter that Peter Schweizer was directly quoting the mother, it is still WP:UNDUE. If 11 of the best-known newspapers of the English-speaking world makes no mention of Shiva-Vishnu, how does a right-wing account become DUE? What is footnote 13? Where is he getting his information? Again, the Monitor reference is also not reliable for someone as high-profile as KH, because the account does not tell us where the author is getting that information. After all, it is a journalist. He got it from somewhere. The advantage in Kevin Sullivan's phrasing is that it is coming from a third-party, which we do not have to name, simply paraphrase: "The Harris girls regularly accompanied Shelton's family to the Twenty Third Avenue Church of God in Oakland, Calif., an African American protestant congregation. Their mother eagerly encouraged them to go but did not attend herself" I believe the choir business is nonsense. If the Shelton family who took the Harris children make no mention then how are we divining that information from others? Why would we not mention Shelton again, just because she was mentioned in the previous paragraph? She was an important figure in her life, a "second mother." No one else took the Harris girls to church. Highly impersonal formulations, or unevenly impersonal formulations (i.e. we are not telling a reader who took them but do tell the precise denomination was of the church to which young children still in kindergarten or elementary school were taken), ultimately distort. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PS And Kamala Harris's own account, Without this woman, I would not be the Senator I am today, written for Bustle for Black History Month, 2019, and is all about Regina Shelton, makes no mention of singing in the choir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your opinion. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think along K.e.coffman's lines: we only need the first sentence. The others I think are better left out. But thanks to everyone for their efforts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, so far we have: me proposing this wording, Fowler finding fault with it, K.E. coffman wanting to not mention the subject at all, and Dumuzid wanting to use only the first sentence. @Calton, The Four Deuces, Red Rock Canyon, Binksternet, RegentsPark, Rklahn, RedHotPear, and Trillfendi: Pinging others who have previously commented on this subject: any thoughts on my new proposal? (It’s the three sentences just above the References box in this "arbitrary break" section, in case you lost it in all the talk since.) I proposed that this go in the “Early life” section while the information about her current religious affiliation remains in the “Personal” section. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest changing "Shiva-Vishnu temple" to "Hindu temple" because how many people knows what a Shiva-Vishnu temple is and does it really matter? Other than that, this looks fine, including the choir part. I'm assuming that the "is a Baptist" got dropped for lack of sources (not going to read everything up there!). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It is encyclopedically disingenuous and revisionist to erase the name of the Shiva-Vishnu Temple in Livermore simply because the audience would be unfamiliar with it. This is Wikipedia, it takes all of two clicks to find articles on Hinduism. Trillfendi (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"She is a Baptist" - describing her situation now as an adult - got dropped from this bit about her upbringing, because it is already in the article in the Personal section. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping! I have tried to follow this discussion, but I am not personally acquainted with the details, so I just wanted to put in that I trust your collective judgment. RedHotPear (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, thank you for the ping. I have tried to stay out of the discussion. I must admit to some disillusionment to participating in edits on this page post-nomination, mostly around what happened with the identity consensus. That being said, I have no problem with the text, but would prefer that a source different than Schweizer be found. His book seems to fail the Reliable sources content guideline. Some better source must exist, somewhere. Rklahn (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppot the entirety of MelanieN's suggestion, all the way through to naming the temple in Livermore. We are naming the black church, so why would we not name the temple? Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If Shiva-Vishnu is the consensus, so be it. My point is that it is too specific because the place was unlikely to have been inundated with Hindu temples (to the same degree as there would have been churches of every imaginable domination). For all we know, had there been, say, a Ganesh, temple there, her mom might well have chosen that over Shiva-Vishnu. That's why I think "Hindu" is the more meaningful term to use here. With churches, there would have been choice. With Hindu temples, they would go to whatever happened to be available. But, not a biggie either way. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Shiva-Vishnu is nonsense. There is no reliable source for it. And it is not even hinted at (e.g. a Hindu temple in Livermore) in the reliable sources (the dozen best newspapers in the English speaking world.) Don't you think if there was anything there, these newspapers with deep pockets for investigative journalism would have sent people to S-V? There is zero interest. Consensus on WP is not a matter of counting hands. Where is the content, and I don't mean citing WP rules?. I don't disagree with Regents Park though. There is a NYTimes report of their going to a Hindu temple. That should be enough. As for the piece of claptrap written by Peter of Breitbart, how many errors would you like me to find? (In just a few seconds, ...) I have found a doozy. This bizarre story:

Harris recounts regular visits as a child to her mother’s homeland. After she was elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003, she traveled to India and found that her grandmother had organized a party and press conference for her. Her grandfather was still a government official in Chennai. “One by one people came to pay homage. ‘It was like a scene out of The Godfather,’ ”Kamala said.’ (footnote 9)"

So, I'm thinking: "Hmm. Grandfather was born in 1911. That would make him a 92-year-old government official in a country in which the government's retiring age is 60? Then I went to the P. V. Gopalan page and discovered that he had died in 1998! Obviously, footnote 9 was no good. So, again, please tell me: what is footnote 13 that Peter of Breitbart is employing to spin his Shiva-Vishnu tale? Shiva and Vishnu, btw, are two the three deities of the Hindu trinity. The third Brahma who is the oldest, dating to the Aryan arrival in India in the mid-second millennium BCE, and recorded in the Vedas, is no longer worshipped now. Shaivites (worshipers of Shiva) and Vaishnavites (worshippers of Vishnu) are particularly numerous in South India. Shaivites and Vaishnavites are ideologically opposed to each other. In the past, they have even shed blood. Only in an environment in which the critical mass of the faithful are unavailable would you have a Shiva-Vishnu temple. Sort of like a Baptist-Methodist church in Saudi Arabia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Recall, MelanieN's, original revised proposed text was:

Harris grew up going to Black churches as well as a Hindu temple. She and her sister regularly attended the 23rd Avenue Church of God in Oakland's diverse Fruitvale district, where the girls sang in the children's choir. Her mother also took her to the Shiva Vishnu temple in Livermore.

References

As I've already shown above, Peter of Breitbart is not a reliable author. Here is possibly the final nail in the coffin of the idea of using "Shiva Vishnu." Please check out the Shiva-Vishnu temple website. It says the temple was incorporated in 1977. The idols were donated by the Tamil nadu government in 1983 or 84, the 25th anniversary was celebrated in 2002, etc. But by 1977, KH was 13, and had—with her mother and sister—already left for Montreal! So which temple they went to when she was still a child in Berkeley is not clear, but it was most likely not this Shiva-Vishnu. Please examine my proposal below. Barring fixing some smoothing issues of names/pronouns, it is a more accurate and NPOV description. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know why there is an obsession with naming names and denominations but adding nothing else. There is a much better option of using articles written by two respected mainstream journalists, both Pulitzer Prize-winners: Kevin Sullivan, senior correspondent of the Washington Post and Jeffrey Gettleman, the South Asia bureau chief of the New York Times:

Their neighbor (Note: Shelton is already mentioned by name in the previous paragraph, so her name is not needed again) regularly took the Harris girls to an African American church in Oakland. Their mother eagerly encouraged them to go but did not attend herself. She also introduced her daughters to Hindu mythology and South Indian dishes such as dosa and idli, and took them to a nearby Hindu temple where she occasionally sang.

References

Nothing else is needed. Obviously the singing in the choir is a tall tale (as I've shown before) as is the mother driving them to the church. She never went. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Note It would look like this. Please take a look. It might need to be smoothed (shuffling pronouns and names) and paraphrased to avoid very close paraphrasing. But it is easy to comprehend. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the new version. Fowler. It has a lot of merit. Your research demonstrates that the temple name cannot be right so I agree with dropping it. You propose to base everything on the two mainstream press articles, nothing else. But the Washington Post article contains a number of inaccuracies, such as saying her grandfather “fought for Indian independence,” which is pretty clearly untrue and has been denied by his family. And it omits the family’s Midwest period (as pretty much all sources do). And it refers to the McGaffie household as a “preschool” when it was actually just a child-care situation. (In any case, by the time the family moved back to Berkeley, Kamala would have been five, past preschool age and ready for kindergarten.) So I consider it a shaky source. The New York Times does not make those mistakes. It is the source for “a nearby Hindu temple”. I don’t know why you say the “choir” claim has been debunked. It is sourced to the Christian Science Monitor which is a Reliable Source, and she herself has mentioned it on multiple occasions, including in her VP nomination acceptance speech. If we go with your version, IMO singing in the choir should be retained ("...to an African American church in Oakland, where the girls sang in the children's choir") and the CSM added as a source. How do others feel? (BTW I moved the "arbitrary break" heading to a more logical place and moved the references to be right under the proposed text; hope you don't mind.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. And I would remove "eagerly". I know it's in the source but it's a little dramatic. "encouraged them to go" should be enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I had simply copied the two sources, which I shouldn't have after nearly 14 years on WP, but I was tired; the sentences do need to be paraphrased. So absolutely, eagerly will need to go, and some other telltale signs of their style. As for the WaPo guy's errors, they are about the India stories, which obviously KH had been spinning, and he had no way of checking from here. It was only the India-based correspondents, the first time in 2019 (LA Times) and then in August 2020 (NY Times), who could get the low-down from the relatives. But, I'm sure for anyone in India, the idea of a civil servant of the British Raj actively fighting the Raj would sound unlikely. But the Regina Shelton story is too real to be false. Not only is her daughter the witness (who is speaking to the newspaper), but there are too many references to RS elsewhere. If the daughter is saying that Shyamala did not go to church, that must be the truth. For she has no reason to lie. KH, one the other hand, has plenty reason. She needs to appear "normal" to her detractors, or at least that is her preference. So, summing up, I think we should certainly say, the mother did not go to the church herself. The choir practice I'm not sure about. I'll get back to you and @Binksternet: tomorrow when after a tall Peet's French Roast (but on a different coast) I won't be fading fast. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Yes you are right about the not-"preschool." She was 5, therefore in KG. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I never objected to saying the mother didn't attend the church. I never objected to saying she encouraged them to go. I am fine with all of that. I just want to remove the word "eagerly". And I already agreed that the grandfather was not a freedom fighter; we have settled that long ago. And I didn't object to saying it was the neighbor who took them to church, I am fine with that. Please respond to the things I actually say, and don't waste everybody's time and bandwidth, re-arguing against things that nobody has suggested. Please get the message: I am SUPPORTING your new proposed wording. I WANT to put it into the article. I'd like to settle this endless discussion and put something in the article. I just want to tweak a few things (and of course reword anything that was copied). You don't have to write a book about points I didn't raise. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't shout at me. You did say that WaPo article was a shaky source. What am I supposed to make of it? That you nevertheless support the sentences based on that source? As for NYTimes, would you like me to pick apart that article? It is no more reliable than the WaPo article. KH never asked them to line up the 108 coconuts; they did that themselves. These are journalists after all with masters degrees in journalism who are meeting a deadline, Pulitzers notwithstanding, not scholars writing for OUP. As for the choir, KH also said in her acceptance speech that her mother was shuttling them to the choir practice. An obvious fib about who was doing the shuttling. No one is 100% reliable here. As I said, I will reply tomorrow. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please retain the girls singingg in the Black church, which we have from The New York Times "Top Cop" article in 2016,[75] the 2019 autobiography, and a ton of more recent sources topped by the Christian Science Monitor. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I brought the shortened version of the religion paragraph into the article fixing some other problems as well, for instance the bit about staying in Berkeley until age 12, which was tagged. Some minor massaging of nearby text to make it flow. Hopefully we're all satisfied with it now. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Binksternet. This subject has been discussed to death and it's high time to get something into the article and move on. I completely agree with the version you put in. I have been giving some thought to how to handle the Midwest thing, which is important, and will make a suggestion later today. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about the copyvio issue. I will rephrase the sentence that is a copy. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: You shouldn't have done that, especially not after I had pinged you (above) that I was going to answer today. Deeply disappointing. Your (current) wording has the Harris girls going to Shelton's apartment downstairs. But that is only where RS's daycare or nursery school was. The children actually went to Shelton's house two doors down on the same street. You also should not have added the choir story. That is a serious problem.

Look, this is a tricky situation. We have a politician, KH, who has spun stories about her life. This is not necessarily because she is being deceptive, but probably also because she has either not thought much about her heritage, or simply does not know much about it, and when pinned down about it by an interviewer, had come up with rough and ready accounts that don't all add up. We have a press that in the past had been reporting those stories on faith, but has lately also been digging deeper and finding anomalies in them. As the WaPo story by Kevin Sullivan says, "As Harris’s political profile has risen outside her home region, she will face pressure to discuss her heritage from a broader electorate seeking to fully understand her." We have to make our best assessments by gathering as much evidence as we can. Discussions—which can sometimes be long, and may not always be focused—are the best way to do this. I Will answer MelanieN's questions below a little later, but I think you should self-revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we're far enough along that the continuing work can be done in the article. Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply to MelanieN

I apologize @MelanieN: for my outburst of last night. These in my view are the most important sources for KH's American story, (a) the WaPo story of Feb 2, 2019 with a correction/update of February 6, 2019 (b) the New Yorker story of Goodyear, July 22, 2019. In addition, there is (b) KH's own account of Regina Shelton published in Bustle magazine, February 4, 2019. For her Indian story, the best accounts are: (a) the LA Times story of Bengali/Mason, October 25, 2019, and (b) NYTimes story of Gettleman/Raj, August 16, 2020 They all have errors or inconsistencies, but the reason why they are important is that they have witnesses who knew KH during that time. The WaPo is especially important as it has the account of Regina Shelton's daughter Sharon McGaffie, who is 68 or 69 now, and was of an age (early teens) to have remembered the story more accurately than KH or her sister. Similarly, the LATimes and NYTimes stories are important because they have interviews with Gopalan Balachandran, KH's uncle. I think we should use all these sources. As for Shelton's children's center below the Harrises apartment, I would prefer to use "preschool" or "nursery school" (used in WaPo and Bustle) to "daycare," used in Goodyear, for the simple reason that KH was 5 when she returned. Note also in the correction of Feb 4 (above), Shelton's house was two doors down on the same street, and this is where they went when Shyamala was working late. I will answer the choir bit later this morning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

About the "choir bit": For some reason you are determined that we must not believe Kamala on this point - you say that she is "a politician stringing stories about herself". If we applied that standard to all politicians we would never believe anything they say about themselves. You are the only one here who has a problem with "they sang in the children's choir" - a credible and harmless claim accepted at face value by multiple Reliable Sources - and several people want to include it. I think you need to drop it, and I for one am done with discussing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Without me this article would still have been saying, "KH is a black and Indian American senator who lived in Berkeley until age 12, worshipping at a Baptist church and a Shiva-Vishnu temple." Please give me some credit. All the changes have taken time. You think you have consensus? When I find the inconvenient evidence (as I already have a few times before) your consensus won't mean a thing. What do you think the story of her mother "shuttling her to choir practice" told to millions last week is if not a spun story? Why are we saying Shelton took her to church if we are to unquestioningly believe KH's accouns? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, this is a troubling post, merging issues of WP:OR, WP:IDHT, and WP:RGW. Consensus always means something. I'd respectfully suggest just taking a deep breath here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me who found all the errors? You had consensus for Shiva-Vishnu. Why don't you put it back, with respect? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. You are still arguing against things I didn't say. Nobody has suggested saying that her mother "shuttled her to choir practice"; we say that Shelton took her to church and Shyamala encouraged it. (And although I have not proposed to say that her mother drove her to choir practice (note: choir practice, not church service), I have pointed out to you already but will again: this is perfectly believable. Most church choirs have two obligations a week for their choir members: choir practice, on a weekday (evenings for adults, late afternoon for children), where they learn the music; and the church service itself on Sunday morning, where they perform it. It is entirely believable that Shyamala drove the girls to choir practice, on Thursday afternoon or whenever, and waited to bring them home. Just as she drove them to their other activities like ballet class. And then Shelton drove them to church on Sundays.) The bottom line is that multiple Reliable Sources have accepted her assertion that she sang in the choir. Nevertheless, you are sure she is lying because you don't believe her mother drove her to choir practice. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

She might have been in a children's choir between grades 2 and 5, and it's not as if I didn't consider a division of chauffeuring duties,

• but please tell me where you can find "choir practice" before August 19, 2020?
• As for "Maya and I sang in the children's choir," all our sources are based on her speech in Atlanta in October 2017 (3 minute mark), which was repeated in her memoir Truth be told, of January 2019, p 16.
• Our most reliable account is that of Mrs Shelton's daughter, who was in her early 20s by then, and makes no mention of the church choir.
• There is no other information, no mention of a "Children's Bible," "Stories from the Bible," "Bible for Young Readers" etc in their own house. No mention of "Jesus," in anything KH has said.
• The church itself in its Facebook page (not citable of course) says, "As a young girl, Kamala Harris, was a member of the Twenty-third Avenue Church of God. She was impacted by a God-fearing woman, Mrs. Regina Shelton, who was her Sunday School teacher."
• We are an encyclopedia, we have a duty of care to what is plausible, not just to what is in a source, no questions asked. When we say, "Shelton regularly took the Harris girls to an African American church in Oakland where they sang in the children's choir," we are saying something different in tone from, "On Sundays, the Harris girls accompanied their neighbor Regina Shelton to church. Their mother encouraged them to go but did not go." (McGaffied's) Asking questions is not WP:OR, only a way of continuing to look until a watertight source is found. You are of course right that other politicians get away with murder metaphorically speaking. But I am focused on KH right now, not other politicians. That said, I won't interfere in your consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You yourself say she might have been in the choir, but then go on to say "we have a duty of care to what is plausible." Aside from the fact that I might disagree with that wording, doesn't your first statement mean that the 'choir' is plausible? This is why WP:ABOUTSELF exists. There are plenty of minor details from even a public figure's life which won't be documented. I can't lie. This level of vehemence does strike me as a little bit odd and misplaced. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

KH's years in the midwest

The early life section says, "Harris lived in Berkeley, California, until she was twelve years old." But of course, that is not true. She was born in 1964. Her father Donald J. Harris received his PhD in 1966. The family moved to Urbana, Illinois for one year. Maya Harris, KH's younger sister was born there. In 1967, they moved again: DJH received an assistant professor's offer from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, which he accepted. The following year, 1968, they moved to Madison, Wisconsin after DJH was appointed an associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Finally, in 1969 they separated and Shyamala Gopalan moved back to the Bay area. They divorced in 1971. So, between the ages of two (1966) and five (1969), KH did not live in the Bay area. Could someone please find the sources and fix this? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say that? We can then adjust the text to reflect that information. TFD (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is one for Urbana; here's another for Madison. Here is indirect evidence at a UIUC website. I can't find a source for Evanston. But the first one indirectly refers to it. It is possible that KH's mother did not move to Northwestern and stayed on at UIUC until 1968. Not sure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be fixed to follow sources, the until 12 is inaccurate. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to have a source that mentions all her homes. Are we still sure that she lived in Berkeley before moving to the Midwest? TFD (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have had a lot of trouble accounting for the family's location during that time. A lot of sources describe the family as living continuously in Berkeley but that is simply not true - cannot be true. Here's a timeline of what I could find: The two were married in 1963. Kamala was born in 1964. Donald received his PhD in 1966. Up until then they were definitely in Berkeley, studying at Cal. He was at University of Illinois 1966-67 and that's where Maya was born, so clearly the family was with him at that point. He was at Northwestern 1967-68. He took a professorship at University of Wisconsin in 1968. According to some sources (not necessarily reliable sources), 1968 - when he went to Wisconsin- is when the parents separated, and 1970 is when they divorced. This all seems to add up to: the family tagged along with Donald for two years, to Illinois and Northwestern, and returned to Berkeley in 1968 when he took the position in Wisconsin. But this is all synthesis and original research. Where is the Reliable Source for the Midwest years, to counteract all the sources stating that they were in Berkeley throughout? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW he says he took them to Jamaica in 1970 - that would be after the separation but before the divorce - and that his contact with his daughters virtually ended in 1972 when he lost a bitter custody battle.[76] -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources I have listed above, which are reliable, suggest that they were in the midwest from Fall 1966 to sometime in the academic year 1969-70, but after October 20 when she turned five (see below). For she says, "In 1968, Donald Harris accepted an appointment as an associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin, where he would teach until 1972. Shyamala Gopalan Harris worked as a breast cancer researcher at the UW. And, as Harris told a small crowd at the June 2018 event for Baldwin, “I lived in Madison. My parents taught at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for a brief moment in time and I was five years old and lived in Madison, Wisconsin. I was a native.” in John Nichols article in Madison magazine. So, for a full three years they were away. They were certainly in Urbana and Madison. Whether Shyamala and the girls moved to Evanston is the big question. It is not easy for academics to find jobs together year after year. It looks like he was driven to do what was best for himself. Why he chose to move from Urbana where both had jobs to Evanston is not clear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Uncertaintly there certainly is—in the stories politicians tell reporters, in the rough and ready news stories reporter write during a feeding frenzy (such as KH becoming the nominee). Skepticism is a good thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As for the Jamaica visit, I think they might have gone three times (if not more). Between 6 months and 1 year; between 1 and 1 1/2, and then again when she was 6 or 7. You can see the pictures at this [Mercury news site and scrolling the gallery. Finding reliable sources could be tricky. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we give an overview of the family's Midwest period based on what we know: that they all lived in Urbana for a year and both worked at UI; that probably only Donald worked at Northwestern and we don't know what Shyamala was doing that year (she might have remained at UI; Urbana is only 150 miles from Northwestern); that they all lived in Madison and both parents worked at UW; and that Shyamala and family returned to Berkeley from Madison when Kamala was five. Here's a proposal:

The family lived in Berkeley until 1966 when Donald received his PhD. After that the family spent several years in the Midwest: in Urbana, Illinois, where both parents worked at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and where Maya was born; in Evanston, Illinois, where Donald worked at Northwestern University; and in Madison, Wisconsin, where both parents worked at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. When Kamala was five, Shyamala and Donald separated, and Shyamala and the girls returned to Berkeley.

Or wait, how about this (call it ALT-1) as a way to deal with the fact that we don't know exactly who was where during part of the time:

The family lived in Berkeley until 1966 when Donald received his PhD. After that the family spent several years in the Midwest: in Illinois, where both parents worked at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and Donald later worked at Northwestern University, and where Maya was born;; and in Wisconsin, where both parents worked at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. When Kamala was five, Shyamala and Donald separated, and Shyamala and the girls returned to Berkeley.

Sources

Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler, The Four Deuces, Dumuzid, and Binksternet: The article used to say “Along with her younger sister, Maya, Harris lived in Berkeley, California, until she was twelve years old.” We have agreed that is inaccurate. Any thoughts about the above proposal(s) for how to cover the question of where they lived? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I like ALT-1. I think it's important to get that sense of peripateticness (fun word!) in there, but it doesn't have to be in granular detail. Thanks for your efforts, and cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think you should bother MelanieN This page has quickly turned into a fan page for KH's new American story—of family (which is "our children" Cole and Ela), church (which is choir and choir practice), ... The midwest is not a part of that story. There is no reason to mention it. Start with kindergarten and busing. No one will notice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned with accuracy - not whether it is part of her "new American story" or whether anyone will "notice" the omission of three years of her life. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What about "mostly lived in Berkeley?" We can leave details to the article about her early life. Do we know by the way that the family lived in Berkeley before moving to the midwest? TFD (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

RE "Do we know that the family lived in Berkeley?" Of course we do. The parents, married in 1963, were both students at the University of California, Berkeley until 1966. Kamala was born in Oakland in 1964. (Oakland and Berkeley are adjacent and the border between them is invisible; I personally was born in Berkeley although my family lived in Oakland.) As for "leave details to the article about her early life", huh? What article is that? Her early life is a section in this article - the section where I am proposing to add this. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

So they could have lived in Oakland or could have lived farther away. People commute. Sorry, I thought there was an article about Harris' childhood, but it's about the Family of Kamala Harris. But if Harris is elected VP or becomes president, I expect that there would be sufficient sources for an article about her childhood. TFD (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reliable sources do not exist. At some future point of time, when they do appear in sufficient number (see for example this discussion) and there is sufficient editor strength here to rummage in them, we can aspire to accuracy, and to a precisely formulated text to sustain (see for example the lead in this article which has held—with no variant readings—for nearly six months, despite virulent opposition and explosive content.) In the instance the KH article, a broadscale characterization is sufficient—that includes disregarding the topic altogether or finessing its exclusion using "chiefly," etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"State Bar of California" not "University Degrees"

Please strike the "State Bar of California" entry under "University Degrees". It is not a university degree. Its properly listed under Memberships a few lines below.

While we are talking about it, "Called to the Bar" is not American English. Its "admitted to the Bar", and the persons status is "attorney at law". But Im proposing the entire entry in the table be removed.

Im skipping the consensus seeking aspect of this proposed edit. I think this edit would have wide support among editors, and is in no way controversial. If able, I would have no hesitation to make the edit myself. Rklahn (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed it because it also duplicates the table below it. JTRH (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Very good, @Rklahn: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Stepchildren

The current article is mostly silent on Harris' stepchildren. I came to this article specifically to learn about her family. From reading further, it seems like the children are a big part of her life and something she is public about, including naming and sharing pics of them on Twitter, and calling out their names during her VP nominee speech last week. I suggest we expand this aspect of the article.

• Infobox. Currently no mention of stepchildren. Propose we name both. Also, provide birth years or ages, if/when these show up in reliable sources.

• Body. Currently: "Harris, who is childless, became stepmother to Emhoff's two children from his previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff."

Proposed: "Harris, who has no biological children, became stepmother to Emhoff's two children, Ella and Cole, when they were teenagers. The children are from Emhoff's previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff. Harris has written about the importance of her relationship with her stepchildren, who call her 'Mamala'. [77][78]

67.252.46.102 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this editor. For a comparison one might look at the Bernie Sanders article. Bernie has one child born to a girlfriend of that time and several children born to wife Jane, who he states he considers his own. Jane's kids are included in his Personal life section but not in his info box. That surprises me because I've been watching Bernie's article for years and don't remember that ever coming up, but looking at it now I think they should be in the info box...though maybe not as I can see that argument too and am open to discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the Jill Biden info box, she lists Joe's two boys and the girl they had together. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I don't think that "she" listed anything in that infobox. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this editor. For a comparison one might look at the Bernie Sanders article. Bernie has one child born to a girlfriend of that time and several children born to wife Jane, who he states he considers his own. Jane's kids are included in his Personal life section but not in his info box. That surprises me because I've been watching Bernie's article for years and don't remember that ever coming up, but looking at it now I think they should be in the info box...though maybe not as I can see that argument too and am open to discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We cannot use a politician's own accounts (whether in authored books or granted interviews) to give the sheen of a nuclear family here. Kamala Harris has stepchildren, but they were mostly raised by their parents Douglas Emhoff and Kerstin Emhoff before their divorce (after 25 years of marriage) and by their mother after the divorce. This is not a blended family of the type in which a widower with children or a man awarded custody of the children, has married for the second time (like Abe Lincoln's dad). We don't mention Ronald Reagans children with Nancy in Jane Wyman's infobox. In other words, we cannot give the children encyclopedic notability in Kamala Harris's page unless there is very reliable independent evidence of her significant relationship with them. I would imagine it would also be a disservice to their mother who mostly raised them (if any raising was left) after the divorce. These children, I note, are not mentioned by name in either of their parents' WP pages. I know Biden was making much of wanting to meet Cole and Ela in his first joint appearance with KH, but that is good old political pandering to a conventional stereotype. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler makes a strong point. We must be looking at how much weight secondary sources are giving this information, and assess the merits of inclusion from that. Currently all im seeing is mentions in primary source interviews, and i'd rather we don't become a parrot for those. Zindor (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with F&F —valereee (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The assertion in the proposed text, that Harris has written about the importance of her relationship with her stepchildren, has been widely covered by reliable sources. Here are additional references: [79] [80] [81], and there are many more. As WP:Notability was the only objection, should we move forward with the change? 67.252.46.102 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not notability, but reliability. Those are Ms Harris's musings. There is no independent verification of a significant relationship between her and Doug Emhoff's children, everything we have has been fed by her. Cole Emhoff, moreover, is 25 and his sister a few years younger. KH and DE have been married for five years. That means CE was 20 and his sister in her late teens at the time of the marriage. The children had already been raised. She might be on friendly terms with them, but that is not noteworthy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If we clarify that the relationships are important to Harris, not important overall, would that address your concern? This is also more true to how the sources report this. Also, removing the statement about her being childless, per other discussion on this talk page. So, how about this: "Harris became stepmother to Emhoff's two children, Ella and Cole, when they were teenagers. The children are from Emhoff's previous marriage to Kerstin Emhoff. Harris has written about the importance to her of the relationships with her stepchildren, who call her 'Mamala'. 67.252.46.102 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I.P, that is an admirable weasel and i applaud it, but one could argue again that it has limited weight for inclusion because of a lack of coverage of the relationship in secondary sources. Does Harris explicitly call the relationships 'important', or is that original research? Even if we did make the inclusion based on the framing, the who call her Mamala would have to be dropped as it is Harris herself claiming that. Kind regards, Zindor (talk)

Thus far in the comments on this article, Fowler&fowler has disputed Sen. Harris's characterization of her ethnicity, her religious upbringing, and now her relationship with her stepchildren, all of which have been repeatedly reported by reliable sources. This strikes me as an attempt at adversary investigative journalism, which is WP:OR at minimum, and certainly not Wikipedia's role to play as a source of information. JTRH (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Because this is an IP, I will give the person behind it the benefit of the doubt in not knowing that stepchildren are not to be included in infoboxes except rare occasions, and that names do not go there (if the child is independently notable that’s a different story but time will tell on that one) and especially not (!) birthdays because this is a BLP and we have privacy rules. Trillfendi (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal life information is usually going to be traced back to the subject. Of course when people write about Harris' personal life, they are going to include mostly what she says about it. She's the most high profile person in her family and the one most likely to speak to the press. If you look carefully at the sources of most other biographical articles, you'll see a lot of personal details go back to articles where the subject was interviewed. The "Momala" tidbit is nothing controversial and would be an extraordinarily odd thing to lie about so frequently. It's been repeated by numerous reliable sources that seem to deem it credible enough to publish. If it helps to attribute statements about Harris' relationship with her step children to Harris herself, I wouldn't object to that. Knope7 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is this issue still live, or can I archive it? EEng 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • EEng, her stepchildren were in the video that was shown just now, I believe--with mention of "Mamala". I assume they are mentioned in the article, one way or another, cause they should. Not in the infobox, certainly not with DOB etc., but they should certainly be mentioned. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you see to it that whatever needs doing in the article gets done? I've got my hands full just trying to monitor all these different discussions and keeping them moving forward. EEng 03:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue wasn't just that the stepchildren should be mentioned, but whether we could believe Harris that she has a close relationship with them and that call her Momala. Ella appearing tonight calling her Momala and saying she's the best stepmother should hopefully put the objection to rest. Knope7 (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Knope7, if you can add this, in an appropriate and economical manner with a reference, that would be great. Thx, and thx EEng, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ping Knope7, Drmies. EEng 04:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Last chance before archiving: Knope7, Drmies. EEng 11:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

VP candidate firsts

re:

She is the first African American, the first Indian American, and the third woman after Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin to be picked as the vice-presidential nominee for a major party ticket

Given the specificity of "Indian", does that mean there was a VP candidate of a major party who was South Asian American prior to her? Or an Asian American, more broadly?

If that is the case then wouldn't we also state these two feats as well? Only saying India and exempting the subcontinent (especially in contrast to singling out African continent) gives the weird impression she wasn't the first in India's continent or subcontinent either.

She is also perhaps the first Jamaican American too, unless I'm forgetting somebody? 64.228.90.251 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This topic was debated in the "Racial categorization of Kamala Harris" thread, and a consensus was achieved. Please study that thread. Please also read the FAQs. This is how she characterizes herself (at her Senate web site, for example); besides, ethnicity is a matter of identity as Rklahn has felicitously observed before. Please also read Indian Americans#Terminology for the many pitfalls of that usage. That term is far from being unambiguously understood. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

" district attorney of color"

Is "district attorney of color" a phrase that means something in American English? The reference is not online, so I can't easily use it to find out what the source said to work out if this has something to do with red tape, or that she was a Greenie or something else. The sentence structure seems awkward anyway, but I can't try to fix it since I don't know what it means. Could someone else have a go at fixing it please? Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Scott Davis: it means the same as "a district attorney who is a person of color". It's noting that she is not White. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you for clarifying. Is this relevant in California which is not part of the Southern United States? If it is, is there a better way of phrasing it that works in American English, such as "Harris won with 56 percent of the vote, and so became the first non-white district attorney in California." I note this is a city election, not the Attorney General of California. The language a bit further down for that role is easier to understand for someone who doesn't know the details of American governance and racial systems (feel free to ask similar questions for pages about Australian politics that don't make sense to you). I take it that in California, Jewish Americans are white, as Bonnie Dumanis seems to have been elected as San Diego County District Attorney in 1983, the year before Harris got the job in San Francisco. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

It's more generally accepted these days, at least in the US, that describing someone as what they are (e.g., "person of color") is preferable to describing them as what they are not (e.g., "non-white"). I think the meaning and context are clear from the rest of the article, and I'm not sure of a clearer way to describe it. And unfortunately, racial classifications are still relevant everywhere in the US, not just the South. JTRH (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with JTRH: race remains salient throughout the United States. RedHotPear (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-white is British usage. "First this or that of color" is used in the US, but is not common usage, more the preserve of multiculturalists. I agree that it doesn't belong to an encyclopedia, and it doesn't matter whether or not the source uses it. I'll fix it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Your edit was clarifying. RedHotPear (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. But no sooner than I had I discovered she was not. Christopher W. Smith, an African-American, had become DA of Alpine County, California sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. See this LA Times story of March 1986. She was the first PoC elected DA of SF though, and I have a source that says just that, "Ms. Harris, the first person of color elected as this city’s district attorney," a NY Times story from Feb 2019. Have fixed it some more. Thanks @ScottDavis:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence! RedHotPear (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Sorry if I sounded odd by not understanding American issues and priorities. We have perhaps had similar issues of race in Australia with people like Senator Lucy Gichuhi (first person of Black African descent to be elected to Australian Parliament) or Sir Douglas Nicholls (first indigenous Australian Governor of South Australia). --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologize @ScottDavis:, it was a good catch. An encyclopedia needs to have language accessible to everyone. In the US too non-White was commonly used not that long ago and "person of color" was not, although "of color" is older, even older than I had thought. The OED's first example is: "1786 M. Smeathman (title) in Mississippi Valley Hist. Rev. (1916) 2 501 Plan for a settlement, to be made near Sierra Leone, and intended more particularly for the service and happy establishment of blacks and people of color." Yes, America has had a long history of dealing with race, much of it brutal, but it has also thrown up from that crucible some great men and women, slow changes and a few insights. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

not first Asian American to be CAG

re:

the first African American, first Asian American, and first woman to serve as California attorney general

George Deukmejian was an Armenian American (both parents born in Anatolia) which is a subset of "Asian American".

I would suggest we change this to "first South Asian American", a phrase already used elsewhere in the article.

I'm not even sure where this came from because the reference listed after it is https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Brown-Boxer-Newsom-win-Prop-19-goes-down-3247304.php and I don't see anything in Cabanatuan's article to indicate it. In fact, the only mention of her is this weird bit:

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris lost to her Los Angeles County counterpart, Steve Cooley, in the race for attorney general.

I'm pretty sure Harris beat Cooley though. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea that Armenia is part of Asia (and thus not part of Europe) is not obvious. Anyway, self-identification is more the point for those terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that reference does not support what is in the sentence it is used for, and may not be reliable for anything anyway. May I suggest that Harris was sworn in January 3, 2011 as the first African American, first Asian American, and first woman to serve as California attorney general. be changed to something like "Harris was sworn in January 3, 2011 as California attorney general. She was the first African American, second Asian American, and first woman to serve in the role." Splitting it to two sentences allows us to say that she was sworn in as CAG, regardless of what racial or gender attributes she had, then list the "firsts".

Both "second" here and "third" vice-presidential candidate (twice) should have the people who preceded her as footnotes rather than in the running text. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dear IP, Well, the traditional definition Asia is east of the Bosphorus, south of the Caucusus, north of Suez, ... so Armenia would indeed by in West Asia. (Self-identification in matters of identity is legitimate, but it has to be plausible geographically: if my ancestors are from Vietnam, I can choose between South Vietnamese American, Vietnamese American, Southeast Asian American, Asian American, even perhaps Eurasian American, but I can't call myself European American.) Anyway, the California Department of Justice, says, "Harris is the first woman, and the first African American and the first South Asian American, to hold the office of Attorney General in the history of California." (see here) I will change it accordingly. (Besides, that SF Chronicle story doesn't say anything about first.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Agree with ScottDavis about breaking up the sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Aspen Institute

I believe, from the discussion below, that consensus has been reached on an edit. Please:

• Remove both references to the "Aspen Institute" in the "Awards and honors" section.

"Harris was also selected to serve as a Rodel Fellow with the Aspen Institute along with 24 other elected officials." and the citation that goes with it. The entry on "Aspen Institute" in the "Memberships and fellowships" table.

• Remove the first "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklahn (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Subject's relationship with Aspen Institute is mentioned twice in the article. In both cases, its in the "Awards and honors" section. In the first case, its in the first paragraph of the section, cited to a primary source. In the second case, its listed in the "Memberships and fellowships" table in the section, also to a primary source. I also question if her relationship to the Aspen Institute is even encyclopedic. Im having a hard time finding anyone having a relationship with the Aspen Institute outside of primary sources.

I believe both should be removed.

While we are in the area "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." is in the section twice. It should only be once, the 2nd occurrence.

Im proposing this edit, but seeking consensus at this time. Reasonable editors may disagree with my suggestion here. It may be controversial, not in my opinion, but I could see others making the argument. I would make the edit myself without hesitation, but as a page under extended confirmed protection, I am unable. Rklahn (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Aspen Institute is a notable think tank and it seems indisputable that Harris was among a couple of dozen people who had fellowships there in 2006, according to the group's website. But in my opinion, it does not belong in this Wikipedia article unless her fellowship is discussed in independent secondary sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The section "Memberships and fellowships" should be removed. Other than the Aspen Institute, the only other membership listed is the California State bar. But all U.S.lawyers are members of state bars. TFD (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Im included to agree with TFD here, but I would like to keep the focus on establishing consensus on the Aspen Institute bit first, then the section as a whole. So far, consensus seems to be gathering around removal, and Im soon to put a extended-protected template on this. Rklahn (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Which section? It is included in both "Awards and honors" and "Memberships and fellowships." I though we could remove the second section. If we do mention it, i think we should mention what the Institute is. TFD (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Im proposing to remove both references to the Aspen Institute. I think both should be removed because they both cite primary sources. Rklahn (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Per the consensus above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead?

Should Kamala Harris be described as 'African American' in the lead? - MrX 🖋 11:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

---

• Yes - Sources routinely describe her as African American or black (which I'm equally fine with as an alternative). Her role as Biden's running mate makes her racial identity a first, and a highly noteworthy aspect. - MrX 🖋 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• It looks like NYT goes with black and Britannica goes with African American. I personally prefer black, since African American is most often just a euphemism for black. Nobody's gonna really pretend we'd be having this discussion about...like...an Arab dude from Morocco. But I'm not going to argue over splitting hairs there. Either one effectively communicates the information. GMG^talk 12:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) No IMO, since she is of mixed "Tamil and Afro-Jamaican descent", why not simply say that more specific descriptor and not spend time deciding which geographical/ethnic labels fit best, or if we must, say "black". I give the same answer to the other RfC above.Pincrete (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This may be technically true, it looks like the spread of sources that use this this phrasing is pretty daggum sparse. GMG^talk 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes with tiny caveats, per WP:RS, WP:BLP and the multiply previously agreed talk page consensus.

As to whether to substitute the less American-English-specific "black", I'm not sure it matters much and WP:MoS doesn't address our apropos style usage generally.

However, strictly, in the context of vice-presidential firsts, we should use whichever of the two terms a plurality of the reliable sources on the topic of VP nominees use, or failing that, whichever is more common in written registers of English to describe an American who would self-identify colloquially as 'coloured'/'black'.

Whereas, strictly, per WP:BLP, elsewhere in this and other articles, especially when providing a description of the senator, whichever term more (or a plurality) of reliable sources have reported Harris use to describe herself.

Llew Mawr (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• She's from California. Photos do not look "black", lots of Californians have brown skin in summer, regardless of their ethnic background. This question is only derived from her father's background, as her mother was Tamil Indian. Her father Donald J. Harris was born in Jamaica and is described in that article as British Jamaican not "African American" (or even just African). That article also says he is descended from Hamilton Brown who is described as Northern Irish, so perhaps we should also call her Irish American. As a non-American, I had not really heard of her until she became lead candidate for vice-president, so I'd like to read more about her, and less about the ancestors of her paternal grandparents. Describe her as first/second X to do Y when sources say that, but otherwise, describe her as American or Californian. --Scott Davis ^Talkw 13:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and have good news for you as what you are describing is exactly and wholly the article's status quo (with no ethnic descriptions outside of "first X" and no description of her family's origins outside of a minor factual note in the relevant section). Llew Mawr (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• I believe we should not refer to her race or ethnicity in the lead at all. We can discuss her descent in the section on her early life. If we feel we must categorize her in the lead, we need to use what she calls herself, which is African-American and South Asian-American. —valereee (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We fairly regularly refer to race/ethnicity in the lead when someone is a "first" of some note: Barack Obama, Jackie Robinson, Charles Q. Brown Jr.. GMG^talk 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    GreenMeansGo, yes, I know. In each of those cases, we had pretty clear agreement on what the heck the person was generally to be called. Giving Harris a racial categorization is a lot more nuanced. It's like...isTiger Woods the winningest-ever Cablinasian golfer? Well, no, not according to the lead of our article about him. We deal with that later, in the section about his early life. JMO. —valereee (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    Er...not trying to argue other stuff exists. :) —valereee (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    • I agree that it is more complicated. While she is the first female black VP nominee, she is also the first one of Asian extraction. Also, an academic made an interesting statement in a Vox article where he described how the common portrayal of Harris as Black can be attributed to America’s history of using the “one-drop rule,” which is a racist practice that dates back to slavery. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

      • • I mean, yes. It is an OTHERSTUFF argument. But at some level, OTHERSTUFF arguments are slightly more valid when you're talking about high profile FAs. GMG^talk 15:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

          GreenMeansGo, I meant it as an example of how we've handled similar situations, just as I'm sure you meant Obama, Robinson, Brown as examples, not "reasons why we have to do it here! Because look at this other article!" When in fact sometimes it's the other article that needs correcting. I once pissed off someone at Mark Dice because they were arguing that since it was in Kyle Kulinski, Dice should be treated the same, and I was just showing my/WP's political bias. By the time the complainer had started making a YouTube video exposing Wikipedia's bias, I'd corrected Kyle Kulinski. They accused me of "whitewashing" Kyle Kulinski to hide WP's bias. :D —valereee (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

          • Maybe we're getting a bit off in the weeds. Obviously I agree that OTHERSTUFF is a non-argument when we're comparing just some rando article. But VA/FAs kindof set the standard, and they kindof dispense with the reasons that OTHERSTUFF is normally a non-argument. GMG^talk 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the lead, yes, but not in the lead SENTENCE. We already have African-American and South Asian-America in the lead in several places where she was the "first" at something. That's where it belongs. The lead sentence should just say "American". -- MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree again with Valereee and MelanieN Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, as I have mentioned multiple times on this talk page, it is her most notable identity as reflected in reliable sources. We must defer to reliable sources and not construct our own standards as to who the "African-American" label should apply to. Also emphasizing MelanieN's point that we are not talking about the lead sentence, which should just use "American," as is the norm. RedHotPear (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Because it's significant and how she is described in reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• NO At best - she's Biracial. Her mother is from Tamil, her father's Jamaican. People from Tamil-Nadu aren't African, they're Indian. not everyone from Jamaica is black either. There are Chinese Jamaicans and white or very light completed Jamaicans (Guy Harvey for one!) so unless with have a reliable source that says it, we can't say it either.W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)blocked sock — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• "unless with have a reliable source that says it, we can't say it" - Are you not aware that a huge number of reliable sources, over a long period of time, describe her as African American, and that other sources make clear that her father is Afro-Jamaican? Guy Harvey is not really relevant here. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality Actually Guy Harvey was used as an example to show that not all Jamaicans are African Americans. Speaking of, in this article, her father is described as "British Jamaican" not "African American", so yes she can be called Bi-racial and rightfully so. By the way, you've made the same argument three times on this RFC, three people have disagreed, I realize because I'm one of the three people, I can't say it's consensus, and I won't, but if three people disagree with you, seperately, there may be something to it, just saying! W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 00:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a picture of her father, which should put to rest the absurd suggestion that her father might not be African American: https://www.nytimes.com/article/kamala-harris-dad-don-harris.html If you hit a paywall, you can go google him yourself. Furthermore, this entire discussion is gross. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - A multitude of reliable sources, over well over a decade, describe her as such, and it is historically significant; she is only the second African-American woman to ever serve in the Senate, so a mention in the lead section (not the first sentence) is warranted. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

See, for example:

• Reuters (2020): "Harris, one of the chamber’s two African-American Democrats..."
• The Times of London (2020): "The leading African-American contender for the vice-presidential slot is Kamala Harris"
• Associated Press (2019): "Harris would be the first woman to hold the presidency and the second African-American"
• Wall Street Journal (2019): "Harris said Monday she will seek the Democratic nomination for president, launching a campaign to become the nation’s first woman and second African-American to win the White House."
• LA Times (2016): "Harris — simultaneously the first woman and African American to be elected to the statewide post"
• The Guardian (2019): "Harris and Cory Booker, two African American senators"
• NBC News (2016): "Harris was elected California's first African American and Asian American Attorney General in 2010."
• San Francisco Chronicle (2010): "Harris made history Wednesday, becoming the first woman, the first African American and first Indian American in California history to be elected state attorney general."
• Los Angeles Times (2008): "Harris was elected district attorney in December 2003, becoming the first woman to win the post and the first African American in California to become a district attorney."

--Neutrality^talk 21:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO. As per Wikipedia's own entry on Jamaicans, Jamaica consists of people from various different background, not only African. Those who are saying Kamala's father is African just because he's from Jamaica and is black, frankly, are edging the line into racism similar to assuming that all asians are Chinese... In fact, the editors of the article have provided no concrete evidence to suggest Donald Harris' ancestry is of African heritage at all. In fact, Donald Harris' mother (Beryl Finnegan) was British, and his father has no information publicly available whatsoever. It is therefore important, as an encyclopedia, that Wikipedia only present information which is factually citable. And the idea that Kamala is African-American is wholly unverifiable. It is entirely possible that Donald Harris' father also came from India. There is absolutely no way of knowing without somebody digging up birth certificates or other official records, and providing them. Further, those defending the choice of naming her African-American are only saying "reliable sources". Not everybody agrees on what a reliable source is. Nobody has even mentioned which "reliable sources" are saying this to provide greater context or to achieve a better informed consensus. I have seen the sources which Wikipedia refers to as "reliable", and in many cases, these sources have long histories of posting false information, and of being prosecuted over it. The term "reliable sources" without backing it up, has to be the most ambiguous argument ever, and achieves nothing to resolve a dispute. Grez868 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before commenting. It is disruptive to make outlandish "Birther" style claims ("no way of knowing without somebody digging up birth certificates"). It is disruptive to say that we should disregard reliable sources, or to suggest that there is no such thing as a reliable source. And it is disruptive to claim that well-established reliable sources are "fake news" (I assume you are referring to the variety of sources that have explicitly referred to Harris as African American, including Reuters, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal). Your bizarre claim that these sources have been "prosecuted" over "posting false information" is similarly disruptive. This kind of activities can be sanctionable. Please consider this a clear warning. Neutrality^talk 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• No' Because of her complex heritage. I would accept African-American despite her Jamaican heritage but she is biracial. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia, my understanding of this RfC, given the other RfC, is that they are not mutually exclusive. Endorsing this RfC doesn't rule out endorsing the other one too. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  They don't need to be in the lede. Biracial is used by RSs [82]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think there already was clear consensus before these RFCs and my !vote is still for the status quo. But, FWIW, whereas American sources like to use "African-American", I notice The Times of London also takes a different, rather concise take: "The daughter of a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, she makes history as the first non-white woman on a presidential ticket."[83] Llew Mawr (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  This comment inaccurately presupposes that one cannot be African-American, of Jamaican heritage, and biracial. Obviously, there are many people who are all three of those things. Neutrality^talk 21:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO - She should be described as a "Women of Color" OR "Black with South Asian (or Indian) ancestry." Kamala's father is Jamaican and her mother is from India. BOTH sides of her family's ancestry should be represented in any description. In academe (and major media outlets), she would be considered a "Woman of Color" and/or described as biracial (see links at end). If she is referred to as "Black" the other side of her ancestry should be acknowledged too, as in "Black AND of Indian (or South Asian) descent. Again, BOTH sides should be recognized. Examples: "A former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, she will be the first woman of color to be nominated for national office by a major political party." on https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/kamala-harris-vp-biden.html. "So when Joe Biden named Harris on Tuesday as his running mate — making her the first Black woman on a major party's presidential ticket — Cochran wasn't just struck by the history. It represented a full-circle moment for Black women, who for generations have fought for their voices to be heard and political aspirations recognized...Harris' selection is historic in many senses. It also marks the first time a person of Asian descent is on the presidential ticket. Born to a Jamaican father and Indian mother, she often speaks of her deep bond with her late mother, whom she has called her single biggest influence" on https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-harris-black-voters.html. "Still, I could have ill imagined that one day an African-American man would become the president or that a woman of Jamaican and Indian descent would be a candidate for the vice presidency" and "A woman of color will be on a major-party presidential ticket for the first time: Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden announced Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) as his vice-presidential pick Tuesday" on https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/women-of-color-representation-government/?arc404=true . "Kamala Harris becomes first woman of color to run for vice president on a major party ticket" on CBS News this morning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBjNxAxW79Q).Stoney1976 (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes — per Neutrality's comment above. RS describe Harris as African-American, indeed the focus on that angle, after all Wikipedia didn't invent "Harris is the first African-American vice presidential candidate" - RS did. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That wording was not in the original RS for that statement. The RSs following that statement have changed over time. The RSs for that statement are now her own campaign's website (sort of like a sales website; not typically considered RS) and an article in which she is referred to as "Black" except when quoting others. News outlets appear to be updating their terminology as time goes on to "woman of color," "Black," and/or "biracial" and including a statement about where her parents are from. Check it out yourself. Stoney1976 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

None of what you said erases the fact that she is also "African-American," and in case you hadn't noticed, the wiki article DOES explain where her parents are from in the body. Persistent Corvid (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. Harris is an American. All the ethnic descriptors can go in the body. She is half-Asian, half-Black (Jamaican to be precise), and her current husband is Jewish. All these details of the American melting pot can go in the body. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That's whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • How is that whitewashing (though I prefer woman of color, Black, or biracial in the lead)? It is how she describes herself, and her ancestry is still included. It's all verifiable in RS. Stoney1976 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • No, it is recognizing and highlighting Harris' accomplishments as opposed to her ancestry. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is a Snopes article that says her great-great grandfather may have been an Irish slave owner, Hamilton Brown, and her great grandmother's birth may not have been recorded because her great-great grandmother was a slave. I'm noting this because if this turns out to be verifiable, those arguing that her African American ancestry should be recognized would also have to include her Irish ancestry in principle, which gets kind of ridiculous. Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-ancestor-slaves/ I would still advocate for calling her a "woman of color" capitalized or not, and noting that her father is from Jamaica and her mother from India. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, Stoney, that comment is kind of ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree, this is absurd. For one thing, Snopes says the claim is unproven. More importantly, it proves nothing. Most slave-descended African Americans can count some white slave-owners in their family tree. For a white man to impregnate an enslaved woman he owned was very common. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is nonsense. She is now notable at least partially because she is the first African American, female VP candidate from a major party. She's not notable for being Irish, so why would that be in the lead? Ikjbagl (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Of course, because she is. She is also other things, but they are not mutually exclusive. We should not whitewash her; it's obvious that reliable sources discuss her as African-American--besides other things. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to including her ancestral history in the article. I just don't think it should all go in the lead. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• BBC has been referring to her as a "woman of color" (most frequently) or "Black" or "biracial" then noting her parents' homelands rather than calling her "African American" in their more recent news stories except when quoting others. Examples: "With three months left until election day in the US, California Senator Kamala Harris has already made history: her Jamaican and Indian roots make her the first woman of colour appointed to a presidential ticket by either of the two main American political parties." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53746551 "Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has named Kamala Harris as his running mate - the first black woman and South Asian American in the role." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53739323 "Mr Biden noted that Ms Harris, a US senator from California, was the first woman of colour to serve as a presidential running mate for a major US party." https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53754294 All RS. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. She is Jamaican and Indian descent and it has no relations with African-Americans. It would make more sense to call her "biracial" or "mixed". ShadZ01 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

She is not technically "Jamaican" as that is a country of origin and not a racial descriptor. She was born in America. Her father is Afro-Jamaican. Therefore she is partially African-American. Also, when someone is either biracial or mixed that doesn't somehow make the specific races disappear. Persistent Corvid (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"technically "Jamaican" as that is a country of origin and not a racial descriptor" - as opposed to African, which is not a continent but a "racial descriptor"? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Sources generally refer to her as African-American, and we should follow the sources instead of trying to dissect her racial descent ourselves and apply silly made-up rules (Jamaican immigrants to the US can't be African-American? That's complete and utter nonsense). The current lead [84] mentions her race twice, once when noting that she was the second African-American and first Asian-American woman to serve in the Senate, and then again to note that she is the first African-American and first Asian-American woman to be chosen as a major party running mate. That reflects the way the vast majority of sources have covered her race: she is biracial, both black and Indian-American. Just to be clear, I think the short description in the first sentence should remain "American politician and lawyer", in accordance with manual of style guidelines on nationality. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Biracial appears to be somewhat restrictive. Her mother was Tamil, but her father was Jamaican, presumably of some kind(s) of African descent (has anyone checked for more precise race than "African"?), and also claims to have an Irish ancestor (not proven or disproven at this stage). It seems more accurate to describe her as American of mixed ethnic ancestry and heritage. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You're right, I probably shouldn't refer to her as "biracial" in the future. Anyways, that doesn't change what the sources say. Most of them refer to her as African-American or black, and many also say she's Asian-American, South Asian-American, or Indian-American. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• No Identity is separate from heritage. She is Jamaican-American, doesn’t matter how much she believes otherwise Anon0098 (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Related:

• The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be --The Atlantic
• Is Kamala Harris Legally African American, Indian, Both, Neither, or Something Else? --Reason Magazine
• Kamala Harris’ Biracial Heritage Has Thrown Conservatives Into A Tailspin --Forbes
• Did U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris’ Ancestor Own Slaves in Jamaica? --Snopes
• Kamala Harris’ Jamaican Heritage --Jamaica Global
• Kamala Harris is Asian and Black. That shouldn't be confusing in 2020 — but it is to some. --NBC News
• Kamala Harris’s Indian Connections Spark Social Media Frenzy --Bloomberg

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• African-American vs. black --Grammarist
• Not all black people are African American. Here's the difference. --CBS News
• 'African-American' Becomes a Term for Debate --New York Times
• Why I'm Black, Not African American --Los Angeles Times
• 'An African American', or 'a black'? --Politico

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO KH should not be called "Afro-American" until reliable sources are found which show that she has one or more African ancestors. While sources I have read say Afro-American, they give no strong evidence for it. While her father is Jamaican, I have never seen strong evidence that he has an African ancestor. I have never seen any African ancestor named or identified. I have never seen any slave in the ancestry mentioned, who was clearly born in Africa, or clearly had an African ancestor. I have seen no DNA test like for Elizabeth Warren. Is there even a reliable source which demonstrates that KH has physical characteristics exclusively typical of African ancestry? (TolerantToleration (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC))

  TolerantToleration, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for how to handle including things like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  TolerantToleration is almost certainly a racist troll account. It was created today and its only contributions appear to be to try to reach the autoconfirmed status and troll here. This is also not encouraging. Acalamari 17:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think they are racist? They seem to be noting that although some (but not all) RS refer to her as African American, all we really know is that her father is from Jamaica. That much is verifiable. Her heritage beyond that is unknown. The RS calling her African American don't mention tracing her lineage. They may be making assumptions. Stoney1976 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• yes or black would be appropriate since she most often refers to herself that way but there are several RS that report both.

NBC News[85]Meet Kamala Harris, the Second Black Woman Elected to the U.S. Senate

NPR[86]

Roll Call[87]State attorney general could be second ever African-American woman in Senate

LA Times[88]and Harris will become only the second black woman in the nation’s history to serve in Congress’ upper chamber.

Vox[89] has an entire story on this and why it's problematic to be dissecting her identity like this

And for the pièce de résistance, her own website [90] where she says: the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history. Kamala was elected as the first African-American and first woman to serve as California's Attorney General. Praxidicae (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment.There is a debate regarding who is "African American" versus "Jamaican American," in part because of proof of ancestry, etc., but also because their colonial histories and cultural identities are different. Many Jamaican Americans do not consider themselves African American. See: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/21/black-history-african-american-definition/1002344001/ In their most recent story, the AP's fact checker says Kamala identifies as "Black and Indian American." They say, "Kamala Harris for years has identified herself as both Black and Indian American. In interviews, she has regularly talked about how her mother, who was from India, raised her as Black." Black is a more overarching term that includes people whose recent ancestors are from different countries. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/breaking-the-news/african-american-or-black-which-term-should-you-use/89-0364644d-3896-4e8b-91b1-7c28c039353f The even more overarching term for a woman with both Black and Indian ancestors would be a "person of color" or a "woman of color." The Washington Post says, "A “person of color” identity is a new entry in the portfolios of nonwhites, who can identify primarily as black, Latino, Asian; Mexican, Jamaican, Chinese; or Catholic, Methodist, Muslim. Under many circumstances, they now choose to identify as POC." See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/02/people-color-are-protesting-heres-what-you-need-know-about-this-new-identity/ Current reporting supports "Black and Indian American" or "Black and South Asian American." If we are going by parents' countries of origin, "Jamaican and Indian American." Stoney1976 (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You're too far down the rabbit hole. Praxidicae (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Neither one of her parents . Both non Americans in America on foreign student visas at the time of her birth were born in America. African American means you are a descendent of a slave from Africa who was forced to come to America as a Slave to serve as a Slave in the United States. Unless Jamaica becomes the 51 state she is not African American. Its highly insulting to real African Americans which i am one of to call someone from Jamacia an African American they are not and Never will be. No Jamacian i have ever talked to claimed to be an African American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.90.225 (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes Couple of things here. Im not sure of your fact "Both non Americans in America on foreign student visas at the time of her birth were born in America.", please provide citation. Second of all, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), says exactly the opposite, birthright citizenship extends to children of foreigners. Sen. Harris is American in every sense of the word. Third, the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans are of African origin. It is fair to claim that Sen. Harris is of African origin. Fourth, and most importantly, Sen. Harris refers to herself as "African American" https://www.harris.senate.gov/about "the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history." It's her identity, she has legitimate claim to it, and thats good enough for me. Fifth, I think you protest too much, and have lost your Neutral point of view "Its highly insulting to real African Americans which i am one[...]" and should withdraw from proposed edits on the page. And, for the record, I have moved this comment to the bottom of the section, where it belongs. Rklahn (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• No - Even though she may self-identify as African-American & MSM describes her as such, that doesn't make her so. Her father is from Jamaica & her mother is from India & neither of those countries are located in Africa. PS - Thank goodness she & MSM aren't describing her as Martian-American. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - per Neutrality and Praxidicae's comments. Jr8825 • Talk 04:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per Neutrality, as the only thing that matters is how one is described by reliable sources. Still further, Jamaica is in America, so a Jamaican of African descent is an African American. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Harris describes herself as such, and reliable sources frequently mention it. It's certainly notable, as well, because reliable sources regularly suggest that her race was a factor in her selection, and that she is a "historic" candidate because of her race. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, when relevant: Harris should have this attributed to her if it is directly relevant. If it is discussed that she is the first African-American V.P. nominee, for example, that would be acceptable. However, it should not be placed in a context such as "Kamala Harris is an African-American politician," if the same would not be done for a person of another race. PickleG13 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes There are reliable sources which substantiate this. ~ HAL333 19:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• No Not in the lead atleast. She has mixed ancestry. Too much brouhaha over this by her campaign and MSM. Never heard of any of this shit when she was still in the primaries. - hako9 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, per sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I comment with a reserved yes vote. I hate that this is even worth considered arguing about. For the sake of political correctness, call her African-American. Trillfendi (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  What is the politically incorrect way to call her then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Blasian. Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• No The fact is that sources vary, with no shortage of sources for Indian-American, African-American, Black, or Woman of Color.[91][92][93]. Strong preference to leave ethnicity out of the lead altogether. But if we must mention it, we could say that she is multi-racial. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Per RS and the fact that despite what some may say, it is possible to be African-American even if your father is Afro-Jamaican... and also simultaneously be Asian-American even if your mother is from India. (This should be a piece of cake.) Persistent Corvid (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes So long as RSes do (and they do). She is an American with African descent. This isn't 1892. Dumuzid (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, in line with core Wikipedia policies, including WP:V. The lucky editors who close this RfC will have to contend with "No" contributions such as the following: "Even though she may self-identify as African-American & MSM describes her as such, that doesn't make her so" (from GoodDay (talk · contribs)). This contribution should of course count in favor of inclusion: as this editor says, Harris identifies as African-American, and "MSM" (a.k.a. reliable sources) describe her as such. Job done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank goodness she doesn't identify as a Martian-American, then. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Recycling a dumb pseudo-clever joke doesn't actually make it funny or insightful the second time around. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Cry me a river. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, pointing out that a comment is not funny or insightful doesn't strike me as particularly lachrymose statement. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per my comment above. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• No as her heritage (for those it may concern) is too complex to sum it up neatly in one or two words. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Not for Harris herself it isn't. Why should we then care what you think? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Because it is a request for comments. Whether my comment is of interest to you personally is irrelevant, even if you use the Royal we. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes along with South Asian American The current lead already suffices with "the second African-American woman and the first South Asian American to serve in the United States Senate".
• Yes If Harris identifies as such, and sources cover it, that is all that is needed. ValarianB (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes because that is how reliable sources describe her. Using another standard to determine something else is WP:OR. -- Calidum 18:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, while there is no broad agreement on whether term African-American should be used,I have not seen any objections to using black in its place? While there are many commenters who would prefer to use African-American, there are plenty of others that have objected to that usage here, for various reasons. Rather than endless debate back and forth over the true meaning of African-American, why not just go with the alternative term that there is widespread agreement as to its accuracy? (This is only in regards to the black vs. African-American issue, whether or not to also include Indian American notwithstanding). Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• YES, but for somewhat different reasons (even though the fact that the media widely refers to her as black is a valid enough reason on its own). Biden practically stated that being an African-American female was a requirement for his VP pick. It's huge news that this is the first major party female VP candidate, AND the first major party African American VP candidate. Being the first major party VP pick to be an African American woman is now part of what makes her notable. To not acknowledge this accomplishment by noting it in the lead seems strange to me; certainly it will be included in a few years from now, regardless of how the 2020 election turns out, because she will ALWAYS be the first African American, female VP candidate from a major party. That will ALWAYS be something that makes her notable. Thus, it should be in the lead. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bi-racial is more accurate, if Wikipedia feels the need to label her. Her Asian heritage is equally important. If there is a need to mention race at all in the lead, please don't favor only one part of her heritage. BLM is leading the news, but if the truth be told, Kamala has a couple of other assets the other candidates did not. She can draw the Asian-American vote. And possibly why she got chosen over Susan Rice, is that Kamala represents California's 55 electoral votes. No other state even comes close. — Maile (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Both African-American and South Asian-American have been mentioned in the article. Race is relevant because of the historic nature of her candidacy. Biden didn't need to pick her to win California, though. JTRH (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of everything mentioned in the article. I'm just saying for the mention in the lead, the Asian is equally important to the African. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

They have been mentioned equally in the lead. JTRH (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I try and avoid direct criticism of other editor's talk comments, but I find I must here. The fact that Sen. Harris got picked as the VP candidate is irrelevant. She is either notable or she is not. (clearly she is). She is either African American or not. (I believe she is). She is either South Asian American or not. (I also believe that she is). And, for the record, as stated elsewhere, I believe she can be both. Rklahn (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Rklahn, She is either Indian-American or she is not. She is either Jamaican-American or she is not. So why not use these descriptors against those non-specific descriptors? The No !voters are arguing why should we even mention these descriptors in the lead? - hako9 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Elsewhere, and at length, I have argued that what matters here is what Sen. Harris self described identity is. That is clearly African American and South Asian American. Her Senate website says exactly that. Has said it for months. Race and how other people define her are exactly the opposite of what the goal here should be. Rklahn (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, and probably also as "Asian-American" because she was described as such in majority of RS and because she officially self-identify as such. If she were not, I would say "no". My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Didn't she face against systematic racism aimed at black people when she was young? She went to Howard, identifies as black, looks black, and has black parents. A black American is an African American in accordance with most definitions. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, per reliable sources and her self-identity. Wikipedia doesn't do original research. Reliable sources refer to her as "African-American" so we do to. It's not that complicated. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• General Note: This Friday, the RFC—which fails to state the context in which "African American" is used in the lead—will have completed one month. The context is that of "first," "second," or "third" applied to "African-American" ("Asian-American" or "South-Asian American").

• Before we get to that discussion, let's rule out a few things.

• We are not debating DNA here, genotype or phenotype. Race—as geneticists who have studied it well enough to be confused by its exceptions, know—is a social construct. (If she had been abandoned as an infant by these biological parents, and raised by two foster parents with similar antecedents, where would we be in discussions about her race? Would we look for viable DNA matches in the wrecks of slave ships?)
• Neither is it about how the NYTimes describes her, for that is really about usage in their stylebook, and that discussion should be held on the talk page of WP's stylebook, for it would be more general.

• If it is about the identity of Kamala Harris, a social construct, then it is she who gets to define it as long as it is not too implausible relative to her experience. Her pronouncements there are very probably context-bound, for she likely uses "black" informally and "African American" formally. We are an encyclopedia. We typically write in the formal register, especially in the lead. Formally, her senate web site describes her as the second female African American senator and the first South Asian American senator; and the California DOJ page on its 32nd Attorney General describes her as the first African American Attorney General in California history and the first South Asian American AG. That is good enough for us.
• As for all the other categories of classification by gender or ethnicity, when first or second are used, we pick the largest ambit of notable usage. For "senator", we can't really use "Asian-American" for she would be the eight Asian American US senator, jointly with Tammy Duckworth (and that is no longer notable). Similarly, we say the "first African American female" VP nominee and the first Asian American (for South Asian American is subsumed now). If she does become the Vice President, "African American female" will become redundant in the lead paragraph as she will have become the first female vice president, the first African American, and the first Asian American.
• I request an uninvolved admin to close the RFC Saturday, September 12. It is clear that the nays don't have it. Whether the ayes have it or this RFC is inconclusive, it is well to remember that we are not describing her as African American generally here. @MelanieN, Drmies, and Valereee: They may be involved but they would know how to proceed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  Fowler&fowler, you can request an experienced closer at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure —valereee (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  Anyone who has been following this closely will not be surprised by this. I wish to associate myself with Fowler&fowler comments. I would like to expand by pointing out:

• This RfC disturbed a recently found, long discussed consensus, and this discussion raised few original points. IMHO, the original consensus, which was "African American" and "South-Asian American", should carry some weight here, at least as the status quo.
• Any secondary source that says something contrary to Sen. Harris own idea of her identity got it wrong. We should not trust everything a source says (nor do we), some reasonable thought needs to go into it.
• I agree with the idea that this has gone on long enough, and should have a definitive end.

Rklahn (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion early on, but I have not followed it and have no idea how the discussion has gone or where it stands right now. I will take a look tomorrow with fresh eyes, and see if I can reach a conclusion about it, unless people object. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Closure

This discussion is ready to be closed: it has been open for a month, the RfC template was removed by the bot, and the discussion had died down, with the last !votes three days ago. I have evaluated the discussion and find a very clear consensus - clear enough that I feel I can fairly close the discussion even though I participated in it.

As several people pointed out, this discussion is about whether to include the term “African American” in the lead in connection with being the first such person to do something. It specifically excludes using that term in the lead sentence or as a general description of her. People’s responses break down as follows:

• 21 people (not counting myself) supported saying “African American”. More than half cited RS and some cited her own self description.
• Another 8 people, including the OP, said they would be comfortable with either “African American” or “Black”. More than half cited RS and some cited her own self description.
• 2 people preferred “Black”.
• 9 people favored some other descriptor such as “Jamaican American”, “biracial”, “multi-racial”, or “person of color”.
• 5 people said not to use any kind of descriptor in the lead, only in the body of the article.

This shows an overwhelming consensus in favor of African American as a descriptor when talking about being the first to do something. Several people mentioned that “South Asian American” should also be included where appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 12 September 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.

Followup: I notice that while the discussion here was unanimous in saying African American (without a hyphen), our current usage in the article lead says African-American with a hyphen (twice), Asian-American with a hyphen once, and South Asian American without the hyphen once. In the article text we say African American (without a hyphen) six times and South Asian American once. Of the nine sources cited by User:Neutrality in this discussion, four use the hyphen and five don’t. I am going to remove the three hyphens from the lead for consistency with the article text and this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Political positions

Can someone with edit rights add a heading "Political Positions", which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Kamala_Harris? I suggest to place it before "Awards and Honors".

The chapter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Tenure links to that page, but here it is misplaced. Heronils (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Editorial commentary in comments in article

My message here: Don't put editorial commentary in the comments in the article. It's counterproductive, and is leading to some minor edit wars. If you must debate, use the talk page. If you have an editorial comment or direction with consensus, put it in the FAQ. Rklahn (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This article has been written by the Democratic party

Nothing about "Kamala Harris' father said she disgraced her Jamaican family by using a 'fraudulent stereotype' to joke about smoking weed" https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-father-condemns-jamaica-marijuana-joke-2019-2?IR=T or her radical views.

So, this article is just a panegyric. --91.242.152.24 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• What are you suggesting be added, removed, or changed in the article? EEng 01:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, I admire your patience in dealing with these kinds of comments. WTF are her "radical views" anyway? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps the IP editor believes that members of the Democratic Party should be forbidden from editing this article, leaving it to the tender mercies of Trump supporters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Twain: Always do right; this will gratify some people and astonish the rest. EEng 01:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Birth certificate

The Mercury News published an image of a copy of her birth certificate. See [94]. Would it be appropriate to upload the birth certificate as PD and add it to this page or are there any potential issues that could arise? William S. Saturn (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be undue weight to give to a fringe topic. The birtherism around Harris seemed to die out as quickly as it began. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. A distant memory it is, of "far-off things, And battles long ago." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The birth certificate itself is relevant for more than birtherism. What I'm wondering is whether it is, in fact, PD and can be uploaded to commons without any problems. It could have use on other projects and other uses could arise in the future.William S. Saturn (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It should be no problem it’s the “informational, not a valid document to establish identity” (it will literally say that as a stamp; i.e. not an official copy one would use to get a passport or such) version, which in California is a public record. Trillfendi (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Really? Agree with Muboshgu and Fowler&fowler. William S. Saturn if you think it has some use on Commons or some other project, you know, take it to Commons or one of those other projects. Here, its not encyclopedic and reeks of original research. Rklahn (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What are those other potential uses? I'm not sure what benefit uploading the birth certificate would serve. To the PD issues, it probably is. File:President Barack Obama's long form birth certificate.jpg is tagged as PD. There's no reason I can think of that Harris' wouldn't be. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@William S. Saturn: If it is a question about whether it can be uploaded to Commons then you should be posting on a relevant talk page there (as Rklahn has stated). That is where the expertise would lie. This is the wrong forum. As things stand, there is little chance that it would ever be used here. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

Under violent crimes "She took 49 violent crime cases to trial and secured 36 convictions, for an 84 percent conviction rate". Math is incorrect, true rate is 73%.

This makes suspect all calculations in this article. If intentional, makes motive of author suspect.

William Maliha, MD 67.243.67.24 (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This came up here before but was never looked into. I cannot seem to access the source (no subscription), but someone who can should check it out. There could be some nuance that explains the math; I would not be so quick to cast aspersions. Either way, these sentences should be clarified. RedHotPear (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

67.243.67.24's math appears right, but I think we should go back to the source and find out exactly what is going on here. I don't agree with the conclusion that this makes the article or author suspect. There could be a reasonable explanation. What I do find suspect is signing, with an MD title, anonymous edits. If Dr. Maliha does want to be taken with the weight his education implies, he should set up an account. Either be anonymous, or don't, but you cant have your cake and eat it too. Rklahn (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As for expertise regarding politics, someone with a MD degree has no more credibility than a restaurant dishwasher, a hospital janitor, or the operator of an industrial sheet steel punch press in an automotive factory. I selected three occupations I held in my late teens and early 20s. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

One more comment. If I was able to edit the article (I cant, not extended-protected eligible) I would have marked this answered without an edit. And I would suggest that consensus is lacking for such an edit. Rklahn (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I also can't see the source but I thought this had been discussed previously (maybe it wasn't on this page) and the rationale was that "cases going to trial" and "number of convictions" are different metrics, something akin to the possibility that a single case can result in multiple convictions. I have to assume that whoever added this to the article was being true to the source they referenced, but maybe WP:RSN can help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I was able to tease out a badly-formatted, text-only Google cache of the newspaper article in question, but it doesn't shed much more light than what we have now. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The data were self-reported by Harris.JTRH (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You want statistics, copper? I'll give you some statistics!

• This might be a good time to raise the point that there is (IMHO) way too much superhero minutiae in the article. It's a bit like a Norse saga of villains vanquished and benevolent deeds done. A discussion of accomplishments does belong, but I think it should be more overview/summary and less in-the-weeds detail with salvos of percentages shot at the reader like bullets. EEng 16:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of Kamala Harris#Violent crimes begins by implying that before Harris became DA San Francisco was a dangerous place. It then implies whe fixed the problem by listing statistics about her prosecutions. It's violates synthesis. We should instead use an informed commentary on how successful she was. TFD (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of request to reduce protection level from Extended confirmed to Semi-protection

I would just like everyone interested to know that I have requested that the protection level of the article be lowered to Semi-protection. Many active editors before the VP nomination got locked out when we went to Extended confirmed. And to focus on me for a moment, I was one of them.

The bad actors seem to have gone away, the talk page is healthy, and edit wars are a thing of the past. Simply put, its time. Rklahn (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, but the request was declined at WP:RFPP with multiple administrators agreeing it should stay at ECP. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. But there does seem to be a little inconsistency here. Mike Pence is only Semi-protected. Im accepting the decision for now, but Im pretty likely to bring this up again after the election, and potential inauguration. Rklahn (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO the entirety of Wikipedia should be Extended-confirmed. ValarianB (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If that was the case, how would anyone ever get enough edits to BECOME extended-confirmed? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You and your logic. EEng 17:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandboxes, draft-space, article talk pages. Prove that they're here for valid reasons with measurable contributions to discussions and non-live articles. If that's too severe, then at least default every BLP to this status. But I didn't mean to get this far afield from this the topic of Kamala Harris, apologies. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I hereby propose "overextended-confirmed protection" under which you can only edit after proving that you have other things to do and really should be spending your time somewhere other than Wikipedia. Would cut down on a lot of nonsense, I think. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty good. I'm gonna steal it. EEng 06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. Motion carried. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have no notion of the procrastinator's psychology: for some people the time spent on Wikipedia (or other distractions) is directly proportional to the amount of "other things to do" and necessity of "spending your time somewhere other than Wikipedia". On the substance of the matter: I too would like to contribute to the article - see my edit request - but frankly cannot be bothered to open an edit request every time. More so since such requests are from what I have seen much more easily dismissed out of hand. I am a frequent Wikipedia reader and currently only a disinterested opportunistic editor: I fix things that appear obviously broken to me when I see them but I generally do not care enough to engage in extended discussions. I usually ask nicely before making a change and will generally not put up a lot of resistance to being reverted. However, being treated as a supplicant simply takes the fun out of it for me. Think of that what you will, but I believe that editors like me offer a real benefit to Wikipedia - and if only bringing a fresh set of eyes and some fresh thoughts to an article. The "local" editors can then do with them what they want. The dangers of bad faith actors and sabotage should be balanced with the inherent opportunity cost of turning away casual editors like me. Rappatoni (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, it's a calculated risk. On the one hand, protection hugely reduces the editor time spent dealing with nonsense; on the other, it locks out a small number of editors in your situation. There are plenty of "fresh eyes" (fresh to this article) who are nonetheless experienced on other articles and familiar with guidelines and policies, which is what we need here. Bluntly, there are plenty of other articles you can edit until you reach 500. All of us went through that same waiting period before getting access to certain articles. EEng 11:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with the level of protection. I don't want to spend time arguing with crackpots which I am sure this article will attract. TFD (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to change the protection level; support continued ECP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Here I was thinking semi-protection is higher than extended confirmed protection. Trillfendi (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This simple table, which only has three footnotes, makes it all clear at a glance. EEng 14:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the request to reduce this article to "Semi-Protection." I'm among the editors who are now "locked out." I strongly disagree with the complete deletion of all mention of the Larry Wallace sexual harassment lawsuit/scandal from the Kamala Harris Wikipedia article. This deletion occurred on 2020 Sept. 21 based on very flimsy logic. In December 2017, Sen. Harris issued a very strong statement about sexual harassment in her call for Sen. Franken to resign (then she took over his Judiciary committee seat). In 2018, the "Sacramento Bee" exposed that Harris' longtime senior advisor Larry Wallace had sexually harassed a female subordinate in Harris' own California Attorney General headquarters. The State of California paid $400,000 to settle the lawsuit with the sexual harassment victim. That material should have been moved to the "2018" section of the article, not entirely removed. However, I and other editors cannot restore it. I'm increasingly losing faith in the ability of Wikipedia to be an objective source of information. This article is a prime example of Wikipedia's problems -- where a cabal of fanatics "lock up" editing on an article and start "scrubbing" it to conform to their agenda, while disparaging anyone who disagrees as "bad actors" and attempting to impose "sanctions" on them. It's time for a sort of "antitrust" policy to imposed against Wikipedia as an institution due to its dominance in web engine search results. This Kamala Harris Wikipedia article is "Exhibit A" of the need for major reform to Wikipedia policies and governance. Jab73 (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your rant is very good evidence that our protection policy is working as it should. You're free to use this page to propose changes and challenge consensus, but just adding things back because you disagree with their removal is disruptive and we have this protection so that editors like you don't do it. Clearly still necessary to prevent disruption.

Note that anyone can put an edit request on this page any time, and if it has merit it will be implemented or discussed. Also, any user with a good history of contributions who feels they're being unjustly inconvenienced by this protection level can request to be added manually to the extendedconfirmed group at WP:PERM. I don't work in that venue and don't know what the standards are, but you can try. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not know this. Thanks for pointing it out. Its nice to know that someone thought of the problem of reasonable editors getting locked out by this level of protection. Ive commented on the Larry Wallace issue elsewhere on these pages, and will let what I said stand. Rklahn (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied." Don't get your hopes up ... Rappatoni (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Al Franken & aide's sexual harassment settlement

The final paragraph in §2017 of the current page reads:

In December, Harris called for the resignation of Senator Al Franken, asserting on Twitter, "Sexual harassment and misconduct should not be allowed by anyone and should not occur anywhere." Twelve months later, longtime aide Larry Wallace resigned from Harris's Senate staff after The Sacramento Bee uncovered a $400,000 settlement paid by the State of California for Wallace's sexual harassment of his executive assistant while both worked in Harris's Attorney General office.

This feels to me very WP:SYNTHy. It implies some kind of direct connection between Harris' position on Franken, vs. when an aide sexually harrassed someone and was fired for it. I think the Wallace part should absolutely not be the second sentence in a two-sentence paragraph if the first is about Harris condeming Al Franken for sexual harrassment. For that matter, absent BLP-suitable sources alleging that Harris knew about the harassment or overall reporting about her fostering a hostile workplace, I don't think the Wallace part belongs in the article at all. And for that matter, starting a sentence with "Twelve months later" in a subsection called "2017" feels wrong too, given that things that are 12 months apart are generally not in the same year. Edit: I found the diff. It's been in the article since 3 July.-Ich (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, obvious SYNTH, a clear error in our article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, as it is SYNTH, does not fit in 2017, and is dubiously notable enough for inclusion anyway. I went ahead and removed the second sentence. RedHotPear (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the complete removal of the Larry Wallace sexual harassment lawsuit and resignation from the Kamala Harris Wikipedia article. I request that the content be restored to the article. Perhaps 2018 is a more appropriate place. The removal of the Larry Wallace material entirely strongly suggests that Wikipedia editors are "scrubbing" the Kamala Harris article to remove "negative" material about her. Larry Wallace was a longtime Harris senior aide in the California Attorney General's office who followed her to a senior position on her official U.S. Senate staff. Harris called for Sen. Franken's resignation with the statement: ""Sexual harassment and misconduct should not be allowed by anyone and should not occur anywhere," yet her own longtime adviser Larry Wallace engaged in sexual harassment of a subordinate in Attorney General Harris' own office. I don't have the "Extended Protection" credentials to restore the text to the article, so I'm requesting a discussion about it here. It's biased edits like this one that cause the general public to lose faith in the objectivity of Wikipedia. This Wikipedia article should be re-titled "Kamala Harris Fan Club Page." Jab73 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Jab73 Im don't think whats you believe is going on here is going on here. You seem to be saying there is some hypocrisy between Sen. Harris' comments on Sen. Frnaken's and her employment of Larry Wallace, and that Wikipedia editors are engaged in some sort of whitewash. I just don't see it. Most of the secondary sources Im finding on this subject are around Larry Wallace's hiring elsewhere, despite his resigning from Sen. Harris' staff and his costing the taxpayers of California $400K. This is about Larry Wallace, not Sen. Harris. That being said, Im happy discuss any potential edits. Rklahn (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm? As other editors have pointed out, it is the SYNTH here that is problematic, and the "implicit hypocrisy" you insist on is the type of implicit editorializing that fails WP:NPOV. Echoing Rklahn's point that this is Harris's biography, not Wallace's. Onus is on you to show sufficient notability and relevance to the article's subject on a BLP. RedHotPear (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I am getting tired of the games that Wikipedia editors are playing with the Kamala Harris article. A SYNTH accusation does give an editor carte blanche to cut material entirely from an article. You want "sufficient notability and relevance to the article's subject" -- here it is:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/11/kamala-harris-political-implications-393986 - "There was Larry Wallace, a top aide to Harris who resigned his position in late 2018, amid accusations of harassment during his time at the California Department of Justice. Harris has said she was unaware of the allegations against him."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/05/kamala-harris-staffer-resigns-harassment-allegations-1046435 - "Larry Wallace, a top aide to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), resigned Wednesday amid allegations of harassment during his tenure at the California Department of Justice. ... Wallace was a senior adviser in Harris’ Sacramento office. His resignation comes as Harris contemplates a 2020 run for president. Harris has been active in the #MeToo movement and introduced legislation earlier this year with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would prohibit employers from subjecting employees to mandatory nondisclosure agreements when it comes to workplace harassment."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/larry-wallace-kamala-harris-resignation/index.html - "Harris, who has been an outspoken advocate for the #MeToo movement, plans to decide whether she will run for president in the coming weeks. Her tough questioning of Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court who was accused of sexual harassment, enhanced her stature within the Democratic Party."

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article222688740.html

Here's a "Los Angeles Times" article from 2019: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-kamala-harris-attorney-general-settlements-20190301-story.html

There you have it - credible, mainstream news outlets (WP:RS) like Politico, CNN, "Los Angeles Times" and "Sacramento Bee" reported on the Larry Wallace lawsuit, his resignation form Harris' Senate staff, the controversy's implications on her record on sex discrimination and on her presidential campaign.

As for the ridiculous "Echoing Rklahn's point that this is Harris's biography, not Wallace's" excuse to exclude the Larry Wallace controversy from this article, that is NOT an excuse to excise any mention of the Larry Wallace scandal from the Kamala Harris article. Mr. Wallace was a LONGTIME SENIOR advisor to Senator Harris, who FOLLOWED her from the Attorney General's office to her official Senate staff. Mr. Wallace was an employee of Attorney General Harris at the time of the sexual harassment of his female subordinate. Mr. Wallace was a senior advisor to Senator Harris at the time when "Sacramento Bee" exposed the matter. Contemporary news accounts in December 2018 directly discuss the Larry Wallace controversy in the context of Senator Harris and her 2020 presidential bid. The Larry Wallace controversy belongs in the Kamala Harris Wikipedia article. Jab73 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jab73 Im still not seeing an edit here to discuss. I get the sense that this is not going anywhere reasonable, but Im willing to be surprised. Rklahn (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

For balance sake, how about a brief summary of what transpired and the subsequent reporting while removing the SYNTH-issue by getting rid of the "implied hypocrisy" ("12 months later...") and the reference to the Al Franken case. As for relevance: the fact that Harris responded to this issue and it influenced the way she runs Senate office (see below) makes it relevant, specifically for the U.S. Senate (2017-present) section. As for the year-issue: it seems appropriate to me to append later "minor" consequences of/reactions to an event reported under a year-subsection, even if they occur in a later year. If the consequences are "major" then the whole discussion should have its own subsection. So in summary I suggest something like the following paragraph under the header "2018" in the U.S. Senate (2017-present) section:

In December 2018, longtime aide Larry Wallace resigned from Harris's Senate staff after The Sacramento Bee uncovered a $400,000 settlement paid by the State of California for Wallace's sexual harassment of his executive assistant while both worked in Harris's Attorney General office. The incident was mentioned by several news outlets in the context of Harris' advocacy for the #MeToo movement and her questioning of Brett Kavanaugh during the latter's confirmation process. According to Harris' staff she was never informed about the lawsuit and consequent settlement. Nevertheless, in 2019 Harris took responsibility for this and similar incidents: "As the chief executive of a department of nearly 5,000 employees, the buck stopped with me. No one should face harassment or intimidation in the workplace, and victims of sexual misconduct should be listened to, believed and protected." Harris further announced that she had ensured that any sexual harrassment complaint in her Senate office would immediately be brought to her attention.

Rappatoni (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That seems like quite a long paragraph about something that unfortunately happens far too often in workplaces. Harris didn't know it happened at the time (the victim does not claim she reported it that high), nor that her successor authorised a payout. When she found out about the accusations against her staff (in her new job), she accepted his resignation and made arrangements to find out about such accusations should they arise in future. What does your proposed paragraph tell the reader about the subject of this article? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the paragraph is fairly long. However, I would argue this corresponds to the increasing attention this "far too often" occurring problem receives in public conversation. Should an issue that occurs "far too often" therefore be covered more briefly on Wikipedia? Nevertheless, I would be perfectly happy if you or someone else with editing rights included a shortened version of the above, as long as the key point comes across. Which brings me to your final question: the paragraph informs the reader about the approach Ms. Harris has taken to an issue she has been vocal about politically in workplaces headed by herself. It does so insofar as this issue has been discussed in the public conversation and Harris has addressed it. It provides reliable sources the reader can use to inform themselves further. Finally, an aside: I am not a fan of the chronological structuring of the article. A better solution would be to organize political positions/statements/actions by issues. Then one could have a section on sexual harassment/abuse that would bring together the different snippets on the issue that are now scattered across the article. But this would require a major reorganization of the article. So for now entering a short paragraph is the easier solution. Rappatoni (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Quebec is not a separate nation within Canada, it is a province. 79.129.41.160 (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Debatable... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:18, 8 October 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Lack of viewpoint diversity

I say this as supporter of Senator Harris. I'm happy to see her numerous accomplishments described in this article, especially during her service as AG, and her support of the LGBT community. But Wikipedia should be a balanced source of information, and there seems to be little to no negative information or criticism of the distinguished senator in this article. I find this troubling, as no one in politics is perfect. Ucbuffalo81 (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

No one is against factual criticism... but we won’t accept things that come from right-wing tabloids that offer nothing but hate speech and falsehoods. If you find reliably sourced criticism don’t hesistate to add it. Trillfendi (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's partly because editors here have taken a policy of deciding that controversies in which members of her office did something controversial don't count (the firefighters incident excepted), while she can take credit for her office's accomplishments, even if the evidence Harris herself was personally involved is equally nebulous. 2601:482:8000:C470:78D1:1711:3DC5:2F48 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Copy Edits for Attention of the Sufficiently Privved

Last sentence of first paragraph under early and family life is a sentence fragment. Change "receiving" to "received" is easiest fix.

TYVM, A. Wandering Copy Editor Here.it.comes.again (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ooops. Make that "he received".

Here.it.comes.again (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

In section "Early life and education (1964–1990)" "...which previously had been 95 percent white, and after the desegregation plan went into effect became 40 percent Black." Change "white" to "White", as it is a proper noun, just like "Black". 74.127.200.157 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Not the first -

It states she is the first African American, the first Asian American, and the third female vice presidential running mate on a major party ticket.

Not true she is the second African American female running for VP.

Charlotta Amanda Spears Bass Was the first in 1952 Icemancole (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotta_Bass Icemancole (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Icemancole, the key word there is "major" party ticket. Bass was the VP nominee on the Progressive Party (United States, 1948) ticket, and they were not "major". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know Jamaica was in Africa, aren't the islands of the Carribean Sea part of North America? Had sort of thought the phrase denoted ancestry that had traveled directly from Africa to United States. WakandaQT (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read my comment in the section above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

WakandaQT - The residents of Jamaica have dark skin for exactly the same reason African Americans do. They are descendants of slaves from Africa. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point... I guess maybe etymologically speaking it's just a little confusing why such a broad term is used. Like I think we all descend from Africa so "African American" is like "rectangular square". WakandaQT (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I also found it confusing, but it was thoroughly discussed when Obama ran for president. Anyone who is a U.S. citizen and has visibly black ancestry is termed an African American. This actually makes sense because African American is the modern politically correct term for Negro, colored or black American. As for etymology, see etymological fallacy. Terms do not necessarily reflect the meanings of the terms used. American Indians for example do not have ancestry from India. TFD (talk)

Tracking minor parties in the US is impossible. Charlotta Bass might not be the first, and there might have been other minor parties with African American VP candidates in between. But all this doesn't matter, because the two big parties matter so much more than these minor parties who are never elected. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Angela Davis was a VP candidate twice in the 80s. Anyway, it's not clear what running in the vice presidential election means. If it includes write-in candidates, it might be impossible to know how many candidates there have been. TFD (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether Kamala Harris should be called, African-American or Jamaican-American or Jamaican-Indo-American"edit request on 12 October 2020"

Kamala Harris Father was a Jamaican-American while her Mother was Indian-American, now the question is how she could be as African-American. My request is to change the term African-American to Jamaican-American or Jamaican-Indo-American as a suitable terminology. The term African-American seems connected to be the politically motivated agenda of Kamala Harris.

References: 1. https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/profiles/djharris.htm 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Harris#cite_note-1 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyamala_Gopalan Shatykan (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No, per many previous discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The OP should look at the FAQ at the top of this page. And perhaps also realise that dark skinned people in Jamaica are as African as dark skinned people in the USA, for exactly the same reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the dark skin identifier for being African? Many of North African countries people don't have dark skin, is that mean they are not African? Can we call Egyptian, Morocco, Tunisians, Algerians as Europeans or American, because they have Whitish skin tone? The answer is not justifiable, Kamala Harris is either a Jamaican-American or Jamaican-Indo-American.

Just like the broader American attitude to race, this conversation is becoming silly. Obviously African American means dark skin. Kamala has dark skin. Part of that is because her African ancestry, She is an American citizen. That makes African American a perfectly valid descriptor. (Among others.) I personally wish she could just be described as America, or human. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Her dad appears at some point to have naturalized (become American citizen) so calling him Jamaican-American NOW would be correct (though he clearly was not even a permanent resident at the time of her birth) but I'm not sure it's correct to call her mom Indian-American, because I haven't found any evidence she became a citizen or even a long-term resident. Wasn't she for the entirety of her life only a citizen of India who was able to live indefinitely in USA due to scholarship Visa? WakandaQT (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed for anything we write on Wikipedia. If a preponderance of reliable sources does not favor a certain description of ancestry or ethnicity, our own musings, howsoever justified and apt they might be to us, are of no value. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear WakandaQT; the question is not about her mother, I personally feel all Humans are the same. However, when we make the derivation of Someone's ethnicity, it should be based on the facts, not on the color of the skin. Kamala Harris's father was described as a Jamaican-American, that was perfectly okay because he belongs to Jamaica and the Island is not a part of Africa. Shatykan (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The ONLY reason there are dark skinned people in Jamaica is precisely the same as the reason African Americans exist. They are ALL descended from salves stolen from Africa at pretty much the same time. Kamala is an American. She has ancestors from Africa, just like most black people in the US. If we must so label people, it is perfectly logical for Kamala to be called African American. The Jamaican step is largely irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Fowler7folwer; I think I had put the three references, which are very reliable and authentic sources.Shatykan (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

But you did not read the archives of this page where there were long discussions with dozens of references. There is even an FAQ. We are human beings. There are only so many times we can answer the same questions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended Edit Request for Name Clarification 10/23

In the 2002 DA race section (District Attorney of San Francisco (2004–2011)), I was confused (I was not familiar with the three-way DA's race candidates) by the phrase, "Harris prepared to run for District Attorney of San Francisco against the incumbent Hallinan and Bill Fazio," as I didn't know what an incumbent Hillinan was (seemed like an unfamiliar place-name adjective 'of the hill'?). I would suggest that inserting the full name of the incumbent would clarify, particularly for folks who hadn't read the preceding paragraph. Consider the following:

"Harris prepared to run for District Attorney of San Francisco against the incumbent Terence "Kayo" Hallinan and challenger Bill Fazio,"

Zam Ygam (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Terence Hallinan is linked in the section directly above this, and we normally don't insert multiple links to the same page in an article (per WP:OVERLINK). I think you make a good point about the phrase being confusing for readers who didn't read the preceding section, but I wonder if there's a better way to deal with it? Separately, I don't think it's appropriate to insert his nickname, seeing how it's not mentioned in his article at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

A while ago in Archive 4, someone asked "Can someone with edit rights add a heading "Political Positions", which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Kamala_Harris? I suggest to place it before "Awards and Honors"." I didn't say anything at the time, but I second the suggestion. I believe the link to the "political positions" page in a politician's article should be prominent, in the Table of Contents and not just the infobox, even when the main article doesn't contain a summary. Typeprint (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Typeprint (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done: The political positions of Kamala Harris are already linked at the top of Kamala Harris#Tenure. Terasail^[Talk] 14:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I know, I meant in the Table of Contents, like for most other politicians (e.g. Amy Klobuchar) so that it's easier to spot. Typeprint (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Typeprint, good point, I've added it —valereee (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Typeprint (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice President-Elect?

The Decision Desk called the Presidental race for Biden. (Source: https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/) Should I go ahead and make Kamala Harris the Vice President-Elect? -Jgeorge20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeorge20 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, there are still many states where the results are not certified. Be patient. Also, please remember to put new comments at the bottom of talk pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We won't add her as Vice President-Elect until major sources call that Biden won. cookie monster (2020) 755 17:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not a reliable or significant source.[95] TFD (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• How about we centralize this discussion at Talk:Joe Biden. (Spoiler alert: it's a silly debate. Delivering current election results is about the last thing our articles need to do.) EEng 21:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shan’t get ahead of ourselves based on what we presume will happen. Trillfendi (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE - CNN and The AP just called the race for Biden on November 7, 2020 at 11:20 AM (Source: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-biden-election-results-11-07-20/h_1e0e91d050d44ff57754643e6d9008d2) Jgeorge20

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (5)

206.72.224.242 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris nor Biden have been confirmed as the winners of the 2020 election at this time. Therefore, she is NOT Vice-President ELECT.

 Not done It has been widely accepted for many decades that when major media outlets (including Fox News in this case) declare a winner, then those people are referred to as president-elect and vice president-elect. That is the standard that Wikipedia followed in 2008 and 2016. Why should we change now? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 200 (2)

Demonstrate truth (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris is not African American, she is Jamacian descent.

If you look at replies above, she defines herself as African-American. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please read the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Latin-American origins

Kamala's Black and Asian origins are largely mentioned all over the page but no mention to its Latin American roots as a Jamaican in several placed, this should be fixed especially in the introduction. In her victory speech, she introduced herself as Female, Black, Asian-American and Latin American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:9302:7300:5825:2E02:81A4:8941 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Jamaica isn't part of Latin America. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

Kamala is not African-American. She is Indian and Jamaican. Please fix this. 2601:C4:0:4BC0:7424:62AE:4E81:B540 (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please read the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

Change “African American” to “Black”. Kamala Harris’s father is from Jamaica and Jamaica is not in Africa. 2601:98B:201:DE80:6575:B604:F6B9:2E37 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Look at the FAQ at the top of the page and every other time this has been suggested. Harris defines herself as African-American. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

First Jamacian American and the first South Indian Asian Demonstrate truth (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please read the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (4)

Kamala Harris is black (Jamaican and Indian), she is not African-American. 69.115.9.117 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (6)

She is not African American, south Asian. Her dad is Jamaican, mom is Indian. This is common knowledge. Please write only facts and not your own political agenda b.s. 24.71.148.94 (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. A large majority of Jamaicans have African ancestry, and her father has been described as Black and/or African American in reliable sources for half a century. She self-identifies as African-American and reliable sources identify her as that. India is part of South Asia so there is no basis for what you propose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (8)

Kamala is not African American but Jamaican.

Harris has served as the junior United States senator from California since 2017. Harris will be the first Indian American, the first Jamaican American, and the first female vice president in U.S. history,

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-07/an-indian-mother-a-jamaican-father-but-describing-kamala-harris-racial-identity-isnt-her-problem Jasmine245 (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2)

Kamala Harris is NOT black (unless she has mixed ancestry from her parent's time in the Caribbean). She is OBVIOUSLY a Hindu whose family hails from Tamil Nadu, India. She may have LOOKED black - it's hard to say from photos - but she is NOT. Her very name, and the name of her mother and grandparents, are Hindu and Indian. Where did this misinformation come from? I hope someone ASKED HER first. Annaclewis (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC) PLEASE CORRECT THIS ERROR IMMEDIATEKY— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaclewis (talk • contribs)

@Annaclewis:  Not done: read the FAQ at the top of this page. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

Add a hatnote "For the word meaning terrible in Finnish, see (link to the wiktionary page of kamala)." 2001:999:11:A07B:91BA:8EED:9A39:B9FB (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Seems like a stretch. There is already a Wiktionary link at Kamala. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)